Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a change 9519529578, 9789519529578

Citation preview

Early Hellenistic Athens Symptoms of a Change

PAPERS AND MONOGRAPHS OF THE FINNISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS VOL. VI

EARLY HELLENISTIC ATHENS SYMPTOMS OF A CHANGE

Edited by Jaakko Frósén

HELSINKI

1997

© Suomen 1997

Ateenan-instituutin

sáátió (Foundation

of the Finnish

Institute at Athens)

ISSN 1237-2684 ISBN 951-95295-7-8 Printed in Finland by Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Vammala 1997

Cover: Athenian new style silver-tetradrachm. Second century B.C. Cop. No. 137, Obv. Athena Parthenos. Rev. Owl on amphora within olive-wreath. Danish National Museum, den Kongelige Ment- og Medaillesamling. Copenhagen

Contents

Preface Jaakko Frösen

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere during the Late Classical and the Early Hellenistic Period Mika Hakkarainen

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers and Philosophical Schools at the Beginning of the Hellenistic Period

33

Tua Korhonen

Religion, or other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens

103

Martti Leiwo

Studies on the Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of

119

Macedonia on the Athenian Money Market in the 3rd Century B.C. Kenneth Lónnqvist

"Nulla signa sine argilla." Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra style

147

Minna Lónnqvist

Family Life in the Comedies of Menander

183

Erja Salmenkivi

Bibliography and Abbreviations

197

[nscriptions Terracottas Index of Greek Words General Plates

Index

22

Preface Jaakko Frósén

This volume brings together papers written by the members of the second research project of the Finnish Archaeological Institute at Athens. As the subject of our

investigation we chose the history of Hellenistic Athens, with the special question “What is ‘Hellenistic’ in Hellenistic Athens?", but we soon realized that we had to focus our ideas in a more restricted space of time in the early Hellenistic period, roughly from the defeat at Chaeronea in 338 to Athen's capitulation to Antigonus Gonatas in 262 at the end

of the Chremonidean War. Because we did not want to concentrate on the political view of history we did not feel it necessary to put exact time limits on our We also wanted to focus our study on questions concerning economics interplay and their political reflections during a transformation process, of literature, philosophy and art in the public life of the city. A team of young scholars and students from different fields and utilizing different methodologies and a wide range of disciplines

archaeology,

papyrology,

epigraphy

and

art

history

to

period of interest. and culture, their seen in the status backgrounds and of thought, from

religion,

literary

and

historiographical analysis, was collected together to work collaboratively and to contribute

to a common effort. By means of this method we wanted to find new topics or at least new viewpoints which might contribute to the research in the classics, and generate fresh ideas, not least for the interpretation of the so-called Hellenistic period. Maybe our concems to bring out something revolutionary turned out to be fallacious but at least hopefully they will have the merit of stimulating new questions on specific points, even if the questions stay without answers for the time being. An overall summary and all attempts at general conclusions have of necessity been omitted. It may have been better to focus our research on one topic only instead of choosing a special area of concern for everyone, and certainly it would have been better if we had had more time together in the same place under the aegis of the Finnish Institute at Athens. We first met in the summer of 1988 in order to get briefly acquainted with our common

theme, but the study really began in the springtime of 1989 when the whole team was gathered in Athens. That year, as well as in the two next years, we had the opportunity of working together in seminars as a real team and of concentrating on our topics during three months in Athens, thanks to a generous grant from the Finnish Ministry for Culture and Education. Most of the time, as well as after the three-year period of study, the

members of the team resided in various countries of Europe and the Middle East, and they were able to work on this topic only sporadically in addition to other activities. It was no longer possible for everyone to gather together at the same time in the same place. As an output of our team work we would like to offer here a small number of papers

with different contents and different ranges and aspects, some of them related to each other. The attempt to tie the different contributions together is based on a critical attitude to

some terms, in this case to the well established expression ‘Hellenistic Athens’ — whether it really represents a fact or merely a fiction. Did Macedonian rule really affect thoroughly

T

Jaakko Frösen

and irreversibly the everyday life in Athens, or was it Roman rule which meant a final change from the classical city-state to an ‘urbanized community’? As our overall topic, we

wanted to find out what the principal matters of common

interest to the Hellenistic

Athenians were, be they political, economic, cultural, educational, moral or religious, and how they were organized and financed. The individual topics are intended to be like snapshots in order to allow free rein to their authors' imagination. The six full members of our team were Mika Hakkarainen (history and archaeology), Tua Korhonen (Greek philology, philosophy and comparative religion), Martti Leiwo (classical philology, esp. epigraphy), Kenneth Lónnqvist (archaeology and history, esp. numismatics), Minna Lónnqvist (archaeology, art history, history and comparative religion), Petra Pakkanen (comparative religion and philosophy), all of them then postgraduate students at the University of Helsinki. In order to reinforce the literary point of view, Tiina Purola (classical philology and papyrology, esp. Greek epigrams) and Erja Salmenkivi (Greek philology, Egyptology, philosophy and papyrology, esp. Greek drama) who were working on the papyrological project of the Director of the Institute participated in lectures, seminars, discussions and travel. Ms. Erja Salmenkivi also

contributed a short paper on Menander. Of all of the members, Ms. Petra Pakkanen was the only one who was able to devote herself almost full time to her study on Hellenistic Athens from the viewpoint of comparative religion. Her study Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion: A Study Demeter and the Cult of Isis, not included in this volume, at the University of Helsinki in September 1995 and then

contribution, a methodological Based on the Mystery Cult of was presented as a dissertation published slightly modified and

corrected in 1996 as the third volume in the series Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens.

During the past decade or two, the Hellenistic Age has enjoyed an extraordinary vogue as an area of study. Much has been published in this field during that period and since our team work started in 1989, e.g. Professor Peter Green's survey of the whole Hellenistic age Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age, 1990 (second edition

1993), the composite work Hellenistic History and Culture,

ed. by Peter Green

1993, containing papers of various authors from a Symposium held at the University of Texas Austin in 1988, and the second edition of Professor Frank W. Walbank's authoritative book The Hellenistic World, 1993 (originally 1981), to name only some of them. Unfortunately, however, and depending much on the definition. of the term ‘Hellenismus’ or ‘Hellenistic’ by Johann Gustav Droysen, Athens, no longer a center of

political power, has been much neclected and her role among the Hellenistic centers underappreciated, even if she remained an important symbolic and cultural entity for the

Greeks. Despite new archaeological finds and new interpretations the main picture of the city and her history has remained almost unaltered in the intervening years since the

famous

book

Hellenistic Athens: An

Historical Essay by

Professor

William

Scott

Ferguson in 1911 (last reprint in 1974) -- the best book on Hellenistic Athens available in English, now somewhat, admittedly, less than up-to-date. The picture of Hellenistic Athens has been more or less static. In spite of the "perception of the growing world around the individual", "cosmopolitanism", and the "break down of traditional values" seen everywhere, Athens managed to maintain her independent administration with the traditional political institutions, and as such enjoyed a prolonged life as a Greek Polis, seen more as a symptom of continuity than change. The

Preface

lii

important strategic harbour of Piraeus was almost always under foreign control and the

city depended

on imported food supplies and foreign relations based on

personal

friendship to individual monarchs. But the city herself, the intellectual centre for all Greeks, having prominence without political power, has been seen as a well-administered polis, never actively controlled by a foreign power, during a time when "Athenian

democracy was in transition." The last quotation comes from the title of Stephen V. Tracy's study Athenian Democracy in Transition. Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C., 1995. During the course of our team work much has been investigated in that area too, and after the manuscripts were finished in 1992, many new studies appeared. Tracy added new evidence to the interpretation of the political situation of Athens by showing the importance of the military support received from Thessalian cavalry during the Lamian War 323-322 B.C. as well as the importance of the grain supply between 335 and the 280's B.C. and by giving a totally new interpretation of the activities of Demetrius of Phalerum.

From the very beginning of our work, we did not feel ourselves well equipped to undertake a comprehesive study and discussion of Hellenistic Athens. We were very well

aware of Professor Christian Habicht's studies for a new and updated comprehensive history of Hellenistic Athens, of a post-classical city state living a vigorous political life

and playing diplomatically for her freedom or at least for her autonomy in a world dominated by new larger powers, as a traditional Greek polis in which internal conflicts

never ended. After a long series of ‘Vorstudien’ devoted to the same subject, in 1994 Habicht published his book Athen in hellenistischer Zeit: Gesammelte Aufsdtze which is a composite work of his various articles from 1961 until 1993 with some updatings, containing e.g. a slightly modified version of his paper 'Hellenistic Athens and her Philosophers' from 1988. Soon thereafter in 1995 his Athen: Die Geschichte der Stadt in

hellenistischer Zeit came out, the standard work on this topic for decades to come. Even if we did not have the opportunity to harvest all the new information, we hope that we too have contributed somehow to a revision and updating of the image of Early Hellenistic Athens, her policy and civilization. During the editing work of our papers we were no longer able to pick up the new information systematically, even if some of the studies published during that time, starting with Volume XXVI of The Athenian Agora containing John H. Kroll's The Greek Coins, 1993, have been read by members of our team as manuscripts. Other studies published in the meantime, as e.g. the Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens,

1995,

by Carol L. Lawton,

shed new

light on the

interrelation between politics, economy and art in Athens also during the early Hellenistic period, when the document reliefs disappear very early in the third century, in a difficult economic environment — although the sumptuary law of Demetrius of Phalerum must

have affected the workshops —, to reappear in the relatively prosperous second half of the second century. Nevertheless, the fact that we focused our study on the economic background, on the culture and as much as possible on the everyday life of the city make it possible that everything we wanted to point out in our papers is hopefully not outdated

by the time of their publication. At least we have presented some views which have turned out to be somewhat different from those presented e.g. by Christian Habicht about Athens’ philosophers or the New Comedy of Menander. Besides the continuity, we wanted to highlight at least some symptoms of a change in public and private life. *

*

*

iv

Jaakko Frösen

Carrying out our research work would not have been possible without the support of many representatives of the Greek Ephorias, various Greek Museums, and without the

help of the members and employees of the sister institutions of the Finnish Institute at Athens, the other foreign archaeological schools, as well as some Institutions and Museums outside of Greece. Individual acknowledgements are made individually in the footnotes of various papers.

First of all, as individuals, I would like to thank the members of our team, not only for their efforts and for the quality of their contributions but also for their patience throughout

the slow process of preparing, polishing and editing their manuscripts. For general support, we are grateful to many people and institutions, to all the staff of the Swedish Institute at Athens especially to Prof. Robin Hägg, then Director of the Institute, for all the help we got during our working periods in Athens and to Dr. Kerstin Hóghammar for her papers on Hellenistic culture in our seminars of the Nordic Institutes. In the École Francaise d'Athéne we received information on numismatics and Hellenistic coins from Prof. Olivier Picard then Director of the French School, and from Dr. JeanYves Empereur, then Vice Director, on Hellenistic amphoras and on problems in their study. Prof. Ulrich Sinn from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut generously taught

us about Hellenistic asylia. During their visits from Finland

in Athens,

Prof.

Rolf

Westman and Dr. Jorma Kaimio gave us lectures and seminars on the ideal of the wise man in Hellenistic philosophy and on Diogenes of Oenoanda as well as on

sociolinguistics in antiquity, respectively. For all their help in practical matters, we want to thank Ms. Maria Martzoukou, Secretary of the Finnish Institute at Athens and Dr. Antti Arjava, then Secretary of the Board of the Finnish Institute at Athens, as well as Ms. Anja Frósén for taking care of a substantial part of the logistics. As assistants of the Institute, Dr. Martti Leiwo and Dr. Petra Pakkanen, both members of the research group, were kind and very helpful, especially after our working period in Athens, 1990-1993 and 1993-1997, respectively. Our warmest thanks go also to Prof. Maarit Kaimio who read the manuscript and gave valuable criticism, to Mr. Harri Markkula, Secretary of the Board of the Finnish Institute at Athens and especially to Ms. Pauliina Remes for editing the papers, for making the format consistent throughout the volume, final proofreading, and compilation of the indices, concordances and bibliography, most skilfully and accurately. Ms. Brenda Conrad from Athens (Tua Korhonen, Kenneth Lónnqvist, Minna Lónnqvist) and Ms. Margot Stout Whiting from Helsinki (Jaakko Frósén, Mika Hakkarainen, Tua Korhonen,

Martti Leiwo, Erja Salmenkivi) have done the language revision. The remaining errors are due to later changes. Finally, we wish to thank all our colleagues and especially the late Archiater Prof.

Nils Oker-Blom

and Chancellor Prof.

Lauri

Saxén,

Presidents

of the

Board of the Finnish Institute at Athens for all their support and understanding, as well as all the Board of the Finnish Institute at Athens for having accepted our work in the series of the Institute.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere during the Late Classical and the Early Hellenistic Period* Mika Hakkarainen

There seems to be a rather commonly accepted view in the research field that one of the

essential socio-political features which formed the Hellenistic poleis in contrast to the earlier periods was their increasing dependence on the wealthy citizens and on monarchs.! This was Although

manifested

as private contributions

the phenomenon

has been considered

to public

expenditures

as universal

of city states.

in the Greek

world,

the

process leading to it has not been subject to a detailed analysis. The primary purpose of this paper was to deal with the modes of this practice by means of the epigraphic material in Hellenistic Athens; but quite soon it turned out that to uncover the causes of it and to understand this financial and social phenomenon, it was necessary to seek its roots in the preceding period. There seems to be good reason, as I hope to be able to show below, to

look for the background of it first in the financial situation of Athens subsequent to the Peloponnesian War and the Delian League, and finally after the Second Social War. The

traditional ways private wealth was channelled into the public sphere of Classical Athens did undergo a change which starts to appear illuminated by literary and epigraphic evidence, especially honorary decrees, in the middle of the fourth century. The social and financial practices observed in them continued according to the epigraphic material in the

third and second centuries. A detailed examination of the phenomenon is not possible

I would like to extend special thanks to Margot Stout Whiting and Robert Whiting invaluable help in correcting the language of this paper. Faults and errors are mine.

for their

| — Davies 1984, 304-314; Gehrke 1990, 67-70, 181-182 "Tendenz zur Exklusivität der Honorationen" and 68, "Aristokratisierung". See also Veyne 1979; Gauthier 1985; Quass 1979, 37ff. Most recently and especially concerning the Athenian polis, Faraguna 1992, 381—394.

2

Mika Hakkarainen

here, and my aim is rather to provide a general outline of the problem for further and more exact research. After the ruinous Peloponnesian War and the loss of its hegemony, the Athenian polis was in a state of financial crisis. The war had exhausted the public funds and one of the

main revenues, the tax of allies, that was used more or less in the public sphere of Athens, was no longer available as before.

Re-establishment of the imperialist state of

affairs was an answer to that problem and the aim of Athenian policy during the first half

of the fourth century. The Second League, 377-354, was a transient response to the need, but the Second Social War put an end to it in 351.? One of the basic problems in

that situation was where to find enough revenue to cover the public needs of the polissociety when the old financial system was suppressed. *

*

*

In order to understand better the situation and to explain the phenomenon, one has first to clarify the framework of economic and financial "behaviour" of a pre-modern society

like the Athenian polis* of the fourth century and especially of the period after the Second Social War. The treatise Oeconomica, preserved in the Aristotelian corpus, is rather illustrative for this purpose.? Its content can be understood as a practical way of thinking on how to maintain financially a social unit: how to find revenues for the maintenance of it, what were

these revenues,

and how

to act in the exceptional

situations.

when

the

revenue was running out.$ The basic theme of the treatise, and the meaning of the concept

oikonomia, is management of the household, dealt with in the first and third chapters of the

Oeconomica.

In the

second

chapter

the concept

is more

abstract,

maintenance of a particular social unit, financial management, and it covers

namely

the

larger units

than the oikos (idiotike oikonomia) namely, basilike, satrapike and politike oikonomia in

which the development of the term from the maintenance of the private oikos to the financial behaviour of territorial monarchies figures. The content of the verb oikonomein

is simplified so as to mean to balance the revenues (ot πρόσοδοι) and the expenses (τὰ ἀναλώματα) of each socio-political structure.’ Crucial questions in the oikonomia are, what were the prosodoi, how are they acquired, and how could they be maintained or

2

For the effects of the Peloponnesian War on Athens see Mosse 1962, the concept of "crisis"; the modification of that concept, Pecirka, 1976, 5-29; a general view Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1977, 112-

130; for the Athenian polis and the changes in its administrative structure see Rhodes 1980, 305323.

3

On Athenian imperialism see Meiggs 1972, 397—403.

4

[ am going to deal only with the so-called polis-level, and not the lower political and social organizations, demes, tribes and trittyes, where the circumstances concerning private wealth in public use seem to have been different already in the classical period; see Whitehead 1986.

> — The text is to be connected with the literary practice which began to produce didactic treatises concerning socio-political factors in the Athenian polis-society in the fourth century B.C.

(Davies

1978, 166—167). Other examples of this practice are the Oeconomicus and the Poroi of Xenophon. There is a general agreement dating the Oeconomica in the early Hellenistic period and identifying the authors with the Peripatetic school (Isager 1988, 77). On the text see van Groningen 1933, Aristote. Le seconde livre de l'économie. Groningen. 6

— The question concerns the problemacy of autarkeia, independence of the polis from exterior factors, see Will 1972, 632ff. On the nature of the ancient "economy", discussed widely during the last three decades, see the overview of Greek economic history by Austin & Vidal-Naquet, 1977 (engl. cd.), 3-

17. 7

1346a16-17

τὸ τἀναλώματα

μὴ μείζω τῶν προσόδων

γίνεσθαι.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

3

even increased? (in the case of a polis this can be called fj πολιτικὴ οἰκονομία, financial policy of a polis). It seems likely that the definition of oikonomia was meant as an introductory chapter to the collection of paradigm cases, for occasions, when the "normal" revenues of a community were, for some reason or other, depleted, or the

community was in need of extra revenues for some

particular expense.?

They

are

historical examples in which the exceptional cases or problematic situations of the outlined oikonomiai were

solved; different measures in different situations taken

by

leaders

to

increase existing revenues, to find new ones and to cut down normal expenses. Similar themes can already be found in a dialogue in the Memorabilia of Xenophon which further clarifies the nature of the financial framework of a polis and the problems connected with it. Socrates converses with Glaukon, who is willing to become the leader of Athens. According to Socrates, the leading position always brings honour to its holder supposing that he is able to be useful to the polis.!? He asks Glaukon how he had thought to be useful to Athens. The inquiry gets its answer through a set of rhetorical questions “will you try, then, to make your city richer". Socrates himself gives the answer to this

question, “would she not be richer if she had a larger revenue?",!! and this leads him to deal with the basic problems of oikonomia. The questions dealt with are as follows: where does the polis get her revenues and what are they; if there were any deficiency or

lack of them could they not be raised or supplied, and further what were the expenses of the polis (αἱ δαπάναι τῆς noAewc).!? Glaukon's ignorance of these questions makes Socrates pose the rhetorical question "how

15 it possible

to look

after income

and

expenditure without knowing what they are?".!3 The pragmatic nature of the financial structure of the polis as we met above in Oeconomica, is apparent here as well. It was one of the most important aspects of the political sphere in the Athenian polis, the acquisition

of the indispensable revenues

with which

the public sphere was

maintained.

The

discourse continues with those practices in which the polis was seen to be active: finances (revenues and expenses), war, defence of the polis, the silver-mines of Laureion and food

supply.!4 A corresponding definition of the public sphere of the polis and emphasis on the revenues can be found also in other kinds of texts. In his Rhetorica Aristotle deals with

the area of the deliberative genre, the political speech in front of the ekklesia or boule. In order to be able to exhort or to dissuade these institutions concerning political issues, the orator must have a knowledge of five areas: ways and means, war and peace, the defence of the country, imports and exports, and legislation.!5 Aristotle, too, requires the orator

?

1346a21-24. 1346a25 ὅσα διῴκησαν.

lO

Xen. Mem. 3.6.3. Socrates brings up the relationship between the "uscful" citizen and the polis and

II [2

its reciprocal aspect; a useful citizen receives marks of honour from the polis οὐκοῦν ... δῆλον, ott εἴπερ τιμᾶσθαι βούλει, ὠφεληήτέα σοι ἢ πόλις ἐστί; Xen. Mem. 3.6.5 οὐκοῦν πλουσιωτέρα γ᾽ ἂν εἴη προσόδων αὐτῇ πλειόνων γενομένων ; ibid. ἐκ τίνων νῦν αἱ πρόσοδοι τῇ πόλει καὶ πόσαι τινές εἰσι;

I3

δέ τινες

ibid. 3.6.6 πῶς γὰρ

τῶν

πρότερον πεπράγασιν

οἷόν τε μὴ εἰδότα

γε

τὰ

εἰς πόρον χρημάτων ἢ τεχνικῶς

ἀναλώματα

καὶ

τὰς

τι

προσόδους ἐπιμεληθῆναι

τούτων; 14

Xen. Mem.

15

In his defence against the charges of Aeschines,

3.6.7-14.

spheres which

include the financial management,

Demosthenes

Dem.

puts

18.309

χρημάτων, ἐμπορίου κατασκενήν, νόμων συμφερόντων θέσεις.

forward these socio-political

συμμαχίας

πόλεων,

πόρους

4

Mika Hakkarainen

to keep in mind what the revenues of the polis are and how much there is, so that he could supply them if there were none, or to raise them if the polis was running out of them.!® The rhetorical topoi of Aristotle, that is the topoi of the socio-political sphere of the polis, seem to correspond to those expressed by Xenophon through the mouth of Socrates and to those found in the later Peripatetic Oeconomica. Resolving financial problems was of primary importance for the survival of the poliscommunity. This resolution, whether for a household or a polis, was called oikonomia.

This semantic extension of the concept into a more abstract one seems to have happened during the fourth century at the latest, as the above mentioned texts testify.!? In the final stage of the development of oikonomia, the technical term dioikesis!8 meant both the general and the financial administration,!? the attending of prosodoi (τὰς προσόδους διοικοῦντες),20 and the single officer of this administration (o ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει). *

*

*

The contents of the oikonomia according to these texts were the practical knowledge of

revenues (prosodoi) and of the means

(poroi) of acquiring them.

Athens after the

Peloponnesian War and especially after the unsuccessful Second League and the Social War (357—355) was in a state in which a new kind of financial thinking was urgent. One

of the important poroi had been the tribute of the allies to the fund of the League and the importance of the prosodos taken from the fund for the Athenian public sphere has also been considered significant.2! The Second League no longer brought those revenues Athens might have expected. The revenues were down to a total of 130 talents and the

economic activity in the sphere of the polis was at its lowest.?? The idea of Athenian imperialism,

which

had

guaranteed

large revenues

to the funds

of the polis,

was

wrecked?3 and the polis had to find new means not only of dealing with its allies, but also of finding different ways to stabilize its expenses Poroi,

which can be dated to the 350's,

and revenues.

Xenophon's

is derived from this situation.

treatise

It is a set of

proposals to find ways to increase revenues and to acquire new ones.24 The treatise very illustrative example of the defined thinking on oikonomia: the earlier revenues been cut off and the polis was in urgent need of new ones to guarantee its existence. the Peripatetic Oeconomica explained, the revenues of a polis had to be drawn from inner resources of the polis, so did also Xenophon putting forward various modes

is a had As the of

l6

τὰς

Arist. Rh.

1359b23-28 ὥστε

περὶ μὲν πόρων

τὸν μέλλοντα

συμβουλεύσειν δέοι ἂν

προσόδους τῆς πόλεως εἰδέναι τίνες καὶ πόσαι, ὅπως εἴτε τις παραλείπεται προστεθῇ καὶ εἴ τις ἐλάττων αὐξπθῆ, ἔτι δὲ τὰς δαπάνας τῆς πόλεως ἀπάσας, ὅπως εἴ τις περίεργος ἀφαιρεθῇ καὶ εἴ τις μείζων ἐλάττων γένηται. See also similar definitions in Rh. Al. 1446b1921.

17 18

Ampolo 1979b, 119; Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1977. 8ff. Ampolo 1979b, 120-122. It seems to be in use with that content already in 353, Dem. 24.28-29,

96-101.

19

Hyp. fragm 1 18 ἢ κοινὴ διοίκησις and Aeschin. 2.149; 3.31.

?0

Acschin. 3.9.

21

Basic references are Thuc. 6.2, 3; Hell.Oxy. 6.3 and Ar. Eccl. 195-198. Dem.

10.37; Isoc. 8.19-21, 26-27, 69, 72, 124, 128. Cawkwell

1963, 61-63.

The speech of Isocrates, De Puce (8. 19-21, 46, 47, 69, 124, I28) was drawn up in this political atmosphere in 354. The contrast with this speech, Panegyricus (4) delivered in 380, in which he still defends Athenian imperialism, is clear. See Cawkwell 1981, 40-55. -3

See Gauthier

1976.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

5

increasing the existing potential sources of revenues.2 This emphasis on the inner structures of the polis for the solution was a mark of a new way of financial thinking diverging from the earlier practice of exploiting the levy on allies. *

*

*

The changes in the administrative structure of Athens,29 especially those concerning financial administration, can be followed, albeit rather fragmentarily and mainly through the change of the status of financial officers, by help from literary and epigraphic evidence. The importance of various financial officers was increasing in the middle of the

fourth century, and new ones were created in whose hands also political influence began gradually to accumulate.2’ In the administrative structure the boule was responsible for finances, and under its control there were officials (apodektai), whose duty was to collect incoming revenues into the central treasury, and officials who were paying out of it for

various purposes.?® All payments were submitted for acceptance to the ekklesia.29 Sometime during the first half of the fourth century this system began to change; in contrast to the old one where a central treasury existed from which every expense was paid out as decided by the ekklesia, there are signs indicating the existence of a certain

kind of "budget", merismos, in which every arkhe and epimeleia got a fixed amount of money to spend in their own sphere of activity.3° The ekklesia and the boule also received

their part of the merismos (from which they paid for the display of the psephismata and nomoi).3!

The establishment of the allocation-system created a situation in which

the

officials were supposed to finance the duties of their office with the allocated money.?? But on the other hand there emerged a potential danger that the allocated money was insufficient for the duties in such circumstances where the general revenues were running out and reducing the merismos or the arkhai were obliged to undertake extra activities.

25

A similar suggestion is also to be found in RA. Al. 1446b19-21.

26

On the changing structure in general of the Athenian polis after the Peloponnesian War see Rhodes

27

ibid. p. 309-315. On the Athenian system of arkhai see Develin 1989, 7-11.

28

Rhodes 1972, 99-101; Rhodes 1981, 139-140, 559-560.

29

Arist. Arh. Pol. 48.1; Rhodes 1980, 309.

30

1980, 305-323.

Τῆς earliest mention can be dated to c. 386, IG II/III2 29 μερίσαι δὲ τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ εἰρημένον τοὺς

ἀποδέκτας

ἐκ τῶν

ἀρχαῖς, Rhodes

κοινῶν

καταβαλλομένων

χρημά[τ]ων. Arist. Ath.

1972, 98- 100. Aristotle, Pol.

ἀναφέρονται, παρ᾽ ὧν

φυλαττόντων

1321b3l

ἄλλη

μερίζονται

Pol.

482

μερίζουσιν ταῖς

δ᾽ px πρὸς ἣν αἱ πρόσοδοι τῶν

πρὸς ἑκάστην

διοίκησιν,

Rhodes

1981, 559-560 observes that the Politeia reflects the Athenian situation. See also Faraguna 1991,

183-184. The epigraphic evidence comes from the inventory lists; τάδε ἔχομεν χρήματα IG IVIII2 1493-1495; SEG XXI 552. 31

IG IVIII2 223 B (343/2) τοὺς δὲ ταμί[ας δοῦναι τ]ὸ ἀργύριον ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσματα ἀνα[λισκο]μένων τῆι βουλῆι. IG 11112 226 (3432) εἰς δὲ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῆς στήλης δότω ὁ ταμίας τοῦ δήμου AAA δραχμὰς ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσματα μεριζομένων τῶι δήμωι. The expense account of the ekklesia was created c. 376, Rhodes 1972, 101 (n. 3), 103. See also Faraguna 1991, 195-243.

32

Aeschin. 3.22 dating to the 330's is the best account of the system. From this the relationship between the merismos and euthyna is evident; the officer had "public money" in his use (χρήματα τῆς πόλεως) and therefore he was obliged to make a report on the use of it. See also IG IVIII* 29.

212. See e.g. IG IVIII2 380 (320/1) tà δὲ ἀν[αλ]ώματα eiv[alı εἰς ταῦτα ἐκ] told] &pyopl[to]u ot o[i ἀἸγορανόμοι διαχειρίζουσιν,

6

Mika Hakkarainen

At the same time there emerged a necessity for focusing the financial administrative authority on one official, who would be responsible both for collecting revenues and their allocation to the minor officials. Probably during the 350's the civil and military finances

were reorganised; new financial functions ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ Ügcpixóv?? and ὁ ταμίας τῶν otpati@tik@v-4 and the funds tà θεωρικά and τὰ στρατιωτικὰ χρήματαϑ5, were established or at least they were heavily reorganised. The theorikon was originally an office that administered the public money meant to subsidise the theatre tickets for the poor. The officeholder was one of the arkhai handling public money, which was received from the merismos. The office rose to the leading position in finances of the polis under Eubulus in the 350's and 340’s.3¢ Eubulus' administration was successful and the revenues

were

increased (from

130 talents to 400 talents).?? A further feature of this

reorganisation was the election of both the above-mentioned officers by vote instead of the prevailing practice of electing the officeholders by lot. The duration of the term seems

to have been four years?® and re-election was possible, as happened in the case of Eubulus in 355-342. All these features must be linked to the rising need for effectiveness in the administration. Other essential changes were that decision-making authority concerning public expenses was transferred from the ekklesia to these financial archai, the former lesser financial officials became subordinate to them and the merismos was run by the theorikon officer.?? Obviously the theorikon' s importance increased due to the activity of Eubulus and further by gathering surplus income into its fund in spite of the war in

349/8.*0 After Eubulus, the office was altered to consist of a collective board, because of the law of Hegemon.*! It was functioning as a board when Athenaion Politeia was written, i.e. probably during the 320's.*? Unfortunately the problem concerning its fate remains open. Common opinion is that it did not survive the Lamian war.^* Although the

33

Rhodes 1972, 235-240; Ruschenbusch 1979, 303-308; Faraguna 1991, 187-194.

34

The first attention time attested is IG II/III2 1443, 1l. 12-13 from the year 344/3; Brun

1983,

170—

182.

35

First time attested [Dem.] 49.12 in 362 refering to the year 373. Arist. Ath. Pol. 43.1; Cawkwell 1962, 377-383; Rhodes 1981, 513-514.

36

Harpocration, Lexicon θεωρικὰ ἦν τινὰ ἐν κοινῷ χρήματα, ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς πόλεως προσόδων συναγόμενα. ταῦτα δὲ πρότερον μὲν εἰς τὰς τοῦ πολέμου χρείας ἐφυλάττετο καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο στρατιωτικὰ, ὕστερον δὲ κατετίθετο εἴς τε τὰς δημοσίας κατασκευὰς καὶ διανομὰς. The main source is Aeschin. 3.25 σχεδὸν τὴν ὅλην διοίκησιν εἶχον τῆς πόλεως; Cawkwell 1963, 47ff. See also Buchanan 1962, 57-60; Rhodes 1972, 235ff.

37

Dem. 19.89; also 8.49; 9.40; 10.38; Theopompos FGrH 115, 166.

38

For discussion concerning the definition in Ath. Pol. 43.1 ἐκ Παναθηναίων εἰς Παναθήναια, see Develin 1984, 133-138, who takes the definition to mean The Greater Panathenaia and so the length of one term of office was four years.

39

Arist.

Ath.

Pol.

47.1

the poletai

were

working

under

the

supervision

of

the

ταμίας

τῶν

στρατιωτικῶν and ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικόν; Acschin. 3.25. Rhodes 1980, 514-516, 558. These lower financial officers were still functioning during the second half of the fourth century, IG IVIII2 222; SEG XVIII 13; IG ΠΠ|12 1627-1618.

40. 4l

Dem. 1.19-20: 3.10-13,131; (Dem.] 59.4-6. Aeschin. 3.25; Arist. Ath. Pol. 43.1; 47.2; see Cawkwell

42

Rhodes

1981,

551-557.

1963, 19, 47.

The financial and redistribution policy

of Eubulus

did meet

resistance;

[Dem.] 13.10 attacked the fund demanding that the surplus of the merismos was to be distributed as payments for services done for the polis, and not as aid to the citizens. Likewise Demosthenes claimed that the surplus of the administration should have been transferred to the military fund during war time. Dem. 1.19-20; 3.10-11. 3^

1

:

The idea was Ferguson's,

ες

1911, 23, based on the supposition

that the democratic

machinery.

was

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

7

theorikon lost its importance, the idea of the financial office in which the care of revenues and merismos should be concentrated survived and was put into practise later in the office

of ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει. The position of Lycurgus 338/7-325/4 might have been decisive in this change (see below p. 9-10). The first certain mention of this officer is from the year 307, when Habron, the son of Lycurgus, acted in this office and made a contract for

building the city-walls.44 Xenocles of Sphettos, x(a)t[actaBeic δ᾽ &]ni τῆι διοι[κήσει τῆς π]όλεως, might have already held it earlier.*3 It seems that not until Lycurgus’ withdrawal from the office did it receive its official title ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει. Probably his position was exceptional and did not belong to the offices based on nomoi

and for this reason it was

not

listed within

the Athenaion

Politeia.^6 Whatever the title of Lycurgus' administrative position had been, the main point is that the character of his office was financial, i.e. care for the revenues (prosodoi), which had been called dioikesis.47 His administrative activity in this office, notable in the Athenian polis-community,*® covered the areas of the public sphere; public buildings and

their maintenance, the most important cults and sacrifices, religious festivals, war and the defence of the polis corresponding to those topoi of public policy expressed by orators and theoretical treatises. Unfortunately, evidence concerning this question is too

fragmentary to enable us to reconstruct a more complete picture of it.5? There are very few literary sources from the 330's onwards and all we have is the epigraphic material.

According to this, ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει displaced the treasurer of the boule and of the prytaneion as payer of the expenses of decrees.5° If the assumed

concentration of

financial authority in a single official really happened, as it seems, all the payments were

made by this arche including the expenses of decrees.5! J.P. Rhodes supposes?? that the merismos in its former meaning had been abolished and the central treasury from which all payments were made might have returned.?? After that the highest financial officer paid all the analomata of the polis, probably from the central fund under his supervision.54 abolished after the war.

44 45 46

10 ΠΠΠ2 463. SEG XIX 119, if it can be dated between 334—326. Henry 1984, 52, n.13.

47

X orat. 852B γενόμενος τῆς κοινῆς προσόδου ταμίας

fragm.

118 ταχθεὶς

δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν

τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ

χρημάτων.

τρεῖς πεντετηρίδας.

Demosthenes

Hyp.

had received for the

performance of his official duties as tetchopoios c. 10 talents from the dioikesis, Aeschin. 3.31, ἐκ

τῆς διοικήσεως εἰς ταῦτα.

48

See the discussion by Will 1983, 77-100; Burke 1985, 251-264; Humphreys 1985, 199—236; Mosse 1989, 25-34; Faraguna 1991, 245-285.

49

The successor of Lycurgus was Menesaichmos:

μετὰ

Λυκοῦργον

τὴν

διοίκησιν τῶν

δημοσίων

χρημάτων παραλαβών, Dion. Hal. de Din. 660. Aeschin. 2.149, claims that his younger brother Aphobetus administered the revenues of the polis καλῶς καὶ δικαίως τῶν ὑμετέρων προσόδων ἐπιμελῃθείς, ὅτε αὑτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν κοινὴν διοίκησιν εἵλεσθε. 30

Henry 1984, 49-51.

51

At the turn of the fourth and third centuries, 301—295, there are, however, different practices in the paying of the costs of decrees, Henry calls it "a period of confusion and/or reorganization", but in

295-286 the single officer of dioikesis was the only payer. Henry 1984, 68-71.

52

Rhodes 1972, 220.

53

SEG XIX 119 κίζα)τ[ασταθεὶς δ᾽ ἐΪκὶ τῆι διοι[κήσει τῆς n]óAeoc καλῶς καὶ εὐσεβῶς ἐμέρισεί[ν τὰ εἰς τὸ ἱ]ερὰ θῦσαι [τὸ γένος τὸ Κἰηρύκων. The most common formula concerning the financing of the decrees is εἰς τὴν ἀναγραφὴν δοῦναι τοῦς τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει.

54

There is, however, some epigraphic evidence that the expense account of ekklesia and boule did survive until the third century IG II/III2 567 (c.300); 648 (295/4); 657 (287/6); 675 (276/6), 707

8

Mika Hakkarainen

There is, however, a problem in the picture of the third century, namely that the office changed its character from a single officer to a board of ten members for the period 286262. Afterwards in 261—250 there seems to have been a single officer, then a board in 250-246/5 and a single person again in 245/4—229. A rather common opinion is that the alternation between single officers and a board was due to the existence of Macedonian domination in Athens.5? The single officer would have represented the policy backed by the Macedonian dominance while the board represented that of the democratic periods free

from Macedonian supremacy.?9 There is a further question, concerning the Treasurer of the Stratiotic Fund, who occasionally paid the expenses of decrees. Did these two officials, after the possible abolition of merismos,?? have their own funds from which the money was taken, or was there only one fund, a central treasury, from which all the

payments were drawn and controlled during the third century sometimes by ὁ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει or the board and sometimes by ὁ ταμίας τῶν otpatiwtix@v? The latter appears after 229 as the predominant payer of decrees but quite often together with the

single officer or the board of dioikesis.?5 The Treasurer of the Stratiotic Fund seems to have been, at the end of the third century, the leading political officer in Athens and also

the one who was responsible for the revenues,?? as the example of Eurykleides shows.90 The evidence 1s, however, too fragmentary to clear up the relationship between these two officials, and the possible changes in their relationship during the third century. In any case, the main features of the finances of the Athenian polis seem to have continued the

course taken at the latest in the 350's; the tendency was to concentrate the financial power in the hands of one single official who administered the prosodoi and the analomata.®! *

*

x

The contents of the above sketched πολιτικὴ οἰκονομία were more or less concerned

with how to acquire revenues for the public expenditure, how to keep the public resources in balance with the expenses, how to allocate the existing revenues around the administration, and how to find new solutions in case the old revenues were exhausted.9? (c.200); 709 (c.200). The expenses were paid from money allocated to the ekklesia; εἰς δὲ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῶι δήμωι.

55 56

τῆς στήλης δοῦναι the paying officer ἐκ τῶν

κατὰ

ψηφίσματα

ἀναλισκομένων

Henry 1984, 71, n.106 Rhodes 1981, 105-108, 219-220; Henry 1984, 129-131, but see also L. Robert BE 1983, 157 who supposed that the office was always held by a board but only one of them paid the expenses. See Henry's defence of his posiuon 1988, 129—136, where he rejects the attempts to explain apparent exceptions to this rule, especially SEG XXXIII 115.

57

See however IG IVIII2 847 from the 210's, τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν αὐτοί!ς] εἰς τὴν τοῦ ζεύγους τιμὴν ἐπέδωκαν τεῖ βο[υ]λεῖ.

58

Henry 1984, 81-94.

39

For the honorary decree for Kephisodoros, a Treasurer of the Stratiotic

60

πόρους χρημάτων ἴσους καὶ δικαίους συμβεβουλευκώς. Habicht 1982, 118-127.

6!

Fund sce SEG

XXV

112,

The problems with the revenues continued to be one of the crucial questions in the Athenian palis and went on to figure in the honorary decrees: after 176/5 the polis granted honours to a merchant

SEG XXXII 132 ἐπειδίη c.13-14 χρώμενο)]ς tei κατὰ θάλατταν ἐργασίαι καὶ βουλόμενοίς καθότι ἂν δύνηται συναύ]ξειν τὰς τοῦ δήμου προσόδους. The merchant had helped the polis in the corn-shortage (σῖτόν τε ἀπ[έδοτο tei πόλει |). 62

E.g. even Demetrius of Phalerum did this during his “tyranny”, Duris FGrH 76.10 χιλίων καὶ διακοσίων ταλάντων κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν κύριος γενόμενος xai ἀπὸ τούτων βραχέα διπανῶν

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

9

Διοίκησις, financial administration concentrated in the hands of one official, was one

answer to the need for solving the financial questions of the fourth century. That was, however, only one part of the solution, the other being the means of finding new revenues for the public need when the old ones had run out. Concerning Lycurgus' activity in the field of public buildings we have a fragmentary

notice that he ταχθεὶς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει τῶν χρημάτων

εὗρε πόρους,

φκοδόμησε

τὸ θέατρον, τὸ δεῖον, τὰ νεώρια, τριήρεις ἐποιήσατο, λιμένας.63 What action did Lycurgus then take to find the money for these needs of the public expenditure? M. Faraguna has suggested quite recently that the policy followed by Lycurgus must have

been rather similar to that expressed in Xenophon's Poroi; silver mines of Laureion, selling and leasing of public and sacred land, and reorganisation of religious cults.94 According to the posthumous

honorary decree Lycurgus,

in the office tfjg

κοινῆς

προσόδου ταμίας, distributed (merismos?) a lot of public revenues (διανείμας ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς προσόδου μύρια καὶ ὀκτακισχίλια καὶ ἐνακόσια τάλαντα), and he was able to collect a great quantity of money from private citizens to supply the needs of the polis.65 It seems that one of the ways Lycurgus met the public need of revenues was by

acquiring extra revenues from private wealth. The decree copied in Vitae decem oratorum mentions that he got money through “the confidence of the private citizens" and “through loans" (πολλὰ δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν διὰ πίστεως λαβὼν καὶ προδανείσας εἰς τοῦς τῆς πόλεως καιροὺς καὶ τοῦ δήμου). Loans from private citizens seems to have been one way to cover some exceptional expenses in Greek city-states and there is also epigraphic evidence of this from Athens.$6 What exactly was meant then by the sentence διὰ πίστεως λαβών, is not clear, but there might be other evidence that could elucidate the meaning. The text of Vitae decem oratorum mentions also that Lycurgus got a certain Deinias to donate a plot of land around the Panathenaic stadium to the polis. The same text adds that he made the motion to crown Neoptolemos and to set up a bronze statue for him because he had promised to gild the altar of Apollo.9? Another similar motion to honour a citizen was the case of Diotimos, probably because he, as a strategos, had made ἃ voluntary donation of shields.98 These cases indicate that the use of private donations in the financing of public life was a normal practice in the time of Lycurgus. They show how the polis responded to the beneficent actions of citizens by granting public honours. This can be observed also through epigraphic evidence beginning from the second half of the fourth century. To be able to explain this phenomenon it is necessary to take a look at tig τοὺς στρατιώτας

καὶ

τὴν τῆς πόλεως

διοίκησιν τὰ

λοιπὰ

πάντα

διὰ

τὴν

ἔμφυτον

ἀκρασίαν ἠφάνιζεν, D.L. 5.75-85, καὶ γὰρ προσόδοις καὶ κατασκευαῖς ηὔξησε τὴν πόλιν.

65

Hyp. fragm. 118; sec also IG IVIII2 457 1. 5-10 and X orar. 8526.

64

Faraguna 1991, 289-380. One of the measures taken was surely the leasing of public land. Epigraphic evidence shows that the leasing was at its highest during the second and third quarter of the fourth century; Walbank 1991, 155-161, observes that the evidence reflects the reforms initiated by Eubulus and Lycurgus. One of the objects was to finance the Lesser Panathenaea, Walbank 1991,

65 66

159. X orat. 851F-852E (= IG III? 457). Migeotte 1984, 129-148. He thinks, 25-27, that the money loaned by Lycurgus was destined for a reserve fund as part of his financial measures. After 327/6 ἃ new cult was organized in the deme of Kollytos and the law that defined the cults’ outlines, expressed also a wish that the private citizens would contribute to the expenses of the sacrifices through loans; IG IL/III2 1195 (an augmented

edition of it by ΜΙ, Walbank 1994, 233-239) ἐὰν δέ τινεὶς βούλωνται δανεῖσαι ἐπὶ toic κοινοῖς ἐπὶ tà νῦν xai τὰ ἔμπροσθεν ἀναλώματα.

67

X orat. 843F.

68

id. 844; Dem. 18.114.

τῶν

δημοτῶν

Ι0

Mika Hakkarainen

the traditional ways private wealth was channelled into the public sphere of polis society, and then to go on to examine the changes in it more closely. *

*

*

As a social and political phenomenon private wealth in the Athenian polis is very complicated and, of course, changes over time. In the classical democratic city-state of the

fifth century a clearer distinction than before between private and public spheres was created by using the levy of the Delian League for public needs. In this way the democratic polis tried to limit its dependence on the “property power” of the wealthy

citizens by separating the activity of the polis from Nevertheless,

in this system

the wealthy

citizen

property to the public sphere. The arrangement

that of its leading citizens.9?

was

was

also expected

to contribute

verbalised by Xenophon

his

ın the

dialogue between Socrates and Critobulos (Oeconomicus 2.5—9): ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν κόλιν αἰσθάνομαι

τὰ μὲν ἤδη σοι προστάττουσιν

μεγάλα

χορηγίας καὶ γυμνασιαρχίας καὶ προστατείας, ὅτι καὶ τριηραρχίας καὶ εἰσφορὰς τοσαῦτας

τελεῖν, ἱπποτροφίας

ἣν δὲ δὴ πόλεμος

προστάξουσιν.

τε καὶ

γένηται, οἶδ᾽

In the fourth century

targets of private wealth in the public sphere were festival liturgies, and in wartime, to pay for the triremes and to contribute to the war-levy. It is interesting to see how these duties

were expressed in the honorary decree proposed in 292/3 that referred to the previous decade: the ancestors of Philippides of Paiania (IG II/III? 649, ]. 12-14) πολλὰ δὲ ε[ἰΪς [τὰς γυμνασιαρχίας καὶ τριηραρ]χίας [κ]αὶ xlopiInrials]) Kali τὰς ἄλλας λειτουργίας £]x τῶν i[6tlolv χ]ρήματ[α ἀνήλωσαν. Liturgies in religious festivals were performed and paid for by both citizens and metics (πολιτικαὶ καὶ τῶν μετοίκων). The duties of liturgists were expressed by the orators,

τῇ οὐσίᾳ καὶ τῷ σώματι, i.e. personal participation and by paying the expenses.7? The most visible and expensive of them were gymnasiarchia, lampadarchia and choregia,!! which were competitive liturgies (agones) between the tribes (phylai).?? All these liturgies were, in connection with the religious calendar and festivals, annual duties (ἐγκύκλιοι λειτουργίαι). A very important point was that the competitive element was between the tribes and the money spent by liturgists stayed inside them and did not have any direct

influence on the polis level.73 The only liturgy which seems to have benefited the finances 69

On private wealth as a political instrument in the Classical city-state, see J.K. Davies 1981, 90, who calls it "property power"; "The presence until 412 of a large City or League reserve made it possible to execute public decisions up to a point independently of the goodwill of the propertied

class. After 404 this condition did not hold good because of the absence of reserve the goodwill of this class was desirable". S. Humphreys 1977/78, 97-104, 97: "the dependence of the state on the generosity of ambitious rich men was limited; conspicious spending was channelled, routinised and

above al! overshadowed by the disbursal of the state funds once dominated by the Athenian nobility”. 70

[n spite of the obvious importance of the liturgical system in Classical Athens, the topic has not been subjected to analytic research,

see Oehler

1927,

cols.

1871-1879;

Davies

1967,

33-40;

id.

1971, xvii-xxxi; id. 1981, 9-37.

7l 72

Reisch 1899, cols. 2409-2422. The other liturgies

were

hestiasis,

hippotropheia,

arrephoria,

kanephoria,

euandria,

euoplia

and

eutaxia, Oehler 1927, cols. 1871-1879. 75

Demosthenes, 20.25-26, defends the granted ateleiai which were in danger of being cancelled by the law of Leptines. One of his arguments was that cancelling the ateleiai would not bring more moncy into the public treasury, for the expenditure on these services have nothing to do with the revenues and surplus of the polis, xai μὴν περὶ τοῦ γε μη εἶναι χρήματα κοινὰ τῇ πόλει, ἐκεῖν᾽ ὑμᾶς

δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ὅτι οὐδὲν ἔσεσθ᾽ εὐπορώτεροι, τὰς ἀτελείας ἐὰν ἀφέλησθε" οὐ γὰρ ταῖς δημοσίαις προσόδοις καὶ περιουσίαις ταῦτα τἀναλώματ᾽ οὐδέν.

κοινωνεῖ

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

L1

of the polis was the architheoria, the leadership of a public delegation to a foreign festival.

The performer paid at least a part of the costs of the delegation. A further interesting aspect to be kept in mind is that litigants in courts of law almost without exception

appealed only to the gymnasiarchia and choregia when they tried to persuade the jury that the polis owes them gratitude (charis) for these performances.’4 There were two means of finding revenues for the costs which war brought with it, trierarchia and eisphora-levy. The trierarch bore all the expenses of maintenance and repair of the ships, and paid the crew. Originally the strategoi chose for each year a number of trierarchs who corresponded to the number of ships. In 357 the law of

Periander obliged 1200 of the wealthiest citizens to be divided into 20 corporate groups, symmoriai, and to contribute to the cost and upkeep of ships. The trierarchikai symmoriai were most probably the same symmories as those put together in the 360's to pay the eisphora-levy (see below). The trierarchs were still nominated by the strategoi but the members of the symmoria, synteleis, contributed to the equipment of ships. The change meant that the trierarchs no longer had to pay the whole cost themselves but received financial help from the synteleis. ἃ further reform of the trierarchy system happened probably in 340: liability was reduced to the 300 richest citizens.?5

Details concerning the background of the eisphora-levy are still under discussion? but the essential feature that it was a levy on property paid by citizens and metics is obvious; it was originally raised only on exceptional occasions decided by the ekklesia. The purpose

of the levy was to cover those expenses of war for which the polis was not prepared.?? At the latest in the beginning of the 360's the eisphora-levy was reorganised; those liable for

the

levy

were

grouped

in symmoriai

and

three

hundred

wealthy

citizens

(oi

προεισφέροντες) were ordered to pay the levy in advance from their own money and

they were supposed to collect afterwards the sum from the other members

of the

symmoria liable to the tax. The earliest mention of the system seems to be from the year

36978 but it is probable that the reorganisation had happened already soon after the symmoria-reformation

in 378.7?

The

eisphora

symmories

were

later used

also for

trierarchies.8° This reorganisation of the eisphora and naval finances can be seen as reflecting the need to systematise and to ensure the collection of taxes and to make permanent these ways of military taxation in the first half of the fourth century. The liturgical system is considered to have reached its end during the time of Demetrius of Phalerum 318--307.81 But obviously the abolition applied only to the choregia-liturgy and as a substitute a public office, agonothesia, was created.82 The gymnasiarchia might 74

Thomas 1989, 111-112.

75

Dem. 18.102-104; 21.153-159; Din. 1.42; Rhodes 1981, 674—682. For discussion, see Cawkwell

1984, 334—345.

76

For the discussion around the arrangements for collecting it, see Ruschenbusch 1978, 275-284; id. 1985, 237-249; id. 1987, 75-81; Rhodes 1982, 1-19; Brun 1983, 438—449; MacDowell 1986, 438—449.

7!

Thomsen 1964, 179.

78

Lys. 6.60.

79

Bor the summary see Wallace 1989, 473—490.

80

Ruschenbusch

1978, 275-284,

id. 1985, 237-249;

agreement on this; see MacDowell

id.

1987,

75-81.

There is, however,

no general

1990, 372-373.

8l

This view gocs back to Köhler 1878, 228-258 and 1898, 91-493. The choregia liturgy seems to have been sull in existence in 313/2 when the deme of Aixoncs honoured its choregoi, SEG XXXVI 186.

82

Τῆς dedications of agonothetes began in the last years of the fourth century, IG IIII2 3073-3088.

12

Mika Hakkarainen

have had a similar change even earlier? but we lack the exact evidence. As to the other liturgies they might have survived at least until the early Hellenistic period.54 The fate of trierarchies and eisphora-tax is also unclear and it has been considered unlikely that the

systems could have kept functioning until the third century.85 There are, however, some fragmentary epigraphic notes on them from the third century as well. An honorary decree from Rhamnous dating to 225 honours Menander of Itea who as a trierarch had spent his

own money to equip his vessel.86 So the trierarchy may have been preserved in a reduced form. The fate of eisphora has been connected with the epidoseis. They were, in principle,

voluntary? contributions which were collected during wartime for special purposes, when the normal trierarchiai and eisphorai were not sufficient, being either extratrierachies or simply money. The earliest known epidosis is from the year 391.88 In the 340's it became more common to apply to private wealth for finding money for extraordinary military expenses or in some cases also for the corn supply.8? This and other evidence of the military character of epidoseis has led some scholars to the supposition that they had replaced gradually the eisphora-levy as the extraordinary way of

financing already in the fourth century.?? However, L. Migeotte has recently criticized that point of view. Sources on eisphora diminish towards the end of the fourth century, but the meagre evidence does not allow the conclusion to be drawn that the eisphorai had

been replaced by the epidoseis. Both were needed for particular purposes, defence, extratrierarchies, and were collected especially during such military crises as the defeat at

Chaeronea. Migeotte suggests that the more extensive need for epidoseis was due to a rechannelling in the financial structure of the polis.?! His position is supported by the fact that in the decrees granting to foreigners the citizenship of Athens there is a formula which

describes their duties (or rights): στρατείας στρατεύεσθαι

καὶ εἰσφορὰς εἰσφέρειν.

83

See IG IVIII2 3206 (ad.); Sekunda 1990, 156.

54

There is some epigraphic evidence concerning the kanephoria-liturgy from the third century, IG Π1112 668, and from the second century, IG II/III2 896; the architheoria of Callias of Sphettos κα[ὶ τὰς ἐψηφισ]μένας αὐτῶι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου εἰς tv ἀρχεθεω[ρίαν πεντήκον͵]τα μνᾶς ἀφεὶς καὶ ἐπιδοὺς τῶι δήμωι) αὐτὸς τὴν μὲν Bewpia]v ἀγαγὼν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, Shear 1978, 2-4 (= SEG XXVIII 60).

85

Rhodes 1981, 682 presumes that the classical trierarchy was probably abolished at the same time as

86

the festival liturgies. SEG XV 112 ἐπειδ[ὴ] Μένανδρος κατασταθεὶς τριήραρχος εἰς τὸν ἐνιαυ[τὸν] τὸν ἐπὶ Νικῆτου ἄρχοντος τῆς τε τοῦ πλοίου ἐπ[ιἰσκευῆς ἐπεμελήθη καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως ἀναλί[ίσ]κων ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ὅσα παρήγγελλον αὐτῶι οἱ ἐπὶ tobt[ov] τεταγμένοι. See also IG IVIII2 682, 1. 4-7; Rhodes 1981, 682.

87

They were asked for and pledged in the meetings of ekklesia , e.g., [sae. 5.37; Dem. or of the boule Dem. 21.161.

88

Isae. 5.371.

89?

L. Migeotte

17.171: 21.162,

1992, 3-46, has recently gathered and analyzed the extant evidence of the Athenian

epidoseis. ?0

P. Brun 1983, 165-169: “la notion et l'existence des dons volontaires sont, plusque les defaites de Cheronde et de Lamia, les raisons profondes de la fin de la democratic athénienne et succes de l'oligarchie"; sce also Maier

?!

1959, 72 n. 9.

Migcotte 1992, 45-46. IG IVIII2 835 ( 1. 7) seems to be the only extant evidence of the survival of proeisfora in the third century, unfortunately in a very fragmentary state. I. Migeotte 1992, ]9320], connects it with the contribution needed lo release Athens from the Macedonian. garrison alter 229.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

13

The formula appears for the first time in the middle of the fourth century?? and after that becomes a normal part of decrees granting privileges to foreigners. It is still present in the

third century and seems to disappear at the end of the century.?? In the third and second centuries in addition

to military purposes,

the need

for

epidoseis expanded also to the civil sphere:?4 for the building of a temple,?° for another theatre in Piraeus,?9 for the restoration of a bathing establishment.?? The only "entirely" preserved epigraphic evidence on epidosis is IVIII2 791 from 232/198 which gives a clear picture of the function of an epidosis in the Athenian polis. It is an appeal for a collective contribution in order that the Treasurer of the Military Fund would have the necessary

revenues for the defence of the countryside : [ὅπως ἂν χρημάτων π]ορισθέντων ἔχει ὃ ταμίας μερίζειν τὰ [δεόμενα, ἵνα κ]ατὰ τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ συνκ[ομισθῶσιν οἱ ἐκ γῆς κ]αρποὶ pet’ ἀσφαλείας (1. 9--12). The traditional way the private citizen was expected to contribute in the public sphere seems to have undergone changes gradually during the fourth century. Military liturgies

were becoming more and more permanent, and the epidoseis more and more frequent. As a conclusion one is tempted to consider that the regular military liturgies were not sufficient in the political situation of the fourth century under the growing pressure of Macedonia. The polis had to resort first to the systematisation of an extraordinary military levy and finally also to collect more often voluntary contributions for particular objective. In this situation the private spending on the festival liturgies, at least concerning the choregiai and gymnasiarchiai, which did not bring benefit to the material needs of the polis as did the trierarchiai, eisphorai and epidoseis, at this time fell into a different socio-

political context than earlier: these did not benefit those spheres of the polis structure in need of financial support, i. e. revenues. As Demosthenes stated in his speech against the law proposal of Leptines in 355 (20.25-26, transl. by J.H.Vince) "the expenditure on

these services (i.e. on festival liturgies) has nothing to do with the revenues and surplus of the polis" ... "money spent by the chorus masters afford us who are in the theatre gratification for a fraction of a day; but money lavished on equipment for war gives

security to the whole city for all time'"?9? (see note 73). The festival liturgy-system began to be criticised during the second half of the fourth century at the same time as the needs of the public sphere in Athens were changing.!90 *

*

*

The ways the private wealth was used in public areas found its verbal manifestation in the judicial oratory when the litigants tried to persuade the jury by demonstrating their services to the polis. An unknown client of Lysias defended himself in the last years of

32

Henry 1983, 249-250.

?3

1G ΠΠΙ12 554; 660; 715; 1241. Thomsen 1964, 238 n. 245. The most important is IG IUTIT2 835.

?4

Migeotte 1992, 9-46.

35

IG IV/III2 2330 οἵδε ἐπέδωκαν εἰς τὴν ἐπισκευὴν too ἱεροῦ.

96

1G IVIII2 2334 οἵδε ἐπέδωκαν eils τὴν] κατασκευὴν tod 8e [rpov].

97

DL. 7.12.

98

(= SEG XXXII 118).

99

παρὰ μὲν yap τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν

χορηγιῶν δαπάνας

ἡμῶν,

εἰς

παρὰ

δὲ

τὰς

τῶν

σωτηρία πάσῃ τῇ πόλει. 100

See especially Lycurg. 1.138.

τὸν

πόλεμον

ἡμέρας μέρος μικρὸν ἢ χάρις τοῖς θεωμένοις

παρασκευῶν

ἀφθονίας

πάντα

τὸν

χρόνον

ἢ

14

Mika Hakkarainen

the fifth century against the charges of corruption. The speech is notable because the accused person lists in his defence, in detail, the liturgies he had performed, choregia,

trierarchia and eisphora, and the amounts of money paid by him.!0! He appeals to these liturgies in front of the jury saying that a citizen like he himself, who performs so many liturgies, can not have taken bribes, trying in this way to get the jury on his side against

the charges. On the contrary, he sees that the polis owes him charis (χάρις), gratitude for services, liturgies and moneys he has expended for the polis (ἀνθ᾽ àv ὑμᾶς ἀπαιτῶ νῦν τὴν χάριν, καὶ ἀξιῶ).102 In the classical moral code the recipient of a benefaction was supposed to respond with gratitude. Appealing to the performed liturgies and demanding the gratitude of the community for them is a universal topos in the Athenian forensic oratory in the fourth century.!0? On the other hand the prosecutors tried to indicate that the accused was not worthy of charis because he had not performed enough liturgies or

that he had spent all his wealth not for the good of the polis but on himself.!0^ According to the often expressed topos, a wealthy citizen is expected to spend a part of his means for

the good of the polis.!95 Lysias' client states clearly that wealthy citizens are the only reserve for the community when it is in need of revenues (Lys. 21.13): τὰ προσιόντα

τῇ πόλει ὡς ὀλίγα ἐστί ... , ὥστε ἄξιον ταύτην ἡγεῖσθαι πρόσοδον τῇ πόλει τὰς οὐσίας τῶν ἐθελόντων λῃτουργεῖν.

βεβαιοτάτην

During the 350's these topoi of defence and accusation were enlarged by the claim that

the expense of the liturgies should be considered as philotimia and especially for that reason the liturgist deserves the charis of the polis.!96 The successful performer of a liturgy might point out the tripod erected by him as a token of his philotimia: (Isae. 7.40) ὅς γε καὶ παιδικῷ χορῷ χορηγῶν ἐνίκησεν, àv μνημεῖα τῆς ἐκείνου φιλοτιμίας ὁ τρίπους ἐκεῖνος ἕστηκε. In that speech Thrasyllus, Isaeus' client, defends himself against his opponent's claims to the property he had inherited. The property had been ceded

to

him

because

the

former

owner

knew

that

he,

Thrasyllus,

would

not

be

aphilotimos, one who would expend his wealth on himself, as his opponent has done, but

would be willing to perform trierarchiai and liturgiai. He has already performed various liturgies, paid eisphorai, and his gymnasiarchia he had done it in a way he calls φιλοτίμως. Demosthenes’ speech Against Meidias is a more clear example of this phenomenon. As a part of the prosecution he tries to prove that the services done by the

accused Meidias for the polis can not be called philotimia!0? and he had already been granted too much charis for insignificant services.!08 Behind the appearance of philotimia in the judicial oratory (litigants offering evidence of their philotimia towards the polis as a part of their defence and demanding public gratitude for these services) there must be seen 101

Lys. 21.1-3.

102 id. 21.25. 103

See also Isae. 5.41-42;

id. 6.60; [Dem.] 50.2, 7; Adkins

1972,

119-126;

Dover

1974,

176-177;

Ober 1989, 226-233. One mode of this was when the litigants tried to prove that they had spend more than expected, Lys. 7.31; Isoc. 18.63; Dem. 42.23; Hyp. 1.16.

104

Dem. 38.25 τάχα τοίνυν ἴσως καὶ τριεραρχίας ἐροῦσιν καὶ tà ὄνθ᾽ ὡς ἀνηλώκασιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ψεύσονται, καὶ πόλλ᾽ ἀπολωλεκότες τῶν ὄντων αὑτοῖς, μικρὰ τῆς πόλεως μετειληφνίας, οὐ δικαίαν οὐδὲ γιγνομένην χάριν ἀξιώσουσι κομίζεσθαι παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐάσω. See also Lys. 1.139; Dem. 21.160; 42.25.

105

Isae. 6. 60 τῆς δὲ τούτων οὐσίας, ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰς tv πόλιν πλείω τούτους.

106

Dem. 21.69, 160.

107 Dem. 21.166ff. 108

Dem. 21.160ff., 171ff.

ἀναλίσκεται

ἢ eic αὐτοὺς

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

15

a change in the relationship between the polis and wealthy citizens. Philotimia, a love of honour or ambition for honour, is understandable only in connection with a change in the ways private citizens were expected to contribute to the polis, i.e. the emphasis was put

on the military liturgies, eisphorai and epidoseis, with a change in the meaning of philotimia and a change in the meaning of charis. A reciprocal system was created, a policy of philotimia, in which a new kind of private contribution met a new kind of public

gratitude. The litigants in court tried to connect this new type of charis with philotimia also with the spending in the festival liturgies. It was this connection Demosthenes was contesting as a part of his accusations against Meidias as did later Lycurgus in the case of

Leokrates (see p. 19). They wanted to connect it with a certain kind of expenditure, only with trierarchiai and eisphorai which were more useful to the polis than the traditional festival liturgies. In his argument against Leptines Demosthenes brings forward this new way of thinking in an embryonic state i.e. spending private money on frierarchiai and eisphorai, and the rewarding of these contributions by the polis. *

According to the law proposal

(ἀτέλειαι)

granted

for performing

*

*

of Leptines the exemptions from

military

liturgies

should

be

festival

liturgies

canceled.

In

the

background of this issue there was the social and financial situation immediately after the

Second Social War (357—355).109 The granted immunities caused a lack of performers for cyclical liturgies. Demosthenes’ rhetorical argument for the defence of the ateleiai 1s interesting from the point of view of the present subject because it reflects the new way of

thinking concerning private contributions in the public sphere: the reformation of the reciprocal system between the polis and a wealthy citizen. In order to put more emphasis on the issue, Demosthenes compares the performers of military liturgies with persons who have showed beneficence, euergesia, towards the polis, and the ateleiai, with the rewards granted to the benefactors (δωρεαί). “If the law would become effective there is a danger that Athens loses its reputation, the reputation of rewarding its benefactors." For his argument Demosthenes creates a rhetorical position in which he exploits the ancestors as an example of ideal citizens who did not hesitate to spend their wealth for the sake of

philotimia (Dem. 20.10): χρήματα μὲν yàp πλειστά ποτε κτησάμενοι πάνθ᾽ ὑπὲρ φιλοτιμίας ἀνήλωσαν, ὑπὲρ δὲ δόξης οὐδένα πώποτε κίνδυνον ἐξέστησαν, ἀλλα καὶ τὰς ἰδίας οὐσίας προσαναλίσκοντες διετέλουν. The motive for spending private wealth for the good of the polis is called philotimia.!!0 The law of Leptines would make fruitless the efforts done by those who would like to be philotimoi (φιλοτιμεῖσθαι)."}! Ateleia was, according to Demosthenes, a privilege, a token of honour to the private citizen from the polis. Here is expressed for the first time in the speech the emerging reciprocal idea of a useful citizen contributing his own wealth for public needs and of the polis granting privileges and honours in return. Demosthenes supports his position with examples from the immediate past. These include strategoi (Conon,

Chabrias, Iphicrates and Timotheus) who have been rewarded

for their military achievements; for example Conon for his victory at Cnidos in 394. The Athenian polis granted him honours (Tat), a bronze-statue (εἰκὼν χαλκῆ) and the 109 Sealey 1955, 74-81. 110

Philotimia as a socio-political concept in the Athenian polis has been treated by Dover 236 and especially Whitehead 1983, 55-74.

1974, 229-

III

Dem. 20.103 ὃς ἔρημον ποιεῖς τὸν δῆμον τῶν φιλοτιμησομένων; sce also Dem. 20.115.

l6

Mika Hakkarainen

immunity

from

liturgies (ἀτέλεια).

The decree by which

published and set in a public place. Demosthenes'

these were bestowed

was

point is that this decree was

manifestation of Conon's philotimia towards the polis (Dem. 20.69): ἐστὶ δὲ τοῦτο

a τὸ

γράμμ᾽ © ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐκείνῳ μὲν φιλοτιμία πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτοῦς. He makes use of the Classical Athenian honorary system where only the victorious strategoi were rewarded by the polis drawing a parallel between them and those who had been granted ateleiai. The performers of military liturgies should also be considered benefactors, useful citizens, like the strategoi. For that reason the exemptions should be kept unchanged, because their cancellation could diminish any eagerness to contribute in the future. Demosthenes actually requires that the polis should reward expenditure for the polis by wealthy citizens. This relationship was expressed clearly at the end of the speech when

Demosthenes tries to persuade the jury to reject Leptines' law proposal (Dem. 20.155): ὁ τοίνυν νόμος οὗτος ὁ Λεπτίνου οὐ μόνον, ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, τοῦτ᾽ ἀδικεῖ, ὅτι τὰς τιμὰς ἀναιρῶν τῶν εὐεργεσιῶν ἀχρεῖον τὴν ἐπιείκειαν τοῖς φιλοτιμεῖσθαι βουλομένοις καθίστησιν. In the harangue Contra Meidiam, dating to the year 347, the similar connection between the spending of private wealth and the abstract idea of philotimia was given a clear picture. Demosthenes asks Meidias where are his liturgies and expenditure for the good of the city-state and tries to indicate that Meidias did not spend his patrimony for the polis as he claims, but for his own good and urges the jury not to be positively influenced by the normal display of his wealth. They should not judge Meidias' philotimia from normal expenditure but rather from such activities that bring profit to the whole

community.!!2 Philotimia means trierarchies and if Meidias had paid for an extra trireme, that can be called philotimia and he is worthy of charis, public gratitude (Dem. 21.160 a

μὲν,

ὦ ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι, φιλοτιμίας εἵνεκα ταύτην

ἐπέδωκεν, ἣν προσήκει

τῶν

τοιούτων ἔχειν χάριν). Besides, one can be philotimos towards the polis by giving voluntary contributions, ἐπιδόσεις, but Meidias had not done that, so his activity can not

be seen as philotimia.!!? Demosthenes verbalises the idea of how to be philotimos in the situation prevailing in the 350's: it meant voluntary private contribution to the military expenses of the polis. [ would see this, as well as the evidence from the speech Contra Leptinem, as reflecting the changes expressed above in the military liturgies, the financial structure of the Athenian polis and generally the need for more revenues than the normal resources could bring. Demosthenes’ claim that the jury should inspect Meidias’

philotimia, shows that it was question of defining and confining the content of it.!!4 Demosthenes wanted to confine the concept to the strictly defined private expenditure for the good of the polis, whereas litigants were using it in connection with every type of liturgical financing. The appearance of philotimia in speeches indicates that its semantic field was already changing, otherwise the litigants would not have been trying to claim

that the traditional way of contributing was also philotimia. This semantic reformation of the concept is interesting because its earlier content seems to have been negative from the point of view of the polis: a client of Lysias, Aristophanes, declared in the 380's that his father had spent much for the polis in the form of liturgies 112.

113 14.

Dem. 21.159 οὐδὲ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν £ἐκ τούτων κρίνειν, εἴ τις οἰκοδομεῖ λαμπρῶς n θεραπαίν (ες κέκτηται πολλὰς ἢἢ σκεύη, ἀλλ᾽ ὃς ἂν ἐν τούτοις λαμπρὸς καὶ φιλότιμος ἡ ὧν Graal μέτεστι

τοῖς πολλοῖς ὑμῶν. iud. 21.160-162. Aeschines gave similar advice in his speech contra Cresiphanem 288. concerning Demosthenes? plulotimia: καὶ τὰς φιλοτιμίας μὴ νέμετε. ἀλλ Kkplvrti, καὶ τς Omprez εἰς βελτίονι

σώματα κιὶὶ σξιολογωτέρουις ἀπύθεσθε,

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

and trierarchies, and that he had not done that φιλοτιμίας £vexo.!!5 Philotimia meant ambition prestige.!!6 A certain ambivalence in its use can used it also with a negative meaning, boastful,

17

because of the philotimia, οὐ γὰρ for a person's own profit and private be noticed; for example Demosthenes as late as 341.117 This ambivalence

continued a short while and is expressed indirectly by Demosthenes in the speech against

Meidias by urging the jury to inspect Meidias’ philotimia from his concrete activities i.e. the financing of an extra trierarch, if he has done so, not from his boastful behaviour. So philotimia was developing from the state of mind of seeking private advantage to a motive

force that made one to act so that he was rewarded by the public gratitude.! !$ I would like to suggest that the reformulating of philotimia should be set in the context of the 360— 350's at the latest and in connection with the reorganisation of the eisphora and symmoria systems and the increasing resort to voluntary contributions. The entrance of philotimia into the philosophical sphere also demonstrates the change; in the Characters of Theophrastus there is a case that is called petty ambition,

μικροφιλοτιμία

(Characters 21 ἢ

ἀνελεύθερος).

Being mikrophilotimos, meaning someone is ambitious for public

δὲ μικροφιλοτιμία

δόξει

εἶναι ὄρεξις

τιμῆς

respect and honour without being ready to act in such a manner which brings honour i.e. to contribute Demosthenes

to the public good, resembles was criticising in his speech

the way of being philotimos which Contra Meidiam. In this connection

ἀνελευθερία, stinginess, is an essential aspect, which Theophrastus defines as a lack of interest in honours that require lavish money spending (ἣ δὲ ἀνελευθερία ἐστὶ πάρεσίς τις φιλοτιμίας δαπάνην £xovonco).! 19 Although these were supposed to be caricatures, they represent at a conceptual and terminological level the social field in which these words were used: the idea of the reciprocity between private contribution and public

gratitude, which was manifested by honours and privileges.! 20 That it was a question suggested,!?! is shown Demosthenes but also and polis began to reward her

of a conscious political program. as D.M. MacDowell has not only by the argumentation in the two speeches of especially by the fact that at the same time or a little later the citizens with public honours, and the concept of philotimia

I15 Lys. 19.56. 116 Thuc. 8.89:3 κατ᾽ ἰδίας δὲ φιλοτιμίας οἱ πολλοὶ αὐτῶν τῷ τοιούτῳ προσεκείνετο, in connection with pleonexia id.3.82;8 πάντων δ᾽αὐτῶν αἴτιον apyn ἢ διὰ πλεονεξίαν καὶ φιλοτιμίαν. See also Ar. Thesm, 383 κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας φιλοτιμίας καὶ ἰδία κέρδη. 117 Dem. 8.71 οὐδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἣν τούτων πώποτ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν ἔταξα, οὐδὲ προήχθην οὔθ᾽ ὑπὸ κέρδους οὔθ᾽ ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας. 118

The earliest context in which philotimia can be met with a positive meaning, to my knowledge, is

Xenophon's Mem. 3.3.13. Socrates maintains that the Athenians differ from other Greeks by their philotimia which encourages them to noble and honorable deeds: τοσοῦτον διαφέρουσιν

᾿Αθηναῖοι

τῶν ἄλλων οὔτε σωμάτων μεγέθει καὶ ῥώμῃ ὅσον φιλοτιμίᾳ ἥπερ μάλιστα παροξύνει πρὸς τὰ καλὰ καὶ ἔντιμα. In Xen. Oec. 21.6 those who want 10 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι are distinguishable by their deeds. In Xenophon there is also an idea of rewarding those who have been philotimoi, Cyr. 8.1.39, See also K.J. Dover 1974, 229-234; D. Whitehead 1983, 55—74, who observes that the Athenian polis tried to "democratise" the concept of philotimia by defining it in terms of the collective profit of the polis, see also id. 1993, 65, and especially the short but good description of the term by D.M. MacDowell 1990, 378—379: "it means performing service to the community to which the community is expected 10 respond by conferring honours."

119 Theophr. Char. 20.22. 120

Philotimia became an altruistic community oriented virtue, Whitehead 1983, research on the socio-political aspects of charis, see Ober 1989, 306-308 .

121 MacDowell 1990, 378-379.

60ff. For the recent

18

Mika Hakkarainen

made its appearance also in the language of honorary decrees.!?? As shown

above,

rewarding the citizens was not an unknown habit earlier, but nevertheless very exceptional, concerning only the victorious generals. In this respect the situation seems to have changed drastically at the latest in the 340's when honorary decrees to citizens, especially to different officials, started to appear in the inscriptions. At the same time the formulae of the decrees granting honours became standard and the phrasing enlarged. The new type of honorary decree displaced the old one where the foreign benefactors were

granted honours and privileges. The reasons for the expressions of the honorand's virtues displaced the rather general expressions εὖ ποιεῖ or ἐπειδὴ ἀνὴρ

ἐστὶ ἀγαθός

of the

earlier proxeny-decrees.!?? The reasons, especially in the honours dedicated to officials and the motives of the honoured actions, were expressed most commonly with the particle ἕνεκα, e.g. δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκα καὶ φιλοτιμίας. Philotimia appears an essential part of the formalised language of the honorary decrees, and D. Whitehead has counted c. 240 decrees from the period between 340—250 in which the concept philotimia and its

derivatives are present.!?4 There had been, of course, honours given before the 340's,! 25 but the motives for honouring citizens went through a change, and the practice passing an honorary decree for citizens was based on a different socio-political situation and on

different principles than before.!126 The means of rewarding were mostly the old ones but at the same time were adapted for the new reciprocal system from the middle of the fourth century onwards. The speech contra Leptinem can be seen as a defence of the idea that

useful citizens should be rewarded even in time of peace. It was right, as Demosthenes stresses, that the megistai timai (i.e. sitesis, proedria and bronze statue) were not easily obtainable, (Dem. 20.122-124) "but the humbler duties to which one can rise in time of peace and in the civil sphere — loyalty, justice, zeal and the like — it is, in my opinion, both well and necessary that they should be rewarded. Grants ought, therefore, to be so apportioned that each man may receive from the people the exact reward that he deserves"

(transl. J.H.Vince, LCL).12? One aspect of the liturgies was that the money spent for them by a wealthy citizen concerned mainly his own phyle and its inhabitants. On the polis-level of the community

these liturgies were visible only as agones and as tripodes of the winners.!?8

The

expenditure was not a contribution to the polis in the same way as epidoseis, eisphorai and trierarchiai. The point about the law of Leptines was that it tried to abolish the only reward for military liturgies that were direct contributions to the military finances of the polis. This was happening at a time when the city-state was in urgent need of financial support, which could be expected only from private contributors. The contribution did not bring with it any particular distinctions except the ateleiai from cyclic liturgies. In order to

122 To my knowledge the earliest one is IG IL/III2 360 dating to the 350's. 123

Henry 1983, 2-3.

124

Whitehead 1983, 62, n. 26. Demosthenes used victorious generals as exarnples for the case against the law proposal of Leptines. Dem. 20.116 on μὲν τοίνυν, ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι. καὶ τοῖς προγόνοις ὑμῶν ἔθος ἣν τοὺς χρηστοὺς τιμᾶν, δηλοῖ τὸ ψήφισμα τουτί. *

A

5

^

*

-

r

,

-

nm

3

‘

nn

Dem. 20.116 εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῖς αὐτοῖς OLOMEP ἡμεῖς vov, ἕτερόν τι τοῦτ᾽

s;

ἂν εἴη.

Dem. 20.122 μετρίων δὲ καὶ ὧν ἂν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τις καὶ πολιτείᾳ δύναιτ᾽ ἐφικέσθαι, εὐνοίας, δικαιοσύνης, ἐπιμελείας, τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ συμφέρειν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ καὶ χρῆν ca διδόναι τὰς τιμάς. δεῖ τοίνυν μεμερίσθαι καὶ τὰ τῶν δωρειῶν, ἵν᾿ ἧς ἂν ἄξιος ὧν ἕκαστος φαίνηται, ταύτην παρὰ τοῦ δήμου Aaußavn τῆν δωρειάν.

[28

Dem. 20.122-124.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

19

get more individuals willing to contribute in areas where the polis felt need, it had to

create a reciprocal system of contribution and rewards or at least to modify heavily the old one. [n this situation the socio-political terms philotimia and charis were changing their significance into a more concrete one. Philotimia was beginning to be understood as a private contribution for the benefit of the polis, for which the contributor was rewarded with public gratitude, charis. From this change the consequence was that the charis, which was normally asked for in law-courts for the performed liturgies, did not function any more. À good example of this is the speech of Lycurgus, given in 330, in which he accuses Leocrates of deserting the city in a moment of danger. Prosecutors normally tried

to dispute the liturgies the defendant pleaded on to help his case as Lycurgus also did. He attacks Leocrates

and his supporters by maintaining that after having performed

the

services just for the good of their own households, they are demanding public gratitude (Lyc. 1.139 εἰς γὰρ τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον αὐτὰς περιποιησάμενοι, κοινὰς χάριτας ὑμᾶς ἀπαιτοῦσιν).

any longer, because only γὰρ αὐτὸς charis of the

Hippotrophia and choregia, which were the liturgies performed, do not

according to Lycurgus, entitle anybody to gratitude from the polis,!29 the performers were crowned, conferring no gain to the polis (ἐπὶ τούτοις μόνος στεφανοῦται, τοῦς ἄλλους οὐδὲν ὠφελῶν). “To be entitled to Athenian polis ἃ man should perform well his trierarchy, to build walls for

the protection of the polis, or to subscribe generously from his own property for the public safety" (transl. J.O. Burtt).!3° The usefulness of a citizen was manifested by such contributions in which the whole community had a share, and no longer by festival liturgies.

The most important literary source of the use of private wealth in the public sphere is Demosthenes’ speech De corona, which gives already a more extended picture of its character. De corona was actually an apology, a political speech in defence of his own policy, but the very reason for the charges against him was found in the honours awarded

to him by the motion of Ctesiphon. Demosthenes uses normal rhetorical means to defend himself; the duty of the useful citizen was to contnbute from his property for the benefit of the city-state and so he had done

after his maturity:

(Dem.

18.257)

χορηγεῖν,

τριηραρχεῖν, εἰσφέρειν, and underlines further μηδεμιᾶς φιλοτιμίας μήτ᾽ ἰδίας μῆτε δημοσίας ἀπολείπεσθαι. The illegality of the public honours and golden wreath was that they were granted before Demosthenes had given the account (euthyna) of his office holding. The speech dates to the 330's when public rewards for private contributions had become normal in Athens applying also to officials, if. they had contributed to the

functions of their office. Rewarding was connected

with the successful

passing

of

euthyna: legality of the measures taken while in office and the handling of public money. Demosthenes as an official of the theorikon had given money to the fund (Dem. 18.113

ὅτι ἐπὶ τῷ θεωρικῷ τότ᾽ ὧν ἐπέδωκα τὰ χρήματα) and later also as an intendant of city walls (τειχῶν ἐπιμελήτης) he had paid some expenses belonging to the office (τἀνηλωμέν᾽ ἔδωκα). Demosthenes’ point of view was that by giving from his own

129

Lycurg. 1.139 οὐ yap δεδαπάνηκεν, ἀξιός 130 Lycurg. 1.139-140 εἴ κοινὴν σωτηρίαν ἐκ

τις ἱπποτρόφηκεν ἢ xexópnke λαμπρῶς ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων τι ἐστι παρ᾽ ὑμῶν τοιαύτης χάριτος. τις τετριηράρχηκε λαμπρῶς 7j τείχη τῇ πατρίδι περιέβαλεν ἢ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἰδίων συνευπόρησε. The criticism against the cyclical liturgies was

already expressed by Demosthenes in the 350°s, Dem. 20.25-26.

20

Mika Hakkarainen

private wealth, the rewards could not be subject to the euthyna (Dem. 18.112) àv μέντοι Y ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας ἐπαγγειλάμενος δέδωκα τῷ δήμῳ, οὐδεμίαν ἡμέραν ὑπεύθενος εἶναί φημι. His argument clarifies the relationship between private contribution and public honours (Dem. 18.113): διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ὀρθῶς ἐπηνούμην ὅτι τἀνηλωμέν᾽ ἔδωκα. To defend his rewards he points out three similar examples,

and leaning on these

previous cases he considers that he is not under the euthyna for his honours.!?! The strategos Nausikles!?? was crowned several times for different, but unspecified, contributions to his office (Dem. 18.114 πρῶτον μὲν yap Ναυσικλῆς στρατηγῶν ap’ οἷς ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων προεῖτο, πολλάκις ἐστεφάνωται ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν). The following

examples were also strategoi, Diotimos!?3 and Charidemos, who had donated shields (Dem.

18.114

εἶθ᾽ ὅτε

τὰς

ἀσπίδας

Διότιμος

ἔδωκε

καὶ

πάλιν

Χαρίδημος,

ἐστεφανοῦντο). The third example was Neoptolemos, who had been in charge of many

unspecified duties and contributed to their functions (Dem. 18.114 εἶθ᾽ οὑτοσὶ Νεοπτόλεμος πολλῶν ἔργων ἐπιστάτης ὦν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐπέδωκε τετίμηται.). It is interesting to note that some of them were the same as those to whom Lycurgus had proposed decrees of honours. One was Neoptolemos, who was honoured by a golden crown and bronze statue at the initiative of Lycurgus because he had gilded the altar of

Apollo in the agora.'34 It seems that he had been generous in the public sector already before the Lycurgean era. À Diotimos was also mentioned as an honorand for unspecified

reasons by Lycurgus.!?? In the literary material of the late fourth century there 1s another case that illustrates the increasing dependency of the city-state on voluntary contributions in the offices. In the speech written by Hypereides in the 330's, Lycophron defends himself against the charges raised by Ariston and Lycurgus, when he was Aipparchos of Lemnos. He uses the normal rhetorical argument of trying to convince the jury by his liturgical

performances. He has been crowned by his knights and his fellow-officers.!?6 The novelty is that Lycophron pleads also an office holding, the hipparchia. After having been elected to that office, he held it first, exceptionally, for two years and prolonged

it

voluntarily for a third, because, as he put it, he did not want to burden the polis when it was running out of resources, paying himself the misthos of the knights.!?? He was also crowned twice by the local communities. The honorary decree from the year 279/8 by which Komeas of Lamptrai was rewarded for his activity as a hipparchos also in Lemnos, shows that Lycophron was not an exception in contributing to that office.!?8 The basic [31

Dem. 18.117 τούτων ἕκαστος, Αἰσχίνη, τῆς μὲν ἀρχῆς ἧς ἦρχεν ὑπεύθυνος ἦν, ἐφ᾽ οἷς δ᾽ ἐστεφανοῦτ᾽ οὐχ ὑπεύθυνος. οὐκοῦν οὐδ᾽ ἐγώ. ταὐτὰ γὰρ δίκαι᾽ ἐστί μοι περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν τοῖς ἄλλοις δῆπον. ἐπέδωκα. ἐπαινοῦμαι διὰ ταῦτα, οὐκ ὧν ὧν ἔδωκα ὑπεύθυνος.

132

On him there is also epigraphic evidence: IG IVIII2 1496. See also Kroll 1935, col. 2019-2020.

133

Diotimos was a wealthy citizen who figures often in the literary and epigraphic material from fourth century; see Davies 1971, 10652C.

134

X orar, 843F. See also Dem. 21.215.

135

X orat. 844A; IG II/III2 1496, 1]. 22-25 Diotimos'

136

Hyp. 1.16 ἱπποτροφῶν

δὲ διατετέλεκα

ὑπὲρ τῆν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ.

dedication of the wreath.

φιλοτίμως τὸν ἅπαντα

ἐστεφάνωμαι

the

δ᾽ ὑπό TE τῶν

χρύνον παρὰ

ἱππέων

πάντων

δύναμιν καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας

137

ἕνεκα, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν συναρχόντων. Hyp. 1.17-18 καὶ ἦρξα μὲν αὐτόθι δύ᾽ ἔτη τῶν πώποθ᾽ ἱππαρχηκότων μόνος. πρυσκατέμεινα δὲ αὐτόθι τὸν τρίτον ἐνιαυτόν, οὐ βουλόμενος πολίτας ἄνδρας ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν εἰσπράττειν τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ἀπόρως διακειμένους.

138

IG IU/TII2 672 Comeas was rewarded with

honours,

a golden

wreath,

a bronze

statue,

sitesis and

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

21

point in all these examples is that the persons were rewarded because of their private contributions in office.

As has been noted before!3? the litigants in court, except Lycophron, did not bring up their office holdings in their defence. The main reason for this, I think, was probably the fact that the private contribution in archai did not become general until the second half of the late fourth century, as Demosthenes speech De corona indicates. The increasing private contribution in archai can be followed through the epigraphic evidence from the 340's onwards: Kephisodoros of Hagnus had been rewarded for his office holding

(ἐπι[μελεῖσθαι τῶν κρηνῶν] in 346/5.149 Another superintendant of wells (ὁ ἐπὶ τὰς κρήνας), Pytheas of Alopeke, was holding the office in 333/2 when a proposition was made in the ekklesia for public honours, because Pytheas had run the office καλῶς φιλοτίμως and had constructed the new wells next to the temple of Ammon

καὶ

and another

one at Amphiaraion. For these reasons he was awarded public honours and was crowned

with a golden wreath after he had given an account of his office. The formulation of the decree, ἐπειδὴ Πυθέας αἱρεθεὶς ἐπὶ τὰς κρήνας τῶν τε ἄλλων τῶν ἐν τῆι ἀρχῆι ἐπιμελεῖται καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως,^! lets one understand that he was still in office when

the proposal

for his honours

was

made,

being thus a similar case to that of

Demosthenes, honoured while still in office before the euthyna. The decree ends with a

hortative formula which manifests the motive for honouring

and rewarding

private

citizens; the wish of the polis is that the future officials would also be philotimoi in their

office ὅπως ἂν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι οἱ ἀεὶ χειροτονούμενοι ἐπὶ τὰς κρῆνας φιλοτιμῶνται ἕκαστοι εἰς τὸν Sipov,'42 showing the need and desire of the polis for private contributions from office-holders. In the 340's the policy of philotimia showed itself mainly in three ways; first was the

direct contribution by private individuals, not only citizens!^? but also metics!44, to specific targets. Second was the epidoseis, the collective contributions for specific targets for which there were granted joint honours to participants. Individual honorary decrees in the third century also included mentions of epidoseis in which the honorand was a

participant.!45 Thirdly at the latest at the end of the fourth century the officials were supposed to contribute to the functions of the office when the public money allocated in merismos had run out or extraordinary costs had appeared during the performance of their duties. Philotimia in office can be followed rather well through the epigraphic material, which offers much evidence of it from the end of fourth century onwards. The contributions of Demosthenes and his generation belong to the first examples of the

gradual liturgisation of offices in the Athenian polis, which can be verified through the growing number of honorary decrees for officials in the third and second centuries. In proedria.

139 Thomas 1989, 111-112. 140

1G ΠΠῚΠ2 215. Unfortunately the decree is too fragmentary for more detailed information.

141 [G ΠΠῚ12 338, II. 11-13. 142

1G IVTIII2 338, N. 21-24. For the discussion concerning the length of Pytheas' office holding, see Develin 1984, 135-136 and Gauthier 1987, BE 242.

143

Neoptolemus for his gilding of the altar of Apollo; Deinias for his gift of a plot of land.

144

Eudemus of Plataea, IG III? 351 ἐπειδὴ [Εὔδημ]ος πρότερόν τε ἐπη[γ]γ[εἰλατο τ]ῶι δήμωι ἐπιδῶσειίν εἰἰς [τὸν π]όλεμον ei tf1] δείοι]ϊτο [χχχ]χ [δ]ραχμάς, καὶ νῦν [ex] ι[δέδ)]ω[κεν] εἰς τὴν ποίησιν τοῦ σταδ[ί)ου καὶ τοῦ θεάτρου τοῦ Παναθη[ναικοῦ χίλια ζεύγη. See also Will 1983, 87-88.

145

For example in the biographic decree of Phaedrus of Sphettus IG ΠΠῊ 2 682 καὶ γεγόνασιν

ἐν τῶι δήμωι

πασῶν

μετέσχηκεν.

ὕσαι ἐπιδόσεις

22

Mika Hakkarainen

order to illustrate this more clearly I have gathered below some examples from the basic sectors of the public sphere: festivals and religious sacrifices as well as war and defence. *

x

*

After the abolition of the choregia-liturgy, probably by Demetrius of Phalerum, the responsibility of arranging the agones in the festivals was taken from private choregoi and tribes, and a special agonothetes was appointed by the polis for this task. In principle the

polis paid the expenses (ὃ δῆμος ἐχορήγει) but, as suggested above, during the third century the resources in the public sphere did not suffice to cover the expenses and the agonothetes contributed from his own wealth. For this private generosity in the office they were rewarded by public honours, either immediately after having left the office and having given the euthyna, and/or later in so-called biographic honorary decrees where the honorand's entire activity for the good of the polis was enumerated. Philippides of Kephale was rewarded in 283/2 for his abundant services by an

honorary decree in which all his services for the polis were listed. One of his duties had been agonothetes for which he had volunteered and had spent from his own property for the sacrifices (IG II//III2 657, 11. 40-41 ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων τάς τε πατρίο[ίυς θυσία]ς ἔθυσεν τοῖς θεοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου), he had given the agones to the Athenians (ll. 42-43 ἔδωκεν πᾶσιν ᾿Αθηναίοις πάντας τοὺς [ἀγῶνας) and performed all the other duties including spending a lot of money for the office (ll. 45-47 ἐπεμελή]θη δὲ xoi τῶν ἄλλων ἀγώνων κα[ὶ θυσιῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεω]ς καὶ εἰς ταῦτα πάντα £x τῶ[ν ἰδίων ἀναλώσας πολλὰ χρ]ήματα) and had finally given an account of his expenditure as the law orders (ll. 47-48 τὰς εὐθύνας δέδωκεν κατὰ το[Ὁ]ς νόμους). In many ways as a characteristic case one may present Charias, an otherwise unknown Athenian, who

was rewarded in ca. 250 for his manifold services for the benefit of the

polis. The decree states first that already the forefathers of Charias had been φιλοτιμούμενοι towards the polis and lately he has performed all the duties the polis had

obliged him to do (SEG XXXIX 125, ll. 8-9 καὶ αὐτὸς Χαρίας εἰς ὅσ]ας ποτὲ ὁ δῆμος émiueAe[tag κατέστησεν αὐτὸν λελει]τούργηκεν φιλοτ[ίμως}). After this sentence follows an exact account of his activity: as agonothetes he had performed all the

duties of the office καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως; he had contributed from his own property to the agonothesia (ll. 18-19 τ]ην ἀγωνοθεσίαν ἐκ τῶν ἰδί[ων). In addition Charias was generous even to the public contribution for the defence of the countryside (ll. 19-20 καὶ

τῆς £mio00go[c γενημένης εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν

tn]; χώρας

ἐπέδωκεν). Charias had

also acted according to the administrative rules, i.e. made

an account of the public

resources used by him in his epimeleia (1l. 21-22 καὶ τῆς ἐπιμελε]ίας λόγον καὶ εὐθύ[νας ἔδωκεν). The exhortation formula further states the wish that the willingness of the polis to reward her benefactors would be manifest to all those who would like to be philotimoi; (1. 22-23) ὅπως ἂν οὖν καὶ toi] ἄλλοις τοῖς εἰς το [.][..........

sees

ἐφ]άμιλλον εἰ τὸ φιλοτ[ιμεῖσθαι εἰδόσιν ὅτι παρὰ τοῦ δήϊμου ἀξίας κομιοῦ[νται χάριτας. As charis he was granted general honours and the golden wreath.!49 The honorary decree of Euryklides, also a biographic one,!^? states that he had spent seven talents in performing the office of agonothetes from his own

property (IG IVIII

834, 11. 4-5; καὶ ἀγωνοθέτης ὑπακούσας ἀνήλω]σεν enta τάλαντα), and later let 146 M J. Osborne 1989, 234-236 has redated the decre and published a new version from the fragmentary stone, see also SEG XXXIX 147

125.

For the career of Euryklides, see Habicht 1982, 118-127.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

23

his son hold that office spending not a little money for it (ll. 5-7 καὶ παλὶν τὸν ὑὸν δοῦς [tig ταύτην] τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν xoi καλῶς τὴν ἀγωνοθεσ[ίαν ἐκτελέσας] προσανήλωσεν οὐκ ὀλίγα χρήματα). In the 140᾽5 Miltiades of Marathon, when the revenues reserved for the Panathenaic festivals were not sufficient, contributed from his own property while holding the office of agonothetes; "he spent very much beforehand from his own wealth so that the polis

would not lack anything of those things belonging to the agonothesia" (IG IVIII2 968, 11. 45-47 οὐκ ὀλίγα δὲ xoi ἐκ τῶν ἰδί[ων προαν]ῆλωσεν πρὸς τὸ μὴ [ἀποσ]τερῆσαι τὸν δῆμον μηθενὸς τῶν πρ[ὸς τὴν ἀγ]ωνοθεσίαν [ἀ]νηκό[ντων. Sometime in the middle of the second century a new agonothesia was created by the city-state in order to take care of the athletic program of the Theseia festivals.!148 In a similar manner as in the Panathenaic festivals the agonothetai of Theseia were honoured

for their activity for the good of the polis. There are eight extant honorary decrees to them in which the nature of their activity appears.!4? First they gave to the boule the kathesimon, a kind of attendance fee, and to the prytaneis an amount of money

for

sacrifices and further they raised the stele on which the names of the winners were

written. In two cases decrees state that καὶ ei; ταῦτα πάντα ἀπολογίζεται ἀνηλωκὼς ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ὑπὲρ τὰς (amount of drachmas).150 One of the most common type of honorary decrees from the Hellenistic period is the prytany-decree. The practice of granting rewards to resigning prytaneis began, according

to the epigraphic evidence, in the last years of the fourth century, soon after the overthrow of Demetrius of Phalerum in 307. The decrees refer always to a report of the prytaneis

(ὑπὲρ περὶ àv ἀπαγγέλλουσιν

οἱ πρυτάνεις ...), probably the euthyna, stating that

they have done the customary sacrifices before the meetings of the ekklesia. These sacrifices had always been the duty of the prytany but it was not, it seems, a reason for

honours and crown.!5! The way they had held the prytany was always expressed with the adverbs καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως, i.e. in the right way and acting so that it brought with it public gratitude and the motivation for that was specified by the formula εὐσεβείας ἕνεκα πρὸς τοῦς θεοὺς καὶ φιλοτιμίας τῆς πρὸς τὸν δῆμον. Because of the systematic and formulaic character of the decrees I would like to suggest that the sacrifices

which were supposed to be performed had become a kind of liturgy of the prytany. In the decree of the boule the honorands were officials, the treasurer and the secretary of the prytany, who were often the same persons who took care of the sacrifices and their

financing, contributing from their own wealth; (Agora 15 no. 85, Il. 12-15 καὶ ταμίας αἱρεθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς εἴς τε τὰς θυσίας toig ie[poig τὸν πόρον ἅπα]σιν μεμέρικεν τοῖς ἱεροποιοῖς, καὶ αὐτὸς συνεπιμε[μέ]λ[]τα[1] θ[υ]Ἱσιάζων πάσας τὰς θυσίας, ἔθυσεν Öle] καὶ ἐ[κ] τῶν ἰδίων καὶ πεφιλοτίμη[τ]αι εἰς τὴν βουλήν. Epimeletai were officials whose duty was to take care of performing cult sacrifices,

such as the epimeletai of the Eleusinian mysteries.!?? This duty is not known to have existed before the mid-fourth-century and thus it may belong to the reforms which were

148

Bugh 1990, 20-37; Theseia was a major festival already in the 330's and it. was celebrated annually; the agon represent a significant new festival.

149 The extant honorary decrees are IG IUTII2 956 (161/0), 957 (157/6), 958 (153/2) 959 (c.a.150), 961 (c.140), 963 (c.a.140).

150

1G IVIII2? 956, II. 17-18; IG III 958, Il. 16-17.

151

On the decrecs praising the prytaneis sec Meritt & Traill 1974, 4-6, 9-10.

152

The main source is Aristotle's Athenaion Politeia 54.1; for the latest research on the Mysteries, sec Clinton 1980, 258-288 and Rhodes 1981, 636-38.

24

Mika Hakkarainen

probably made during Eubulus' time. According to Athenaion Politeia there were four epimeletai in the 320's but later the number was reduced to two. The earliest decree of honour granted to them in the middle

ἀνηλώκασιν

of fourth

century

declares:

εἰς τὰς

θυσίας

ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φιλοτιμούμενοι.53 In the 320's the deme of Eleusis and

the citizens doing gerrison duty honoured Xenokles of Sphettos, who

was one of the

epimeletai, because Ξενοκλῆ[ς δὲ π]ερ[{] te τὸ ἱερὸν τοῖν θεοῖν [xoi] pvotnp[tov ἐπιμελητὴς χειρ[ο]τονηθείὶς εὐσ]εβῶς xoc[nxovoe?] καὶ φιλοτίμ[ω]ς τά ἐν τ[αῖς ἀρχα]ῖς ἔπραξεν (IG ΠΠΠ2 1191, Il. 10-15).154 During the third century, in addition to the sacrifices (IG II/III2 847, ll. 30-33 καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὅσα προσῆκεν

εἰς τὰς θυσίας ἀνηλώκασιν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φιλοτιμούμεν[οἱ] πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον), they further contributed by paying for the sacral wagon drawn by a yoke of oxen (IG II/III2 847 Il. 17-18 καὶ τὸ ζεῦγος παρεσκεύασαν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων εἰς τὴν κομιδὴν τῶν ἱερῶν).155 The expenses of the oxen seem usually to have been paid from public money; e.g. the epimeletai, according to a decree from the year 215/14, had been

allocated from the public revenues a sum of money for the expenses of wagon, but they had decided to return the sum

back

to the boule,

(IG

IVIII2

847,

ll.

18-20)

τὸ

δὲ

μερισθὲν αὐτοί!ς] eig τὴν τοῦ Cedyou τιμὴν ἐπέδωκαν tei Bo[v]Aci. In the military sphere the giving of honours seems to have been removed from the boule and the ekklesia at least partially to citizens doing the garrison duty. In 252/1

Thoukritos of Myrrinous was honoured by the citizens in Rhamnous (ἔδοξεν toig στρατευομένοις τῶν πολιτῶν ἐν 'Ρ[α]μνοῦντι) because he managed the fortress well and according to the decrees of the demos and had been always useful to it when he was asked for services. The motivation for the actual honours was that he had procured a corn supply for the fortress, paying for it himself (ll. 10-11; παρεσκεύασε δὲ κ[αὶ] σῖτον ἱκανὸν Tel φυλακεῖ πριάμενος ἐκ τῶν ἰδίω[ν]) and he had also paid for the construction of a gate-keeper's lodge and of some towers for the fortress of Rhamnous (1.

13 [κατ]εσκεύασε δὲ καὶ πυλώριον καὶ πύλας ἐκ τῶν ἰδ[ίων]).}56 After the year 211/10 citizens stationed in the garrisons of Eleusis, Panakton

and

Phylai (IG II/III2 1304, 1l. 1-2 ἔδοξεν ᾿Αθηναίων toic τεταγμέ[νοι]ς é[v 'EAev]otvi καὶ Πανάκτωι κ[αὶ] Φυλεῖ) honoured their commander Demainetos who had carried out several duties for which he had often been honoured by the demos.!5? He had been elected three times to strategos and for these duties he had expended a lot of money (ll. 36-37 καὶ εἰς ταῦτα οὐκ ὀλίγα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀναλίσκων).!}58 *

*

*

Charis, the abstract civic gratitude, was reified (or totally remodeled) during the second

half of the fourth century by the Athenian polis to attract the private contributions it 153 Clinton 1980, 272, dates it between 380-350. 154

He had also financed a stone bridge; yé[pupa]v

[AhO[i]vnv

κατασκευάζει

[παρ᾽ ξαυ]το [Ὁ]

χρήματα [προ]αναλίίσκων)], Il. 21-23. See also Ampolo 1979a.

155 See also IG IVIII2 807 and SEG XVIII 92. 156

Petrakou 1989, no.16 (894), 34-35 (SEG XLI 86).

157

(3.

2-4)

[erelıön

Δἰημ]αίνετος

διατελεῖ

εὔνους

ὧν

τῶι

δήμωι

καὶ

εἰς

löslas

αὐτὸν

Aleıltoupyias κεχειροτόνηκεν καλῶς καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐξῆχεν a 1. 10-12 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν αὐτὸν ὁ 5[nluog ἐπείνεσέν τε πλεονάκις καὶ ἐστεφάνωσεν χρυσῶι στεφάνωι, χάριν ἀξίαν ἀποδιδοὺς [τῶ]ν ε[ὑ]εργεσιῶν τῶν εἰς ξαυτόν. 158

He was awarded general honours, a golden crown and a bronze statue, and his honours were to be

declared in festivals.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

25

needed. The civic gratitude was shown in different ways, called usually δωρεά, of which the abstract "honour" (tui) and a wreath, mainly golden, were most common, but also with various privileges. The polis awarded them by a decree (ψήφισμα), either of the

ekklesia or the boule, but very often of both.!5? The honorary decree of Philippides of Kephale in 294 states as general motivation for this practice that ὅπως ἂν οὖν φανερὸν εἶ [x&ow, ὅτι ὁ δῆμος ἐπί)σταται χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τ[οῖς εὐεργέταις ἀξί]ας ὧν ἂν εὐεργετήσωσιν (IG ΠΛΙ2 657 1. 50-52). As charis Philippides was awarded honours, a golden wreath and megistai timai i.e. sitesis, a bronze statue and proedria. The

custom of rewarding citizens for their beneficial actions for the polis seems not to have become general until the 340's according to the epigraphic evidence.!99 Nevertheless in the literary evidence there are some scattered references demonstrating that it was not a completely unknown practice before 340's either, however exceptional, though it applied

usually only to the victorious strategoi, as the examples used by Demosthenes show (see p. 19-20). The model for the honorary decrees granted to citizens was the decree by

which the polis granted privileges to foreign benefactors (proxeniai, isoteleiai, rights to own land and permanent residence in Attica), a normal custom in the middle of the fourth

century.16! The function of these honorary decrees inside the polis-society is illustrated by Demosthenes' words in his speech contra Leptinem, "the stelai are covenants of all that you have received or granted" (Dem. 20.37) or "many of these benefactors are now dead, but their deeds survive, therefore it is fitting to allow these stelai to hold good for all the

time ... then when they are dead, the inscriptions will be a memorial of our character and

a paradigm to others of our benefactions in return" (Dem. 20.64),162 and finally pointing out Conon's honorary decree as "a token of his philotimia towards the city" (Dem. 20.69). This literary evidence on the reciprocal ways of thinking concerning the rewarding of benefactors, and then recording that procedure, is supported also by the hortative formulae of the honorary decrees, which began to figure in inscriptions also

during the 340's and continued to be present in the Hellenistic period: one of the earliest honours awarded to officers, in this case collectively, in which the motive for rewarding and for erecting the stele was expressed is the case of Philippides of Kephale above,

ὅπως ἂν [οὖν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἅπαν]τες εἰδῶσιν G(n] ὁ δῆμος καὶ à βουλὴ ἐπίσταται χάριτας ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς ἀεὶ λέγου[σιν καὶ πράττουσιν τὰ βέλτισ]τα ὑπὲρ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου (IG II/III2 223, 1. 12-14). Besides the abstract honours (timai) the crowned with a golden wreath. To crown a unknown even before the second half of passing a decree. In agonistic liturgies the

honorand citizen in the fourth victorious

was almost without exception also the Athenian civic tradition was not century but it was done without choregoi and gymnasiarchoi were

crowned by their phyle or demos.!65 Likewise, on the polis-level, in the first half of the fourth century, the custom of the boule of crowning the best prytany of the year was

established. Besides, the boule was supposed to equip a trireme during its office year, and if it performed this duty, it was crowned by the ekklesia.!6* Among the trierarchs a

159

Henry 1983, 1-7.

160 id. 1983, 23; IG IL/III2 223(343/2). 161 jq, 1983, 1-11, 22-24.

162 See also Dem. 20.35-36. 163 See IG IVIII? 1138-1171 (phyle) and IG II/III2 1172-1221 (demos). 164 See Dem. 22.8.

26

Mika Hakkarainen

competition was arranged and the one who first got his ship ready was to be crowned by the ekklesia. The main reason for these crownings was the honorand's successful

handling of his duty. On the polis-level, individuals who were crowned by decrees were foreigners, merchants, diplomats and even rulers, but also other city-states or foreign

collectives that had been in one way or another useful to the Athenian polis.!65 The earliest evidence of crowning citizens for their beneficiary deeds comes, to my knowledge, from Isocrates! Antidosis speech in the 350's in which he defended himself

against the charges that he had corrupted his pupils. He answered by bringing forward some pupils who had been crowned by the polis for their lavish expenditures for the good

of Athens.166 The crowning soon became an essential part of the honours granted by the polis to all, including

citizens,

and

after the year

332/1

there

is

no

honorary

decree

without

crowning.!67 The wreath was considered the embodiment of the granted honours.!68 The formula used in the honorary decrees took its final form quite soon as ἐπαινέσαι (name

of the honorand) xai στεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν κιττινοῦ) στεφάνωι.169 330's when Demosthenes was rewarded in that way It was also possible

χρυσῶι

(or sometimes

also 0aAAoQ0

/

Granting honours and crowning were in general use in the acted as an officer of the theorikon and as a teichopoios, and for his private contributions. to have the honours and the wreath declared during the

Panathenaic festivals. The custom was already known in the fifth century for foreign benefactors!70 but the declaration of crowns to citizens can not be verified until the very end of the century.!?! In the composition of the decree, the declaration was conveyed by the formula (IG II/III2 649, 1]. 29-31) ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον Διονυσίων τῶν ἐν ἄστει τραγωιδῶν τῶι ayavt.!72 The literary evidence is again slightly earlier, the crowns for Demosthenes were declared during Panathenaic festivals and it was one of the reasons Aeschines was accusing him. Aeschines" argument was that a law forbade the declaration

of decrees of the demos and boule elsewhere than in the ekklesia or in boule.!?? In spite of that, the custom of declaring the crown at festivals remained and figured occasionally in decrees during the Hellenistic period and was even enlarged to apply to other

festivals.!?4 Sitesis, a life-long privilege to dine in the Prytaneion, seems to have been one of the earliest distinctions in the polis society. It was the essential part of the so-called megistai

timai already in the fifth century in Athens.!?5 The granting of it was regulated by a law which specified those who could be rewarded by sitesis. They were the descendants of 165 Henry 1983, 22-23. 166

[soc. 15.93-94 τούτους ἄπαντας ἰδίων εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀνηλωκύτας.

167

Henry 1983, 23.

168

There was a custom in Athens to dedicate the granted wreath to the temple of Athena as e.g. the above mentioned honorands Diotimus, Charidemus, Nausikles and Neoptolemus did, IG IU/TII2 1496.

169 170 111 172

Henry 1983, 22-42. ibid. 28-33. 1G ΠΛῚ12 492, which dates to 303/2; Henry 1983, 28-29. Henry 1983, 32.

173

Aeschin. 3.32, 41-44.

174

Eg. SEG XXII 110 from the year 79/8 which states καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον Διονυσίων [τῶν μεγάϊλων τῶι καινῶ[ι ἀγῶνι] καὶ Παναθηναίων xai Ἐλευσινίων τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν.

175 Dem. 20.120.

f πόλις χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις

ἐστεφάνωσεν,

... πολλὰ

τῶν

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

27

Anstogiton and Harmodius and also victorious generals and those responsible for the

most important cults.176 The earliest examples according to the literary evidence are Kleon of Kydathenaea in 425/4 and Iphicrates of Rhamnous in 371/0.!77 The motives were enlarged during the second half of the fourth century, which obviously happened together with the larger modification of the rewarding systems. M.J. Osborne has dated this extension to sometime between 334—330, probably in connection

with the Lycurgean legislative policy.!?8 The new custom is recorded in a decree from the year 229/8; the motives for awarding sitesis being:

1) τρόπαια στήσαντες ἢ κατὰ γῆν ἢ κατὰ θάλατταν

2) τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἐπανορθώσαντες 3) τὴν ἰδίαν οὐσίαν εἰς τὴν κοινὴν σωτηρίαν θέντες

4) εὐεργέται καὶ σύμβουλοι ἀγαθοὶ yevönevoı.!79 The traditional motives of being either victorious strategoi or descendants of tyrant-

slayers were maintained but were expressed in a more abstract form, whereas the two other categories illustrate the expectation of financial support from private citizens by the polis, and the city-state's readiness to use even its greatest distinctions to attract the contributions of private citizens. As Demosthenes

had already stated in the 350's,

the

polis had, however, strictly restricted the reasons for granting megistai timai,180 and the epigraphic evidence supports that statement. There are only four examples of granting citizens sitesis.18! The first known example of that in the epigraphic material is the honorary decree to a Macedonian, Asandros,

in 314/13, probably relating to the actual

foreign policy at that time.!8? One of the megistai timai was a bronze statue in the Agora. The motives for granting it seem to have been similar to those of sitesis; tyrant-slayers Harmodius' and Aristogiton's

descendants,!85 victorious strategoi such as Conon in 391 and Iphicrates in 371.184 According to Demosthenes,

Conon

was

the first after the tyrant-slayers to receive a

bronze statue.185 Demades received it for his political activity and for his negotiations with Alexander the Great. Ás for the motives for Diphilos' rewards, we only know that it

was Demosthenes who proposed the honours.186 The epigraphic evidence begins, as in the case of sitesis, in the last years of the fourth century, the first one being the abovementioned Asandros. In his case the awarding formula states that the statue can be placed

anywhere in the agora except next to the statues of Harmodius and Aristogiton.!87 176

IG 12 77. See Thompson

1974, 325ff; Morrison 1978, 121ff.

17? There was also a custom to invite the foreign embassies (ξένια) and citizens having similar duties to a dinner (δεῖπνον) at the prytaneion, see Osborne 1981, 153-158 and Henry 1983, 262-275.

178 Osborne 1981a, 162-166. 79 1G ΠΠῚ12 832, Il. 13-16; Osborne 19812, 158.

180 Dem. 20.122-124. 181 1G IVTII2 513 (Osborne 1981b, 172/3.2) (the end of 4th c.); 649 (293/2 Philippus of Paiania); 682 (c.255/4 Phaedrus of Sphettus); SEG XXV 182

112 (196/5 Kephisodoros). Henry 1983, 275-276.

1G IVIII2 450, he was granted the so-called megalai timai i.e. the three greatest distinctions sitesis, proedria and a bronze statue in the Agora. On Asandros and his career, see Kaerst 1896, col. 15151516.

183 Dem. 20.70. 184 Dem. 23.130. I85 Dem. 20.20. 186 Din. 1.43, 101. 157

1G 11/1112 450 IN. 7-12 εἶναι δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ εἰκόνα στῆσαι ἑαυτοῦ χαλκῆν ἐφ᾽ ἵππου ἐν ἀγορᾶι

28

Mika Hakkarainen

Besides, the polis did not pay the costs of the statue; it began to do so only later when it

appointed a committee of three members to oversee the raising.!$8 The granting of a statue to a private person did not become a common reward; only 17 cases are known, of which 10 are foreigners!8? and 6 are citizens!?0 with one unidentified.!?! The first attested cases of citizens are the statue proposed by Demosthenes to Diphilos for unknown reasons and that by Lycurgus to Neoptolemos for his generosity in gilding the

statue of Apollo. The foreigners vanished from among the honorands after the 280's which may signify that granting them megistai timai was a temporary practice due to the prevailing political situation, and the reasons for granting statues were probably tightened afterwards. The custom did not become more common until the end of the second

century, when epheboi began to erect statues to their kosmetes.19? Proedria, an honorary seat in the theatre, was

the third of the megistai timai in the

Athenian rewarding system. As with the former ones, it was not very common either. There were two distinct categories for granting a proedria: first, it was concomitant with sitesis and the bronze statue; alternatively, it could be granted together with honours and a

wreath especially to officials in collectives,!93 sitonai!94 and taxiarchoil?5: [e]ivoi δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ προεδρίαν ἐμ πᾶσι τοῖς ay[G@]ow οἷς ἡ πόλις τίθησιν. The motive for this privilege was always philotimia.\?® +

*

*

The best way to stabilize the system, the policy of philotimia, and make sure of private contributions also in the future, was to bind them together by a law. This reciprocal

relationship between generous wealthy citizens and the rewarding polis seems to have been legally shows that a As has been honours and

ratified shortly after the 350's. The case concerning Demosthenes' honours law prescribing the Athenian rewarding system already existed in the 330's. earlier noted, according to Aeschines there was a law which ordered that the wreaths may be proclaimed only in the boule or ekklesia, not at festivals as

had been done in the case of the honours granted to Demosthenes.!?? In Demosthenes' response there is also a reference to it. He argues that the contribution made by him did

require charis and honours (ἢ δὲ δωρειὰ χάριτος καὶ émaivov δικαία ἐστὶ τυγχάνειν), ποῖ euthyna, based not only on the laws but also on the moral feelings of ὅπου ἂμ βούλεται &Ànv παρ᾽ ᾿Αρμόδιον καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτονα. Henry 1983, 295. See also IG IUIII2 646 1l. 37—40.

188 Τῆς first evidence of that is IG II/III2 646, from 295/6. 189 1G IINII2 450, 555, 646, 648, 653, 654, 844, 966, 983; SEG XXIV 135. 190 1G ΠΛῚ12 513, 649, 657, 682; SEG XXV 112, SEG XXVIII 60. 191

Henry 1983, 295. From these 17 grants of statues, three are equestrian statues, and all of these were erected for foreigners.

192

Henry 1983, 56, the earliest one seems to be SEG XIX

108 from the year 122/1.

193 ibid. 174-177; Osborne 1981, 172-174. According to SEG XIV 65 they had been φιλοτιμούμενοι καὶ στεφανῶσαι

αὐτῶν

ἕκαστον

χρυσῶι στεφάνωι

κατὰ

τὸν νόμον φιλοτιμίας ἕνεκα

τῆς

πρὸς τὸν δῆμον.

194 SEG XIV 65; IG ΠΠῚ12 792. 195 IG 111112 500; SEG XIV 64. 196

SEG XIV 65 the sitonai as φιλοτιμούμενοι towards the polis; IG II/7I2 500 IL 11-15 taxiarchoi ἐπιμελήθησαν τῆς te φυλακῆς τῶν τειχῶν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐξετασμοῖς πασιν διετέλεσαν ἐπιμελόμενοι καλῶς καὶ φιλοτίμως Ἡγούμενοι τῶν πολιτῶν.

1.7

Acschin.

3.45.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

29

Athens (ὅτι δ᾽ οὕτω ταῦτ᾽ οὐ μόνον τοῖς νόμοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ £v toig ὑμετέροις ἤθεσιν ὥρισται).! 98 In addition he claimed that the case was opposed to what Aeschines claimed, because the wreaths granted by the boule and the ekklesia may be declared in the theatre.199 Be that as it may, the basic information we can draw is that there was legislation, probably not unambiguous, concerning honouring, crowning and public declaration. The explicit evidence of the law seems to be the honorary decree to Xenokles

in 321/2020? which begins with the statement [ἐπει]δὴ ὁ [vó]u[og κ]ελεύε[ι] xp[ooγρ]άφειν ἐν [τῶι ψ]ηφίσίματι τὸν λα]μ[β]άνοντα 5[o]pekv ὅ[τι] e[oepyét]nkev τὴν πό[λι]ν.2901 As Demosthenes demanded in his speech contra Leptinem that rewards should be granted also during peace-time and also in cases other than military, and

because he did not mention any law conceming honours in that connection, I would like to suggest that the binding of the practice of rewarding citizens by law might have happened at the latest in the 340's. The law regulating the granting of sitesis could have

been a part of that process.202 The charges of Aeschines against Demosthenes indicate that a law connected the rewarding of officials with the successful passing of the official scrutiny, euthyna.29? The public accounting hindered the abusing of public resources. The

background

of this

scrutiny is not completely clear, but it already existed in the fifth century. It had two stages: first ten logistai inspected the use of public money in office20* and then the euthynoi made the final examination of possible complaints against retiring officials.205 M. Pierart has seen a change in this system dating to the period after the year 403/2, when the giving of an account of expended money was emphasised, whereas euthyna became a

pure formality.2°5 Into the honorary decrees of the late fourth century was added a formula declaring that the honorand cannot be rewarded until he gives the public account of his activity in the office (ἐπειδὰν λόγον xal εὐθύνας τῆς ἀρχῆς δῷ), but most often the formula was abbreviated ἐπειδὰν τὰς εὐθύνας δῷ, from which the term euthyna became general to mean the whole procedure. An example can be taken from the very end of the fourth century: a board of officials was awarded honours and gold crowns: "after having held the office righteously they have given the public account of their activities as the law orders" (IG IVIII2 488 (304/3) kai] στεφανῶσαι £xa[c]tov αὐτῶν χρυσ[ῶι στ]εφάνωι [κατ]ὸ [τ]ὸν [ν]όμον, ἐπειδὴ δι[καίω]ς ἄρξαντες [t]a[¢ εὐ]θύ[ν]ας δεδώκασ[ίιν κα]τὰ τὸν νόμον). The connecting of officials’ rewards with successful passing of the euthyna might have had in some relation with the legislation concerning the public rewards.

The public account of their activity might have been just the occasion where the officers who had been philotimoi in office made an account also of their private money 198 Dem. 18.113. 199 Dem. 18.120-121.

200 Ampolo 1979a, 167—178, dates it in 318/17. 201 10 II 1191. 202

Furthermore the epigraphic evidence shows that the gold content of the wreaths granted as rewards was prescribed by a law. It can not, however, be verified until the last years of the fourth century,

Henry 1983, 25-26.

203 Aeschin. 3.11-12, 32, 41-44. 204 Arist. Ath. Pol. 54.2. 205 ig. 48.3. 206

M. Pierart 1971, 572-573: "Désormais, l'accent est mis sur la vérification de la gestion financiére des magistrats et la procedure devant les euthynoi devient une pure formalité."

30

Mika Hakkarainen

spent. They would have then been entitled to request the public charis, rewards of their

generosity.207 The problems concerning the aitesis, the requesting of rewards,208 could have existed in some connection with a law regulating this reciprocal relationship, because without a clear legal connection between private contribution and public rewards that kind of aitesis could not have been possible. Kephisodoros' claim to megistai timai, i.e. sitesis, bronze statue and proedria in return for his services to Athens in 196/5 speaks in

favour of this interpretation: καὶ διὰ ταῦτα πάντα δίκαι[ον ἀποφαίνων ἑαυτὸν τυχεῖν τιμῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον, αἰ[τεῖται νῦν δοῦν]αι ξαυτοῦ τὸν δῆμον εἰκόνα χαλκῆν ἐν ἀγορᾶι καὶ [ἄλλην ἐμ Πειραιε]ῖ ἐν τῶι ἐμπορίωι καὶ σίτησιν ἑαυτῶι ἐν πρυ[τανείωι καὶ ἐγγόνων ἀ]εὶ τῶν πρεσβυτάτωι καὶ προεδρίαν ἐν πᾶσι [τοῖς

ἀγῶσιν οἷς ἣ πόλις τίθησιν (SEG XXV 112, Il. 31-36). *

*

*

The purpose of this paper was to make an outline of how the dependence of city-states on their wealthy citizens was discernible in Athens, of the ways in which private wealth was used in the public sphere of the Athenian city-state, and to see in that a direct connection with the financial structure of the polis. To survive in the new political situation of the fourth century which no longer maintained the economic profits that Athens was used to, she had to reform her financial administration, and create new ways

of finding revenues for the needs of the city-state. One of those was turning to the help of wealthy citizens. The concluding passage of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, probably from the Hellenistic period, treats different civil themes and one of them is revenues, especially how to acquire them. The solutions suggested by the text reflect, I think, the ways

adopted after the Second Social War: “The best thing is to derive funds from our own revenues or estates, second best from a tax on property, third by means of national contributions the poor furnishing bodily service, the artisans arms, and the rich money”

(transl. H. Rackham, LCL).299 This all began with the intensification of the older military levies, making them permanent and resorting more often to voluntary epidoseis. A change in the habits of a community needed also a change in the mental attitude of wealthy citizens. The policy of philotimia was an answer to that. It was a reciprocal system according to which beneficial activity of citizens towards the polis was met with gratitude manifested as decrees of honours, crowning and various privileges. The general political framework in the second half of the fourth century, especially after the ruinous campaigns against Macedonian aggression, and during the third century

did not improve the financial situation although there were from time to time, e.g. under Eubulus and Lycurgus, short periods of recovery. The basic problem, how to guarantee the acquisition of money for public needs, remained, and for this reason after Chaeronea financial and political power were finally concentrated in a single office, whose task was to care for the acquisition of revenues and their use in the public sphere, the merismos. Following this reformation two kinds of basic problems can be outlined. First, the shortage of revenues in general, or unforeseen expenses, produced occasions where the 207

Gauthier 1985,

117. The text of honorary decrees 10 the prytaneis begin almost without exception

with the formula: περὶ ὧν

ἀπαγγέλλουσιν

οἱ πρυτάνεις

τῆς

... ὑπὲρ

θυσίας

ng ἔθυσαν.

Similar formulae are used also in honorary decrees to the agonothetai.

208 Discussed by Gauthier 1985, 77-92. 209

Rh. AL 1446018-20 περὶ δὲ πόρου χρημάτων. κράτιστον μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν δίων προσόδων ἢ κτημάτων, δεύτερον δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τιμημάτων, τρίτον ὃὲ τῶν πενήτων τὰ σώματα παρεχόντων Aeitovyeiv, τῶν δὲ τεχνιτῶν ὅπλα, τῶν δὲ πλουσίων χρήματα.

Private Wealth in the Athenian Public Sphere

3l

polis had to resort more often to epidoseis for particular objectives, mainly military ones,

but later also tn the civil sphere, to finance public buildings. These were acquired mostly through collective contributions but individual contributions were not rare. Secondly, the shortage of public money and unforeseen expenses had a further effect on the office holders; in the merismos allocated money did not balance with the needs of an office, or the recreated central treasury could not disburse sufficient resources, or the unforeseen extra cost caused a situation where one possibility was that the holder of an office contributed from his own wealth to the functions of his office. This was the beginning of the gradual liturgisation of the Athenian offices. Sometimes this can be verified through

the epigraphic material as in the case of Miltiades in ca. 140. The decree (IG II/III2 968) belongs to those biographical ones describing the honorand's public activity over a long

period. The honorand had made sacrifices as a religious duty; while holding the office of sitonikon he had contributed to the acquisition of corn ἐπὶ το]ῖς σιτωνικοῖς -- — -[προσήνεγκεν οὐκ ὁλίγα χρήματα (ll. 36-37); he paid the expenses of an office ἀξίωί[ς τῆς χειροτ]ονίας πᾶσαν δαπάνηϊν — -- -- τῆς πρὸς [τὴν ἀρ]χὴν ἐκτενείας (11.42-45); he had been an agonothetes of the Panathenaic festivals and the decree states

that Miltiades did not hesitate to contribute from his own wealth when there were not

sufficient revenues for the festivals κ]αὶ τῶν μὲν ἀποτετα[γμένω]ν προσόδων μὴ συνεκποιουσῶν, ἐ[λλειπόντω]ν δὲ πλειόνων χρημ[άτων, σἸκῆψιν οὐδεμίαν ποιησάμενος, ἃ μὲ[ν προσήν]εγκεν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ [χρήματ]α ἄτοκα, οὐκ ὀλίγα δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἰδί[ων προαν]ήλωσαν πρὸς τὸ μὴ [ἀποστ]ερῆσαι τὸν δῆμον

μηθενὸς τῶν x[póg τὴν ἀ]γωνοθεσίαν [ἀ]νηκόν[των] (Il. 42-45). In order to guarantee the continuous willingness of private wealthy citizens and metics to contribute, to get enough wealthy people to perform the archai, the polis extended and

reformulated the practice of awarding honours. The large number of honorary decrees to holders of office and private citizens beginning from the second half of the fourth century and continuing in the third and second centuries is rather reliable evidence of this. For the private money spent for the benefit of the community, the city-state awarded different rewards, δωρεαΐ, public honours and a golden wreath, or the so-called megistai timai, as

a token of gratitude from the polis. Athens reorganized her charis, reified it, made it more visible than earlier. The abstract noun philotimia and its cognates can be understood only against that background, in the reciprocal system, as the hortative formulae in the honorary decrees show. The so-called biographical honorary decrees, the characteristic evidence of the phenomenon from the third and second centuries, give detailed pictures of the honorands' activities for the good of the polis and illustrate clearly the growing dependence of the Athenian polis on the very limited number of citizens who were supposed again and again

to accept the offices and to contribute from their own wealth to the administration of the office. One aspect of that process can be called the lirurgisation of the offices.2!0 It is found in its embryonic stage in the financial situation of the Athenian polis during the

latter half of the fourth century. The concept of λειτουργία and the verb Aevtovpyéo were extending their meaning and were connected more often with an office, arche, or public activity, epimeleia, in the honorary decrees of the third and second centuries. In c. 250 an honorary decree states that Charias "whenever the demos installed him in an

epimeleia αὐτὸν λελει]τούργηκεν φιλοτίμως .2} An example of that was his above 210

To my knowledge there is no specific research of the phenomenon, Gauthier 1985, 119.

21!

SEG XXXIX

only

some

observations,

125. On the dating, and identification of the honorand sce Osborne 1989, 234-236.

see

32

Mika Hakkarainen

mentioned agonothesia. In the biographical honorary decree of Phaedrus

of Sphettos,

after having described his activities, the decree states καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δὲ πάσας λειτουργίας λελειτούργηκεν φιλοτίμως.2}2 At the beginning of the second century the polis honoured Kephisodoros for his services with megalai timai. His political activity had lasted 30 years and, as in the case of Charias, the degree states that καὶ τὰς ἄλλας λειτουργίας ὑπομεμενηκῶς πάσας ἐφ᾽ ἃς αὐτὸν κατέστησεν ὁ Sijpoc.2!3 The strategos Demainetos (see p. 24) had performed well and with distinction all the liturgies he had been elected to and for this reason the polis rewarded him with honours and a

golden wreath: καὶ εἰς [ὅσ]ας αὐτὸν λ[ει]τουργίας κεχειροτόνηκεν καλῶς ἐνδόξως ἐξῆχεν — — -- ἄνθ᾽ ὧν αὐτὸν ὁ δῆ[μ]ος ἐπείνησέν τε πλεονάκις

καὶ καὶ

ἐστεφάνωσεν χρσῶι στεφάνωι, χάριν ἀξίαν ἀποδιδοὺς [τῶ]ν ε[ὑ]εργεσιῶν τῶν εἰς exvtov.2!4 In 173,2 the demos honoured a priest in the Asclepieion who had undertaken the priesthood and performed that year's first sacrifices ὑπομείνας] τὴν Ae[t]tov[p}yiav tà [εἰσιτήρια ἔθυσεν τῶι] [᾿Ασκληπιῶι καὶ tei ‘Yyreiar] καλῶς xoi εὐσεβῶς.215 The term λειτουργία and the verb λειτουργέω also came to refer to all public service in which the holders were expected, at least partially, to pay the costs of the office. Liturgy was identified with the arche and epimeleia. The honorary decree for Sosandros

of Sypalettus gives a clear picture of the activity of this liturgical class in Hellenistic Athens. He had been elected to a religious office and καὶ ἀξίως [τῆς ἐγϊκεχειρισμ[ένη]ς πίστεως ἑαυτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ δῆμου καὶ τάλλα πάντα ἔπραξεν δωρεὰν προσκαρτερήσας ἔτη πλείονα: καὶ ἐν ταῖς δὲ λοιπαῖς λειτουργίαις ἁπάσαις ταῖς τε πρὸς τὴν ἐπικόσμησιν τῶν γυμνασίων τε καὶ ἱερῶν ἐπιδίδωσιν ἑαυτὸν ἀπροφασίστως σπουδῆς καὶ φιλοτιμίας οὐθὲν ἐλλείπων .21:6

212 213 214 215 216

1G ΠΠ|12 682. SEG XXXIX 148. 1G 111112 304. SEG XVIII 21 (1G IVIII2 996). 1G 11/1112 1023.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers and Philosophical Schools at the Beginning of the Hellenistic Age* Tua Korhonen

1. Introduction 1.1. To harness a unicorn: a methodological preface The question of what kind of role, position or status, the so-called philosophical schools and individual philosophers of Hellenistic Athens had, is linked to the more general question of how social history of intellectual movements should be approached.

C. Habicht's article ‘Hellenistic Athens and Her Philosophers’,! for example, is a good introduction to those social and political tasks and honours which were dealt with by men

who had received an education in φιλοσοφία during the Hellenistic period. Despite its brevity (16 pages) it cites most of those references in ancient material which are relevant

to a study of the social and political roles of Hellenistic philosophers. The scarcity of material, however, cautions us not to paint a picture with too bold strokes, such as, 'the philosophers, the pride of Athens, served on embassies, as counsellors to monarch s and were generally held in high esteem by their contemporaries’. We may question whether

I would like to thank Prof. Nikolaos Chronis, Prof. Rolf Westman and Dr. Arja Karivieri for fruitful discussions on the early stages of this article in Athens, and my warmest thanks go to Ms. Pauliina Remes and Ms. Tiina Purola who read the manuscript and provided fruitful discussions as well. I wish also to thank Ms. Margat Stout Whiting and Ms. Brenda Conrad for the revision and proof-

reading of my text. C. Habicht’s article was first published in 1988 and a slightly modified version came out in 1994.

Habicht 1994, 231-247. See also Habicht 1995, 111-116.

34

Tua Korhonen

these honoured tasks were granted to philosophers at the beginning of the Hellenistic age because of their φιλοσοφία, and the prestige attached to it, or if the reason lay elsewhere,

in the personal character of the philosophers, their relationships with the monarchs, their importance not as philosophers but as persons of influence in their society in general. Besides, the most remarkable philosophers seldom present themselves in the fragmentary

primary material which has survived.? Thus, we have, on the one hand, the secondary material of later writers,

for example the writings of Cicero, Philodemus,

Plutarch,

Diogenes Laertius and Athenaeus, where the public role or even esteem for Hellenistic philosophers is self-evident. On the other hand, this esteem is mostly absent in the primary material, or the evidence for esteem (e.g. official honours) is scanty. Leaving aside the general problems concerning the not necessarily imply that the philosophers their societies, but that the esteem was not The status of individual philosophers

survival of ancient primary material, this does had a low or invisible status (as outsider s) in manifest at an official level. is difficult to envisage, but it is even more

difficult to sketch the position (for example, the juridical status) of the philosophical schools, or of the phenomenon named φιλοσοφία in its own society as a whole. The method used by ancient historiographers and writers to ‘make history’ was to concentrate

on the influence of individuals. This is evident also in the historiography of ancient philosophy. In addition to the biographical and the doxographical tradition, the historiography of the philosophical schools in the form of the succession of the philosophers (διαδοχαΐ) lay stress on the individual, not on the institution or the φιλοσοφία as whole.) Besides, as e.g. M.M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet have pointed out, there was no autonomous ‘social’ category for the Greeks^ — the social history of the

Greek intellectuals merges into political history, biographies and so on. The relativity of our sources is also underlined by the point of the high culture: as literary persons themselves, the later writers may overemphasize the influence of the intellectuals upon society.

Moreover, it is difficult to envisage the interplay between the socio-historical material and the history of ideas. The intellectual's role seen as a critical observer of his culture,

his re-evaluation of contemporary values and/or his role as a creator of new ones makes the outlining of the relationship between the socio-historical constellation and the ‘ideology’ of intellectual movement more problematic than more conformist activities in the society. The philosophical activity seen as ‘transcendental’ (e.g. the valuing, modelling and creating of moral values) does not mean that a philosopher is acting in an asocial or ahistorical vacuum, being detached from the values of contemporary society. Transcendental activity can be viewed as an attempt to step farther in order to see the whole object.9 This ‘stepping farther’ can be explained, however, as a transgression on

2

Inscriptions or papyrı which deal with philosophers' social roles. For this, see Crónert 1957 and Habicht 1994.

3

For the historiography of philosophy in antiquity, see Mejer 1978, 61ff. and Mansfeld

^

Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1977, 20.

>

See S. Humphreys’ account of the transcendence and the roles Aristotle in Humphreys 1978, 209-241.

6

Τῆς emphasis ts on the word 'attempt': the endeavour of an intellectual is seen here as apart from the possibility or impossibility of this endeavour. One example is Aristotle, who could contribute to the most comprehensive description and theory of polis, although and because he himself had most of his life the status of a metic. This role of intellectual/philosopher (as an opportunity to act as an Observer of one's culture) is, of course, sharply put under question by the 20th century deconstructers

of intellectuals

1906, Tod

1990, 349ff.

from

Homer

to

Self-

Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

35

the part of society, and thus the intellectual’s role manifests itself in marginality, as a deviant way of life, and may be in conflict with the surrounding society. The intellectual's choices are credited with prestige only after the new insights (which, at first, as most of

the new creative entities, are neglected) are absorbed in to the totality of culture. We can separate the social factors of the phenomenon of ancient philosophical movement (e.g. the agents, the institutions), but their crucial activity was not the visible, but the cognitive,

which

is reflected in their philosophical

systems

and represented in their texts. The

concentration on the purely social factors (on the praxis of the philosophers/philosophical schools — whatever it was — and on the social activities of philosophers as members of their community, polis) more or less ignore the most important activity of philosophers: the making of φιλοσοφία — whatever it might have been. The social explanations for the phenomenon philosophy φιλοσοφία transforms the very concept of philosophy as philosophers understand it. It is like trying to harness a unicorn: as seen from the mere

pragmatist point of view it is no longer a unicorn -- but a horse, a beast of burden. One solution of this problem, I think, is to try to sketch the self-concept of philosophers (i.e. the unicorn as a unicorn) and the public opinion about philosophers (i.e. the horse)

separately. By the first, the self-concept of philosophers, I mean in this article their opinion of themselves, which includes ideas on their role as philosophers and the role and functions of philosophy in general and also answers to the question ‘what is φιλοσοφίαγ᾽

It implies also the concept of social identity as the members of their society and of the group to which they are committed. An individual's or group's self-concept is clarified by

comparison to other individuals and groups. It is outlined from the reports of philosophers themselves of themselves. The second, the public opinion or the public image of philosophers or philosophical schools, I define here freely as including both the concepts of ‘status’ and ‘position’, and the degrees of esteem/non-esteem concerning philosophers and philosophy. The public image is possible to discern from variable and

different kinds of sources: discourses, practices, honours as well as persecutions by nonphilosophers. The self-concept and public image touch each other in the concept of the role or social

role.

By

role I mean

in this article a condensation

of expectations,

both

the

expectations of oneself by oneself and the expectations of others. It may be argued that

the former is mainly formed by the latter, but the relation is a reciprocal one. The justificauon of the philosophers' role means answering the question of how they should of ‘metaphysics’: M.

Heidegger, L. Wittgenstein

in his late period, R.

Rorty

and the

post-

structuralist school. The metaphilosophical and self-reflective features of ancient philosophy are evident, but the texts of ancient philosophers show more confidence in philosophy as a 'mirror of nature' than the philosophy of the 20th century. The epistemological problems as such do not necessarily make explicit the problem of the justification of philosophy as an overseer of theories of representations. 7

[nher inspiring article about the images of philosophical life in the early Hellenistic age F. Decleva

Caizzi 1993, 305 defines the image of a philosopher as including both "the way the person intends to show himself to other people ... and the way he is viewed by others". By 'the others' Decleva Caizzi means non-philosophers and the other philosophers as well. My two concepts are not merely the two aspects of Decleva Caizzi's concept of image. First, ‘the self-concept’ docs not necessary include the notion of self-conscious showing, the choice of the aspects of one's role which one wants to display to others. Secondly, the ‘public image’, as used in this article, includes mainly the ideas and concepts which the aon-philosophers have of philosophers and which are manifest in the position/status of philosopher/philosophy. - The concept of image is an interesting new approach to the social history of philosophy and the displaying, consciously showing one's image, has a special function in the process of justification of one's role.

36

Tua Korhonen

act in order that they are identified and recognized as philosophers. One has to adapt the expectations of others to the expectations of oneself in regard to oneself — and vice versa: the expectations of non-philosophers regarding the philosopher's role have to adapt to the

changing self-expectations of philosophers.

If these expectations differ greatly, the

identification and recognition fails to happen. A philosopher in the role, for example, of

ambassador, can be still identified as a philosopher by non-philosophers, if this suits the expectations concerning the philosopher's role. From the point of view of modem sociology it is a question about different roles: a philosopher in the role of ambassador

acts in a different way than a philosopher as a 'philosopher'. In modern society the moving from one role to another (role-taking or role-playing) is only slightly sanctioned.

A person can adopt different public and private roles without losing his credibility — within certain limitations, of course. In Greek and Roman Antiquity (or in some periods or at certain philosophical schools), however, the choosing of the role of the philosopher, the philosophical allegiance, meant also that one committed oneself to certain strict roleexpectations, which could mean certain limitations with regard to participation in public

life or aspiration to political power. Thus,

our own

modem

expectations

concerning

the

roles

of

philosophers

(or

intellectuals in general) may differ greatly from the identifications and expectations of the philosophers’ public in Hellenistic Athens. For example, some persons, who had merely attended a philosophical school for some years, were characterized in our secondary material as members of the school, i.e. philosophers, although they had mainly done other things in their life than creative philosophical thinking (or at least we have no evidence of it) - e.g. Demetrius of Phalerum and Perseus. Furthermore, the associations around the term φιλόσοφος certainly fluctuated in the different periods of Antiquity. We may ask what were the contemporary attitudes to this term at the beginning of Hellenistic times when we have mainly the texts of later writers. One exception is biographies of

Antigonus of Carystus who lived in the second half of the third century B.C. and spent some

time in Athens.

However,

His

biographies

are lost,

but they

are cited by

later writers.?

one need only to take a look at the biographies of Plato and Anstotle in

Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophers to convince oneself that biographies were a genre with its own established topoi, which makes it difficult to use them as sole

evidence for socio-historical arguments.10

Epictetus, for example, writes in his Enchiridion (29): "Do you suppose that you [after choosing philosophy] can eat in the same fashion, drink in the same fashion, give way to impulse and to irritation, just as you do now? You must keep vigils, work hard, abandon your own people, be despised by a paltry slave, be laughed to scorn by those who meet you, in everything get the worst of it, in honour, in office, in court, in every paltry affair." Translated by W. A. Oldfather in LCL 1959, 509. Antigonus wrote the biographies of Pyrrho, Timo, Menedemus, the Academics (Polemo, Crates, Crantor, Arcesilaus), Lyco, the Stoics (Zeno, Dionysius of Heraclea). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 26-129 and Gaiser 1988, 23, 129. F. Decleva Caizzi 1993, 305 points out that for the study of images, the biographical material is more reliable than one may think. It has a conservative tendency, so that, for example Pyrrho's extravagant behaviour in his biography was preserved, although it must have heen very disturbing for later Pyrrhonists. Besides, biographies present the typical features and "how à philosopher wants other men to sec him". The biographies which originated from Antigonus of Carystus can be quite rcliable concerning the philosopher's image because if he had said anything which was totally untrue it would have been opposed by his contemporary readers. — However, this concerns only the philosophers of his own time ic. the end of third century B.C.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

37

1.2. The Hellenistic philosophers: writers, teachers, rethinkers

of earlier philosophy

The influence of a philosopher's activities on the surrounding society is dependent on the public image of the philosopher. Nowadays the role and status included in the public image of philosophers is justified by the prestige of institutions (e.g. universities). If the public image of philosophers and philosophy in Antiquity entailed a similar kind of firm position of academic prestige it was only in the Roman Imperial period.!! A more or less

recognized danger is that we — because of our sources — interpret and emphasize especially the Hellenistic φιλοσοφία through the intellectual atmosphere and flavour of the Roman Empire.!? This intellectual flavour can be sensed, for example, in the way the writer aims his texts at a particular group. The audience of Plutarch and Cicero was certainly not so philosophically selective as Chrysippus' or even Theophrastus'. During

the Hellenistic period philosophers wrote (and discussed) their φιλοσοφία especially with each other — for the members of their own schools? or for the colleagues at rival schools. Thus it is a question about the so-called restricted code, when understanding of the context of the text/speech makes excessive verbal explanations unnecessary. At the same

time, however, the so-called elaborate code is needed as an accepted style which is expected in these particular contexts.!^ The philosophical language was presupposed, if the message was to be understood, both by the author (as being able to use it) and by the reader/listener (as being able to understand it).!5 However, the elaborate code was also necessary when a Hellenistic philosopher aimed his writings at a larger public than his pupils and colleagues (exoteric/esoteric texts): his audience would be more heterogeneous than in the days of the Classical polis. By means of stylistic devices, a writer can contribute to the acceptance of his message. But the information, the message, is not transmitted only through speech/text: the philosopher's public image in his community also fashions the context, the significance, the reception of the information he gives.

In the Hellenistic age the teaching practice obviously also had an effect on the writings — as well as the public delivering of them. Theophrastus complains that young men as a Il

Of course, we interpret unavoidably the concept signified by the term φιλοσοφία in Athens anachronistically through our own contemporary concept of philosophy. In this article by using now

and then the very term, φιλοσοφία, I try to bear in mind that the ancient φιλοσοφία had quite different associations and implications to ancient Greek or Roman readers/listeners than our ‘philosophy’ to us. For the concept of philosophy in antiquity, see Chroust 1947, Chronis 1988, Jordan 1990.

12

This is due to the difficulties between paraphrase or referat and direct quotation, and the problem of what is the beginning and end of the quotation. About the different kinds of sources for Hellenistic philosophy: see Long 1974, 18-19 (the Epicureans); 116-117 (the Stoics). For Scepticism, see Schofield & Burnyeat & Barnes 1980, 309-10. The scope of sources: see Long & Sedley 1987 (1) Index of sources, 492-500. See also Steinmetz 1994, 497—499 (Stoicism). See,

for example,

the discussion

of the technical

language

of Epicurus:

Chrysippus wrote a defence of the technical language of Zeno: Ζήνωνα toig ὀνόμασιν (D.L. 7.122; see also Cic. Acad. philosophical writings of the Presocratics, see Thesleff 1990.

2.16).

Clay

1973,

Περὶ τοῦ κυρίως For

the esoteric

252-254.

κεχρῆσθαι tendency

of

Humphreys 1978, 266-67 - the distinction between these two codes was originally made by Basil Bernstein. 15

One of the corner-stones of anti-Platonic tradition was to attack the style of Plato's dialogues: they

were considered aphilosophical. Düring 1941, 142-143 and Dicaearchus fr. 42 Wehrli; see also the chapter 'Die Polemik gegen Platon (2-11)' in Dórrie 1990.

38

Tua Korhonen

public will not tolerate it if one ignores criticism or avoids improvement of one's texts.

Public readings meant that one's work had to be revised and remoulded.!9 It may be also that the attitude to the written word was in a state of change: writing was not only a medium for transmitting thoughts, but also something an sich.!? D. Sedley claims that the coherence and continuity of most philosophical movement was generated by a loyalty, fidelity and commitment to the writings of the movement.!8 Even Philemo, a comic poet, eulogizes letters not only as an aid to memory but also as the physician of the soul.!?

Perhaps language itself was not seen as a transparent, obedient servant to proclaim one's thoughts: “Every word is naturally ambiguous, since the same word can be taken in two

or more senses", writes Chrysippus (SVF 2.152).20 In the Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus begins with methodological procedure, by advising the reader to try to understand 'the things that underlie words’ so that the terms which he uses may not be empty of meaning

(37).2! As the interest in the habits and societies of ‘barbarians’ in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. may have caused the discussion concerning the physis-nomos -distinction

— or at least have been the fund of arguments?? — so, in the same way, during the 3rd century B.C. the interest of the Stoics in language and the methodological Scepticism of the New Academy could have followed from understanding the range of varieties of

linguistic usages in different language s. Most of the philosophers and students of philosophy in Athens during the Hellenistic period did not even come from Greece and the Aegean islands.2? 16

DL. 5.37: ai δ' ἀναγνώσεις ποιοῦσιν ἐκανορθώσεις letter to a certain Phanias the Peripatetic.

— Diogenes quotes from Theophrastus’

17

For example, Epicurus filed copies of his work in Metroon, the State records office of Athens (see Clay 1982, 17-26). In the testaments of philosophers (transmitted by Diogenes Laertius) it is usual that the testator mentions the books of the school separately, Gottschalk 1972, 319 - about testaments in general see Gottschalk 1972 and Clay 1973. However, the critical attitude to the written word revived in the Academy during Arcesilaus’ headship and survived through Antiquity

especially in Platonism but not, of course, confined only to it. The choice between written and spoken transmission of doctrines (or between βίος and βίβλος) is noticed also by ancient biographers, see e.g. D.L. 1.16. 18

Sedley

1989,

philosophical

100-101.

The other aspect, which is combined

with

schools,

is the commitment

the

of members

to

the role of scriptures in the

founder

of the

school.

This

commitment also had religious features in some schools (e.g. the hero-cults of the founders in the Garden and in the Academy). Sedley 1989, 119 note 51. 19

PCG vol. 7. (Philemo) fr. 10 ( = Stob.

᾿Απόλλων7

or

Flor.

81.9).

The name

of the play is uncertain (PCG:

Ὁ ἄπολις). Diodorus Siculus reports that this phrase, ψυχῆς ἰατρός, had been

inscribed on the library of Memphis (1.49.3). Philosophy itself was seen as ‘therapeutic’ in many philosophical schools in Antiquity and the doctor of the soul was especially the role of an Epicurean philosopher. 20

Translation by Long 1974, 135.

21

Or "may not be empty of reference" (κενοὺς φθόγγους ἔχωμεν). Glidden 1983, 188. My point in presenting this passage is only to underline the importance of language also in the φιλοσοφία of Epicurus, not to discuss if Epicurus made a difference between ‘reference’ or ‘meaning’ in. the Fregean sense. It is noteworthy, I think, that Epicurus found it necessary to start his summary of his theory of 'physics', with a methodological and semantical note. For the function of language in Epicurus' philosophy, see Sedley 1976, 146ff.

22

Lloyd 1979, 238. For the origins of this debate, see Guthrie 1965, 16-17; 58-60.

23

Habicht 1994, 233. The native tongue of Zeno was probably Phoenician, Chryssippus knew Aramaic. Steinmetz 1994, 519, 585; SVF 2.24, 894. Theophrastus could read Aramaic (D.L. 5.50). For this, see Momigliano 1975, 9. If the native language was not Greek and Greek was learnt, the

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

39

The subject-matter of instruction in the philosophical schools may cause one to reconsider the meaning of the terms φιλοσοφία and φιλόσοφος in Athens at the beginning of the Hellenisüc age. The philosophers taught subjects which overlapped skills which other intellectuals in Hellenistic society claimed to possess. Thus the field of

intellectuals — the philosophers, the sophists, the teachers of rhetoric and the orators,?4 and especially in the Hellenistic age the representatives of the new sciences — may have competed for the same audience (and thus for the same sources of livelihood?).25 In this

competition, the philosophers should have had some tools to make a difference between themselves and other intellectuals. Already Plato and Aristotle had renewed the teaching practice by mixing the teaching methods of the sophists and the social intercourse of the ‘old education’. Were philosophers still identified with sophists as. they were during the Classical period? During the 4th century B.C. the history of philosophy was born. Plato and Aristotle and their schools began to collect and canonize the previous thinkers chronologically which gave φιλοσοφία an identity in the form of a history.26 It was also an important part of the philosophy of Zeno /Chrysippus and Epicurus to make fresh evaluations of the figures of the remote past and of their doctrines — and also to criticize the work of Plato

and Aristotle.2? Besides, it should be remembered that the Presocratics did not stimulate person was perhaps more inclined to understand that other conceptual schemes could exist than the Greek language i.e. the structure of the Greek language - the language of φιλοσοφία — was not seen as the only structure of reality. The linguistic horizon was perhaps broadened along with the geographical one. 24

R.R.R.

Smith suggests in his iconographical analysis of Hellenistic portraits of philosophers and

kings that already in the 4th century B.C. there was a major separation of public roles which is reflected in the portraits of the period: philosopher, orator and general. The latter two are presented as neater in their hairstyles and they have more well-kept beards and a more dynamic posture. Although all three types are presented as mature in years, the emphasis of the portraits of philosophers is on aging, mortal character. The portraits of kings, on the contrary, propagate a youthful, divinized image. They are presented clean shaven and naked. Smith 1993, 202ff. — see also Zanker 1995, 131. The crucial point of Smith’s article is to make explicit the contrast between the portraits of kings

and 'city intellectuals'. More detailed analysis is needed concerning the difference e.g. between the portraits of orators and philosophers. For example, the portraits of Aristotle and Theophrastus, in my opinion, bear a strong likeness to the portraits of orators. - The statues of the philosophers can be seen as a reflection of their self-concept or public image, depending on whether they were set up

by the schools themselves or by the public euergesia-practice (see M. Hakkarainen's article in this publication, e.g. 27-28). Of course, it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion from the preserved Roman copies of the portraits whether the original ones were set up by the public or by

the schools themselves. The secondary material reports that some philosophers were honoured with public statues: Zeno, in Athens (D.L. 7.6); Epicurus, in Samos? (D.L. 10.9); Chrysippus in the Ptolemaeum, the gymnasium presented by Ptolemy Euergetes (Paus. 1.17.3); see also Smith 202 note 3.

1993,

25

Conflicts between philosophers and scientists were, however, rare. One example is Cleanthes's disapproval of Aristarchus' heliocentric model: it was blasphemy (ἀσέβεια), because it tried to move the holy centre of the universe (Plut. De fac. 923a = SVF 1.500). Cleanthes’ arguments are based on a Stoic worldview, but the motives are religious. — About the discovery of the nervous system by physiologists and its amazingly small reflection in the theories of the Stoics and the Epicureans, see F. Solmsen 1961, 202-279.

26

However, their work was based on the preliminary doxography of the sophists (Gorgias, Hippias and others). Mansfeld

27

1990, 22ff.

For example, the Epicurean Colotes wrote criticism against Plato’s Euthydemus, Lysis and the myths of the Republic (sce Crönert 1906, 5-12 and Westman 1955, 31-38) and also the work named

40

Tua Korhonen

only philosophers, but also the new physiologists.28 The self-concept of philosophers as philosophers at the beginning of Hellenistic times had a strong background in the work of

Plato and Aristotle. It is often possible to explain the change in philosophical thinking as a reactionary movement, as an ‘antithesis’ to the previous thinkers. In its Hegelian meaning, philosophy has a development of its own, a heredity of its own and philosophy is self-referential and introverted. But what kinds of philosophical questions seem relevant and what kinds of new concepts and doctrines become fashionable can partly be

explained by the influence of historical events and the interaction of philosophy with society.

The purpose of this article is to question the status/position of philosophers and philosophical schools at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. I shall begin with a case study by enumerating all those cases at the beginning of the Hellenistic period in which philosophers acted as delegates on embassies. The chapter serves as an introduction to the

sources on the social roles?? of the philosophers — their reliability and scope. Thus, chapter two represents the more or less traditional approach to the social history of philosophy with a concentration on one social role. In chapter three the self-concept of philosophers including their ideas on the way of life which is suitable for a philosopher is

outlined with the main points. Their opinion of non-philosophers is also a theme of this chapter. Thus, it represents more or less the traditional approach of the history of ideas. In chapter four I shall return to the social level, but taking into consideration the self-

concept of the philosophers. I shall make an attempt to formulate the contemporary society's view of the public image of philosophers and philosophical schools in Hellenistic Athens by analysing two well-known, but not thoroughly studied examples:

the proposal of Sophokles of Sounion and the character of the philosopher in New Comedy. In the epilogue, I shall outline, briefly, whether these two aspects, the selfconcept and the public image of philosophers, formed a functional whole in Athens at the beginning of Hellenistic period.

2. Philosophers as ambassadors As a case in point I take first the famous embassy from the 2nd century B.C.

In 155

the Athenians sent a delegation to Rome to negotiate a fine of 500 talents, which had been claimed by Oropus in compensation for the occupying and sacking of their city by Athens. The primus inter pares of the embassy was the head of the Academy, Carneades of Cyrene and the other envoys were the head of the Peripatetic school, Critolaus of

Phaselis, and the head of the Stoa, Diogenes of Babylon.3® In the Senate, the speeches Περὶ τοῦ ot1 κατὰ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων φιλοσόφων δόγματα οὐδὲ ζῆν ἔστιν (apud Plut. Adv. Col.) in which he criticizes other philosophers, too. Westman

1955.

28

Gould 1970, 38.

29

About sources in regard to political roles see Vatai 1984, 12-29. Scc also Mejer 1978 and Mejer, J. 1981. Demetrius of Magnesia: On Poets and Authors of the Same Name. Cambridge.

30

Main evidence of this delegation: Polybius 33.2 in Gell. NA 6.14.10; Cic. Acad. Pr. 2.137; Plut. Cat. Mai. 22 (Plutarch does not mention Critolaus); Gell. NA 6.14.8-10; Lactant, Div. Inst. 5.14.3-5. For further evidence, see Metie 1985, 66-70. — Pausanias (7.11.4-7) docs not mention this mission, although he tells of the quarrel between Athens and Oropus: the fine was diminished

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

41

of the philosophers were translated into Latin by a senator and the philosophers also delivered other speeches in public — apparently in Greek.?! Greek culture, epic, tragedy and historiography had won Romans to their side already from the middle of the 3rd

century B.C.32 The speeches of the philosophers were generally admired and the reception was positive. This success was notable also because only a short time before a decree had been proposed in the Senate that suggested the banishment of philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome.?? Only Cato insisted on the return of the delegation. According to Plutarch, Cato made a speech in the Senate to warn Romans of the persuasiveness of philosophers. Cato feared that these Athenians could teach the young men of Rome to love more the honour gained by eloquence than the one gained by martial deeds (Cat. Mai. 22). Lactantius criticizes slightly Carneades' way of arguing for justice one day and taking the opposite position the next day. The philosopher's way of discourse reminds him more of a rhetorical exercise, in which argument is given pro and

contra, than the philosophers’ closely argued delivery. On the other hand, making worse appear better was a traditional accusation against sophists.>> In general, the later writers on this incident seem to pay more attention to the style than the content of the

philosophers’ delivery - to such an extent that we do not know what was the subject matter of their speeches. However, we have a contemporary writer's, namely Polybius", who was in Rome

at that time, short note on this mission,

Polybius (and Rutilius Rufus) may argue that the Roman philosophers as philosophers mission may be considered as

too. Gellius mentions

that

report each philosopher's manner of speaking.?6 Thus, we audience did not differentiate clearly the role between and philosophers as orators. However, it seems that this the one which finally gained Athens recognition as a city of

philosophy. The delegation was unique in the history of Athens because it consisted apparently only of philosophers and, furthermore, of the leaders of different schools. Thus, I assume that the philosophers in the middle of the 2nd century B.C. were seen in

Athens as representatives of their own schools but also as a group -- apart from orators and other intellectuals -- who formed some kind of guild. During the same century the old dispute between philosophy and rhetoric flared up again. In fact, Critolaus, the Peripatetic member of this embassy, of whose doctrines we know but little, is told to make a sharp contrast between rhetoric and φιλοσοφία in the same manner as Plato did in his Gorgias)? Thus, it would appear that the ambassadors were seen from the point of view when the Athenians pleaded for it. — It is noteworthy that a delegate from the Garden is missing. It has been suggested that this was because of the expelling of two Epicureans from Rome a

few

decades earlier. Plut. Non posse suav. 1100d; Ath. 12.547a; Ael. VH 9.12.

3l

Gell. NA 6.14.9; Kaimio 1979, 104.

32

See e.g. Momigliano 1975, 17ff.

23.

Kaimio 1979, 46. About this decree, see Suet. Rhet. 1.

34

^. non quidem philosophi gravitate, cuius firma et stabilis debet esse sententia, sed quasi oratorio exercitii genere in utramque partem disserendi." Lactantius Div. Inst. 5.14.4. - This is, as Lactantius elsewhere notes, due to the method of the New Academy of arguing against every thesis in order to try to show that the supporter of the thesis had no firm arguments about it. Lactantius Div. Inst. 5.50.8 and also Cic. De Or. 3.80.

35

See e.g. Plato Ap.

36

Carneades spoke quickly and strongly, Critolaus skillfully and with polish and Diogenes sensibly

19b.

and with restraint (Gell. VA

6.14.10 = Polyb.

33.2). - Clitomachus, a pupil of Carneades, agrees

with other writers about the success of these three philosohers (ap. Cic. Acad. Pr. 2.137). 37

Wehrli 1983, 589.

42

Tua Korhonen

of Athens as philosophers, but the reception in Rome which they received was similar to the one given to professional orators.

When we compare this famous mission to the diplomatic service of Xenocrates to Antipater in Thebes in 322 B.C., we can notice certain differences in the narrations. We have references to this mission in the primary as well as in the secondary material: in the

Rhetoric of Philodemus, in the biography of Xenocrates in the Academicorum Index (of Philodemus

) and

in Plutarch's

biography

of Phocion,

a politician,

who

had

close

connections with the Academy.38 Philodemus’ Rhetoric uses (in the passages discussed here) as its rnain source the rhetorical works of Demetrius of Phalerum, who was not only

Xenocrates' contemporary but even on the spot: Demetrius belonged to the first embassy (323) to Antipater with Demades and was still in all probability at the court of the monarch

during the second.?? The diplomatic task was the terms of peace after the Lamian war and especially the request for the liberation of the prisoners of war. In addition to Xenocrates, Phocion and Demades were chosen as members of this embassy. It is noteworthy that Diodorus Siculus (18.18.3) refers also to this embassy, but mentions by name only Demades and Phocion. In Classical times, the Greek ambassadors (πρέσβεις) were elected by democratic

institutions, by the Assembly (ἐκκλησία or δῆμος)" and by the Council (BovAn). The Council functioned as a preparatory and preliminary decision-making body, and the elections of the Assembly were thus usually conducted according to the will of the

Council. Thus, to be elected as an envoy was a mark of public recognition and confidence on the part of the Council.*! Political groupings and politicians who were particularly interested in the issue of the mission liked to be able to exert some influence on the selection of the envoy. Aeschines in his treatise On the (False) Embassy (Περὶ τῆς

παραπρεσβείας) reports how in his first embassy to Philip (in 346 B.C.), a certain actor, Aristodemus,

was elected, because

he was

a 'friend'

of Philip and because

his

profession was considered to have some advantages for the embassy (15).*? Aeschines

himself was proposed as a candidate for the embassy

(προβάλλειν)

by a certain

Nausicles. Service on an embassy could entail considerable expense. An ambassador had to bear the costs if he wanted to take along his servants and private assistants. The

38

Evidence for this envoy: Philodemus De Rhetorica: PHerc 1004 col. 55, PHerc 224 fr. 12, PHerc 453 fr. 4; Academicorum Index: col. 7.22-41, col. 8.11-17; Plut. Phoc. 27; Crónert 1906, 67-68; Mekler 1958, 40-43; Dorandi 1991a, 137-138. The quotations of the text of Philodemus' Rheroric is from Isnardi Parente 1982, 52 and quotations of Acad. Ind. are from Dorandi's (19912) edition. Academicorum Index, fragments of a papyrus from Herculaneum (PHerc 164 and 1021) and Stoicorum Index Herculanensis (PHerc. 1018) as well are largely agreed to be composed by

Philodemus (if not by his contemporaries) as parts of one work, namely Σύνταξις τῶν φιλοσόφων. Crónert 1906, 133. Philodemus used Hellenistic writers (e.g. Antigonus of Carystus) as his source. 39

For the first embassy to Antipater, see Plut. Phoc. 26. Demades was the leader of the propertied democrats in Athens, see e.g. Ferguson 1911, 19.

40

For example, in the Academicorum Index (col. 8.11-12) it was mentioned that the δῆμος had elected Xenocrates to the embassy: o δῆμος ἐχειροτόνησείν). - About the election in general, see Kienast

1973, 526. 4l

See Aeschin. On the Embassy 22.

42

Namely, τῆν γνῶσιν καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν τῆς τέχνης - an ironical comment. About the practices of embassies at the end of the Classical period, see Aeschin. On the Embassy (343 B. C.), especially 18-23. Demosthenes and Aeschines were both elected to this mission, but, according to Aeschines, Demosthenes failed altogether to utter a word of his written speech before Philip because he lost his nerve (34-35). — About the word παραπρεσβεία, see Kienast 1973, 577.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

43

missions lasted an unforeseeable length of time and the reward received in Classical times

was minimal.*? The ambassador was also obliged to render his account of the mission to the Council before it was discussed in the Assembly.*4 If the embassy had succeeded

according to the Council, it might be proposed that the ambassador be given certain honours, usually a crown and an invitation to dine in the Prytaneion.*° The honours depended on how successfully the envoy had taken care of the issue of the mission, and also on the importance of the mission.

Sometimes,

as in the case of Aeschines,

the

ambassador could be charged because he had failed in his diplomatic duty. We may ask why Xenocrates, a metic, a native of Chalcedon, was elected as a delegate

on behalf of Athens? In the passage of Philodemus (Rhet. 2.173 z PHerc. 224, fr. 12) in which he does not mention Demetrius of Phalerum by name, but which 15 suggested to be

a reference to latter's rhetorical work, too,*6 it is stated that Xenocrates was elected because of his age (ἡλικία) and διὰ τὴν περὶ τοὺς Aöl[yovg &ox]not. Xenocrates was at that time c. 74 years old.^? The second reason, the eloquence, is appropriate to underline in a rhetorical work and, of course, an evident requirement for a person selected for negotiations. According to the Academicorum Index, Xenocrates was elected because

of his political conviction, i.e., the liberty of Athens (col. 8.2-9). According to Plutarch (who

as a Platonist writes positively about the Academics)

the Athenians

had

chosen

Xenocrates in particular because of his virtuousness, good repute and λόγος. However,

modem scholars have suggested that the reason was more or less political: because of the connections of the Academy with Macedonia, and because of the wish of Phocion.*3 The envoys of 155 did not have earlier ties with the Roman Senate. By all accounts, the mission to Rome

was

successful,

but

in the case of Xenocrates

the reports

are not

altogether in agreement. Demetrius of Phalerum expresses his discontent with the mission of Xenocrates — not with its outcome, but with the quality of Xenocrates’ speech: Xenocrates was not a rhetor (apud Phid. Rhet. in. = Pherc. 453 fr.4). This is echoed in the passage by Philodemus / Demetrius of Phalerum (Phld. Rhet. 2.173 = PHerc. 224, fr. 12): Xenocrates delivered

his speech before Antipater in the same way as was his custom at the Academy and this is the very reason for his failure.*? Thus, there was a conflict between Xenocrates' role as an ambassador and as a philosopher. In the Academicorum Index the report of his service as an ambassador takes quite a large part of Xenocrates' biography (col. 7.22-41, col. 8.7-18). It emphasizes, on the one hand, the straightforwardness of Xenocrates : only he dared to express his discontent at the result of the negotiations. The result according to

43 44 45

Adcock & Mosley 1975, 155-156. Adcock & Mosley, 1975, 170. See Aeschin. On the Embassy 45. This invitation to dine in the Prytaneion is called either δεῖπνον or ξενία. Henry 1983, 262.

46

See Crónert 1906, 67; Wehrli 1949, 80; Isnardi Parente 1982, 298.

47

To qualify for an embassy one had to be at least 30. Sometimes older people (e.g. all envoys should be over 50) were favoured as the name πρέσβεις suggests. Adcock & Mosley 1975, 157. Xenocrates was born in 396/5 B.C. Dorandi 1991b, 65.

48

See Isnardi Parente 1987, 269-270. Macedonian regents gave donations to the Academy. According to Diogenes Laertius, Xenocrates, however, sent back part of the money that Alexander had given and did not accept the presents sent by Antipater (D.L. 4.8).

49

Xenocrates put learning silence at the beginning of rhetoric (he also devoted one hour every day to silence. D.L. 4.11): without mastering silence, there would be no mastering of eloquence.

Demetrius

sarcastically hints that the reason for Xenocrates' failure on this mission was because he practised his silence (ap. Phld. Rhet. 1. 350 = PHerc 1004 col. 55). Crönert 1906, 68.

44

Tua Korhonen

Xenocrates is μέτρια μὲν ὡς οἰκέταις, πικρὰ Isnardi Parente claims that Xenocrates was thus determination for Athens, but his pro-democratic not interpretable from this passage, at least).5°

δὲ ὡς ἐλευθέροις (col. 7.40-41). M. strongly on the side of liberty and selfopinions were more questionable (and The disappointment of Xenocrates is

underlined when Demades later asked Xenocrates if he would like to become a citizen of Athens and the philosopher declined. He did not want to participate in such a form of

government that would conflict with the principles for which he was elected as an ambassador (Acad. Ind. col. 8.2-9).

The narration of Plutarch agrees with that of the Academicorum

Index in some

respects. Xenocrates could not accept the outcome of the negotiations

(oligarchy,

a

garrison in Piraeus), which he thought — Plutarch uses the same kinds of words as are used in the Jndex — unsuitable for free men, only moderately for slaves (Phoc. 27.4). But

the conflict between the expectations of the Athenians and the actual state of affairs is described by Plutarch, too. The Athenians had expected the mere sight of the philosopher

to arouse respect at the court of the monarch. Just the opposite happened: Antipater did not even greet the philosopher, and the monarch also interrupted his speech.>! Nevertheless

Xenocrates!

conduct

showed

utmost

firmness

before

the

regent,

states

Plutarch. It is notable that Plutarch mentions the personal qualities of Xenocrates — the expected respect is not due to the glory of the Academy (by 322 B.C. Xenocrates had been the head of the Academy for about 17 years) but the strong character of Xenocrates. According to Plutarch, it was Phocion, not Demades who later tried to enroll Xenocrates as a citizen, but the reason for philosopher's refusal was the same as reported in the Academicorum Index. However, Plutarch claims that the reason for enrollment was the

difficulty Xenocrates had to pay the tax of a metic (Phoc. 29.4).52 Contrary to Plutarch's tale, and other reports of this embassy in general, is the brief note by Diogenes Laertius

(4.9) in which Xenocrates succeeded in making Antipater agree to release the prisoners. By quoting Homer he pleased the regent with his sagacity. It had been suggested that, in fact, Diogenes is describing Demades' service as an ambassador on an embassy to

Philip.5? If we take it for granted that every part of the Academicorum Index is written by Philodemus, 50 51

we

have

two

quite different

accounts

by

him

of

the

same

incident.

Isnardi Parente 1982, 297. It has been suggested that the reason for Antipater’s conduct was that Xenocrates was a metic and thus in Antipater's view not a legitimate member of the delegation on behalf of Athens. For this,

see Isnardi Parente 1982, 296. 52

Diogenes Laertius (4.14) has a fabulous story about how Xenocrates could not pay the μετοίκιον and people put him up for sale, how Demetrius of Phalerum purchased Xenocrates and gave him his freedom back. The tax of the metic was according to Demosthenes (25.57) only 12 dr/year. However, this story could hint that Demetrius helped Xenocrates 1n some way, if not financially. Furthermore, there are also two passages where Lycurgus is said to help Xenocrates to pay the tax of a metic. For this, see the discussion of Whitehead 1981, 235-238 with all relevant passages.

?3

Crónert 1906, 68 and Isnardi Parente 1982, 278. — The tale of Xenocrates' mission to Philip (D.L. 4.8-9 - the reason and the time of the mission is not mentioned and Diogenes Laertius 1s the only source) is untrustworthy. Gaiser 1988, 475. However, it has similarities with the reports (other than Diogenes Laertius’ own) about Xenocrates" mission to Antipater: Xenocrates did not attend the common feast and thus did not even see Philip. After the envoys had returned to Athens, the other envoys complained that he had been of no use. At first Xenocrates was in danger being fined, but was given honours instead, because, as he himself explained, Philip could not bribe him as he had the other envoys. Thus, in this story Xenocrates! mission is seen as a failure, too, but at the same time manifestaung the philosopher's moral strength.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

45

Philodemus has used Demetrius as his source in the Rhetoric and the tone is not very favourable to the philosopher.54 In the Academicorum Index he has used same sources as Plutarch, who strengthened the positive flavour of the sources even more in his own report.

In addition

to

this

discrepancy

between

the

sources,

there

could

exist

a

discrepancy between the tones of Demetrius of Phalerum and of Plutarch concerning the failure of Xenocrates. Demetrius puts the blame on Xenocrates. He should have been able to make a distinction between a speech to the monarch in a diplomatic situation and a speech delivered in the Academy to the philosophically-orientated public. Plutarch,

however, seems to put the blame on the audience: the philosopher carried out his duty excellently, but the monarch was arrogant and incompetent to take in the philosopher's delivery. According to Plutarch (Demetr. 46), when Demetrius Poliorcetes besieged Athens in

287 B.C., Crates (of Athens) was sent by the Athenian assembly (ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου) to negotiate for peace. Plutarch is our only evidence for Crates’ service on this embassy.

Plutarch mentions Crates’ good repute and ability as the reasons for choosing

a member

of the Academy for this confidential position. Crates was an intimate friend of Polemo,

the head of the Academy at that time.55 Crates succeeded — according to Plutarch — in contributing to the success of the mission (after that the siege lasted only few months),

because the regent was convinced by the philosopher's argument that the most advantageous course was to raise the siege.96 A more prominent reason for ending the

siege might have been the approach of Pyrrhus.?? The reason for this siege was the revolt of the radical democrats -- Demochares,

the nephew

of Demosthenes,

was

one of the

leading members behind the revolt. The Athenian democrats had dared to free the city of the foreign garrison in 289 B.C. because they were confident that a concerted attack by Pyrrhus and Lysimachus would defeat Demetrius’ troops. This proved to be merely wishful thinking; the Athenians did not get any help and Demetrius’ siege lasted too long.

Ultimately, the city had to try to negotiate with Demetrius.58 We do not know by whom Crates was suggested and supported as an envoy to solicit the monarch — by radical democrats, pro-Macedonian aristocrats or moderate oligarchs. Crates' political attitudes and his public activities are questionable, too. Diogenes Laertius mentions that Polemo 54

However, Philodemus

probably refers to Demetrius in the passage where he says

that

ψεύδετ᾽

αὐτοῦ e[avtp]óv (Rhet. in. = PHerc. 453. fr. 4) and thus he claims only to report Demetrius’ words but does not agree with them. Crónert 1906, 168. 55

The headship between Polemo and Arcesilaus is problematic, because the years of Polemo's and Crates' deaths are not certain. According to Gaiser 1988, 535, Polemo died in 279/8 B.C. and after that, and until his own death, (276/5) Crates was the head of the school. The new interpretation of Dorandi 1991, 6 is that Polemo was scholarch during 314/313-270/269 and after that Crates for a few years until his own death (268-2647). In all events Crates’ mission occured under the headship

of Polemo. Polemo's

Crates was first Polemo's pupil, then close friend and perhaps in the last years of life the joint

head of the

school.

U.

von

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

1881,

207-208

suggests that Crates was sent because of the wish of Polemo (of Athens), who was himself a recluse, truly concerned only with the life of the Academy and not interested in public life. — About the life and work of Crates: see e.g. Wehrli 1983, 153-154, 164. 56

In fact, Plutarch uses the verb teach (διδάσκειν): Crates taught the monarch the most advantageous course. — In the Pyrrhus 11, Plutarch treats the same historical event and reports that certain persons ventured to advise Demetrius without mentioning Crates or telling anything about this delegation.

3!

Or both together as W. S. Ferguson 1911, 149 has argued - but U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 207 stated that "... die Akademie dem Staate rettend war".

58

Ferguson 1911, 144-150. The shortage of food supply was the main reason: Epicurus, for example, was compelled to put his school on rations (Plut. Demetr. 34).

46

Tua Korhonen

and Crates were not ‘friends of the common people’ or ‘popular’ (φιλοδημώδης) - which here could mean withdrawn persons rather than having antidemocratic attitudes (4.22).59 The titles of Crates' writings are not known, but according to Diogenes Laertius he wrote

works which dealt with philosophy, comedy and λόγους δημηγορικοὺς καὶ πρεσβευτικούς (D.L. 4.23).90 Public speeches as well as speeches concerning embassies were an unusual subject in the circle of the Academy during Polemo, Crates

and Crantor; apart from φιλοσοφία, the common interest was literary studies. It is hardly credible that Crates wrote those speeches for the use of others as a λογοποιός. They could have been reports of his own embassy and of his activity in public life or rhetorical examples, as epideictic speeches, made for pupils of eloquence as well. However, it is in

the same manner that Diogenes Laertius gives an outline of the books which Demetrius of Phalerum wrote: among other things, summaries of speeches, συναγωγαὶ δημηγοριῶν

καὶ πρεσβειῶν (D.L. 5.80). There is also one book named Πρεσβευτικός on the booklist proper of Demetrius (D.L. 5.81) which is suggested to be a report of his own speech on the mission.9! Crates would have been a known master of eloquence and writer of speeches concerning embassies despite his withdrawn way of life and this would have supported his selection as an envoy.62 One may also suspect that one part of this information (Crates’ mission — Crates’ λόγους πρεσβευτικούῦς) could have caused the other. We have very little evidence concerning Crates’ impact as a philosopher. For example, he is merely mentioned in the Academicorum Index (col. Q 1-17) and Diogenes

Laertius concentrates for the most part on Crates' personal

relationships with other

Academics. However, Crates’ (and Polemo's as well) pupil Arcesilaus, was already a member of the school and, being about 30 years old and a promising philosopher, he

seems to have been worthy of consideration as an envoy.9? Crates has one advantage point against the brilliancy of Arcesilaus : he was an Athenian, whereas Arcesilaus came from Pitane, near Pergamon.

59

A certain topos in the biographies of the Academics by Antigonus of Carystus is to emphasize the withdrawn character of the Academics. For this, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 59. The same word, compounded with διαγωγή and negation ("his seminars were not popular" or "his seminars do not appeal to the ordinary people"), occurs in the biography of Crates in the Academicorum Index (col. Q.10-13) edited by Mekler 1958. But the text is heavily corrupted and supplied just according

to this passage of D.L. 4.23. In the edition of Dorandi 1991a there is a new interpretation of this passage. 60

Sometimes, as in this case, Diogenes Laertius mentions his source: Apollodorus Chronology. Apollodorus of Athens (in the 2nd century B.C.) was onc of the main sources of Diogenes. Crónert

1906, 139. 6!

Kienast 1973, 594, See the excerpt of the rhetorical work of Demetrius of Phalerum (ap. Phld. Rhet. 1. 222 = fr. 157 Wehrli) where Demetrius mentions the class of 'sophistic speech’ (τοῦ copia[tixod] γένος) and the ἐντευκτικὸς λόγος ("Bittrede" as Crónert 1906, 69 translates it). One example of the latter according to

Demetrius

of Phalerum

is the speech

used

on

embassies

to

rulers:

κατα

πρεσβείαν τοῖς δυνάσταις λόγος, — The literary example of the πρεσβευτικὸς λόγος is Aeschines' own in On the Embassy, 25-33 where he reports the speech, which he himself delivered before Philip. Of course, we do not know the historical reliability of this speech i.e. did Aeschines actually deliver it in this manner before Philip. 62

Antagoras of Rhodes wrote an epitaph for Polemo and Crates, which among other things praises "the sacred μῦθος, which flowed from their divine mouths" (Anth. Pal. 7.103), but this would point to the doctrines of Polemo and Crates as well as their delivery.

63

Arcesilaus was famous for being outspoken (παρρησιαστής, D.L. 4.33). (πειστικός, D.L. 4.37) and the charm of his discourse (Cic. Acad. 2.16).

for his persuasiveness

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

47

The selection as an ambassador was a public honour as well as mark of confidence. The situation in which

Crates’

mission occurred, was

a case of emergency

in Athens.

Modern scholars have explained it — as in the case of Xenocrates — by former connections between the Academy and Macedonia.$4 Thus, may we conclude that although Xenocrates the Academic had failed 35 years earlier, the Athenians after all believed that another Academic, another philosopher, would succeed for the same reasons, namely,

political connections of the school and the verbal skills of an Academic? However, Crates' mission occurred only 20 years after the philosophers (at least some if not all) had been

accused

by

the

proposal

of Sophokles

of Sounion

and

gone

through

the

calumniation of philosophers (especially the Academics) (see chapter 4.1.). All these three Academics, Xenocrates, Crates and Carneades, negotiated on behalf of

Athens. Only one of them (Crates) was a citizen. Crates alone was not the head of a school, and his mission is the most poorly documented. Plutarch explains the selection of

the Academics by emphasizing verbal skills and the good repute of philosophers as well. The latter is due to Plutarch's views of φιλοσοφία and philosophical education as ennobling moral character. Plutarch does not need any other reasons, politica] or personal

ties (as Phocion in the case of Xenocrates ). But on the whole, it is not possible to say that Xenocrates and Crates were elected mainly because they were philosophers. Besides,

in the case of Xenocrates his failure was more or less regarded by a contemporary, Demetrius of Phalerum, as occurring due to his being a philosopher and not a politician or an orator. Theodorus of Cyrene who died in the first part of the third century B.C., was counted as a member of the hedonistic school of Aristippus. He sojourned at the court of Ptolemy 1 in Egypt. According to Diogenes Laertius (2.102), Ptolemy sent the philosopher to Lysimachus.6° The date and the reason for the mission are not mentioned.66 Theodorus’ case is an example of the diplomacy between monarch s which was conducted by a philosopher as a mark of evident trust on the part of the monarch.6? However, Theodorus failed altogether as a royal envoy. His audaciousness or freedom of

speech (nappnovaCdpevoc)®® provoked Lysimachus to forbid Theodorus ever to return to his court. Diogenes Laertius does not mention the exact words in Theodorus' speech which vexed Lycimachus in the first place — only the discussion after the monarch had

already been irritated. Lysimachus asks Theodorus about his banishment from Athens,°? 64

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 208-210.

65

For the testimonia of Theodorus, see Winiarczyk

1981,

31-45.

Diogenes Lartius is our only

evidence of this deputation, but there are several references to the discussion of Theodorus Lysimachus (see T5-T16 Winiarczyk).

66

with

Ptolemy I died in 283 B.C. and Lysimachus in 281 B.C. In 315 B.C. Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Cassander joined their forces against Antigonus I, which had to mean increased diplomacy between Ptolemy and Lysimachus. Ferguson 1911, 49. Ptolemy I had his son as co-regent from 285 B.C. onwards - this year can be regarded as the terminus ante quem for the mission.

67

Some other reports concerning the contacts between kings and philosophers may include these kinds of confidential posts for philosophers e.g. Persaeus' relationship with Antigonos Gonatas, but the case of Theodorus is exceptional because it is clearly mentioned that he served the king as an ambassador.

68

Sce

also

Plutarch

De

exit.

6.606b

(ἀπαρρησίαστος)

and

Gromol.

Vaticanum

352

(nappn-

σιαζόμενος). 69

The biography of Theodorus seems to be a series of hanishments: first from his native town Cyrene, then from Athens, then from the kingdom of Lysimachus. E. Derenne 1930, 206 claims that

Theodorus was onc of the aristocrats of Cyrene, who fled from Cyrene to Egypt. M. Winiarczyk

Δ8

Tua Korhonen

but Theodorus shows no shame regarding his deportation, instead he brags about it and likens himself to Dionysus (D.L. 2.102). The tale evidently belongs to 'the king meets the

Cynic'-narrations in which were emphasized the independent spirit of the Cynics in the face of worldly power.’° We have little evidence about the doctrines of Theodorus.

Theodorus’ nickname was ἄθεος and he was famous for his radical attitudes. Diogenes Laertius presents the usual list of familiar themes,

philosophers (τέλος, ἀγαθόν,

ἡδονή,

by which doxographers

φιλία, σοφός), and Theodorus’

displayed

views about

them (2.98). Thus, it seems that he rejected friendship (φιλία), because, on the one hand, the wise man (σοφός) is self-sufficient and does not need it. On the other hand,

friendship between unwise people has no permanent character; it would disappear when the need — which has joined them together — is removed. The wise man should not defend

his country because he would risk his wisdom for the benefit of the unwise.?! Menedemus of Eretria (c. 345-261 B.C.)72 was granted administrative duties by the Eretrians and was sent as an ambassador four times by them on behalf of Eretria (to Ptolemy, to Lysimachus, to Demetrius Poliorcetes and perhaps to Antigonus Gonatas) and once on behalf of Oropus to Demetrius Poliorcetes (D.L. 2.140). This certainly implies that he was held in high esteem in his native city. However, Diogenes Laertius is our only evidence for Menedemus' diplomatic duties. The first two Diogenes mentions only briefly, without giving account of the reason or date of the missions, but only that ‘he was respected wherever he went’ (2.140). The embassy to Demetrius Poliorcetes was reported to be successful. Menedemus managed to diminish from 200 talents to 50 talents

the tax which the city had to pay to Demetrius.’> Diogenes Laertius mentions Menedemus' dignity (ἐμβριθέστατος) on the mission to Demetrius on behalf of Oropus (2.141).7^ However, Menedemus failed to convince Antigonus Gonatas to restore the freedom of Eretria, although he had already known him from the days when he was only a prince (2.143).75 He is also reported to stay at the court of Antigonus as did the Stoic 1981, ix suggests that Theodorus was in Athens between 313-309 B.C. His ‘atheistic’ attitudes caused charges of ἀσέβεια. In Athens Demetrius of Phalerum is said to have rescued him from the charges, but other reports say that he was executed (see D.L. 2.101 and T3a-b Winiarczyk). However, Diogenes Laertius finishes Theodorus' biography with a happy ending: Theodorus came back to Cyrene and was held in high respect. 70

For more about this type of narration, see Höistad, R. 1948. Cynic Hero and Cynic King. Studies in the Cyntc Conception of Men. Uppsala.

7l

We may speculate on Theodorus’ consistency between his theory and praxis: he did not regard Ptolemy as the self-sufficient wise man, because he needed Theodorus' help as an envoy. However, Theodorus himself was thus as an envoy risking his wisdonvlife for the benefit of the unwise.

72

For the chronology of Menedemus' life, see Knoepfler 1991, 205-210. Menedemus was a pupil of Stilpo and the school over which he presided did not continue its activity after his death. For the influence of his school on Arcesilaus. See e.g. D.L. 4.33.

75

Menedemus managed also to convince Demetrius of his sincerity over accusations that he would seek help from Ptolemy (D.L. 2.140-141). Demetrius Poliorcetes (died 283 B.C.) reigned over Macedonia

and the main part of Greece between 307-287, and after that handed his rule to his son, Antigonus Gonatas. The diplomacy of Menedemus was to mediate between the great powers. Also the fleet of Ptolemy sailed on the Aegean Sea during the 290's and Ptolemy stretched his power to Euboea. 74

Menedemus' second wife was from a wealthy family of Oropus. Athens had already lost Oropus in

322 B.C. 75

Diogenes refers to Heraclides of Lembus and notes that the account of Antigonus of Carystus is similar. However, Diogenes refers also to the Histories of Euphantus where it ıs said that Menedemus was suspected of betraying his city to Antigonus and had to Icave Erctria. Knoepfler 199], 209 claims that the latter version (as slightly modified) is closer to the actual happenings:

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

49

Persaeus, Bion of Borysthenes, Aratus and many other intellectuals of that time. One anecdote reports the rivalry between Menedemus and Persaeus in arguments which Menedemus won and stated that Persaeus was not very good as a philosopher, but even worse as a person (2.144). Thus, Menedemus differentiated the philosopher's role as

philosopher from his other activities. His own career included several public duties in Eretria, but we know little about Menedemus as a philosopher and the same applies also to Persaeus. The methods of argumentation were the main interest of Menedemus, culminating in the use of eristic devices. On the whole, Menedemus seems to have been quite a successful diplomat on behalf of his own city. Only the last-mentioned embassy,

the one to Antigonus

Gonatas

was

notoriously unsuccessful.

Diogenes emphasizes

Menedemus' ability to handle the kings with his speech, but there is one story where

Menedemus' outspoken speech (τὸ παρρησιαστικόν) irritated a king. While staying at the court of the king of Cyprus he dared to object to the king's statement and persisted with his subject (1.6. that every occasion not only leisure time should be the right time to listen to the philosophers). The word τὸ παρρησιαστικόν which Diogenes used in connection with Menedemus, was seldom used in the pejorative sense ‘arrogance’.76 Diogenes Laertius claims, however, that this freedom of speech before the king nearly

cost the philosopher his life (2.129). According to Diogenes Laertius (4.39), Arcesilaus

(c. 316/5-244/3 B.C.)

served as

an ambassador to the court of Antigonus Gonatas in Demetrias on behalf of his hometown of Pitane. His mission, just as that of Menedemus' to Antigonus, failed. Diogenes states that Arcesilaus avoided becoming acquainted with the monarch -- acting differently from others — when Antigonus visited the city. This withdrawing could equally well be a consequence of his unsuccessful attempt to get help for his native town.’ However, he did not altogether ignore the Macedonian power. He was on good terms with Hierocles, who was the commandant of the garrisons in Munichia and Piraeus, and he also attended the memorial feast of Antigonus' son Halcyoneus (D.L. 4.40, 42). Although he lived in

Athens all his mature life, he maintained a continual relationship with Pitane?? and thus the citizens of Pitane considered him to be able to influence this important endeavour as a famous

member

of the Academy

with

contacts

to Macedonian

power.

However,

the

connections between the Academy and the Antigonides broke off, and Arcesilaus and his successor as the head of the school, Lacydes, were given donations by the Pergamene dynasty (D.L. 4.38, 60). W.S. Ferguson suggested that the reason for Arcesilaus’ mission was the war between Antiochus I and Eumenes I. Pitane had been under the

dominion of Antiochus, but was occupied by Eumenes in c. 262 B.C.39 Arcesilaus Menedemus was accused in 268 B.C. by the Eretrians of betrayal, he went via Oropus to Macedonia where he died. 76

Another word for arrogance is τόλμῃ, see e.g. Pl. Resp. 414d.

77

For testimonia of Arcesilaus, see Mette 1984, 44-77. In this same chapter (4.39) — before the brief note on the embassy — Diogenes Laertius also refers to a sea battle (which Antigonus Gonatas won) after which many went over to the monarch and wrote him flattering letters (perhaps for political

reasons) but Arcesilaus ἐσιώπησεν. 78

For withdrawal as a topos, see above note 59. Instead of this, Timo (fr. 34 Di Marco), wrote that

Arcesilaus was ὀχλοάρεσκος, a 'mob-flatterer' (D.L. 4.42). Timo wanted to contrast Arcesilaus the Sceptic with his master, Pyrrho the Sceptic. Long & Sedley 1987 (2) 15. 79

Arcesilaus had property (παρουσία) in Pitane. His brother sent him the revenues. See D.L. 4.38.

80

τ. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 229-230 argues that it was the battle of Cos (c. 256 B.C.), in connection with which Aeolis was also in danger - about the battle of Cos. Strab. 13.614. But the battle of Cos could have been just the sea battle after which many, but not Arcesilaus, went to

50

Tua Korhonen

pleaded

with

Antigonus

for

aid

against

Eumenes.

Ferguson

supposed

that

the

benevolence of Eumenes towards the Academy began after this incident.! Diogenes Laertius emphasizes that Arcesilaus dedicated his works only to Eumenes, not to any other kings, because Eumenes furnished him with supplies (χορηγεῖν) (4.38). However, the contradiction between these two roles of Eumenes towards Arcesilaus - Eumenes at first as enemy and then as a patron -- is not reflected in the biography of Arcesilaus. Diogenes Laertius is the only source for the diplomatic services of all three of the lastmentioned philosophers, Theodorus, Menedemus and Arcesilaus. Diogenes could have used as his source Antigonus of Carystus' biographies in regard to the missions of Menedemus' and Arcesilaus’, although he does not often mention it. These three

philosophers are reported to have been the only members of their embassies, which was not unusual.82 Two of them were elected by the people of their native cities (Menedemus several times and Arcesilaus once), two by a monarch (Theodorus and Menedemus). Menedemus was also elected as an envoy on behalf of a foreign city, Oropus. We remember that also Xenocrates and Carneades were not citizens of Athens and were thus elected on behalf of foreign city-state, but they at least lived in Athens. Menedemus seems to have been the most successful of the three; he was honoured, his behaviour suits the

situation and he managed to arouse confidence, although he did not always succeed. The opposite impression is given of Theodorus' diplomatic duty: the reasons for the mission

are unclear, and his speech succeeded only in irritating Lysimachus. The narration of Theodorus' behaviour is in tune with his image as a philosopher. Theodorus' banishment from the court of Lysimachus is explained by his παρρησία. From the point of view of the philosopher, however, parrhesia was a token of freedom of speech but from the point of view of the monarch, an audacity. Although parrhesia could also have been harmful to Menedemus (his narrow escape from the court of the king of Cyprus), in the tale about

Theodorus, however, parrhesia is more in the sense of ‘licence of tongue’ which is due to his ‘impiety’, his ‘atheistic’ attitudes. In the case of Menedemus, the writer is more in favour of the philosopher than in favour of the monarch. Thus it seems that the general image of a philosopher defined the borders of his parrhesia or how it was reflected in

biographies. Arcesilaus was also, like Menedemus, outspoken

(παρρησιαστής,

D.L.4.33),

but he did

a master of argumentation not succeed

in his service

and as an

ambassador. Diogenes mentions Arcesilaus’ mission briefly — he does not say a word

about the philosopher's behaviour — and reports it as if an exceptional event in the story of Arcesilaus the Academic. The reasons for the failure might have been both political and personal. Antigonus Gonatas' earlier ‘friendship’ with Zeno the Stoic (who died in 262) may have prevented him from favouring too evidently an Academic because of the strong

doctrinal antagonism between the New Academy and the Stoics at that time. We may imagine what would have happened if Zeno had had to plead for his native town Citium, and Antigonus had had to weigh in his mind his 'friendship' with Zeno on the one hand and the political situation on the other. It is not certain that his esteem for his pet philosopher would have assured success. In fact, we have one reference to the pleading

Antigonus and perhaps pleaded for help (see note 77 above). Thus, the order of events could have been in reverse sequence to what Diogenes Laertius reports. Arcesilaus had first pleaded for the restoration of his city and went as an envoy to Antigonus in 262 and failed. And therefore, when his native cily was again in danger (in 256), he knew that it was no use to ask Antigonus for help. 81

Ferguson 1911, 234 note 3.

82

Adcock & Mosley 1975, 155.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

51

of Zeno with Antigonus Gonatas on behalf of Athens, but the reason is not mentioned and the notion is vague.8? Án inscription concerning a philosopher or a mere member of a philosophical school

as an ambassador is worth mentioning in this connection, although it belongs to the end of the 3rd century B.C. A honorary decree was erected to Prytanis

of Carystus in the

Agora c. 226/5 B.C.84 Prytanis had served as an ambassador apparently at his own expense: οὔτε δαπάνης οὐδεμίας φροντίσας (1. 18-19). The object, i.e. the monarch, of the mission is, unfortunately, missing because it has been erased. The excision presumably took place at the time of the damnatio memoriae of 201/200 B.C. by the Athenians against the house of Macedon (see Livius 31.44). B.D. Meritt suggests

Antigonus Doson (229-221 B.C.).85 The subject of Prytanis' speech at the court of this monarch is not made clear, which is normal in this context, but the text reports the manner. He had discussed things of public interest ardently and fluently as if they would

have been concerning his own country: κα[ὶ] διαλ{εϊχθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῶν κοινεῖ χρησίμων pet[a] παρ(ργησίας ὡς ἂν ὑπὲρ ἰδία(ς) π[ία]τ[ρ]δοῖς thv πᾶσαν oxovó]nv ποι(ογύμενος (I. 19-22).86 Thus, παρρησία is seen here as a positive attribute, ‘outspokenness’.87 The outcome of the negotiations is not mentioned either. The Council granted Prytanis a golden wreath because of goodwill and love of honour (εὐνοίας ἕνεκα καὶ φιλοτιμία c, 1. 34), and this was proclaimed at the contest of the Dionysia in the city and at the gymnasia contest of the Panathenaia. He was invited also to dine in the

Prytaneion (l. 44-45).88 Prytanis has been identified as a member of the Peripatetic school and is mentioned by Polybius, by Plutarch ahd by Suda. Polybius mentions that Antigonus Doson asked Prytanis to make new laws for the sacked city because he was a

famous member of the Peripatetic school. Furthermore, Suda mentions him as one of the teachers of the poet Euphorus of Chalchis.5? We have little evidence about Prytanis' activiGes as a philosopher. According to Plutarch Quaest. conv. 612d he wrote some

83

84

Aelianus VH 7.14. A. Erskine 1990, 87 suggests that Zeno sent Perseus to negiotate with Antigonus on the access to the harbours which the garrison prevented -- but he had no evidence to support his claim. According to Diogenes Laertius 7.14, Zeno gets angry when Demochares tells him that Antigonus would fulfil all Zeno's requests, if he only asked for something.

SEG XXV 106. — See editio princeps Meritt 1935, 525-529 and L. Robert 1935, 436-437. Also in Moretti 1967, 60-63 (n:o 28); see also Kassel 1985, 23-24.

85

Meritt 1935, 529. In B.D. Meritt's view the language of the text refers to strained relationships between Athens and the Antigonids.

86

BLD. Meritt read ἰδιαγδοίς instead of ἰδία(ς) π[α]τίρ 436.

57

1 Robert 1935, 436 points out SGDI 3089, a decree of Kailatis (by the Black Sea), which has the same phrase με[τὰ

δος which is correction of L. Robert 1935,

παρ]ρησίας in a similar context. A quick TLG-search shows that the word

occurs merely as a proper name in the inscriptions of Attica and elsewhere. 88

Compare with other honorary decrees of ambassadors: IG {1111} 646 (294 B.C.), Herodotus, a courtier of Demetrius Poliorcetes, receives highest honours (e.g. sitesis); IG II/II 641 (299/298 B.C.) where the honours consist only of the palm leaf wreath. Aeschines got only a crown of wild olives as well and an invitation to dine in the Prytaneion (On the Embassy, 46). Note that this invitation to dine in the Prytaneion (deipnon) was not the same as sitesis.

89

Polyb. 5.93.8: ... τῶν

ἐπιφανῶν

ἀνδρῶν £x τοῦ Περιπάτου. - The Spartan regent Cleomenes

IV had destroyed Mcgalopolis in 222 B.C. - See also Ath. 11.477: Euphorus dining at the house of Prytanis,

52

Tua Korhonen

works concerning symposia. The genre was quite common in the Peripatos.?® One reason for electing Prytanis as an ambassador was his ability to pay all expenses and this is

underlined also in the text. It is notable that in this inscription (or in the part which has survived) there is no hint to Prytanis' membership of the Peripatos, or to Prytanis

as a

philosopher (e.g. the epithet περιπατητικός or q1Àócogoc).?! The list of philosophers as envoys is short.?? Of course, some extant unofficial diplomacy has not been included.?5 But we can, as argumentum ex silentio, suppose that if a philosopher had served as an ambassador, there would be a note of this honour in his biography in the same way as Diogenes briefly mentions the duty in the lives of

Arcesilaus,

Menedemus

and

Theodorus.

Of course,

we

do

not

have

‘complete’

biographies of any philosophers. Nearly all of these ambassadors are from the Academy,

but this is due to my concentration from around the turn of the 4th century B.C., to the beginning of the Hellenistic age. The Stoics and the Epicureans served as ambassadors only in the next century (as far as we know).?4 Philosophers represent Athens or their

native city, or, on some occasions, monarch s gave them diplomatic duties. The narration concentrates more on the behaviour of a philosopher and his reception in the kings' courts

than on the actual events of the diplomatic duty. The mission of 155 expressed quite clearly the esteem and recognition of philosophical schools (except the Garden ). In the main, however, selection and acting as an envoy was occasional, dependent on the person and the situation. It seems that the reasons for election as an envoy and the result of the

missions (or the interpretation of the result) were not obviously proportional to the philosophers' status. The writers who give information on social roles lived in an era when the philosophical schools had established their status, and were a kind of tourist attraction for visitors to Athens. But at the end of 4th century and at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. the philosophers were not necessarily chosen for important missions or other duties of diplomacy merely for the sake of their being philosophers. Thus, at the

beginning of the Hellenistic age, to be a philosopher did not guarantee self-evident 90

Plutarch refers to Prytanis in Quaest. conv.

612d

as ἐλλογιμώτατος

among

other

famous

philosophers (e.g. Plato) who wrote down 'table-talks’ in symposia. - For example, in addition to

Aristotle's Symposia, Theophrastus and Hieronymus of Rhodes wrote works called Περὶ μέθης. Wehrli 1983, 469, 570. 31

Compare with SEG I 368 (c. 200 B.C.), the honorary inscription on the educational activities of a

certain Epicrates περ]ιπατητικός. Was the educational activity easier to connect to the role of a philosopher (or of a Peripatetic) than the political one?

32

Thus, in my opinion, sentences, which are written recently in the studies of the social roles of the Hellenisuc philosophers, like "It was becoming increasingly common to use philosophers as ambassadors” (Erskine 1990, 88), “ ... die Bürgerschaft [in Athen] oft Philosophen zu Mitgliedern wichtiger Gesandtschaften wählte ... " (Habicht 1995, 113) are not on safe ground.

93

For example, philosophers in the court, as Persaeus or Ariston of Chios (see Timo would have had diplomatic duties.

fr.

6 Di Marco),

94

However, in addition to Prytanis we have evidence only of one other philosopher as an ambassador at the end of the 3rd century B.C... namely the mission of Arideices (a Platonist) in 220 B.C. from Rhodes to Byzantium (Polybius 4.52.2) - his funeral inscription from Rhodes. see Peek 1960, 128 (no. 189); Pyrrhus! advisor Cineas, who was sent to Rome by Pyrrhus in 270 B.C., was not an Epicurean as sometimes has been stated, but an orator, who made declamatory speeches using Epicurus' doctrines to the amusement of regents (Plut. Pyrrh. 14.1). century In the second B.C. Crates (a Stoic) was sent to Rome in 169 B.C. by some Attalid: a mathematician Philonides (an Epicurean) from Laodicea served as an ambassador to Demetrius I Soter (162-150 B.C.) on behalf of his hometown (which is confirmed by the grant of citizenship in 1G I/TIP 1236); Apollophanes (an Epicurean) was sent on behalfof Pergamum to Rome. Sec also Kienast 1973, 591.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

prestige. The public image of philosophers defined

the expectations

53

concerning

a

philosopher's status. If the image of the philosopher was one of being impractical, his

success in social duties would be considered to have happened in spite of his being a philosopher. If the image of the philosopher was that of being the model of wisdom —

including practical wisdom as well (as the word σοφός in its most archaic sense) — his success would be explained by reason of his being a philosopher. One point is common to all these reports of embassies: the underlining of the ability or disability of the philosopher to communicate properly on given diplomatic occasions. In some cases it is expressed by the word παρρησία. This word can belong to both the

personal and the social category. In the 5th century B.C. two words for freedom of speech existed: παρρησία, which means the right to say all that one wanted and ἰσηγορία which means the equality of freedom of speech inside a certain sphere (e.g. in

the ἐκκλησία), but does not imply the right to say everything. As political concepts, both words belonged to the ideology of Athens. Parrhesia was associated with the free men of Athens (Euripides Hipp. 422) and ἰσηγορία was seen as the very reason for the rise of Athens to political power (Herodotus 5.78).95 Parrhesia denoted occasionally also at a

private level ‘frankness’ in its positive meaning and ‘loquacity’ in its negative meaning.?6 For example, Isocrates in the Busiris uses it in a pejorative sense when

someone

1s

speaking in a too liberal manner about gods (11.40) and Plato uses it in the sense of a licence of tongue as well (Phdr. 240e; Resp. 557b). Already in Homer the free licence of

tongue is seen as condemnable, as a transgression; one can speak with modesty (αἰδοῖ

μειλιχίῃ ) or unmannerly (οὐ κατὰ

κόσμον) (Od. 8.172,

179)?" In the 4th century

B.C. parrhesia meant freedom of speech more and more at the private level only and isegoria was no longer used as frequently. Diogenes of Sinope named parrhesia as the

most beautiful thing (D.L. 6.69) and he is said to have displayed it when he met both ordinary people and Alexander the Great as well. For Aristotle it is a virtue of a magnanimous man (Eth. Nic. 1124b29).98 An anecdote concerning Aristotle and his pupil Callisthenes of Olynthus shows the dangers of parrhesia. Callisthenes did not take

notice of Aristotle’s warnings, but spoke with too much freedom with Alexander (παρρησιαστικώτερον λαλοῦντα τῷ βασιλεῖ) and because he was suspected of conspiracy against Alexander, he was executed (D.L. 5.5). described by the pejorative term νωθρός, ‘sluggish’, and as fellow-student Theophrastus. His freedom of speech is also comparative as breaking the conventions of parrhesia.?? A.

Callisthenes is otherwise not being as witty as his described by use of the Momigliano suggests that

“παρρησία became a philosopher's virtue", but as he himself states, the word is not frequently used by Epicurus or by Zeno.!00 Epicurus uses the word in an altogether 95

In the treatise Athenaion Politeia 1.12 it is claimed that the Athenians have granted to slaves isegoria

towards free men and to metics towards citizens. This does not imply that isegoria was one-sided, confined only to slaves and metics, but that it was self-evident that free men have a freedom of speech towards their inferiors. — Socrates states that Athens was well-known in the Greek world for

its freedom of speech, but he uses a phrase ἐξουσία tod λέγειν (Pl. Grg. 461e2).

96 37 98

Momigliano 1973, 259-260; Lloyd 1979, 245. See Momigliano 1973, 259. Momigliano 1973, 260.

99

Note that the same word in connection with Menedemus (above) is in the positive form.

100

The word is not included in the Index of SVF, but a TLG-search of Zeno and Chrysippus shows that

we have one fragment of Chrysippus (SVF 2.32) where it is mentioned - only in the paraphrase, however. It seems that we have only one occurrence of it in the writings of Epicurus (SV 29). See

54

Tua Korhonen

different manner. He claims that he speaks openly (parrhesia) of the things concerning the investigation of nature and does not care if his sayings seems to be as obscure as oracles and do not conform to common opinions in order to attain the praise of the mob (SV 29). Thus, it is not so much of a full realization of his own personality, the ideal which he

keeps to in every situation (in courts of monarchs as well), but it is a contribution to the common good of mankind, like a revelation.!9! It is noteworthy that the maxim contrasts the philosopher's freedom of speech not with the king but with common people. +

+

*

As stated before, the prestige of the philosophers as philosophers was not self-evident. We may ask, then, what were the attitudes of the philosophers to the ordinary men? However, an outline of Plato and Aristotle and their theories about the role and function of philosophers serves as a background to the views of the Hellenistic philosophers. The self-concept concerning ancient philosophers includes the question of the way of life,

which

may

or may not be a method for a philosopher to fulfil his φιλοσοφία.

Philosophical theory may or may not include the problematization of the relation between

theory and praxis, and the praxis of the philosopher may or may not manifest his ideas. Along with the theoretical justification by the philosophers of the relationship between theory and praxis, there are the expectations of the society, the common sense view of this relationship.

3. The self-concept, the others and the way of life

of the philosophers

In two recent articles F. Decleva Caizzi (1993) and A.A. Long (1993) emphasize the importance of the life and image of Socrates as a paradigm for Hellenistic philosophers. Decleva Caizzi analyzes the effect of ‘the Socratic-Cynics’-tradition on Zeno's ideas of a philosophical way of life.102 Long points out the self-mastery of Socrates, ἐγκράτεια, as a key-concept for each main school and shows the way each school interprets it in their own manner. Long argues that this self-mastery is a notable feature of Hellenistic philosophy; the very self of the person could bear the notion of leadership and political control in the form of self-mastery.!0? Thus the self-mastery makes a person in a way a *quasi-political animal' because his focus changes from the external to the internal forms of power. However, this internal power could become manifest outside as an image, which was a conscious activity. Decleva Caizzi suggests that this image-making was important in Athens which was full of philosophers. It functioned as method of attraction to gain notice as well as in the selection of pupils (some features of one's image might drive away unwanted candidates for pupils) or patrons. Long even brings forward the notion of theatrical role, the prosopon of Roman Stoics. To give one's allegiance to a Index of G. Arrighetti (1960) confirmed by TLG-search. However, Philodemus wrote a work named Περὶ παρρησίας, in which it is τέχνη otoxactixn. Gigante 1983, 62.

101

For this notion of παρρησία; see Berti 1978, 369. For the Stoics and frecdom of speech, see below p. 68 note 183.

102 Decleva Caizzi 1993, 308-309. 103

Long 1993, 144. Compare with the discussion of M. enkrateia as "la structure h&autocratique'”.

Foucault

1984a, 74ff. of the concept of the

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

55

certain school, αἵρεσις, is to choose a determinate role. In my opinion, for Plato at least, the conscious building of the philosopher's image would have seemed repulsive. In the

world of Plato, image belongs to the sphere of sensible experience; the emphasis on it would have seemed to him to be a mark of intellectual dishonesty. It was more important to be a philosopher than to look like one.!194^ However, by starting the activities of the Academy, writing his work and being a known figure, Plato made himself into a exemplar case — as undoubtedly Socrates had been for him (although Plato did not follow Socrates' way of life ).

During the 4th century B.C. Plato and Aristotle argued strongly on behalf of the philosophical way of life. The discussion on which was better, the practical or contemplative way of life, had begun already in the previous century; the aristocratic way of life of a free man began to seem like a life of idleness or an inactive life (ἀπράγμων).

The honour and the duty of a citizen was to attend to the activities of the city.!°5 The contemplative ideal was chosen at least by Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Democritus of the Presocratic philosophers.!96 Heraclides Ponticus, who was a member of the

Academy,197 was the first to tell the story of the visit of Pythagoras to the tyrant Leon and the famous parable of life as a show, where some are competitors, some tradesmen and some spectators.!°8 The latter are identified as leading a contemplative life. Some scholars have argued that the simile belongs to the circles of the Pythagoreans of the 5th century B.C., whereas some others have suggested that it was created by Heraclides or some of

his contemporaries as a justification for the new contemplative ideal of the Academy. However, all the ‘classes’ of people in this simile are equally part of the same show there is not any hierarchy between them. Besides, in the text of Heraclides there is no occurrence of the pessimistic view of philosophy which some Pythagoreans and later writers perhaps attached to this topos — that only the god is σοφός, a human being can

only be φιλόσοφος.}09 In the 4th century B.C., 104

the object of comparison

of the

In the same way also A. Mourelatos argued against A.A. Long's view (see Mourelatos' response in

the same book, Long 1993, 166): the theatrical image is more the business of the sophists than of the philosophers.

105 See e.g. Thuc. 2.40.2. In Plato's Apology (32a-c) Socrates had to explain his behaviour of not engaging in politics. Lloyd 1979, 243. 106

Gottschalk 1980, 30 note 60. As a mark of their indifference to practical matters, it is said that Anaxagoras and Democritus gave up their fields to sheep pasture (Philo De vita cont. 473.14). See also Cic. Tusc. 5.39; Fin. 5.29, Pl. Hp. Mai. 283a; Plut. Per.16).

107

Heraclides was Xenocrates' main rival for the leadership of the Academy after Speusippus. He is also considered as first a member of the Peripatos (for example, Diogenes Laertius presents him among the other Peripatetics) and then founder of his own Peripatetic school but this has been doubted — scc

Gottschalk 1980, 1-11.

108 Cicero Tusc. 5.3.8ff.; lambl. VP 58; D.L.

1.12, 8.8 — although Diogenes Laertius refers to

Sosicrates in the latter passage, it is agreed that the original source is Heraclides" Περὶ tfjg àzvov ἢ περὶ νόσων.

109 Gottschalk 1980, 29; Pl. PAdr. 2784. H.B.Gotischalk 1980, 35-36 claims that the pessimistic view of philosophy plays only a subordinate part in the philosophy of Plato, but it had an effect on some Academics of third century B.C. — The pessimistic view is due also to the epistemological issue of the difference between human and divine knowledge, ı.c., the knowledge of the gods. In Homer. the knowledge of the gods is not qualitatively different from that of humans, but the gods have access to sources of knowledge which are beyond human power. A god sees and hears in the same way as ἃ human being docs, only the sense-organs of divine being are more accurate. Heraclitus. and Parmenides made a sharp difference between human and divine knowledge, a difference which wis conceptual: human knowledge ts mainly only opinion, the knowledge of the gods is true knowledge.

56

Tua Korhonen

philosophers changed from σοφός to σοφιστής[0 and finally the Stoics and the Epicureans restored the σοφός, and developed the notion of the wise man, the ‘sage’.!!! A recurring theme in the dialogues of Plato is the defining of the character of the 'true' philosopher and of 'true' φιλοσοφία. In the Euthydemus the philosophers are

compared with eristics-sophists, in the Sophist with sophists, in the Gorgias and in the Phaedrus with rhetoricians. Plato apparently intended to write a dialogue named ‘Philosopher (see Soph. 253e; Pit. 284d) as the third part of the trilogy: the Sophist, the Statesman and the Philosopher where the special nature of the knowledge which the

philosopher possesses would have been pondered.!!? The Euthydemus,

which

written in the first years of the Academy, has a strong ‘protreptic’ character;

was

it is an

exhortation to φιλοσοφία. It states that without philosophical knowledge — Plato uses here both φρόνησις and σοφία as denoting philosophical knowledge — all good things which we have are without true value (Euth. 280d-282d). With philosophical wisdom we

can separate the good which is good of itself from the good which has mere instrumental value (Euth. 2786).

In the Phaedo Socrates divides people into ‘lovers of wisdom’ and ‘lovers of body’ (φιλόσοφος, φιλοσώματος). The latter love also money and/or are ambitious (φιλοχρήματος, φιλότιμος) (68c, 82c). So, the character types and the way of life they

follow can be divided into three: lovers of wisdom, lovers of ambition and lovers of money.!!3 In the Republic the tripartition of the human soul (λογιστικόν, θυμοειδής, ἐπιθυμητικόν)

(4.437a-440e)

reflects, on the other

hand,

the three

kinds

of human

classes in an ideal polis (rulers, guardians, producers)!!^ and the three kinds of character types: φιλόσοφος, φιλόνικος and φιλοκερδής (9.581c).!!5 Thus, this hierarchical tripartition of ways of life corresponds both on the political level (social classes) and on

the personal level (character types). For each kind of person there existed also corresponding pleasures.!!9 In the hierarchy of lifestyles the life of an ambitious man seems to be more favourable than the life of one who aspires to mere own

profit or

pleasure. Philotimia was an acceptable feature of a wealthy man; attending to the public However, they think that it is also possible for a human being, due to his intelligence, to attain this divine-like knowledge. Hussey 1990, 11ff. (especially p. 37).

110 Burkert 1960, 174. III

p wish to express here my gratitude to Prof. Rolf Westman for his inspiring lecture about the ideal of the wise man in Hellenistic philosophy in May 1990 in the Finnish Institute at Athens as a startingpoint for my concept of the subject.

112 See Guthrie 1979 (5) 123. 113

According to W. Burkert (1960, 165) this tripartition is already seen in Herodotus 3.139: merchants (greediness for money), soldiers (ambition) and 'spectators', ot θεηταί (contemplation).

114

The third class is also divided in two (farmers and craftsmen) of golden, silver, copper and iron men. In the myth of the divided into nine groups according to how much they have Heaven’, of the Idea of Good: philosophers, kings etc. - the Is the sophist.

115

Or the latter two are also called respectively as φιλόδοξος and φιλοχρήματος. The tripartition is

as in the Phoenician myth (414b-415d) essence of soul (Phdr. 248d-c) men are managed to glimpse of the "Truth in next to the last in the hierarchical order

described in the Republic also by the words o σοφός, o ἀνδρεῖος, o πλούσιος (9.582c). 115

However, in the Philebus, which belongs to Plato's late period, he divides the way of life into two: in the one the basis of happiness is pleasure. in the other reason (t1d-14b). The good life is a mixture of these two (27d, 67d). In the same work he discusses also the pleasures which ae combined with learning (τὰς περὶ τὰ μαθήματα ἡδονάς} and which, therefore, are the best kinds of pleasures ( Phib. 52a).

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

57

expenses was their duty and the honour received their reward. The term belonged to the moral code of the polis in the middle of the fourth century B.C. onwards and was part of

the common formula in the inscriptions (as in the inscription of Prytanis above).!!? It does not seem, however, that Plato's ideal free man, the philosopher, needs to prove his status by paying his share of public expenses. Wisdom should be loved more than honour: philotimia is ἀφιλόσοφος (Phdr. 256b-c). In the Gorgias Plato makes Callicles accuse philosophers: those people who sacrifice their whole life to philosophy are ridiculous because they remain ignorant of laws and skills of negotiations in relation to private as well as public things (484c). The honour which is attainable in public life is unknown to them, and they do not dare to utter free and noble words in public forums (485d).!!$ Socrates answers this accusation by presenting the philosopher's way of life which, with its discernible independence from others, is the only way of life by which the citizens and thus the whole polis could be made better. Only philosophers can show to other people the right kind of justice which is

needed in public life (515b-519d). Plato compares a philosopher with an ordinary man also in the Theaetetus (172c-177c) and expresses his anxiety concerning the possibility of

teaching people the abilities needed for the well-being of the polis (Tht. 176a-177a). At the same time, the philosopher's life includes the metaphysical aspect, the “escape to the Gods" — which can be compared with the notion of μελέτη θανάτου in the Phaedo - as well as the pragmatic function to exhort his fellow-men, the non-philosophers, to virtue and truth (Thr. 176d). When compelled to do ordinary duties, practical things, the philosopher is regarded as clumsy — even ridiculous (172c, 1756). However, his thoughts reach everywhere (only his body is present in the polis) and his mind 15 fixed on the

universal, not the particular (173e). The philosopher is truly a free man, others are only slaves of their vain desires. Thus, in this passage Plato describes the transcendental character of a philosopher as a critical observer of his society. This position demands an orderly mode of daily life and a persistent character for those who are really captured by

philosophy (ἐξημμένος ὑπὸ φιλοσοφίας) as is stated in the Seventh letter (340b-e). This is echoed in the sixth book of the Republic: φιλόσοφοι μὲν oi τοῦ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος δυνάμενοι ἐφάπτεσθαι (6.484b), as a special ability of philosophers to concentrate on one thing and not dissipate their strength to all sorts of ‘unnecessary things’. In the Republic the low esteem in which philosophers, as well as philosophy, is held in the eyes of common men is seen as most regrettable and even dangerous for the polis. Philosophers are not respected in the city states (6.489a), and they are called unuseful (ἄχρηστοι) (6.499b). The

unusefulness of the philosophers is not their fault, however,

but that the common people do not want or cannot utilize the abilities of the philosophers (6.489a). Plato uses the simile of the ship of state as a kind of ship of fools because those

who are the most able to steer the ship (i.e. philosophers) are hindered by those who cannot understand the skills of the philosophers and the ship is in danger of being wrecked (6.488a-e). Thus, the elite should steer the state (aristocracy), but Plato defined

anew who the best men are: the philosophers, who by mastering themselves, by being kings of themselves, could be also the kings of others (9.580ff.). Ordinary people or the two lower classes should agree to be ruled by those who have a divine ruler inside of 117

See M. Hakkarainen's discussion of the reformulation of the concept of φιλοτιμία in this publication, 17. The ambivalence of Plato toward this term is, in my opinion, seen quite evidently in these passages of the Phuedo and the Republic.

115 without using the exact words, Callicles probably refers here both to philotimia and to parrhesia.

58

Tua Korhonen

themselves (9.590c) i.e. those who by birth are inclined to φιλοσοφία and also have the right kind of education. However, Plato’s republic is all-inclusive: ordinary people also have their place. Plato's aim when he established the Academy was not only to discuss pure philosophical questions but also to educate men who could guide society in the right

direction. We might think that problems would emerge when these two features -- i.e. being able to philosophize and to be a leader of others — are demanded of same person. This conflict is obvious in Plato's philosopher-king. Plato's successors solved the problem in different ways. For example, Xenocrates differentiated practical φρόνησις on the one hand and the theoretical one on the other. The latter included both σοφία (i.e.

philosophy and the first causes) and ἐπιστήμη (i.e. science and intelligible things) (Clement of Alexandria Strom. 2.5.24).!!9 According to the ancient doxography, ‘living in accordance with nature' was Polemo's slogan.!?9 Polemo is said to have advised students to deal also with the facts and not merely with dialectical exercises, and compared the situation of a philosopher to that of a musician who has studied books of harmony but never touched an instrument.!2! It has been suggested, however, that it was Polemo who started the dialectical movement towards the New

Academy -- Arcesilaus

was his pupil — after the more dogmatic Speusippus and Xenocrates.!22 On the whole, the image

of an

impractical

philosopher

(Thales

became

the

exemplar

case),

was

defended, justified and characterized by positive attributes by the Academy. The way of life, in which the theoretical side of life was emphasized, derives its characteristics mainly from the interpretation of the Platonic school.!23 Arístotle's Περὶ φιλοσοφίας was an early work, a dialogue, of which only a few fragments have survived. Aristotle defines the extension of the term σοφία and divides it into five classes, e.g. the wisdom which is a necessary requisite for sustaining life, political wisdom (and here Aristotle refers to the Seven Sages) and so on. The most important class of wisdom is the inquiry into divine and supersensual things.!?^ The Protrepticus, also a work of his youth which has survived only fragmentally, was written

under the influence of Plato. Thus, it has an emphasis on theoretical knowledge which is denoted, however, by the term φρόνησις. Theoretical knowledge enables one to frame all one's practices in accordance with it (fr. B 50 Düring).!?? This superiority of theoretical knowledge is echoed also in the first book of the Metaphysics (1.982a8) although the

119

See Heinze 1892, 161 (fr. 6 and 7) and Krámer 1983, 47. - Furthermore, Xenocrates stated that only philosophers could truly obey the laws of the polis, because they had the true knowledge of them -see Heinze 1892, 160 (fr. 3) and Chronis 1988, 70-71.

120

Περὶ τοῦ xata φύσιν βίου (Clem. Al. Strom. 7.32.9); Cic. Luc. 156 and Dórrie 1987, 94-101.

131; Fin. 2.33-34,

Krämer 1983,

... ἐν toig πράγμασι γυμνάζεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐν τοῖς διαλεκτικοῖς θεωρήμασι (D.L. 4.18).

122 123

Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 445. Jaeger 1960, 393. See Tht.

174a where the tale of Thales falling down a well

while studying the

stars 15 told without hinting that it may be harmful or even dangerous for philosophers, i.e. seeing only the faraway objects and not recognizing the near ones.

124

See Flashar 1983a, 281-283. I. During 1961, 191 states that in the Protrepticus the term φρόνησις refers not to practical wisdom, but to a speculative and special kind of intuitive wisdom adopted from Plato. The term was habitual

in the Academy in this sense for a certain period. Plato uses it, for example. of the intellectual contemplation of the Ideas (Resp. 505a). The passage of the Euthvdemus above can be thus ascribed to this period (the usc of φρόνησις),

(280d-282d)

mentioned

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

59

practical knowledge is also brought into focus. Aristotle makes a distinction between the tasks of the practical man and of the contemplative one, and between investigators of

many ‘philosophies’ (i.e. sciences) and of the φιλοσοφία (i.e. ‘first philosophy’).!26 The wise man, σοφός, whose realm is the latter, is seen to be a sage, who has access to

all knowledge, but without a detailed knowledge of all things.!?? He argues that in particular those sciences which do not grant imrnediate profit are the most respected ones (Metaph.

1.981b17).

The first philosophy,

however,

surpasses

and rules all the other

sciences. It is possible only by means of the first philosophy to know the highest Good (τἀγαθόν), and the good which belongs to each different thing. Thus, Aristotle rejects the pessimistic view of philosophy ; not only the god (singular) is σοφός, but divine knowledge, which is the most valuable, is attainable by a human being. However,

Aristotle does not emphasize the moral value of philosophy as much as Plato does.!28 Φιλοσοφία does not necessarily remodel our lives, the cognitive achievement — i.e. a

more profound understanding of the world — is enough.!2? In this way, Aristotle's philosophy is more 'theoretical' than Plato's. Aristotle's solution to the problem of the relationship between practical and theoretical knowledge is also defensive of the practical way of life. In the seventh book of the Politics (7.1324a26), Aristotle makes the famous difference between ὁ πολιτικὸς καὶ

πρακτικὸς βίος and ὁ θεωρητικὸς βίος, the latter being the ‘philosophical’ way of life (φιλόσοφος). Both lifestyles are seen to be virtuous (ὁ pet’ ἀρετῆς βίος) and the only ways of life which most ambitious men (φιλοτιμότατοι) would choose.!3° Before this distinction, Aristotle ponders which is the more favourable way of life — that which includes participation or that which includes non-participation. It seems that Aristotle drew a likeness between the life of a person who is released from (ἀπολύεσθαι) the duties of the polis, like metics, i. e., ὁ ξενικὸς βίος (7.1324a16) and the contemplative life.131 It is worth noting that Aristotle bears in mind in this passage more the good of a

polis than that of an individual. He carefully weighs the alternatives considering which is good for all and not only for some (7.1324a19). Aristotle further supposes (7.1325b1416), first, that the practical life (πρακτικός)

is the best way of life both for the city and

for the individual. But then he argues that those contemplations and thoughts which are an

end in themselves (αὐτοτελής) and which are for their own

sake also ‘practical’ or

‘active’ mean that the contemplative lifestyle can be included in the ‘practical’ life and be 126 Or ‘theology’, ‘the knowledge about causes’, ‘science of the being qua being’ (ἢ τοῦ ὄντος ἢ ὃν

ἐπιστήμη). 127

The wise man can understand the most difficult things, which are the things farthest away from the

sense-experience, abstract things, τὰ πρῶτα

xai τὰ αἰτία (Metaph. 1.982b2). He is also most

accurate in his knowledge and most competent to teach others to adopt things. 128

Mere decision aided by knowledge is not sufficient to make men virtuous (Eth. Nic.

1179b17-18)

because of the 'fragility' of character (ἀκράτεια). 129

Nussbaum

1986, 242.

130

The tripartition of lifestyles can also be found in the texts of Aristotle: the theoretical one (contemplative), the practical one (political, ambitious life) oc the one, which 1s based on pleasure (Eth. Nic. (095b17). In the tripartition of Plato, however, each kind of life has a pleasure of tts own. See Merlan 1976, 279-281, he compares the tripartitions of ways of life in Plato, Aristotle

and in the simile of Heracleides. Aristotle also differentiates the species of thought (διάνοια): θεωρητικαΐ, πρακτικαὶί (for example rhetoric) and ποητικαί (for example sculpture and poetry) (Metaph. 1025b25). Different kinds of habits of mind (ἕξις) also correspond to different kinds of action (Metaph.

[41

1061 a8-10).

Sec Xen. Mem. 2.1.13: ξένος πανταχοῦ εἰμι (said Aristippus).

60

Tua Korhonen

useful to the polis. The ‘praxis’ of these ‘architects’ of thoughts is sovereign (7.1325b23), but the true sovereignty is realized only in the life of the god (singular) and the cosmos as a whole, who may be able to be beautifully at leisure because they have nothing outside themselves and thus no outward impulses which urge them to do deeds (7.1325b28). Finally, Aristotle concludes that the best lifestyle 1s not necessary the same

for every person (7.1325b30), although oniy the theoretical and the practical-cum-political life are virtuous. For men of ordinary abilities the best lifestyle would be leisure combined with culture or ‘philosophy’, μουσική and ‘political’ activity (i.e. activities in polis). It would provide the intrinsic satisfactions of φιλοσοφία without imposing its demands.!?? Thus, Aristotle does not deny the adherent of the practical way of life access to wisdom; the practical man has access to wisdom of his own kind, namely, to the practical wisdom

(φρόνησις). The distinction between φρόνησις and σοφία (theoretical knowledge) is most clearly drawn in the Nicomachean Ethics. While theoretical knowledge concerns the most valuable things in life,!33 practical knowledge guides conduct by the right principle (ὁ λόγος ὁ ὀρθός) (5.1138620).134 Sometimes Aristotle seems to draw a parallel between philosophizing and attending to the common

duties,

as for example

in the Politics (1.1255b37).

question of the difference between two kinds of free men:

The

one who

context

is

the

must order and

employ the slaves himself and another who can afford to engage a steward, and thus concentrate on philosophy or politics. The alternatives are equal in their goodness, but ‘to philosophize' is seen here as engaging in any systematic learning.!?5 Aristotle, too, gives answers to the accusations regarding the seemingly useless character of philosophers. Thales, seemingly the most impractical philosopher ever, once predicted by means of his knowledge of astronomy a good crop of olives for the next season. He acquired a

monopoly on olive-presses and became a very rich man (Pol. 1.125929). Thus, also Thales is φρόνιμος, not only σοφός. The philosophers could be φρόνιμοι and become rich if they want, but that is not the object of their interest (σπουδάζειν) (Pol. 1.1259a15).

Thus, Plato and Aristotle use different tactics to counter accusations of the

impracticality of philosophers. Plato concentrates on the point of view of the philosopher; the accusations are due to the accuser's inability to understand the philosopher's values. 132

Lord 1982, 198. M. Nussbaum 1986, 347 notes that according to Aristotle even in a good city the best human life cannot be possible for all because "it requires conditions that cannot at any one time be distributed to all". The condition for the best human life is leisure which is required both for theoretical and political activities (Pol. 1329a1) and, for example, the craftsmen and hired servants do not have it (1278220).

133

copia = ἐπιστήμη καὶ νοῦς τῶν τιμιωτάτων τῇ φύσει (Eth. Nic.

134

As modern scholars have noticed, Aristotle introduces in the Nichomachean Ethics two ways of life

which do not fit together, namely contemplative life in book

1141b3).

the good, happy life (εὐδαιμονία)

in books

1-9 and the

[Ὁ. Because human beings have a composite nature (composed of form

and matter) a harmonious life for them is that which accords with their composite

nature i.e. the life

of practical wisdom, which fulfils their social and human nature. Disharmonious life is that which accords, for example, purely with the form (the life of contemplation). But in the tenth book Aristotle advises trying to become as immortal as is possible for a mortal being. For this, see Jordan 1990, 130 and Sihvola 1993. J. Sihvola 1993, 119 suggests that the inconsistency could have been clear also to Aristole. It was intentional because it shows the ambiquity felt by Artstotle towards practical activities: they have from one point of view only instrumental valuc and from the point of view of the other also intrinsic value. Furthermore, Sihvola points out. the heritage of. the theoretically orientated Academy on Aristotle and that Aristotle. would have wanted to empasizc theoretical life in a practically oriented society. 135.

For the general meaning of φιλοσοφία. see p. 88ÍIT. and note 303 below.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

61

Aristotle is not impartial — the only way of life for a philosopher is the contemplative one. But Aristotle argues that in regard to virtue, both lifestyles, the theoretical and the practical, are equal. The philosopher is freed from public duties and yet he is profitable to the polis. The theoretical life suits only a few, but the common man's life can be harmonious with a suitable amount of philosophy (in its general meaning of culture) and ‘politics’. This, according to Aristotle, is in no way an unfortunate lifestyle. Ordinary

men have their place in Aristotle's philosophical method, too. The inquiry starts from wonder or perplexity and continues by working through the views of earlier philosophers

or/and the opinions of the common man.!?6 Ancient doxographers made Aristotle's two pupils, two members of the Peripatetic school, representatives of the two opposite choices: Theophrastus concentrated on the contemplative life and Dicaearchus of Messina the practical.!?? Dicaearchus, who according to Cicero, was the most ardent advocate of the mortality of the soul (Tusc.

1.65) wrote a book on the philosophers' way of life, βίοι φιλοσόφων, in which he calls forth the Seven Sages, who had participated in their communities in a more many-sided manner than his own contemporaries. He states that they could have reconciled theory

with praxis more successfully so that their theoretical views corresponded to their actions. Dicaearchus also accused Plato of converting people to philosophy, but philosophizing in

a superficial way.!?8 The influence of the Cynics is worth mentioning in the development of the philosopher's way of life and the public image of it. The Cynics moulded afresh the values and needs of free men. Extreme self-sufficiency, attack against conventions, emancipation of himself from the prevailing norms, but also creation of the new ones

(νόμισμα παραχαράττειν) were the aims of a Cynic.!?? They proclaimed their rootless and deviate way of life in the polis, but at the same time the cosmopolitan character of their lives, their readiness to adjust themselves to every situation. It is said that Diogenes

of Sinope described himself and his situation as ἄπολις, ἄοικος, πατρίδος ἐστερημένος."49 The Cynics wanted to emphasize that they were outsider s in regard to the

polis

as

well

as

the

oikos.

They

had

features

in common

with

Hellenistic

philosophers, for example, with Polemo, the Stoics, and also with Epicurus, by advising that one should not live in accordance with convention but with 'nature'!4! — although every school rethought the concept of 'nature' in their own way. The Cynics emphasized

136 Jordan 1990, 111. 137

Cic. Art. 2.16; Jaeger 1960, 390. In the Peripatetic school books concerning the ways of life (Περὶ

βίων) were written at least by Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, Strato. For this, see Wehrli 1980, 547. 138

Wehrli 1983, 536. For Dicaearchus' fragments concerning the way of life, see Wehrli

1944,

18-22

(fr. 25-46).

139 Dudley 1937, 48. 140 The poem continues: πτωχὸς

πλανήτης,

βίον ἔχων

τοὐφ᾽ ἡμέραν. See D.L. 6.38; Julian. Ad

Them. 256d. Julianus has a passage (Or. 6.195b) where the poem continues even further: no obol, no money, no servant, no bread, but still happy. About the ‘negative’ cosmopolitanism of Diogenes of Sinope, see Schofield 1991, 144ff. [4]

Long 1974, 109-11. — If the sophists had argued for nomos (nothing is ‘natural’, everything is in relation to convention), the Hellenistic philosophers, in my opinion, argued for physis - for the new

idea what is ‘natural’.

62

Tua Korhonen

the simple life, as apparently Pyrrho did, and they shunned traditional education and culture, as Epicurus did.!4? The school of Epicurus is said to represent an alternative culture in Athens because it

was indifferent to the values of its surrounding society and instead created new ones.!4 The Garden was a community of friends which had close connections to the other Epicurean 'sects' in Lampsacus and Mytilene. The lifestyle of the Garden was evidently a deviant way of life which was based on the tenets of Epicurus. However, the Epicurean

maxim λάθε βιώσας44 did not prevent some Epicureans from engaging in political activities in society.!45 Epicurus writes in his Letter to Menoeceus (D.L. 10.122-135) about a life of pleasure, τὸ ζῆν ἡδέως (132) or of happiness (μακαρίως) (128). The sage who can live like that is like a god among men (135). It means taking care of the health of the body and the

tranquillity of the soul, and Epicurus defines pleasure in particular in a negative way: as absence of (bodily) pain and absence of trouble in the soul (131) -- the so-called static

pleasure.!46 Every choice (αἵρεσις ) and every aversion (φυγή) is regulated by the principle of pleasure (128-129). The most important aid to attaining this kind of life is reason (φρόνησις) which is worthier even than φιλοσοφία (132).!47 E. Bignone has suggested that here Epicurus adheres to practical wisdom in contrast to the contemplative ideal of Plato and Aristotle, and that he contrasts Aristotle's concept of philosophy as a

speculative science to his own philosophy.!48 But, according to J. Annas, Epicurus "does not greatly care whether we stress the theoretical or the practical aspect of the

reasoning

required

for living

well".!14?

Epicurus

often

emphasizes,

however,

the

importance of knowledge of the physical world to free us from vain fears and superstitions and thus draws a parallel between φιλοσοφία and 'physiology', the physics of his own system. The context of this passage is the attainment of the ideal way of life and ‘physiology’ has its emphatic place in the process. But, as it is stated in the Kyriai Doxai 11, we no longer need 'physiology' when we have reached the level of ἀταραξία. The philosophy or physiology as a system is less important than the attaining of an ideal life. Our choices conceming right action depend, thus, on the principle of what is pleasurable. However, what is pleasurable or painful, what is good for both the body and

142

Long

1974, 70, 79. - The fragment of Epicurus ([89] Arr. = Ath.

5888):

Μακαρίζω

σε, ὦ

᾿Απελλῆ, ὅτι καθαρὸς πάσης παιδείας ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας. See also fr. [89] Arr. - Timo (fr. 51 Di Marco = D.L. 10.2) calls Epicurus the son of an elementary school teacher and the least educated creature. 143

Frischer 1982, 52. According to B. Frischer, Epicureanism changed from a subculture to an alternative culture. He defines the subculture as a group whose values are consciously in opposition to the prevailing culture.

144 plut, De lat. viv. 1128a-30e. 145

E.g. the mathematician Philonides served as an ambassador. See note 94 above. Epicurus himself helped to release Mithres, a dioiketes of Lysimachus, who was held under guard in Pireus — see Burnstein

146

1985,

18 (nr.14).

A A. Long 1974, 63 emphasizes that pleasure and pain are seen by the Epicureans as contradictories not as contraries: they are mutually exclusive. For the difference between static pleasure (e.g.

ἀταραξία) and kinetic (fulfilling needs), see Annas 1993, 188.

147 |. φιλοσοφίας τιμιώτερον ὑπάρχει φρόνησις. 148

Bignone 1936 (1) 1057. E. Bignone 1936 (1) 575ff. compares this passage also with the Arıstotle’s Protrepticus fr. 14 (sce note 125 above).

149

Annas

1993, 85 note

124.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

63

soul depends on the situation, which is always variable. One can keep to the principle of pleasure with the aid of reason. This means measuring one thing against another (συμμετρεῖν) on each occasion (Ep. Men. 130). Thus, Epicurus carefully emphasizes that a life of pleasure is equal to dispassionate reasoning (νήφων λογισμός) which means

consulting knowledge, here denoted as φρόνησις, in every situation (Ep. Men. 132).150 Epicurus recommends also the ‘natural’ way of life ; self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια)

means being contented with what one has because all that is natural (τὸ φυσικόν) is easily obtained, but superfluous things (τὸ κενόν) are hard to gain (Ep. Men. 130).!5! "Natural life’ means to fulfil necessary desires and physical desires as well, if they do not

bring any harm (SV 21).!52 But, as J. Annas has argued, the ‘natural life’ of Epicurus does point to a highly idealized nature not to the common sense view of it as what is

natural.!53 The notion of self-sufficiency is crucial. For Epicurus self-sufficiency does not mean that one does not need anything because one already has everything — as if one

is omnipotent like a divine being or as if one lives in the best possible world where one is able to fulfil all one's needs and desires. It means,

as stated above,

to be content with

what one already has.!54 Self-sufficiency is obtained by following nature and not vain opinions and their unlimited desires. However, the 'vain opinions' are not easily defined. Thus, to attain this ‘natural life’, we need knowledge to differentiate vain opinions from

the true ones. Epicurus states (KD 21) that want is always combined with pain (tó ἀλγοῦν κατ᾽ ἔνδειαν), so that the perfect life means that one does not need anything

which is attainable by struggle (ἀγῶνες). The ‘agonistic society’ of the Greek polis surely demanded struggle so that it seems difficult to accommodate the idea of the perfect life of Epicurus with the actual public life of his tíme (or any other time). For Epicurus, it seems

to be ‘a vain opinion’ to believe that the good life is attainable by participation in public life. The more 'natural life' seems to be that of non-participation. However, A.A. Long and D. Sedley argue that for Epicurus political offices were not intrinsically harmful, but

that they were not a promising means to obtain good things.!55 So it would seem that Epicurus encourages taking all the circumstances into consideration if one is willing to participate in politics, but does not recommend such participation. It is worth mentioning

that Epicurus does not make a distinction between people (as theoretically and practically orientated ones or between philosophers and non-philosophers) and the lifestyle accommodated to their character while discussing the good life, for example, in the Letter

to Menoeceus. The fact that he addresses the letters and maxims mainly to the members of his circle surely have had an influence on his style as well as the way he treated the

subject. Epicurus' context is *we Epicureans', not the whole sphere of philosophers and non-philosophers. The Epicurean lifestyle seems to manage to combine both the practical and theoretical

aspects — they do not exclude each other. One should at the same time philosophize gladly

and also look to practical things i.e. the management of a household and other related 150 See also KD 16. [51

To content oneself with little is also recommended c.g. in KD 53, 68; SV 69.

152

The desires are also divided into ‘natural and necessary‘, natural nor necessary' desires (KD 29).

‘natural but

not

necessary’

and ‘neither

153 Annas 1993, I88ff. 154

FE. Decleva Caizzi 1993, 328 suggests everything’) in the Stoic texts.

155 Long & Scdley 1987 (1) 136.

that αὐτάρκεια

is used in the first sense (i.e.

‘one has

64

Tua Korhonen

matters

(SV 41).156

But surely everyday

affairs could

be a hindrance

to the true

occupation of a philosopher.!?7 Epicurus clearly understood that not all people have the necessary σχολῇ

for philosophy. Thus, for example, at the beginning of his Letter to

Pythocles, which is the epitome of the doctrines of the celestial phenomena,

he makes

explicit that it is aimed particularly at those who have but little time for inquiry, because of

some regular occupation (85).158 Besides, philosophizing has certain advantages compared with other activities. In other pursuits (ἐπιτηδεύματα) reward is attained after the work has been done, but in practising φιλοσοφία the pleasure goes along with knowledge and pleasure and learning happen at the same time (SV 27). Thus Epicurus" view of philosophy 1s somewhat like a cognitive activity whose aim 1s pleasure but in

which pleasure at the same time defines the means and 15 an end. According to the Epicureans man was not naturally a social being. Man has travelled a

long cultural evolution from raw primitivity!?? to a state where life with friends in the Epicurean Garden is possible. So laws, habits, monarchies or other forms of government are guarantees for safety and peace against social chaos.!60 The life in the Garden was seen as a model of the best way of living in the existing society. In his testament (D.L. 10.17-21) Epicurus often uses the word οἱ συμφιλοσοφοῦντες emphasizing philosophy

as a collective enterprise.!6! The notion of φιλία is crucial to the best way of life of an Epicurean. It is even seen as immortal, while wisdom (σοφία) is mortal (SV 78) — this

may mean that the life of the Garden will also continue after the death of the sage, the leader of the community. Wisdom

gives many good things to people, but the best is

friendship (KD 27) and it is also the best security in the turmoils of life (KD 28). May

we

consider that living in the Garden was also a necessary condition for being an Epicurean

philosopher? It is true that Epicurus does not refer directly to life in the Garden in his texts while considering the good life, but he deals with the good life in general terms. However, the sage seems to be able to arrange his life in Epicurean fashion outside the

Garden also.!62 [t seems that living with congenial friends (i.e. the life in the Garden in Athens or elsewhere) was the best way, however, to keep a mediocre Epicurean in the right disposition. Thus, we may argue that the Garden was not only the model of the good life for an Epicurean, a miniature of the ideal society, but for him (and in the case of

Epicureans, also for her) the preferable way of life.!6?

... οἰκονομεῖν xai toig λοιποῖς οἰκειώμασι χρῆσθαι. Sce SV

58,

where

is the injunction

to liberate oneself from

the

regular occupations

and

from

'political' matters (τὰ ἐγκύκλια καὶ τὰ πολιτικά). ... καὶ τοῖς εἰς ἀσχολίας βαθυτέρας τῶν ἐγκυκλίων τινὸς ἐμπεπλεγμένοις. Sec Ep. Ep. Hdt. 75-76; Lucr. 5.925-38. Athenio, a comic poct, has a similar picture of the cultural evolution of mankind in the fragment of his Samothracians, where, in the manner of New Comedy, it is cookery, which is the active force behind the civilized life (PCG 4. (Athenio) fr. 1).

160

plut, Adv. Col. 1124d. The verb συμφιλοσοφεῖν occurs also in PHerc 1027 fr.7. Crónert 1906, 69. Other expressions in the testament referring to the members of the school: o1 ἀπὸ ἡμῶν φιλοσυφοῦντες, οἱ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ [Hermarchus] φιλοσοφοῦντες, ὁ συγκαταγεγηρακὼς ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ. However, συμ-φιλοσοφεῖν occurs also in Theophrastus’ testament (D.L. 5.52).

162

See ev. KD

16, 21, 39.

164°

“If we live with monkeys, we must behave like monkevs". wrote the comic poet. Apollodorus (in 4th or 3rd century B.C.) and claims that à happy inakaries) and pleasurable life is to ἀπραγμόνως Conv (POG 2. (Apollodorus) 1).

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

65

The values of Epicurus differed greatly from those of the profit-valuing society. Epicurus advises one to be content with what one already has. He warns that one should

not collect too much property because it would be a hindrance to freedom. Riches are difficult to obtain without servility to the holders of power or to the crowd (oxAoı) (SV 67). The ἀταραξία is not gained by the possession of great wealth or by honour on the

part of the masses (ἢ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς tum (SV 81). Epicurus does not use the exact word, but this maxim can be an allusion to the philotimia.!9* It also indicates a mild disdain for ordinary men (oi πολλοί). Although Epicurus seems to discuss the good life mainly in general terms without discriminating against anybody or making a difference

between philosophers and common men, he often uses the expression ‘01 πολλοί᾽ in the negative meaning of *the mob'. He advises one to withdraw

from it (KD

14).

He has

never been anxious to please the ordinary man because his comprehension is far removed from theirs (Gnomol. cod. Par.1168 f. 115 ! = [131] Arr.).!65 This reminds us of the aristocratic sentiment of Plato towards ordinary people, but it is also the normal

‘transcendental’ language of an intellectual, who criticizes the prevailing values and norms. On the other hand, for the sake of friendship, one can even risk one's tranquillity (SV 28) and not only for friends but also for near ones (πλησίον), thus, they are both cared for as our fellowmen far and near (SV 61, 70, 67, KD 40). We remember the sage

Theodorus of Cyrene who does not want to risk his life for the sake of the common people, the unwise. What would an Epicurean have done? Epicurus praises his friend, who did not confine philosophizing only to himself, but to all of Greece (SV 74). Thus, we may assume that Epicurus' aim was to disseminate his

ideas to all Greeks. The phrase σῴζειν τοὺς

“Ἕλληνας,

which echoed the political

language, is found in an excerpt of a letter of Metrodorus, a close friend of Epicurus, but

in a dubious context.!66 In the letter to an unknown person, however, Epicurus states that he is not writing this letter for the many (contrary to the extant letters to Herodotus, Pythocles and Menoeceus, which were open letters, written to all Epicureans) but namely to the addressee, because they (he himself and the addressee) are enough of an audience for each other: satis enim magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus (Seneca Ep. 7.11 Ξ [129] Arr.). This can be a sign of a strong personal relationship and that Epicurus reveals something only to this recipient, or it can manifest the ability of Epicurus to focus his attention on each person in turn as a part of his tactic to win people to his philosophy. In

one of the most beautiful of his maxims ($V 52), Epicurus describes φιλία as dancing around the inhabited world and inviting all to awake to happiness. It is as if the friends 163

See also KD 7. The term philotimia is missing in the Index of Arrighetti (1960) and the TLG-search of the word proves that it does not occur in the surviving writings of Epicurus. The word seems not to be in favour among the Hellenistic philosophers. We have one occurrence of the word by the Stoics: Adronicus (Ist century B.C.) reports different kinds of definitions of emotions of the Stoics: φιλοτιμία = ἐπιθυμία ἄμετρος τιμῆς (SVF 3.397). Thus, it is not defined as a social concept, but an emotion. A TLG-search concerning Zeno and Chrysippus shows that the word is missing in their surviving fragments (philotimia in SVF 2.32 and in SVF 2.475 does not belong to the quotation).

165 See also SV 29, 45; Ep. Men. 123; SV 81. In PHerc 1027 col. 12 (see Crónert 1906, 69) Cameiscus, a member of Epicurus' inner circle, praises one Philistas as οὐθὲν ἑλλιπόντα τοῦ ἀρίστου βίου καρὰ τὸ μὴ τυχεῖν τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοί[ϊςΪ περιβλέπτων. - Compare with the contempt of Heraclitus toward the mob e.g. fr. 86, 35, 92. 196

Plutarch (Non posse xuav. 1098c-d) quotes a letter of Metrodorus, where Metrodorus states that the Epicureans do nor need to save the world, but only gratify their bellies. D. Sedley 1976, 129 claims that Plutarch's source was not the original letter, but the distorted report of it by Timocrates, the anti-Epicurean and contemporary of Epicurus. However, the phrase σῴζειν τοὺς "EXAnvag itself could be from the original letter. See also Westman 1955, 210.

66

Tua Korhonen

form a chain of friendship (‘your friends are my friends, too’) which makes the ideal society possible and as if the purpose were that Epicureanism will spread all over the world step-by-step from one individual to another, not by preaching the message to a large public. In this way Epicurus can be said to fulfil the greatest-happiness-principle of

John Stuart Mill i.e. the greatest happiness of the greatest number, although he confined himself to a small circle of people and to the seclusion of the Garden.!97 But if Epicurus' ideal was that all people in the known world would be infected by Epicureanism what would be the lot of those, who would not convert to Epicureanism? It seems that Epicurus had a slight contempt for the common men (oi πολλοί ) and he could restrict the scope of the φιλία only to the ‘near ones’. Everyone has, in principle, the possibility of awakening to Epicureanism. Epicurean texts are full of ev-compounds as if Epicurus emphasizes the ease of attaining the happy life defined by him.!98 Or, at least, Epicurus wants to assure the reader/hearer that his doctrines are not *way out', too difficult to understand. But, if one fails to heed the call, one has no place in the Epicurean ideal society.

Plutarch blames especially the philosophers at the beginning of the Hellenistic age for abstaining from the political and other public activities of their society.'69 He can find no political participation in the biographies of the Stoics. Plutarch lists different forms of

participation: στρατηγία, νομοθεσία, πρεσβεία, ἐπίδοσις and also participation in the Council, advocacy in court and military service in defence of one's country. The main argument is, however, that although the Stoics have written works as περὶ πολιτείας

καὶ τοῦ ἄρχεσθαι

καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ δικάζειν, they have not indicated political activity

or cared for social duties. They have only read their books and had their walks and discussions. So they seem to have lived consistently with the doctrines of other schools,

e.g. according to Epicurus’ tenets rather than with their own.!?? Thus their lifestyle did not correspond to their doctrines.!?! In this connection Plutarch quotes also Chrysippus'

work περὶ Biov.172 He sets forth to prove that although Chrysippus did not participate in the activities of society, he, however, condemned the way of life called σχολαστικὸς

βίος (which for Plutarch meant the life of a scholar, lecturer or philosopher) as basically a pleasurable life. Plutarch claims that 'the scholarly life' was the very lifestyle which Chrysippus himself led. Chrysippus' apparent aim was, however, to emphasize that if a

σχολαστικὸς

βίος is only a certain kind of pastime (διαγωγῆ), a way of living using

leisure for intellectual hobbies, it was not enough to be a life of the true philosopher.!73 If

the σχολαστικὸς

βίος in Chrysippus! time meant the lifestyle of a scholar, it indicates

167 See Long 1985, 307-8.

168 Decleva Caizzi 1993, 327. Compare with Aristotle’s Protrepticus fr. 57 Düring, where the ease with which one could acquire philosophical protreptic genre. 169

170

knowledge

is emphasized,

too

— due,

of course,

to

the

Plutarch himself was a member of at least three embassies. Kienast 1973, 591.

De Stoic. rep. 1033b. — For example, Zeno wrote Περὶ τοῦ νόμου, Πολιτεία, Cleanthes Περὶ τοῦ

δικάζειν, Περὶ νόμων, Πολιτικός. For this, see Plutarch Adv. Col. 1126e. 17!

Plutarch uses here the expression ὁμολογουμένως τινι ζῆν; compare with the Stoic formula in note 187 below. Other phrases as well, for example in Plato's language, were often used to express the coherence between words/speech or text and the way of life/ deeds e.g. σύμφωνον (Lach. 188d) and

àxoAovOeiv (Resp. 400e).

IT2 De Stoic. rep. 1033d = SVF 3.702. 173

For the Stoics mere ascetism or life as a scholar does not suffice for a philosophical lifestyle, but the way of life which is consistently shaped by the right doctrines. See Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 436 and below.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

67

that the roles of a philosopher and a scholar had been differentiated.

Already in the

testament of Theophrastus (D.L. 5.52) the phrase συσχολάζειν καὶ συμφιλοσοφεῖν is used to describe the activities of the school, but the Peripatos had a scholarly orientation and the words could have had nearly same reference in their circles. If the roles of a

scholar and a philosopher had not been clearly separated, Chrysippus in any case seems to refer in this fragment mainly to other philosophers as the representatives of σχολαστικὸς βίος and not so much to those outside of the circles of philosophers, to other intellectuals.!?4 Plutarch reports two other ways

of life that Chrysippus

named

in addition to the

rejected ‘scholarly life’: the life of a ruler and that of a politician. According to Plutarch, Chrysippus admitted that these ways of life are possible for the sage (De Stoic. rep. 1033e).175 The same tripartition of lifestyles is also recorded by Stobaeus (SVF 3.686): βασιλικόν, πολιτικόν, ἐπιστημονικόν although here all three are passable for a sage to choose. Thus it seems that at least from Chrysippus, 'the second founder of Stoicism',

onwards, the Stoic sage was not recommended to abstain from political life, and he could even have chosen the life of a monarch — like Plato's philosopher-king.!76 Zeno did not make recommendations of this nature (or they have not survived), but according to him it

was possible for a Stoic sage to deal with a monarch

without losing his freedom of

mind.!77 The tripartition of possible lives for the wise man, the sage, recalls the different lifestyles of Plato and Aristotle, but it is crucial that the Stoics pondered the ways of life

from the point of view of the sage, only.!78 It seems that — as in the case of Epicurus -the focus is ‘we’ or rather ‘the ideal for us’, the sage. There is one exception, namely the Hymn

to Zeus

in which

Cleanthes

describes,

in addition

to the praise

of Zeus,

the

viciousness of bad men (oi κακοί). He presents them as rushing for fame, money and pleasure and on the whole their life is characterized as ‘baneful ignorance’ (ἀπειροσύνῃ

λυγρή). The good life would be to obey the common law (κοινὸς νόμος). This echoes to some extent Plato's hierarchical tripartition of lifestyles, although Cleanthes evidently does not put fame, money and pleasure on different levels. They are all equally bad. The way of life of the sage was an exceptional one and ideal one. None of the early

Stoics claimed to be the sage — early Stoicism had some notion of the pessimistic view of philosophy, although adapted to their own ideology. It was possible only for the σοφός

174 pong & Sedley 1987 (2) 430. They translated the passage as "the scholarly life", (1), 434. 175

See also Plut. De Stoic. rep. 1034b: Chrysippus permits the sage to participate in politics and make

public speeches. 176 See SVF 3.693, 694. D.L. 7.122: only the sages are able to attend to ἀρχικοὺς δικαστικούς te καὶ ῥητορικοὺῦς.

17? plut, De audiendis poetis 33d = SVF 1.219: Zeno rewrites the verse of Sophocles (fr. 873): "whoever does business (ἐμπορεύεσθαι) with a tyrant is the latter's slave, even if he goes as a free man" to the form "whoever does business with a tyrant is not a slave, if he goes as a free man" (translated by Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 432). There seems to be a vague allusion to parrhesia here. The ambivalence towards a philosopher's life in the courts of monarchs is indicated, however, in Ind.

Sto.

col.

13 where Perseus is said to live a life of the courtier (βίος αὐλικός)

philosophical life at the court of Antigonus. -- About the political participation early Stoics, scc Erskine 1990, 64-74. 178

and

not

ἃ

in. general of the

The name of Chysippus’ work was only "The ways of life" not "The ways of life of the sage" as if they need not mention that their focus is only on the life of the sage. However, we have only a few fragments of this work.

68

Tua Korhonen

to obtain the philosophiae finis, and the wise man is hard to find.! 7? The more important distinction was the distinction between the clever one and the inferior one, the serious one

and the frivolous one, the good one and the bad one, namely the distinction between oi

σπουδαῖοι

and oi φαῦλοι.50 This dichotomy recalls the idea of Austin and Vidal-

Naquet — they refer to the Archaic and Classical age: "the moral qualities are implicitly attributed to the social classes: positive qualities are the priviledge of the wealthy

minority."13! The Stoics rejected the traditional discrimination between social classes (e.g. citizens-metics) and instead made their own classes based on the concepts of the ones worth taking seriously and the no-account ones. The Stoics seem to have been as

exclusive in granting positive values to the bad ones as the old aristocracy had been. There was thus vast differences between the good ones and the bad ones.!82 Philo interprets Zeno as stating that these two ‘classes’ do not have equal rights of speech (ἰσηγορία) either. Zeno, however, states only that the bad ones shall pity themselves if

they dare to argue against (ἀντιλέγειν) the good ones (SVF 1.228).183 This implies onesided communication and the inclusive superiority of the good ones. We may ask if it were possible for the inferior to become the good, then? Was it not the very task of the

φιλοσοφία to encourage progress, προκοπή, towards virtue? In a papyrus found in Herculaneum which deals with Stoic dialectic!84 and is attributed to Chrysippus,!95 philosophy is defined as an endeavour with the rightness of λόγος and knowledge. In the first place it is activity, which concentrates first of all on

λόγος,86 by which is meant, as Chrysippus clarifies, those faculties which naturally belong to all rational beings. So ὀρθὸς λόγος is the object of pursuit in Stoic philosophy.!8? On the other hand, the philosophiae finis according to Zeno, Cleanthes

179

Zeno is reported to have said that even of philosophers the greater number are unwise (ἄσοφοι) in most things, and ignorant (ἀμαθεῖς) about small and casual things (D.L. 7.21).

180 Compare with Plato Euth. 307a: ἐν παντὶ ἐπιτηδεύματι ἄξιοι, οἱ δὲ σπουδαῖοι ὀλίγοι καὶ παντὸς ἄξιοι.

oi μὲν φαῦλοι πολλοὶ καὶ

οὐδενὸς

181 Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1977, 28. 182

According to the evidence of Stobaeus (2.68, 18-23 = LS 41G) the Stoics considered insanity a characteristic of the inferior man because he did not know himself and his tasks. This is because his

disposition makes his impulses false. However, the Stoics do not mean by φαῦλοι only mentally disordered or retarded persons but it referred to the moral quality as well. 183

the

Philo Quod omnis probus liber sit 2.453.26. Von Arnim has included more about the words of Philo in the quotation of Zeno, also the term ἰσηγορία. In newer editions the word is not regarded as belonging to the quotation. See for example the editions of Philo by F. H. Colson 1969 and M. Petit 1974. - Zeno’s statement recalls also the aristocratic reaction against Thersites in the /liad when he dared to speak in the assembly of chieftains. As said above, the word παρρησία was not frequently used by the Stoics. According to Plutarch (De Store. rep. 1050c) Chrysippus used the word in its pejorative sense: he granted an unrestained licence of tongue (avanentapevn παρρησία) to the inferior people (SVF 2.937), but this is not a quotation but a paraphrase of

Chrysippus' views. The phrase ἀναπεπταμένη παρρησία occurs in Pl. Phdr. 240c, too. 184

PHerc. 1020 = SVF 2.131. The text here is based on the edition of Hülser 1987 (1) 90 (fr. 88) col I.

185

For example, Kerferd 1978, 128 and Long 1978, 108, but not Hülser 1987 (1) 90.

[86

πρῶτον μὲν γάρ ἐστιν [ἢ] φιλοσοφία, εἴτ᾽ ἐ[π]ιτήδευ[σι]ς λόγου ὀρ[θ]ότητος [eilt ἐπιστήμη 5 [μάλισ]τα περὶ λόγον πραγματεία. Part of this definition is recorded by Isidorus (Epist. 5.558),

too: ἐπιτήδευσιν λόγου ὀρθότητος. Isidorus attributed it to Chrysippus. [RT

Compare

with

Aristotle

where φιλοσοφία

(Zr.

is defined

Nre.

as τῆς

5.1 138520)

τῶν

p.

ὄντων

60

Gr

above

and

with

ὑπιστήμης

Ὅροι

oprSic:

οἱ

£8

Platonic

Corpus,

θεωρητικὴ

τοῦ

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

69

and Chrysippus is to lead a life in accordance with nature (ὁμολογουμένως τῇ φύσει).188 Φύσις is certainly one of the key concepts of the Stoics, but as Long has argued,

φύσις and

λόγος

often

had

an

almost

similar

reference,

but

a different

meaning.!9? ‘Nature’ is a starting-point (as when one compares prevailing habits and values with the ‘natural’ ones of animals) and an ideal for a Stoic. The reason why we cannot live in accordance with nature is because of the wrong kind of judgment and that

we give too great value to indifferent things (ἀδιάφορα) e.g. wealth, health, prestige.!90 The good one knows what is in accordance with nature, what the appropriate activity is in each situation, and the principles which rule the world.!?! The difference between the

Good and the Bad is described by a simile of a dog who is tied to a cart. If it follows the course of the cart without struggling against it, this is a ‘voluntary’ act which coincides with necessity, and the course is easy and thus 'natural'. He is Good who forgets his own petty impulses and understands his true 'natural' impulse. But if the poor dog does not want to follow the cart and tries to run in another direction, then the course is difficult

and ‘unnatural’ (Hippolytus Haer.

1.21 = SVF 2.975).

The good one understands the

perspective of the whole and not only the perspective of the part.!?2 We may return to the question of progress, προκοπή, and how explicit the early Stoics were on this issue. Plutarch reports that according to Zeno everyone can examine

their dreams, whether they are vicious or good, and from them perceive progress (SVF 1.234).193 Cicero, while referring to Chrysippus, points out that although man's nature is not perfect, virtue can be achieved (Nar. D. 2.39). But do Zeno and Chrysippus state only that the clever ones could make progress in virtue? For the Stoics the virtuous man meant ipso facto the clever man. Thus, progress would concem only the good one and oi

σπουδαῖοι try to reach the ideal of the sage. Diogenes Laertius in his account of the Stoic doctrines (7.91

2 SVF

3.223) states that virtue is teachable according to Chrysippus,

Cleanthes, Posidonius and Hecato, and, as he adds, this is evident because inferior men

become good (ἐκ τοῦ

γίνεσθαι ἀγαθοὺς

ἐκ φαύλων).

Zeno was not named and

Cleanthes was not mentioned first, but following Chrysippus as if the view of the latter

was better clarified. Furthermore, does Diogenes, in fact, give evidence of his own, based on common sense, that bad men sometimes become good? In that case, Diogenes is

using the technical term of the Stoics, ot φαῦλοι, in a general sense. Even if the whole passage could be considered as an allusion to some passage of, for example, Chrysippus, Diogenes Laertius could have meant that virtue is teachable only to the good ones and the

using of the technical term φαῦλος in this connection is Diogenes’ interpretation/ carelessness. This is confirmed in the case of Chrysippus also since he does not ἀληθοῦς, πῶς

ἀληθές: ἐπιμέλεια

ψυχῆς μετὰ

λόγου ὀρθοῦ (text from H.G.

Ingenkamp

1967,

Untersuchungen sur den pseudoplatonischen definitionen. Wiesbaden, 414 B 7).

188 Comm. Lucani lib. 2.380.73 (SVF 3. 5). See also SVF 3.6 (Clem. Al. Strom. 2. 482). According to Stobaeus (2.75.11 = SVF 1.179) this formula was first expressed in the form ὁμολογουμένως ζῆν, which means to live in harmony with λόγος and only Cleanthes added τῇ φύσει. But see D.L. 7.87, 189

Long 1974, 148. Some aspects of the ‘life in accordance with nature’ are possible to learn from the habits of animals (Plut. De stoic. rep. 1044f), but human beings differ from animals because of rationality, λόγος.

190 Annas 1993, 177-178. 191 Kerferd 1978, 134. 192

See Long

1974, 180.

193

Plut. De prof. virt. 12.821: ... αὐτοῦ συναισθάνεσθαι npoKörtortoc.

70

Tua Korhonen

recommend the inferior man to commit suicide — he admits that the inferior man can continue to live (Plut. De stoic. rep. 1039e = LS 610) — although the best kind of life is not possible for him. Thus vice according to Chrysippus has only an ontological value; without vice (and the vicious), good would not exist either (Plutarch De stoic. rep. 1050f

= LS 61R). The pessimistic view of philosophy (that it is not possible for a human being to become sophos) is thus modulated to concern only a certain class of people, oi φαῦλοι. Plutarch reports some peculiar considerations on the progress according to the Stoics as well (De prof. virt. 75c = LS 61S). Because virtue and vice are mutually exclusive

concepts, progress should happen without gradation, instantly.!?* Thus, the prokope is not a process, but a sudden and definitive occurrence. We have some evidence that the

Epicureans had the same kind of vision of prokope as a final and instant occurrence.!95 The

Peripatetics, however,

thought that progress

is a result of steady

and

gradual

development and it is also cumulative.!?6 O. Luschnat has suggested that the concept of contradictory pair, good and not-good, and the prokope attached to it, was discussed in the Academy (especially by Xenocrates ) but more or less as logical terms, not ethical. Moreover,

this

discussion

has

its

root

in

Plato's

Symposium

(203d)

where

the

philosopher 15 seen as a intermediate between the ignorant persons and the gods. Plato's solution, a bridge, between not-good and good, is Ἔρως and philosophy (Symp. 204a-

b).197

But this possibility of prokope can also be like repairing firm determinism gave no hope to the inferior man. If so, Stoics was aimed only at the good/clever ones and their way that of the common man. The inferior men seem to be mere

the earlier system, which by the φιλοσοφία of the early of life certainly differed from ontological structures of the

Stoic theatre of life where the proper people play their roles as actors, spectators or tradesmen. This ideology, however, that the bad one was ever doomed to his badness, surely lasted only a short period in the history of Stoicism. The Stoics created their "divine economy", which granted every person and thing its appropriate place and function, a place in the scene of life.!9?8

What about the relation between the practical and the theoretical side according to the Stoics — or the way in which they understood these concepts? Long and Sedley argue that instead of dividing their φιλοσοφία into practical and theoretical parts, the Stoics

emphasized the “practical utility of the subject (i.e. φιλοσοφία) in all its parts". Long and Sedley connect this with the consideration of Aetius (Prooem. 2 = LS 26A) where φιλοσοφία is defined as ἄσκησις ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, which they translate as "practice 194 See the discussion of this passage, Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 385-386. Plutarch refers to the sage as well to vice: ἐκ τῆς ... pavddtntos eig... ἀρετῆς διάθεσιν μεταβαλὼν ὁ σοφός.

195 DLL. 10.117: τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφόν. Plut. Adv. Col. 1117. See also Westman 1955, 195. 196 Cic. Fin. 5.39-40; D.L. 7.127; Gigon 1988, 265. 197

T uschnat

1958,

178, 212. Only

philosophers,

who

are between

(uera Eo) the ignorant

persons and

the gods can have an impulse to philosophize and they are thus likened to "Epws, who is between Πενία (deficiency) and Πόρος (abundance). - In the above-mentioned papyrus (p. 68) concerning Stoic logic (PHerc 1020), there is stressed that the sage μηδὲν ἀγνοεῖν. However, there exists the

metaxy, too: things which are between the bad (τὰ ὄντα φαῦλα) and the good things are called t[à] ἀνάμεσον, e.g. [ἀτεχ)νία. PHerc. 1020 = SVF 2.131 (OxLd, deest in n); Hülser 1987, 1. 90. 198 For the notion

of divine economy, see Shaw 1985, 35-37. For example, Epictetus would have thought this kind of determinism untrue: for him, it depended on a person's own choices whether he would want to be on the side of Good or Bad.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

7]

of expertise in utility", and thus for a Stoic the utility is “living a well reasoned life”.!9 It is possible that Aétius is not reporting the views of early Stoics, but if he is, the ‘practice in utility’ means also a very ‘theoretical’ way of living. Living in accordance with λόγος makes the best practical life possible. So it is the lifestyle which contains both the theoretical and the practical aspects of life — respectively, as the theoretical aspects precede the practical aspects of life. It can be called βίος λογικός because it is especially the λόγος, which binds the theory and praxis together.200 It must be repeated that this lifestyle is not possible for all. In his radical Republic, Zeno creates a vision of what society would be like if it consisted only of good men: there would

be no

normal

institutions

of the Greek

polis (law-courts,

temples,

gymnasia,

marriage), there would be no money. This recalls the Cynic ideal life which is outside the oikos and outside the normal structures of the polis. However, it is easier for Zeno to

define what the ideal polis would not be (in the frame of reference of the polis) than what would it be like. Zeno emphasizes the meaning of Ἔρως as a uniting factor inside society

and as a promoting force even towards security (σωτηρία) and freedom of polis.2°! Companionship (ὁμόνοια) promotes security in the state, it makes people keep their social contracts, mutual commitment and strengthens their morality in times of crisis.2°2 Friendship, φιλία, is a key-concept for Epicurus for the well-being of society, and it is

also an important notion for the Stoics. It should not be seen as a mere personal relationship (although it includes mutual affection), but as a political concept, a base for

social cohesion.203 M. Schofield states that the polis of Zeno was the first political theory compounded

of men,

not citizens.20^

Indeed,

the

‘rationality’

manifestation in his life, i.e., living in accordance with λόγος

of a person

and

its

was the difference which

mattered — not his race, social status, or property. In A. Erskine's view freedom was for

the first time treated as a central philosophical issue and not as individual free will (which was Epicurus' innovation), but as a social ideal: the actions of the citizens of the ideal

society were based on equality.205 Erskine compares the Stoic view with that of Plato. In Plato's ideal polis, the philosophers should rule ordinary men,

as in the soul reason

should rule desire. The physical theory of the Stoics, however, condemns this kind of subordination. For the Stoics, the soul is a unit and besides, there is no sharp division between soul (which is a material entity) and body.206 In my opinion this absence of subordination in the theory of body and soul does not indicate the radically democratic attitudes of the carly Stoics. They claimed that this equality could exist only in the homogeneous community of the good men or the sages.

199

Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 161. The genitive ἐπιτηδείου is according to them an abbreviation of περὶ τοῦ ἐπιτηδείου.

200 Joly 1956, 140ff. The phrase ὁ λογικὸς βίος was not used by the Stoics. 201

Ath. 13.561c (SVF 1.263). Athenaeus first reports Zeno's view as τὴν Ἔρωτα

θεὸν εἶναι φιλίας

καὶ ἐλευθερίας, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ὁμονοίας παρασκεναστικόν, ἄλλου οὐδενός and then comes the quotation from Zeno's Republic: ... θεὸν εἶναι συνεργὸν ὑπάρχοντα πρὸς τὴν τῆς πόλεως σωτηρίαν.

202 Schofield 1991, 46ff. See also Pl. Alc. 1.126a-127d; Arist. Eth. Nic. 9.1170b. 203

Long & Sediey, 1987 (1) 22. Φιλία by Aristotle, see Nussbaum 1986, 354-372.

204 Schofield 1991, 103. 205 Erskine 1990, 38-39. 206

Erskine 1990, 71.

72

Tua Korhonen

The

Sceptics

called into question the possibility of knowledge (and belief) and

concluded by suspending judgement.207 Σκεπτικός meant an inquirer, not ‘sceptical’,

and designated in the Academy philosophers from Arcesilaus to Clitomachus.208 Although the Pyrrhonists were included in the Sceptical tradition, Pyrrhonism differed by its means and ends from Academic Scepticism.29? According to Pyrrho, one is not able to say more about this or that (οὐ μᾶλλον) (Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 1.188-91). So, in order that choice could be possible at all, one must be resigned to keep to appearances. The process towards Scepticism, becoming a Sceptic, began, according to Sextus Empiricus, with a conflict and moved on to undesirability and then to the views of equal strength

(ἰσοσθένεια τῶν λόγων). After this aporetic situation the philosopher ends up to ἐποχή and finally attains ἀταραξία.2:}0 Long and Sedley argue for the interpretation of especially Pyrrho's Scepticism as a dogmatic position. After tranquillity has been gained there would be no need to engage oneself in philosophical argument.?!! Living by mere

appearances recalls the way of living of common men. Did Pyrrho consider he has gained his goal, ἀταραξία

Pyrrho's lifestyle has been described as extremely ascetic and as

deviating in its simplicity and frugality as the way of life of the Cynics from the life of common men.2!2 Pyrrho was also a Socratic figure in his concentration on making his life an example (preferring βίος to βίβλος, his life as a paragon rather than his writings as a guide). Sedley claims also that ἀπραγμοσύνῃ, his detachment from public life and

worldly affairs was the overriding feature of Pyrrho's character.?! 3 According to Arcesilaus an assent was not necessary for action and in regard to the

question how to live one's life he would have disavowed all doctrines (except the need to suspend judgement).2!4 Suspension of judgement for an Academ ic did not mean the end of arguments. Equipollent arguments are hard to achieve, φιλοσοφία is needed. At least Arcesilaus was recognized in his time as a master of dialectic and he used ad hominem arguments in his fights with the Stoics. Against Academic Scepticism rose, as mentioned

before, Epicurean Colotes who accused Scepticism of making life impossible: τὸ ζῆν 207

Arcesilaus' ἐποχή meant also the suspension of belief. Burnyeat 1980, 23,

208 As G. Striker has pointed out, it is remarkable that Hellenistic epistemology shifted interest from the question 'What is knowledge?’ to ‘Is there any knowledge at all?'. In the first question knowledge is something as given and the problem is only to define it. The second question quenes the very existence of knowledge. The task of justifying their claims to. knowledge and the search for the criteria of truth were common to all Hellenistic philosophical schools. For this, see Striker 1990, 143. G. Striker points out also the Sceptical undercurrents before the Hellenistic age: the sophists, the Democritean school. 209

As far as we know, at the beginning of the Hellenistic period the Pyrrhonists consist only of Pyrrho

and his pupil Timo. The revival of Pyrrhonism was started by ex-Academian Aenisidemus in the first century B.C. but with certain changes in the emphasis. The term σκεπτικός in the sense ‘Sceptic’ was used relatively late in Antiquity and at first it designated only the Pyrrhonian Sceptics. Striker 1980, 55 note 1 and Burnyeat 1984, 227.

210 Burnyeat 1980, 25-31. Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1.25-30: “when you have abandoned hope, happiness will follow and tranquillity follows suspension of judgement as shadow follows the body." 21!

Long & Sedley would continue inapprehensible Scepticism. Sce

1987 his (Pyr. also

(1) 446. Sextus has a completely opposite opinion: it is the Pyrrhonist who search after truth, and the Academic who would be content with truth as 1.1). Sextus describes the situation of his ime with the revival of Pyrrhonian Annas 1993, 35111.

212

For the way of life of Pyrrho, Górler 1994, 754-756.

213 Sedley 1976, 136. 14

Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 457.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

73

ἀναιροῦσιν (Plutarch Adv. Col. 1108d) and the Sceptics "... are virtually robbed of their minds".?!5 G. Striker calls this the apraxia argument;?!6 Scepticism makes life impossible by leading to total inactivity. This argument could be divided in two (as it is done by Cicero Acad. 2.32, 37). First, according to the thesis that all things are incognitive, it is impossible to decide what to do. Second, the total suspension of judgement means that one will never be able to act at all. For the first part of the argument Arcesilaus’ reply was the concept of reasonable (τὸ εὔλογον) (Sextus Empiricus Math.

7.158), which is a Stoic concept. It is possible to make decisions according to the ‘reasonable’. For the second part of the argument Arcesilaus used also Stoic concepts: the

soul has three movements: sensation (φαντασία), impulse (öpun) and assent (δόξα). One only needs to follow one's impulses, which are presented by the senses. Impulses combined with 'the reasonable' leads to the good action. Only the last of the soul's movement, the assent, should be avoided (Plutarch Adv. Col. 2.22). It is not, as Striker points out, that Arcesilaus is stating any doctrines here. He simply maintains that assent is

not necessary for action — using Stoic premisses.?!? But are the Sceptics just making a difference between two categories of thought, the reasoning needed in everyday life and

philosophical reasoning? According to M.F. Burnyeat it is anachronistic to treat ancient Scepticism by this ‘practice of insulation’. It is the way of modern Scepticism to separate

the ordinary and philosophical statements so that philosophical Scepticism cannot be refuted by common sense — and vice versa.*!8 In the ancient philosophers’ view they belong more or less to the same sphere.2!? Arcesilaus’ biography presents him as being simultaneously austere and full of concern for his fellowman. To be a Sceptic does not

mean being mainly a mere spectator of life. Arcesilaus was an Academic and conducted an academic life, questioning the other philosophers' positions and also the framework of the

assumptions within which they operated.220 Thus, the task of the New Academy was also a metaphilosophical one. This means that the main concern of and the ideal life for an Academic laid inside the circle of the philosophers. *

*

*

M. Foucault has discussed the discrepancy between the cultivating of self and active participation in public life in ancient society. He argues that for a philosopher (his cases are mainly from the Roman Imperial Period) there was no choice between clear abstention and participation, but "à définir le principe d'une relation à soi qui permettra de fixer les formes et les conditions dans lesquelles une action politique, une participation aux charges 215 Plut. Adv. Col. 1108d; Cic. Acad. 2. 37, 5-6; translation by Long & Sedley 1987 (1) 248. 216 Striker 1980, 63-69. 217 Striker 1980, 69. 218

Burnyeat 1984, 225.

219

Carneades, as is well-known, developed the concept of ‘the convincing’ (συνήθεια). See e.g. Cic. Luc. 42. The argument that Scepticism ruled out action, which is based on common sense, could then be refuted, because this standard of judgment existed. But ‘the reasonable’, τὸ εὔλογον, was ποῖ in the same way Arcesilaus' own concept as ‘the convincing’ was Carneades'. Arcesilaus used the Stoic concept to refute the, Stoic theory of knowledge. Furthermore, the Stoics stated that "the reasonable' could be interpreted as what is in accordance with human nature and with λόγος. "What is human nature like, then?", we may ask. Of course, as a Sceptic, Arcesilaus would not have answered to the question, but he would have waited for our statement and tried to refute it.

220 See Frede 1984, 278.

74

Tua Korhonen

du pouvoir, l'exercice d'une fonction seront possibles ou impossibles, acceptables ou nécessaires" .22! In the main, this is true also at the beginning of Hellenistic times. Man was no longer given a status by birth which obliged him to attend to public life. By

obtaining a philosophical education, however, he at the same time could develop within himself the norms for his actions. Ás situations were flexible, there could be no clear-cut normative guides for what one should do (e.g. participate or non-participate). F. Decleva

Caizzi gives an interesting idea of the controversy between the actual way of life of the Stoics and the Epicureans and their ideologies. The Stoics accepted a public role, but preached a far-off ideal — the Epicureans lived in seclusion, but proposed an attainable ideal.222 It is true that the position of the Stoa Poikile as a public place when compared with the seclusion of the Garden, seems to demand a public role. But the self-concept of the early Stoics did not underline a public role which included an active participation in the duties of their surrounding society. Their foremost interest was ‘the well-reasoned’ life. Furthermore, the seclusion of the Epicureans would have been more radical if Epicurus

had founded his Garden elsewhere than inside the city of Athens.223 *

+

*

The life of the philosopher was interpreted in a different way in each of the schools. It is possible, however, to outline some basic differences between the Classical and

Hellenistic philosophers. For Plato and Aristotle the responsibility for the improvement of the polis was taken into consideration in the philosopher's way of life. The ideal polis of Plato and the more realistic one of Aristotle took notice of both philosophers and common

men. Although they were certain of the benefit given by the philosophers to the polis, they had to argue for it and they did so by defining who was a philosopher and who was not. From the point of view of a non-philosopher, philosophers seemed to be idle because

they did not attend to public duties. Plato and Aristotle had to define two different ways of life (and Aristotle also two kinds of wisdom), one for philosophers and one for nonphilosophers. Only by devotion, by perfect concentration, by the theoretical life, could a

philosopher be profitable also to the polis. These

are the problems

that Hellenistic

philosophers were less inclined to ponder — they have another frame of reference. They

took it for granted that the philosophical life was the only way of life for a philosopher — this is their debt

to their predecessors

and

one

of the continuous

features

of the

philosophers of Classical and Hellenistic Athens. They did not need to argue for it because

to them

the philosophical

life

was

self-evident.

For

them,

however,

the

philosophical way of life did not mean exclusively a contemplative/theoretical life. They 221

Foucault

1984b,

107.

222 Decleva Caizzi 1993, 328. She refers also to the article of R.R.R. Smith (see note 24 above). According to Smith 1993, 202-205, the difference between Stoic and Epicurus' portraits is that the

portraits of the former were more humble and had more "ethical" character in contrast to the portraits of Epicurus, which were presented as more vigorous and displayed a well-groomed image of the supreme intelligence of the Master. See also Zanker 1995, 93- (the Stoics) and 113- (the Epicureans). See also Frischer (1982) for an original interpretation of the iconography of Epicurus

portraits. The most striking difference according to Zanker between Classical and Hellenistic portraits of philosophers is that the latter differentiate more strongly from the portraits of ordinary citizen, see Zanker 1995, e.g. 102. 223

There was, however, a continuing threat of troops in the countryside: the gymnasia outside the citywalls (e.g. the Lyceum) suffered from vandalism by the troops of Philip V in 200 B.C. Ferguson

1911, 274.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

75

combined the theoretical and practical way of life in a mixture which on the part of the Stoics emphasized living in accordance with reason, λόγος, and at the same time the ‘natural’ way of life with its practical aspects. The Epicureans rethought also the concept

of ‘the natural’ and created their ‘natural’ way of life according to pleasure, ndovn, which included safe reasoning as well. Polemo in the Academy presented also his ‘natural’ way of life, of which we merely know the name. The New Academy may have

had as a principle of conduct the ‘reasonable’ which made it possible for them, in spite of Scepticism, to make decisions concerning praxis. The ways

of life, however,

were

pondered by all Hellenistic schools only from the point of view of the philosopher. In everyday life the surrounding community was necessary to maintain the frame of the philosopher's life, but the communication was one-way. The philosophers wanted to disseminate

their ideas

into the world

(or at least to those

who

had

the

intellectual

resources) but they named the ordinary men as ot πολλοί, oi φαῦλοι. The ideologies of the early Stoics and the Epicureans seem to be totalitarian: if you are not one of us, if you

reject the adoption of our world view, you have no value (φαῦλος) or your views are uninteresting ones (οἱ πολλοί). It seems that in the systems of the early Stoics and of the

Epicureans solidarity — φιλία — extended only to the circle of philosophers. The motive for common solidarity, φιλοτιμία, had changed to restrictive φιλία. What kind of picture did the ordinary people, the non-philosophers,

have of the

philosophers? In the next chapter two types of reactions will be presented, resistance and humour. The proposal of Sophokles of Sounion was the last in a long series of openly hostile gestures against philosophers in Athens. Comic poets, on the other hand, utilized the image of philosophers as comic figures.

4. Public image and reactions: denunciation and laughter

philosophers

as

objects

of

4.1. The proposal of Sophokles of Sounion Of the decree or law of Sophokles of Sounion, which was barely valid a year, we have information only through a few secondary sources.22* The arguments concerning the date, 307-306 B.C., will be discussed after the presentation of the evidence. Αἱ that time Athens had two philosophical schools with more or less established practices: the Academy ("founded" in the 380's) and the Peripatos (c. 335). The Athenian philosophical

scene also consisted of members of the Minor Socratic schools and the Cynics, who may have had some kind of loosely organized schools as well. Zeno of Citium most likely had arrived in Athens a few years before (c. 312/311 B.C.).??5 In 307 B.C. Demetrius of Phalerum lost his position and had to flee to the court of Ptolemy I. He was generally held to be a member of the Peripatos, and he had made it possible for Theophrastus to buy 'a garden’ (D.L. 5.39) — for the activities of the school. As a metic, Theophrastus was not

224 Poll. Onom. 9.42; Ath. 11.508f and 13.610f; D.L. 5.38 — and perhaps Alexis PCG vol. 2. fr. 99 and Demochares’ speech Πρὸς Φίλωνα (see below). 225

Steinmetz 1994, 518. Zeno "founded" the Stoic school c. 301/300 B.C. Epicurus arrived in Athens in. 306.

76

Tua Korhonen

allowed to own land without gaining special permission (ἔγκτησις).229 It is probable that during his regime Demetrius could have helped his former school also financially.

Diogenes Laertius presents the proposal of Sophocles in connection with Theophrastus' life. He describes Theophrastus' popularity as a teacher, and relates how the scholarch of the Peripatos, however, had to leave Athens for a short time with the other philosophers. Sophocles, the son of Amphiclides, proposed a law that none of the

philosophers could lead a school without obtaining the permission of the βουλῇ and the δῆμος - under penalty of death.227 It is unclear if by οἱ λοιποὶ φιλόσοφοι Diogenes

means all philosophers, or only the other members of the Peripatetic school.228 If the former

is the case,

then

all philosophers

had

to

leave

Athens,

and

none

of

the

philosophers were given permission by the democratic institutions to preside over a school. But the philosophers came back the next year because a certain Philo prosecuted Sophocles on the grounds that the new law was in conflict with existing laws (γραφή

παρανόμων) .229 The Athenians annulled the law, fined Sophocles five talents and voted that the philosophers could come back to Athens -- all in order that Theophrastus could

return also, Diogenes concludes.239 Diogenes’ narration concentrates on Theophrastus. Irrespective of the fact that Theophrastus had been so successful as a teacher, he (and other philosophers) were expelled from Athens. But it was only because of Theophrastus that the Athenians voted for the recall of the philosophers. Theophrastus' importance in

the return of the philosophers, and for the whole issue in general, is mentioned only by Diogenes. Diogenes may overemphasize Theophrastus' role in this incident in order to give spice to his biography. At least it seems that he dramatizes the incident by stating that the Athenians had to vote for the recall of philosophers as if it was not enough to just repeal the law. Thus, Diogenes seems to mix what was done juridically (repeal the law) with the consequence of it (that the philosophers came back to Athens). The annulment of

the law could be a sign that the Athenians especially wanted their philosophers back but also, equally, that they merely tolerated them (as if they did not care whether there were philosophers in Athens or not).

Pollux refers to an Attic law (νόμος) against philosophers (κατὰ τῶν φιλοσοφούντων), which was proposed by Sophocles: μὴ ἐξεῖναι μηδενὶ τῶν σοφιστῶν διατριβὴν κατασκευάσασθαι (Onom. 9.42).23! Pollux mentions the law in connection with the word διδασκαλία. According to U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff

226

227

Diogenes Laertius does not use the word ἔγκτησις. Whitehead 1981, 227-28 suggests that the land could not have been, however, a personal property of Theophrastus because no personal landed property in Attica is mentioned in Theophrastus’ will (D.L. 5.51-57) - sce, however, note 259 below.

DLL. 5.38: ... ἀπεδήμεσε πρὸς ὀλίγον καὶ οὗτος [Theophrastus] καὶ πάντες ot λοιποὶ φιλόσοφοι, Σοφοκλέους τοῦ ᾿Αμφικλείδου νόμον εἰσενεγκότος, μηδένα τῶν φιλοσύφων σχολῆς ἀφηγεῖσθαι,

ἂν μὴ τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ δόξῃ. εἰ δὲ un, θάνατον eivai ζημίαν. 228

D. Knocpfler 1991, 205 suggests that also Menedemus was in Athens at that time and was expelled according to this law of Sophocles "sur les philosophes étrangers". However, there is no evidence that only non- Athenian philosophers were expelled.

--’

... Φίλωνος τὸν Σοφοκλέα γραψαμένου παρανύμων. .. κἀθοδὸν TE τοῖς φιλοσόφοις ἐψηφίσαντο, tva καὶ Orogpuatos κατύλθοι. νόμος

᾿Αττικὸς κατὰ τῶν

ἐν τινι κατὰ αὐτῶν κατασκευάσασθαι.

φιλοσυφούντων γραφεὶς

προειπὼν

ἐπήγαγε

ὃν Συφοκλῆς

μὴ ἐξεῖναι

Αμφικλείδου Σουντεῖς εἶπέν,

μηδενὶ

τῶν

σοφιστῶν διατριβὴν

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

71

and I. Diiring,232 Pollux’ text is the most faithful for the wordings of the original law. It seems, however, that the term νόμος and the phrase 'those who philosophize' are Pollux’ own words, as part of the descriptive heading, and not part of the original juridical text. It was not unusual that the term 'sophist was used as synonym for

‘philosopher’ at the beginning of the Hellenistic age.25? In Pollux’ text we have also the word διατριβή denoting the philosophical school. After Plato's time the term διατριβή began to have the sense of ‘seminar’ or ‘class’ in more or less established sense. The first time the word appears in the clearly institutional sense, as ‘a school’, is in the testament s

of Epicurus and Strato, who died in 271 and in 269 B.C. respectively.234 Thus, in 307 B.C. the meaning of διατριβή fluctuated between the meanings ‘some kind of formal educational activity’ and ‘a school’. However, it seems that διατριβή could not mean ‘a school’ in the institutional sense in the passage quoted by Pollux, because if only the setting up (κατασκευάζεσθαι) a school had been criminalized, it would not have concerned the old schools, namely the Academy and the Peripatos (they had been already

‘set up’). Thus Pollux refers mainly to the educational activities of the schools — as the key-word διδασκαλία suggests. There is a difference between Pollux' phrase 'setting up a seminar’ (διατριβὴν κατασκευάζεσθαι) and Diogenes’ wording ‘leading a school’ (σχολῆς ἀφηγεῖσθαι). To preside over a philosophical school meant to set up seminars and classes, but also there were other activities such as meetings of the fellows,

and contacts outside. We may ask if the emphasis in Diogenes’ text is on the leaders of a school (σχολῆς ἀφηγεῖσθαι), so that it is the scholarchs of the philosophical schools that the state wanted to have under its control. In that case the old philosophical schools

had been able to continue their activity merely by changing their leaders. In fact the phrase used by both Diogenes and Pollux give an impression of the philosophical schools as one-man endeavours as were the schools of sophists and Isocrates and not as communities of like-minded fellows which is pictured in the testaments of philosophers earliest of them (as not purely personal testament) is Theophrastus'. Thus, here is a clear indication of the discrepancy between the self-concept and public image of the philosophers. The verb κατασκευάζεσθαι was also used for setting up something (e.g. a bank) as a means of income and thus it refers here, in my opinion, to the sophists and their educational activity, which was their livelihood, too. Pollux presents the law as unconditional; it forbade the philosophers to set up their seminars altogether. In Diogenes'

text there is the possibility that some philosophers could have had permission from the 232 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 270; Düring 1941, 149. 233

Timo in his satirical Σίλλοι called other philosophers. among other things, sophists (fr 1, 48, 58 Di Marco) with a clearly scornful tone. Di Marco 1989, 115-116. In Marmor Parium (the famous chronicle, which was written in the middle of 3rd century B.C.) Socrates is mentioned as a philosopher (A 66), but Aristotle as a sophist (B 11). Socrates is referred to also in connection with the first victory of Euripides (A60) with Anaxagoras, but both are mentioned without the epithet 'philosopher'. Thus of the philosophers of this time the writer mentions only Anaxagoras, Socrates and Aristotle — and only Socrates with the epithet ‘philosopher’. On the other hand, the intellectuals, which the writer has selected, consist of choir lyricists and tragic poets, but he ignores prose writers e.g. historiographers or orators. For this, see Jacoby 1923-1958 (2 B) n:o 239, 992-1005 and Tod

1957, 132. 234 Glucker 1978, 163. Glucker, however, does not mention the testament of Epicurus, where the word

occurs as well: τὴν £v tà

κήπῳ

διατριβὴν (D.L. 10.17). See Glucker's semantic analysis of the

terms σχολή. διατριβή, αἵρεσις, Glucker 1978, 159-192. Later σχολή is the more usual term for a

philosophical school, but it acquired this meaning only in the early 2nd century B.C. See Glucker 1978, 16]. Both σχολή and διατριβή are used in Academicorum Index in the sense of ‘school’ as well as in the sense of ‘class, seminar’.

78

Tua Korhonen

democratic institutions to lead their schools. The penalty of death is also missing in Pollux' text. The death penalty seems to be rather severe for the mere presiding over a school.235 Pollux is also silent about what happened after Sophocles’ proposal.

We have also Athenaeus' statement that al! philosophers had to leave Attica: Kai Σοφοκλῆς δέ τις ψηφίσματι ἐξήλασε πάντας λόγον ἔγραψε Φίλων ὁ ᾿Αριστοτέλους Σοφοκλέους Δημοχάρους πεποιηκότος τοῦ Only Athenaeus uses the term ψήφισμα and not

φιλοσόφους τής ᾿Αττικῆς, καθ᾽ οὗ γνώριμος, ἀπολογίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Δημοσθένους ἀνεψιοῦ (13.610f). νόμος. The difference between these

two concepts was not, however, clear to later writers, and it appears that the terms were

not strictly differentiated in Classical times either.256 The time between the proposal of a new law and its coming into force could be quite long. Laws could be proposed only at a certain time of year. The proposal was read aloud several times in the ἐκκλησία and displayed in public for people to read. After the Assembly had voted on the proposal, it

was given to the lawgivers, νομοθέται, for final approval or rejection.23’ Its general correctness and compatibility with existing laws was secured by the practice of ‘voting on the laws' in the Assembly at the beginning of each year. From about the middle of the 4th

century B.C., the correctness of new laws was also secured by the θεσμοθέται. Every year the θεσμοθέται inspect the contents and form of the existing laws. According to Athenaeus, Philo, who indicted a counter-suit against Sophocles, was Aristotle's pupil, γνώριμος.238 Graphe paranomon was a special prosecution; if the existent law was found unlawful, the proposer was normally fined.239 Graphe paranomon was admissible in both public and private cases and concerned both psephisma and nomos, if they were considered to be against the existing laws.249 Some fragments have survived (mainly by Athenaeus) from Demochares’ speech Πρὸς Φίλωνα, in which Demochares defended Sophocles against Philo.24! Furthermore, it has been suggested that Sophocles acted as a 235

Of course, such a penalty had a preventative function. However, killing a certain philosopher a century before had only put oil on the flames: although Socrates' friends had left Athens for a short time, they came back and φιλοσοφία began to flourish in Athens more fervently than before. — The

death penalty was used at least in the case of homicide (the old law of Draco). MacDowell See also Xenophon's Mem. 1.2.62-63. 236

[n the 5th century B.C. new laws were passed by a vote of the Assembly

1978, 42.

and thus called either

psephisma or nomos. The latter term was used exclusively for the old laws of Solon and Draco. As D.M. MacDowell 1978, 45 defines: "the law made a general rule about some activity, a decree specified action to be taken in a particular case", but he admits that even this distinction was not a precise one.

237 MacDowell 1978, 48ff.

238 He has been identified as one of the members of the Peripatos in Theophrastus' will (Philo of Athens), D.L. 5.57). See K. von Fritz in the RE-article of Philo (1938), Philon (38), 2532-2533). Is he the same Philo (36) that is mentioned in the testament of Aristotle (D.L. 5.11-16) as one of

the slaves to be set free after the marriage of Aristotle's daughter, who was a child (παῖς) at the time of Aristotle's death in 322? 239

MacDowell

1978, 50. - According to Diodorus Siculus (18.18.3) after Demades had been convicted

three times, because he had proposed illegal decrees, he was deprived of his rights as a citizen for awhile. See also Plut. Phoc. 26.2 and Suda (s.v. Demades). 240 The public case (δίκη δημοσία or γραφῇ) was seen as a crime against the whole community in contrast to a private case (δίκη ἰδία). For this, see MacDowell 1978, 57 and Ferguson 1911. 103 note 5.

241 Ath. 11. 508, 5.187d, 5. 215c; Aristocles (ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. 15.2.791). However, the name of the speech, Πρὸς Φίλωνα, is mentioned only in Ath. 11.508f. Müller 1858, 471-472 (no. 62) and Düring 1941, 150 - thus, we are not sure that the excerpts of Demochares' speech are all from

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

79

mere spokesman for Demochares when he proposed the law.24? The surviving fragments of Πρὸς Φίλωνα have a strong, hostile sentiment against philosophers: defamations directed at Aristotle (Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. 15.2.791), Plato and Plato's pupils (Ath. 11.508f) and even Socrates as a soldier (Ath. 5.215c). Philosophers in

general are condemned as οὔτ᾽ ἐκ τοιούτων

λόγων

ἀνὴρ

ἀγαθὸς

γίνεται (Ath.

5.187d). In the calumniation of the Academy, Demochares gives two examples of Plato's

pupils who

have betrayed their countries: Euaeon

of Lampsacus

and Timolaus of

Cyzicus.*43 Both are said to have first bribed people with presents in order to become

popular, but then committed high treason. Timolaus is reported to have been supported by Arridaeus, the Macedonian governor (Athenaeus 1 1.508f-509a).244 Direct references to the indictment of Sophocles by Philo or to the law are missing, however, in the passages which have survived from Demochares’ speech. We may also ask why Demochares does

not use any contemporary philosophers as an example, only the philosophers from the first generation of Plato’s pupils? Of course, we have only a few

fragments of this

speech. In addition to the above-mentioned evidence also the fragment of Alexis' Horseman?*5 is usually connected to the proposal of Sophocles. It mentions the Academy and Xenocrates and prays for all good for Demetrius and touc νομοθέτας because they have expelled all teachers of the mastering of λόγοι from Attica.2%° The phrase oi τὰς τῶν λόγων δυνάμεις παραδιδόντες refer mainly to teachers of rhetoric.247 However, one and the same speech. I. Düring 1941, 12ff. claims that the passages of Athenaeus were from the speech of Herodicus the Cratetean (Πρὸς τὸν Φιλοσωκράτην) in which, as I. Düring suggests, there are also passages of Demochares' speech or speeches other than the ones mentioned here. -- Note that

Diogenes Laertius does not mention Demochares’ speech.

242 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 189ff. and e.g. Vatai 1984, 119. 245

The names are in the form of Euagon of Lampsacus and Timaeus of Cyzicus in the manuscripts. Both names in these forms are unknown, but the emendated forms are found in the list of Plato's pupils by Diogenes Laertius (3.46). Thus, both belong to the first generation of pupils of Plato. I. Düring 1941, 82ff. suggests that the passages just before and after the calumnation of Plato's pupils in Athenaeus 11.508f are also mainly derived from Demochares' speech. Some other philosophers

are mentioned in these passages, but only Chaeron of Pellene was the pupil of both Plato and Xenocrates, the others belong to the first generation of Plato's pupils. 244

According to Diodorus Siculus (18.51), Arridaeus subdued Cyzicus (Timolaus' native city) in 319 B.C.

245

PCG vol. 2. (Alexis) fr. 99 {Ἱππεύὺς) = Ath. 13.610e.

246

τρῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ᾿Ακαδήμεια, τοῦτο Ξενοκράτης. / πόλλ᾽ ἀγαθὰ δοῖεν οἱ θεοὶ Δημητρίῳ / καὶ

τοῖς

νομοθέταις, διότι τοὺς τὰς τῶν λόγων / ὥς φασι, δυνάμεις παραδιδόντας τοῖς νέοις / ἐς κόρακας Eppeiv φασὶν ἐκ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς. In 307 B.C. it was not, however, Xenocrates but Polemo, who was the head of the Academy. Xenocrates had died between 316-313 B.C. Of course, he could

have been a symbol of the true Academic (why not Plato, then?). According to U. von WilamowitzMoellendorff 1881, 195-6, the first line of this fragment can be interpreted as ἃ sigh; the contemporary Academy was a disgrace compared with the one lead by Xenocrates with his democratic attitudes. But the democratic attitudes of Xenocrates are doubtful (see the mission of Xenocrates above). The context of Athenaeus 1s the following: first by quoting Antigonus of Carystus he refers to Lysimachus who expelled all the philosophers from his kingdom, but admits that the Athenians

had done the same (13.610e). Then comes the quotation from Alexis ("AAeEıc γοῦν) which is immediately followed by the tale of Sophocles’ proposal (καὶ Σοφοκλῆς δέ tig). So these two narratives did nor necessarily have anything in common other than that in both cases the Athenians had expelled philosophers (this was. of course, surprising to the public of Athenaeus, as at that time the glory of Athens was considered to be equivalent to the glory of her philosophical schools). 247

"The banishment of orators -- Xenophon mentions that Critias (during the rule of the Thirty, 404 B.C.) brought into force a law which forbade anybody to teach the art of words (λόγων τέχνην μὴ

80

Tua Korhonen

rhetoric was one of the central subjects in the Peripatetic school during the leadership of Theophrastus. Thus, the date of the law against philosophers is based on a combination of evidence:

1) the part Demochares played in this incident (evidence of Athenaeus), 2) that the law concerns (among other philosophers) Theophrastus, the friend of Demetrius of Phalerum (evidence of Diogenes Laertius). These reports are combined with 3) the historical fact of the arrival of Demetrius Poliorcetes in Athens in August 307 B.C. which meant the end of the regime of Demetrius of Phalerum. After that Demochares could attend more actively to the public life of Athens again and he made this proposal having Sophocles as his spokesman. Demetrius Poliorcetes left Athens in the early summer of the next year and we know - thanks to Diogenes Laertius -- that Philo indicted Sophocles ‘next year’ 1.6.

“in all probability" in the summer 306 B.C.248 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff was the first to suggest that the old law of Solon of

freedom of association was the main argument of Philo, the accuser of Sophocles.24? The very function of the νομοθέται was to consider whether the proposed law conflicted with those already in force. How did this proposal pass their inspection (except mere lapse)? Why was the invalidity of this law not apparent already in the 'voting of the laws'

of the Assembly? We do not know at what time of the year the inspectors, θεσμοθέται, inspected the existing laws. But the proposal was made just after the regime of Demetrius

of Phalerum who had made a revision of the laws at the beginning of his reign.2°9 After the "restoration of freedom" in 307 B.C. make to the laws. This makes it easier Assembly) did not notice that this new law sense here a deliberate hostile sentiment

the νομοθέται surely had many revisions to to understand why the νομοθέται (or the conflicted with the old ones. But we can also toward sophist-philosophers and the public

approval of this sentiment as the blessing the νομοθέται in the fragment of Alexis may prove. Whether the law passed without significant opposition or This kind of decree was not uncommon, however, in the Athenian century B.C. a decree of Diopeithes was probably proposed plus of ἀσέβεια. In the 4th century B.C. the case of Socrates occurred

not, we do not know. law system. In the 5th numerous prosecutions and some prosecutions

of asebeia?5! and the century ended with the proposal of Sophocles. E. Derenne has pointed out that the charges of asebeia were often made not for religious reasons, but for

political ones.252 We have only the evidence of Plutarch (Vir. Per. 32) concerning the decree of Diopeithes, who was Pericles’ enemy, conservative in his political attitudes, and a professional diviner. Its object was all those who taught people not to respect divine things, or who preached doctrines about ‘empty’, too-far-off-the-ground-things,253 διδάσκειν) and that the law was directed against Socrates, but could not hinder his activities or popularity (Mem.

1.2.29-33).

248

Ferguson Incident.

249

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 278: Gaius Dig. 47.22.4; Ferguson 1911, 105; Habicht 1994, 237.

250

Anecdotes picture the Phalerian himself as an example of a person who actis contrary to what he preaches; his extravagance way of life was in obvious conflict with the sumptuary laws he imposed.

25!

1911, 96,

106. Note that in our evidence we have no direct reference to the date of this

[n the Sth and 4th century B.C.

Protagoras,

Diagoras,

Demades,

Aristotle, Theophrastus,

Theodorus, Bion, Aristarchus and perhaps others were prosecuted - sce Derenne

Stilpo,

1930, 259.

252

Derenne 1930, 258 (e.g. Pericles was the real object of the prosecution against Anaxagoras).

253

εν ψήφισμα Διοπείθης ἔγραψεν εἰσαγγέλλεσθαι τοὺς τὰ θεῖα μὴ νομίζοντας ἢ λόγους περὶ τῶν μεταρσίων διδάσκοντας. Derenne 1930, 19, 255; Dodds 1951. 189, 201 (notes 62-64); Natal: 1987, 233. T, Mansfeld’s 1990, 299 sugeestion of the date of the decree: 438/77 B.C.

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

81

which were familiar charges against sophists.2°4 Diopeithes' decree concentrated more on the contents of what was being taught; it did not forbid teaching altogether. In the case of asebeia, more commonly certain doctrines, theoretical views combined with their

propagation,

were

doomed

but not deeds

against

religious

practice.2??

Having

blasphemous views was not enough for the charge of asebeia, but the propagation of

them.256 This law against philosophers has been mainly explained by political reasons. The law could forbid a ‘sophist’, who might have too close ties with some unfavoured monarch y to set up a school. A. Erskine claims that the philosophical schools were careful not to be identified with a particular dynasty after this incident — especially during the years of the

Macedonian dominion.25’ F. Vatai suggests that the law was repealed because of domestic politics; the patriotic sentiment in the speech of Demochares was too evident. Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had been greeted as a saviour of Athens in the previous year, did not like the ardent nationalism of the orator. By protecting philosophers Demetrius

could have had a counterbalance to nationalism in Athens.25? It is true that Demochares' speech

concentrates

on

the political

activity of the philosophers

Academics. But the evidence of Demochares'

— at least

of the

speech is quite doubtful. Pollux'

text

concentrates on the philosophers' educational activity. We may ask whether in this law

against philosophers

the object was

the program

i.e. (a) the doctrines

which

the

philosophers taught (theory), (b) the activities of the schools in general (deeds), (c) if it

pointed at philosophers in general (public image) or (d) certain members of the schools (persons) and their relationship with politically powerful people. The philosophical schools were more like partnerships than legally recognized corporations.2?? We do not have any epigraphical evidence of philosophical schools as 254

We remember that the charges against Socrates were that he 1) corrupted the young and 2) tried to substitute new gods for the gods of the city (Pl. Ap. 24b-c). See also Xen. Mem. 1.1.1; Ap. 10 and D.L. 2.40. Aristophanes Clouds hints to these familiar charges against sophists in its picture of Socrates: 1) 1466 and 2) 1509. Natali 1987, 232.

253 Dodds 1951, 201 note 62. 256 Berti 1978, 352. 257 Erskine 1990, 96. Vatai 1984, 120-121. F.L. Vatai claims that an anti-intellectualism existed (i.e. the persecution of the intellectuals) in Athenian politics in the 4th century B.C. which culminated in and also ended with the action of Sophocles.

259 Glucker 1972, 148: "there was no such legal concept of a corporate body as a juristic person in Greece before Roman

θίασοι

times." See also Lynch

is generally rejected. Lynch

1972,

1972,

48ff.,

124. The theory of philosophical

106ff. and Habicht

1994,

philosophical schools managed to keep the property of the school, the common

232.

schools

— How

as

the

property, inside the

school, is unclear, too. For example, the will of Theophrastus (died 287 B.C.), shows that during his lifetime the property of the Peripatos was considered as his private property. Gottschalk 1972, 329. Theophrastus left his inherited property to his natural heirs (to his oikos in Eresus), but the property of the school as a joint possession to the group of ten members. However, the garden itself and its ownership is problematic. See note 226 above. Unfortunately, we do not have the wills of Academic scholars (only Plato's purely personal will) and thus cannot view the development of the institutional history of the Academy. In my opinion, it was only around the middle of the 3rd sentury B.C., when the founders of the new Hellenistic schools had died, that the schools faced and solved the problem of how the inheritance of the common property of the schools had to be arranged. ~ See, however, Leiwo's discussion in this publication, e.g. 110 of private associations in general as 'quasi-oikor', which was a socto-economical pattern for e.g. metics to own land and property and ensure their legal business in Athens.

82

Tua Korhonen

κοινά in the sense of religious associations with their administrative practices.260 There

were, for example, no honorary decrees for the benefactors of the school as we have for the

benefactors

of

the

religious

associations.

In

the

juridical/official

sense,

the

philosophical schools did not exist. The law of Sophocles and its annulment had a definitive meaning to the one aspect of legal justification of philosophical schools; after

that it was made explicit that "freedom of association" concerned philosophical schools, with metics as their leaders, too.26! But this refers mainly to the activity of philosophical schools as clubs, not as educational institutions. Their juridical position was, however,

still absent. The evidence concerning the organization of the schools is scanty. Only in the secondary material do we have some slight hints as to the ἄρχων who dealt with the administrative routines of the school.26? In the case of the Peripatos especially, we have reports of different kinds of educational activities, some for the members of the school and others for the common public.265 The popularity of Theophrastus as a teacher of rhetoric is also clear. The φιλοσοφία of the Peripatetic school had a scholarly and scientific flavour, but on the whole, the system of values of this school coincided more with the values of the surrounding community than the system of the Academy, or of

other contemporary philosophers (e.g. the Cynics ).264 So, the reason for the persecution was not, I think, the 'theory' (a). However,

the scientific and the educational activities

mingled together and they were part of the school's activity which was displayed outside. The educational methods were a combination of συνουσία of the so-called old education

and the teaching practice of the sophists.265 Furthermore, it is possible to infer, as argued earlier, from the text quoted by Pollux that the philosophical

schools are pictured as

though they are still a one-man endeavour, like the schools of the sophists, although the Academy had existed for over eighty years and the Peripatos for over thirty. Thus,

a

philosopher had the public image (c) more or less of a sophist as he acted as an educator.266 The Peripatos and the Academy got their share of the familiar hostile sentiment towards sophists which prevailed in the 5th and also in the 4th century B.C. Thus, it was not so much the actual deeds (b), but the public image (c) which defined the

attitudes towards those deeds so that they could be a source of the unfavourable reactions. But there was also the activity of some kind of "club" which held meetings (b), and it was

this part

of

the

school's

activities

which

was

displayed

inside

the

philosophical

schools.297 However, this activity happened more or less in the familiar framework of symposia.

Finally, there were certain persons

260

Pakkanen's discussion of religious association

See P.

(d) and their relationship with power. in Pakkanen

1996,

especially 27ff., their

administration and financy 35ff., and their honorary decrees 42. 261

See Ferguson 1911, 107. In my opinion, our evidence shows that philosophical schools already had this right, so that one cannot say that it was "finally established in Athens" as W.S. Ferguson does — only that this right was made explicit.

262 Lynch 1972, 82. 263 |ynch 1972, 91. 264

Compare with Cicero's opinion (Fin. 5) that only the Peripatos (not the Stoics and the Epicureans) takes notice of the political and cultural realities. Gigon 1987, 260.

265

Lynch 1972, 63. The word ἢ ἀρχαία παιδεία appears, for example, in Ar. Clouds 961.

266

We remember that Plato displayed Socrates as not wanting to call his activity ‘teaching’ — thereby making the difference between himself and a plain sophist (Ap. 19d-20c3). — In addition to the meaning ‘a teacher’, the word 'sophist' was, of course, used in a more general sense as ‘a pundit’ or ‘an intellectual’ in the fifth century B.C. See Guthrie 1969, 27-34.

267

For example, Theophrastus made a "code" of συμποτικοὶ νόμοι for the Peripatos (Ath. 5.186).

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

83

Before this incident Theophrastus had been charged with asebeia and when he was

cleared of the charges, Demochares is said to have expressed his dissatisfaction.268 The ties of the Peripatos with Macedonia, and the special interests of the Phalerian in particular, made the school seem an enemy to the patriotic Demochares. Demetrius of

Phalerum, however, was sympathetic to other philosophers as well269 and was himself regarded as a rhetor-philosopher. Thus, the reasons for the persecution were not the theoretical views combined with

their propagation (teaching). The reasons were political-cum-personal, but we may also put the blame on the public image of sophist-educator. This means that at the end of the 4th century B.C. philosophers were stll identified with sophists, although the philosophical schools of Plato and Aristotle were different in organization as well as in the subjects and methods of instruction from the schools of sophists. However, the philosophers were, for the first time, seen as a group — as a common enemy of the polis. This situation was different than when the charges of asebeia were directed against only one philosopher (or sophist/orator), e.g. Theophrastus. It meant that an attempt was made to put these informal communities of higher education under the control of democratic

institutions (βουλή and δῆμος), as Diogenes Laertius reports. It meant as well that the philosophers did not manage to justify their role during the 4th century B.C.

However,

after this incident, we do not know of any other persecution as strong in Athens.270 Could this age of peace between Athens and her philosophers be one reason why philosophers flocked to Athens? Of course, Athens was the home of the Academy and the Peripatos, which probably lured Epicurus and many 'others to Athens. After the schools had been set up, it was the attraction for the traditional places which made the followers come and stay in Athens.

In his biography of Zeno, Diogenes Laertius quotes an honorary decree for Zeno, which — if it is not a forgery — proves how successfully this philosopher managed to justify his status in Athens nearly fifty years after the proposal of Sophocles (D.L. 7.10-

11).27! The decree was awarded to Zeno after his death in 262/1 B.C. and it can be

268

Ael.VH 8.12; D.L. 5.37; Cic. Tusc. 5.9; Ferguson 1911, 35-36.

269 E g. to Xenocrates, Theodorus, Crates the Cynic (D.L. 6.90). 270

But so it was only in Athens: for example, Cicero reports that Ptolemy Philadelphus (as a regent of Egypt c. 285-247) is said to prohibit Hegesias from lecturing in Alexandria (Tusc. 1.83).

211:

The reliability of this quotation is accepted by, for example, U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1881, 341-344, A. Erskine 1990, 83-84 and C. Habicht 1994, 242 because the formulation is similar to other third century B.C. inscriptions. The Assembly granted to Zeno a golden crown: ἐπαινέσαι ...

καὶ στεφανῶσαι

χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ

κατὰ

τὸν νόμον ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν

wording is familiar in this context. See Henry

xai

σωφροσύνης — this

1983 for the formulation of honorary decrees. Τῆς

formula ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ σωφροσύνης occurs also in, for example, IG IUIII2 347 (332/1 B.C: Amphis, a poet, for his euergesia and service as proxenos) and 354 (328/7 B.C.). Henry 1983, 42. In

the same decree Zeno was granted also burial at public expense: οἰκοδομῆσαι δὲ tagov Κεραμεικοῦ δημοσίᾳ. It has inscriptions: it is unusual to Furthermore, Diogenes Laertius city walls to Zeno and honoured with Zeno’s death it is said that

ἐπὶ τοῦ

been also suggested that the text of Diogenes consists of two grant a crown posthumously. For this, see Erskine 1990, 83. says in another passage (7.6) that the Athenians gave the keys of the him with a golden crown and a bronze statue. In 7.29 in connection the Athenians buried him in the Ceramicus and honoured him in the

decrees (it was ordered to inscribe this decree twice, see 7.11).

Antigonus

Gonatas

was

mentioned

only as the instigator of the burial in the Ceramicus (7.15). Erskine 1990, 83 emphasizes that the report of the decree is notably apolitical and cautious which he sees as surprising if the initiative came from Antigonus Gonatas. That Zeno was honoured by public burial is mentioned ın the

84

Tua Korhonen

described as a some kind of biographical decree, but the language is vague and abstract.2?? In the description of the lifelong philosophical activity of Zeno, there is an indefinite wording κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει γενόμενος ... διετέλεσε. The decree emphasized the impact of Zeno on guiding young men to temperance

and excellence,

himself being a model of virtue. The text points out also the consistency of actions and λόγοι, of the way of life and words/tenets of Zeno (λόγοις οἷς διελέγετο).273 However, Zeno's activity is described only slightly as instructional. The young came to his σύστασις and he exhorted (παρακαλεῖν)

them to lead a virtuous

life by his own

example.27^ If we compare this quotation of the decree with the decrees at the turn of the 2nd century or of the first century B.C. (which are the first decrees concerning philosophical education), we find that the educational emphasis in them is far clearer.275 But why was not, for example, the word διατριβή used of the educational activities of Zeno as in the testaments of Strato and Epicurus, or perhaps even in the law against philosophers in 307? We have almost no information concerning the organization of the

Stoic school at its beginning. Surely it had the Academy and the Peripatos as its models, but we may assume that if Zeno was in Athens while the law against philosophers was proposed, and perhaps expelled with the other philosophers, he might have thought carefully about which kinds of activities his school should display outside. It may be that Zeno's educational activities differed so much from those of the old schools that the

familiar wording was missing.?76 We remember the sharp division which the early Stoics made between philosophers and non-philosophers.

May

we assume

that one implicit

reason for this ideology was this historical event, which proves that non-philosophers, οἱ φαῦλοι in principle, could be dangerous for philosophers? It is as if the contempt of

philosophers for the Bad was a counter-feeling to the persecution of 307-306 B.C. The task of a Stoic/Epicurean philosopher was not to contribute to society at large since the early Stoics, for example, have only the good ones, the σπουδαῖοι, as the object of

philosophical instruction. Furthermore, it was an excellent recruitment tactic to emphasize Stoicorum Index (col. 6) as well. Chrysippus, who died c. 206 B.C., had his statue set up in the Ceramicus (D.L. 7.182; Pausanias 1.29.15 mentions the grave, but not the statue).

272

Compare with the decree of another intellectual, namely the comic poet Philippides IG IVIIIZ 657 (287/6 B.C.) who was a friend of Lysimachus. By the phrase ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα xai εὐνοίας he was granted the highest honours: golden crown, statue, sitesis. For this, see Hakkarainen's analysis of

this inscription in this publication, 25. In this inscription the list of services which Philippides made both to Lysimachus and to the Athenians is elaborate and accurate — not as in the decree for Zeno. About Philippides. See, for example, Gallo 1992, 164ff. 273

D.L. 7.10-11: ἔτη πολλὰ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἐν τῇ πόλει γενόμενος ἔν τε toig λοιποῖς ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ὧν διετέλεσε καὶ τοὺς εἰς σύστασιν αὐτῷ τῶν νέων πορευομένους παρακαλῶν ἐπ᾿ ἀρετὴν καὶ σωφροσύνην παρώρμα πρὸς τὰ βέλτιστα, παράδειγμα τὸν ἴδιον βίον ἐκθεὶς ἅπασιν ἀκόλουθον ὄντα τοῖς Aóyotc οἷς διελέγετο.

274

However, Zeno was said to like to discourse during his walks (περιπατεῖν) with only a few persons (D.L.7.14) and to avoid close contacts with the populace in general. For this, see Decleva Caizzi

1993, 309.

275 IG IVIN2 886. 9 (200-197 B.C.): τῆς κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν παιδείας: SEG 1 368. 19-20 (c. 200 B.C.): μεταδιδοὺς ἀφθόνως [τῆς καθ᾽ αὑτὸν παιδείας; and in the decree about ephebes IG IUIII2 1006. 19-20 (123/122 B.C.): Ζηνοδότῳ σχολ[άζ])οντείς - - -] - - -- καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἰφιλο]σόφοις ἅπασιν). 276

However, in this quotation of the honorary decree it is mentioned that two copics of this decree will be made and set up in the Academy and in the Lyceum (D.L. 7.11) - i.c.. in the gymnasia (which were, of course, public places for activities other than philosophical education. as well but neverthless the centres of paideia).

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

85

the difference between two classes of people: us and them. In Hellenistic times people had

a need to belong to some association to manifest their individuality??? and the philosophical schools fulfilled for their part this need. However, this report of the honorary decree for Zeno

does not refer to Zeno as a representative of a definitely

different φιλοσοφία from other philosophies in Athens. Of course, as a founder of his school, Zeno than Jesus as opinion, to ‘Peripatetic’

B.C.278

The

was not yet regarded as a Zenonian/Stoic by his contemporaries (any more a Christian or Marx as a Marxist). But the text of this decree refers, in my very homogenous concept of philosophy. The epithets ‘Epicurean’, and so on occur in the public documents only at the end of the 3rd century

distinction

between

philosophers

and

non-philosophers

significance still in the middle of the third century B.C.

had

more

than the distinction of

‘an

Epicurean’ or ‘a Stoic’ i.e. the choosing of one particular ‘sect’, αἵρεσις. The title περὶ αἱρέσεων

conceming

the views

of various

philosophers

and

philosophical

schools

appears in this sense only in the next century.27?? In other words, the self-concept of philosophers made a sharp contrast between different schools, but the public image differentiated only non-philosophers and philosophers. It is usually the personalities, not the philosophers’ thoughts, which interest the masses. In addition to their public image, the philosophers created their own images as Epicureans, Stoics, Platonists and so on.

But before this personification of philosophical alternatives, as I call it, could happen, the justification of the philosophers’ image as philosophers,280 not as members of particular schools, had to have been established. During the 3rd century B.C., philosophers were left in peace in Athens. Perhaps they were not seen as being as corruptive as earlier

(instruction was not directed merely to the citizens), perhaps philosophers appeared less in the public life of Athens (they made themselves invisible as outsider s always have done), perhaps the Athenians had more things to do than to argue with these 'busybody

sophists',25! or perhaps the philosophers had influential patrons. Or the public image of a philosopher

had

finally

been

differentiated

from

the

role

of

a

sophist,

and

the

philosophers had managed to acquire an identifiable and positive public image. *

*

*

The fragments transmitted to us of New Comedy were almost all written between the

proposal against philosophers and the honorary decree of Zeno. We may ask if there is any hint of the legitimization process of the public image of philosophers?

277 See P. Pakkanen's discussion of ‘individualism’ in Pakkanen 1996, 109-121 and especially 113 (Dumont's concept of inworldly individualism).

278

For example, SEG I 368 (see note 91); in the funerary inscriptions, see Peek 1960, 189, 470.

279

Glucker 1978, 176. Epicurus' Περὶ αἱρέσεων καὶ φυγῶν was an ethical treatise (see also Ep. Men. 128-129, p. 62 above). Αἵρεσις meant philosophical school in its institutional sense later than διατριβή and σχολή. Glucker 1978, 191.

280

According to Diogenes Laertius, Zeno had his name inscribed on the pillar (as one of the contributors to public baths) as 'Zeno, the philosopher' (D.L. 7.13). However, the name of Lyco. the head of the Peripatos (died 226 B.C.), was without the epithet 'the philosopher' - or 'the Peripatetic’ either — in the inscription (as a contributor to a municipal fund-drive, see IG IVIII2

791.29 (232/1 B.C.) . 28]

Timo, fr. 1 Di Marco (D.L. 9.111): πολυπράγμονες ... σοφισταί.

86

Tua Korhonen

4.2. Philosophers in New Comedy T.B.L.

Webster has listed three reasons why philosophers were one of the useful

targets in comedy.28? First, philosophers were part of the everyday life of the Athenians, public figures, whose names were on everyone's lips. Secondly, their views were known and coloured the common discussion. Thirdly, the comic poets themselves lived in the atmosphere of the city of philosophers, although we know only two writers who attended

to some extent the activities of the philosophical schools: Menander with his connections with Theophrastus and Bato with Arcesilaus.283 Webster's view of philosophers fits well into the image of Athens as a city of philosophy whose crown was the philosophers who

lectured in the public places. The activity of a philosopher is seen as public and open to criticism and mockery and φιλοσοφία as a characteristic feature even of the everyday life (not only of the intellectual life) of Athens. Indeed, we have some allusions to

philosophers and philosophers' doctrines in New Comedy and the portrayals of the tenets of philosophers in the comedies correspond to the audience's knowledge of them. But we may ask if the publicity of philosophers' doctrines or philosophers as public figures is

possible to deduce from some occurrences in some selected fragments? If philosophers were referred to (or were displayed as characters in the plays) frequently in the comedies, we could argue that their doctrines/image had some kind of pervasive function in the everyday life of Athens. But it is impossible to make a detailed comparison because

except for Menander,284 we have only fragments of New Comedy which have been transmitted us by later writers.285 The character most often referred to in these fragments seems to be the cook and this is due to our main source concerning New Comedy, namely Athenaeus. The fragments in which philosophers figure or are referred to are cited mainly by Athenaeus and also by Stobaeus. Philosophers are presented mainly as 'philosophers'

in a body.286 Only Epicurus287 and Zeno?88 of the Hellenistic philosophers and the name

282

Webster 1953, 110-111.

283 DLL. 5.36 (Menander); Ind. Sto. col. 22; Plut. Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 55c (Bato): Bato had jeered at Cleanthes in one of his comedies. Arcesilaus readmitied Bato to his school because he had apologized to Cleanthes. - Cleanthes was also a target of satiric poet Sositheus. /nd. Sto. col.

24; D.L. 7.173. 284

Menander's comedies, although they may have allusions to philosophical thinking. did not use a philosopher as a character or refer to any philosophers. Menander's type-gallery does not include, for example, a learned ignoramus. But we may ask how often intellectuals are presented in any other plays/artworks which display bourgeois, middle-class scenes (for example in the soap operas of today)? However, as A.A. Long 1993, 154 has pointed out, in Aspis 336ff., there 1s an allusion to a dialect-speaking ‘philosophical’ doctor and Knemon's practice of self-sufficiency had a resonance in

the philosophical αὐτάρκεια. 285

Exclusive clubs and sects may awaken people's curiosity and create cliché-like concepts of their members as well. Thus, in my opinion, the frequency of the references to philosophers in thc fragments of New Comedy does not automatically tell us how well-known they were.

286

Philemo (PCG 7.74 = vol. 7, fr. 74; 7.228); Bato (PCG 4.2.14; 4.5.11-13); Anaxippus (PCG 2.4; 2.1) ; Phoenicides (PCG

7.4)

287 Damoxenus (PCG 5.2.13-15); Bato (PCG 4.5.6-7; PCG 4.3); Hegesippus (PCG 5.2).

288 Philemo (PCG 7.88)

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

87

of the Stoic school is mentioned in some fragments.25? On the whole, the references to real persons was, of course, more uncommon in New than in Old Comedy. If the quantity of fragments can tell us little about the renown of philosophers, what

can be said about the content of the fragments, what do they tell us about the attitudes of the audience and the status of philosophers ? similarity to its object. The rules of the genre for the comic poet's creation of a character of Aristophanes' Socrates being a good example.

A character in a play needs only superficial and the artistic choices are more important e.g. philosopher than the historical ‘truth’ Exaggerate some features, diminish other,

but make the audience laugh: the τέλος of comedy is the γέλοιον. To the ancient aesthetics

of ridicule,

the geloion,

as Aristotle

styled

it, is a consequence

of some

harmiess deficiency (Poet. 1449233). Aristotle can even claim that comedy is a μίμησις φαύλων and it is inclined to portray people as weaker than they are (Poet. 1448a16-

18).290 However, the comic poet has to answer the expectations of the audience and the picture cannot be too distorted, beyond recognition. Thus, a caricature or not, the image of philosophers in New Comedy had to have a correspondence to the contemporary public image of philosophers in Hellenistic Athens. Because comedy has its own literary conventions, it can be expected that philosophers were often ridiculed by the same topoi in Old, Middle (404-321 B.C.)2?! and New

Comedy as well.2?2 We have two remarkable scenes of philosophical schools in Old and Middle Comedy. Socrates in Aristophanes’ Clouds φροντιστήριον, in the manner of a sophist — the notorious example in the Apology (19c) criticized. The school is situated pupils and established practices. The subject of education has

conducts a school, a image which Plato, for in Socrates’ house, it has a sophistic (making black

appear white), but also a ‘scientific’ flavour e.g. Socrates teaching Chaerephon how to measure a flea's jump (144). The locus classicus of Middle Comedy concerning philosophical schools is Epicrates' fragment about the educational activities in the Academy.2?3 The wording has many allusions to Plato's vocabulary and technical terms. Plato, Speusippus and Menedemus??^ are mentioned by name and Speaker A asks “On what subjects are they discoursing (διατρίβειν) today? What weighty idea, what crucial point (λόγος) are they now debating among themselves?" Speaker B reports that he has seen young men in the Academy gymnasium during the Panathenaia and heard uncomprehensible and strange (ἄτοποι) speeches. The task of the young men was to classify the round gourd as to species. The pupils gave suggestions (vegetable, grass, tree) and a physician from Sicily expressed his contempt for the activity. Plato, standing

289

Theognetus (PCG 7.1) (οἱ ἐκ τῆς ποικίλης στοᾶς

λογαρίοι), Damoxenus

(PCG

5.2): oi ἐν

τῇ

στοᾷ and most probably in Philemo (PCG 7.11): oi περιπατοῦσι £v τῇ στοᾷ. The pupils of Zeno were usually called the Zenonians or οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς or ἐκ τῆς στοᾶς. Steinmetz 1993, 495.

290

See Lucas 1968, 86-88 - the phrase μίμησις φαύλων is a modified version of Aristotle's words hy Lucas; in the same way, tragedy is a μίμησις σπουδαίων (Poet. 1448a1—4).

291

Alexis wrote comedies also during the period treated here — he died at the B.C., although his texts are usually thought to belong to Middle Comedy. than is possible to make here would take notice of his plays, too. For the the Academy (PCG 2.99), see note 246. In PCG 2.25, Alexis refers 10 Lyceum, in the Academy and in the Odeum.

292

Webster 1953, 111.

293

PCG 5.10 (Ath. 2.594}. The name of the play is not known.

294

Mencdemus of Eretria is said to have visited Athens and the Academy

(D.L. 2.125).

age of nearly 100 in 288 A more detailed analysis fragment of Alexis about the ‘idle talking’ in the

during his military

service

88

Tua Korhonen

by, "very mildly and without irritation, told them to try again”.295 The Academy

is

referred to with the word λέσχαι (1. 31), as a building which is used as a meeting-place and the setting of the school is described as informal. It is notable that the frontisterion,

the school of sophist-Socrates, is actually displayed in Clouds, but the activities of the Academy, the school of a philosopher, are only reported — by Speaker B - in the fragment

of Epicrates. One of the topoi of the comedies dealing with philosophers was that they pondered the

question: τί ἐστιν τὸ ἀγαθόν.296 In the Pyrrhus??? Philemo refers to philosophers as unsuccessful seekers of the essence of the Good. The character in the play has heard that philosophers only like to speculate (πλέκειν): perhaps it is a virtue or mark of wisdom

(φρόνησις), but they do not dare to say the last word. He himself, however, had found the essence of the Good by ploughing and working in the fields: it is peace. Peace contributes to all good things in life e.g. festivals, marriages, friends, wealth, health and pleasure. This motif can be found both in tragedy (Euripides Supp. 490) and of course in

the Peace by Aristophanes, where peace is δέσποινα χορῶν, δέσποινα γάμων (975). Typical also is the contrast between city and country

(between

urban

sophistry

and

common sense) such as in the Clouds. We have one paraphrase of Epicurus which echoes this

fragment

in tone,

but

in

which

he

sets

himself

apart

from

this

irresolute

characterization of philosophers. Epicurus makes clear what is the nature of the Good: the removal of great evil creates the greatest joy. One must comprehend this fact deeply and stand by it and ‘not walk idly and chatter about the Good’ (Plutarch Contr. Ep. beat.

7.1091b = [226] Arr.).29® This resembles a comment on the public image of philosophers from which Epicurus wanted to be dissociated. In Anaxippus' (fl. c. 320-285 B.C.) Thunderbolt we meet also familiar themes; it is

regrettable that while philosophers are deliberate and reasonable in their speeches, in their actions they are like fools.2?? This theme is familiar also outside the genre of Comedy. For example Isocrates (Panath. 28) depicts philosophers in the same way: philosophers know about the realities of life less than their pupils and slaves. The conflict between words and deeds is evident also in Philemo's play, the name of which is unknown.?00 The speaker warns a certain Cleitophon not to judge a good and wise man (σοφός) by his words but by his life because many speak well but have wrong-doing in their minds. However, it is uncertain whether Philemo refers here to a philosopher in particular (or the sage ) or merely to a wise man in a general sense. In quite a long fragment (48 lines) of

his Masked Man??! Anaxippus seems to use the verb ‘to philosophize' as referring both to the old and new meaning of the word. À young cook, who is a pupil of an Ionian cook, presents the education of cooks in general as wel! as his own with the common

vocabulary

of paideia

(συμμαθηταὶ

τῆς

τέχνης,

διδάσκειν,

διδάσκαλος),

He

295 Translations (adapted) by C.B. Gulick in LCL 1961, 259-261. ?96

Habicht 1984, 279. The τορος was in favour already in Middle Comedy. Amphis PCG

2. 302 (D.L.

3.27).

297 Πύρρος, PCG 7.74 (Stob. Flor. 4.14.5). For the date of the play: 287 B.C., see Edmonds 1961b, 1245. Philemo (of Syracuse) died between 267-264/3 B.C.

298 299

||| μὴ κενῶς περιπατῇ περὶ ἀγαθοῦ θρυλῶν. Decleva Caizzi 1993, 324-325. Κεραυνός

or

Κεραυνούμενος,

PCG

2.4

(Ath.

13.610f):

οἴμοι

φιλυσυφεῖς.

ἀλλὰ

τούς

Yt

φιλοσόφους / £v toic λόγοις φρονοῦντας euptako μόνον / ἐν τοῖσι δ᾽ ἔργοις ὄντας ἀνοήτους opo. For the possible date of the play, before 280 B. C., see Edmonds

300

PCG 7. 228 (Stob. Ecl. 2.15.14).

501

70 ἐγκαλυπτόμενος, PCG

2.1. (Ath. 9.4030).

1961b, 12485.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

89

‘philosophizes’ (φιλοσοφεῖν) and strives eagerly to leave (i.e. to the world, before he dies) new books on the art of cooking. The verb φιλοσοφεῖν refers here to studying: the

ambition of the novice to become a master in his τέχνῃ in order to write new books on

cooking.30? For example, Plato uses the verb ‘to philosophize’ also as ‘studying philosophy'

(e.g. Resp.

5.475b-c), but in this passage the verb can refer also to the

original meaning of φιλοσοφία as “the intelligent quest for erudition and knowledge" .30? However,

the young cook

would

'not be different

in any

way

from

Diodorus

of

Aspendus', which is an allusion to a certain known gourmet with Anthisthenes-like hedonism as his philosophical mood.?0* The cooking school is a favourite theme in the fragments of New Comedy. The education of cooks is often described as including different sciences: astrology, botany, etc.?05 When the education is completed, the young cook will be so refined that he will not treat all people to the same kind of food, but feed them according to their way of life (πρὸς τὸν βίον). He gives three kinds of character types: a lover, a philosopher and a collector of taxes (τελώνης). It makes no difference what kind of food to give to the lover, the young cook claims, because lovers' thoughts

are fixed only on one thing. To the philosopher he would offer pig's trotters because the animal is so glutton ous (1. 38-40). The tax-collector is pictured here as a more delicate gratifier of his belly than the philosopher. The cook would give him eel and two kind of

other fish, e.g. ‘grey-fish’ (which was said to be delicious, see below p. 91).?06 The tripartition of lifestyles echoes slightly the one which the philosophers made, but here it is

rather 'the lover'

than

'the (gluttonous)

philosopher'

contemplative life. There is a tripartition of lifestyles in the fragment

who

is an

advocate

of Phoenicides'

of the

(fl. at the

beginning of the 3rd century B.C.) play, t00.?07 A hetaira compares her three stingy and poor lovers: a soldier, a physician and a philosopher.

Distinctive marks

of the hair-

splitting philosopher are his beard, cloak - features which refer mostly to a Cynic?08 — and his art of words/tenets (λόγος). The professions of both the soldier and the doctor are characterized by a few pejorative words, but the Cynic-like philosopher is portrayed by his arguments. When the courtesan asks for payment, the philosopher says that money is no good (ἀγαθόν). The comic point is that the hetaira is a kind of philosopher, too. She draws the conclusion: if the philosopher thinks that money is bad, he should give all his money to her. But she argues without success, without getting any money. So this stingy

302

This refers to the tendency which prevailed already at the end of 5th and especially in the 4th century B.C. when handbooks for practical use were very popular (rhetoric, divination, painting and so on).

See e.g. Thesleff 1990, 120. 303

Chroust 1947, 23. This meaning of φιλοσοφία was prevalent a few generations before Plato: c.g. Heraclit. 1.30; Thuc. 2.40. See also Pl. Resp. 497a-c; Arist. Rh.

139436.

304 See D.L. 6.13 and Ath. 4.163. 305 See, for example, Sosipater (PCG 7.1), Nicomachus (PCG 7.1) and especially the fragment of Euphron (PCG 5.1) in which the cooks are seen as equal to the Seven Sages (both terms σοφοῖ and σοφισταὶ are used in this fragment). 306

Cooking and φιλοσοφία are already connected in the fragment of Alexis’ Linus (PCG 2.140 = Ath. 4.164a-d) where Linus asks Heracles to choose from the surrounding books and says "You are some kind of a philosopher" (1.10), because the hero has chosen a cookery book (1. 9, ὀψαρτυσία) and neglected the books of Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus.

307 PCG 7.4 (Stob. Flor. 3. 6.13). The name of the play is not known. 308 Only the rod, Buxtnpia. as the mark of the wandering life of a Cynic. is missing. (Anonymous), Edmonds

1961a.

Fr. 240, 241

90

Tua Korhonen

philosopher is seen as a moralist, who does not follow his own doctrine. He may also be

seen as a trickster, who by quibbling can easily provide arguments for his deeds. This fits the conventional image of a sophist, who makes black appear white. Bato also satirizes stinginess in the fragment of the Murderer.?0? At the beginning those philosophers who are moderate and sensible, and do not give themselves to the good things (i.e. pleasurable things) of life, are called forth.3!9 These philosophers seek for their master in the *walking-places' and in the ‘seminars’ as if he has fled away: καὶ τὸν φρόνιμον ζητοῦντες ἐν toig περιπάτοις καὶ ταῖς διατριβ αἷς ὥσπερ ἀποδεδρακότα

(I. 3~4).3!! This is an allusion to the philosophical schools (περίπατοι,

διατριβαί),}}2 but it is noteworthy that the master is denoted by the word φρόνιμος — perhaps for metrical reasons (φιλόσοφος too many, σοφός too few syllables)? Or is it perhaps because Bato was a member of Arcesilaus’ Academy, not of, for example, the

Stoic school, and used this neutral term? Of course, the ‘sober philosophers’ have to have a master who is φρόνιμος,

sensible. It had been suggested that Bato used Epicurean

terminology here,3!3 but if that is the case the terminology used seems so vague, in my opinion, like an inside joke which only Bato's friends in philosophical circles would have

understood. Here is also the above-mentioned theme of philosophers who are always seeking the Good, but seemingly not finding it. The Speaker wonders why his addressee,

although he has money (συμβολὰς

ἔχων), abstains from drinking wine (I. 5-6) and is

doing the gods an injustice — a parallel is thus made between the sober addressee of the

Speaker and puristic philosophers.?!4 The symbole can refer to the contribution to the common meal and symposia,?!5and breaking their quasi-religious rules may wrong the gods. Intensification of comic effect is asserted by the claim that this kind of moderation could ruin the public economy as, by drinking only water, the person is depriving the wine-growers and the wine-traders of income. Thus, the strict principles of the

philosophers cannot only break the norms of symposia but have a bad effect on society as a whole.

Instead

of

the

total

abstainers,

Bato

presents

an

opposing

picture

of

309

'AvBpopovoc, PCG 4.2. (Athenaeus 4.163b). See below another fragment of this same play (PCG 4.3).

310

τῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς σώφρονας ἐνταυθοῖ καλῶ | τοῦς ἀγαθὸν αὑτοῖς οὐ διδόντας οὐδὲ ἕν.

311

Compare with Plato's Symp. 216b, where Alicibiades sees himself (not Socrates) as a runaway slave, because he flees Socrates and his advice (216b). Alexis has two fragments about Plato in which Plato's way of philosophizing is connected with walking and even with running: PCG 2.451

(ἄνω κάτω TE περιπατοῦσ᾽ ὥσπερ Πλάτων) and PCG 2.382 (συγγενοῦ τρέχων Πλάτωνι). 312

Περίπατος (note the singular) was first used as denoting a philosophical school (namely the Academy) by Epicurus in a letter, a part of which Athenaeus quoted (fr. 171 Us. = Ath. 8.354b) -however, it is not clear if the word περίπατος belongs to the quotation or not. Only much later the word began to refer mainly to the Peripatetic school (e.g. Lucianus used the word).

313 Bignone 1936 (1) 575 and Gallo 1976, 218ff. If fronimos denotes the Epicurean sage, the sober philosophers refer to the Epicureans. According to the interpretation of I. Gallo, the speaker, a parasite, has a highly ironical tone here: he speaks of sober Epicureans, contrary to the common view that the Epicureans are gluttonous.

The Speaker starts here to address some person from line 5 onwards. It is possible to interpret the person as being one of the sober philosophers mentioned earlier as, for example, Gallo 1976, 219 has done. J.M. Edmonds 1961a, 260 has divided the fragment 10 two Speakers (Speaker A: 1-4. B: 5-14). -- Philosophers as total abstainers, see Ar. Nub. 417.

315 Gallo 1976. 291 n.52.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

9]

philosophers in the fragment of the Fellow-Cheat?!9$ which has two lines in common with the Murderer, namely the καὶ τὸν φρόνιμον ... ἀποδεδρακότα (I. 14-15).317 A paidagogos tries to defend himself before a father, whose son he had made a drunkard, by saying that he had only taught the lad how to live well in the manner of the σοφοί (I. 6). When the father doubts that such philosophers exist at all who drink as much as his son, the paidagogos names those philosophers who raise their eyebrows and who seek their master as if he had fled away (1.11-15). The raising of the eyebrows is a symbol of a

high and mighty person.?!$ terminology.

For,

if you

Bato also mixes put

before

gastronomic

this

kind

of

pleasures and

philosopher

a meal

rhetorical of

fish

(γλαυκίσκος), he knows where to grasp (τόπος) and what is the main matter (κεφαλή) of the thing. The word κεφαλή is here a pun: according to Athenaeus (7.295 c) the head

of a 'grey-fish' (ἢ τοῦ γλαύκου

κεφαλή)

was the greatest delicacy. Like a good

parasite a philosopher knows the most delicious part of the food. To sum up, the image of philosophers as a group consists of several themes.

First,

philosophers are speculators, who are in vain seeking after the Good and the master, the wise man. They cannot accept the simple good things of life. They can deviate also from the common norm; they are total abstainer s which is even seen as a transgression. Secondly,

their speech does not confine

their actions

and

so

there

is a contradiction

between the philosopher's life and his doctrines. Philosophers are also idle talkers, who in their actions are even fools without common sense. Thirdly, philosophers are presented as glutton s and drinker s. Only in the fragments of Bato do we have philosophers in public places, in their walking- and meeting-places seeking their master. In other fragments the context of their activities is not mentioned. The philosophical education is

clearly referred to only in the fragment of Anaxippus, but the image of education is from the field of professional education (master and novice). The purpose of the young cook's education, namely, that he is able to differentiate certain ways of life, seems to be an echo from philosophical theories. The tripartition is displayed also in the fragment of

Phoenicides,?!? but in both cases, in my opinion, the audience does not need to recognize the philosophical theory behind the idea.

In one play philosophers were perhaps the very topic and/or main characters. Unfortunately, only one fragment has survived of Philemo's Philosophers,?20 but it is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.27) as well as by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2.121.2).3?! Both Diogenes and Clement report that the person referred to in the fragment

is Zeno.

It is the famous

φιλοσοφίαν λαμβάνει. 316

καινὴν

γὰρ

εἷς ἄρτος, ὄψον

passage

οὗτος

where

the man

φιλοσοφεῖ,

"teaches

! πεινῆν

a new

διδάσκει

philosophy”:

xoi

μαθητὰς

ἰσχάς, ἐπιπιεῖν ὕδωρ. It is curious why Philemo named

Συνεξαπατῶν, PCG 4.5 (Ath. 3.103c; 7.279a - Athenaeus quotes this fragment twice). Perhaps philosophers play a significant role in this play, for Athenaeus refers to it also in 15.678f, where Cunulcus is said to dig up secrets from the books as philosophers do in Philemo's Fellow-Cheat.

317

These two lines (5.14-[5) are the same as in the Murderer 2. 3-4.

318

[n the fragment of Amphis, a Middle Comedy poet. Plato is said to raise his eycbrows high like a

snail (PCG 2.13). 319

Of course, tripartition is a universal way to divide things in different kinds of narrations.

320

Οἱ φιλόσοφοι, PCG 7.88.

32]

Clement of Alexandria did not mention Philemo, but the order of lines in his version is held to be more reliable. Diogenes had set the last line εἷς ... ὕδωρ first. Diogenes mentions that the fragment is also attributed to Poseidippus. Although Zeno's name is not mentioned in the fragment both Diogenes and Clement do not question that it is him.

92

Tua Korhonen

abstinence and self-denial as a new φιλοσοφία.3522 What was new in them, after the practice of enkrateia by the Cynics ? Crates the Cynic is said to have been the teacher of Zeno, and according to the Cynics' values, drinking water or wine is the same — it

quenches thirst.)?? Thus,

Zeno

was only continuing the familiar Cynic

practice.

However, after the sumptuary laws of Demetrius of Phalerum, there may have been quite a bitter attitude towards a philosopher who proclaimed ascetism and ‘the new philosophy’ here would be in an ironical sense like ‘new philosophy, indeed! We have had enough of stinginess!' It can also be a reference to the social class as in Timo's?24 Σίλλοι, when Timo describes Zeno gathering together the poorest of people.?2° This recalls one fragment where φιλοσοφία is seen as an opportunity for poor people, not as a way of ascending in social status, but as a method to master their own lives. The poor can choose

either the role of the philosopher or something which Zeno also preached: the life of the Ξξδρε σπουδαῖος it does was not the crucial difference between

that of the slave of their own needs.?26 This is wealth is one of the indifferent things because in not matter whether one has property or not. Wealth people, the λόγος was the only standard. It could

be an overinterpretation, but if the Cynics were classed as a category of their own (and Socrates, too), was Zeno seen as the first philosopher who taught not to overvalue

material things, ascetism and the blessedness of poverty?32? In the fragment of the Ephebus of Philemo, the troubles of life are bewailed without a perceptible ironical tone.?2® The tempest (of life), χειμών, did not meet only those who

sail on the ocean, but καὶ τοῖς περιπατοῦσί που ... ἐν τῇ Στοᾷ / xai toic μένουσιν ἔνδον ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις. If we assume that ἐν τῇ Στοᾷ refers here to the Stoics,?2? is there a contrast or perhaps only a parallel between the Stoics and those staying home? If there is

322 FE, Decleva Caizzi 1994, 314 translates "a newfangled philosophy", which implies that this φιλοσοφία was not altogether new — only in vogue again. In the version of Clement καινήν is replaced by κενήν. 323

We

have also a short fragment of one play of Philemo,

where the frugality

of Crates’

life

is

underlined: PCG 7.134 = D.L. 6.87 (biography of Crates). A. Meineke read Crates’ name in the fragment, but the manuscripts have ἐγκρατής. 324

Fr. 39 Di Marco (D.L. 7. 16). In fr. 13, 14 Di Marco, the 'Zenonians' eat only lentils. See also Di Marco 1989, 144.

325

F. Decleva Caizzi 1993, 311-313 thinks that Zeno used his image of poverty as a didactic device and even one of the things called 'preferable'. See J. Annas' critical response in the same book, page 357-359.

326

T| φιλόσοφον δεῖ τὸν πένητα τυγχάνειν ἢ δοῦλον εἶναι παντοθ᾽ ὧν χρεῖαν ἔχει (fr. 1424, Edmonds 19612) -- perhaps, however, the fragment belongs to the end of the Hellenistic period.

327

We remember that in his radical Republic Zeno abolished private property altogether, but this was nothing new (compere with Plato's Republic). It is said that Zeno himself was not at all poor (D.L. 7.13: he lent money to ship-owners), but he was mean, which was seen as un-Greck (D.L. 7.16).

328

Ὁ ἔφηβος, PCG 7.11 (Stob. Flor. 98.20). Those Philemo's fragments (of New Comedy) which are quoted by Stobaeus often bear quite a serious and even philosophical tone. There might be only a contrast between public (the life around the Stoa Poikile) and private life here.

If the above-mentioned fragment of Οἱ φιλόσοφοι actually refers to Zeno and was written before than or at the same time as this fragment of the Ephebus, we can conclude that Zeno was a familiar figure to the Athenian audiencc, but his pupils/school was not yet named by the Stoa Poikile. However, the play has been dated to 294 B.C. (Edmonds 1961b, 1245) when Zeno had presided over his school for nearly ten years. The name of the play alludes to the education of young men, too.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

93

a parallel, the Stoics were seen as people who minded their own business, i.e., they were

not interested in public life.?30 A fragment of the Ghost or Miser of Theognetus??! displays — as an antithesis to the idea of a philosopher as a physician of soul??? — a person who becomes ill because of being overstuffed with Stoic doctrines: τῶν γὰρ τῆς ποικίλης | στοᾶς Aoyapliov ἀναπεπλησμένος νοσεῖς. The fragment is considered to contain a direct quotation from Stoic doctrine: the contrast between the shelter of wealth versus the troubles of life and

σοφία is paralleled with the stability of thin and thick ice (SVF 3.241).333 A character in the play complains that he has to live with a philosopher who speaks so strangely it is as

if he had learnt the alphabet backwards. Books had changed the philosopher's life altogether. After he has learned the philosophers' tenets, he had begun to preach them here and there without attracting much interest.?3* This recalls Plato's definition of th e geloion (Phib. 49a), one part of which is the δοξοσοφία, the self-deception of a person who thinks himself wiser than he actually is. The importance of books refers to the transmission of Hellenistic philosophy by the written word and not by the spoken. The

latter part of the fragment can be a reference to all philosophers, too, not necessarily only to the Stoics. Wealth seen as one of the indifferent things (ἀδιάφορα) and the ascetic way of life connected with this idea are the motifs which comic poets liked to pick from the Stoics

according to these few fragments. However, we may note that Zeno διδάσκει, i.e., he is clearly seen as a teacher of something and this is identified with φιλοσοφεῖν. Theognetus was a contemporary of Chrysippus and thus his fragment belongs to a slightly later period than the other fragments presented here. In his fragment there is reference to books by

philosophers, to the studying of and preaching of philosophy and also to the peculiarities of the philosophers. We have quite a long fragment (68 lines) of Damoxenus'

Fosterbrothers where

a

cook says that he had been a pupil of the wise Epicurus.??3 Tt is worth mentioning that here again, as in the fragment of Epicrates, we have a report, not an actual description of the school. The cook spent in one payment (κατεκύκνωσα) lasting two years and ten months

(l. 3-4) and now

cooking.?36 The verb καταπυκνᾶν 330

4 talents for instruction

he is familiar with

the secrets

of

is a technical term used by Epicurus (KD 9) in

See D.L. 7.27: the poem in hexameter praises the endurance of a man

over rain, cold of winter

(χειμών). heat of the sun and terrible desease. Diogenes Laertius does not mention the author, but he connects the poem with Zeno.

331

Φάσμα ἢ Φιλάργυρος, PCG 7.1 (Ath. 3.104b). See also Ath. 15.671b6-10.

332

For this idea in the tenets of the Epicureans, see Nussbaum (1986), and of the Stoics, see Long &

Sedley 1987 (1) 385. 333

ἀλλότριόν ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦτος ἀνθρώπῳ, ταύτην λαβὼν ἀπώλεσ᾽.

πάχνη:

| σοφία δ᾽ ἴδιον, κρύσταλλος, οὐθεὶς πώποτε |

334

ἐπαρίστερ᾽ ἔμαθες, à πόνηρε, γράμματα. | ἀνέστροφέν σου τὸν βίον τὰ πεφιλοσόφηκας γῇ τε κοὐρανῷ λαλῶν, | οἷς οὐθέν ἐστιν ἐπιμελὲς τῶν σῶν

βιβλία. λόγων.

| -

Philosophical books are seen as exhortative to suicide in Callimachus" epigram 23 (= Anth. Pal. 7.471): a person jumps from a tower and dies after reading a book by Plato. - About the phrase

ἐπαρίστερ᾽ ἔμαθες ... γράμματα, see Gallo 1992, 175ff. 335

Σύντροφοι, PCG 5.2 (Ath. 3.101f.). The play was written long after Epicurus death — see Habicht

1994, 239. 336 Isocrates in the Against the sophists 291.3 mentions the fee of 3-4 minae as the instruction fee. See also Pl. Ap. 20b. Normally the fees charged were deposited with third parties until the end of the

course. See G. Norlin

in the 2nd LCL-edition of Isocrates. 1962, 166 note a.

94

Tua Korhonen

connection with pleasure, meaning the intensification of pleasure which would eliminate the differences between pleasures. Damoxenus uses the same verb also at the end of the fragment (1. 62): Epicurus accumulated pleasure and wisdom. The cook advises his fellows to despise all cooks who have not learned Democritus by heart or who do not

know Epicurus' Canonic (1. 12-15)53? — as such cooks are outside the proper education (ὡς ἐκ διατριβῇ c 1. 16). There may be an allusion to philosophers and an ironical one to the bios theoretikos in lines 46-8 as well, where the cook mentions that while the others are cooking he only watches (as a master-cook) and advises others: θεωρῶ ... λέγω τὰς αἰτίας καὶ τἀποβαῖνον. In the end of this fragment the cook compares Epicurus with the Stoics (οἱ ἐν τῇ στοῦ) — only Epicurus knows what is good (τἀγαθόν) — the Stoics are always seeking after it, but do not know it. So the Stoics do not know the Good,

they

do not recognize what it is and so they cannot give it to anybody (1. 64-68). In Bato's above-mentioned play Fellow-Cheat there is a reference to Epicurus, too. After the paidagogos has asserted that he had taught the boy a life of pleasure in the manner of the sophoi (1. 6), he appeals to Epicurus' doctrines ("at any rate Epicurus

says") that pleasure is good (1.7-8). In another fragment of Bato's Murderer (fr. 3)°38 the main character admits that Epicurus has already said these things: prudent (φρόνιμος) is he who can enjoy women and wine -- and this is the good way of life (ἀγαθόν). If all people lived like this, the person continues, there would not exist a misfit (ἄτοπος) or an

adulterer (μοιχός). Hegesippus uses the simple interpretation of Epicurus’ hedonism Comrades??? as well. Epicurus is σοφός, σοφώτατος and κράτιστος

in the True ἄνθρωπος,

because he had answered satisfactorily the question of the Good, the Good which is sought by everyone. Epicurus' answer is pleasure, and there is no better thing than eating

because it connects the Good to pleasure. This muddled transition from mere pleasure to the pleasure of eating (if pleasure is the Good,

eating connects the Good

to the Good)

may be a parody of philosophical syllogism. Hegesippus uses the word μασᾶσθαι, which literally means chewing. In the above-mentioned long fragment of Damoxenus (1. 50) after the notion of intensification of pleasure, Epicurus is said to 'chew carefully'

(ἐμασᾶτ᾽ ἐπιμελῶς) which may be associated with the power of thought, too. In this fragment of Hegesippus the character refers to what Epicurus said when somebody asked him the essence of Good. Thus, the reference is vague: somebody said that Epicurus said that the thing is such and such. The report is not first-hand. Although Epicurus' epithet both in Hegesippus' and Damoxenus' fragments is σοφός, the tone is of course ironical. Comic poets feasted upon this possibility to connect cookery and φιλοσοφία. It is suggested that Timocrates, a former member of the Garden, was the origin of this distorted picture of Epicurus as an advocate of glutton y in New

Comedy.?49 In the Letter to Menoeceus Epicurus' irritation at this misinterpretation is

337

Epicurus’ epistemological work Περὶ κριτηρίου ἢ Kavóv (D.L. 10.27) or mere 31). The cook refers also to medicine and music as part of his education.

Κανών

(10.30-

338

PCG 4.3 (Ath. 7.279c).

539

οἱ φιλεταῖροι, PCG 5.2 (Ath. 7.279d): Ἐπίκουρος o σοφὸς ἀξιώσαντός τινος | εἰπεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὃ τι ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθὸν | ὃ διὰ τέλους ζητοῦσιν, εἶπεν ἡδονήν. | εὖ γ᾽, ὦ κράτιστ᾽ ἄνθρωπε

καὶ σοφώτατε | τοῦ γὰρ μασᾶσθαι κρεῖττον οὐκ ἔσθ᾽ οὐδὲ Ev | ἀγαθόν: πρόσεστιν ἡδονῇ yap tayadov. 340

Bignone 1936 (2) 223; Sedley 1976, 127ff. Timocrates was Metrodorus' brother, and thus belonged to the inner circle of the school, but fell out with Epicurus and after that calumniated his former master in his writings.

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

95

visible.34! However, Epicurus is presented clearly as a teacher in the fragment of Damoxenus. Some of these fragrnents underline that Epicurus has found the essence of Good. F. Decleva Caizzi states that this is due to his self-conscious image, which included assurance that his doctrines are easy to adopt.342 In our material Epicurus is the philosopher most mentioned. Perhaps in his image, with misinterpretations of his doctrines or not, a hint of warmth can be found. Epicurus' world view was seen as an encomium to the pleasures of the stomach and sensual aspects of life. Aristippus was already a familiar figure in Middle Comedy,

of course, but the

pleasure of Epicurus was not emphasized as boldly as that of Aristippus. As the fragment

of Theognetus shows, it was possible to take direct quotations from the doctrines — from the writings — of the philosophical schools. It is not easy to outline the social context of the philosophers in these fragments. They are presented as strolling on their ‘walks’, but comic poets do not refer to the schools in any other way. In the fragment of Damoxenus the young cook only says that he spent nearly three years with Epicurus, but there is no

reference to the Garden. The instruction given in the schools is mentioned, but the image displayed fits more the traditional model of a professional and technical education because

of the characters in the plays (cooks). However, Zeno and Epicurus are displayed as teachers — Zeno as a teacher of a way of living, Epicurus as a teacher of cooking, and as having a very satisfactory theory behind the praxis. The philosophers of the New Academy and the Peripatetics are missing altogether in our fragments of New

As far as we know, Plato was the most mentioned of philosophers in Middle According to Düring, there are three aspects of Plato's character which

Comedy.

Comedy .343 had received

attention: Plato's person, philosophy and language but not his political activity.344 The last is missing also in the fragments of New Comedy which deal with philosophers.345 If philosophers did have noticeable connections with monarch s, why did the comic poets not make use of them e.g. ascetic philosophers seeking after the Good and at the same time bowing and flattering a patronizing king? Although the answer may rest mainly on the limitations of the genre (and, of course, the lack of texts of New Comedy) it may be

also that the subject was too delicate. Or were the ties too incidental to be a characteristic mark of a philosopher’s image? In Old Comedy the model for a professional educator was a sophist. Generally, the education given by sophists was seen as pragmatic, public and profitable for the polis (or

so the sophists themselves claimed). If the method of ‘the old education’ was to socialize young people by example and by social intercourse (συνουσία),

the method presented

by the sophists was new: lecturing and delivering speeches.346 They also took payment for their teaching which meant that nearly everybody who had the necessary money could receive an education. The democracy of education could be the reason why the old aristocracy so strongly objected to the sophists. The image of a sophist is still visible in 341

Ep. Ep. Men. 131.8: only the static pleasures are good, not kinetic "as we are understood by some ignorant persons ..."

J42 Decieva Caizzi 1993, 328. 343 Frischer 1982, 57. 344

Düring 1941, 138. In one fragment of New Comedy there is a reference to Plato: by Philippides (PCG 7.6), in which the Good of Plato (agathon) is described as an admonition not to marry.

345

Comedy and monarchy: Diphilus has a flatterer in connection with a ruler (δυναστής) (PCG 5.23),

and he mentions a service in the court (αὐλὰς

θεραπεύειν) (PCG 5.97);

Epinicus (PCG 5.1) King Seleucus is pictured as a gourmet.

346 Lynch 1972, 32-37, 39.

in the fragment of

06

Tua Korhonen

New Comedy. We can compare the remarks of sophists in one treatise of Isocrates with

the image of a philosopher in New Comedy. In the Against the sophists Isocrates accuses the wrong kind of sophists for pretending to despise money. The sophists find it easy to invent arguments to defend their evil deeds (292.4) which reminds us of the fragment of

Phoenicides about the philosopher and the hetaira. Isocrates accuses the sophists of doing the opposite to what they preach (292.6) — this was a common charge against philosophers as a group in New Comedy (for example, the fragment of Anaxippus and Philemo ), too. The sophists state that they teach wisdom and happiness, but why,

Isocrates asks, do the sophists need something -- namely a fee, if they are so happy and wise (292.7)? The speculative, even to the point of manic character of philosophers is described in Philemo's, Bato's as well as in Theognetus' fragment. Thus, the image of a sophist lurks also in the image of the philosophers in New Comedy, which has common

features with the image of philosophers in Old and Middle Comedy.??? But there is a notable exception. In the fragment of Damoxenus, where the cook says that he had paid a certain sum to Epicurus, it is described as an investment which will make a profit. Thus, it seems that the ambivalence toward payment had diminished concerning philosophical education. Of course, the context of this fragment is cookery and the comic effect is that the cook uses Epicurus' philosophical terminology. But nevertheless the philosophical education is described as at least not harmful. The Stoics, on the other hand, are blamed in the same fragment for not knowing the Good themselves and thus they cannot give it to anybody. This implies that it is not worthwhile to pay a Stoic for instruction because he cannot pass on the necessary knowledge of the Good. Of course, these few fragments do not give any certain proof of how the economics of the schools were actually conducted (e.g. instruction fees or not), but it is possible to sense some general attitudes concerning

philosophical education. Although philosophers were seen as sophists in their role as educators, they were not portrayed as corruptors of the young. This is a long step further beyond the days of the persecution of sophists, from the days of the proposal of Sophocles. Φιλοσοφία is considered dangerous only in the sense that the wrong kind of philosophy can make people impractical. There was different kinds of philosophical alternatives to choose and, thus, the public image of philosophy had become more heterogeneous. Besides, in the scenes given to us in these fragments, there do not seem to

be any hostile sentiments towards philosophy or philosophers in general — something which a self-conscious elite could expect to receive. Often they are seen as quite harmless outsider s, who offer society little profit and less danger.

5. Epilogue Α story told about the intersection of two different dimensions, the self-concept and the public image, is a story of justification. If these two dimensions are set too far apart, if the philosophers' concept of themselves and the public image does not coincide at all, then 347

The so-called 'philosopher's epigram" (Ath. 4.162b), which is a curious collection of twelve compound-adjectives, portrays its objects (the term ‘philosopher’ does not occur) as having the characteristics of the Cynics: cloak, beard, barefootedness, unanointedness. But they are also said to

be ὀφρνυανασπασίδαι (sons-of-eyebrow-raisers), deceivers of the young (μειρακιεξαπάται). hairsplitters in regards to syllables (συλλαβοπευσιλαληταῖ). clever only in regard to foolish doctrines (δοξοματαιόσοφοι) and they belong to the "virtueseekers" (ζηταρετησιάδαι). Many of these properties echo those of the philosophers in New Comedy. D.L. Page the epigram between 350-200 B.C.

1981, 475-76 has dated

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

97

the message of the philosophers has no possibility of achieving any understanding and

acceptance among the audience. In spite of how elaborate a code a philosopher uses, his message, if coloured by a negative public image, can be interpreted in a negative way. In

the first place, the creating of the self-concept means the differentiation of oneself from the other (actually, the creating of the Other). In the case of the Greek philosophers this happened already in the Classical age. The philosophers differentiated themselves from

non-philosophers and created their self-concept, their way of life with manifest features, by which they were recognized as philosophers. However, the public image of the philosophers created by non-philosophers

which

partly

mirrored

the self-concept

of

philosophers, was harmful for the philosophers. This is proved by the numerous prosecutions against intellectuals which happened in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. However, the last one of these prosecutions in Athens was the law against philosophers in 307 B.C. In 155 B.C. the famous mission of three Athenian philosophers to Rome proves the accepted status of philosophers in Athens. So what happened in the 3rd century B.C.? The philosophers succeeded in justifying their role, a positive public image

been created. Social honours, such as election as an ambassador, are granted not merely because of

personal qualities, but also according to the public image of the group to which the person belongs. The philosophers were not elected very often as envoys at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. Most of the philosophers elected were the Academics. Only during the 2nd century B.C. the members of the new schools, the Epicureans and the Stoics, were

also elected. The reasons for election as an ambassador was not in the first place because

of the high status and respect for the abilities of the philosophers. On the contrary, there could be traced a certain mistrust to the suitability of philosophers as ambassadors which

is also reflected in the fact that the list of philosophers as ambassadors is short. Thus the prestige of philosophers was not self-evident i.e. their public image did not automatically arouse respect. The self-concept of the philosophers had stressed that the true way of life of a philosopher was the contemplative life. This was mirrored in their public image which emphasized their being impractical and unable to cope with the life of ordinary

men. Although the tales of the embassies can be partly fictional, they can nevertheless give an outline of the expectations which people had of philosophers. The focus while studying the public image of philosophers is not so much on the historical deeds and

actions (whether a philosopher succeeded or not in his mission) but what were the reasons why a philosopher was elected as an ambassador and how his deeds are reported (as a success or as a failure and the reasons given for success/failure). However, we have

hardly any reports of the delegations which were made by contemporaries. The problem is, is it possible to get a clear understanding of the image of philosophers at the beginning of the Hellenistic era because our sources are mainly secondary and written in the Roman imperial period? The modem interpreter should be able to read between lines, by being an intepreter of an interpreter. Thus the attitude of the reporter is, of course, also essential 1.6. was the reporter positive, neutral or negative to the philosopher. Of the six diplomatic missions of philosophers discussed in chapter two, only the diplomatic duty of Xenocrates is documented in a different way in the ancient materials. Mostly we have only one source to rely on.

The report of Xenocrates'

mission

by a contemporary,

Demetrius of Phalerum,

emphasizes the inability of Xenocrates to abandon his role as a philosopher so that he made a philosophical speech, not the speech needed for the occasion. For Plutarch, this was seen as positive; Xenocrates was faithful to himself as a philosopher. It was the failure of the barbarous monarch that he could not accept the philosopher's delivery.

98

Tua Korhonen

Plutarch took it for granted that a philosopher and a mundane

power

like a monarch

would be in conflict. Of course, Plutarch's attitude to a philosopher — who was a Platonist, too — was, as expected, positive. However, it seerns that Plutarch does not need to elaborate an apology for the ‘impracticality’ of Xenocrates ; his audience took it for

granted that the philosophers' sphere of activity is different. From the point of view of Demetrius of Phalerum the incident is reported as negative. But it was more due to the

personal

inability of Xenocrates than the inability of philosophers

Xenocrates himself as Demetrius’ political as

failed. Demetrius was some sort of a philosopher a certain kind of philosopher-king during his opinion, the philosopher should be able to cope well as metaphysical — and this seems to be

in general

that

himself who tried to display regime in Athens. Thus in with different challenges — Demetnus’ answer to the

accusation of the impracticality of philosophers. The negative public image is also possible to distill from the reports of positive reporters as a reaction against the negative image. Epicurus and the Stoics created a more flexible model for philosophers as a way of life. It was not so rigid and theoretically-orientated as the way of life suggested by Plato and Aristotle had been. Thus, the model (or models) of philosophical life was one of the comerstones for the adjusting process of the self-concept and public images of philosophers.

Freedom of speech was one of the features which was expected of philosophers and which some philosophers, at least, expected of themselves when they dealt with monarch s. However, freedom of speech has its boundaries, which were defined by philosophers themselves, by the contemporary non-philosophers and by the interpreter, the reporter. Παρρησία was part of the vocabulary of the ideology of Athens, a mark of democracy and frequently used by the philosophers of the Classical age (or by their later

interpreters). Xenocrates' conduct is understandable also in this framework. Xenocrates utilized his freedom of speech in spite of the circumstances. But the word is rare, completely missing, or interpreted in a different way by the Hellenistic philosophers. Epicurus (SV 29) states that his freedom of speech reveals the truths of nature as if a contribution to the common good of mankind. Αἱ the same time, his freedom of speech 15

to dare to state his truths against the common opinions of men, the opinions of the mob. Without using the word napp noia, Zeno states (SVF 219) that a free man (i.e. the Stoic sage) can deal with a monarch without losing his freedom of mind. In another fragment (SVF 1.228) Zeno states that it is no use to the inferior ones (φαῦλοι ) to argue against

the good ones (σπουδαῖοι ). Thus, the freedom of speech of the philosophers at the beginning of the Hellenistic age does not get in conflict with the ruler but with the

common man. One of the common features of Hellenistic philosophy is said to be the concentration on individual ethics. The difference is seen most clearly between Aristotle and the

Hellenistic philosophers. For Aristotle the questions of ethics were part of politics — these questions could not be treated without taking into consideration the polis as a whole. Only exceptions, such as the ethics of the monarchs, deserved special treatment. It might appear that for the Hellenistic philosophers every man was a king and personal fulfilment, the care of the self, was granted to every individual, and this may well be true later in the Hellenistic age, when the new philosophers gained broader audiences and adaptations of

their doctrines were necessary. Αἱ the beginning of the Hellenistic age, however,

the

situation was different. Of course, when the role of a philosopher was born in a city-state, there existed a strong tendency to differentiate the role of the philosopher from that of the common man. Plato states that because the philosophers are born and educated to be rulers of themselves, they should also be accepted as rulers of others. However, the

Self- Concept and Public Image of Philosophers

99

common men, the subordinated classes, are also part of the whole scheme created by Plato. In Anstotle’s opinion, philosophers could be freed from the duties of the polis, because the public duties are for the practical men (the non-philosophers), and the philosophers have their own duties, the theoretical ones, which are profitable to the polis

in a deeper manner. The theoretical life is the best lifestyle and it is not possible for all, but the practical lifestyle is virtuous, too. Thus, Plato and Aristotle could classify different kinds of ways of life for different kinds of people. For the Stoics and for the Epicureans there was (according to our sources) only one way of life in which they were interested:

the life of the sage. This philosophical way of life was a combination of contemplative and practical activities — the sage was

allowed to participate in public life, if it was

profitable for himself and his intellectual development. The philosophical life was also mutatis mutandis the lifestyle of the Academic Sceptics, although they do not make any explicit statement concerning it. The concentration exclusively on the life of the sage causes the viewpoint to be ‘we’: we Epicureans, we Stoics. The Stoics can use the different kinds of lifestyles modified by previous philosophers (i.e. the tripartition of

lifestyles), but they do not think of them from the point of view of everyone, but only of themselves, the philosophers. The responsibility of the sage does not concern the good of the whole polis at the beginning of Hellenistic times. But it does not seem that the ideology of Hellenistic philosophers was that if you are not one of us, you are against us. Rather, it is that if you reject the adoption of our world view, your opinions have no value

or they are empty (you are a φαῦλος, one of the mob, οἱ πολλοί ). However, the philosophers themselves were laughed at in New Comedy as φαῦλοι on the stage of life. The discrimination was two way; a gulf existed between philosophers and common people. It is possible to consider the reasons for turning to individual ethics from the Hegelian point of view as a general ‘development’ of philosophy. The sophists and the Cynics were the influential predecessors — and Socrates. In this way the Hellenistic philosophers continue the tradition of the philosophers of the polis. There are also other features which imply the continuity of the polis as a framework. The great predecessors, Plato and Aristotle, were explicit that philosophers needed a way of life of their own to fulfil their philosophy, and the frame of reference of Plato and Aristotle is always the polis. However, they were explicit that a philosopher should be free from duties in the polis and, in fact, as Plato said, only his body is in the polis. This statement proves that they had to define the situation of a philosopher in regard to the polis. But the Hellenistic philosophers had the same reference, the conceptual frame of reference of the polis in their mind, although it may at first seem just the opposite. For example, for Zeno's vision

of an ideal polis with its ideal wise men, the frame of reference is still the polis, not the cosmopolitan culture of the Hellenistic world and of the later Stoics. We remember that Zeno's life had 'cosmopolitan' characteristics: he was a foreigner, his mother-tongue was not Greek, he was a pupil of Crates, who as a Cynic had cosmopolitan and "apolitical" (ἄπολις) ideas. Nevertheless, Zeno imagines his sages conducting their lives in the ideal polis, with the familiar political slogans of his time as homonoia, eleutheria and philia.

Epicurus wanted to present his ideas to all Greece, and thus the boundaries of the polis seem to have fallen from his philosophy, but the frame of reference 15 at the same time 'cosmopolitan' and very intimate, like a private club. This last aspect points to the archaic and classical age, the fratria and hetaireia, the clubs of the elite. The Epicurean club of congenial men with aristocratic contempt for the ordinary men and their ideas seems like a return to the past, neglecting the 'democratic' phase of the polis altogether. Epicurus" contempt was not all inclusive. The ordinary man, in the same way as a citizen of the

100

Tua Korhonen

democratic polis, had his opportunities, if he wanted to accept the call of Epicurus. In this way the old framework of the polis continued to make its impact on the ideas of the Hellenistic philosophers although their mood concerning their predecessors was as revolutionary (e.g. they rejected the theoretical way of life, but not the philosophical) as it was to society or its collective representations (e.g. popular opinion, traditional paideia etc.).

The re-evaluation of prevailing norms, the transcendental mood of philosophers, was

also the task of the Hellenistic philosophers. Thus they continue to underline even more strongly

than

Plato

and

Aristotle

the

difference

between

philosophers

and

non-

philosophers. However, this is partly explained by 'privatism' or individualism, by the need for private associations which was a general phenomenon in Hellenistic times. It was an ideology of the good us and the bad others. But one historical event could also

have influenced the introverted character of the early Hellenistic philosophy or rather the lifestyle of the philosophers. How it is possible to explain the calumniation of philosophers which culminated in the

law against philosophers in 307 B.C.? In fact, from the point of view of this law, the philosophers were the Others, who should be expelled from the company of the ordinary men, the polis. The philosophers themselves share part of the guilt for this public image.

As Aristotle, a metic, stated: the philosopher's life in the polis recalls that of the stranger, ξένος. By strongly making their identity differentiated from non-philosophers, the philosophers had made themselves as the Other inside the polis. The atopia of their words awoke curiosity, but also resistance. In addition to this, most philosophers in Athens at the beginning of Hellenistic age, as well as later, were metics. Thus, they were also outside of the normal social structures, and usually being unmarried, they were also

outside of the oikos. So the philosophical schools can be seen as a substitution for the oikoi as well. The law against philosophers expressed the hostile sentiment of nonphilosophers in two ways: first, that the proposal of Sophocles/Demochares was accepted at all and secondly, the speech of Demochares with its open aggressiveness. The reasons for the hostility were not due to the doctrines which the philosophers preached. In addition to political and personal (the attitude of Demochares towards Theophrastus) reasons there were the activities of philosophers as educators combined with the negative public image of sophists which were the main reasons for this harsh law. The persecution of sophists was not unusual in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. This incident, the last one in the long series of persecutions of intellectuals in Athens, like some single historical events, could have had strong influence on the history of the institution, for a while at least. It could have meant that the philosophers at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C.

withdrew into their own circles on the one hand and tried to reject the old public image of the old philosophical schools (which was created by the Old and Middle Academy and the

Peripatos) with their affinities with the image of sophists on the other. The Academy seemed to manage to create a new public image, but the Peripatetic school, as is so often reported, declined after Lyco or even before (however, Critolaus, the Peripatetic, was a

member of the embassy of three philosophers in 155 B.C.).

The Peripatos, with its

instruction. in rhetoric, was too reminiscent of the school of the sophists. If the philosophers formed a common group, their doctrinal differences notwithstanding, the public image of the philosophers as a group could be in part even more decisive for the explanauons made by their contemporaries or biographers for the conduct of the philosophers than the public image of a particular school e.g. of the Peripatetic school. The distinction between philosophers and non-philosophers, | think, was the prevailing

Self-Concept and Public Image of Philosophers distinction still in the middle of the 3rd century B.C.

101

and not the distinction between

schools. To justify one's way of life one must change the negative features attached to it. But this process is reciprocal and socially formative because it concerns the changing and

adaption of one's self-concept, too. The old public image of philosophers was rejected, and replaced with one of the philosopher as teacher, which had positive connotations. This is reflected somewhat in the fragments of New Comedy. The philosophers in a group are featured, as in Old and Middle Comedy, as useless, impractical and selfish, but in few fragments the image of Epicurus as teacher has positive dimensions, because his teaching is seen as in some way useful, although mainly from an ironical point of view.

Thus the Hellenistic philosophers had been able to prove to their audience why

the

education which they were given was useful. In one fragment the former pupil describes his ability to distinguish between different character types and different modes of living,

which he thinks are useful qualities in his career as a cook. The philosophers are described on the one hand as seekers of the Good in vain, but, on the other hand especially Epicurus is portrayed, ironically or not, as to have found the Good. In the fragments of New

Comedy,

the image of an educational scene, a school,

is, however,

absent. This is true also in the quotation of the honorary decree for Zeno. The reports of

the philosophical schools in the fragments of New Comedy are always second-hand reports. We have no portrayal of school scenes as e.g. in Aristophanes’ Clouds. It seems that philosophical schools at the beginning of the Hellenistic period ‘went underground’, the philosophers were visible but the schools were invisible.

Athens, however, became a centre of higher education at least by the end of the 3rd century B.C.

So,

again, what happened

in the 3rd century

B.C.?

The philosophers

succeeded in attaining a positive public image and keeping under their control the sharing of the values, which is another name for education. It was especially the philosophers who ruled the educational scene, not rhetoricians or the new intelligentsia of Hellenistic times (scholars as well as scientists). What happened to the instruction of rhetoric, i.e. communicative skills, at the beginning of the Hellenistic era? What were the instruments, the symbolic capital, by which some movements flourished, and others perished? The success of the teaching practices of Hellenistic philosophers demands a detailed analysis.

Religion, or other Reasons? Private Associations in Athens* Martti Leiwo

Premises One of the conspicuous elements of a Greek polis was the existence of different gentile and private bodies or associations. In Athens the ancestral associations, such as γένη,

γεννῆται, φρατρίαι and generally ἑταιρίαι were essential for safe and respectable living. These associations were first organized among the most important members of the community as clans with strict rules for confreres. Additional types of clubs began to arise very early, probably first among citizens who did not belong to the most noble or

powerful classes.! These people started to form clubs, mostly cultic bodies, often calling themselves θιασῶται or ὀργεῶνες.2 After the reforms of Cleisthenes these also were

included in the normal system of polis infrastructure. Thiasotai formed a group called θίασος but orgeones did not have a suitable collective noun for use, but were named

usually either individually as ópyeóveg or less often collectively as κοινὸν ὀργεώνων or I would like to thank Margot Stout Whiting for improving my English. The remaining errors arc, of course, mine.

| — See Ferguson, 1944, 62ff.; id. 1911, 216ff. 2

The ancient connection of ὀργεῶνες with ὀργιάζειν, ὄργια given in Suda is certainly a popular old folk etymology, but it is not necessarily the right one. Ferguson 1944, 131-32, recalls the proposition made by O. Hoffman, Mitt. der Schles. Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 13-14, 1911, 187 that etymologically a possible solution is to connect the word to the family of ἔργω ‘enclose’. Thus we can come to an idea that orgeones were so named because they were closed groups. Hoffman's idea is good, but his examples are curious. The verb £pyo can, however, be derived from the IE root

*wer-g just

like the word group £pöw,

ἔργον, ὄργια. Consequently,

a root

ópy-

etymologically possible here, and that could connect all these words linguistically Chantraine 1980, Dict. étvm., s. vv. and Frisk 1960, Etym. Wörterb., s.vv.

could

be

together, see

104

Martti Leiwo

ópyéav.? Some basic definitions for this group can be found in Suda: “persons holding meetings centering on various heroes or gods were called orgeones" and "orgeones are

those sacrificing to privately established gods" (s.v.

opye@vec).4 In these traditional

definitions it remains, however, unclear what the other activities of these orgeones were.? Citizen orgeones and thiasotai undoubtedly existed before the time of Solon and they were accordingly listed in his law, but it is probable that only after Solon were the phratries internally organized into thiasoi.6 After this organization the corporate term

thiasos is avoided in the earlier records of private associations even by the thiasotai, as it came to be the technical name

for the subdivisions

of the phratries.

Ferguson we can identify three types of Attic thiasotai which

According

to

are all distinct from

orgeones. The first two were old, namely, (1) the thiasoi and thiasotai of Dionysos and Heracles, i.e. those mentioned in the law of Solon, and (2) the thiasoi and thiasotai of

Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria which were subdivisions of the phratries and probably of Cleisthenian origin. In the first case (1) thiasos seems to have

meant a banquet with

food, drink and dances after the cultic worship of the gods Dionysos and Heracles, and thiasotai were simply participants in these banquets.’ The third group (3) was Hellenistic

and for the most part foreign with few citizen members (see below).? It is possible that this group did not possess rights of association as a class without a decree of the boule

and the demos before the invalidation of the law of Sophokles of Sounion in 306 B.C.! The question of legal rights is, however, problematic, and it is not discussed in this

paper. On the other hand, orgeones had considerable autonomy after the laws of Solon, and

full control over choosing their members, their shrines, buildings and capital funds. This authority over their possessions was so extensive that they could even alienate their property if they so desired.!! Orgeones as a group, however, apparently did not form an integral unit of a phratry like thiasoi, but sull the membership in orgeones was hereditary, as it was in the demes, gene, and phratries. This can be deduced from a passage of Isaeus 3

The word κοινόν usually refers to the common property of the orgeones: IG IVIII2 1252 (after the middle of the 4th century);

1314

(ca. 213/2);

1316 (end of 3rd century);

1327

(ca.

178/7);

IG

Il/III21334 (end of 2nd century) has probably for the first time the formula [δεδόχθαι τῶι κοινῶι τῶν ὀρ]γεώνων instead of the usual δεδόχθαι τοῖς ὀργεῶσι. The gen. plur. ópyécv, which is attested formed Sauppe. seldom

in an orgeonic decree of ca. 300 B.C., see from the unattested nominative *épyevc, see The usual nominative is öpyeav/opyeiwv, in literature as well. In inscriptions the only

Meritt, Hesperia 10, Ferguson 1944, 82; cf. but it is never attested attested singular is the

1941, 56-7, no. 20, is also Lys. Frag 112, ed. in inscriptions, and very supplemented accusative

ὀ[ρ)γίεῶνα ... ] in IG I/III2 1289 |. 10, where the unnamed “Goddess” interdicted any orgeon from alienating any of her property or diverting any of her income from her sacrifices.

4

Σέλευκος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὑπομνήματι τῶν Σόλωνος ἀξόνων ὀργεῶνάς qnoi καλεῖσθαι τοὺς συλλόγους ἔχοντας περὶ τινας ἥρωας ἢ θεούς. ὀργεῶνες οἱ τοῖς ἰδίᾳ ἀφιδρυμένοις θεοῖς ὀργιάζοντες.

3

See Ferguson 1944, 62ff.

6

See the excerpt from the code of Solon in Dig. 47.22.4 which may mention may be attributed to the code of 594 B.C., cf. Ferguson 1944, 64-66.

7

Poland 1909, 17-19.

orgeones and which

8 — Sec Ferguson 1944, 70 note 12, a discussion on this problem; cf. Isae. 9.30; IG ΠΠ|12 2343 (early 4th century) cut on a table by a κοινὸν θιασωτῶν of Heracles. It is important to remember that Heracles was a heavy drinker and eater. ?

F. Poland 1909, 20, claims that this group did not use the term thiasos, but that is probably not correct, see IG IVIII2 1275 (beginning of the 3rd century); Ferguson 1944, 66-67.

10

D.L. 5.38; Ath. 13.610e-f; Poll. 9.42.

I

Ferguson

1944, 67-69.

Private Associations in Athens

105

who wrote: ποιησάμενος εἰσάγει με εἰς τοὺς φράτορας παρόντων τούτων, καὶ εἰς τοὺς δημότας με ἐγγράφει καὶ εἰς τοὺς ὀργεῶνας (2.14-15).12 The date of the adoption mentioned here was ca. 380. It seems that demos, phratry and a group of orgeones were all different enrolments for a new citizen, but that a phratry was subdivided into thiasoi. It is, however, unclear, whether it was obligatory for a new citizen to be enrolled among orgeones as well. After an undated law quoted by Philochorus, which, however, may have been Cleisthenian, associations of orgeones were necessarily for citizens only as the members

were potential phrateres, and it would be impossible that non-citizens could acquire citizenship by forming associations of which the members called themselves orgeones.!? Therefore, these old civil bodies were meant for citizens only, and it is not my intention to discuss this subject further in this paper. The rise, purpose and different functions, especially economic, of the later Athenian private associations with non-citizen members

will be the subject of this paper. I shall also discuss whether it is possible to observe any change in the activity of these associations during the fourth and third centuries, analyzing details that can be detected in the literary and epigraphic material.

Foreign groups and foreign money Private associations with alien, non-citizen members emerged especially during the last

decades of the fourth century (see below). This may have been a period of considerable private material well-being among some inhabitants and traders of the city.!* In the contemporary research literature these private associations with non-citizen members are

mainly connected with religion and cult worship only, as the two (and up to this date only) comprehensive monographs on the subject by P. Foucart (1873) and F. Poland (1909) were strongly aimed at that conclusion.!? It is, however, obvious that some of these associations also extended their activity to other sections of the civil life already

from the beginning of their existence. In fourth century Athens, private wealth, especially money, became more and more a

socially and politically important factor. The extant epigraphic sources also show that at the end of the fourth century new private non-demotic associations were beginning to have a larger influence in the life of the polis (see below). At that time also the Athenian

private banking business was flourishing, and it seems that the functioning of private 12.

"After he had done this (adoption) he introduced me to the phratores in the presence of these persons, and he entered me in the register of the demotai and in that of the orgeones." (My translation.

Hereafter all translations are mine unless otherwise indicated.) What entitled a man to membership was descent from a member. In this example an adopted son was entered by his legal father on the roll of his association, see Ferguson 1944, 72.

13.

tobe δὲ φράτορας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι xoi τοὺς ὀργεῶνας Kal τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας, οὺς γεννήτας καλοῦμεν. "The phratores must admit both orgeones and homogalaktes whom we call gennetat,” Philoch. FGrH III B 328 F 35; Suda s.v. opyewvec; Harpocr. s.v. γεννῆται. On the date

14

On material well-being, see Cohen, 1992, 219; Dem. 9.40 states that Greece was more prosperous than before; Ferguson 1944, 81. M.I. Finley 1952, 63 is not convincing in his opinion that there did not seem to be increasing wealth during the fourth century.

15

The work of E. Ziebarth (1896).is not useful, and it was already strongly criticized by Poland. The

of the law, see Ferguson 1944, 69, and Jacoby, commentary on F 35.

associations in Egypt are discussed The religious aims and aspects of some of the items are dealt with attention to that. Private wealth in

by M. San Nicoló (1913 and 1915, rev. by J. Herrmann 1972). the private associations are discussed by P. Pakkanen 1996, but in this paper as well, though it seems that she has paid little the public economy is studied by M. Hakkarainen in this volume.

106

Martti Leiwo

economy may have been more market-like than has been previously claimed by,

for

example, M.I. Finley and his pupil P. Millett in their various studies.!$ In his recent book Athenian Economy and Society. A Banking Perspective (Princeton

1992) E. Cohen has discussed in detail commercial transactions, money lending and other business dealings in fourth century Athens. Cohen’s approach is in many ways different from P. Millett’s more traditional Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Athens (1991). Cohen is, however, able to show, sometimes very convincingly, that the opinions of an “embedded economy” incapable of commercial dealings are only seldom cogent in the

private financial world of Athens. The proponents of this kind of economy, especially M.I. Finley, argue that almost all financial transactions were handled inclusively through socio-political relationships — between relatives and friends, or similar connections — not by business dealings in some kind of a market context vaguely similar to that of ours

today.!? But Cohen claims that the omnipresence of loans among clearly unrelated persons itself contradicts this idea.!8 His evidence for this conclusion, which comes mostly from the forensic speeches, although it is not always impressive, and sometimes even has to be considered incorrect, is in its main lines convincing.!? Naturally, it is not possible for me to say the final words on this century old debate, but one thing is, nevertheless, certain: vast amounts of money were given out as loans, and a great deal of these loans were made outside the banking business.20 There were several different

sources of borrowing money: l. neighbours and shop-keepers, 2. eranos-loans, 3. traders in Piraeus, and 4. banks. The banker at least took high interest on the capital.2! To give just one example which shows the amounts of money given out for profit in the sphere of the private banking business, we can recall that the banker Pasion had lent out at interest more than fifty talents of his own and the bank's money.22 It is clear and known that also private associations gave loans, but at the same time it is difficult to specify the exact nature and volume of their economic dealings.23 The formulaic epigraphic language of the decrees and honorary texts of the private

associations as well as some horos-inscriptions offer only indirect evidence of such money lending or other financing that was aimed at making profit. The utmost importance of the treasurer, ταμίας, of these clubs, and the careful phrasing of the texts may give us

hints of that kind of activity.24 The system of money-lending called πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει also gave good opportunities for profit. A piece of land was "sold" to a person who then got it back after having paid the debt. In reality it was a loan with the property as a 16

For example, Finley 1989; 199].

1952 (a corrected reprint in 1985);

1953a and b; 1981;

IT

A good summary of the earlier discussion is in Millett 1991, 9—18.

18

Cohen 1992, 207-208. See also Fine 1952, 93.

19

See the competent review of R. Bogaert, Gnomon

20

[p addition to the forensic speeches, see Theophr. Char.

19852. Millett

1983;

10.2 and 10; 12.11;

14.8;

1995, 604-609. 1.5; 6.9; 9.1-2;

18.5; 30 passim. 21

Lys. frag. 38 (Coll. Bude) = Ath. 13.6] le and 61 2c-f.

22

Dem. 36.5-6. The conclusion by R. Bogaert, 1968, that bank loans were not important in private life seems to be based on a very restricted analysis of the sources, and cannot be considered plausible, cf. Millett, 1991. It is difficult to discern bankers from among other persons that gave loans, because the terminology in the speeches is ambivalent on several occasions, cf. Dem. 27.11; Cohen 1992, 64, 170ff., and R. Bogaert, Gnomon 1995, 605.

^3 24.

Millett 1991, 153-159, 171-178. Cf 1G IU/TII2 12499 (306/5) with Ferguson 1944, 80-81: 1G IIAII? 12501 (end of 4th century); SEG XII 100 (367/6). Vondeling 1961, 85-86.

Private Associations in Athens

107

secunty. The creditor, who could be an association or a group of people, usually rented the property back to the original owner, who now was the debtor, in this way gaining the rent and the original sum which was borrowed, so that the rent functioned as an interest

on the capital.25 Profit was also gained from fines of fixed sums of money which were levied on those who do not follow the rules of the association. If the fine was not paid on time, it could be doubled. The associations also lent money, and the names of the debtors

with the specific interest they owed were written on special stelai.26

Public services and private property In the latter half of the fourth century the glory and honour connected with the holding

of different compulsory public services (λειτουργίαι) were no longer a sufficient compensation for some citizens in exchange for their expenditure as the costs of such services became greater and greater.?? The only general relief accorded by law was an exemption (ἀτέλεια) from performing a recurrent liturgy as a reward for performing a military one.28 Demosthenes offers us a vivid picture of his own services to the city as opposed to those of a rich Athenian called Meidias who did not want to perform his liturgic obligations. Meidias had once even attacked Demosthenes claiming antidosis to avoid the service as a trierarch. Demosthenes had to offer 20 minae to him and his brother

which was the value of trierarchia at that time.?? But it is jmportant to remember on this occasion that some of the financial burdens of the polis were imposed on all residents of

Attica, not on citizens alone.3° The changes in the attitudes towards money started to occur more clearly after the

Second Social War in 357—355. The basic political and economic values of the Classical city-state were

gradually replaced by the increasing power of money

instead

of the

traditional wealth in real estate.?! One can clearly recognize the change of attitudes in the speeches of Demosthenes: a visible reward from the polis is expected for services.32 In a reciprocal arrangement, the polis began to compensate the individual φιλοτιμία with χάρις. This morally new expectation of charis is expressed several times by Demosthenes in his speeches.?? It seems, however, obvious that the ideas of reciprocal contributions between the polis and an individual were generally not much esteemed

among the more pragmatic residents of Attica.?4

25

On this subject, see Fine

1951,

142-166,

and Finley

1952,

31-37,

of whom

Fine has a more

thorough discussion. 26

Anorgeonic law, IG IVIII2 1361 (mid 4th century); SEG XXI 530 (300-250).

2!

See Antipho 2.2.12 for a list of compulsory services. Cf. Theophr. Char. 26.6.

28

See M. Hakkarainen in this volume.

29

Dem. 21.80, see also especially 13-18; 153-162. Demosthenes' own triearchy cost him 30 minae. The speech, which is indisputably authentic, was never delivered as Demosthenes accepted from Meidias the sum of 30 minae and dropped the case (see Aeschin. 3.52).

30

The metics had to participate in the public financing, see, for example, IG II/TII2 244, 19-30 (337/6).

31

These traditional values along with some new ideas are well expressed by Xenophon in his treatises Oikonomikos and Poroi. He even proposed that the state make vacant house lots available to worthy metics who werc prepared to build homes, Poroi 2.6.

32

See M. Hakkarainen in this volume.

33

Consider, for example. Dem. 20; 21, and 34.

34

(Dem.] 42.23, 45.66.

108

Martti Leiwo

In the private economy of fourth century Athens a conspicuous division into visible and invisible property (φανερά and ἀφανῆς οὐσία) can be recognized in various courtroom speeches. There is no unambiguous meaning for these expressions, as they are used

to refer to different forms of property according to the context and the purpose of the

speech.?3 It seems, however, that in most cases ἀφανὴς οὐσία was the term used when the speaker alluded to cash, money invested in loans, or other property that was hidden,

especially on purpose.?9 It also seems obvious liturgies or special taxes, such as eisphora, was to was most easily done by giving money as a loan delivered to a trapezites could be known only to

that one method of avoiding public make one's property invisible.?? This or depositing it in a bank, as funds the banker, or at most to a group of

people who helped in the operation of the banking business.?3 Private associations of the wealthiest citizens may also have been a handy method to conceal property, which then was seen only in the accounts of the association in question.?? In this way individual property was made common to the association after which it was not usable for public purposes. Furthermore, it is generally known that there

is an interesting duality in the Hellenistic meaning of the word ἔρανος. The earliest, Homeric, meaning of the word was a reciprocal contribution, e.g., a joint meal to which each participant brought his appropriate share.49 Later the word meant both an association of women, metics and slaves with only a few citizen members and a loan which was

collected from a group of people (see below). Both the creditors and the members of the association were called eranistai. Therefore, like the contributors in an eranos-loan, as for instance κοινὸν τῶν ἐρανιστῶν in an interesting inscription (IG ΠΛΠ2

1291, mid-third

century), it is possible that the association arranged this kind of financing as well. This type of loan was always called eranos. It was paid in monthly

instalments and most

probably it had no interest, even if this is not explicitly stated.*! An official called ἀρχερανιστής figures also in two inscriptions of θιασῶται which means that the use of

35

See, for example, Dem. 29.3; id. 30.10-11; id. 38.7. A good paper on the subject is V. Gabrielsen 1986, 99-114 whose views are curiously opposed by P. Millett 1991, 13. However, R. Bogaert,

Gnomon 1995, 608, n. 18 offers strong support to Gabrielsen.

36

See Gabrielsen 1986, 104ff.

37

See, for example, the charge against Theopompos for concealing his property, Isae. 11.

38

Sometimes the depositor who tried to hide a great sum of money in a bank was cheated by the banker. For example, Pasion succeeded in cheating a Bosporian merchant, see Isoc. 17.7-10. See

also Cohen 1993, 70-82; 206. 39

The associations kept their own records, see, e.g.. IG IVIII2 2501, |. 20-21 (end of the 4th century). Some of the associations had a lot of property and upper-class members, see IG IUIII2 1252 (after the middle of the 4th century) and Ferguson 1944, 86-87.

40

Hom.

4]

1991, 153-155. The earliest known example of an eranos-loan is Antipho (ca. 480-411) 2.2.9: κἂν ἔρανον παρὰ τῶν φίλων συλλέξας, οὐκ ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔσχατα κακὰ ἦλθον. The speaker, who is accused of a

Od. 1.226;

11.415. The word is generally used in the meaning

"contribution",

see Millett

murder, states that if he should be stripped of his property, he should still be alive, and even though he should have had to obtain a loan from his friends, his fate would not have been the worst possible. On interest, see Millett 1991 and Cohen 1992 with opposing views. A TLG-scarch made by me with all instances of eranos shows that a great majority of loans include friends and relatives. [Interest is never mentioned, but sce the comparison later in Dio Chrys. 7.89 αἱ yap δὴ δοκοῦσαι φιλοφρονήσεις καὶ χάριτες, ἐὰν σκοπῇ τις ὀρθῶς, οὐδὲν διαφέρουσιν ἐράνων καὶ δανείων, ἐπὶ τόκῳ συχνῷ καὶ ταῦτις ὡς τὸ πολὺ γιγνύμενα, εἰ μὴ νὴ AU ὑπερβάλλει τὰ νῦν τὰ πρύτερον ... On payments of eranos-loans, cf. Hyp. Am. 4.14 19; 5.3 A; Lys. frag. 38 (Coll, Bude) = Ath. 13.61 le and 612c-f.

Private Associations in Athens

109

the title was not restricted to épaviotai.*2 It is not impossible that this official had something to do with the economic aspects of mutual support belonging to the associations.*

Oikos and association The basic social element of a Greek polis was the oikos. In Classical Athens there were opinions among some philosophers that a large oikos was structurally more or less the

same as a small polis.** These philosophers considered that the difference between a polis and an oikos was that of size only, whereas both were equal in their functions. Aristotie protested against this view in his Politics stating that this identity of structure was not important since both polis and oikos have a different purpose. He then starts to analyze the different components of which the state is composed to study their relation to

each other. He agrees that oikos is the first component of the state.*° A good oikos, a household, is composed of persons and property: there are free men and women, children, slaves, but also animals and other property.46 The management of all this is called, then, oikonomia. It is a well-known and indisputable fact that one had to belong to

an oikos to be not only a useful but also an influential member of the city-state. One claim that it was, in a way, more important than to be a citizen, and that applied individuals of every status. As a member of an oikos a slave or a woman could influence through the household that he or she belonged to. It should be underlined here that in Athens slaves were difficult to distinguish

citizens by which has ἐλευθέρου εἶναι τὸν αὐτόθι ἢ

may to all have from

mere appearance. This becomes apparent in a passage of Athenaion politeia survived within the writings of Xenophon: εἰ νόμος ἦν τὸν δοῦλον ὑπὸ τοῦ τύπτεσθαι ἢ τὸν μέτοικον fj τὸν ἀπελεύθερον, πολλάκις Gv οἰηθεὶς ᾿Αθηναῖον δοῦλον ἐπάταξεν ἄν: ἐσθῆτά τε γὰρ οὐδὲν βελτίων ὁ δῆμος οἱ δοῦλοι καὶ οἱ μέτοικοι καὶ τὰ εἴδη οὐδὲν βελτίους εἰσίν (1.10).47

After this remark the writer of this pamphlet claims that the Athenians let their slaves live

in luxury.48 They are able to work

and get paid well, and become

free, because

maintaining sea-power needed slaves who, though they were slaves, were paid. Accordingly, since some of the slaves became rich, others were no longer afraid of their masters who could not punish them. The writer then continues: διὰ τοῦτ᾽ οὖν

ἰσηγορίαν καὶ τοῖς δούλοις πρὸς τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ἐποιήσαμεν — καὶ τοῖς μετοίκοις πρὸς τοὺς ἀστούς, διότι δεῖται h πόλις μετοίκων διά τε τὸ πλῆθος τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ διὰ τὸ ναυτικόν’ διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ τοῖς μετοίκοις εἰκότως τὴν

42

1G IVIII2 1297 (ca. 237/6) and possibly 1319 (end of the 3rd century ?).

55

See Poland, 1909, 353 who sees the religious content later giving way to the more economic one. It is, however, possible, that the economic aspect was already there from the beginning. See also Arnaoutoglou 1994, 107-110.

44

See the critics of Aristotle at Pol. 1.1.2. He probably criticized Plato.

45 46

Arist. Pol. 1.2.1. Id. 1.2.34.

47

"If a law existed that a citizen (a free man) could beat a slave, a metic, or a freedman, he would often beat an Athenian as he would think him to be a slave. For the people are not at all better dressed there (in Athens) than slaves or metics and their appearence 15 no better."

48

The treatise was probably written sympathies (The Old Oligarch).

during

the

Peloponnesian

War,

and

it has

strong

oligarchic

110

Martti Leiwo

ἰσηγορίαν democratic

ἐποιήσαμεν (1.12).49 Although the pamphlet government of Athens, and as such it was

was directed against the naturally one-sided and

exaggerating, it must have had some basis in contemporary Athenian society.

The forensic speeches of the fourth century implied that well-being of non-citizens became prevalent during the latter half of the fourth century and continued at least several decades. They also insinuate that all the inhabitants — even women — of Athens could

possess equal rights with the male citizens, if only they had some middleman or agent among the citizens. This was very important in lawsuits as well as in economic transactions. In this way citizens were able to borrow from metics and slaves, who could in the same way bridge the gulf between land, which they could not own, and money. As we know,

real estate was the regular security of loan transactions between citizens, and

there is an indisputable example of a metic money-lender operating through a citizen agent, and this need not be exceptional.°° Therefore, as an example, a bank may have been organized so that it resembled an οἶκος with citizens and slaves. The most famous bank in Athens was that of the extremely rich and active former slave, Pasion, who obviously got citizenship because of his wealth. After having got enough property, he leased his bank to his slave Phormion who was given his freedom, and after his death in 370/69 Phormion took control of the bank, and married the widow

of Pasion, Archippe,

as a term of the will made by Pasion himself. Pasion bequeathed his wife to Phormion for two apparent reasons: to give his widow economic and other security in the future, but

also to keep the oikos unchanged.5! After a while Phormion was also given citizenship because of his favours to the city (i.e. financial transactions, money lending). This practice clearly established the power of money in Athens at that time. The personal property of Pasion was apparently mixed with that of the bank, and it was arranged so that he owed 11 talents to the bank. All this had to be well organized to make business with citizens possible.?? When the son of Pasion, Pasicles, came of age, he took control

of the bank. Thus, an oikos of this functioned in the polis and followed the same time it created a new social reality fifth century Athens. In conclusion, this of servile or metic background together

kind confirmed the socio-economic pattern that traditional modes for civil transactions, but at the which had not yet been so strongly existent in late type of an organization of quasi-oikoi by persons with citizens made it possible to do legal business

in Athens and to own land and property.5? Was this, then, the reason for the origin of the new types of associations with non-citizen members? We may suppose that during the fourth century the appearance of these banking oikoi of servile origin marked the rise of a new Athenian establishment, a class of influential 49

30

"So for this reason we have established equal freedom of speech as between slave and free, and as between metic and citizen, for the city needs metics because of their work as craftsmen, and because of the fleet. So because of this it was reasonable for us to establish equal freedom of speech even for the metics." See Whitehead 1977, 54.

See Dem. 46.6. M.I. Finley 1952, 77-78, and still 19852, 48, thought that this was impossible or at least very rare, but he seems to have been too rigid, see the arguments in Millett 1991, 225-229.

5!

Jn Finland a vicar's widow was taken care of in a rather similar way in rural areas until the beginning of this century. See also Dem. 46.28-29, and Millett 1991, 226-227.

52

The visible property of the bank which was transferred to Phormion was twenty talents, and, in addition, Pasion had 50 talents of his own money invested as loans. This sum included the 11 talents that he had taken from the bank, see Dem. 36.5. Cf. Fine 1952, 84.

33

See Cohen 1992, 87. This system made it possible to establish philosophical schools as well, for that, see T. Korhonen in this volume. See also IG IL/TII2 1183 (after 340); 1258 (324/3) where synegoroi chosen by demotai and orgeones to act for them in the judicial proceedings are mentioned.

Citizen members, sec IG II/III2 1263 (300/299 B.C.); 1297 (ca. 237/6) and 1298 (ca. 232/1).

Private Associations in Athens

111

persons different from that of the traditional upper-class of land-owning citizens. The new Class implanted the Athenian society with wealthy metics and former slaves together with only a few naturalized citizens. Cohen clearly overestimates the importance and number of

the naturalized citizens.°* It is crucial to keep in mind that in Athens the granting of citizenship was up to the late second century considered to be an honour or a reward; it

was mainly given because of ἀνδραγαθία, and it was very restricted.55 Citizenship could also be cancelled.56 The oligarchs seem to have been more favourable towards granting citizenship than the democrats, if only the applicant fulfilled the conditions, i.e. was rich. It is interesting that during the reign of Demetrius of Phaleron no grants of

citizenship are attested.5? Because of these restrictions in granting citizenship, I would like to suggest that the founding of several types of private associations (philosophical schools, too) during the 4th century was largely due to the fact that legal and political

arrangements were possible only for citizens. Therefore, an association became the oikos of its members, and it comprised all social classes, free men and women, metics, and slaves. In this way an association was like an oikos on a larger scale, or like a polis on a smaller scale with its polis-like administration of which we have several well-known epigraphic examples.58 Within an association it was possible for women, metics and slaves to act as citizens, to own land, and to bring a suit against a citizen, since there were citizens among the

members, mostly as officials of the association who could act according to the legal procedures of the polis (see below).°? It is a fact that virtually every group did hold some property, as can be seen in the inscriptions.9 A group of supporting fellow members, which in this context may have been called eranistai or thiasotai, was also an advantage.

From the group it was easier not only to confront the possible enemies and economic difficulties, but also to gain profit on investment.

A very interesting Aoros-inscription is worth citing in this connection. The text is written on a stone broken on the edges which was found in the Agora and published as follows (Fine 1951, no. 28): [ὅροΪ]ς οἰκίας πίε] πραϊμένης Δι[ο][τίμ]οι Μελιτεῖ [τιμ]ῆς ἧς ἐνεγύη[σε] [ἀραβ)]ῶνα τοῦ ἐράν[ου] [τοῦ π]εντακοσιοδρ[άχ][μου] πληρώτρια Anluo ? ἕως ἂν διεξ[έλθηι].6] The proposed restoration has several difficulties, as some letters are not at all certain, and, for example, [ἀραβ]ῶνα is 54

Cohen 1992, 88.

55

The normal formula was ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα xai ἀνδραγαθίας see, for example, IG Π1112 500 (302/301).

56

We may stress here that granting citizenship was never very common in Athens before the 2nd century. Citizenship could only be granted to a foreigner as a gift by a decree of the assembly. This remained the case until late in the 2nd century, see M.J. Osborne 1981 (1), 6; see also Osborne 1982

τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον τὸν ᾿Αθηναίων,

(IV), 147-149; 207. 57

Osborne 1982 (IV), 164-165. See, however, Osborne D 42: Asandros the son of Agathon from Macedonia (314/13) where the granting of citizenship might have been mentioned. See also M. Hakkarainen in this volume, 27.

58

See. for example, IG ΠΠ112 1255 (337/6); 1291 (mid-3rd century) etc.

59

See Millett, 1991, 224ff. Cf. M.I. Finley, 1952, 89, who suggests here quite correctly that the problem of owning land was solved by leaving most of the official posts in Athenian hands.

60

After MLL. Finley, 1952, 89-90, twenty horoi name a total of twenty-six groups of different types as creditors. Today we know even more, but that is irrelevant in this connection. See also Ferguson,

61]

The suggested translation by J.V.A. Fine is as follows: “Horas of a house sold to "Diotimos" of Melite for the price of which he has pledged his deposit (payment, contribution) in the five hundred drachma eranos loan "Demo" is plerotria until the loan shall have expired."

1944, 67.

112

Martti Leiwo

improbable.92 But what is important, a photograph of the inscription clearly shows that a feminine πληρώτρια is mentioned.9? It is also clear that the text refers to an eranos loan. Plerotes was a technical term for a contributor to an eranos loan, and it seems very reasonable that the feminine here signifies a female contributor. M.I. Finley feels awkward with these possibilities and rejects the whole inscnption as impossible, as he

had claimed that in Athens or other islands except Amorgos (Finley no. 8 = IG XII 7.58 (3rd century)) there is not a single horos text that names a woman

in any context other

than dowry.94 A loan was usually named after this contributor who was, accordingly, the initiator or head of the group who made the loan by collecting the money. À group or an association,

on the other hand, was also often named after its leading character.65 An Athenian woman could not normally or at least legally act in these kinds of proceedings without a kyrios,

but in actual practice it may have been possible. The woman here, however, may more likely have been a metic or a hetaira.6© It is possible that the loan had been granted by members of an eranos association, although usually the eranistai mentioned in the horos-inscriptions are considered to refer

to the participants in a loan.97 Some of the inscriptions can, however, be interpreted as referring to the association. J. Vondeling represents the view that all eranistai in horosinscriptions belong to a corresponding association which has lent money by πρᾶσις ἐπὶ Avceı.68 It is certainly true, as even Finley reluctantly admits, that the question is not black and white, and that the whole eranos system is very complex.°? The information given in the inscriptions may have been ambiguous on purpose, or accidentally, because contributors to a loan and members of an association merged together in these documents as well as in contemporary Athenian society. Be that as it may, at least we know that a woman could have had a position in an eranos-association, and be an archeranistria (IG

I/III? 1292), although archeranistes.'0

62

this

office

was

more

often

held

by

a

male

member,

The word is not only improbable in the meaning J.V.A. Fine suggested, as it means the earnest, a part-payment of the price, but it is also a hapax in the inscriptions of Attica and Asia Minor, although, of course, common enough in papyrı, e.g., BGU VI 1289 (3rd B.C.); PCair. Zen. 59090

(258/ B.C.); 59250 (252 B.C.) etc. See Stob. 4.2.20.47—48 and 55ff. But id. 4.18b.13.7. Cf. Men. Frag. 697 ὅταν ἐκ πονηροῦ πράγματος κέρδος λάβῃς, τοῦ δυστυχεῖν νόμιζέ σ᾽ appapov' ἔχειν. 63

I am very grateful to Mrs. Sylvie Dumont,

Assistant Archivist from the Agora Excavations for

providing me with a photograph of the inscription Fine 1951, no. 28 = Agora I 5639.

64

Finley 1952, 188 no. 114A. See, however, Vondeling 1961, 141-142.

65

"The normal type is oi + the name of the group, e.g.. ὀργεῶνες, ᾿Αμφιεραΐσταί + oi μετὰ +a name in the genitive, cf. Ferguson 1944, 93 no. century).

11; IG IVIII2 1322 (end of the 3rd/beginning of the 2nd

66

See Cohen

67 65

After Finley 1952, 101—103. On this question, see Vondeling 1961, 133-142; Fine 1951, 20.

969

ML Finley 1952, 102-3, wrote: “admittedly the evidence for taking all references to eranoi in the horoi to signify loans is not decisive. But there is no genuine evidence of any kind for the alternative view that they are societies, and that fact is decisive to my mind." This kind of argumentation is not very constructive, and it depends totally on one's own attitudes towards reading the texts in the horoi, as can he seen in J. Vondeling's (1961, 137[{} views and justified criticism of Finley.

70

Fine

1951,

1992, 79, and Dem. 47.57.

19-20.

Private Associations in Athens

113

Ferguson claims that in 205 B.C. the living conditions of Athens' foreign residents were intensely bad, and their status was much inferior to that of aliens elsewhere. I have not, however, found support for his opinion in our sources other than the text of the socalled Dicaearchus or Heracleides the Critic, who visited Athens probably in the latter half of the third century B.C. It seems that Ferguson based his opinion on this particular text

which he mentions earlier in his book.?! It seems that the meaning of the clubs or associations to foreigners and traders in Athens may have been considerable in the latter half of the third century. The preserved text of the only manuscript of Dicaearchus is problematic, but it seems that the writer of this description claims that the living conditions of the foreigners were so bad that they had continuous hunger. Nevertheless, the various opportunities for amusement and synousia in Athens made them forget their bad situation. The writer does not, however,

say anything explicit about the associations as far as I can understand the corrupt text. The situation he depicts seems to be to some extent in contradiction with that of the forensic speeches of the fourth century, and it implies a change in the living conditions, if we take it to be reliable evidence.

Macedonian a great deal government Macedonian

This

kind

of change

is,

however,

only

natural

since

the

supremacy started to affect Athens negatively only gradually and the city lost of its well-being in the hundred year period with several changes of until 229 when the Macedonian garrison was removed. At the beginning of rule the attitudes of the Athenians were ambiguous towards Macedonians,

and we must remember the favourable demeanour of the Peripatetic School towards the Macedonian rulers. It is also apparent that the Athenians en masse were not so opposed to them as they became later.’2 There is a striking example of different attitudes of the Athenian high class towards Macedonian rulers within one and the same family. The exactly contemporary careers of the brothers Phaidros and Kallias of Sphettos differed radically from each other, but both were rewarded by the Demos of the Athenians with the highest honours it could bestow. Where Phaidros was an eager pro-Macedonian, the

brother Kallias was just the opposite, an ardent anti-Macedonian.?? After the removal of the Macedonian garrison in 229 the naturalization process was also changed and citizenship was given more freely and mainly to traders which certainly

marked the end of the Athenian Classical period.?4

Religion or Other Roles? All the associations of Classical Athens had some connection to cult worship and thus to religion.’> This fact has led many scholars to conclusions that the religious meaning of these

associations

must

be considered

primary,

and

the other

aims,

for

example,

7l

Ferguson 1911, 308. The text, which is probably used in this connection reference, is corrupted, see Müller, FHG II, 254—255 or GGM I, 97-110.

as a source

without

72?

Philippus was very moderate towards Athens after the defeat at Chaeronea. Alexander the Great was also granted citizenship, see Osborne, 1981 (1) T 68 and T 69, p. 69—70. Demetrius Poliorcetes was partly loved partly hated, see Plut. Dem. (passim). See also Theophr. Char. 23.

73 14

See IG IVIII2 682 (Phaidros); Shear 1978 (Kallias). Osborne 1981 (1) 15, 28, 144.

75

This is already recognized by V. Ehrenberg 1932, 6.

114

Martti Leiwo

economic or social support for the members were of a minor importance.’6 As I have already mentioned, the early forms of associations and cultic groups were restricted to citizens only. In this way

we know

that all thiasotai and orgeones were necessarily

citizens before the Periclean period. Already in the latter part of the fifth century, however,

foreign residents of Attica started to form ethnic organizations, usually in

connection

with the cult worship

of their own

deities,

for example,

of the Thracian

goddess Bendis, whose cult was officially accepted in Piraeus by 431/30 or 430/429 and the members could call themselves orgeones. Therefore, it is important in this

connection

that the Thracians were allowed by the polis to associate publicly

for

nominally religious purposes as orgeones of Bendis. It is, however, evident that the aims

of the association of Bendis were more political and socio-economical than religious.?8 This association created for the first time a situation where orgeones were not necessarily citizens. But it was only during the latter half of the fourth century that this occurred more generally among other foreigners, since the epigraphic sources are almost exclusively from 350 onwards.

The terms used in the earliest examples are usually θιασῶται

or

κοινὸν τῶν θιασωτῶν (Sabazius, Magna Mater or Cybele, Isis, Aphrodite by the metics

of Citium, Cyprus) which also earlier indicated citizens only.?? In addition, other names for clubs were those of ἐρανισταί or κοινὸν épavictóv which start to emerge in our epigraphic sources from the last half of the fourth century (IG II/III2 2935, from 324/3; 2940, end of 4th ca.; 1265 from ca. 300). The first literary mentioning of κοινωνία ἐρανιστῶν is that of Aristotle who wrote in his well-known passage of Nicomachean

Ethics that ἔνιαι δὲ τῶν κοινωνιῶν δι᾽ δονὴν δοκοῦσι γίγνεσθαι, θιασωτῶν καὶ ἐρανιστῶν. αὗται γὰρ θυσίας ἕνεκα καὶ συνουσίας (Eth. Nic. 8.9.5, 11602).80 It is remarkable that the word eranos is as good as never attested to mean a club or an association in our literary sources.8! This means that the association which is relatively well-known from the Athenian epigraphic sources between ca. 320 and Roman Imperial

times did not have a regular status in the minds of the Greeks whose literary works have survived.32

They

use the word

roughly

in three

basic

meanings

which

are

‘loan’,

‘contribution’ and ‘meal’. I shall return later in this paper to the question of the possible difference of substance in the terminology of these later associations, but here we may pose some questions about religion versus enjoyment and personal security in fourth century Athens.

76 77

vondeling 1961, 261; Millett 1991, 151; but 171ff. with loans.

78

Steinhauer 1993, 38; see also Simms 1988, 59-70. The temple of Bendis was known in Piraeus at least in 404/403, see Xen. Hell. 2.4.11, but there might have been a public sanctuary even earlier. Steinhauer, 1993, 38-39.

79

The earlier associations with probable citizen members only are SEG X 330 from ca. 450; IG INII2

1237, from 396/5; IG ΠΠΠ2 2343, from the beginning of the 4th century, and 2345 from the first half of the 4th century; the dating of IG II/III2 1177; 1252 and 1253 is difficult. The overwhelming majority, however, ts later than 350. See also Poland 1909, 518-519; Ferguson 1911, 220 n. 1. 80

"Some of the associations seem to be born because of pleasure, those of fhiasotai and eranistat. These exist because of offerings and social interchange." This passage may be an interpolation from some other version of the text. See also Vondeling 1961, 77 and Millett 1991, 148ff.

8!

The only reference to a probable association is late, see Ath. 8.362e: ἔρανοι δέ εἰσιν αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν συμβαλλομένων συναγωγαὶ, ἀπὸ τοῦ συνερᾶν καὶ συμφέρειν ἕκαστον. καλεῖται δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ

ἔρανος καὶ

θίασος καὶ

οἱ συνιόντες ἐρανισταὶ

καὶ θιασῶται.

καλεῖται

δὲ

καὶ

ὁ τῷ

Διονύσῳ παρεπόμενος ὄχλος θίασος, ὡς Εὐριπίδης φησίν (Eur. Bacch. 680). 82

A late inscription. with eranos seems to be Peek, Ath. Mitt. 67, 1942, 31, no. 30 (not dated. presumably 2nd century A.D.); cf. Poland 1909, 272ff., and esp. 371 on the term πατήρ.

Private Associations tn Athens

115

In 333 Citian merchants asked the Athenians for the legal right to acquire and hold a plot of land on which to erect a temple for Aphrodite, the native goddess of Cyprus. This

act had been preceded by a similar right given earlier to Egyptians for their cult of Isis.83 The nght was, perhaps surprisingly, granted to them, although it was normally denied to metics and xenoi. Thus, these Citian ἔμποροι

were attested at Piraeus in 333 as a cult

group of Aphrodite. It is possible and even probable, however, that they had already in this religious context formed an unofficial organized association to offer help and support to their fellow-citizens.84 Aristotle also outlines in the above-mentioned context that all associations aim at some particular advantage for their members. He distinguished between different types of get-

togethers as he wrote in another well-known passage that ai δὲ κοινωνίαι πᾶσαι μορίοις ἐοίκασι τῆς πολιτικῆς ... καὶ fj πολιτικὴ δὲ κοινωνία τοῦ συμφέροντος

χάριν

δοκεῖ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς

συνελθεῖν καὶ διαμένειν

... αἱ μὲν οὖν

ἄλλαι

κοινωνίαι κατὰ μέρη τοῦ συμφέροντος ἐφίενται, οἷον πλωτῆρες μὲν τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πλοῦν πρὸς ἐργασίαν χρημάτων Tj τι τοιοῦτον, συστρατιῶται δὲ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον, εἴτε χρημάτων EITE νίκης ἤ πόλεως ὀρεγόμενοι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ φυλέται καὶ δημόται ... θυσίας τε ποιοῦντες καὶ περὶ tadtac συνόδους, τιμάς TE ἀπονέμοντες τοῖς θεοῖς καὶ αὑτοῖς ἀναπαύσεις πορίζοντες μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς (Eth. Nic. 8.9.4-5, 1160a).95 Aristotle does not speak of associations as established institutions, but mainly as groups, κοινωνίαι, of people who gather together to get some

enjoyment or profit, συμφέροντος χάριν.86 This profit may also consist of material things such as money, πρὸς ἐργασίαν χρημάτων fj tt τοιοῦτον. Without going deeper into a discussion of the meaning of this passage, we may emphasize the conclusion that Aristotle draws. Namely, all different types of associations or groups of people, whether seamen, soldiers, or members of eranistai, synodoi, phyle and demos, are ultimately all joining in some cultic performance with a social intercourse

called synodos, θυσίας τε ποιοῦντες καὶ περὶ ταύτας συνόδους. Accordingly, we may consider that, if an inscription was set up to some individual, it was only natural that it highlighted this cultic performance which was the actual and legitimate form of the synousia of any group or association, and which was the object of the funding from the association's own treasury. Almost all social activity was in one way or another connected with gods in a Greek city, for instance drinking and eating, theatre, sports, war, trade, in a word

everything,

had a connection to some god with an offering of some kind before beginning and after

completion. There were also a great number of different connection to religion. This ubiquitous existence of passage from the Deipnosophistai of Athenaeus. It famous for its several "religious" festivals. One day

festivals which all had a nominal festivals can be seen in an amusing states that Alexandria in Egypt was queen Arsinoe met a man who came

83

See the previous note, and Poland 1909, 81.

94^

IG IU/III2 337 [= Tod 1948, 189]. See also Davies 1984, 319.

85

“But all associations are parts of the state ... The political association, too, seems to be formed, and continues to be maintained, for the advantage of its members ... Accordingly, associations aim at some particular advantage, for example, sailors combine to seek money sea-borne trade or the like, and comrades-in-arms seek profit in warfare, whether money or the capture of a city, and similarly the members of a phyle or a demos ... They perform and arrange meetings in connection with them thus both assigning honours to the providing pleasant holidays for themselves."

86

See Finley 1952. 88; Millett 1991, 149.

originally the other from the victory or sacnfices god§ and

116

Martti Leiwo

into her sight dressed in due cultic form carrying olive twigs and a big bottle. The queen stopped him, asking what festival he was celebrating. The man says that the name of the

festival is λαγυνοφόρια. The queen had not heard of such festival, hence the man explains that a group of men gather together into a place each bringing a bottle of his own wine with him and then they just start drinking (Ath. 276a-c). This story is, of course, a

joke, and it refers to Hellenistic Alexandria, but together with some observations of Theophrastus,8? it shows us clearly that there were and still are many possible ways to interpret "religious" synousia. It is also true that no other gods or heroes dominate quantitatively so much the life of the Athenian associations than do the heavy drinkers and

eaters Dionysos and Heracles.3®

To conclude, one could no opportunities to gather synousia. Accordingly, it early third centuries were

claim that in Athens in the fourth and third centuries there were more or less officially and legally together other than a cultic is possible that even if the associations of the late fourth and connected to a cult of some deity, their main purpose was not

religion as we understand the word, but synousia with common

meals,

and social and

financial support. It was not possible to establish other kinds of associations than cultic ones since there was no existing or legal model for them. The earlier types were impossible, because they were political and reserved only for citizens, but at the same

time these old models gave rise to the new forms of associations. With the new foreign cults they gradually offered a traditional terminology for the use of non-citizens as well. This can be recognized in the orgeones and later the thiasotai of Bendis and the thiasotai of other, usually foreign, gods. The forming of koinon eraniston was the only new creation,

and

it reflected

the traditional

use of the

word:

common meal. [ am convinced that it got its name because members, perhaps also in collecting an eranos-loan which

mutual

help,

contribution,

its aim was to help the was usual very time-

consuming.5? But, like the other associations, it had to be formed into a cult body. The Athenian political and legal context of the fourth and third centuries required that every association was in some way or other connected with cult worship. It seems, however, that they all had more or less the same function, and did not change much during the first hundred years of their existence.?® The members in the new associations were citizens, metics, women, slaves and foreigners, and their numbers ranged from a small group of under ten persons up to about a hundred members.?! The members of these thiasoi and eranoi also bound themselves to join in redressing wrongs done to any of them, and to act so that their colleagues or "friends" were also moved to like action. An obligation to assist

at the funerals of eranistai and to offer financial and other help was also one of their main activities.?2 One can, therefore, acknowledge that in the beginning the organization into 87 #8

Char. 9,3; 10.3; 12,11; 22.4. Poland 1909, 196.

59

On friends and eranos, see Millett 1991,

90

See the terminology in, e.g. SEG XXI ἐπεμελήθησαν καί - - - | τῆς εἰς τὰ ὀργεῶνες τιμῶ! - - - |.

91 92

155-157.

122 (316/5-301/0) ἔδοξεν toig ὀργεῶίσιν κοινὰ

καί

- - -

| ἐν

ten. θιάσωι

ὕπωΐς

— - - ] - - - | o

IGIV/III? 1291 (mid-3rd century): 1335 (102/1). Vondeling 1961, 88-89. See, for example, IG IVIN2 1327 (ca. 178/7y; 1335 (102/1); 1339 (57/6), 1366 (A.D. Ist century). 1369 (late?). Ferguson 1911, 219.

Private Associations in Athens

117

associations was not for professional reasons, other reasons being more important, e.g., social standing, nationality, sex. This organization must have been due to the feeling of economic safety, of joint meals, cult rituals, etc.

Only later, in the second century, did the associations become more like professional guilds, and there they may have had as an example the synodos of the Dionysiac artists which appears in our sources for the first time already ca. 278 B.C. in Attica, and a little

later in Isthmus and Nemea.?? This association ascertained special privileges for actors, dancers and musicians by creating a guild sacred to Dionysos. It is also important that the

members of the association called themselves oi περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται which for the first time underlined the joint profession that the members shared with each other. The privileges to the members

of the Athenian guild were granted by the Amphictyonic

League. However, like the other private associations οἱ περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον

τεχνῖται

were also formally a religious group, not only because theatre was strongly connected with the cult of Dionysos but also because otherwise it was impossible to function legally

in different societies.?4 The τεχνῖται only visited the cities, and after the performance they moved to another

place.?5 But it is a totally different thing whether the artists were members

of the

Dionysiac Association because of their personal religious feeling or because of privileges

or other profit and security that they were able to acquire as members.?6 It is evident that the latter played an important part in the association. Nevertheless, only later does there begin to emerge other types of associations which explicitly mention their professional

unity, for example, those of traders, κοινά or σύνοδοι ἐμπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων as in Delos, and in Asia Minor those of different professionals.?? Pertaining to athletics, it can be added that permanent associations of athletes were not formed until Roman times.?8 It may well be that the whole system of professional guilds has to be considered as Roman. The activity of the Athenian private associations in the third century B.C. is paralleled by a similar activity in the local centres of Attica. It was, according to Ferguson, dangerous to the integrity of the polis which suffered from the Macedonian garrison in Piraeus and occasionally in the city itself between 322 and 229, except for the short period from 307 to 294. This is an interesting point of view, and deserves special consideration since the local civil associations had been largely suppressed by Cleisthenes, whose municipal organization of Attica had broken up the larger local groups, and subordinated the smaller under the new tribes which he had created. It is not,

however, the aim of this paper.?? 33

IG IVIII2 1132 (ca. 278/7); Syll.? 460 (ca. 247); see also F. Dunand 1986, 93 n. 39. Davies 1984, 319. Cf. already Arist. RA.

1405a23: xai

ὁ μὲν διονυσοκόλακας, αὐτοὶ δ᾽ αὑτοὺς

τεχνίτας

καλοῦσιν. "And, whereas someone may call the actors 'flatterers of Dionysos’, they call themselves 'artists'."

94

The close connection of the Dionysiac cult with drama exhibitions in Athens is emphasized by J. Aronen 1992, 19-37.

95

For bibliography concerning the visiting nature of the god Dionysos, see Aronen 1992, 29.

96

The Dionysiac artists were exempt from the main personal tax in Egypt, the salt tax, together with paidotribai, grammatistai and winners of the games, see Dunand 1986, 99,

97

Cf. ID 4, 1774 (ca. 150-110) with numerous similar examples; IKosSegre EV 199 (2nd century A.D.) SEG XXX 1608D (225-218 B.C.); numerous professional groups in, e.g., Saittai, Lydia.

SEG XXIX 1183ff. (2nd century A.D.); SEG XXXII 488, in Tanagra, Boeotia (100 B.C.) etc. 98

Ferguson 1911, 213; Poland 1909, 147.

99

See Ferguson

1911, 229-232.

Ya,

Studies on the Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia on the Athenian Money Market in the 3rd Century B.C. Kenneth Lónnqvist

The intention of this paper is to further consider the Macedonian coinage of the third century B.C. found in Athens; to see whether a closer scrutiny of the numismatic sources presented here can add anything to a fuller understanding of the as yet badly known monetary history of Athens during that period.! By putting forward a new numismatic and historical synthesis we plan to see whether the present picture of Hellenistic Athens under Macedonian rule stands on its own, or must it, in fact, be revised. To what extent and how the city of Athens had to adapt its monetary economy in accordance with the vicissitudes of the Macedonian monarchs following the conquest and fall of the city in 322 B.C. and again in 262/1 B.C. has been a subject of investigation I — The principal chronological frame for this paper on numismatics

is the period 322 B.C. — until the

end of Macedonian rule in Athens, i.c. late third century B.C. Athenian third century silver and bronze is not dwelled upon in depth because the study of such as a whole would have been too vast a task for this purpose and since many of the studies undertaken are still continuing. This ts neither the time nor the place to discuss the end of the Old Style coinage (Plate 2, coin No. 17) or the chronology of the New Style coinage of (Plate 2, No. 24); a topic which has been fiercely debated in the past years. For the Athenian third century silver coinages, see Thompson 1961, and the criticism of 1. Touratsoglou 1989, 7-20; Mattingly 1990, 67-78; Nicolet-Pierre and Kroll 1990, 1-35, which

sum up the present state of rescarch. Some suggestions as to the prosopography of the New Style Silver coinage period are also put forward by Habicht 1994, 287-310. The subject of the Athemian bronze has been covered by Kroll and Kleiner (see c.g. Kroll 1979, 139-154; Kleiner 1975, 302-

330: 1976, 1—40).

120

Kenneth Lönngvist

and debate almost for a century. Regrettably the information we have on these points is still insufficient, though some general presentations do exist. One crucial question is what

happened to the minting of Athenian autonomous coin types after the Macedonian conquests. Since there is no up-to-date numismatic study which is devoted to the presence of Macedonian coins in Athens as a whole — though individual sectors within it has been touched upon - this paper will attempt to fill this void by incorporating the latest coin

statistics from the main Athenian excavations.? It must be stressed that this paper is presenting some new, hitherto unpublished coin material which is of fundamental importance for our understanding of the development in Athens, in determining its locus standi and relationship to the superpower of the north —

Macedonia - in the 3rd century B.C. The bulk of Macedonian coins presented here come in part from well-documented excavations in Athens, and partly from recently relocated coin material excavated in Athens in the late 19th century, but not published. First, specimens coming from controlled excavations should represent stray-finds of coins giving a reasonably accurate picture of the original pool of coins once in circulation;

the denominations which were used in daily life; and in particular the coinage which circulated inside the walls of Athens. These Macedonian coins of which the majority were found on the Athenian Agora were not reproduced in the first publication of the

Athenian Agora coins in 1954.3 The Greek section of the Agora coinage from

the

excavation seasons 1931-1990 was published only recently during the course of this work, in December 1993.4 The other main source for this study was the unpublished coins

excavated

from

the

Athenian

Asclepieion,

which

are

now

in

the

Athens’

Numismatic Museum.» What makes this latter group especially interesting is that it comes

from the same place as the inscription which has often been used to support the 2

The first basic statistics were provided by M. Thompson in 1942 (225, note 34). Cf. the latest presentations of the political history of Hellenistic Athens which were based on that statistics (see

Habicht 1979 and 1982, especially 1982, 34—42 and Martin 1985). For the first major Agora coin publication see Thompson 1954. Her publication deals mainly with Roman coins of a later date and the Greek coins are not included in the listed 55, 492 specimens. We are particularly grateful to the staff of The Athenian Agora Excavations, especially to Prof. John McK. Camp Il for the permit to see the then unpublished Macedonian specimens recovered and to Mrs. Jan Jordan for promptly putting the coins at our disposal. To the Agora numismatist, Prof. John H. Kroll, we are very grateful for his encouragement and for the permission to use manuscript

pages of the then unpublished book The Greek Coins with the coins from the seasons 1931-1990 (The Athenian Agora, Volume 26). The book was published in December 1993. Coins shown to us in March 1992 in the Athens’ Numismatic Museum and said to have been excavated from the Sanctuary in the late 19th century. The old note on the tray says: “Αρχαιολ. Eraipewx πολλαπλα καὶ aypnota'. First one to mention this material was the excavator U. Kohler in 1877 (259, note 2). He said “Ein Fund von über hundert antiken Bronzemünzen aus der makedonischen Zeit wurde auf der westlichen Terrasse hart am Burgfelsen gemacht". We assume that these specimens were subsequently kept by the Archaeological Society of Athens, under which auspices they "disappeared", probably during WW II. In the spring of 1992 we were able with the kind help of the staff of the Athens’ Numismatic Museum to relocate the collection in the museum and the Macedonian section of the coins is for the first time Itsted here. [t is therefore a true pleasure to record all the help and guidance we have received during this study, help that enabled us to complete the investigation. We are very grateful to M.A. Mina Galani-Cricou for the invaluable assistance in all matters. We thank Dr. Mando Oeconomides, the former Director of the Numismatic Museum of Athens, for the original permit to study and publish the Asclepicton coin material in this article. Finally, we are also very grateful to the present Director of the Numismatic Muscum of Athens, Dr. loannis Touratsoglou for the correspondence during spring 1995 and summer 1996 and the information which clarified some of the remaining points,

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

121

discussion regarding the Athenian stand against Macedonia in the mid third century B.C.9 Our primary task in this paper is to provide new statistics about the presence of Macedonian coins in Athenian excavation finds. Within the present framework, however, it is not possible to discuss fully the relationship between Macedonian silver and contemporary bronze coins. Consequently, as far as the essence of the Macedonian coinage is concerned, some observations as they emerge from the study of the finds have to suffice here. These observations have been collected in a separate chapter at the end of

the paper (see Numismatic Appendix on Antigonus Gonatas’ bronze types). Finally, before discussing the topic in depth, we wish to take this opportunity to extend our sincere thanks to all of the people who made this study possible, the archaeological excavations in Athens for their assistance and for letting us publish coins from their collections or excavations or information relating to the coin finds and to the

staff and curators of various museums worldwide.’

Finds of Macedonian coins from the Athenian excavations The account presented below cannot claim to cover all the excavated areas of ancient Athens, and, therefore, we ask for the reader's kind understanding for any apparent omissions. Tables 1—3 comprise, nevertheless, the Macedonian coin material from three major Athenian archaeological excavations, namely the Athenian Agora, Asclepieion and the Ceramicus in that order, which also is the internal order of the size of the Macedonian

coin finds from the sites. The coin profile is presented in Table 4 and a break-down according to ruler with respect to the length of his reign in Table 5. The advantage of the latter method is that it “shows the fluctuations of the currency more clearly than a straight tabulation of coin totals”, as stated in M. Thompson 1954.

The Athenian Agora The first attempt to list the Macedonian section of the Athenian Agora coinage was

made by M. Thompson in the early 1940’s.® At that time the record included already a total of 118 Macedonian coins, of which the impressive number of 86 was said to belong to King Antigonus Gonatas. Our final listing of the Athenian Agora coinage (Table 1) includes specimens in silver

and bronze ranging from Philip II to the late Antigonides, Antigonus Gonatas and Philip IG ΠΠ112 1534, Catalogi Donariorum Aesculapii ("Inventory V"). Commentary

in Aleshire

1989.

See our pp. 122, 125-126 for a fuller discussion. We express our warm Amandry

(Cabinet

thanks

also to the late Martin

de médailles,

Paris);

Carmen

Price (British Museum,

Amold-Biucchi

(American

London);

Numismatic

Michael Society,

New York); H. D. Schultz and to Josef Riederer (Staatliche Museen, Berlin) for their correspondence

on the subject during the years 1989-1995. Our deepest gratitude goes to Copenhagen to the keepers of the Copenhagen Collection of Greek Coins at the Nationalmuseet, directed by the Danish Numismatic Society and the Collection. There Steen Jensen who provided us with the great majority of our photographs, To the Ernst Foundation we extend our special gratitude for a grant which

and the Ernst Foundation, we thank Director Jgrgen and Mrs. Anne Kromann. covered fully the expenses

of the photographs obtained form Copenhagen. See Thompson 1942, 225, note 34. The number of coins of each issue period was according to Thompson as follows: Philip If, two coins; Alexander III, six coins; Cassander, 13 coins; Demetrius Poliorcetes, 1| coins and Antıgonus Gonatas, 86, bringing the total to 118 Macedonian coins.

122

Kenneth Lónnqvist

V / Perseus. Particulars such as mints, mint-marks, symbols etc. are not presented in this context since the information is fully available in the Athenian Agora, Vol. 26 (1993), The

Greek Coins, by J.H. Kroll.?

The Asclepieion in Athens From the Asclepieion area (Table 2) we have coins beginning Alexander and ending with the bronze of Philip V and Perseus.

with Philip II and Several interesting

features connect the numismatic material presented above and the much discussed epigraphical matenal from the Athenian Asclepieion, especially the inscription, for example, IG II/III2 1534B the so-called Inventory V (Aleshire 1989). In line 156 of the Inventory V inscription (IG II/III2) we can read ἀμφί[ιδείδια etc. S. B. Aleshire has argued that the word refers to any small ring which was not designed to be worn on the finger and that it in this connection probably denotes “hoop-shaped earrings".!9 Aleshire was also aware of a second explanation known from other inscriptions which she interpreted as a "hoop-shaped ring on which foreign coins (which had been pierced) were

strung".!! We are inclined to believe that the restoration of the word to mean strings where the foreign coins were collected may be correct, as far as Inventory V is concerned,

?

A methodological point to be mentioned is that the Agora material studied and presented here was first chosen for study by surveying the handwritten cards wherefrom the specimens were chosen to be

identified, whereas the Asclepieion and Ceramicus material was readily available for idenufication and could be studied in bulk. The record of the Macedonian coins from the Athenian Agora was later checked against the statistics compiled by Kroll (1993), showing that our attributions. usually coincide. As Prof. Kroll wrote us February 12th, 1992, "You will probably find much to disagree with, which will make for progress". It must also be noted that the Athenian Agora coin material is

a good point of departure for a remark on the difficulties involved with the identification of base metal coins, which as a rule are poorly preserved. We concluded that on an average from 1/5 to as high as 1/3 or more of the whole mass of unearthed coins was discarded already in field conditions, or disintegrated later during cleaning. Therefore it seemed inevitable that not all of the coins once labelled “Macedonian” could today be firmly attributed to a certain issue period or even idenufied as

Macedonian. A number of the coins have in the course of time corroded beyond recognition and are today only “lumps” of rust. Furthermore, we have the impression that many coins were attributed on stratigraphical grounds "as Antigonid", if there had been one legible coin from the level. Such uncertain cases have thus been deliberately omitted from the following tables. The tables are up-todate to the beginning of the year 1992. For illustrations of the Macedonian coinage see Plate 1, Nos. 1-16. The coins illustrated on Plate ] give the reader a general impression of the Macedonian coin type that is currently being discussed. It should be observed that all the coins on Plate 1 (which are museum specimens from Copenhagen) are not necessarily identical in all their details. with the respective coins listed in Tables 1-3, although some of them may be. Key to the abbreviations: obv.zobverse; rev.=reverse; r.=profile (obv.) or type (rev.) turned right; l.=profile (obv.) or type (rev.) turned left; leg.-legend; g= grams; mm=millimeter; n.= footnote; no.=number. The weights of the Agora specimens were checked with a mechanical balance, a "letterbalance", and are thus only instructive. The diameters were measured with calipers.

10

Aleshire 1989, 333.

Il

Thidem, inscription IG IVIII2 1424 a, 183 (p. 800-805); 1428, 75 (corrected edition p. 806-809); 1436, 56-57: to these IG IL/III2 1421, 75-76 may he added: ξενικοῦ ἀργυρίου σὺν τῷ ἀμφιδειδίῳ)

σὺν τοῖν ἀμφιδειδίοιν, It was pointed oul to us that the references to the rings on which foreign coms were strung precedes ın time the section discussed by Aleshire. This does, of course, not exclude that the custom would not have existed when the relevant passages of Inventory V above were written.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia TABLE

1

The Athenian Agora

Ruler

Av

Ag

Ae

Total

%

Philip I1!2 Alexander 113 Philip u1!4 Anonymous shield/symbol!> Cassander! 6

. 1 -

(1) 9 2 -

6 16 9 2

6 26 2 9 2

2,5 10,5 1,0 4.0 1,0

Demetrius Poliorcetes! 7

-

3

16

19

8,0

-

.

1324 41

1324 41

55,0 17,0

-

4

5

2,0

Antigonus Gonatas (Pan)! Heracles/horse and rider type?

Philip V/Perseus29 —

a

123

a

L,

221.

242 ——

100.

12

For the (plated) stater forgery, see Kroll 1993, 291, Appendix A. 5 module bronze of the young male head/naked rider on horse type of Philip II (Plate 1, No. 1) and one smaller bronze of Heracles in lion's skin/symbol type. Kroll 1993, groups 485—486, 185.

13

One AV stater, Athena/Nike type, nine Ag drachmas of Heracles/Zeus enthroned type (Plate 1, No. 3), and 16 module bronze (Plate 1, No. 4), in two, or even three denominations and types. Kroll

1993, groups 487- 495, 185-187. Two silver drachmas of Heracles in lion's skin/Zeus enthroned type (Plate 1, No. 5). Kroll

1993,

group 496, 187. 15

Nine Macedonian shield with symbol/helmet coins, probably of one size and denomination (Plate 1, No. 6). Kroll 1993, groups 497—498, p. 187. All coins clearly have a helmet on r. The type was used at least by Alexander III, Demetrius Poliorcetes, Pyrrhos and Antigonus Gonatas. See Liampi

1986, 41—65. Liampi dated the coins to the late 4th century B.C. 16

Two Heracles/lion type or Apollo with tripod module bronze. Kroll 1993, groups 499, 501, (Plate 1, No. 7).

17

Three silver hemidrachms of Nike on prow/Poseidon or Poseidon/Demetrius type (Plate 1, No. 8) and 14 one-size module bronze of Demetrius/prow of ship type of same denomination (Plate 1, No. 9). One bronze of the latter denomination, but of Poseidon/prow type and one Macedonian shield/monogram type, i.e. a total of 16 module bronze. Kroll 1993, groups 502-506, 188-189.

Module bronze (Plate 1, Nos. 12-13). Kroll 1993, groups 507-508,

188.

189. Our table includes 1324

bronze of the Athena in Corinthian helmet/Pan type, of which eight have countermarks. An additional 52 coins could not in our view be firmly identified and three specimens could not be checked because they had no Inv. No. and could not be located, i.e. a total of 55 coins were discarded from our entry. For reasons stated in n. 9 these specimens had been labeled "Macedonian". J.H. Kroll's corresponding numbers are: 160 Pan type large bronze, five smaller Pan type bronze and 19 Heracles/horse and rider type, bringing the total number to 184. We recorded a total of 41 Heracles/nude nder on horse r. type bronze (Plate i, No. 14), whereas Kroll's (1993, groups 500, 509 and (500 or 509], 188—190, record comprises 39 specimens. Two of the Agora specimens are without doubt of Cassander, because of the other identifiable details, but the rest Heracles/horse and rider coins are not so clear. In the Agora material we noticed identifiable details only on 15 of the 41 coins, although the find bags from the excavations listed numerous particulars. In any case, it is likely that most of the horse/nder coins do belong to Antigonus

Gonatas, as has been classified by J.H. Kroll. The arithmetic mean for the weights of Cassander's Heracles/rider type (Kroll 1993, group 500) is 5, 35 g; for the similar type issued by Gonatas (Kroll 1993, group 509) the weights concentrate around 4,0 g. Coins in the Copenhagen Collection scem to give the range of the weights more clearly, to 6,1 g (mean) and 3,75 g (mean) We find both the size and the weights of the categories overlapping. 20

5 module bronze. may be of different denominations and types (Plate I, No. 15). Kroll 510-514, 190.

1993, groups

124

Kenneth Lónnqvist

TABLE 2

2]

The Athenian Asclepieion?!

Ruler

ἂν

Ag

Ae

Total

%

Philip 1122 Alexander 11123 Philip III

.

12 .

25 9 -

25 21 -

25,8 21.6 -

Anonymous

-

-

3

3

3,1

Cassander2>

-

-

8

8

8,2

Demetrius Poliorcetes2®

-

-

8

8

8,2

Antigonus Gonatas?’ Philip V (7)28 Perseus??

. -

-

29 | 2

29 l 2

30,0 1,0 2.1

.

12

85

97

-

12%

88%

shield/symbol24

100%

This table can, however, only list some general features of the coins and is thus not a complete coin

catalogue. As to the physical qualities of the coins, the weights were taken with a electronic balance (Sartoria) in the Athens Numismatical Museum, diameters with calipers. We hope to publish a fuller account of all the specimens in another context, where the contribution of the Asclepieion material could be comprehensively discussed. In order to make comparisons to the Agora coinage the degree of wear is referred to in a scale from W1 (extremely fine) to W6 (poor/obliterated). 22

Philip II, horse and nude rider type (Plate 1, No.

1). Same general rev. type as on Cassander’s and

Gonatas' coins, but fabric of coin different. Some specimens have also the portrait l. instead of r. and the horse pranching !. instead of τ. Cf. SNG Cop., PI. 14, Nos. 613-615 and 616-617. 23

Two silver tetradrachms of Heracles in lion's skin/Zeus enthroned type (Plate 1, No. 2); 10 silver drachms (Plate 1, No. 3), all of the head of Heracles in lion's skin and Zeus enthroned type with different symbols. The mode of the drachma weights is 3, 82 g and the mean weight 3, 924 g. Nine large module bronzes (5, 22 — 7, 1 g) of the bow, quiver and club type in different combinations

(Plate I, No. 4), in a state of wear from W3-5, i.e. in a relatively good state of preservation. 24

Three one-size module bronze (Plate I, No. 6). Two of them have visible round shields; one of these has a round gorgon's face on the shield (Liampi 1986, 62—64, group 6, Asia Minor, above, note 13), the symbol on the other shield is unclear. The shield obv. of the third is illegible. All three have helmets with crests as the rev. type.

25

10 Heracles/horseman specimens with leg. above and below (Plate I, No. 7).

26

Four Head of Demetrius r./prow of ship types (Plate 1, No. 9) and one small module bronze with Poseidon r./prow of ship type with mint-marks (all five coins in W4—5); three Macedonian shield, monogram and helmet type with clear monogram (McClean No. 134. 22- Fitzwilliam Museum) in a wear from W2-5.

27

Altogether 23 specimens.

Six

one-size large module

helmet/Pan-crowning-trophy type (Plate 1, No.

bronze

of the

Athena

12-13) with the monogram

also to have been a monogram like Ä on the same Pan-coinage Excavations in Athens Numismatic Museum=AE Nos. 272 and 273). lion's skin/horse and nude rider type were recorded (Plate 1, No. 14), or Antigonus Gonatas, in a state of wear from W2/3 to WS. 17 coins

wearing A

Corinthian

But, there seems

(coins from the Asclepieion Five coins of the Heracles in belonging either to Cassander had a clear monogram ANTI,

i.c. A , or had other details allowing a firm identification, which are attributable to the King. One module bronze of Heracles in lion's skin/horseman type (Plate I, No. 15). 20

Large E module bronze (17-19 mm) No. 16).

of the type yn

Head of Perseusfeagle E

facingi with

symbols )

(Plate

I,

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

125

because several of the Macedonian coins coming from the Asclepieion that we examined in the Athens’ Numismatic Museum had a hole which had been deliberately drilled, apparently in order to hang them on a string. One specimen had also been hammered and

perhaps polished before it was drilled and hung up. The earliest dedications of Macedonian silver (τετρᾶχμα ᾿Αντιγόνεια; cf. Pl. 1, Nos. 10-11) in Inventory V were made in the year 262/1 B.C., i.e. the year of the fall of

Athens, according to W. S. Ferguson.29 Scholarly research in general has placed the dedications to the 250's. From a numismatic point of view placing the dedications in the mid to late 260's

would create difficulties, since the evidence

of the coin

deposits

excavated from the Athenian Agora suggests that Macedonian pieces did not circulate in the city at that time. Therefore the dating of Inventory V should perhaps be lowered, maybe to the late or mid 250's, as has been proposed?! ΑΙ present, it is a puzzle why no silver coins of Antigonus Gonatas were recovered from the Sanctuary of Asclepieion, because the Inventory V list records that many specimens were dedicated to the treasury, and although many corresponding Antigonid bronze types, on the other hand, were recorded in the excavation material (although such coins were not mentioned in the list). The only explanation we can think of is that

dedicated (foreign) coins were not circulated, but were first collected on strings before going into the melting pot. That the name of the Antigonides (not to speak of their coins)

was not very popular in the late 3rd century in Athens can be surmised easily from the existing damnatio memoriae.?? One would expect, therefore, that the Macedonian coins would have been carefully collected and melted down. If Antigonid silver denominations

actually were circulated in the city of Athens, one would have expected that at least some would have been recovered as stray-finds in Athens compared to the large mass of bronze found. It would appear that the circulation of Antigonus Gonatas' coins in Athens was limited to bronze denominations. A theoretical explanation for the lack of Antigonid Pan-on-shield silver types in Athenian find contexts, the coins previously thought to have been minted in Athens during Gonatas' occupation of the city, is that the coins listed in the Asclepieion inscription are primarily references to weights, i.e. the weight of the silver, not as much to the exact denominations put in the treasury or to the true ethnicity of the coins. We know from several other later inscriptions,?3 largely from the Roman period, that such lists were basically a record of the income which had to be tariffed and described in some way; in Athens this was done according to the Attic coin standard. The actual relationship between

the weights

(coins)

mentioned

in the

inscription

and

the

denominations

in

circulation remains therefore most obscure. It may also be a over-simplification to take all the coins named in the Asclepieion inscription at their face value. Why the text in the Asclepieion inscription insists on referring to some of the tetradrachms as "Antigonid" 15 puzzling since nowhere else in e.g. Inventory V does the ethnicity of the coin appear, only the weights. We find it hard to believe that all the other dedications, the "tetradrachms" and "drachmas" listed would have been exclusively Athenian, although no other place of origin is mentioned. À numismatic solution to the problem would be that 30

Ferguson

1932, 37-38.

3l

For the question of the dating see Aleshire 1989, 293-301. According to some from 256/5 to 249/8 and 215 B.C. See Kroll 1993, 36:

32

See Aleshire 1989, 269. On line 1 we find evidence of a clear damnatio memoriae of the name

Antigonids.

33

See Howgego 1985, 54-60, in particular where the writer discussed the epigraphical sources.

of the

126

Kenneth Lónnqvist

the scribe

or who

ever compiled

the Inventory,

did not mean

by

the

τετρᾶχμα

᾿Αντιγόνεια the Pan-on-shield silver, but some posthumous Alexander tetradrachms, also known to have been minted by Antigonus Gonatas, which may have been more acceptable to the Athenians. Finally, as so many competent epigraphists have pointed out, the dedications involving some alleged Antigonid tetradrachms from time to time were all made by private citizens, not by the city or any official institution, and involve only a few pieces, and it is, therefore, highly doubtful if any political significance can be attached to them. The Ceramicus in Athens

We

have

scant,

though

interesting,

records

of the Macedonian

coinage

found

immediately outside the city-gates, in the Ceramicus. In the Ceramicus cemetery (Table 3)

only a few Macedonian specimens have been recovered in contrast to the large number of Athenian bronze said to have been found on the site (not listed for the purpose of this study; forthcoming by the Deutsches Archáologisches Institut in Athen).

TABLE 3 Ruler

AY

Ag

Ae

Total

%

Philip Il

-

-

-

-

-

Alexander II

-

-

-

-

-

Philip IH

-

-

-

-

-

Anonymous

34

The Ceramicus?^

-

-

2

2

50,0

Cassander

shield/symbol?>

-

-

-

-

-

Demetrius Potiorcetes>® Antigonus Gonatas? ?

-

-

| 1

|

25,0 25,0

Heracles/horse and rider

-

-

-

-

-

Philip V/Perseus

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

4

100%

We take the chance here to thank also Dr. Judith Binder for arranging us access -- at an inconvenient

time — to see the unearthed and unpublished coin material and to Dr. Angelika Schóne-Denkinger for kindly and without any delay putting the coins at our disposal. The coins from the excavations are to be published by Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens in a forthcoming publication of the Ceramicus Excavations. The unpublished specimens which we could study were al] bronze denominations on average in a better condition than the Agora coinage, comparable to the ones recorded in the Athenian Asclepieion. The weights and the diameters of the coins could not be measured. 35

See note 15 above. A relatively rare type also recorded in the Asclepieion material and probably also in the Agora bulk though the obv. types which identify the pieces often are almost worn out. Neither of the coins can because of the obv. type belong to Anugonus Gonatas.

36

A rare type known only from a very few coins. preservation.

37

A well-known and attributable type of the King.

Mint

identified, and coin

in very good

state of

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

127

The coin profile and the estimated coin output per year of rule TABLE 4

Coin profile of Macedonian coins in Athens (Summary of Tables 1—3)

Ruler

Αν

Ag

Ae

Philip il

-

-

Alexander III

I

21

-

Philip II Anonymous

shield/symbol

Total

%

3]

31

9.0

25

47

13,7

2

-

2

0,6

-

14

14

4,1

Cassander

-

-

10

10

2,9

Demetrius Poliorcetes

-

3

25

28

8,2

Antigonus Gonatas

-

-

162+

162+

47,2

Heracles/horse and rider

-

-

41

41

12,0

Philip V

-

-

1

Ι

0,3

Perseus

-

-

7

7

2.0

'

26

316

343

0,05%

165

TABLE 5

Ὁ. 9230. 9.

| . 100%

Coin output: coins per year

(Summary of Tables 1-3 with the lenght of rule of the monarch, excluding the unattributed horse/rider type of A. Gonatas) Ruler

coins

coins

Philip II

31

1,30

Alexander II]

47

3,60

Philip III

2

0,30

Anonymous

38

14

0,60

Cassander

shield/symbol

10

0,50

Demetrius Poliorcetes

28

1,20

Antigonus Gonatas?®

162

4,30

Philip V

Ι

0,02

Perseus

7

0,70

Counted according to the years 277—239.

per

regnal

year

The corresponding figure is 3,5 coins per regnal year

according to a 46-year rule. These figures above exclude the Heracles/horse and rider type. According to Kroll (1993, groups 500, 509, [500 or 509] ) 39 coins of this type was found on the Agora; 16 coins of the type were given to Cassander, 19 to Antigonus Gonatas and four remained unattributed, belonging to either ruler. Consequently, using this ratio as an estimator would mean that about 60 % of the bulk was likely 10 belong to Antigonus Gonatas, and about 40 % to Cassander. This would bring a total of about 28 coins of the 46 Heracles/horse and rider coin type listed in Table 4 to Gonatas and about 18 to Cassander. The total of 156 coins attributed to Antigonus Gonatas in Table 4 is hence considerably lower than the assumed real figure. Adding the estimated 28 coins could bring the total as high as to about 184 coins which happens to be the total of Gonatas' coins Kroll attributed to the king in the Agora material.

128

Kenneth Lónnqvist

Statistical features of the Macedonian and Athenian coinage in the Athenian finds The above presented material is what the main Athenian excavations have yielded, i.e.

altogether 343 Macedonian coins. Our present record according to Table 4 includes therefore one gold coin, 26 coins of silver and 316 of bronze.?? Against this record of a total of 316 Macedonian bronze coins we can bring forth more than 1,500 Athenian bronze ones representing different third century B.C. issues and issue periods, as listed

by J.H. Kroll.4° Of this total amount the Athenian Agora alone counts for over 1, 400. The complexity of the coin material has meant that we have not tried to give any corresponding coin output: coins per year ratios for the Athenian third century bronze coins as was done for the Macedonian coins in Table 5. As concerns the Macedonian coinage, there are several features about this final statistical analysis which cannot escape one's attention. First, recovered coins from two of the major sites (Athenian Agora and

Asclepieion)

show

distinctive similarities in the output of coins

under

each

issue

period/ruler, following the scheme established and put forward by M. Thompson in the 1940's and displayed in Table 5. This confirms that our new record as a whole may well

not be too much out of proportion. We notice in general that there are two periods rich in numismatic material: that of Alexander the Great (and his successors) and that of the late Antigonid kings, namely the rule of Antigonus Gonatas. The Alexander types (Plate 1, Nos. 2-4) count for approximately 1/7 of the whole of the coin population and needs no further comment in this context because it was the main international currency of the period in wide circulation and was for long in a plentiful supply, as has been so often pointed out. In the light of our present state of knowledge, Alexanders were even minted long after the death of Alexander the Great by successive rulers. It is also worth noting that in terms of coins

per length of rule of each Macedonian king, there are two similar peaks in the recovery of coins of the issue periods: I) the time of Alexander the Great and IT) the rule of Antigonus Gonatas. Both stand out with an output of about 4 (or 5) coins per year of rule. For

Gonatas this means coins per year of rule of about four to 200 times as high as the rest of the ratios estimated for the other issue periods. If a remote comparison is allowed, we might recall that an output estimate of about four coins per annum is a very high ratio of coin output and is exceeded e.g. in the Athenian Agora coin body not until in the 3rd century A.D. — though under different circumstances, — by the shift of power from

Severus Alexander to Maximinus I in the year 235 A.D.*! On the other hand, the sharp increase in the currency circulating under Antigonus Gonatas' rule is — on any scale and by any measurement — enormous making up an average about 5096 (probably more) of the Macedonian coin population excavated and identified. Of this Athenian body of Macedonian coins a minimum of 162+ (of the total of 343 coins) seem to belong to Antigonus Gonatas. Though no closer estimate of the size of 39

[n addition, we hesitated in attributing 55 coins previously labeled "Macedonian" in the Athenian Agora card files as Antigonid. Upon examination in 1992 it was concluded that these 55 coins werc altogether corroded/ obliterated/ illegible, or obviously not Macedonian, and were excluded from our entry since there was no way to confirm their present attribution.

40

See note 67 below.

4|

Statistics up to 1954, i.e. the year of print of the book on the Agora coinage, AA 2 , "Roman and Byzantine Coinage Ratios" on page x. From the time of Augustus to Nero a ratio of 177-1713 coin/year was recorded, from Galba-Otho to Trajan 1—2/coins per year.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

129

the coinage based on a die study has been made because of the general poor state of preservation of the majority of the coins, a survival rate of 160 coins or more of a few

coin types only must be evidence of a sizeable output. De facto, if we are not mistaken, Antigonus Gonatas'

share of coins, e.g.,

in the Athenian Agora coin profile,

is in

numerical terms by far the largest single foreign contribution (excluding, of course, allied domestic powers such as Megara, which is numerously represented in the Athenian Agora

coin material) made by any ruler or any authority during any specific century from the earliest coins recovered from the 6th century B.C. until late antiquity and the time of the Roman

emperor Gallienus (253-268

A.D.).

Demetrius

Poliorcetes tops the list of the

summary after (Philip If) and Alexander III and Antigonus Gonatas with 28 coins (8 % of the body), It, too, is as a numerical value notable evidence of an output of a single ruler,

remaining quite high even with respect to the length of his reign. It is generally assumed that neither Demetrius II (239-229), the son and successor of Antigonus Gonatas, nor Antigonus Doson (229—220), his nephew, minted any silver or

gold coins. A few variations of the Macedonian shield bronze types with helmet as rev. type*? had been attributed to Demetrius II, but were recently reassigned to Demetrius Poliorcetes.*? If K. Liampi's attribution is correct, it probably means that Demetrius does not have any coins at all since the remaining type bears a strong resemblance to the

"anonymous" coins discussed by her and which she places at the end of the 4th century.4^ As a result, there may well have been a gap in the minting of Macedonian coins following the death of Antigonus Gonatas in 239 to the accession of Philip V in the

220's. Second, one may conclude that 92% of the bulk of Macedonian coins documented here

is made up entirely of bronze. This is to be expected considering the use, loss and recovery of coins in antiquity, and is as such not very surprising. Most monetary transactions were carried out in bronze which was the great novelty of the Hellenistic period, whereas silver substantiated mostly for foreign trade, commerce and subsidizes. Yet the scarcity — or near lack — of Macedonian silver after the time of Philip III in the Athenian finds is conspicuous. If we exclude the silver of Alexander III, we have almost

no evidence of Macedonian royal silver from the most central parts of the city of Athens for almost all of the third century B.C. The three silver coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes

account for all the silver after the Alexanders.4> All the post-Alexandrian silver came from the Athenian Agora, with the Asclepieion yielding none. We even have a more plentiful

survival rate of foreign coins e.g. from the Athenian Agora from the Roman period; following the sack of the city by Sulla in 86 B.C. to the time of Emperor Augustus we have a total of 12 Roman silver denarii from a period covering half a century, which is far more than the late Macedonian period has yielded.4*6 Taking into account what we know from other sources — literary and epigraphical -- about the activities of the Macedonian

kings regarding Athens in the third century B.C. this is most surprising. Especially so if we consider that the Romans made no serious efforts to introduce their monetary system (silver) into Greece and Athens after Sulla's conquest, whereas Antigonus Gonatas is

42

Also represented in the Agora matertal, (Plate I, No. 6). (Kroll's group 506, 189 in 1993).

43

Liampi 1986, 45.

44

McClean No. 3627.

A5

A total of 43 Athenian 4th century, and 14 3rd century B.C. silver coins from the Athens mint (see Kroll in 1993, xxi, Conspectus of Coins, Athens).

46

Thompson

1954. cat. Nos. 2-12, Roman Republican Coinage.

130

Kenneth Lónnqvist

alleged

to

have

circulated

his

coins

in

the

city

of

Athens,

including

silver

denominations.4? Third, we have some interesting deviations in the appearance of the different bronze coin types, mainly of Antigonus Gonatas, in the Asclepieion body of Macedonian coins as compared to its Agora counterpart. This phenomenon and some other interesting details

will be discussed later.*®

Chronological aspects and the dating of Antigonus Gonatas' bronze We can conclude from the results of the excavations in the Athenian Agora that Gonatas' bronze types were not introduced into Athens before the sack of the city in 261

B.C. The closed deposit A 18:8 which J.H. Kroll4? places in the mid/late 260's does not show any Antigonid bronze and should beginning of the circulation of the coins such coins cannot be entirely excluded. bronze confirm that the Macedonian coins

be considered a terminus post quem for the in Athens, although an accidental omission of The overstrikes on the Pan-crowning-trophy were disposed of in many cities at the latest in

the 220's. This was the case in Boeotia (Thebes),?9 in Euboea (Chalcis),5! and also in Athens,?2 where a new series of Athenian bronze was struck on the earlier coins of Antigonus Gonatas which had been circulating in the city. The larger Pan denomination (Kroll's AE 2 denomination=Plate 1, No. 12) and the smaller (AE 3 denomination=Plate 1, No.

13)

Heracles/horseman

series

have

been

found

countermarked,

both

in

the

Athenian Agora and the Asclepieion coin material, the latter, however, counting in general only for a few of the countermarks. According to J.H. Kroll the smaller Heracles/horseman series (Plate 1, No. 14) did not circulate generally in Athens and was,

therefore, not recalled and overstruck with local types as was the larger Pan type.5? But to complicate the matter, in Boeotia thousands of horseman bronzes of Gonatas were withdrawn from circulation and overstruck with local types in the 220's and were then sent back into circulation. A number of these have been recovered also from the Athenian

Agora.54

47

For the Roman money in Greece see e.g. Crawford 1985, 118-119 and 308-309.

48

See the discussion of the denominational system on pp. 131-133 in this paper and the question of the pierced silver from the Athenian Asclepieion and its significance.

49

Kroll 1993, 302. However, the enormous quantity of Antigonid bronze which circulated in the city of Athens suggests still that if such coins had been available by the time the deposit was closed, they should have found their way in the deposit.

50

For Euboea see Picard 1979, 180-181, and for Boeotia see Kroll 1993, the discussion after group 509, 190, and the discussion after the coins in group 595, 205. The Heracles/horseman type has not been found overstruck in Athens, whereas large amounts were apparently overstruck in Boeotia, Thebes (group 595).

3l

See above.

52

Kroll 1993, 51-52. See also Thompson, 1942, 225-226.

53 54

Kroll 1993, 190. Ibidem.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

131

J.H. Kroll dated the first new AE 2 Athenian bronze denomination which was struck over Gonatas’ bronze Pans to the year 224/3 B.C.?? In consequence there is nothing

which contradicts the assumption by M. Thompson, and which J.H. Kroll's56 study of the Athenian third century bronze coinage showed, that Athens should not have been in

the position of minting autonomous coins at least from the late third century B.C. onwards. A date around the 220's for the introduction of Athens new control-coinage ("Intermediate Style") in silver is also in perfect harmony with the appearance of the fresh drachmas in the Corinth hoard (IGCH 187, burial date c. 215 B.C.; cf. also our Plate 2, Nos. 18 and 20 for the coins from the Sitichoro hoard, IGCH 237, with a burial date of

168/167 B.C.), the coinage which eventually led to the stephaneforic or New

Style

coinage (Plate 2, No. 24). One such control-marked drachma piece of this (cf. Plate 2, Nos.

21-22;

the style in general Nos.

18—23)

style between

the Old

and

New

Style

coinage was also recovered from the Athenian Agora.

The denominational system of the Macedonian coinage in Athens A metrological survey of Gonatas’ bronze of the groups 1-3 shows no evidence of die alignment whatsoever, which according to one interpretation is a typical feature of all

Antigonid silver of the period.5? All the Pan and horseman bronzes appear to have been minted from loose dies without any attempt to fix the dies. Also, as noted, the weights of the types were constantly overlapping, emphasizing that in general very little attention was

paid to the physical qualities of the coinage. The question which must be raised is on what basis did these pieces pass in commerce and how were they eventually identified by the consumer, and what may the supposed Macedonian monetary and denominational system introduced into Athens after the fall of the city in 261 B.C. have been like? From the user's point of view a weight difference of two coin denominations, of let us say 2096, would have been very difficult, if not almost impossible, to determine without a

balance, and this is also true if the difference in size was only a few millimeters.>8 If the obv. and rev. types on one specific module group of small bronze were the same (as must have

been

the

case

with

the

Pan-raising-trophy

bronze,

if

it

represented

two

denominations), the means by which the denominations could be distinguished must have

been very limited. This is one of the strange features of ancient coinage and as far as the Macedonian coinage in Athens is concerned, there are good grounds for assuming that the bronze in circulation did represent different values although they were so close to each other in weight and size. A way to check a denominational system would be to compare excavated site finds from different places where a somewhat different use of denominations could be assumed. For instance the offerings to a sanctuary or temple should have been attracting apart from some large donations mostly the smallest denominations, giving a crosssection of the "pocket-money", especially in bronze, of the casual visitor who gave his

55

Table II Structure of the Period II Coinage. AE 2 denomination, Athena in Attic helmet/Owl with amphora type (see Kroll in 1993, 322).

36

"Thompson

37

Mathisen

58

3/4 r.

1961; Kroll 1993, Table II, Structure of the Period II Coinage, 322. 1981,122.

Kroll 1993, group 507, 189, Pan-crowning-trophy, average weight according to Kroll 5.52 group 509, Heracles-horsernan and rider, average weight 4,0 g.

g and

132

Kenneth Lonnqvist

offering

to the

treasury

of

the

temple,

and

should,

we

believe,

differ

from

the

contemporary material of e.g. a market-place where larger denominations circulated. We decided to put up the Athenian Agora material against the record of coins from the Asclepieion in Athens, therefore, in order to find out whether there is any difference in the

coin profile of the bronze types from the excavated sites. In comparison with the material from the Athenian Agora we have in the Athenian Asclepieion material e.g. bronze coins on average in a better condition attesting that the majority were probably not in circulation for such a long period of time before being deposited in the treasury/or being lost on the premises of the temple. The coin profile of the various Macedonian rulers is, however, what has been deduced already from the Agora coinage. The high concentration of coins to Philip II and Alexander the Great is

eminent and makes up almost half of the coinage recovered. The largest component, however, is clearly that of Antigonus Gonatas (30 % or 29 coins), which is not only the

largest post-Alexander component, but also the largest of all. What is surprising and significant, is that in the Asclepieion material the frequency of the appearance of Gonatas' coin types has been reversed. Now we have only six Pan-crowning-trophy specimens and 23 Heracles-horseman coins, which is a totally opposite ratio compared to that calculated from the Agora coinage. The ratio of the horseman coins (J.H. Kroll assumed

that they were of less value belonging to the AE 3 denomination) is close to opposite to the number recorded on the Athenian Agora, and the Pan bronzes (the larger, or AE 2 denomination) seem to be largely "missing" for some reason. Five of the Pan-crowning-trophy pieces recovered from the Asclepieion are relatively heavy with weights from 5,32-6,99 g.; the lightest coin shows a weight of 3,7 g.?? Except for a few coins, the rest are quite well-preserved, giving a wear factor of W 3-5

(scale: 1 uncirculated, 6 obliterated).

The quite good state of preservation allows us to

assume no great loss of weight. The Heracles/ horseman coins furnished with a legible

A -monogram have a mean weight of 4,04 g., actual weights ranging from 2,97 to 5,31 g. The average weight for the Asclepieion horseman group is extremely close to that

recorded by J.H. Kroll for the Agora counterpart.9? On the basis of the huge number of discovered in the Athenian Agora, and collection, J.H. Kroll assumed that there bronze coin denominations in circulation

the Pan type bronze of Antigonus Gonatas two published coins from the SNG Cop. was a threefold division of the Macedonian in Athens ca 260-220 B.C., of which two

denominations were reserved for the Pan bronze.6! This system of denominations being more or less passed on to the later Athenian bronze coinage in the late 2nd century in the

post-Macedonian period.62 The largest denomination with an expected weight of 8-10 g. and a size measuring 20-22 mm. would have been the AE 1 or "obol".9? The AE 2 denomination or "hemiobol" (Plate 1, No. 12) with an average weight of 5,52 g was represented by the Pan-crowning-trophy. Its assumed sub-division (same obv. and rev. 59

Asclepieion Inv. Nos. 272-276. The light coin is No. 277 (Plate I, No. 13).

90

Kroll 1993, group 509, 189, average 4,00 g.

61

Group 508 of the light Pan coins. Average weight according to Kroll 3,5 g. with a diameter between 16-17 mm; cf. the Asclepieion coin Inv. No. AE-277 weighs 3, 7 g. and has the largest diameter of

16 mm. However, more coins in the Athenian Agora bulk, such as Inv. Nos. TT-348 (weight 3.45 8), countermarked; TT-23 (weight 3,8 g) and [169—357 (weight 4,0 g), both latter overstruck with Boeotian types are considerably light also.

62

Kroll 1993, 36-37.

63

Kroll 1993, 38, 48—49.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

133

type), the fraction = the AE 3 denomination (five coins from the Agora, Kroll's group 508; two in SNG Cop. Nos. 1212-1213; and perhaps one from the Asclepieion, AE 277)

was the “quarter-obol” (Plate 1, No.

13) with an average weight of 3,5 g. In this

monetary system the Heracles/horseman type (Plate 1, No. 14) should be of the AE 3 denomination, though the weight seems to have been slightly increased to about 4 grams. By this reckoning the smaller Pan-crowning-trophy and Heracles-horseman type should also, admittedly, have had the same nominal value. Why, then, was there only one light weight Pan-crowning-trophy in the Asclepieion mass of Macedonian coins, in contrast to the 23 horseman coins, both assumed to belong to AE 3 group of bronze and to have the same nominal value? It may be due to a chronological or denomination factor or a

combination of both these. First of all, that so few Pan-crowning-trophy types are present tn the Asclepicion may

denote — and confirm — J.H. Kroll's assumption of a principal denominational difference between the large Pan and the smaller horseman type. The Pan or the "hemiobol" appear to have been too large a denomination for an ordinary offering in bronze, and therefore we might deduce that the "quarter" of an obol (smaller Pan or Horseman) was the most commonly dedicated Macedonian bronze money in the temple. In the market (Athenian Agora) a "hemiobol", or a large Pan-crowning-trophy, was more useful and widely in circulation. That only a single light-weight bronze Pan specimen has been recorded in the Asclepieion might be purely accidental, or could indicate that either the type had been issued some time earlier and was

already becoming

scarce, or that the coin was

still a

novelty and minting had only recently begun. The reason for its scarcity cannot be denominational since it appears to have been an AE 3 coin similar to the horseman, if the system has been correctly built up. If the coin type was only just being issued, this would mean that the horseman coin antedates the Pan-crowning-trophy light bronze. J.H. Kroll assumes the opposite, that at least the smaller denomination Pan-crowning-trophy was

struck before the horseman type.94 To use the degree of wear of the coin series for chronological conclusions is as yet precarious as all the types show about the same amount of wear, none being clearly more worn than the other. There need not necessary have been any extensive chronological break between the horseman and Pan bronze because we find also here a continuity in the use of control-letters, and possibly also the symbols (trident). We might note that the

trident |. down in the rev. field is found only once, on the smaller Pan-crowning-trophy, J.H. Kroll's “quarter-obol” denomination, in SNG Cop. Nos. (1212-1213) and further

on a horseman type, assumed to be of same AE 3 value.65 In our opinion this confirms finally the denominational division between the types.

Coin circulation As the circulation of the Athenian and Macedonian silver and bronze coinages in general sheds some additional light on the present topic of the impact of Macedonia on Athens in the third century B.C. — and also the presence of Macedonian coins in Athens -it is unavoidable to make a short review of the subject in order to reach the appropriate historical conclusions.

64

Kroll 1993, 190.

65

Asclepieion Inv. No. 328.

134

Kenneth Lónnqvist

According to the evidence of hoarding which cover roughly a century from the late fourth to the late third century B.C. the Athenian Old Style coins (Plate 2, No. 17) continued to travel freely in mainland Greece even in the Macedonian period.96 The period ca. 320-270 B.C. has yielded altogether 26 hoards which include Athenian coins, whereas only 13 hoards are securely dated to the period from about 245-200 B.C.

In

most of the hoards found in Greece, and in particular in Attica, the Athenian tetradrachms appear in substantial quantities and clearly outnumber the other coinages. The only foreign element in the Attic hoards is the Alexanders and the posthumous silver coins,

which were the chief international currencies of the period. As mentioned above in Tables 1-3, a large number of these specimens were also recorded in the city of Athens.

From the evidence of hoards we get the impression that the general volume of fresh Athenian silver in circulation in the penod ca. 270-220

B.C.

must have diminished

considerably, which is something which has been known for some time. At that time coins were apparently no longer exported and minting was only to be resumed on a large-

scale with the στεφανηφόρων τετράχμων, the New Style silver coinage (Plate 2, No. 24), at a date which has been much debated. Also, the evidence of the hoards suggests that minting in all metals in Athens — if such occurred — must have been considerably

reduced from about 270 B.C. until the late third century B.C. Thus e.g. the circulation of silver coins had to be prolonged and they also appear in a worn condition though in large

quantities in many of the late third century deposits. The impression that there was a diminishing quantity of silver currency in circulation which we draw from the evidence of

the hoards is also born out by the Athenian third century pool of bronze in commerce. The relative amount of base coins -- as can be deduced from the excavation record (Athenian

Agora) - in the 3rd century B.C. was smaller than ever before during any of the preChristian centuries.$? The coinage was only about half of what it was to become century later, if we judge from the amount of extant specimens, which is a basic numismatic

principal.

The numismatic and historical conclusions In general the paucity of Macedonian and especially Antigonid silver in Attica in the

late 4th and 3rd century hoards is an argument ex silentio: coins the target area of which was somewhere else and were not present in quantity were unlikely to end up in concealed hoards. When Macedonian coins appear in Attic hoards we have some coins of Philip

II

(359-336

B.C.),

lifeüme

or

posthumous

Alexanders,

or

related

issues

(specimens of Lysimachus of Thrace 323-281 B.C.), and Demetrius Poliorcetes (306— 66

IGCH 1973, Nos. 81, 91, 93, 98, 110, 111, 117, 121, 122, 125, 127, 138, 142, 143, 144, 146, 150, 155, 159, 162, 167, 168 (2141), 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 186, 187, 193, 198, 448 and 457; CH Vols.1-7. Vol. 1 no. 40; 2 Nos. 62, 72; 3 Nos. 27, 43; 6 Nos. 24, 27 and 7 No. 69. The first comprehensive listing of third century hoards where Athenian coins (types) appear was incorporated

in Nicolet-Pierre and Kroll 1990, Appendice 1, 22-35 with about 50 hoards where Athenian coins were found. Because this list makes no attempt to discuss the closing of the deposits in detail we also included hoards with purely Athenian components which can be approximately dated.

97

Kroll 1993, xxi, Conspectus of Coins. Altogether 16, 5574 Greek coins are identified, of these 13, 7494 are Athenian coins and 611 Eleusinian, bringing the number listed under Athens to 14, 3604. Of these 1, 991 are 4th century pieces, |, 439 3rd century, 2, 750 2nd century and 3, 989 Ist century coins, whereas the rest account for the first Christian centuries. Against this background a few hundred Macedonian pieces can be seen in quite a different light.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

135

283 B.C.) together with masses of Athenian coins. The absence of coins of e.g. Cassander (316—297 B.C.), Antigonus Gonatas (277-239 B.C.) and Philip V (220-179 B.C.) etc. in Attic deposits speaks for itself. We are aware of only one single instance, one hoard, where a single Macedonian

bronze coin interspersed with Athenian bronze.68 Not even the excavations of the Attic fortified military camps or forts have yielded any notable numbers of Macedonian coins (one coin found), in contrast to the great number of Ptolemaic issues, of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285—246 B.C.) in particular, relating to the historical events of the time and

the favourable Egyptian position for Athens during the Chremonidean War.6? Nevertheless, it is assumed that at least Demetrius Poliorcetes ravaged the Attic countryside and placed garrisons in the conquered Attic forts which may have had a

severe although not long-lasting effect on the Athenian mining industry and minting.?? The campaign has, however, left no imprint in the numismatic record outside the city of Athens, as far as the Macedonian coins are concerned. From the Athenian mint we have at that time some contemporary silver pentobols and tetrobols which may have been issued

to finance the cost of the Athenian

troops.’!

It is also clear that the Athenian

"heterogeneous" silver, at least partly, is to be dated to the period about 260-229 B.C., as

well as some varieties of the Athenian-Eleusinian coinage.’ Macedonian royal silver is, on the other hand, frequently present in districts north of Attica, Boeotia and Peloponnese, in North of Greece and the heartland of the Macedonian kingdom, and further away in Asia Minor. This circumstance is especially true for the late

Antigonid rulers whose

bronze coins

are repeatedly

found

in many

of the local

strongholds, in Boeotia and Euboea for instance, where they subsequently — as in Athens — blended into the pool of post-Macedonian coinage by countermarking or served as flans

for new local types which were put into circulation after the Macedonian rule.??

68

CH

1, No. 95 (Attica 1969); cited by Kleiner 1976, 31, as "Athens

specimen of the type SNG Cop. Nos.

1205-1213

1969".

Not surprisingly

the

is an Antigonid bronze of the Athena/Pan

crowning trophy type, attributed to Antigonus Gonatas. 69

For coins from the military camps and forts in Attica see McCredie 1966, 9-10, 13-15, 30-31, 4748, 99, 109. The coins of the Ptolemaic rulers were the most common coins found (30-34

Ptolemaic coins, 5-6 Athenian and one Macedonian coin, the rest consisting of Greek city coins) also in the building structures of the military installations excavated. The clear lack of any signs of

reoccupation of e.g. the fortified camps show beyond any doubt that the Ptolemaic coins are to be connected with the period of Ptolemaic influence only. See also Caskey 1982, 14-16 (one Ptolemaic coin and one of King Cassander). The excavators seer to have attributed the latter specimen on PI. 2 (coin c.) to Antigonus Gonatas which is a clear misattribution. The coin legend reads obviously BAZIAEQZ KAZLANAPOY and there can be no doubt about the authority (see McClean, Nos.

3554-3566). The listing of the coins here in n. 68 and 69 have been made by the excavators and could not be rechecked by us at the time of this study. For

Koroni

see also

the

Numismatic

Appendix compiled by Kroll in 1974, 201—203. 70

Kroll 1993, 11-13. If we assume that Antigonus Gonatas actually was holding the Attic forts from

ca. 261 until the lifting of the occupation in 255, one would expect to find some Macedonian bronze coins left by the soldiers in the garrisons. This is, however, not the case. What we find is only Ptolemaic bronze. See above notes 68—69. What we also know is that Athens during the period

issued silver fractions and large silver according to a weight standard close to the Ptolemaic coinage.

7! 72

Kroll 1993, 10-11. Kroll 1993, 12-13.

73

See the references concerning the countermarks in note 50 above.

136

Kenneth Lónnqvist

The opinion that there is a hiatus (or several in fact) in the production of coins at the Athenian mint in the third century B.C. is almost unanimous among numismatists; only some historians have raised doubts about the cessation of minting and the suspension of the right of coinage.’4 The τετρᾶχμα ᾿Αντιγόνεια mentioned in the inventory list of the Athenian Asclepieion in the mid third century inscription led to the conclusion that Antigonus Gonatas must have prohibited minting autonomous Athenian types after the siege and fall of the city to the Macedonian troops in 261 B.C. and established a mint of

his own in Athens.?5 We follow here, however, the convincing views put forward by R.W. Mathisen, H. Nicolet-Pierre, and J.H. Kroll that the Pan head tetradrachms with Athena to right of Gonatas were of Macedonian origin, i. e. were minted in Macedonia.?6 We believe that the coin record of Athens, as listed above in Tables 1—5, also proves this point. The final issue is how, thence, did the enormous amount of Macedonian bronze struck

by Antigonus Gonatas end up in Athens after 261 B.C. and what was its importance? In the light of what has been said there is no numismatic or historical evidence that Macedonians had imposed any restrictions on the Athenian minting, although such a measure may have occurred. In fact, we are inclined to believe like T. Martin and J.H. Kroll that there is no reliable evidence that the Macedonians anywhere south of Macedonia

suppressed local coinage for one reason or the other; rather we believe that a cessation of minting was

often the outcome of poor economic

conditions or some

other

natural

explanation.’? The results of our inquiry into the Macedonian component of coins in Athenian find contexts seem in addition to indicate that none of the Macedonian silver or bronze series discussed here could have been minted in Athens during Gonatas' hold of the city in the period ca. 261—255. This is evident when we regard the obvious and close relationship of the bronze to the silver series of Gonatas which are known to have come from the chief Macedonian outlets. If we exclude the Macedonian coins found in Athens having been minted in the city, we are left with the Macedonian garrison or a donation as the possible sources for the presence of this large pool of coins. Twice the city saw Macedonian garrisons posted outside its gates, in the late 4th century B.C. and for the most part of the 3rd century.

74.

Of which C. Habicht has been the most persistent one. See note 2.

75

The period of suspension of the minting in Athens has in general been downdated from the time of early scholarly research from about 322-229 B.C. to about 261-229 B.C., to the rule of Antigonus Gonatas. Yet many new and exhaustive presentations such as Merkholm 1991, 86, are inclining to present Demetrius Poliorcetes’ military occupation of Athens in 294-287 B.C. as also including a ban on minting autonomous types. If this is so, he did not at least withdraw the Athenian coins from circulation replacing them with his own issues. For Demetrius Poliorcetes’ coins from Athens

see Table 5 above. For the relationship between Macedonia and subdued Greek states with respect to their right of coining in general see note 2 and the bibliography.

76

1990, 11 and Mathisen 1981, 112-113, Pl. 22, Nos. 37-38. Followed also by Boehringer 1972, 99-100, 156-157. It has not been emphasized strongly enough that not one Antigonid Pan-head silver [Plate I, Nos. 10-11] (the ones recorded in the Asclepieion inscription?), have to our knowledge ever been recorded in an Athenian or even Attic context, not as ἃ stray-find, nor concealed in any hoard. These Pans had an obvious eastern orientation circulating as well as in Northern Greece close to the mint cities, primarily also in Asia Minor, as the hoards evidence. This should, consequently, mean that the Macedonian silver had apparently no significance in the Attic economy in the 3rd century B.C., as ts testified by the lack of Macedonian regal coins in Attic hoards and find contexts.

7!

Martin 1985, 166-195, especially p. 174; Kroll 1993, 13.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

137

According to C. Habicht it is not surprising that coins from these garrisons outside the city mingled into the Athenian currency pool.78 Undoubtedly, the Macedonian soldiers in the forts and garrisons must have received their payments, whatever the circumstances may have been. Such a military detachment must also have had a impact on the local economy, as a factor and means of putting coins in circulation, as we know so vividly from the Roman army in the later period. In any case, the presence of a multitude of Macedonian coins in Athens attests to their subsequent circulation in the mid 3rd century B.C., meaning that the coins passed into a wider circulation in the city at some stage, whether or not they were first consigned as

payment to the soldiers stationed in the forts outside the gates of Athens. It seems that the coins were accepted by the Athenians and they must subsequently have been legal tender also inside the city-walls. The Athenian currency law dating to 375/4 B.C., and its later counterpart (inscription IG IVIIIZ 1013, dated to the end of the 2nd century B.C.), which both forbade the use of foreign coins in the city, leads us to conclude that such laws must have been put into history during the Macedonian period of influence, then, by a joint Athenian decision or as a result of Macedonian oppression in 261—255. When looking for a reason for the presence for such an enormous amount of Antigonid bronze in Athens, it seems more feasible, as J.H.

Kroll assumes,

that in the Antigonid

bronze we have evidence of an otherwise unrecorded donation of coins to the city by

Antigonus Gonatas.’? The logical date for this would be 255 B.C. and the restoration of

the liberty (ἐλευθερία) to Athens, as some scholars have already suggested. For the presence of the Macedonian coins in Boeotia a similar explanation has been offered.8° What the actual impact of the Macedonian new coin denominations and currency in Athens might have been can only be a matter of speculation. Whatever the occasion. may have been for the introduction. of the mass of the Macedonian bronze coins in Áthens, the amount of coins in circulation in the city after 260 B.C. must have made any Athenian minting unnecessary for years. As J.H. Kroll pointed out, some of the Macedonian types provided the Athenians with new denominations which seem to have been eagerly adopted and were later widely used.®!

Ás we know now, however, the Macedonian hold on the city did not lead to a complete halting of the Athenian coinage for all of the period; for we know that the Athenian mint was active in the years ca. 260-229 producing both silver and bronze, although the minting must have been quite modest. The constant warfare and the ravaging of both the city and its hinterlands must have resulted in a severe economic decline and so the reasons for the light coining in Athens in the mid-late 3rd century B.C. may well be more economic than political.

78 79 80 81

Habicht 1982, 38. Kroll 1993, 36, 166. Kroll 1993, 36. Krolt 1993, 36-37.

138

Kenneth Lönngvist

Numismatic appendix: Antigonus Gonatas’ bronze coin types Pan type bronze (Plate 1, Nos. 12-13) The predominance of the Athena-head type in Corinthian helmet/Pan-crowning-trophy bronze denomination m Athenian finds is attested from all of the archaeological sites

discussed here and some of the Attic hoards too.82 The question is how are we to understand the homogeneous helmet-group of bronze coins, the major emission which we know from at least seven, but probably even from more variations. According to our first estimate the helmet group bronze makes up almost half of the total of 16 legible variations of the Pan-crowning-trophy bronze. The helmet type bronze coinage must accordingly have been of considerable size, though this 1s generally hard to establish because most of the excavation pieces are too worn and lack enough details for a proper study of the dies. The rev. type according to the well-preserved specimens was a Pan r. wearing a conical cap, raising l. leg and crowning a trophy with his r. arm, also raised. On some

specimens the wreath in Pan's hand is visible as well as Pan's tail, which is l. in the field, behind the major type. The royal inscription is represented by a short abbreviation: |. up in field is a letter B and r. up in field a A standing for the legend (BAZIAEQ). Below in field, under the figures we find the monogram ANTI, 4 and sometimes a plain exergue line. In the coin material the main variation extant is thus the Pan-crowning-trophy with a

helmet I. in the rev. field. The application of the secondary symbol, the helmet, |. in the field was apparently fixed. This bronze series is furthermore recognised by the fawn-skin which was added over Pan's left arm.83 Some of the helmet-to-left-in-field bronze coins seem to have been signed by three officials, while others bear only two signatures.

Heracles/rider type bronze (Plate 1, No. 14) The coin type itself is typically Macedonian and was used from the time of Philip II. It is the less frequent type of Gonatas displaying Heracles in a lion-skin r./horse stepping r.

with small nude rider atop. On the rev. we have the short legend

B a. There can be no

doubt about the issuing authority since this type too has the same A monogram as the Pan-crowning-trophy bronze and chronologically they should be quite close because they appear in same finds and show about the same amount of wear. What the internal order of the emission was remains, however, to be verified. For one Heracles/horseman coin we may find as many as six to ten Pan-crowningtrophy bronze (Agora section of Macedonian coins), relating the magnitude of the two series. The Agora specimens do not add much to our knowledge or to the interpretation of this series with only minor signs of symbols or control-marks surviving. The only 52

The material at our disposal now makes it possible to conclude that Antigonid bronze of Gonatas was in a plentiful supply not only in the city of Athens, but in many other cities as well. The evidence of the countermarks prove that the issues circulated in quantity in e.g. Euboea and Chalcis and Boeotia in the late third century B.C. See Price 1967, 348-388, for the Corinth excavations which has yielded notable numbers of the Athena/Pan-raising-trophy and Heracles/nude rider on horse types of Gonatas. For the countermarks in general see Picard 1979, 180—181. For the hoard see note

66 above. 83

See especially McClean, Nos. 3599-3608.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia recognizable symbol r. in the field was the crescent which

is known

139 from published

museum collections and from the Asclepieion material.84 One of the unclear letters should read © or © in the Agora bulk; in the Asclepieion coinage there is a clear Φ.35 The tentative grouping presented below is not based on any chronological assumption, rather

the preference of the author, summing up the conclusions of the study of the excavation material.

Pan type bronze 1 Helmet group with the type of helmet found on SNG Cop. No. 1201 tetradrachm®® (Plate 1, No. 10) a) three officials: helmet to 1. in the rev. field, monogram below down I. in the

rev. field and a symbol down r. in the rev. field®’? b) two officials: helmet to 1. in the rev. field, symbol or

letter down 1. or r. in the rev. field88 2 without helmet

a) two letters 1. in the rev. field89 b) symbol, letter or monogram down |. in the rev. field?® c) a monogram down l. in the rev. field, a letter ? down r. in the rev. field?!

Horseman type bronze 3

84 85

a)symbol, letter or monogram r. in the rev. field??

Kroll's group 509 in 1993, 189-190. Asclepieion Inv. No. 328. This coin has a symbol 1. down in the rev. field, a symbol which looks like a trident.

86

Signed by the official KT. The issue makes up about 1/9 of the total of monograms known to have been used on the silver Pans. See Mathisen 1981, 111, note 47.

57

Small Macedonian helmet without the crest (sic!), but with cheek-pieces hanging down on either side, as is shown on SNG Cop. No. 1201. This can clearly be seen from the Athenian Agora

specimen No. MZ-328 which has preserved a nice helmet. See Kroll 1993, 189, group 507, coin type h, "Macedonian helmet with two side plumes". When there is a legible ANTI-monogram it is in the shape of A ; occurring in principal combinations as follows: 1. 1. down in the field below helmet a monogram , r. down in the field a wreath (SNG Cop. No. 1207); 2. monogram |. down in the field as in nr. |, but a trident tr.

right down in the field instead of wreath (McClean No.

3601). 88

Macedonian helmet with two side plumes and I. uncertain letter I. down in the field, possibly a © or ® (Agora No. MZ-328); the Φ in the helmet series is known from several other specimens. 2. a sun r. down in the field (McClean No. 3599); 3. pedum r. down in the field (McClean No. 3603); 4. a letter B right down in the field (5. a letter Π r. down in the field.

89

| K and

(Agora Nos. TIT1-260 and K-1307).

90

1 |. down in field (SNG Cop. No. 1212) (Plate 1, No. 13). 2€. down in field (Agora No. €— 189). 3. E I. down (or trident?; McClean No. 3597, cf. nr. I in this note; . 4. ® down |. (McClean No. 3608; Agora No. NN-1585)). 5. (McClean No. 3595).

d

Ι. Mand T? (McClean No. 3598).

A

(McClean No. 3607).6.

2

(Agora No.

OO-305),

7. A

140

Kenneth Lönngvist

Group 1 bronze Some preliminary deductions regarding the possible connections between the bronze and silver issues may be made, despite the fact that the evidence of the Macedonian bronze is stil] scattered in location, even inside the city of Athens, and in time, and there

are obvious dangers to an approach of this type.?? First, the Macedonian helmet type taken over from the tetradrachm Pans, and used on

group 1 bronze, is outstanding in several aspects. The helmet model which was applied on the Pan-bronzes was evidently used on only one of the nine corresponding silver types, which presumably narrows the occasion for minting of the bronze considerably.

On the tetradrachm in SNG Cop. Collection (Plate 1, No. 10) which has the same type of uncrested helmet one can furthermore notice that Athena Alkis on the rev. is holding her shield in an unusual position compared to the other variations of the coin type, in a

horizontal stand, and therefore unable to defend her body with the shield.?^ The same shield position is also recorded on the similar drachma type with the identical uncrested helmet (SNG Cop. No. 1203), produced under the official Ti. The orientation of the

shield does not seem to be because of the die cutter's preference simply to present the device in a deviating position because the change of the monogram (official), it is also followed by a change of helmet type. Both the above mentioned silver types display the uncrested helmet as it is found on the Pan-crowning-trophy bronze in the Athenian finds. Consequently, this uncrested Macedonian helmet is present on one tetradrachm denomination, one drachma and at least one bronze type (SNG Cop. Nos. 1205-1207),

which may well mean that the series are chronologically close.?>

Groups 2-3 bronze All the bronze of Gonatas in this category lack the Macedonian helmet, although its style and fabric is similar to the helmet type group 1. About half of the entire Pan type belongs to group 2. The monogram, letter or symbol is placed where the helmet was, 1. in the rev. field. The trident issue is present (now without helmet) in at least two variations,

with the symbol down |. or down r. in the rev. field.?6 In group | the trident r. down r. in the field was found with the monogram

92

When

there

is a legible

ANTI-monogram

A (1. of it). Here in group 2 the trident l. or r.

it is

in

the

shape

of

A.

occumng

in

principal

combinations as follows: 1. Θ (SNG Cop. No. 1214) 2. [1 (SNG Cop. Nos. 1216-17; McClean No. 3611-13) 3. H (?) (SNG Cop. No. 1220) 4. crescent (Agora No. O8-6; McClean No. 3609) 5.

Φ or 8 (Agora No. ZA-161; ® according to Kroll). 6. E (SNG Cop. No. 1218). 7. N (SNG Cop. No. 1219). 93

This may also emphasize the difference between well-documented and not so well-recorded excavations. The Athenian Agora 1s one of the best documented archaeological sites in Athens, whereas the German excavations once conducted in the Asclepicion were apparently too hasty and too ambitious.

94

SNG Cop. No. 1201 (Plate I, No. 10). The shield's position in No. 1201 is similar to No. (Plate 1, No. 11), although No. 1198 is a type faced r., and No. 1201 a type to I.

905

SNG Cop. Nos. 1199-1202. Except for the light emission of Athena-to r. variation. which has the famous kalathos |. in field behind the type (which is our Plate

1, No.

11).

For the drachma sec No.

1203.

96

1198

Known from e.g. McClean No. 3601; SNG Cop. No. 1212 and Athenian Agora No. ©-189,

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

141

down 1. in the field is not accompanied by any legible monogram or letter. The weight of

SNG Cop. 1212 is 3.08 g. (trident l. in the rev. field), whereas McClean No. 3601 and the Agora specimen (trident r. in the rev. field) have corresponding weights of 6,46 and about 5 g. J.H. Kroll correctly assumes — albeit for different reasons — that both the latter

variations must represent two different denominations.?? The presence of the trident suggests probably a certain relationship between the bronze of groups 1 and 2. The symbol should have chronological meaning and it may well also have denominational one, as is being suggested here.

Conclusions There is a correspondence between the control marks (official's signature) occurring on the series of bronze and those showing up on the (contemporaneous) silver, evidently

in all its denominations. The helmet-to-l. (in field) bronze is the only bronze — yet — which tentatively could be linked with the Antigonid silver Pans, and even the posthumous Alexanders, perhaps to be placed in the mid and late 270's. The helmet symbol l. in the rev. field seems to run from the well-known tetradrachms down to drachmas as well, and even the base metal coins now under consideration. At least two instances confirm that the Pan-crowning-trophy and maybe also the Heracles-head/horseman bronze was in all likelihood under the supervision of the same official, i.e. that they have the same issuing authority, maybe also the same mint. In

group 2 a) (an Agora coin) there is a specimen with the monogramPM, in an horizontal position,

we believe, as SNG

Cop.

No.

1219 shows

(group 3,

Heracles/horseman

type).?8 This variation must simply have been the choice of the die-cutter in order to create space for all the details on a relatively small coin.?? Another example is the monogram XE, which appears on R.W. Mathisen's monogram group, and which he dates

to the Pella mint to the year 272.100 It seems also possible that II and ® signed both the Pan and the Horseman type bronzes, though this is less certain. The monogram Ä in R.W. Mathisen's!?! monogram group is also present on Gonatas' Pan bronze. Thus, in the light of what has been stated above, we are inclined to believe that there are good grounds for dating the helmet Pan bronze to the late 270’s when the similarly control-marked silver began to be issued from the Macedonian mints, thereby providing,

if not a definite, then at least a tentative terminus dating. Consequently we are able to conclude that not one of the Macedonian specimens which have been found in Athens in abundance could have been minted in Athens.

97

98

Kroll's list (1993, group 507),

189.

For identical cases with transferred monogram positions see Mathisen 1981, 87, Table 3, *K, or 95,

Table 10, JE. 39

From a well-centered Agora piece we conclude that the diameter of the die of the Pan type bronze was

not more than about 15 mm.

100 Mathisen 1981, 104. 101

Mathisen 1981, Table 15, 113.

142

Kenneth Lónnqvist

Coin catalogue to plates 1-2 Abbreviations, coin collections Cop. =

Danish National Museum, den kongelige Mont - og Medaillesamling (KMM), Copenhagen

ANS =

American Numismatic Society, New York

SMB =

Staatliche Museen, Berlin

T. 1961 =

Thompson 1961, New Style Silver Coinage

IGCH =

Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (1973)

M

bronze silver

left

u

um |

= =

nght

Coins Nos. 1—16 (Plate 1) are from the Copenhagen Coin Collection of Greek Coins. The coins have been published in the series Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (SNG), The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Vol. ΠῚ, Part III, Philip III-Philip VI, Macedonia under the Romans, Kings of Paeonia. 1942. Einar

Munksgaard (ed.), Copenhagen. (Reprint 1982, New Jersey. Volume Two: Thrace and Macedonia). The coins are published here with permission of KMM, Copenhagen. Coin No. 17 (Plate 2) is from the Berlin Collection of Greek Coins (Staatliche Museen, Berlin). The coin is published here with permission of SMB, Berlin. Coins Nos. 18—23 (Plate 2) are from the American Numismatic Society Collection of

Greek Coins. Coin No. 23 has been published in the Sylloge Nummorum

Graecorum

(ΝΟ), The Burton Y. Berry Collection, Part I, Macedonia to Attica (Pl. 28, No.

742 Ξ

T. 1961, No. 1350). 1961, Glückstadt. The coins are published here with permission of ANS, New

York.

Coin No. 24 (Plate 2) 1s from the Copenhagen Coin Collection of Greek Coins. The

coin has been published in the series Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (SNG), The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Thessaly-Illyricum, Volume Three Greece: Thessaly to Aegean

Islands (Reprint

1982,

New

Jersey).

The coin

is

published here with permission of KMM, Copenhagen. The weight of the coins have been given in grams (g.). Denominations of the silver coins have been given in the explanations. For the bronze coins no denominations have been given. The size of the coins is 1:1 Coins Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-16 are of bronze. Coins Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10-11, 17-24 are of silver.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

Plate

1 The Macedontan coins

PHILIP II (359—336 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 1. Obv. Young male head, hair bound with taenia.

Rev. Naked youthful horseman; Φιλίππου. AE. 8,30 g., *. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. No. 581. ALEXANDER III (336—323 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 2. Obv. Heracles in lion's skin. Rev. Zeus enthroned, holding eagle and sceptre; Αλεξανδρου, |. bucranium. AR. 17,13 g., X.Tetradrachm. Amphipolis, 328—327 B.C. Cop. No. 675. Pl. 1, No. 3. Obv. Heracles in lion's skin. Rev. Zeus enthroned, holding eagle and sceptre;

ἀλεξανδρον, |. monogram. AR. 4,28 g., #. Drachma. Alexandria, before 323 B.C.

Cop. No. 945. Pl. 1, No. 4. Obv. Heracles in lion's skin.

Rev. ἀλεξανδρου between club and bow in case, thunderbolt. AE. 6,75 g., *. Amphipolis, c. 328 B.C. and later.

Cop. No. 1034. PHILIP III (323-316 B.C.) P]. 1, No. 5. Obv. Heracles in lion's skin. Rev. Zeus enthroned, holding eagle and sceptre; Φιλιππου, torch, below,

monogram. AR. 4,22 g., #. Drachma. Uncertain mint, c. 320 B.C. and later. Cop. No. 1094. ANONYMOUS BRONZE (end of the fourth century B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 6. Obv. Macedonian shield; in centre, Gorgoneion. Rev. Macedonian helmet; Ba, |. caduceus. AE. 4,25 g., *. Uncertain mint, after c. 311 B.C.

Cop. No. 1125. CASSANDER (316-297 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 7. Obv. Heracles in lion's skin. Rev. Horseman; BaciAeoc Kaocavópov, above T; on. r., star; below A. AE. 6,98 g., *. Uncertain mint, 306-297 B.C. Cop. No. 1142. DEMETRIUS POLIORCETES (306-283 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 8. Obv. Nike standing on prow holding trumpet and stylis. Rev. Poseidon standing, holding trident; Δημετριου

Βασιλεῶως. l., A; r., monogram.

143

144

Kenneth Lónnqvist

AR. 1,76 g., t. Hemidrachma. Tarsus, 298-295 B.C. Cop. No. 1191. Pl. 1, No. 9. Obv. Demetrius wearing Corinthian helmet with bull's horn. Rev. Prow; above, Ba; below, monogram.

AE. 4,77 g., '*. Cyprus, Salamis, 300-295 B.C. Cop. No. 1194. ANTIGONUS GONATAS (277-239 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 10. Obv. Macedonian shield, in centre, head of Pan and pedum.

Rev. Athena Alkis l.; BaotAews Avttyovov, l., Macedonian helmet; r., monogram.

AR. 16,82 g., *. Tetradrachm. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. Pl. 1, No. Rev. AR. Cop.

No. 1201. 11. Obv. Macedonian shield, in the centre, head of Pan and pedum. Athena Alkis r.; Baoıkewg Avtvyovoy, l., kalathos, r., monogram. 17,04 g., ?. Tetradrachm. Uncertain mint and date. No. 1198.

Pl. 1, No. 12. Obv. Athena wearing Corinthian helmet. Rev. Pan erecting a trophy; Ba, l., Macedonian helmet; on r., symbol,

below monogram. AE. 6,76 g., >. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. No. 1205. Pl. 1, No. 13. Obv. Athena wearing Corinthian helmet.

Rev. Pan erecting a trophy; Ba, l., trident-head; below monogram. AE. 3,08 grams, *. Uncertain mint and date.

Cop. No. 1212. Pl. 1, No. 14. Obv. Heracles in lion’s skin. Rev. Horseman; Ba, below

monogram, on r., Θ. AE. 3,11 g., *. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. No. 1214. PHILIP V (220-179 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 15. Obv. Heracles in lion’s skin. Rev. Bearded horseman; #1 Ba. AE. 6,35 g., *. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. No. 1234.

PERSEUS (178-168 B.C.) Pl. 1, No. 16. Obv. Hero Perseus wearing winged helmet with griffin's head; at shoulder, harpa. Rev. Eagle standing on plough; Ba, l., monogram.

AE. 7,20 g., *. Uncertain mint and date. Cop. No.

1271.

Hellenistic Coinage of Athens: The Impact of Macedonia

Plate 2 The Athenian coins ATHENIAN OLD STYLE COINAGE

Pl. 2, No. 17. Obv. Head of Athena.

Rev. Owl facing; A OE; behind, crescent and olive-spray. AR. 17, 13 g.,*. Tetradrachm. Athens, third century B.C. SMB No. 429/1904. ATHENIAN "INTERMEDIATE" STYLE COINAGE Pl. 2, No. 18. Obv. Head of Athena. Rev. Owl facing; A OE; 1. monogram and symbol; behind

olive-spray.

AR. 16,40 g., Φ. Tetradrachm. Athens, late third century B.C. (IGCH 237). ANS No. 1968.250.2. Pl. 2, No.

19. Obv. Head of Athena.

Rev. Owl facing; A OE; |. symbol; behind olive-spray. AR. 17,13 g.,*. Tetradrachm. Athens, late third century B.C. (Ex. Pozzi 2536). ANS No. 1944. 100. 24423. Pl. 2, No. 20. Obv. Head of Athena. Rev. Owl facing; A OE; l. monogram.

AR. 17,17 g.,t. Tetradrachm. Athens, late third century B.C. (IGCH 237). ANS No. 1972. 53. 1. Pl. 2, No. 21. Obv. Head of Athena. Rev. Owl facing; A ΘΕ; |. symbol; behind olive-spray. AR. 4,12 g., *. Drachma. Athens, late third century B.C.

ANS No. 1944. 100. 24429. Pl. 2, No. 22. Obv. Head of Athena. Rev. Owl facing; À OE; l. symbol; behind olive-spray.

AR. 4,17 g.,*. Drachma. Athens, late third century B.C. ANS No. 1944. 100. 24428. Pl. 2, No. 23. Obv. Head of Athena. Rev. Owl on amphora; A OE; in field monogram and cicada; the whole within olive-wreath.

AR. 16,99 g., "t. Tetradrachm. Athens, late third century/ second century B.C. (Ex. Burton Y. Berry I, No. 742 = T. 1961, No. 1350).

ANS No. 1968. 34. 106. ATHENIAN NEW STYLE COINAGE Pl. 2, No. 24. Obv. Athena Parthenos.

Rev. Owl on amphora; À OE; in field, two monograms and symbol (Nike in quadriga); on amphora, M, beneath Mn; the whole within olive-wreath.

AR.

16,90 g., '*. Tetradrachm. Second century B.C. Cop. No. 137.

145

"Nulla signa sine argilla" Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra style* Minna Lónnqvist

The Style as a Mediator of Hellenistic Athens "Not only can clay objects be made in a limitless variety of shapes, their surfaces can also be manipulated in many ways to alter the texture, color, and overall appearance of the formed

piece”!

The so-called Tanagra style, which represents the stylistic and technical "high lights"

of the Greek terracotta statuettes, ruled the figurine production of the Mediterranean world during the Early and Middle Hellenistic Period (c. 330-146 B.C).? The emergence of the We wish to thank Professor John McK. Camp II of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Director Petros G. Kalligas of the Acropolis Museum, the keepers of the terracotta collection at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens and Dr. Ursula Knigge of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens, for giving us permission to study the Hellenistic terracotta figurines in the museums and in the store rooms at the archaeological excavations. This study focuses on the terracottas discovered in the excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at the Agora, the North Slope and the Pnyx area. We are grateful to Ms. Jan Jordan for her kind help in the study of the figurines stored in the Stoa of Attalus II. The collections from the Acropolis area und the Ceramicus serve as a comparative source for the material. For seeing these collections we are grateful to Ms. Tina Vlassopoulou and Dr. Angelika Schöne-Denkinger. Thanks are also duc to Ms. Brenda Conrad for checking the English language of the manuscript.

| — Rice 1987, 244. ?

Higgins 1967, 95-96. To the general distribution in the Mediterrancan area presented by R.A. Higgins tn Higgins 1967, 95-133, we would Hike to add Spain and Palestine. For Spain see the

148

Minna Lónnqvist

Tanagra style cannot be separated from the origin of the Hellenistic art in general; the beginning of this style is almost synonymous with the artistic development process of the

era. For a long time the study of the Tanagra style has been dominated by the culturehistorical approach in which the style gets significance as a part of the chronology, and

this is why the study of the style and its origin has been mainly typological. It is, however,

important to notice that the mere

study

of the objects

themselves

is not

archaeology in the real sense of the word, it is antiquarianism, because archaeology gets its significance from discovering objects in their contexts.? To analyse the Tanagra style two aspects have to be taken into account: (1) the structure (the artistic and technical appearance) and (2) the function of the figurines. *

Approaches concerning the motifs of the figurines and their find contexts have been rather neglected in the case of the Athenian Tanagras, although more information about their function

could

be achieved

through

contextual

typological approach has been so emphasised

studies.

in Tanagra

One

studies,

reason

why

the

is perhaps

the

inaccuracy of the find contexts. This may be an excuse in the case of the Boeotian town of Tanagra, but we are certain that from the Athenian Tanagras we can derive much more

besides their typological and chronological significance, which naturally serve as an important aid for the contextual studies. Such important questions, as to why the Tanagra style emerged and what was the purpose of the figurine production are closely related to each other. When dealing with the beginning of the Hellenistic Period, the stylistic change 15 not as

clear cut as between the earlier periods, and a pure typological analysis will not suffice to give a credible picture of the whole emergence process. It is in the life and culture of Athens, that we have to seek the roots of the new style.? The new style is an answer to

the needs and tastes of the consumer; it is a medium of social practices. Therefore, the approach of our study, not ignoring the creative role of the artists themselves, 1s based on

the view that the style mediates as a habituated form of social consciousness./ As there now exists a consensus that the Tanagra style emerged in Athens and not in Tanagra as previously thought,? the purpose of this study is to follow the emergence of the style in Athens in order to answer the questions "how", "when" and "why" this new style was developed there. At the outset the definition of the Tanagra style is relevant, because there seems to exist a general confusion as to which terracotta figurines are to be included in the concept and

which are to be excluded. From the social background of the production process we shall view the artistic atmosphere of Athens and its impact to the coroplasts’ work from the stylistic point of view. The social and artistic framework of the production process leads us to the sphere of special analysis, i.e. the typological study of the figurines themselves. In the special analysis the figurines are studied from the artistic and the technical point of view. This study is broadened to the content, namely to the motifs of the figurines and Collection Salamanca in Madrid, the figurines of which may however originate in Italy, in Laumonier 1921. For Palestine, sce e.g. Samaria-Sebaste in Crowfoot & Crowfoot & Kenyon 1957,

83, Pl. XIII. Sec c.g. the views presented by I. Hodder 1986, 4.

4 — See Hodder 1982, 205. ? — Sec Stewart 1979, 133-135. 6

See e.g. Hodder 1990, 44-51. See the analysis of style and ideology in Shanks & Tilley 1987, 147. 154. D.B. Thompson's studies have established the consensus. See Thompson

1966, 51-63.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

149

their counterparts in sculptural art. In due course the special analysis of the motifs will be approached from a feedback to the contextual analysis of the figurines m situ, in their original places of discovery, in order to retrieve information about their function.? Finally as the style emerges in particular space and time the analysis of the original

archaeological contexts will be connected with the information given in the classical sources of the sites providing the figurines and the studies of the historical situation in Athens. This will lead to the interpretation of the meaning of the style. The emergence of a

new

style reflects

a socio-cultural

change,

which

does

not necessarily

mean

the

replacement of an old people with a new one — it may reflect internal changes and the interaction of the old polis with an expanding new rule, which in the case of Hellenistic Athens is Macedonia.

1. Aspects of the Tanagra Style!o The Motifs of the Figurines The Tanagra style is represented by a particular category of terracotta figurines, which cannot be separated from the content. The most famous subjects are girls or young women, wrapped in folded garments and standing in various poses. Sometimes they wear conical hats or wreaths on their heads; sometimes they hold a fan, a kymbalon, a mask or a basket of fruits in their hands. Some of them hold a child in their arms. These are the most frequently used and hence the most popular subjects in the style repertoire. The

repertoire also contains young women sitting, playing or dancing; standing or sitting young men and children — generally speaking the subjects are of a youngish genre type. Some scholars also include a few motifs from the mythological and dramatic field: Erotes and Aphrodite as well as old women with a child and some grotesques. While we are ready to accept certain examples of a mythological character, we would be more cautious about the distinctively dramatic figures. Also dolls, however

common

and contemporaneous, must be excluded from the Tanagra concept. There can exist no Tanagras without the Tanagra technique, but there are terracottas which are not to be included in the repertoire because of their motif, even if they may have been produced by the Tanagra technique. The dramatic figurines, for example, are to be considered as a category in their own right, even if the production process has elements of the Tanagra technique. The importance of these dramatic figures is, however, obvious in the general

development process of the Hellenistic terracottas as dramatic figures have sometimes been discovered in the same context as Tanagra pieces, and they belong to the same miniature world of the coroplasts as do the Tanagras. But it has to be emphasized that the figures do not only differ in their motifs but also from their functional purposes from the Tanagra concept, the question which we shall in due course scrutinize.

9

See Hodder 1982, 205.

IO

The definition of the style presented in this work is partly based on older studies, partly on our new approach, which takes into account the motifs and the contexts of the Athenian Tanagras. The new approach promoted in this article will elucidate the functional purpose of the figurines, which is relevant to the definition of the style.

150

Minna Lónnqvist

The Tanagra Technique The size of the Tanagra figurines varies generally from c. 10 to 20 cm; but there are examples which are slightly smaller than 10 cm and as high as c. 40 cm. In all cases, the

material is fired clay, i.e., terracotta, and the statuettes have been produced by the moulding technique using one or several moulds.!! The earliest moulded pieces have been produced with one mould. The use of one mould began in the fifth century B.C.,

and around 330 B.C. onwards it was the rule to use two moulds for the body.!? In typical Tanagra pieces, the body, head and limbs were produced by separate moulds. Larger pieces, usually over 10 cm in height, have a vent in the back to prevent the hollow figurine from cracking during the firing process. The moulding technique

indicates an incipient industrialization process of terracotta production, which began in the fourth century B.C. Despite the moulding technique which is a form of mass production,

the appearance of the Tanagra figurines is individualistic, and the statuettes can really be regarded as the results of artistic expression. Individualism!? is a feature, which closely connects Tanagras with Hellenism. Some pieces can even be classified as real portraiture. About the individualism of the figurines, M. Pottier has lucidly said: "None of the Tanagras are twins, but all of them are sisters."!4 How has this individualism been produced? The individualistic character of the figurines depends partly on the technique: apart from moulding a typical feature of the Tanagra technique is retouching. The retouching was done after moulding, and by modelling and retouching it was possible to give the figurine its personal, individual character. After moulding and retouching the figurines were often covered with a white slip or engobe and finished with pastel colours. Earlier this century J. Danielli published a list of the colours used in the Tanagra figurines, and this chart is the one still used today and includes colours as bright blue, sky blue, pink, yellow, apple green, purple, red

orange, ochre red, brown red, grey and black.!>

The Problems of the Provenance of the Style The name of the Tanagra style comes from the Boeotian town of Tanagra!® the tombs of which have yielded thousands of terracotta figurines since the first examples were

discovered in the 1870's. Antique dealers quickly realised that these charming statuettes appealed greatly to Victorian taste, and in order to satisfy such a large audience forgeries

and reproductions came on the market.! ? Until the beginning of this century, a number of scholars shared the views of C.A. Hutton,!® who saw no a priori improbability in the type having first originated in Tanagra. Despite the already established name ""Tanagra style" G. Kleiner, based on the earlier studies of R. Kékulé and A. Furtwängler, was among the first scholars, who saw Il

See Walters 1903, xxiii.

12.

Higgins 1987, 67.

13

See Onians 1979, 34.

Id

Pottier 1890, 254.

15

Danielli 1904, 28.

16

See the latest archaeological survey in the area in Roller 1987. 213-232.

17° I8

Higgins 1987, 30, 127, 163. Hutton 1899, 35.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

151

Athens as the more probable home for the style.!? After Kleiner, D.B. Thompson made a detailed analysis which shows that Athens is likely to be the site of the innovation for this

cosmopolitan style.20 If this is the case, it is important to explore how, when and why this emergence process began. When studying the emergence process of the style the importance of the Tanagra

material from Tanagra itself is significant, but the value of the figurines housed in the museums but lacking contextual information is archaeologically relatively scanty, and may serve only as a comparative! stylistic source. As the main difficulty with the material from Tanagra is inaccuracy concerning the provenance of the finds, we can only rely on

historical events and relative stylistic criteria, to give us some hints as to the origin of the Tanagra production in the Boeotian town. The historical accounts seem to indicate that the Tanagras were unlikely to have been in production at Tanagra before the 330's B.C.,

because after the Macedonian expansion Tanagra replaced Theba as a flourishing centre of Boeotia.2? It must be stressed, however, that this is just a hypothetical premise.

Criterias in Dating the Figurines When discussing the dating of the Hellenistic terracotta material Athens forms the crucial base for our study, because it is there that the context of discovery for the figurines is at its clearest and reliable. This material offers the first steps in the development of the Tanagra style. From Athens we can also gain information about the coroplasts’ work in its social context.

We consider the transition period 350—330 B.C. as a decisive time span for the emergence process of the style in Athens. This is a critical era, when we study the origins of Hellenism in general. Such sculptors as Praxiteles, Scopas and Lysippos -- profound

figures in the formation of Hellenistic art — were already active. Like L. Alscher,23 who based his premise on such examples as the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, we also believe that the beginning of early Hellenism in art can be extended to c. 350 B.C.

From our

study of the Athenian Tanagras, we suggest that it is possible to infer two significant stylistic stages: the Pre-Tanagran era c. 350-330 B.C.

and the Tanagra style c. 330-200

B.C. The criteria for dating terracotta figurines and distinguishing the early transitional period from the mature methods.

phase of the style can be divided into relative and absolute

Some crucial stylistic criteria based on comparison with sculpture are significant in the relative dating of the figurines: (1) composition: frontality and movement of the body, 2) the type and drapery of the garments and (3) hairstyle. The accuracy of the mere stylistic relative dating, like the cases without historical information, is not very secure, according to our view sometimes even from 25 to 30 years. (We are very critical about the work by

H. Süsserot,24 who dates sculpture by stylistic criteria with the accuracy of 10 years). We know

that the mature Hellenistic style favours deep and numerous retouching

to give

I9 20

See Kleiner 1984, 131-136. See especially Thompson 1966, 51-63.

2|

Thanks to the kindness of the staff of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens we have been able to scrutinize a few relevant figurines originating from Tanagra and having stylistic counterparts in the figurines of Athens.

22

See Higgins

23 24

1987, 24.

Alscher 1956. See Siisserot

1938.

152

Minna Lónnqvist

movement to the details such as expressed in drapery. In the fourth century the lines of the drapery are fairly smooth, but from the third century onwards deep,25

and

therefore

the

exact

decades

are

sometimes

hard

to

the folds become determine

without

additional textual evidence or stratigraphical information. Associated finds, like pottery types, are used in relative stratigraphical dating. The dating of the wheel-made pottery found at the Agora is still, however, under examination and may in the future reveal new

datings.26 Concerning the technical criteria in relative dating, it has already been mentioned that

double moulding became common c. 330 B.C.2? Therefore the number of moulds may serve as a criterion in the relative dating of a figurine. According to D.B. Thompson the

condition of the moulds and figurines discovered from the same deposit can also give a relative sequence in the dating: the worn pieces are considered older than the less worn ones.2® The vent in the back of the figurines, which was to hinder any damage in the firing process, was generally a small square or an oval during the Hellenistic times?? and may be used as relative dating criteria as well. For stylistic approach such absolute historical dates as the defeat of Olynthos in 348

B.C.39 and the sumptuary laws of Demetrius of Phalerum (317-307 B.C.) passed in 316/5 B.C.3! have traditionally served as criteria for terminus datings. R.A. Higgins, for example, states that the absence of the so-called Tanagra style in Olynthos means that the Tanagra style did not emerge before 348 B.C.32 This is, however, a simplistic view, because the absence of the style at Olynthos does not necessanly prove anything

especially as the source of the style points to Athens. In addition, the latest discoveries at Olynthos seem to indicate continuity of occupation of the site after the defeat by Philip II of Macedon in 348 B.C.,?? and therefore the destruction does not necessarily provide a secure departure for the terminus dating. Like the figurines from Tanagra, the value of the Olynthos terracotta finds as comparative material in terminus dating of the emergence process remains quite tentative. The sumptuary laws prohibiting individuals from erecting expensive monuments in

Attica have served as a focal point in terminus dating of the Attic sculpture. If sculpture is regarded as a significant source of inspiration for the Tanagra style,34 as is maintained in this study, the code may give some guide lines for terminus datings through stylistic 25

See some general guidelines in dating Hellenistic sculpture c.g. Pollitt 1988, 268-270.

26

Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, 183.

27

Higgins 1987, 67.

28

Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, 207. This dating method seems to have been derived from numismatcs, however, one must be very cautious and critical when applying this to ceramic finds, especially terracotta figurines.

79

Higgins 1987, 67-68.

30

See e.g. Bury 1951, 427.

3l

See Ferguson

32

Higgins 1967, 96.

33

Unfortunately, from the archaeological point of view, the defeat of Olynthos in 348 B.C. can no longer be securely regarded as the end of the occupation of the town. Therefore the terminus dating based on the terracotta material of Olynthos is questionable. See Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff

34

1911, 43.

1987, 184. some scholars have assumed painting to be of crucial influence on the development of the Tanagra style. Cf. Kleiner 1984, 127. From our analysis concerning the historical and contextual evidence of

voroplasis' Inspiration.

work

in Hellenistic

Athens,

sculpture

seems

to

be

a more

significant.

source

of

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style comparison of terracottas with statues. A problem

seems

to occur,

153

however,

when

we

inquire how strictly the code was followed. According to the historical information violations of such codes were overseen by two institutions, namely by the magistrates and

the popular assembly.?> It can be assumed that the code was obeyed at least in public areas such as in the cemeteries of Attica if not on the private estates. Therefore, the Attic funerary monuments give valuable information concerning the emergence of the Tanagra style in Athens. One method of fairly absolute terminus dating is based on the stratigraphical study of closed deposits, which contain coins and stamped pottery. The terracottas from the Agora

excavations are as far the best published material, for which we can attain quite absolute and trustworthy results by this kind of terminus dating. The late V. Grace revised the chronology of the stamped amphorae which occurred in the Athenian deposits along with the new finds in Greece. It is most unfortunate that there are no thermoluminescense datings for the Tanagra figurines, as this method could give us somewhat more secure absolute datings.

Contextual Approach to the Function As stated earlier we want to argue that the emergence process of the style in Athens began c. 350 B.C. Through the contextual approach it is possible not only to give more secure datings for the emergence process, but also to reflect the artistic atmosphere of Hellenistic Athens and its socio-cultural life. The motifs of the figurines, as well as the contexts of the discoveries are our major focal point in order to find the socio-cultural meaning of the Athenian Tanagras. If the cradle of the style is to be located in Athens, we

shall further inquire to what extent Athens was independent of or dependent on "foreign" elements in the evolution of this new style. The excavations of the Athenian Agora have yielded a great deal of Tanagra material —

although

fragmentary -- from

which

we can

ascertain

information.) There are some examples from the Pnyx,

fairly precise

stratigraphical

but the find context in some

cases is more disturbed.?8 The area of the Acropolis has offered material in quite good condition,

but

the exact

provenance

of many

Tanagras

in

the

Acropolis

Museum

collection?? is unclear. A few pieces have been discovered on the North Slope in the connection of the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite.4° The Sanctuary of Nymphe^! and Asclepieion*? have yielded some examples from the South Slope, and the collection in Heidelberg?? contains a few fine pieces from the West Slope. The excavation finds from

35

See Ferguson 1911, 45-47.

36

See Grace 1974, 193-200.

37

See Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, 184—458.

38

See Thompson 1936, 170-175 and also Davidson & Thompson 1943.

39

See Casson & Brooke 1921, Nos. 1202-1462.

40

See Broneer 1933, 334—338. See also Morgan 1935, 207-213.

4l

Ergon 1957. 10-11, Fig. 8. According to the information, for which we are most grateful to Ms. Maria Kyrkou, who is working on this material, these figurines were originally attached as a decoration to pottery objects.

42

See Winter 1903, 121, No. 3.

43

Neutsch

1952,

17.

154

Minna Lönngvist

the Ceramicus can also serve as an important source, but most of this material is still

unpublished.** (See the sites Pl. XVI: Fig. 20.). We believe that the way how

the artefacts consistently appear in the archaeological

contexts reflects past human activities. Studies of the sites, where Tanagra figurines have been discovered in Athens, reflect their meaning for the society, which created them.

2. The Socio-Cultural Context of the Athenian Coroplast The Athenian Coroplast and his Work "And somehow or other 1 have the feeling that the method of some philosophers in dealing with their arguments resembles in a

way

that of the makers

of figurines

(koroplathon).

For those

craftsmen produce a mould, and whatever clay they put into this they

render like to the mould in form." [τῶν κοροπλάθων] (Dio Chrys. Or. 60.9., transl. H. L. Crosby, LCL).

Athens had a long tradition of coroplasts.

As early as in the Archaic

Period the

coroplasts worked in close contact with the Athenian potters and painters. They shared a common medium, namely clay. The pottery painters*> evidently influenced the motif repertoire of the coroplasts. Sometimes the production technique also proceeded hand in hand with the potters' methods: after the bare modelling by hand some of the Archaic

figurines were made on the wheel.*6 Gradually the moulding technique was applied — this was the technique by which the coroplasts obviously affected the potters’ production process as is seen in the applying of the moulding technique? in making vessels with relief decoration throughout the Hellenistic Age. The medium with which the coroplasts in Athens worked was Attic clay, and the Tanagra figurines produced in Athens can be recognized by the character of the clay. Attic

clay is ferrous and, therefore, appears in different shades of red.

J. Martha’s*® division of

Attic clay into five categories according to the different shades is classic. The

shades

range from pinkish and yellowish to brownish shades of red when baked and fired. The typical feature of the clay is its homogeneity and tiny pieces of glittering mica,*? which can easily be recognized under a microscope or in most cases with naked eye. This mica makes even the thinnest Attic clay very durable.

When it comes to the specific sources of clay which were used by the Hellenistic coroplasts

who

worked

in Athens,

utilizing the

Neutron-Activation

(NA)

analysis

of

figurines pottery and workshop material from the Athenian Agora is not of much use for the study of the Tanagras, as the information which was derived from the analysis was

very scanty and the pottery material, such as groups of figurines, has not been specified 44^

The terracottas of the Ceramicus excavations will be published by Dr. Angelika Schöne-Denkinger in

the near future. We thank Dr. Ursula Knigge for this information and for the permission to see the collection.

45

See Kleiner 1984. 11.

316

Cf Higgins

37

The so-called Megarian relief beakers were produced by moulding from around 300 B.C. onwards. Despite the name "Megarian bowls", the earliest examples of these mould-made bowls come from Athens. See Rotroff 1982 passim. Sce an example on PI. VII: Fig. 10. in this article.

35

Martha 1880, VII-XTII.

39

1987, 65.

Neutsch 1952, 2, 3.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

155

in the publication of the results. According to this NA-analysis, Classical and Hellenistic (group À) ceramics, however, fall into the same category showing either the different

source of clay or the different tradition in the fabrication compared to the Proto-geometric period (group B) and the Subgeometric period (group C).59 The

significance

of

various

painters

in

the

coroplasts’

motif

world

has

been

overemphasized in some studies,?! although it is evident that the Boeotian-Attic school of vase-painting had a stimulating effect to some degree. However a more evident influence

and chief source of inspiration can be ascribed to large-scale sculpture.52 Looking simply at stylistic criteria the figurines appear to be small statues, and the white coating or slip and colours of the terracottas also reveal that the purpose was to imitate large-scale sculpture. The evidence concerning the sculptural arts is not merely based on stylistic

comparison, but also on the work process used by the coroplasts. Pliny's account "nulla signa statuaeve sine argilla fierent" concerning Greek sculptural

and plastic art, if taken as bearing some historicity, indicates that the coroplasts and sculptors used clay in the same manner for modelling and moulding their works of art, and the origin of this production process in sculptural art can tentatively be dated to the

fourth century B.C.5? The coroplasts, however, had started working with moulds already in the previous century, and it is evident that the knowledge and skill acquired by the coroplasts affected the moulding process of the large-scale sculptures.

Where did the Coroplasts Work in Athens? The collaboration of coroplasts with potters, painters and sculptors indicates the social context of the production process. It is natural to expect to find some traces of coroplasts' workshops at the Ceramicus which had been the "Potter's Quarter54 from the early times

of the polis. This quarter, usually referred to the Ceramicus outside the city walls,55 however, occupied at least temporarily a wider area inside the Themistoclean walls in the northwestern part of ancient Athens extending to the Agora in the second half of the

fourth century B.C.56 In several places from the Ceramicus to the Agora signs of potters’ activities have been traced in archaeological excavations.?? (See the Ceramicus on PI. XVI: Fig. 20.) When searching for coroplast's activities in Athens moulds serve as significant indicator. However, we do not have any actual evidence for the existence of coroplasts' workshops in the “Potter’s Quarter", although the wealth of terracottas at the Ceramicus 50

See Filliers & Harbottle & Sayre 1983, 59-62.

51 52

See Kleiner 1984, 127. Cf. Webster 1950, 9; Carpenter 1960, 194.

53

See Pliny HN 35.153 in which Pliny tells us that Lysippos' brother Lysistratos of Sicyon was the first to take moulds and make casts for statues. According to Pliny this became so widely employed that no statues were produced without clay. See also Pliny HN 35.151 in which he says that the invention of modelling (moulding) terracotta in relief may be attributed to Butades, a potter from Sicyon. On the other hand Pliny mentions that some authorities take an opinion that plastic art was first invented by Rhoecus and Theodorus at Samos. See Pliny EN 35.152.

54

See Pliny HN 35.155.

35

See the concepts “inner and outer Ceramicus" in Travlos 1971, 318-319.

56

The broad way leading from the Dipylon to the Agora was lined with tombs and marker stones, which have been discovered and dated to the fourth century B.C. and bearing the inscription opo; Κεραμείκου. Sec IG IVIIIZ 2617-2619. See also Travlos 1971, 317-319.

>?

Thompson

1988, 7-3.

156

Minna Lónnqvist

Museum — most obviously originating from tombs — indicates to the activities. There is also a beautiful collection of the latest finds of figurines in the storerooms of the German excavations at the Ceramicus,°8 which do not originate from tombs. These figurines were discovered from a building deposit, and no moulds were found associated with them. Using the general stylistic cnteria these figurines are clearly Hellenistic, and the coins unearthed from the same deposit belong to the beginning of the third century B.C.5? The topographical relationship of the Sacred Way passing through the Ceramicus®? suggests that the “Potter’s Quarter" could have produced figurines for the Eleusinian mysteries. The excavations have shown that in the fourth century B.C. the coroplasts worked in

the Agora region,6! where they produced small works of art more or less in serial production. The archaeological excavations led by R. Young have identified the industrial zone of ancient Athens in the southwestern corner of the Agora next to the Areopagus.

The Street of the Marble Workers has provided several stone- and metal-working establishments connected with those of the coroplasts. House G on the west side of the Street of the Marble Workers in the industrial zone has yielded evidence of coroplasts' activities dating to the end of the fourth century B.C. A terracotta factory, which was in operation throughout the Hellenistic Period, was identified in House L.92 Menon's Cistern at the Agora, which provides an important group of Hellenistic terracottas, is located in the sculptors’ house of Mikion and Menon in the industrial quarters.6? The context is a good example of the connection between the coroplast's work with that of the

sculptors' and marble workers'. (See the industrial quarters on Pl. XVI: Fig 20. ) Despite a few exceptions, and some slight differences in the measurements, the present study is in general agreement with the description concerning the appearances and

interpretations of the fourth and third century moulds found in the excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.6* Closed deposits, such as cisterns, have yielded some moulds. The most informative deposit is the Coroplast's Dump from

the Agora whereas Menon's Cistern offers only one piece (T 116). The Coroplast's Dump

contained as many

as eleven examples of the fourth century terracotta

moulds

( T 1688, T 1692, T 1709, T 1710, T 1711, T 1769, T 1797, T 1799, T 1803, T 1849, T 2612, according to R. V. Nicholls new datings a few, like T

1711,

may

be from the

fifth century B.C.),55 which is more than 20% of all the fourth century terracotta finds

discovered from the dump. The majority of the moulds from the Coroplast’s Dump represent draped female figures in various poses, but among the others there is one of a flying nude male (T

58

We are grateful to Dr. Angelika Schóne-Denkinger for showing us a set, and for the information on its provenance.

59

We are indebted the information about the coins to Mr. Kenneth Lónnqvist, to whom Schóne-Denkinger kindly showed the collection of coins found in the context.

90 61 62

See Travlos 1971, 303. Camp 1986, 139. See Young 1951, 135-290, especially 267-269. Scc also Burford 1972, 82.

63

See the House of Mikion and Menon Cistern in Miller 1974, 194-196.

64

We are grateful to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for permission to study closely all the moulds and the terracotta figurines from the Agora, the North Slope and the Pnyx area presented in this study. See supra the bibliographical references in the notes 37, 38 and 40.

6^.

Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, 240-246.

in Shear

1969,

342-394,

195, note 3

See also the location

Dr. Angelika

of Menon's

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

157

1688), probably an Eros figure in our view, and a Pedagogue boy (T 1710)66 with his teacher. The clay of the most of these moulds

varies from pinkish,

reddish, orange

to

brown grayish-orange with mica and can hence quite safely be considered as Attic in origin. Among the female moulds there is an interesting piece (T 1709) to which we want

to give a new interpretation. (See Pi. III: Fig. 1.). It is a front mould for two draped women, not of one as originally suggested by D.B. Thompson. In our view the mould represents Demeter and Kore-Persephone depicted together, the view which is also supported by the assumption that the figurines from the Coroplast’s Dump supplied votives to the sanctuary of Eleusinion at the Agora.67

The terracotta material discovered at the hill of the Pnyx also clearly indicates that the coroplasts had some activities there as well: two fourth century moulds (T 163, T 181) of female figurines have been unearthed from the area. One (T 163) was discovered in

disturbed surface earth, but the other (T 181) comes from a clearly defined deposit (the Assembly Place, Period ΠΙ),6 which dates it to the fourth century B.C. the lower limit of

the fill having been placed at the time of Lycurgus 337-325/4 B.C.®? The total number of terracotta moulds discovered at the Assembly Place, Period III, and the City Wall of the

Compartment Period 79 is 14, of which number a few moulds are stylistically connected with the Early Hellenistic Period, although discovered in disturbed surface earth of the area. The clay of the moulds unearthed from the site also represents the same Attic colours and texture as those discovered in the Agora. (See the Pnyx on Pl. XVI: Fig. 20.).

Another important piece of evidence, which seems to confirm production activities in the area of the Pnyx is a headless protome of a female terracotta figurine T 46 (PH.

45

mm, W. 51 mm, T. 34 mm) which we have analysed carefully and which we consider to

be an example of an archetype used for making moulds. (See Pl. III: Fig. 2.) This rare?! find probably represents a bust of a seminude Aphrodite type: both breasts are bare, the himation is drawn tightly over the left shoulder and falls diagonally across the back. The excavators did not identify this figurine as an archetype, but the production technique, especially considering the fine sculptural workmanship of the himation with sharp folds which is not met within the mouldmade figurines, and the solidity of the piece, speaks for it being an archetype. In those areas where the coroplasts worked, there was close contact with the street life of the Athenians. Coroplasts produced terracotta statuettes for ordinary people, who could not afford large scale works of art. The impact of the sumptuary laws cannot be disregarded either — the prohibition on individuals producing pompous sculpture may

66

See this new identification by D.B. Thompson

in Thompson

& Thompson

& Rotroff 1987,

[95--

196.

67

Thompson 1966, 54.

68

See the terracotta figurines discovered at the Pnyx in Thompson

69

Thompson 1943, 137-153. See Davidson & Thompson 1943, 122ff.

1936, 168-175, and in Davidson &

10.

See the fourth century datings of the contexts (the Assembly Place, Period III) in Rotroff 1996, 39— 40 and (the City Wall of the Compartment Period) in Karlsson 1996, 88 which sull largely agree with those earlier given by Thompson.

7]

Only one other known example (Tk. 95) from Athens is a Kore or a Hygieia type discovered at the

West Slope and belonging to the Heidelberg collection. See Neutsch

1952, 17, Pl.

12,

13.

R.

Higgins dates the piece to 350-300 B.C. See Higgins 1987, 68. D.B. Thompson has suggested that a female figurine (T 1462) in the collection of the Acropolis Museum would also be an archetype. See Thompson 1966, 62. This, however, is doubtful. After analysing the piece we do not agree with the identification and regard the respective figurine as a mould made Tanagra.

158

Minna Lónnqvist

have channelled art production to miniature statues. As in the work of potters we can

assume that to some extent the taste of the patron?? must have affected the coroplasts' work, but probably less than in Classical times. The production process used by the coroplasts in the late fourth century B.C. clearly reflects a response to a social need. The

coroplasts were producing figurines for the great majority of the polis' inhabitants. The terracottas reflect the private values of the domestic world. According to the contextual evidence of the production process, it 15 clear that the Athenian coroplasts did not work in a vacuum, and the figurines reflect the influences of a large audience,

and the close

contacts between other local artisans as well as artists. When it comes to the coroplasts themselves, we do not want to represent them as passively channelling social needs. They were individuals with creative skills working in a dynamic relation with the artistic

atmosphere and the public. From the nature of the craft, we may deduce that it is probable that apart from citizens there must also have been some metics?? among the coroplasts of fourth century Athens.

3. The Evolution of the Style in the Artistic Atmosphere of Athens The Influence of Sculpture on the Terracotta Production M. Bieber in her work conceming the sculpture of the Hellenistic Age states that Athens as well as the northern Peloponnese were the main centre of culture and art during the Classical era and they kept most tenaciously to the classical tradition in the Hellenistic

Age.’* The role of Athens in shaping of Hellenistic Art has since been undeservedly neglected as B. Sismondo Ridgway?? has so soundly pointed out. R. Carpenter, however, already saw Athens as a leading centre of philosophy and art on the Greek mainland during the emergence of Hellenism.76 According to A. Stewart, Athenian sculptors of the Hellenistic Period kept the high technical and aesthetic standards of their ancestors, their skills were even supreme." Amassing new evidence from excavations and deeper studies of the old museum pieces has, indeed, brought to light new elements of the artistic life of Hellenistic Athens.’® The subjects of daily life and rationalism began to spread among the Athenians. Compared to the old divine subjects

and sacred places, there was now an interest in depicting human beings, individuals, in portraiture.

One reason why Athens’ significance has been neglected in the study of the emergence of Hellenism in arts may be Pliny’s statement concerning Greek art during the third

72

Webster 1972, 270-300.

73.

U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff has documented inscriptions concerning artisan metics in Athens c. 420-320 B.C. See Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1887, 107—128. According to the nature of the crafts

listed in the inscriptions, it seems quite natural that metics would have worked as coroplasts as well. The list of Erectheum Workmen (409/8 and 405/4 B.C.) also shows that metics worked as artisans, sculptors and painters. See Randall 1953, 201.

7^

Bieber 1961, 58.

75

Sismondo Ridgway

76

Carpenter 1960, 188.

TT

Stewart 1979, 101.

18

According to

1990, 6.

R. R.R.

See Smith 1991, 239.

Smith,

Hellenistic Athens remained a cultural centre of the greatest prestige.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

century B.C.:

159

"cessavit deinde ars".? There exists, however, a wealth of evidence

preserved in Roman copies of the fourth and third century portraiture originally produced by Athenian artists. According to contextual studies profane portraits, such as statesmen, artists and philosophers, were erected in secular places around Athens already during the

second part of the fourth century B.C.80 Around 330 B.C.,

Lycurgus, for example,

erected three bronze portraits of poets, namely of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides in

the theatre of Dionysus.$! Of the statesmen the portrait of Aeschines, and of the philosophers the statue of Aristotle, have also been dated to the period c. 340-320 B.C.82 The portrait of Demosthenes made by Polyeuktos,83 which in its psychological touch and realism represents the climax of the Athenian portraiture, was posthumously erected in the Agora c. 280 B.C.84 The social role and status of an individual in the polis was now emphasized .

What seems to be true of sculpture also appears true for the terracotta production. Human elements and the motifs of daily life became popular — ordinary people in the street were given more attention.

The Impact of the Praxitelean Heritage and the Lysippean Naturalism When

the first Tanagras

were

discovered

in the

1870's,

scholars

saw a

clear

connection with the style of the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles: "the style has a Praxitelean ancestry".85 The Praxitelean gracefulness, "sfumato", can indeed be seen even in the earliest Tanagra figurines depicting girls and young women.

Praxiteles' influence was

likely to continue from the Late Classical times to the Hellenistic period in the families of the Athenian sculptors descended from Praxiteles.56 Only a few of Praxiteles' works have survived to aid the comparison. Pliny tells us

that it was possible to see Praxiteles’ works at Ceramicus.9? Unfortunately, there are no Attic grave monuments, which can securely be connected with Praxiteles, but the influence of his style is evident in several pieces. The work which is most assuredly by

Praxiteles himself even still extant is the Mantinea base®®, which can be dated to 330-320 B.C.,8? the latter part of Praxiteles’ activity. In addition to the Mantinea base the style of

the Atarbos basis,?° dated to the same period,?! reflects the stylistic stage, which can be recognized in the development of the Tanagra style approximately in 330 B.C. Beside the “sfumato”, the general influence of Praxiteles’ style can be found in the composition of

79 80 81 82 83 84

Pliny HN 34.52. Pollitt 1988, 59. Plut. Mor. 841. Bieber 1961, 62. Pollitt 1988, 62. Plut. Vir. Dem. 30.5.

85

Webster 1950, 24.

86

Stewart 1979, 102.

87

“There are works by him (Praxiteles) in Athens in the Ceramicus", Pliny HN 36.20.

88

αὐ Leto and the children, their images were made by Praxiteles two generations after Alcmenes. On the pedestal of these are figures of Muses together with Marsyas playing the flute." Pausanias 8.9.1. The relicf is displayed in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens: Inv. Nos. 215-217.

89

Kleiner 1984, 130.

90

Acropolis Muscum

91

Kleiner 1984, 130.

Inv. No. 1338.

160

Minna Lónnqvist

early Tanagras: the Praxitelean contra posto is just recognizable in the Pre-Tanagran stage. In this stage the image is fairly frontal. In the light of our sample the Praxitelean S-axis?? seems to occur in the Tanagras of the advanced stage of the style — from c. 330 B.C. onwards.

Some scholars have denied the impact of Lysippean naturalism on the Tanagra style.?? The problem is partly due to the paucity of the works of Lysippos, which has risen a great deal of controversies concerning the actual style of Lysippos. Lysippos is regarded as the founder of naturalism characterized by the statement: "naturam ipsam imitandam esse, non

artificem"9*

From

the ancient

authors,

such

as Pliny,

we

know

that

Lysippos

concentrated on athletes, and he made the heads of his statues smaller than had been the norm for earlier sculptors.?? In the course of the late fourth century the Lysippean images

turn their faces so as to gaze upward?9 expressing ethos which still can be traced in some

portraits of Alexander the Great. ?? The so-called style of Lysippos is clearly seen in the zigzag folds and the way in which

the folds intensified to show the structure of the body. The crossed limbs forming the closed composition, as well as the movement of the figurines dancing and playing is

derived from the Lysippean school of art. The impact of Lysippean naturalism can be seen technically

in the deeper retouching of the drapery

giving

the impression

of lively

movement in the later stage. Such statues as Maiden and Matron from Herculaneum?? connected to Lysippos or his school?? are like large-scale Tanagras in the advanced stage of the style. From the Athenian point of view the Lysippean influence is, however, to be

seen coming from outside — Lysippos, unlike Praxiteles, was originally Sicyonian, and he was working as artist for the Macedonian court.!00

The Pre-Tanagran Style and Athenian Independence The comparison of the Attic grave stelai or votive statues of children and the early Tanagras c. 350-330 B.C. is the most fruitful base for studying the formation process of the style as D.B. Thompson already indicated in several studies. From Attic grave stelai and votive statues it is possible to derive some relative datings: as earlier pointed out the sumptuary laws of Demetrius of Phalerum give us a tentative terminus ante quem of 316/5 B.C. The paleographic approach in the cases of epigraphical connections will give more supporting evidence for the time frame. From the earliest Pre-Tanagran stage (350-330 B.C.) of the style there do not exist any useful draped female originals in the funerary arts of Athens for the basis of comparison. The famous Attic grave stele of Demetria and Pamphile dated to the third

92

Stewart 1977, 113.

93 ?4

See e.g. Kleiner 1984, 8. Pliny HN 34.61- 62.

95

See e.g. Morgan

1949, 228-235

96

See Plut. Vit. Alex. 4.

97

See Pollitt 1988, 20-21. See also Richter 1984, different view in Smith 1988, 62.

OX

The copies of the fourth century originals at the Muscum of Dresden Inv. Nos. 326, 327. See also the copies in the National Archacological Museum of Athens Inv. Nos. 3622, 1827.

7)

Beazley & Ashmole

1932, Figs. 157. 158.

100 Sec Pliny HN 34.61-68.

225-226,

especially Fig.

189.

Sce,

however, a

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

161

quarter of the fourth century!9! is not of much help stylistically as it follows the general line of early fourth century drapery. Therefore, we must first concentrate on the reflection

of general artistic currents in the female figurines. Our study will later focus on the emergence of the style best reflected in the comparison of the Attic child figures in sculpture and terracottas dating to the fourth century B.C. However, it is necessary to give some criteria to distinguish the Pre-Tanagran phase from the Tanagra Style, the phases which it has been possible to determine stylistically in the female terracottas from the Athenian deposits by their stratigraphical context and comparing them with the general features encountered in the Hellenistic sculpture. All the earliest female figurines providing datable contexts come from the Agora (especially those

from the Demeter Cistern and the Coroplast's Dump)!0? and the Pnyx (Assembly Place, Period III and the City Wall, Compartment Period).! A typical stylistic feature of the early figurines, which we ascnbe to the Pre-Tanagran stage, is their general frontality, sometimes with slight contra posto.!% The chiton is often high-girded, the folds of drapery smooth, and the so-called melon coiffure!05 is preferred. The earliest pieces are fairly small from 8 to 15 cm in height. The figurines are usually made from one mould. The fact that vents were rarely used is due to the small

scale of the figurines in the earliest phase. The backs of these Athenian figurines are seldom moulded or even modelled,!06 and therefore terminus ante quem to 330 B.C. can be suggested. The most famous wholly preserved piece, Inv. No. T 1680 (PH. 98 mm, W. 32 mm),

of the early terracotta figurines of the type comes from the Coroplast’s Dump at the Agora.!97 (See Pl. IV: Fig. 3.). It represents a young woman or a girl standing wearing a high-girded chiton and a himation. The himation falls on the shoulders like a shawl, the

right arm is angled and the hand rests on the hip in a relaxed position. The left hand seems to be holding the himation. The lines of drapery are vertical and smooth. The hair is

combed in the "melon coiffure" with a braid around the back of the head. The overall expression has more in common with the graceful style of Praxiteles than Lysippos. The figurine is made with a front mould, the back being unmoulded and ventless. The clay is reddish orange, clearly Attic containing glittering mica. The frontal composition, the garments and their drapery as well as the hair style, the melon coiffure, with the technical features of the figurine, agree with the earliest limit of the deposit to 350-330 B.C. D.B. Thompson compares the figurine with one discovered from Rhitsona and a

fragment (Inv. No. T 1195) from the Acropolis Museum.!08 There also exists a comparable piece from the Tanagra excavations at the Danish National Museum (Inv. No. 866).109 (See Pl. V: Fig. 4.) When we compared the Athenian figurine with our example from Tanagra in Copenhagen (see Pls. IV and V) we noticed that apart from the general

101 See e.g. Diepolder 1931, 54, Taf. 51.1. 102 see the fourth century datings in Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, 183-185. 103

See again the fourth century datings of the contexts in Rotroff 1996, 39—40 and Karlsson 1996, 88.

104 Pnyx: Tj 1, T 11, T 92, T 93, T 95, T 96, T 99, T 105, T 106, T 145, T 165, T 167, T 170, T 183; North Slope: a-g 28 and Agora: T 101, T 1679, T 1692, T 1755, T 1756, T 1758, T 1861. 105 According to Thompson the so-called melon coiffure was B.C. See Thompson 1973, 27. 106

in fashion from

the mid-fourth century

Such examples as Tj 1, T 106 ,.T 1626 and T 1680 can be mentioned from the Pnyx and the Agora.

107

Cf. Thompson & Thompson

108

Thompson & Thompson ἄς Rotroff 1987, PI. 4.

& Rotroff 1987, 130-131, PI. 4:19.

109 See Breitenstein 1941, Pl. 66: 544

162

Minna Lönngvist

pose and the similarity in the drapery there are differences in several of the details. The figurine from Tanagra is standing on a square thin plinth. The body is standing in a S-axis with the head looking slightly to the left and down. The closed composition is more

detectable compared to the Athenian figurine. Beside the Praxitelean gracefulness the Copenhagen figurine shows the Lysippean influence in the closed composition and the

slendering body. The texture of the drapery in the Tanagran example is deeper and more detailed. Stylistically the figurine from Tanagra is later, the earliest date being the last quarter of the fourth century B.C. From the Pnyx two frontal examples, Inv. Nos. Tj 1 (PH. 63 mm, W. 36 mm) and T 106 (PH. 75 mm, W. 36 mm), probably originating from the same one sided mould (see Pl. VI: Figs. 5. and 6.), belong to the same category as T 1680 from the Agora. The

figurines represent a standing female wearing a chiton and a himation. The lines of drapery are smooth, and there are traces of white slip as well as pink (Tj 1) and purple (T 106) colour over the drapery. The clay is powdery, pale orange with mica. The right hand is holding the himation which is crossed on the left arm. The head is preserved in Tj 1,

but broken off in T 106. The preserved head

is dressed in the "melon

coiffure".

Comparable examples come not only from the Agora (T 1626), but are also known from the British Museum (Inv. No. C 308) and Wien Antikenkabinett (Inv. No. 1264).110

The aforementioned frontal female figurines come from fourth century contexts. These fourth century contexts from the Agora and the Pnyx also provide other figurines stylistically dating to c. 330 B.C. in which early contra posto ( e.g. T 1753), is already expressed, and the technique of double moulding (c.g. T 94) has been applied, but which

still belong to the Pre-Tanagran style. Inv. No. T 1753 (PH. 97 mm) comes from the Coroplast's Dump at the Agora.!!! It represents a female broken off at the waist wearing a chiton and a short himation tghtly wrapped around the body and held at left side. The figure is stepping forward, the left

foot advanced and the right leg angled under the chiton. The drapery still has smooth vertical lines. The figurine is made with two moulds, the back being fully modelled, which shows an advance in the technique. The clay is pale orange containing mica. Remnants of white paint can be traced on the surface. By a stylistic and technical analysis

the figurine can be dated around 330 B.C. To the same kind belongs a fragmentary figurine, Inv. No. T 94 (PH. 103 mm, W. 42 mm), from the Pnyx. It is a female wearing a chiton and himatton. The head and the right arm is missing, the left is angled to the hip. The treatment of the drapery is still smooth, although the lines are more diagonally arranged compared to our earlier examples. The figurine is made with two moulds, fully modelled from back, which shows progress in the technical evolution. No vent exists, but there are signs of glaze which suggests that the figurine has been attached to a separate base. The clay is pale orange containing mica. There are traces of white paint all over. By stylistic and technical analysis a date of c. 330

B.C. seems appropriate. The dating of the deposit, the Assembly Place, Period III, the lower limit being the time of Lycurgus (337-325/4 B.C.)!!?, supports the dating of the figurine. The Pre-Tanagran figurines from the Pnyx also comprise examples of early dancers: Inv. Nos. T 103 (PH. 55 mm) and T 107 (PH. 60 mm, W. 58 mm). These early dancers do not express any significant movement of the body ascribed to the Lysippean school of 110. Winter II, 1903, 55, Fig. 8. III

Thompson & Thompson & Rotroff 1987, Pl. 3:15.

ΕἸΣ See Davidson & Thompson 1943, LI2ff.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

163

art. The early examples found from the Pnyx reflect the fact that the dancer motif was already used in Athens during the formation period of the Tanagra style, even earlier. In

the collection of the Musem of Berlin there are a few Attic terracotta dancers.!!? Despite of the visible movement in the presentation, these figurines are clearly classical not showing any significant attention to naturalism. The appearance is quite plastic, the limbs approach those of dolls in style. These figurines give us interesting information, however, about a stage which the Attic terracottas had reached in style and technique during the middle of the 4th century B.C.

The dancing woman, Inv. No. T 103 (PH 55mm), from the Pnyx is wrapped in a himation covering her head and arms; her right hand is raised to cover the lower part of the face. The piece is made with the use of one mould and is of reddish-orange to buff clay containing mica with traces of white paint on the figure. It is thus of Attic origin. The date of early fourth century seems to be too early, and the third quarter of the fourth

century B.C. may be suggested.!!^ Another example, Inv. No. T 107 (H. 60 mm, W. 58 mrn, T 23 mm), also represents a draped dancing female wrapped in a himation. She rests her left hand on the hip, the drapery is flying behind. The figurine is made with one

mould, traces of a possible rectangular vent may be traced on the back. As the clay is pale-orange to buff containing mica the figurine belongs to the Attic production. Despite

the "flying drapery" according to the context (Assembly Place, Period III) and the technique the date would fall to the late fourth century B.C.!!5 The independent evolution process in Athens reflects the insular nature of the city and its apparent resistance towards influences from outside in the Pre-Tanagran stage. The indigenous Praxitelean sfumato is present, the influence of the Lysippean naturalism is still kept at bay. Technical differences in the early examples from Athens compared with

the later figurines from Tanagra are the rarity of vents and the absence of square plinths as a base for a figurine. The closed composition in the examples from Tanagra indicates the Lysippean influence, which does not occur in the Pre-Tanagran examples originating in Athens. The early Athenian pieces with their general frontality, sometimes with slight contra posto, express the Praxitelean graciousness.

The Tanagra Style and the Influence from Outside The advent of the closed composition and elaborate zigzag folds are visible in the so-

called last Attic grave stele (The National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Inv. No. 1005) found in the Ceramicus. It represents a headless standing draped female wearing a 113 See Rohde 1968, e.g. Abb. 20a-b. 114

This would also fit the context: Assembly Place, Period III.

115

Τῆς subject of dancers became especially popular in the Hellenistic world. The famous bronze statuette of a draped woman known as the "Baker Dancer" (H. 207 mm, W. at the bottom 127 mm) comes originally from Alexandria, but is now in private possession. See Thompson 1950, 371-385. It has much in common with the dancer T 103 from the Pnyx, although the clear movement is still missing in the latter. The "Baker Dancer", even executed in bronze, reflects the spirit of the Tanagra style in its acme. The date of the "Baker Dancer" is disputed varying from 250 B.C. to 150 B.C. See Pollitt 1988, 270, Fig. 292. A strikingly comparable figurine in terracotta (Siracusa M.A.R. Inv. No. 46829) comes from the necropolis of Centuripe in. Sicily and is dated to the second half of the third century B.C. See SG 1989, 173, 242, No. 368. In these statuettes the movement toward rotation on their axis and elaborate zig-zag folds have been combined in an exquisite manner expressing the naturalistic rules of the Lysippian school. Interestingly the features, so common in the third century terracottas of the Tanagra repertoire, are visible in the pieces of miniature bronze sculpturc.

164

Minna Lónnqvist

creppe chiton and a himation, which is arranged in zigzag folds at the waist. The right arm is angled to hold the himation near the right shoulder, the left is straight and wrapped in the himation. The woman is standing in clear contra posto. The relief is dated to c. 320 B.C. just preceding the sumptuary laws of Demetrius of Phalerum. It represents a composition related to the Herculaneum ladies attributed to the Lysippean school of art with the zigzag folds. The protruding hand near the face has much in common with the

statue of Sophocles recently dated to c. 340 B.C.,116 which dating in our view appears to be stylistically and historically too high, and therefore c. 330 B.C. is preferred. In this type we find the closed composition so typical for the Lysippean school of art and therefore the stylistic influence from outside may be deduced. The female figurines expressing the Tanagra style with a closed composition and

elaborate zigzag folds from the dated Athenian deposits come mainly from Menon's Cistern at the Agora.1!? This deposit yielded material from the last quarter of the fourth, but mainly from the third century B.C. Here we see the Tanagra style fully developed. Although the figurines have been clearly produced in Athens, the Macedonian impact is already present in the naturalism and the style of costumes reflecting the political situation. The style of these Athenian figurines is now the same as the famous statuettes discovered

in Tanagra and produced during the Macedonian hegemony. (See Pl. VIII: Fig. 9.). Most pieces at the Acropolis Museum! 8 belong to the respective mature style, and the standing female figurines from the Sanctuary of Nymphe on the South Slope! !? can also be attributed to this stylistic phase.

Two

especially

interesting

types

in the Athenian

figurines

representing

closed

composition are to be mentioned, namely an astragalos player and a female leaning on a column. Α few female examples of astragalos players are known to us from Athens. One female figurine Inv. No. Tk 86 in the Heidelberg collection comes from the West Slope of

the Acropolis. (See Pl. VII: Fig. 7.). The height of the figurine is 100 mm.!20 It is wearing a himation, the left shoulder being bare, and both hands as well as the head are missing. This piece has an unmistakable parallel, namely Inv. No. T 1447 (PH. 100 mm,

W. 61 mm) at the Acropolis Museum. This figurine which we have been able to scrutinize is fully modelled, probably made by two moulds. Both figurines have the same pose, but the Heidelberg example is much more plastic, the Acropolis figurine being elaborately retouched. We want to suggest, however, a common archetype for both. This is possible as we know that the Heidelberg example is known to have been found on the West Slope of the Acropolis, and the figurine from the Acropolis Museum is quite certainly from the area of the Acropolis. Furthermore the Heidelberg figurine has been identified by B. Neutsch as being made of Attic clay, and is

known to have parallels.!?! A comparable example, although with a plinth, is also known from Boeotia.!2? By the stylistic features and according to the technical details we would date these figurines to the last quarter of the fourth century B.C.

116 See Pollitt 1988, 60.

!1? See Miller 1974, 194-245. 118

Sce Casson & Brooke 1921, Nos. 1202-1462.

119 Ergon 1957, 10-11, Fig. 8. 120 Kleiner 1984, 54. [21

Sec Neutsch 1952, 54-56, Pl. 31.

122

Sue Higgins

1967, Pl. 44: A.

The

subject of the

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style knucklebone players became popular in the middle of the fourth century B.C.

165 and was

greatly favoured through the Hellenistic Period.! 2? Another example of the closed composition is a female leaning on a column, Inv. No. T 1451 (PH. 165 mm), from the area of the Acropolis.!?* She is wearing a chiton and a himation, which is passing over the left shoulder, under the right arm and across the waist to the front. She is leaning on a low square column with her nght arm, the left hand rests

on her hip. Her legs are crossed, the weight being on the left leg, the composition is closed the head inclined to the right and down. Besides the general pose, the triangle pattem composed by the drapery of the himation is interesting and seems to give some

guide lines for the dating. A similar pattern of the himation occurs in one terracotta fragment, Inv. No. AF 162 (PH 41 mm, W. 42 mm, T. 22 mm), from the North Slope. (See Pl. VIII: Fig. 8.). Only the waist of the female figure has been preserved. This triangle in the drapery of himation is also very common in the Ptolemaic oinochoai depicting draped Ptolemaic queens.

These faience oinochoai date to 270-230 B.C.!25 One example, Inv. No. T 4586, of the woman leaning on the column also comes from the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, and another representing an Aphrodite type comes from the Louvre (Inv. No.

MNB 550). We agree with R. Higgins, who dates these examples from Tanagra to 230 B.C.126 as a similar pose with the column occurs on a fragmentary relief beaker, Inv. No. P 408, found at the Agora in Áthens depicting Artemis. (See Pl. IX: Fig. 10.) The

fragment was found from an undisturbed filling containing bronze coins from 297-229 B.C. The type of drapery seems to date from the third century B.C. as well.!27 Finally we may conclude that a closed composition, in which a woman is leaning on a column, dates to the third century B.C., to the mature phase of the Tanagra style. From the stylistical and technical features both examples, namely the astragalos player

and the woman leaning on the column, are to be dated to the period of the Tanagra style (325-230 B.C.),

although the knucklebone players were already common in the middle

of the fourth century B.C.!28 Both types are attested from Tanagra as well. In these types we see the fusion of indigenous and foreign elements. The closed composition clearly

reflects the impact of the Lysippean school of art. The flying drapery represents the final stage of the Athenian Tanagras. There are several examples which could be ascribed as representing the "Nike of Samothrace" type, in which the wind 1s forcing the drapery against the body and the limbs. This rendering of drapery has clearly been derived from the Lysippean school of art, being even more pathetic. The Pnyx and the Agora offer the best types, Inv. Nos. T 193 and T 139. A fragment of a figurine, Inv. No. T 193 (H. 126 mm, W. 52 mm), from the Pnyx shows the right leg of a flying, female figure wearing a chiton with an overfold to the mid-leg.

The piece has been produced with two moulds, modelling finished with several retouches. The clay is reddish-orange and thus apparently Attic, with traces of pink and light blue on the chiton.

The fragment was discovered in the White Poros City Wall, and H.A. Thompson dated it to the third century B.C. which slightly differs from the present dating of the 123 Higgins 1967, 103. 124 See Higgins, 1967, Pl. 41: E. 125

See Thompson

1973 passim.

126 Higgins 1987, 145-146. 127

See Thompson

1934, 352-353.

128 Higgins 1967, 103.

166

Minna Lónnqvist

wall, as c. 200 B.C. has now been preferred for its construction.!2? Therefore the figurine may date to late third century, if found from the foundation deposits, or c. 200 B.C. from the stratigraphical point of view, which time-span is well in accordance with the stylistic and technical analysis of the fragment. Other good examples of the flying drapery are the Victory and the Erotes, Inv. No. T 139, displayed at the Stoa of Attalus II

Museum. This Victory from the Agora is dated to the third century B.C. which suits well the overall picture of the style. It is interesting that the influence of Lysippean naturalism on the Athenian Tanagras coincides with the expansion of Macedonian rule. We may say that the Tanagra style in its

real sense expresses the fusion of Athenian and outside elements. We doubt that the style would have emerged if it were not for the socio-cultural life seen in the artistic atmosphere of Athens, but the influence of Lysippos cannot be excluded in this mature stage.

4. The Focus of the Motifs on Youngish Genre and Gender Types The Analysis of the Motifs The most apparent feature of the Praxitelean and Lysippean influence on the Tanagra style, however,

is the choice of motifs. This new

emphasis on genre subjects is an

important change from the Classical motif repertoire to the Hellenistic art. The art did not have to depict the mythological world — the subjects of daily life were in vogue.

In the course of Alexander the Great's conquests in the East insecure elements in life and the movement of people affected the roles of wives and mothers; as safeguarders of the oikos they became more important than they had been earlier in the Greek world. In the Hellenistic era the old social rules were abandoned and along this women's liberties were enlarged. These changes did not affect as quickly the Greek mainland, especially Athens which was fairly closed concerning the influences which came from outside the polis.130 New elements in the Athenian social structure are detectable, however, which is well attested in the New Comedy. The New Comedy reflects the social changes in

Athens.3! The family and private values become more visible in this era compared to the Classical time. In the theatre, the typical characters during the Hellenistic Period are genre types: the nurse, the cook, the soldier, the parasite and the hetaira — popular subjects in the terracotta motifs as well. The evidence of this focus on the Athenian oikos, the private world of the polis citizens, is restricted not only to the theatre, but is also well attested in other fields of

the arts, such as in sculpture, especially preserved in the funerary art, along with the rise

of the Hellenistic Period.!3? What is striking in both sources of material, i.e. the sculptural art and the terracottas of the third quarter of the fourth century, 1s the prominent number of pieces depicting children. When we come to the fourth century as the inexpensive statuettes of this genre

129 Conwell 1996, 96. 130

Ferguson

131

Cf. Ferguson

1911, 72.

132

Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1986, 144-145. The emphasis in private values were not only restricted in arts, but were also present in private associations. See Dr. Marttı Leiwo's article in this volume.

1911, 72. See also Ms. Erja Samenkivi's article in this volume.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

167

type become popular, children especially get more focus in art; earlier in the Archaic and

Classica] Period their role was mainly attributive.!5? This is a typical feature of the Hellenistic Age which favoured children and their gaiety

in art.!34 The Erotes or putti can be included to this motif repertoire. The

analysis of the motif division

(Table

1) of the early

Athenian

Tanagras

is

interesting. We have only taken those figurines in account, which have come from the fourth and third century contexts. In the Athenian deposits the motif repertoire!?5 is clearly concentrated to women and children. The group of various other terracottas chiefly contains dramatic figurines of a different kind. TABLE Women

1 Men

Children

"Various others

AGORA Coroplast's Dump Hedgehog Well Demeter Cistern

27 4 5

Menon's Cistern

22

PNYX Pnyx and Thesmophorion

3

3

8

Period III

17

3

2

City Wall Compartment Periad

3

Area of the Sanctuary

]

NORTH SLOPE CERAMICUS

7 13

2 2

2 2 2

36 6 5

22

27

Assembly Place

|

a

00...

1

2

2 |

12.

14 4

11 -᾿

58

If we compare these depositional finds with the museum

86 pieces of the Acropolis,

which do not offer a natural selection and division of the figurines,

we can find some

differences. There are more men than children in the Acropolis collection: ACROPOLIS

MUSEUM

39

8

9

[3

The focus of the Athenian figurines on youngish genre and gender types with the

concentration in women and children leaves us with the question: why did the Athenian coroplasts favour these motifs? H.J.P. Uhlenbrock has suggested that the Greek word "coroplast" literally means “modeller of girls", and therefore seems to indicate this focus of the terracotta production from very early times.!?9 Although Uhlenbrock's direction in 133

Lawrence

1927, 9. 16.

134 polit 1988, 128. 135

We have taken both figurines and moulds into account.

136 Uhlenbrock 1992, 20.

168

Minna Lónnqvist

the content of the Tanagra style is evidently correct, her etymological approach concerning

the word "coroplast" is disputable.!?? The analysis of stylistic and technical features of the figurines with the contextual approach may cast some further light on the problem.

The Focus on Young Girls and Boys in Attic Sculpture In sculptural art there is also a striking focus on young girls and boys in Athens and

the surrounding Attica during the Hellenistic Period. The sculpture consists mainly of funerary stelai and votive statues. These children usually hold some votive offering in their hands: mostly birds. The girls typically wear a high-girded chiton, and boys wear a chlamys or have been wrapped in a himation. Boys have curly hair, and girls’ hair is either left to fall in natural curls sometimes crowned with a stephane or braided into a

melon coiffure. A good collection of votive statues and funerary stelai can be seen in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens ( Inv. Nos. 300, 304, 693, 695, 1155, 1128,

1424, 2772 and Nos. in Conze!38 827, 831). We wish to concentrate on a few funerary examples in the collection of the National

Archaeological Museum of Athens. One is the marble Stele of Mnesiptoleme (H. 860

mm, W. 320 mm).!?? This relief depicts a small girl with a curly hair wearing a stephane on her head with her face turned to the left. She is dressed in chiton and in her left hand she is holding a ball and in the right one the wing of a bird. Apart from the subject with its stylistical elements in the relief, the stele can be dated by

the inscription IG II/III2 5820 Μνησιπτολέμη Νικοστράτου 'Ayapvéog occurring in it. Dating has been given in which this stele is attributed to the third century B.C.!40 However, in our opinion the stele can be stylistically dated to the latter part of the fourth

century B.C. !4! In the National Archaeological Museum of Athens there is also another stele of a young girl Inv. No. 1128 which has been dated to the fourth century B.C.,!42 but without an inscription the dating remains fairly tentative. Stele of Plangon TIAANTQN, Inv. No. GL. 199 (H. 738 mm, W. 530 mm) at the München Glyptothek belongs to the same Hellenisuc type. (See Pl. X: Fig. 11.) It is cut out of Pentelic marble and found in the

neighbourhood of the Syntagma Square in Athens and therefore probably originating from Athens.!43 On the basis of our stylistic and palaeographic analysis of the occurring inscription the dating concerning the Stele of Bularche, a comparable representation of a girl occurring in Conze's catalogue,!44 seems to fall into the late Hellenistic Period, the second century B.C.!45 The Metropolitan Museum of Art also furnishes an example of a

137

In the case of κοροπλάθος the ancient lexicographer not only refer to the feminine but also to the masculine etymology: kore/ koros = kouros. See e.g. Suda 2100.1 ff.

138

See Conze 1900 (2).

139 Conze 1900 (2) No. 827, Pl. CLXI. 140

Conze 1900 (2) No. 827.

[41

Paleography does not exclude a date to this period, as Dr. Martii Lerwo kindly informed us. This is

also the date given in the IG II/III? edition.

142 Conze 1900 (2) No. 828, Pl. CLXII. 143 Vierneisel 1988, Taf. 51-54. 144° Conze 1900 (2) No. 831. Pl. CLXIII. 145

We owe the thanks for the palaeographic analysis to Dr. Martti Leiwo in this instance as well.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

169

girl, Inv. No. 44.11.3, in the so-called Group of New York, which originally may have stood in an Attic grave stele.146 The Museum of Brauron connected with the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron also has a notable collection of votive statues depicting young girls (e.g. Inv. Nos. 60/1158, 62/1169). The collection has been dated to the Hellenistic Period. It is known that these statues depict young girls serving as arktoi i.e. bears in the Sanctuary of Artemis. There

also are a few good examples of the "arktos type" elsewhere, of which one is a votive statue of a girl with a dove, Inv. No. GL.

490 ( H.

1050 mm, W.

305 mm), bought in

Rome but made of Pentelic marble and now at the München Glyptothek.!47 (See Pl. XI: Fig. 12.). What is important to note in this connection is that the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron was meant for Athenian girls. Besides the statues depicting girls there is also a marble statue of a young boy wearing a cloak at Brauron.!48 Outside Athens and Attica, the Museum of Ioannina has a small collection as well. It includes both girls and boys. The

collection of Ioannina originates from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona, which shows a connection with Athenian politics in the second half of the fourth century B.C.!4?

The Focus on Young Girls and Boys in Athenian Terracottas It is interesting to note how the iconography of the terracottas representing young girls and boys in the Early Hellenistic Athens is identical in nature to the sculptures described

above, especially to those of a votive character. Àn interesting terracotta parallel for the aforementioned votive statue (GL 490) from München is a figurine holding a bird T 1823 found at the Agora. (See Pl. XI: Fig. 12. and Pl. XII: Fig. 13.).

The child figurines unearthed from the North Slope of the Acropolis

are clearly

connected to the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite. We know that they were found in a

deposit close to the "stereos",!50 but exact stratigraphical information concerning the figurines remains scanty, and hence the terracottas can only be dated by their stylistic

features.!5!

From

the thirteen

fragmentary

figurines

discovered

in the same

spot

connected with the Sanctuary on the North Slope eight (Figs. 5-b-g in Broneer 1933; Inv.

No. AF 88, Inv. No. AF 290) are young boys and five (Inv. Nos. AF 34, AF 80, AF 85 AF 87, AF 269) are girls with round faces representing an early Hellenistic type. The figure 5-b has curly hair and resembles a child figure (Inv. No.

AF 34) also found from

the North Slope, and 5-g resembles a boy (Inv. No. AF 290) with curly hair wrapped in a himation right arm streched to the chin. (See P]. XIII: Figs. 14. and 15.). The Pnyx also

offers a parallel (Inv. No. T 13) for the figurine AF 290. (See Pl. XIII: Fig. 16.). Both of the figurines represent the same type as the statue of Sophocles for which we preferred

the dating to c. 330 B.C. All the figurines from the North Slope, the height in some cases under 100 mm, are frontal and seem to belong to the Pre-Tanagran formative period (c. 350—330 B.C.) in Athens.

146 See Richter 1944, 229-239. 147

Vierneisel & Vierneisel & Schlórb 1988,Taf. 25-26.

148 See Praktika 1950, 181. 149

See Thompson

150

Broneer

1982, 155-162. See especially the connection with Athens on p. 161.

151

We have been able to analyse searches it has been impossible The reason might bc that some numbers, and therefore in those

1933, 335.

most of the figurines from the North Slope, but despite careful to trace all the examples in the store rooms of the Stoa of Attalos Il. of the figurines from the early excavations do not have any inventory cases we only give bibliographical references.

170

Minna Lónnqvist

One terracotta find of a special nature was discovered at the second entrance to the cave in the east associated to the Sanctuary. It is a naturalistically modelled baby (L. 65 mm, PH. 31 mm) sleeping on a cliff (?). It has been made with two moulds and hollowed without a vent. The baby's feet and arms are bare, its knees are drawn up and the head

resting on the hands. À piece of cloth is loosely wrapped over the figure. The clay is reddish-orange, front pale yellow, traces of white slip and paint remain. The reddish-

orange colour and the mica confirm that the origin of the figurine is clearly Attic. The style shows advanced naturalism and thus reflects the spread of the Lysippean influence on Attic art. From a stylistic and technical point of view the figurine cannot be from the Pre-

Tanagran era, therefore the earliest possible dating is c. 330—320 B.C. Another small collection of child figurines has been discovered at the Ceramicus (Inv. Nos. T 863, T 867, T 909, T 940, T 943). Made with one mould an almost complete figure of a seated small girl Inv. No. T 863 (H. 82 mm) wearing a high-girded chiton with drapery showing straight lines has been found at a building near the Sacred Gate and the Dipylon. The hair is collected into a small knot behind. The clay is typically reddishorange suggesting Attic origin. Traces of white slip are recognizable. A fragment of a similar seated, headless small girl (Inv. No. T 943) wearing a high-girded chiton, the right arm angled on the stomach and the left hand holding a himation belongs also to this recently discovered collection.

The excavations at the Pnyx have provided two similar examples Inv. Nos. T 5a-b (PH.

56 mm,

W. 44 mm, T. 28 mm;

PH.

43 mm,

W.

32 mm,

T.

15 mm)

of sitting

young girls with high-girded chiton, the right hand angled on the stomach and the left resting on the hip. The folds of the garments are fairly straight, except from the knees downward. (See Pl. XIV: Figs. 17. and 18.). They have been made with one, apparently common, mould, both figurines having vertical vents in the back. The clay is pale orange, powdery and contains mica, and therefore clearly Attic.

The Acropolis Museum also possesses two similar examples of the sitting terracotta girl, namely Inv. No. T 1422 (PH. 89 mm, PW. 44 mm) and Inv. No. T 1424 (PH. 77 mm, W. 47 mm), wearing a high-girded chiton and the right arm angled on the stomach.

Traces of white are evident on these figures. Another similar type is known to be in the collection of the Museum at Eleusis in Attica.152 A similar kind of example Inv. No. 4673 (H. c. 100 mm) of a complete sitting terracotta girl with a high-girded chiton originates from Tanagra and is now in the collection of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.!53 (See Pl. XV: Fig. 19.). The preserved head has curly hair, on which she is wearing a wreath. This piece of fine workmanship presented in very elaborate drapery 15 of reddish-orange clay with some mica on the plinth. Traces of white engobe all over, as well as light blue paint on the plinth and seat, grayish blue on face, red on hair and wreath are still visible. Judging from the Attic parallels and the clay of the figurine we may here

have an Athenian imported figurine from Tanagra. It is quite apparent that the type of the sitting small girl with a high girded chiton is originally an Attic one. The type is very frontal. The one from the Ceramicus and the two from the Pnyx seem stylistically earlier than the one in the collection of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens which has been elaborately retouched. The stratigraphical information of the contexts also supports an early date for the examples from the Ceramicus: late fourth, early third century B.C. filling. 152 See Thompson 1966, Pl. 18, Fig. 9. 153

We want to extend our thanks to the keepers of the terracotta collection Archaeological Museum of Athens for permission to study the figurine.

in

the

National

Heilenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style A fragment of a boy or girl figurine Inv. No. T 909 (PH. flowers and leaves on the hair, draped

in a himation, which

171

70 mm) with curly hair, is streched over the chin,

represents especially fine workmanship in the new collection at the Ceramicus.

We

consider it to be a boy figurine, because it is wearing a cloak. The figurine is made with one mould, back unmodelled. The clay is beige-orange.

The most exquisite collection of terracottas expressing the refined Tanagra style has been unearthed from the Menon's Cistern at the Agora.!54 The finds not only include figurines of the Tanagra style at its height, especially complete female figures and fragments of cloaked young boys. Judging from their faces the boys can be considered to

be quite young. The boys are wearing a short chiton and a chlamys which has been fastened with a button over the right shoulder. (See Pl. VIII: Fig. 9.) On their feet the

boys are wearing high boots of the Macedonian style. The impression of the figurines is very sculptural and refined. Miller has classified the head-dresses of the boys in three

categories: (1) a plump beret, (2) a thick wreath and (3) a diadem of feathered wreath.!55 According to the closing date of the cistern, at the time of the Chremonidean War of 265-

261 B.C.,159 we get a terminus ante quem for the figurines. The influence from outside Athens, namely that of Macedonia, is visible in the style and in the costumes of the figurines

5. The Contexts of the Discoveries Related to the Motifs Fertility Cults It is interesting to look closer at the artistic appearance of the terracottas and their relation to the contexts of the discoveries. As mentioned, an analysis of the motifs in

relation to the contextual approach of the figurines has been neglected in the earlier studies of the Athenian

figurines.

When

we

consider

those

figurines,

which

are not

in any

relation to the production process, we approach the social significance of the figurines in their daily use. In Athens a certain social picture, or more specifically a religious pattern of the locations, can be attained from the studied figurines together with contextual information.

Our main areas are the Thesmophorion,!57 Panathenaic Way!3® connected with the Agora!>? and the Acropolis crowned with the temple of Parthenon,!60 Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite on the North Slope,!6! the Sanctuary of Nymphe!62 and the Asclepieion!$3 on the South Slope of the Acropolis as well as the neighbourhood of the Sacred Way at the Ceramicus.!94 That all these places have been used for ritual purposes 154 See Miller 1974, 194—245. 155 Miller 1974, 212. 156 Miller 1974, 134.

157 Thompson 1936, 183-184. 158

See Travlos, 1971, 422—423.

159 See Travios 1971, 22.

160 See Acropolis in Travlos 1971, 54, 71. [61 162 163 164

Broneer 1932, 33-44 and 1933, 330-338. See also Travlos 1971, 228-231. See Travlos 1971, 361-363. See Travlos 1971, 126-137. See Travlos 1971, 299-303.

172

Minna Lónnqvist

is evident not only because of archaeological indications but also according to historical

sources. The sites consistently offer us concentrations of terracotta figurines ascribed both to the Pre-Tanagran and the Tanagra Style.!65 (See Pl. XVI: Fig. 20.) The Sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophoros has been located in the area of the Pnyx Hill,

especially in connection with the Assembly Place.!66 It was the place where the Athenian women gathered during the autumn festival of Thesmophoria. It is interesting to note that the area of the Pnyx, the site of the Thesmophorion connected with the Assembly Place at

Athens, also provides us with terracotta material of the Pre-Tanagran and the Tanagra style, and the motif repertoire is especially focused on female figurines. This is in accordance with the politico-religious significance of the festival of Thesmophoria. From the historical sources we know that Thesmophoria belonged to the oldest religious festivals in the Greek world. The association of beautifully draped Demeter, the

goddess of corn, with the queen of the dead as personified in her daughter KorePersephone, is clear. Demeter and Kore-Persephone

were Thesmophoroi,

life-givers,

guardians of home and the social laws of the oikos. The Thesmophoria was especially significant for the women of the polis from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period. As a fertility drama concerning the nature it was attributed to the women of the polis, who gave birth to the citizens. The drama was to

ensure the continuity of the fecundity of the citizens and the fertility of nature.!97 The Tanagras representing well-born women is the most popular subject of the style at its acme. The Thesmophoria was particularly meant for well-born Athenian ladies. The Tanagras depict gracious ladies holding wreath of flowers or kalathos on their heads. Baskets of fruits or babies in their arms are understandable attributes of fertility in the

light of the contextual evidence presented in this study. It must be stressed that Athens was the centre of the death and revival festivals connected with Demeter and Kore-Persephone. What is important to note here is that beside the Thesmophoria the Eleusinian Mysteries presented the religious fertility drama

of the Greeks symbolizing death and rebirth according to the Demeter and KorePersephone myth.!68 Eleusis in Attica was the major centre of the Demeter cult,!6? and beside the Mysteries of the Eleusinian type the Athenian festival of Demeter Thesmophoros also became one of the most popular religious cults in the Greek

world.!79 Apart from the fact that the terracotta figurines provide archaeological evidence 165

The identification of cultic activities would be much more difficult, if the character of all the sites were comprised of other functions as well. Only the Agora and the Pnyx were places especially distinguished by socio-political activities which, however, also were connected with religious festivals. See more of the archaeological identification of religious activities in Renfrew 1985 and

Renfrew 1994 passim. D.B. Thompson shortly referred to the connection of some Tanagra figurines with sites of Demeter cult, but she did not scrutinize the subject further and did not discuss the character of other contexts. See Thompson 1966, 58. 166

Thompson 1936, 183—192. J. Travlos, however, tentatively locates Thesmophorion somewhere in the neighbourhood of Eleusinion and does not discuss H.A. Thompson's identification of the

sanctuary on the Pnyx Hill. See Travlos, 1971, 198. A number of scholars basing their views on Aristophanes! Thesmophoriazusae, however, 1983, 18 and also C. Kalligas 1996, 3.

agree

with

Thompson's

identification.

167

See Kane 1992, 68. See also Detienne 1989, 129.

168

See Demeter and Kore-Persephone myth in relation to the ancient mysteries c.g. Meyer 45. Sce also Pakkanen 1996.

169 See a recent study concerning the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore

124.

170 Field 1977, 53.

at Eleusis in Clinton

See

Simon

1987, 1993,

171{{}-

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

173

connected with Thesmophoria, the vicinity of the Sacred Way leading to Eleusis is unmistakable in the contexts of the finds cleared at the Ceramicus. At the foot of the Acropolis there also existed another Eleusinion,!?! the counterpart of the famous sanctuary at Eleusis. The sanctuary was situated on the northwestern slope leading to the Propylaia of the Acropolis on the eastern side of the Panathenaic Way.

There the great procession to Eleusis started.!?? A votive relief (S

1251) depicting

Eleusinian divinities has been discovered from the Agora, and this clearly indicates that the rites connected with the Eleusinian mysteries were also connected with the life of the Agora. That the West Slope of the Acropolis has provided figurines of the Tanagra style (i.e. the so-called Heidelberg collection) can be understood in the light of the cults connected with Eleusinion. It is known that the great procession to Eleusis also gathered between Dipylon and the Sacred Gate in the Ceramicus. From the gate the Sacred Way led to Eleusis, where the

sanctuary of Demeter and Kore served as a centre of the mysteries.!?? That the German excavations have revealed several Tanagra figurines near Dipylon and the Sacred Gate in the Ceramicus seems to point to their function in the Eleusinian rituals. The discoveries at

Eleusis itself have also yielded terracotta figurines which can be classified to the Tanagra style. The Cave of Pan at Eleusis containing terracotta figurines!?4 of the Tanagra style is of special interest in this context. In Greek religion the god Pan is known to have had the

power to give or deny protection and fertility to animals. His person and actions are connected with the goddess Aphrodite with whom he, according to Greek thinking, had

common areas of operation. Those two gods were also joined in religious ceremonies.!75 This gives us another contextual evidence ascribed to the Demeter cult as a fertility cult. That mysteries of Demeter also contained special initiation rites at Eleusis!?6 characterizes this fertility cuit as a mystery cult, like the Dionysiac mysteries.

The iconography of the Hellenistic statues presenting Demeter and Kore-Persephone in the Mediterranean world corresponds strikingly to the well-born ladies of the Tanagra style,!7? especially those dated to the third century B.C. The fact that in Sicily, the home site of Demeter and Kore-Persephone

myth,

figurines representing ladies is pre-eminent!?? terracotta idols in their ancient functions.

the amount

and quality of the Tanagra

and reminds

the significance of the

The appearance of the Tanagra figurines in the Asclepieion on the Southern Slope of

the Acropolis is in accordance with our study of the other contexts bearing evidence of fertility cult in Attica. Asclepius as a healing god was considered to have an influence on problems of fecundity, as is attested by the nature of some dedications in the

sanctuary.!?? The archaeological recognition of a cult must be based on the contexts and the character of finds associated with them. Occasional indication or plausible suggestions from the 171

See the location of Eleusinion in Travlos 1971, 198-203.

172

Wycherley 1978, 71.

173 Simon 1983, 32. 174 Higgins 1967, 99. 175

See Borgeaud 1988, 75. The remote myth still exists in the fairy tale of the Beauty and the Beast.

176 See Burkert 1985, 285-290. 177

We want to ask whether the Herculanean ladies, looking like large-scale Tanagras, were actually expressions of the Demeter and Kore-Persephone iconography. See also note 98.

178 See e.g. Guido 1967, 108.

179 See Aleshire1989, 41 and 46, 155-156.

174

Minna Lónnqvist

museum pieces are not sufficient grounds on which to infer a religious meaning for the

artefacts. Terracotta ladies of the Pre-Tanagran and Tanagra style consistently occur in the places of the Demeter cult and are clearly connected with the ritual. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Acrocorinth for example has also yielded terracotta figurines of the Tanagra type,!8° which supports the connection of the figurines with the cult. The same applies to other sanctuaries dedicated to Demeter and Kore-Persephone around the Mediterranean world. The human character of most of the figurines speaks of their votive nature: they are generally images of the worshippers and occasionally images of deities!8! - in the case of the Thesmophoria the images of well-born Athenian ladies were preferred. It seems that Attica as a leading centre for the festivals attributed to Demeter was also leading the way in the production of the votive figurines in other parts of the Hellenistic world. The festivals of Demeter were meant for women, which is in accordance with the motifs connected with the fertility cult.

Initiation Rites Defining the Age of Fertility We know that the Athenians had special rites de passage in which the members of society were submitted to role-defining oaths in a political context: in the acquisition of

citizenship, starting military service at eighteen or in taking a public office of the polis.!82 The importance of different roles was emphasized in Athenian art already in the Classical Period.!85 It has to be pointed out that in the initiation rites concerning the age categories it is not, however, solely question of religious meaning, they also had a clear sociopolitical significance for the members of the society as role defining rites. Religion served the socio-political ranking of the citizens into certain roles and

statuses,

which

meant

increase of rituals in social settings.

The fact that the Greek way of religious thinking stressed age categories of girls and boys is well attested in the archaeological material; it is expressed in sculpture, terracotta figurines and pottery painting. The arktoi were the youngest girls to serve in the Attic

sanctuaries.!94 The age of the Athenian girls who served in the Temple of Artemis at Brauron

as arktot, i.e. bears,

is somewhat

controversial. The textual evidence,

which

suggests an age between five and ten for arkteia,'85 is in accordance with the artistic appearance presented on sculptures of Brauron, the Tanagras of Athens and the paintings on krateriskoi. Krateriskoi, kantharoi and skyphoi seemed to have a special function in the initiation rites concerning the age categories of the Athenians.!8© The Menon's Cistern at the Agora, besides containing the figurines of the initiation character, has provided

kantharoi and skyphoi 18? of the so-called West Slope ware style. 180

See Stroud 1965.

181

See the distiction between a cult image and a votive in an archaeological context in Renfrew 1985,

22-24. 182

Humphreys

1983, 251.

183 See Pollitt 1988, 59. 184 See Ar. Lys. 641—645. 185

Aristophanes only mentions the ages seven and ten. Ar. Lys. 641—645. However the authencity of the passage has been challenged. Scholars have preferred the ages from five to ten. See SourvinouInwood 1988, 15, 25-26. See also Vernant 1992, 217.

186 See Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 39-48.

187 See Miller 1974, 200-203.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

175

The statues of arktoi already presented in the connection with the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron clearly depict the central role of small girls in the polis festivals. Athenian girls

were expected to participate in the Bear ritual before their marriage.!98 In addition to the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron, the Sanctuary of Artemis at Munichia was also dedicated to the initiation of Athenian arkteia as well as young boys.18? We want here to stress the stylistic similarity of the arkzeia to the girls presented on the Athenian terracottas, especially those terracottas discovered at the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite, as well as at the Ceramicus and the Agora in connection with the Panathenaian Way and the Sacred Way leading to Eleusis. Besides the statues of small girls, representing "bears", who were connected with the

Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron until some of them were married, wedding-vases loutrophoroi and nuptial lebetes belong to the character of the sanctuary.!99 Our contextual analysis of the terracottas also clearly points to the character of the sites as places of initiation rites and fertility cult. That plenty of Tanagra figurines have been found from the Acropolis seems to point to the initiation rites and fertility cults connected with the area as well. It has to be emphasized that besides the temples of Athena Parthenos connected with arrephoria there also existed the shrine of Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis,!?! which explains the existence of some figurines representing young girls

of the arktoi type. As has been stated in several studies, marriage meant same to girls as war did to boys, and

thus

the preparation

of the

girls

for

marriage

and

boys

to ephebes

is also

archaeologically well documented in the votive finds of Attica. As we have shown there is evidence of boy votaries not only from the Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron, but also

from the temple of Zeus at Dodona. The Sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona bears evidence of a clear connection with Athenian politics and offers bronze statues of young boys who were promised to the goddess Dione at birth and dedicated until reaching puberty. These pieces

of sculpture have been dated to the late fourth century B.C. By stylistic comparison to the finds from Brauron and Athens, Thompson assumes that the sculptors of these statues

had worked in Attica.!92? The sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona offers contextual evidence of the mentioned votive statues used in the cult of Dione, wife of Zeus and according to some tradition mother of Aphrodite. These pieces of sculpture represent children bringing offerings, especially doves, to Dione. In the tradition regarding the offerings to the Mother Earth the doves

play a special role as votive gifts. The blood of doves was also known to have been used in the purification of the Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Athens. D.B. Thompson has soundly concluded that those Attic grave stelai from the fourth century B.C. representing children with doves refer to the ancient Aphrodite and the Mother Earth cult!93 — the allusion to the goddess also being clearly detectable in the Demeter cult. The sacrificial birds were thanksgivings for offspring.!?^ The iconography of the grave stelai, votive statues and 188

According to K. Dowden and J.-P. Vernant all the Athenian girls participated in the rituals. See Dowden 1989, 26 and also Vernant 1992, 219. L.B. Zaidman & P.S. Pantel 1992, 67 however, disagree.

189 Dowden 1989, 112. 190

See Webster 1972, 28).

191 See Travlos 1971, 54. 192 "Thompson 1982, 157-160.

193 Thompson 1982. 155-156. 194 See Lawrence 1927. 16.

176

Minna Lönngvist

the terracotta figurines representing children is parallel, some of the child figurines even hold birds in their hands. (See Pls. XI and XII.) Hence the stylistic similarity and the

content seem to indicate the common social and religious significance of the statues and the figurines depicting children. The Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite on the North Slope of the Acropolis provides us

with statuettes of children also reflecting the importance of reproductivity which naturally connected with such gods as Eros and Aphrodite.

The Sanctuary

is

is located

approximately in the middle of the North Slope beneath the place where the Acropolis wall turns obtusely in the site of the postern gate of the Mycenean Period. The sanctuary

was distinguished by two inscriptions found in situ.!95 E. Simon!?6 with some other scholars has suggested that the Sanctuary was used for the arrephoria rituals connected with goddess Athena. From Pausanias' account we know

that arrephoria was a secret rite for which the Athenians selected two girls to dwell on the Acropolis near the Parthenon. Arrephoroi were supposed to weave a peplos for Athene for the Great Panathenaia. ἃ secret underground passage leading from the Acropolis

being adjacent to the Aphrodite of the Gardens used in the rituals of arrephoria!?? seems to point to the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite which has provided evidence of such a passage.!?9 It has been suggested that the girls as maidens (in connection with Athena Parthenos 1.6. the Maiden of the polis) participated in an initiation rite in which they

departed from childhood.!?? The life of a maiden, parthenos, at the menarche, when girls developed to gyne, was of special importance for the Athenian girls. The earliest age for

menarche was 12 years, but the most common age was 14200 as the age of puberty was considered to be 13.201 We find both earlier interpretations, namely the fertility rite as well as rites de passage connected with Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite suitable. We do not see that these rites basically contradict each other, as the initiation rites concern age categories in which there is also the question of reproductivity. We are inclined to believe that the terracotta boys

discovered in Menon's Cistern20? at the Agora are the male counterparts of arkteia or arrephoroi. The age and the costumes of the boys clearly point to their character as initiates. In our view the boys do not, however, seem to be ephebes, because they do not

wear the suggested black chlamys for the memory of Theseus?9? or a petasos, the wellknown brimmed hat, an attribute of the ephebes. In our view the terracotta boys seem to belong to the age category more or less before ephebes. S. Miller has also pointed to the contextual vicinity and iconographical similarity of the terracottas with the votive relief (S 1251) of Eleusinian character at the Agora

depicting initiates, who are especially similar to the cloaked boys.?0^ Here we see how the fertility cult and the initiation rites concerning age categories were closely interwoven

195

Broneer 1932, 33, 43, 44.

196 Simon 1983, 39-41. 197

Paus. 27.2-3.

198 Simon 1983, 40. 199 Simon 1983, 40; sec also Dowden 1989, 26. 200 201

See Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 77 and Dowden 1989, 30. See e.g. the age of puberty in Pl. Leg. 833c-4.

202 Miller 1974, 194-248. -03 See Vidal & Naquet 1981,151-175. 204 Miller 1974. 216.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

177

in Athenian life. The evidence of the statues depicting cloaked boys discovered in the sanctuaries, where initiation rites were performed, seems to confirm this assumption. In addition to the figurines of young women in the age of their marriage, the Sanctuary

of Nymphe has also offered some male figurines?05 of clear Tanagra type. These are young men, and not boys as those described above. We want here to emphasize

the

marital significance of the Sanctuary of Nymphe. Besides the terracottas the sanctuary has yielded loutrophoroi, wedding vases, indicating the marital function of the sanctuary.206 Before the marriage, gamos, both bride and groom were supposed to take a ritual bath for which the water was carried in loutrophoroi from the spring of Kallirhoe Southeast of the Acropolis.207 Here again the figurines of the Tanagra type occur in a religious sanctuary having clear connection with the reproductivity of the citizens and their change from a social role to another serving the purposes of the polis in particular rites de passage. As earlier stressed the most common subjects used in the Tanagra repertoire were those of the genre types; beside the women and children which we have clearly presented, the old nurse type also seems to belong to the Tanagra style because of its motif. To the special figurines of divine character connected to the subject repertoire may also be added

terracotta statuettes representing Eros and Aphrodite, and according to our contextual study also such mythical figures as Demeter, Kore-Persephone and Artemis. In these figurines the execution of the Tanagra technique is well attested. In the light of the functional evidence of the figurines, we are inclined to include the aforementioned divine motifs to the Tanagra style. But as earlier stated those of a pure theatrical character we excluded from the style concept, although it is known that the theatre was connected to the cult of Dionysos, and, therefore, to the cult of vegetation and

the underworld.208 The contextual evidence of the Athenian Tanagras of genre type, however, clearly shows no connection to the dramatic festivals — as far as our evidence shows there are not any substantial examples of Tanagra figurines from the deposits from

theatrical constructions. Dramatic figurines do not appear in connection to the fertility or initiation rites either. The only ritual affinity is found in the funerary contexts. In addition to the evidence concerning the production of the terracotta figurines

discovered in Athens and ascribed to the Tanagra style, the contexts of the majority bear evidence of a clear sacred character connected with Attic festivals concerning the Demeter cult or initiation rites concerning age categories of the citizens. This association of the initiation rites with fertility cult among the Greeks has been lucidly stated by W. Burkert: "Puberty initiation, agrarian magic, and sexuality may unite in the great experience of life

overcoming death." 209 Here it is interesting to notice the difference in the Athenian contextual evidence of the

Tanagra figurines and that of other sites in the Greek world. Unlike in Boeotia,2!9 Sicily?! and Alexandria?!? the funeral context of the figurines is less prevalent in Athens. The fact that great numbers of terracotta figurines of the Tanagra style have been 205

Unfortunately, we were not able to see the collection, because it was under the study of another

scholar.

206 See Ergon 1957, 10-11. 207

7aidman & Pantel 1992, 68.

208

See e.g. Otto 1965 passim.

209 Burkert 1985, 277. 210 See e.g. Higgins 1967, 101. 211

See e.g. the necropolis of Solunto and Centuripe in SG

212 See e.g. the necropolis of Chatby, Breccia 1912 passim.

1989, 36, 201, 241-242.

178

Minna Lónnqvist

found in tombs in the surrounding Mediterranean area, may be explained by the chthonic nature of Demeter and Kore-Persephone. The deceased were called “Demetreioi”, those

who belong to the Mother of Grain and rest in the womb of the Goddess.?!? Sicily in particular was seen as the home of Kore-Persephone - who became the redemptive goddess of the dead. In the cuit the death is present in nature during the winter time, when Kore-Persephone is dwelling in the underworld. The triumph of life becomes the theme of resurrection actualizing in the spring time, when Kore-Persephone is released.214 That dramatic terracotta figurines appear in same funerary contexts as the Tanagras can be explained by the chthonic nature of Dionysos not only being the god of vegetation,

fertility and death,?!5 but also the patron god of the theatre and its festivals. Both Demeter and Dionysos were central gods in Greek mysteries and sharing similar objectives2!$ the closeness of their rituals is understandable. According to present evidence, it seems, that Demeter and Kore-Persephone as chthonic goddesses, had only slight funerary significance in the function of the Attic

figurines. Some museums?! ? have collections originating from the tombs of Athens, but the number of figurines is very few compared to those found from the tombs of Tanagra. We have to consider the possibility that over time some of the figurines in the Athenian tombs may have been stolen. Despite that possibility it is clear that the Athenian Tanagras had a special religious functional character connected with fertility and wealth for the society of the polis. Athens does not give us much contextual information regarding the possible profane significance of the figurines — the motifs of the figurines representing youngish genre and gender types are, however, chiefly secular in nature. Some Greek sites offer evidence of profane contexts. One of them is Olynthos in

Northern Greece, where houses.2!8

Pompeii,

figurines of the Tanagra style were discovered

as a preserver of the Greek heritage and

Hellenism

in private in Magna

Graecia, has also provided ample evidence of the statuettes in private houses.

This

evidence gives additional information concerning the function of the terracotta figurines. Two skeletons were found in the streets of Pompeii, bearing some evidence of the figurines. The fugitives had gathered their properties in great haste while escaping from the volcano. Besides money and jewellery, a man was carrying a statuette, and a woman was holding a small female figurine with a child in its arms. It seems that the owners of the figurines considered the objects valuable, not because of their intrinsic worth but as religious idols. C.A. Hutton has therefore soundly argued that according to the evidence in the Greek houses, the significance of the figurines was not only ornamental, but also

clearly of a religious character.?!? The Evidence Concerning a Food Crisis in Athens What is curious 1s the relationship between the transition period in 350-330 B.C., i.e. the critical era for the formation of the Tanagra style here called as the Pre-Tanagran era in Athens, and the evidence concerning the effect of the drought and famine on the city at the

213 Gimbutas 1989, 145. 214 See e.g. Field 1977, 50-55. 215

See e.g. Otto 1965 passim.

216

See e.g. Burkert 1985, 277.

217

Especially the Museum at the Ceramicus, see also e.g. Breitenstein 1941, Nos. 589, 590.

218 Robinson 1952, 63-64. 219

Hutton

1899, 6-8.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

179

very same period. It is, however, interesting to point out that the evidence of famine is not

only restricted to the transition period, it is also attested in the power struggles of the early

third century B.C.220 What we want to emphasize here is that there seems to exist a relationship between the prominent amount of early Hellenistic figurines the contextual evidence of the fertility rites

as well as initiation rites and the evidence of drought and famine in Athens during the fourth century B.C., mainly during the third quarter of the century.22! For example Athens faced several food crises in the short period between 338/37 and 323/2 B.C. These crises coincide with the Macedonian threat and losses in the wars against Macedon such as Chaeronea (338/37) and Thebes (335/34)222 In the paper 'Risk and the polis: The Evolution of Institutionalised Responses to Food Supply in the Ancient Greek State’ P. Garnsey and I. Morris??? have referred to the Aristotelian Constitution of Athens dating from the latter part of the fourth century B.C.,

which also indicates a serious food crisis in Athens during the second half of fourth

century B.C.224 This is the time when the import of grain to Athens was in most severe crises for centuries. However, the crises in supply of foreign wheat were not uncommon in Áthens. Although the wealth of evidence of such crises in different times in this

exceptionally large urban area rises serious doubts of their representative nature of the actual situation?25 does not seem to be the case in the late fourth century B.C., as it is attested by variety of sources. For example the intensification of land-use in the fourth century Attica may also be seen as a measure to secure the high population level in the

dusk of the Athenian empire and the awakening threat from outside. 226 P. Garnsey and I. Morris concentrate on the political state measures

years".

To

the

political

responses

concerning

Hellenistic

Athens

against "bad

they

include

redistribution and the state regulations comprising regular institutions and laws aimed at

limiting the expenditure and consumation by the more fortunate citizens. The liturgy called sitonia, the purchase of grain, is connected with euergesia, i.e. public generosity, which functioned among the wealthier and the known

individuals of society as a measure of

distribution.227 This was one measure which became especially typical for the Hellenistic polis.228 To the public laws which were institutionalized responses to the bad years in Athens we can undoubtedly count the sumptuary laws of Demetrius of Phalerum. It also seems that this law may have worked as a state given stimulus for the large-scale production of terracottas for a large audience. As private expenditure on sculpture was

restricted, the artistic feelings were expressed in cheaper materials such as in the miniature world of statuettes.

P. Garnsey and I. Morris do not mention any politico- or socio-religious institutionalized responses for the food crisis.22? Our study, however, seems to attest an apparent connection

with the festivals of Attica and

the contextual evidence

220 plut, Vit. Dem. 34.46. See Ferguson 1911, 133. See also Garnsey 1988, 144-164. 221 Cf Camp 1982, 10-17. 222

Garnsey

1988, 157-164.

223 Garnsey & Morris 1989, 98-105. 224

See e.g. Arist. Ath. Pol.

43.4 and 51.

225 Cf. Rathbone 1983, 48-49. 226

See Garnsey & Morris 1989, 103.

271

See Mr. Mika Hakkarainen's article in this volume.

228

Garnsey & Morris

1989, 99, 104.

229 See Garnsey & Morris 1989, 98-105,

of art,

180

Minna Lónnqvist

especially the character and the initial mass production of the moulded terracotta figurines, during the famine period of the fourth century. The quantity, the motifs and the contexts of the terracotta figurines discovered in Athens clearly speaks for their socio-cultural character as religious objects used in the institutionalized festivals to secure and increase the fecundity of the citizens and the fertility of nature in the fourth and third century B.C.

6. Conclusive Remarks: The Role of Athens in the Formation of the Tanagra Style Earlier studies dealing with the emergence of the Tanagra style in Athens have concentrated in stylistical analysis. What new insights does our analysis of the Athentan terracottas bring? We have scrutinized the social and artistic atmosphere in which the coroplasts worked in the end of the fourth century. In our view the connection of the coroplastic art to the sculptural art is more evident than that of the various painters. We

have located the activities of the coroplasts into the areas of the Ceramicus, the Agora and the Pnyx using both archaeological evidence and textual accounts. In the typological study presented in this article, we have been able to ascertain certain differences in the indigenous features compared to those coming from outside the polis. One of the reasons for the emergence of the new style in Athens may have been the fact that Athens remained a fairly closed area during the rise of Hellenism. The insularness did not mean that its significance in the formation of the Hellenistic art was without importance. On the contrary — our study concerning the formation of the Tanagra style

connected with sculpture and pottery painting shows that Athens had a central role in the emergence of Hellenistic art. The stylistic features which it has, such as the change from frontality and slight contra posto towards closed composition, advanced contra posto with naturalism and even to more recognizable liveliness and pathos, is detectable in the development of the style. In the earliest stage, namely from 350 to 330 B.C., the stylistic impact of the Praxitelean graciousness is clearly visible in the Athenian figurines. It supports the indigenous Athenian origin of the style, which can be recognized in the Athenian sculpture and figurines of the second half of the fourth century B.C. showing slight or advanced contra posto, in some cases attached to the S-curve of the body. The special graciousness "sfumato" of the Tanagra style is such an essential part that it cannot be separated from the apparent impact of the Praxitelean influence originating in Athens. The Lysippean influence cannot be denied, however. It joins with the intrusion of the

Macedonian elements which became visible in the terracottas of the last quarter of the fourth century, mainly however in those of the third century B.C. This external influence is especially well-attested in the terracotta figurines found in Menon's Cisterns at the Agora and dated to the third century B.C. This later development attests a clear foreign influence, which is also historically traceable as the polis of Athens had to submit to

Macedonian power in 294 B.C.230 The surface of the figurines, i.e. the immediately traceable features, tell only a partial story of the emergence of the Tanagra style. A typological study, although chronologically important, does not answer the questions: Why the Athenians applied a new style? What was the purpose of the figurines expressing this new style? Archaeologically the style does not only comprise the features, but also the content and 230 Ferguson 1911, 136.

Hellenistic Athens and the Message of the Tanagra Style

181

the function of the objects. As earlier pointed out, it is in the life and culture, that we find

the roots of this new style. Earlier stylistic as well as technical analysis have been the major reasons for connecting the emergence process of the style with Athens. Besides the typological study, the motif analysis and the contextual analysis of the discoveries presented in this article seem to be

in accordance with the earlier studies of D.B. Thompson. In addition to her studies our study has shown that in Athens there seems to have been a particular purpose for which the terracottas, mainly representing women and children, were produced. The functional

purpose was vital to the formation of the style in general, as the style contains both structural and functional elements. This is also attested by the fact that so far the earliest pieces of a Pre-Tanagran character have been found in the Athenian deposits. The finds from Tanagra without contextual evidence are archaeologically quite uninformative. By historical premises and the stylistic comparison of the Athenian pieces with the finds from Tanagra we may assume that the style was not in use before 330's B.C. in the Boeotian city. In the course of the fourth century a social change was evident in Athens, which can be

seen in the fact that the idealism and realism became more separated in the life of the Athenians. We can question, how much the inner and outer threats affected this situation.

To ensure the independence and reproductivity of the citizens became especially important for the polis. Subjects concerning the daily life of the Athenians became common. In sculpture this was expressed by a new interest in human portraiture; the old mythological

subjects gave place to profane figures. The contexts where the statues changed: apart from the sacred areas the secular sphere was taken more family and private values of the citizens were in focus. The Athenian members was considered -- women and children received more space in The festivals and the initiation rites for which the figurines of genre

were erected also into account. The oikos with all its art. and gender types

were chiefly produced had a socio-political reason strongly connected with the religious

life of the Athenian polis. The main purpose was to secure the fecundity of the citizens and the fertility of nature, especially during the bad years. Girls’ initiation rites, for example, were part of a frame of the rituals which served to renew the whole community.23! Among the most important polis festivals bearing evidence of the Tanagra figurines were the Thesmophoria for the memory of Demeter and Kore-Persephone and meant especially for the well-born women of the polis. The Eleusinian Mysteries and the great procession of the Panathenaia connected with the Demeter Myth, the arktoi serving in the Sanctuary of the Artemis, the arrephoria

associated with Athena Parthenos, the Maiden of the polis, with the cults of Eros and Aphrodite speak of the initiation rites closely connected with fertility cults. According to the excavation reports and museum notes, the Pre-Tanagran and the Tanagra figurines were present in connection with these festivals and sanctuaries. The festivals of Attica seem to have incorporated the terracottas of the Pre-Tanagran style earlier than any other Greek city, simultaneously when Athens and Attica played a leading role in the development and distribution of the Demeter and Kore-Persephone

cult23? in the early Hellenistic world. The paucity of the funeral and domestic contexts of the Athenian Tanagras also reflects the independent development of the style in Attica and its connection with state institutionalized festivals and rites de passage conceming the agecategories towards adulthood and reproductivity. As M.P. Nilsson has earlier pointed 231

Dowden 1989, 35.

232

See Kane

1992, 68.

182

Minna Lónnqvist

out, the Athenian festivals were meant to arouse patriotic feelings as well as to show the

power of the polis.??? The stimulus of Athens to the emergence of the style and the function of the Tanagra figurines is of crucial importance, if one wants to understand the meaning of the Tanagras in their original context.

The stylistic development of the Tanagra figurines interestingly coincides with the evidence of drought and famine in the city (especially in 350-325 B.C.) and the political

situation coping with expansionist foreign powers.23^ The threats from within and without was apparently a stimulating factor in the emergence process of the style. The evidence concerning the food crisis in Athens during the second half of the fourth century B.C. seems to indicate that the development of the style was indeed connected with a time of poor economics and that of growing Macedonian influence. The cheap statuettes of

genre type were meant to be available to a large audience which used them in sociopolitically and religiously important contexts of the polis. The influence of the sumptuary laws on the production of cheap miniature statues is obvious. By a new analysis of the motif repertoire and the contexts of the discoveries concerning the emergence of the Tanagra style, we have been able to detect this inner message of the Tanagra style. It is a

message consisting of evidence which indicates the religious and socio-political significance of the Tanagra figurines to the Athenian citizens for securing the fertility of the nature and the reproductivity of the community.

233

See Nilsson 1972, 43.

234 Austin & Vidal-Naquet 1986, 132.

Family Life 1n the Comedies of Menander* Erja Salmenkivi

Introduction The restoration of the comedies of Menander has aroused a lot of interest among modern Classical scholars. Besides the literary-historical studies, the plays of Menander have also been used as source material for studying various juridical or social aspects of Athens during the Hellenistic period.! With the socio-historical aspect in mind, however, scholars are bound to face the problem of how to use comedies as a source. Are implications of, for example, juridical customs accurate, are they exaggerated caricatures

or merely utopian creations of the author's mind? Other questions that are relevant in this context are: What does comic drama tell us about everyday reality? What kind of a picture of a family, an oikos, can we draw from the comedies of Menander and are there any possibilities for increasing our comprehension of everyday life in Hellenistic Athens

through this picture? We should bear in mind that the comedies of Menander are among the rare contemporary sources we have that can illustrate at least some aspects of everyday

life in Athens during the early Hellenistic period. This paper is based on a Master's thesis examined at the University of Helsinki in 1991. The English version was more or less completed during the Academic year 1993-94 in Würzburg. Since then, at least the book by J.R. Green, Theatre in Ancient Greek Society, 1994 has dealt with questions relevant to the topic. I would like to thank, among others, Prof. Maarit Kaimio, Ms. Kaisa Stvenius and Dr. Steve Vinson for reading through this paper and giving me some valuable suggestions and comments. I would also like to thank Margot Stout Whiting for improving my English. CI, tor example,

Arnott

1981; Casson

1976; Préaux

1957,

1960; Treu

1981.

184

Erja Salmenkivi The types of questions proposed above are also connected with the question of the role

of the New Attic comedy and the theatre as institution in the society of its time. There are many considerable differences between

the New

comedy

and the Old Attic comedy,

which is traditionally considered to be "political" — the term meaning in its broadest sense all the different aspects of politics, society and life of the citizens of a polis during the Classical period of ancient Greece. In the social structure of the Classical polis the theatre had a certain function as a platform for public discussion about the affairs of the state. J. Henderson has stated that only in the social structure of Classical Athens could the Old

Attic comedy exist.? The theatre institution was closely bound together with the citystate's affairs, which can be perceived in the comedies of Aristophanes, for example. Thus, Old Attic comedy as a whole has been used as source material for different aspects

of the society and the theatre during the Classical period.? The New Attic comedy, however, does not have direct connections with contemporary political or military events. Yet, during the lifetime of Menander

(c. 342-291

B.C.)

Macedonian political and military influence became evident in the whole Mediterranean world. In Athens this meant also changes in the organisation of the theatre institution. During the régime of Demetrius of Phalerum (317—307 B.C.), the choregia was abolished

and the City Dionysia was placed under the management of an agonothetes.4 This change, however,

might have

been

a consequence

of a gradual

development

in the

fourth

century's economic situation connected also with the means of financing the theatre festivals. Some signs of the turbulent times can also be seen in the biography of Menander: he was a well-to-do citizen of Athens and most probably he had close ties to Demetrius since he was about to be brought to trial after Demetrius was expelled from the city in 307 B.C.® In the treaty after the battle of Ipsus (in 301 B.C.) Athens was acknowledged as an independent city, but only a few years before the death of Menander the Macedonian troops were to be seen in Athens again (in 295 B.C.).

The interest of this paper lies not so much in the historical events as in the social and moral implications of the comedies and their relationship to the "politics of theatre" during Menander's lifetime." W.G. Arnott has already come to the conclusion that most of the moral values expressed in the extant remains of Menander's plays appear to have been popular views shared by ordinary Athenian men.® Methodologically, however, we should 2

Henderson 1990, 272-73. Cf., for example, Winkler & Zeitlin (ed.) 1990.

4

Pickard-Cambridge 1968, 91-92. The exact date of this is unknown but A. Pickard-Cambridge suggests that Demetrius probably instituted it while nomothetes in 316-315 B.C. About the economic situation concerning the theorikon and the agonothetai, see M. Hakkarainen in this volume, p. 6-7, 12-12 and 22.

D.L. 5.79: Μένανδρος 6 κωμικὸς παρ᾽ ὀλίγον ἦλθε κριθῆναι δι᾽ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ὅτι φίλος ἦν αὐτῷ αλλ᾽ αὐτὸν παρῃτήσατο Τελεσφόρος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ Δημητρίου (Menander the comic came near to being brought to trial because of nothing else except that he was a friend of his [i.e. of Demetrius]. But Telesphorus, the cousin of Demetrius,

interceded for him). The connection between

Menander and Telesphorus, the cousin of Demetrius of Phalerum, is another proof of Menander's high social status in Athens. Cf. Fantham 1975, 67: “What matters are the reactions of the participants, and the moral judgements implied." With the term “politics of theatre” I mean the overall position of the theatre institution in the city-state's public discourse and the possible impact the comedics of Menander had on this discourse.

"

Arnott 1981, 221.

Family Life in the Comedies of Menander

185

bear in mind that all evidence of moral values in the Greek city-states is usually passed to us through documents produced in a male society. This should especially be noted when we deal with questions about, for example, women and the so-called everyday reality. R. Just (in connection with evidence about women in antiquity) has drawn attention to the fact that we should recognize the relativity of the sources. According to him we should also acknowledge that the conclusions we are able to draw are only partial and that the "truth" we can record, in the case of women

for example, is not what women

were, but

what men saw them to be.? This methodological difficulty is also recognized by P.G. McC. Brown, who has more specifically considered the relationship between comedy and

reality in the past.!Ü Bearing in mind the difficulties of the nature of the material, I shall focus on the elements of the oikos and try to interpret the attitudes expressed towards families and family life in the comedies of Menander.

1. The oikoi in the comedies of Menander One of the striking features in the comedies of Menander is that almost all characters belong to a certain family. I would like to point out that I also consider the slaves, who

are often among the most important speaking characters of the comedies, to be members of an oikos.!! Besides the practical and often simple tasks - such as shopping — they may also have great responsibilities within the family. Daos in Aspis, for example, has brought up the young Kleostratos as his paidagogos and Kleostratos trusted him with all the belongings he had gathered for his sister's dowry in Lycia before his supposed death (Aspis 14, 34—39). In the same play Smikrines, the old and greedy uncle who wants to marry the sister of Kleostratos because she has supposedly become the heiress

of Kleostratos' property, calls for Daos and tries to get him on his side since Daos is not an outsider as far as the family affairs are concemed (οὐκ ἀλλότριος, 189).!7 Daos is trusted not only by Kleostratos but also by Chairestratos (the "good and understanding" uncle of the play). Chairestratos confides his sorrows to Daos (305ff.) and he is ready to act out the intrigue according to Daos' suggestion (328-29). In the

3

Just 1989, 2-4. Cf. also L.-M. Günther

1993,

311-12,

who

has studied the role of the widows

in

Greek antiquity. 10

Brown 1993, 192: “It is generally acknowledged nowadays that ‘everyday life’ is difficult to grasp,

that the relationship between literature and life is complex, and that any attempt to interpret the attitudes of one culture in the language of another ... is bound to be inadequate and likely to be misleading ... . but it need not lead us to be defeatist about discussing (this) at all.”

ll

Cf. Lacey 1968, 13 and M. Leiwo in this volume p. 109.

12

With the same concept οὐκ ἀλλότριος Gorgias in Dvskolos tells Sostratos that he is not going to tolerate Sostratos’ supposed attempt to disgrace his sister, Dysc. 318-19: οὐκ ἀλλότριος δ᾽ Ov,

ἀλλ᾽ ἀδελφὸς τῆς κόρης | ὁμομήτριος, βέλτιστε, ταῦτά σοι λέγω

(I'm telling you this, my dear

fellow, as the half-brother of the girl, not as just anyone outside the family circle). In Greek, a distinction was made between half-siblings who had the same mother and those who had the same

father, cf. Handley 1992, 189. Again in Epitrepontes, the concept οὐκ ἀλλότριος is used in the sense

‘belonging

to the family’

when

(Habrotonon, 953-54) τῆς γαμετῆς

the child's mother turns out

to

be a free born

woman:

γυναικός ἐστί cou! [τέκνον] yap, οὐκ ἀλλότριον ("the

child is yours and your legally wedded wife's, he is not an outsider’). It is noteworthy that in both examples cited above the concept οὐκ ἀλλότριος is used when the child's (or sister's) mother is a free-born woman. This could mean that the statement of Smikrines is even stronger than a modern reader at first glance understands.

186

Erja Salmenkivi

beginning of the fourth act of Aspis, young Kleostratos returns home from Lycia and the

first person from the household he meets is Daos.

Unfortunately the text is badly

mutilated and we are not able to leam what words are used in the happy reunion of Daos and Kleostratos (appr. verses 505-510).!?

Daos in Dyskolos is loyal to the young Gorgias whose father he had already served before Gorgias'

mother remarried Knemon,

the grouch and misanthrope of the play.

Throughout the play Daos helps Gorgias to defend his half-sister from a supposed shameful destiny. Daos' opposite is played by Getas, who helps his young master Sostratos find a way to marry Gorgias' half-sister. It is noteworthy that neither Gorgias

nor Sostratos is working alone, but both need their slaves to act as their partners. In Epitrepontes Charisios is referred to as Onesimos'

trofimos, which could imply

that Onesimos had served Charisios as his personal slave even before Charisios’ marriage with Pamphile and that their relationship could be quite intimate.!4^ Despite this, Onesimos has difficulties in approaching his master with bad news (i.e. that Charisios’

ring has been found among the belongings of a foundling which means that Charisios must be the father of the child, Epit. 445-54) and he acknowledges his inferiority to his

free master.!5 A special kind of closeness can be seen between female characters and their female slaves, often the former nurses and sometimes later freedwomen. Thus in Georgos,

for

example, a poor (but free) woman Myrrhine turns to Philinna for advice. Philinna is probably Myrrhine’s old nurse but she does not live with her any more, as we can deduce

from her lack of acquaintance with the family situation. According to Myrrhine, Philinna is wise and trustworthy (22-24) and she 15 also ready to act on behalf of Myrrhine (25--

27).16 Mutual caring between the female servants and their mistresses can also be seen in Perikeiromene, where Doris feels pity for her mistress (187-88: ὦ κεκτημένη, ὡς ἄδικα πάσχεις [oh mistress, how unfair are the things you have to suffer]). Doris is also the confidant of her mistress Glykera. Glykera has entrusted to Doris the objects of

identification.! Even though the slaves often have an important role as speaking characters in the plays, the love affairs of freeborn young men often form the basis for the plot.!5 Usually the young men want to marry some particular young woman who does not necessarily seem to belong to any oikos. Yet, the legal marriage at the end of the plays is not, as K.

13

There might have been deep emotion involved. According to one possible suggestion, just before recognizing Daos, Kleostratos considers himself the most fortunate of all if only Daos has survived

(Aspis

496-98):

εἰ

δ᾽ αὖ

Sian[ecmv

(Handley)

τοὺς

πολεμίους

ζῇ

μόνον]

|

ὁ

Δᾶος,

εὐτυχ[έστατον πάντων τότ᾽ àv] | νομίσαιμ᾽ ἐμαυτόν (if only Daos escaped (the enemy and survived, then] I would consider myself the most fortunate [of all men]), Gomme-Sandbach 1973, 103. 14

Cf. Gomme-Sandbach

15

Cf. Arnott 1981, 219.

1973, 292.

The play presents Myrrhine's household and a rich neighbour who has abused Myrrhine's daughter but has later fallen in love with her and wants to marry her. The girl's father wants to marry her to her half-brother not knowing that she is already pregnant. About the plot and the scene between Myrrhine and Philinna, cf. Gomme-Sandbach 1973, 106 and 110-111.

Pk. 755-58: ΓΛ. ἐξένεγκέ μοι | [τὴν κιστίδ᾽) ἔξω, Awpt, τὴν τὰ ποικίλα | [£xoucav: οἶσθα v]h AU: ἦν δεδωκὰ

cor! τηρεῖν. (Bring out to me the little basket in which are the various things,

Doris. Surely you know. the one I gave you to guard.)

1K

Cf. Anderson 1984. 124-128.

Family Life in the Comedies of Menander

187

Treu has already pointed out,!? a marriage between individuals only, but between two otkoi that form the very basic unit of the social structure of the Greek city-state.?? But the free born women are not often presented on stage. This has been explained by the fact that Menander's purpose was to create scenes which resemble the actual way of life of the

Athenians. In the social structure of Athens, well-to-do free born women would not usually be seen in the streets outside their homes, since the public sphere of life belonged to male citizens.2! These women, however, usually form the core of the action, since they are the ones the young men love, and also the only ones with whom family ties can be established. In Dyskolos, for example, both Knemon's daughter and Sostratos' sister are

significant characters in the plot to begin with and especially in the double-marriage scene at the end of the play. Despite this they are hardly seen on stage and it seems likely that

neither of them is even mentioned by name.22 They represent the object of the young men's love and through them both oikoi in the play In cases where the “Beloved One” of a young woman Menander often put on stage a hetaira. The companion/ friend’, but it could refer to a woman

get a socially satisfying continuity. citizen did not seem to be a free-born term ἑταΐρα means basically ‘a female of almost any legal status — slave, or

resident alien (metic). A free hetaira might have been considered to be a “live-in lover" as opposed to a lawful wife (and thus almost a synonym with πάλλαξ / παλλακή).25 A hetaira who was a slave would be in the position of a courtesan. In any case, hetairai did not have the status that was required from a woman to be able to become the wife of a citizen. In order to make the marriage possible their origins had to be unraveled. During the course of the play, it may turn out that the girl had been abandoned as a child. This type of situation we have in Perikeiromene, for example, where the twins Glykera

and

Moschion were abandoned because their mother had died in child-birth and their father Pataikos had lost all his property in a shipwreck about the same time the twins were born. Thus Glykera had lost her citizen status which had to be rediscovered during the

course of the play. Furthermore, she had already been living with Polemon as his pallake and they had fallen in love before the legal marriage between the two at the end.

The hetairai form an interesting group of characters. Especially the male persons of the plays have a basically negative attitude towards the hetairai. Regardless of the legal status of the hetairai, it was very easy for the male characters of the plays to refer to them with disparaging names, such as πόρνη,

says (793-94):

χαλεπόν,

‘whore’. For example, Smikrines in Epitrepontes

Παμφίλη,

| ἐλευθέρᾳ

γυναικὶ

πρὸς

πόρνην

(Pamfile, it is hard for a free woman to have a fight with a whore).24 Onesimos,

μάχη: too, in

the same play - even though he represents a totally different social group being a slave — 19

Treu 1981, 212.

20

About oikos as the basic social element of a polis, see M. leiwo in this volume p. 109.

21

For example, Ferguson 1911, 77; Gomme-Sandbach 1957, 95.

22

Handley 1992, 207-209. A. Blanchard (1983, 85), however, thinks that Plangon mentioned in line 430 could be Sostratos' sister.

23

Pallax or a pallake who was marriage

24

1973, 32; Humphreys

1978, 200-202; Préaux

Pallake could perhaps be translated as 'common law wife', even though the legal status of was not the same as that of a lawful wife. In any case, pallax or pallake refers to a woman living with a man as his spouse without a legal marriage (and by ‘legal marriage’ 1 mean a between lwo citizens) having taken place between the two.

He goes on about the harlot (Epir. 795-96): Πλείονα

κακουργεῖ.

πλείον᾽ οἶδ᾽, αἰσχύνεται

οὐδέν. κολακεύει μᾶλλον (she works more mischief, knows more tricks, she has no shame. she toadies more, transl. Arnott. LCL 1979, 481).

|

188

Erja Salmenkivi

is very suspicious of Habrotonon's (i.e. the hetaira's) motives in trying to help him to find out who exactly are the father and the mother of the foundling (Epit. 538—51). Yet, as M.M. Henry has noted, the hetairai, the social Others, often restore the oikos,

the social Self, to a state of order and harmony.2? Both Habrotonon in Epitrepontes and Chrysis in Samia act as intermediaries in conflicts between husband and wife or reunite

parents and children.*® Furthermore, they have a positive attitude towards the abandoned children. This attitude is often essential for rediscovering the origin of the child — or the origin of some other character (usually female) in a play. The hetairai and the slaves have important roles as those who promote the action, and it is only through the role of these

characters that the playwright is able to achieve the happy endings of the plays. The difference between the hetairai and the slaves is that the slaves belong to the family circle, they work for the family (or, to be more exact, their young masters) and they have their

established status within the family. Thus, the attitudes of the citizens are basically more positive towards the slaves than towards the hetairai, who come from outside the family

circle. The hetairai represent everything that is alien to the family and thus have to prove themselves to be trustworthy. Having passed the test, however, the hetaira gets a reward

in the form of legal marriage with one of the citizens (if she has been proved to be a citizen herself) or freedom (if she happened to be a slave).

In order to be able to make the slaves and the Aetairai credible characters, Menander must have had an interest in the people of lower social status within the polis. The presentation of the household of Nikeratos in Samia, in my opinion, points in this direction. The poverty of the household is implied throughout the play. For example,

Nikeratos has to hurry to the market place to do the shopping, which in the household of Demeas is done by the slave Parmenon. The nagging wife urging Nikeratos to hurry up fits well with this picture and must have aroused amusement in the audience (cf. Samia 196-201). This does not mean that Menander lacked sympathy towards the poorer citizens.27 I would like to consider the great properties and sums of money offered as dowry, for example, to be more of the playwright's means of offering the fantasy of a

happy life, where men are handsomer, girls more beautiful and people richer than they are in reality.?8 As another example of the interest and sympathy towards the poorer people I would like to take the play Perikeiromene, in which there is no evidence of a moral judgement against Pataikos who abandoned his children, after his wife died and he lost all his property (cf. page 187 above). The implication is perhaps rather that abandoning children was a current way of "family planning" in early Hellenistic times. It is a fact that most of our earliest written sources on the abandoning of children are those from the

dramatic literature of Classical and Hellenistic times.?? 25 ?6

Henry 1986, 144. Cf. Henry 1986, 145.

27

|n this I disagree with L. Casson who has written: "... the only members we know to any extent are ... those affluent enough to be reflected in Greek New Comedy, whose practitioners were no more interested in Athens’ poor than Moliere of Feydeau in Paris". See Casson 1976, 30.

Cf. also Brown 1993, 203-204, wherc there is a brief but up-to-date discussion of the question about the wealth of the audience and the issue whether the abolition of the theoric fund had an effect on the Athenian audience attending the theatre festivals or not. The conclusion is that we do not know. 29

(Cf Eyben 1980/81, 11 note 21, 14, 48-49: Préaux 1957, 93-94, Aristotle, though, mentions the exposure of the children in Politica (1335b19ff.: περὶ δὲ ἀποθέσεως καὶ τρυφῆς τῶν γιγνομένων ἕστω νόμος μηδὲν πεπηρωμένον τρέφειν tas Lo the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no disabled child should be reared).

Family Life in the

Comedies of Menander

189

Often the real opponent of the young man's endeavours to marry the girl he loves is either his or the girl's father or another older male relative. In Aspis the villain is Smikrines, the uncle of Kleostratos who wants to marry his young niece only for

economic reasons.?? In the background of Smikrines' acts is the custom that if a girl was an heiress or, more exactly, she who “went with the property" (ἢ ἐπίκληρος), her father's closest male relative had property.?! This is one of the legal Also, the marriage scenes and the correspond with the customs in use

the right to claim her in customs which Menander terminology used in the in contemporary Athens.

marriage along with the exploits in his comedies. marriage scenes?? usually This means that the kyrios

of the bride had to be the one who took the initiative in betrothing the girl to the

bridegroom.?? At the end of Samia, for example, Nikeratos promises to give his daughter to Moschion in marriage in front of the witnesses present.54 Since Nikeratos was poor he promises as a dowry all his property after his death, i.e. he made his daughter an heiress, an epikleros. These examples indicate that the audience was at least familiar with the custom and one could argue that the system was in use during Menander's lifetime. In Epitrepontes we again have a greedy Smikrines who wants to dissolve his daughter's marriage as a consequence of her husband's behaviour. Smikrines does not

want to take into account the fact that despite the difficulties the spouses have, they still love each other and want to solve their problems themselves. This is pointed out to Smikrines by his daughter Pamphile at the beginning of the fourth act of the play.?5 There are several interesting features in this scene. First, the ideal of loyalty between spouses is expressed by a woman. Furthermore, even though the motives of Smikrines

are selfish and his plan remains unaccomplished, the scene reveals that divorce was not unknown to Menander and his audience. One can say that here we have a rare scene with a free born woman in a speaking part dealing with the rare concept of divorce in early Hellenistic Athens. The legal marriage at the end of the plays was made possible often with very complicated and sometimes odd twists of the plot. Even though we should not take these plots as true examples of everyday life, they reflect a romantic ideal of a love-marriage in a society where marriage was not usually based on love-affairs. I shall not discuss the 30

Even Smikrines’ younger brother Chairestratos disapproves of Smikrines' behaviour (e.g. 257: οὐδὲν μέλει cot μετριότητος; Doesn't decency mean anything to you?) even though he himself was

also aware of the economic consequences of the marriage of his niece (cf. Aspis 279-81). 3l

See, for example. Just 1989, 95-97,

32

E.g. Dysc. 842-44:

goi, προῖϊκά te

ἀλλ᾽ ἐγγνῶ

παίδων

ἐπ᾽ ἀρότῳ γνησίων

| τὴν θυγατέρ᾽ ἤδη, μειράκιον,

δίδωμ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ τρία τάλαντ᾽. (Well, I now betroth my daughter to you, young

man, to give birth to lawful children in wedlock, and I give a dowry of three talents for her).

35

Modrzejewski 1981, 240, 244-45; Just 1989, 44-47.

34

726-28: μαρτύρων ἐναντίον σοι τήνδ᾽ ἐγὼ δίδωμ᾽ ἔχειν ! γνησίων παίδων ἐπ᾽ ἀρότῳ, προῖκα τἀμὰ πάνθ᾽ ὅταν | ἀποθάνω (in the presence of witnesses I give her to you to marry and to have lawful children in wedlock, and as a dowry I'll leave her everything I have when I die). The witnesses and the dowry were important since the Greeks did not have any registers of marriages and these could verify the children's legitimacy.

35

This scene is one of the rare cases in Menandrean

comedies

where a free born female character has a

significant speaking part in the play. A similar scene is preserved in the so called P.Didot I (= the first passage of a papyrus roll now in the Louvre [no. 7172], see, for example, Gomme-Sandbach 1973, 723) which was connected to Epitreponies by way of example before the discovery of the three fragments in the 1980's that form the scene in Epitrepontes.

190

Erja Salmenkivi

complex question of love and marriage in the Greek New

Comedy

further, since the

subject has been thoroughly studied in an article by P.G. McC. Brown.?6 The problems of the plays usually concern relationships within the family, between husband and wife or father and son, for example.

At the end of Sarnia,

it is left open

whether Chrysis and Demeas ever became reconciled or who eventually took care of Moschion and Plangon's child. What seems to be important is the relationship between father (Demeas)

and

son

(Moschion).

It is a question

of

the

generation

gap,

mis-

understandings caused by the young Moschion himself, and human misunderstandings in general.’ Thus, even the “villain” can usually be found within the family environment of the characters or within the characters themselves.

2. The Comedies' Soldiers and their oikoi Traditionally the comic soldier was

presented as a vulgar,

boastful

and

ignorant

creature.?8 Menander, too, has soldiers in his plays but there is a considerable difference between Menandrean soldiers and the so-called traditional comic soldier. In Perikeiromene,

we

have

a soldier

(Polemon)

who

is a citizen

of

Corinth

and

who

loves

Glykera, a girl whom he considers to be his wife. He gets furious when he happens to find out that Glykera has permitted Moschion

(the young man living next door) to give

her a kiss, not knowing that Moschion is in fact her brother. The attitude towards (comic) soldiers is clearly expressed already in the prologue of the goddess Agnoia and further in the lines of Doris, Glykera's faithful servant: the soldiers are cruel and unreliable (cf.

Pk. 145-88). Nevertheless, the picture drawn of Polemon is not inhuman. He is only desperately in love with Glykera and thinks that she has done something that will disgrace

him as her husband.?? The problems we face here concern the concept of legal marriage versus living together with a pallake. It is Polemon's old friend Pataikos (who turns out

to be the father of the twins Glykera and Moschion), then, who points out to Polemon that Glykera is not his legally wedded wife (Pk. 486-88). Without a kyrios who would have given Glykera to be his wife, the girl is herself responsible for her acts (490 and

497). Thus, it is up to Glykera whether she wants to return to live with Polemon or not. The interesting feature here is that it is a soldier who is concerned about the concept of honour which is the honour of the oikos, not only the honour of the individual. Furthermore, as S.M. Goldberg has noted, the character of Polemon includes several

36

Brown

1993, 189ff. P.G. McC. Brown has used the evidence of New Comedy to support those who

argue for the possibility of links between love and marriage in ancient Athens. I agree with this approach, though arguments against this approximation can surely be found as well. The fact is that when discussing questions connected with abstract attitudes in the past the truth remains relative (cf. my introduction pp. 184—185 above).

37

QCf.Fantham 1975, 66; Goldberg 1980, 106 and Hunter 1985, 103-105.

38

Cf. Goldberg 1980, 45. This is the picture of the traditional comic soldier as it is widely presented by modern scholars. Prof. Katmio, however, has pointed out to me that a closer analysis of certain characters in Old Attic Comedy, Lamachos in the Achaurmans of Aristophanes, for example, may display some of the typical characteristics of the corme soldier but not necessarily all of them. Thus, it should be studied carefully whether there actually was such a thing as a stereotype comic soldier (miles gloriosus) before the Roman adapuons of the New Comedy.

39

Cf. Blanchard 1983, 354-55.

Family Life in the Comedies of Menander

191

features that are usually associated with a (comic) hero and the young Moschion, whom

we should consider to be the hero, is acting more like the traditional comic soldier.4° The other Menandrean soldiers are not treated in the traditional way, either. Thrasonides in Misoumenos expresses his despair over love in a highly poetic way (1— 14) - which, of course, could also have served as a means to arouse amusement. Nevertheless, at the end of Misoumenos Thrasonides is reunited with his beloved

Krateia and Krateia's father takes the initiative in betrothing her to Thrasonides (444— 47). Both Polemon and Thrasonides are characters who are human and who

want to

establish an oikos in the polis where they live. I would like to interpret Menander's way of dealing with these soldiers as an indication of changes in the social structure of the polis. This change was a consequence of a rising number of mercenary soldiers living within the city states. In Menander's times, soldiers either had to return to their native

city-state and find their place in the society which they had once abandoned or they had to

settle down in a new environment.4! Thus, I suggest that the soldiers were part of the

"urban scene" of Athens as well as other poleis of the early Hellenistic period.*? Even though Menander has no direct allusions to political events it would be more surprising if he had not paid attention to the social situation created when the soldiers had to settle down in the poleis in which they arrived or returned. Thus, the so-called traditional] miles gloriosus was handled differently in Old Attic comedy, in Menander's plays and later in the Roman playwrights' such as Plautus' and Terence's comedies which are again both written and situated in a totally different (ie. Roman) environment.4? D. Del Corno has suggested that Perikeiromene takes place in Corinth because

Menander wanted to distance his Athenian audience from the untraditional way

of

portraying a soldier.44 Unfortunately, we do not know the location of Misoumenos.

In

any case, both Polemon and Thrasonides may reflect the idea that the question of what stand people should take toward the soldiers within the polis was current to Menander and his audience. We do not know to what extent the Macedonian soldiers took part in the

social life of Athens during the occupation years, or what happened to the Athenian soldiers who had been located in Rhamnous or Sounion, for example, before the Macedonian occupation. But at the moment we do know that a great number of Macedonian coins have been found from the Athenian agora that can be dated to the third

century B.C.45 Thus, Macedonian currency must have been valid for trade. I see no reason why the soldiers should not have taken care of their acquisitions themselves. Consequently, they — or at least their agents — must have been a daily sight in the streets of the town.

40

Goldberg 1980, 46.

4l

About the increasing number of mercenaries and their settling down in a new environment see, for example, Green 1990, 39—40, 107, 330.

42

Cf. Handley 1985, 411: "... satire against individuals is commoner in the case of hetaerae — perhaps not surprisingly, since they are part of the urban scene in the way that soldiers are not (emphasis mine)”.

45

Cf. Handley 1985, 423: “... Polemon, Stratophanes and Thrasonides, ... each of whom is fixed by type in the tradition of the ‘miles gloriosus’, but is shown as an individual with charasteristics that evoke a response of sympathy and interest rather than superiority and ridicule."

44

Del Corno

45

On the Macedonian coins found in the Athenian agora see K. Lónnqvist in this volume, [20-26 and 136-37.

1966, 298.

esp. pp.

192

Erja Salmenkivi If Menander's point was to demonstrate to his audience that the soldiers are men with

the same problems and feelings as anybody else, and if we accept T.B.L. Webster's assumption that Perikeiromene preceded Misoumenos,^9 and if Misoumenos is situated in Attica, we may assume that in Perikeiromene Menander introduced his idea of a human soldier. He set the play in Corinth to make the idea easier to accept and then continued to

treat the theme in Misoumenos, thus bringing the theme closer to the Athenians. In addition, he may have had implications in Misoumenos against taking prisoners of war. From the reunion scene of Krateia and her father Demeas, one should perhaps draw the conclusion that even the captive women have had families and a happy life in their former hometowns before the misfortunes they have suffered.*7 In contrast to tragedies, this means not total misery forever after but a suggestion that people in a new situation should

be given a chance to build a new life for themselves. I would like to make a further observation about the location of the comedies. The plays of Aristophanes are usually located in Athens or in a fantasy-world. In tragedy and in Menandrean comedies the plays can also be located elsewhere, in Corinth or Thebes, for example. F.I. Zeitlin has drawn attention to this in tragedy.48 I am inclined to think that the location of the plays must have had its impact and (symbolic) meaning also in Menandrean comedy.

3. Menandrean Comedies and the “Politics of Theatre" Especially the Euripidean influence in the plays of Menander has long been noted.4? I would like to suggest that some of the Euripidean ideas and ideals were brought to comedy by Menander in order to show his audience that the matters dealt with in tragedy could also be dealt with within the non-heroic and non-mythical world of everyday life,

especially within the life of the family. In tragedy, the hero has to deal with moral and ethical questions. In Menandrean comedies, these questions are also taken up. Comedy as a genre makes it easier for Menander to stress to his audience that things that happen in

drama can and do happen in reality as well. It is not only Oedipus or Theseus who have to face the consequences

of abandoning

children or wrong

estimations

of a situation.

Theseus believed Phaedra instead of Hippolytos and he got his punishment. In Samia, the consequences of a misunderstanding between father and son over the woman with whom

the father lives are also dealt with. In Dyskolos, Knemon has to admit that he has been wrong in thinking that he can live his life independently without help from other people (713-717). Despite his interesting self-examination monologue in the fourth act of the play, he gets his punishment from the slave Getas and the cook Sikon at the very end.

46

Webster 1960, 107-108.

47

There are, of course, parallels in tragedy, the Trojan Women of Euripides, for example.

45 49

Zeitlin 1990, 130-167, esp. 144—150. Cf. for example, Goldberg 1980, passim; Katsouris 1975, passim; Hunter 1985, 114-136. Interestingly, Euripides’ plays Alcestis, Helen and fon have a tendency of experimenting with devices that were to become stock motives of New Attic comedy, cf. Walton 1980, 218-19. J.M. Walton has also noted that the most certain feature to be picked out distinguishing drama of the fifth century from that of the fourth is its gradual genteelization. In both comedy and tragedy, extremes of character and behavior were toned down (Walton 1980, 220). Thus, one could conclude that during the fourth century there existed perhaps for the first time a development towards a concept of "drama in general’ instead of two opposing genres, ‘tragedy’ and ‘comedy’.

Family Life in the Comedies of Menander

193

The characters and the tools of action are commonplace, but the questions are often profound and deal with serious aspects of life. The environment and the genre only bring these questions closer to the audience and the everyday life of the Athenians. R.L. Hunter has written: "New Comedy offers no grand vision of a new world; the

plays offer rather the comforting spectacle of the restoration of the status quo after disturbance caused by folly or ignorance."50 This interpretation is coherent with, among others, N. Frye's view of comedy which M. Henry has criticised. According to Henry, the tendency to find a status quo in the New Comedy reflects the androcentric bias which

necessarily leads us to underrate the actions and dramatic importance of the female characters.5! We have to take into account, however, that Menander was a man who lived in an "androcentric" society, by which I mean that the evidence from ancient sources has

been transmitted to us in texts written by the male members of this society.5? The whole complex of interpreting Menander's comedies (and both his male and female characters) concerns not only the role or well-being of the women, but of the social system as a whole. Accordingly, we have to consider the Athenian polis as a closed and tightly knit political and religious unity, in which the breakdown of regularly conducted marriage, for

example, would threaten the existence of the community itself.? My suggestion, therefore, is that the plays offer a “comforting spectacle” of the restoration of the social status quo by pointing out to the audience the importance of maintaining the traditional ways and habits in the form of legal marriage at the end. In restoring an oikos (or oikoi), Menander participated in the discussion of the social and moral questions concerning the city-state's basic elements. All the characters, including the slaves, the hetairai, and even the often so silent free born women work towards this goal. Comedy as a genre offered Menander a platform on which he was able to present his opinions in a not too oppressive

or serious way. This genre, however, had traditionally, and to my mind also during the Hellenistic period, its place within the discourse of politics and society. According

to J. Ober & B.

Strauss political

rhetoric

and

drama

can

be

seen,

and

analysed, as closely related forms of public speech.* Menander who belonged to the elite of the city (cf. above p.

184) was obviously aware of this sociopolitical strategy and its

effects on drama. Thus he presents to us some of the traditional and conservative ideals of the Greek polis culture, but he also brings new ideas into the sphere of comedy. It was particularly appropriate to test new ideas and new approaches to old ideas in the public discourse

of the festivals in the theatre of Dionysus.

As

J.

Aronen

has

noted,

these

festivals were organized and maintained by the polis and during the festivals the whole polis was in a limina] state of transforming from a (Dionysiac) previous state to a new, more complete, state.» Even though Aronen concentrates on the ritual and cultic aspects of the festivals, I think that these aspects were among the reasons why the theatre had its prominent role within the public (and political) discourse of the polis. This role, especially

50.

Hunter 1985, 12.

5!

Henry 1986, 142.

32

cf. pp. 184-85 and note 9 above.

53 54

Cf. Just 1989, 42-43. Oberἃ Strauss 1990, 237-38. Cf. also J. Ober & B. Stauss 1990, 270: “The structural tactics of metaphors, analogies, images, and fopoi that were devised by elite authors, displayed in public speech, and judged by mass audiences, were intergrated into a comprehensive, flexible, and functionally effective sociopolitical strateg y."

55

Aronen 1992, esp. 23, 29-30.

194

Erja Salmenkivi

because of its ritual nature, could not have lost its position in Athens by the time of Menander. Thus, and especially if we consider the socio-ethical questions to be part of the

politics of the Athenians in the early Hellenistic period, we could say that Menander for his part participated in the political discourse of his time. *

x

*

Do the themes discussed above answer the questions proposed at the beginning of this

paper? Does the picture of the oikoi, the attitudes towards the families and the legal marriage between young couples who have fallen in love reveal to us something about the society of early Hellenistic Athens? The relationship between literature and life is, of course, complex, but in my opinion the comedies of Menander can be used as a medium for interpreting at least some aspects of the everyday reality in ancient Athens.

Furthermore, there are good grounds to believe that one of Menander's purposes was to connect his comedies to the traditional life of the city-state (in Dyskolos, for example, the agricultural scene as such, created with care by Menander, works as an indicator of the

traditional life of the polis). The themes Menander discusses in his plays include the social aspects of life, such as the romantic ideal of a marriage based on love, the problems caused by a generation gap, misunderstandings between the spouses and divorce, which

would also have had its impact on the social status of the families of the couple in question. In addition to these themes,

Menander

has also introduced the soldiers who

have to find their places in their new environment and new situation. Menander had his models in Old Attic comedy and Classical tragedy; in the Greek city-

state of Menander's time dramatic performances retained their part in social life as a platform for society's self-estimation. No matter what changes had taken place between

the time of Aristophanes and the time of Menander, the socio-economic questions were part of the city-state's public "politics". The Euripidean influence in Menander can be seen as a sign of an increasing vagueness between the borders of tragedy and comedy as different genres of literature. In comedy, however, one of the basic elements was to keep the audience in a good mood. In Menander's plays this meant that the serious aspects of life were seen through comic spectacles but this also means that moral and ethical questions were brought into the sphere of everyday life. Therefore, we should not evaluate Menander's comedies only as stereotyped entertainment with no relevance to the society in which they belong.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

ABSA - Annual of the British School at Athens. Acad. Ind. Ξ Academicorum Index. Dorandi, T. 1991a. Adcock, F. & Mosley, D.J. 1975. Diplomacy in Ancient Greece. London.

Adkins, A.W.H. 1972. Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece, from Homer to the End the Fifth Century. New York.

AE = ᾿Ἀρχαιολογικὴ 'Egnuepíc. Agora = The Athenian Agora. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. AJA = American Journal of Archaeology, 2nd Series.

AJAH = American Journal of Ancient History. Aleshire, S.B. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, their Dedications, and the Inventories. Amsterdam. Alscher, L. 1956. Griechische Plastik. Band 3: Nachklassik und Vorhellenismus. Berlin.

Ampolo, C. 19792. ‘Un politico “euergete” del IV secolo a.C. Xenokles figlio di Xeinias del demo di Sphettos', La Parola del Passato 34, 167-178. Ampolo, C. 1979b. ‘Oikonomia. Tre osservazioni sui rapporti tra la finanza e l'economia greca', AION (archeol.) 1, 119-130.

Anderson, W.S. 1984. ‘Love Plots in Menander and his Roman Adaptors’, Ramus 13, 124—34. Annas, J. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. New York/Oxford.

Arnaoutoglou, I. 1994. 'Archeranistes and its Meaning in Inscriptions’, ZPE 104, 107110.

Arnim, H. von 1903-24. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. Vols. 1-4. Leipzig. Arnott, W.G. 1981. ‘Moral Values in Menander, Philologus 125, 215-27. Aronen, J. 1992. ‘Notes on Athenian Drama as Ritual Myth-Telling within the Cult of Dionysos’, Arctos 26, 19-37. Arr. = Arrighetti, G.1960. Epicuro: opere. Turin. Austin, M.M. & Vidal-Naquet, P. 1977. Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece:

An Introduction. Berkeley. BCH =Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. BE = Bulletin épigraphique. Beazley, J.D. & Ashmole, Β. 1932. Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the

Hellenistic Period. Cambridge. Berti, E. 1978. ‘Ancient Greek Dialectic as Expression of Freedom of Thought and

Speech’, Journal of the History of Ideas 39, 347-370. Bieber, M. 1961. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York. Bignone, E. 1936. L’Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro. Vols. 1-2 Firenze. Blanchard, A. 1983. Essai sur la composition des comedies de Menandre. Paris. Boehringer, C. 1972. Zur Chronologie mittelhellenistischer Münzserien 220—160 v. Chr. Deutsches Archáologisches Institut. Antike Münzen und Geschnittene Steine. Band 5. Berlin.

Bogaert, R. 1968. Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques. Leiden.

198

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Borgeaud, P. 1988. The Cuit of Pan in Ancient Greece. Chicago.

Breccia, E. 1912. La Necropoli di Sciatbi. Vols. 1-2. Cairo. Breitenstein, N. 1941. Catalogue of Terracottas. Cypriote, Greek, Etrusco-Italian and

Roman. Copenhagen. Broneer, O. 1932. 'Eros and Aphrodite on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens', Hesperia 1, 31—55. Broneer, ©. 1933. “Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens 1931— 1932’, Hesperia 2, 329-417.

Brown P.G. McC. 1993. ‘Love and Marriage in Greek New Comedy’, CQ 43, 189-205. Brun, P. 1983. Eisphora, Syntaxis, Stratiotika. Recherches sur les finances militaires

d'Athénes au [Ve siécle av. J.-C. Annales littéraires de l'Université de Besancon. Besancon. Buchanan, J.J. 1962. Theorika. A Study of Monetary Distributions to the Athenian Citizenry during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries. New York. Bugh, G.R. 1990. 'The Theseia in Late Hellenistic Athens', ZPE 83, 37.

Burford, Α. 1972. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society. London.

Burke, E.M. 1985. ‘Lycurgan Finances’, GRBS 26.3, 251—264. Burkert, W. 1960. 'Platon oder Pythagoras?' Hermes 88, 159-177. Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.

Burnyeat, M.F. 1980. ‘Can the Sceptic Live his Scepticism?', in Schofield M. ἃ Bumyeat M. & Barnes J. (eds.) 1980, 20-53.

Burnyeat, M.F. 1984. “The Sceptic in his Place and Time’, in Rorty, R. ἃ Schneewind, J.B. & Skinner Q. (eds.) 1984 Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophers. Cambndge. 225-254. Burstein, S.M. (ed.) 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ispus to the Death of Kleopatra VII. Cambridge. Bury, J.B. 19513. A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great. London. 3rd ed. rev. by Meiggs, R. CAH = Cambridge Ancient History.

Calligas, P.G. 1996. ‘Archaeological Research on the Athenian Pnyx', in Forsén, B. & Stanton, G. (eds.) 1996,

1-5.

Camp, J.McK. 1982. ‘Drought and Famine in the 4th century B.C.’, Hesperia Suppl. 20-21, 10-17. Camp, J.McK. 1986. The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London. Carpenter, R. 1960. Greek Sculpture. London. Caskey, J.L. 1982. 'Koroni and Keos', Hesperia Suppl. 19, 14-16. Casson, L. 1976. “The Athenian Upper Class and New Comedy’, TAPAA 106, 29-59. Casson, S. & Brooke, D. 1921. Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum. Vol. 2. Cambridge. Cawkwell, G.L. 1962. ‘Demosthenes and the Stratiotic Fund’, Mnemosyne 15, 377383. Cawkwell, G.L. 1963. ‘Eubulos’, JHS 83, 47-67. Cawkwell, G.L. 1981. ‘Notes on the Failure of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, JHS 101, 40-55. Cawkwell, G.L. 1984. ‘Athenian Naval Power in the Fourth Century’, CQ 34, 334—345. CH = Coin Hoards. 1975-1985. The Royal Numismatic Society, London, England. Vols. 1-7. London.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

199

Chantraine, P. 1968—84. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire de mots. Paris.

Chroust, A.H. 1947. 'Philosophy: Its Essence and Meaning in the Ancient World', Philosophical Review 56, 19—58. CJ = The Classical Journal.

Clay, D. 1973. 'Epicurus' Last Will and Testament’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 55, 252-280. Clay, D. 1982. ‘Epicunus in the Archives of Athens’, Hesperia Suppl. 19, 17-26. Clinton, K. 1980. ‘A Law in the City of Eleusinion Concerning the Mysteries' , Hesperia 49, 258-288. Clinton, K. 1993. "The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis', in Marinatos, N. &

Hagg, R. (eds.) 1993. Greek Sanctuaries. New Approaches. London. 110-124. Cohen, E.E. 1992. Athenian Economy and Society. A Banking Perspective. Princeton. Conwell, D.H. 1996. “The White Poros Wall on the Athenian Pnyx: Character and Context’, in Forsén, B.

ἃ Stanton, G. (eds.) 1996, 93-101.

Conze, A. 1900. Die Attischen Grabreliefs. Band IL.1. Berlin

Crawford, M. 1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy. Cambridge. Crünert 1906. Kolotes und Menedemos: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Philosophenund Literaturgeschichte. Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde 6. Leipzig.

Crowfoot, J. W. & Crowfoot, G.M. & Kenyon, K.M. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste. Reports of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and the British Expedition in 1933. No. 3: The Objects from Samaria. London. Danielli, J. 1904. Les Figurines de Tanagra et de Myrina. Etude et commentaires nouveaux. Paris. Davidson, G.R. & Thompson, D.B. 1943. Small Objects from the Pnyx: I. Hesperia

Suppl. 7. Princeton. Davies, Davies, Davies, Davies, Davies,

J.K. J.K. J.K. J.K. J.K.

1967. 1971. 1978. 1981. 1984.

‘Demosthenes on Liturgies. A Note’, JHS 87, 33-40. Athenian Propertied Families, 600—300 B.C. Oxford. Democracy and Classical Greece. Glasgow. Wealth and Power of Wealth in Classical Athens. New York. 'Cultural, Social, and Economic Features of the Hellenistic World',

CAH 7.1, 257-320. Decleva Caizzi, F. 1993. ‘The Porch and the Garden : Early Hellenistic Images of the Philosophical Life’, in Bulloch, A. et al. (eds.) 1993. Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley. 303—330. Del Corno, D. 1966. Menandro: Le commedie. Classici greci e latini 16. Milano. Derenne, E. 1930. Les procés d'impiété intentés aux philosophes à Athénes aux V€—-IV* siecles avant J.-C. Paris. Detienne, M. 1989. ‘The Violence of Wellborn Ladies: Women in the Thesmophoria’, in Detienne, M. & Vernant, J.-P. (eds.) 1989. The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks. Chicago. 129-147. Develin, R. 1984. ‘From Panathenai to Panathenaia’, ZPE 57, 133-138.

Develin, R. 1989. Athenian Officials, 684-321 B.C. Cambridge. DiMarco = Di Marco, M. 1989. Timone di Fliunte: Silli. Introduzione, edizione critica, traduzione e commento. Roma. Diepolder, H. 1931. Die Attischen Grabreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Berlin. Dodds, E.R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley & London.

200

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Dorandi, T.1991a. Filodemo: Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l'Academia (PHerc. 1021 e

164). Neapel. Dorandi, T. 1991b. Ricerche sulla cronologia dei filosofi ellenistici. Beitráge zur Alter-

tumskunde 19. Stuttgart. Dorandi, T. 1994. Filodemo: Storia dei filosofi. La Stoà da Zenone a Panezio (PHerc.

1018), edizione, traduzione e commento. Philosophia Antiqua 60. Leiden. Dórrie, H. 1987. Die geschichtlichen Wurzeln des Platonismus. Bausteine 1-36. Der

Platonismus in der Antike 1, ed. Dórrie, A. Stuttgart. Dorrie, H. 1990. Die hellenistische Rahmen des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus. Bausteine 36-72. Der Platonismus in der Antike 2, eds. Baltes, M. & Dorrie, A. ἃ Mann, F. Stuttgart. Dover, K.J. 1974. Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle. Berkeley. Dow, A. & Travis, A.H. 1943. 'Demetrios of Phaleron and his Lawgiving’, Hesperia 12, 144-165. Dowden, K. 1989. Death and the Maiden. Girls' Initiation Rites in Greek Mythology. New York. Dudley, D.R. 1937. A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th century A.D. London. Dunand, F. 1986. ‘Les associations dionysiaque au service du pouvoir Lagide', L'association dionysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes. Collection de l'Ecole francaise de Rome 89, 85-103. Düring, I. 1941. Herodicus the Cratetean. À Study in Antiplatonic Tradition. Stockholm.

Düring, I. 1961. Aristotle's Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction. Stockholm. Edmonds, J.M. 1961a. The Fragments of Attic Comedy. Vol. 3 A. Leiden. Edmonds, J.M. 1961b. The Fragments of Attic Comedy. Vol. 3 B. Leiden.

Ehrenberg, V. 1932. Der griechische und der hellenistische Staat. Leipzig, Berlin. Ergon = Τὸ Ἔργον τῆς ᾿Αρχαιολογικῆς ᾿Ἑταιρείας. Erskine, A. 1990. The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action. London. Eyben, E. 1980/1981. ‘Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’, Ancient Society 11/12, 5-82. Fantham, E. 1975. 'Sex, Status and Survival in Hellenistic Athens. A Study on Women

in New Comedy', Phoenix 29, 44—74. Faraguna, M. 1991. Atene nell' età di Alessandro. Problemi politici, economici, financiari. Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Serie 9. Vol. 2. fasc. 2. Roma.

Ferguson, W.S. 1911. Hellenistic Athens. An Historical Essay. London. Repr. 1974 Chigago. Ferguson, W.S. 1932. Athenian Tribal Cycles in the Hellenistic Age. Harward Historical Monographs I. Cambridge, Mass. Ferguson, W.S. 1944. ‘The Attic Orgeones', Harvard Theological Review 37, 61-140. Ferguson, W.S. 1949. 'Orgeonika', Hesperia Suppl. 8, 130-163. FGrHist = Jacoby, F. 1923-1958. Field, D.M. 1977. Greek and Roman Mythology. Norwich. Filliers, D. & Harbottle, G. & Sayre, E.V. 1983 ‘Neutron-Activation Study of Figurines and Workshop Material from the Athenian Agora, Greece’, Journal of Field Archaeology 10, 55-69. Fine, J.V.A. 1951. Horoi. Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient Athens. Hesperia Suppl. 9. Athens. Finley. M.I. (1952) 19857. The Ancient Economy. London.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

201

Finley, M.I. 1953a. 'Land, Debt and the Man of Property in Classical Athens', Political

Science Quarterly 68, 249—268. Finley, M.I. 1953b. ‘Multiple Charges on Real Property in Athenian Law’, Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz 3, 473—491. Naples Finley, M.I. 1981. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece. Shaw, B.D. & Saller, R. (eds.). London.

Finley, M.I. 1985. Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens. First edition 1952, corr. repr. New Brunswick. Fitzwilliam Museum = Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins. Vol. 2. The Greek Mainland, the Aegaean Islands, Crete. 1926. Grose, S.W. (ed.). Cambridge. Flashar, H. 1983a. 'Aristoteles', in Flashar, H. (ed.) 1983b, 175—458. Flashar, H. (ed.) 1983b. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der

Antike. Bd. 3: Ältere Akademie, Aristoteles, Peripatos. Völlig neubearb Ausg. Basel.

Flashar, H. (ed.) 1994. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 4/2 Die Hellenistiche Philosophie. Vollig neubearb Ausg. Basel. Forsén, B. & Stanton, G. (eds.) 1966. The Pnyx in the History of Athens. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 2. Helsinki Foucart, P. 1873. Les associations religieuses chez les grecs. Thiases, éranes, orgéons. Paris.

Foucault, M. 1984a. Histoire de la sexualité. Vol. 2: L'usage des plaisirs. Paris. Foucault, M. 1984b. Histoire de la sexualité. Vol. 3: Le souci de soi. Paris.

Frede, M. 1984. “The Sceptic’s Two Kinds of Assent and the Question of Possibility of Knowledge’, in Rorty, R. & Schneewind, J.B. & Skinner, Q. (eds.). 1984 Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophers. Cambridge. 255-278. Frischer, B. 1982. The Sculpted Word: Epicureanism and Philosophical Recruitment in Ancient Greece. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Frisk, H. 1960-72. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vols. 1-3. Indogerma-

nische Bibliothek. 3 Reihe. Untersuchungen. Heidelberg. Fritz, K. von 1938. 'Philon', RE 19, 2532-2533. Gabrielsen, V. 1986. ‘®ANEPA and ADANHZ OYZIA in Classical Athens’, Classica et Mediaevalia 37, 99-114. Gaiser, K. 1988. Supplementum Platonicum: die Texte der indirekten Platonüberlieferung. Bd 1: Philodems Academica: die Berichte über Platon und die Alte Akademie in zwei herkulanensischen Papyri. Stuttgart. Gallo, I. 1976. ‘Commedia e filosofia in età ellenistica: Batone', Vichiana 5.3, 206-242. Gallo, I. 1992. Ricerche sul teatro greco. Pubblicazioni dell' universita degli studi di Salerno. Napoli.

Garnsey, P. ἃ Morris, I. 1989. ‘Risk and the polis: The Evolution of Institutionalised Responses to Food Supply Problems in the Ancient Greek State', in Halstead, P. & O' Shea,

J. (eds.) 1989. Bad Year Economics. Cultural Responses to Risk and

Uncertainty. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge. 98-105. Garnsey, P. 1988. Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Responses to Risk and Crisis. Worcester. Gauthier, Ph. 1976. Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon. Genéve. Gauthier, Ph. 1985. Les cités grecques et leur bienfaiteurs (IV€-I€" siécles avant J.-C.) Contributions à l'institutions. BCH Suppl. 12. Paris.

202

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Gehrke, H-J. 1990. Geschichte der Hellenismus. Oldenbourg-Grundriss der Geschichte 1 A. München. Gigante, M. 1983. ‘Filodemo sulla liberta di parola’, in Gigante, M. (ed.) 1983. Ricerche Filodeme. Napoli. 55-114. Gigon, O. 1987. “The Peripatos in Cicero’s De finibus’, in Fortenbaugh, W.W. &

Sharples, R.W. (eds.) 1987. Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Sciences, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric. Studies in Classical Humanities 3. New Brunswick, Oxford. 259-271. Gimbutas, M. 1989. The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. San Francisco.

Glidden, D. K. 1983. ‘Epicurean Semantics’, ZYZHTHZIXE. Studi sull' epicureismo greco e latino offerti a Marcello Gigante. Vol. 1. Biblioteca della Parola del Passato 6. Napoli. 185-226.

Glucker, J. 1978. Antiochus and the Late Academy. Hypomnemata 56. Góttingen. Goldberg, S.M. 1980. The Making of Menander's Comedy. London. Gomme, A.W. & Sandbach, F.H. 1973. Menander. A Commentary. Oxford. Görler, W.1994. ‘Älterer Pyrrhonismus, jüngere Akademie, Antiochos aus Askalon’, in Flashar, H. (ed.) 1994, 717—989. Gottschalk, H.B. 1972. ‘Notes on the Wills of the Peripatetic Scholars’, Hermes 100,

314-342. Gottschalk, H.B. 1980. Heraclides of Pontus. Oxford. Gould, J. 1970. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. Leiden. Grace, V. 1974. ‘Revisions in Early Hellenistic Chronology’, MDAI(A) 89, 193-200.

GRBS = Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Green, P. 1990 (19932). Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic Culture and Society 1. Berkeley, Los Angeles. Green, P. (ed.) 1993. Hellenistic History and Culture. Hellenistic Culture and Society 9.

Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. Guido, M. 1967. Sicily: An Archaeological Guide. The Prehistoric and Roman Remains and the Greek Cities. London. Günther, L-M.

1993. "Witwen in der griechischen Antike — zwischen Oikos und Polis’,

Historia 42, 308-325. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1965. A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. 3: The Fifth-Century Enlightment. Cambridge. Guthrie, W.K.C. 1979. A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. 5: The Later Plato and Academy. Cambridge. Habicht, C. 1979. Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. München. Habicht, C. 1994. Athen in hellenisticher Zeit: gesammelte Aufsátze. München. Habicht, C.1995. Athen. Die Geschichte der Stadt in hellenistischer Zeit. München. Habicht, C. 1982. Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit. Hypomnemata 73. Góttingen. Handley, E.W.

1985. ‘Comedy’, in Easterling, P.E. & Knox, B.M.W.

(eds.) 1985.

Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Vol. 1: Greek Literature. Cambridge. 355—425. Handley, E.W. 19922. The Dyskolos of Menander. 2nd ed. London. Heinze, R. 1892. Xenocrates. Darstellung der Lehre und Sammlung der Fragmente. Hildesheim.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

203

Henderson, J. 1990. ‘The Demos and the Comic Competition’, in Winkler J.J. ἃ Zeitlin,

F.I. (eds.) 1990, 271-313

Henry, A.S. 1983. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Subsidia Epigraphica 10. Hildesheim. Henry, A.S. 1984. ‘Athenian Financial Officers after 303 B.C.’, Chiron 14, 49-92.

Henry, A.S. 1988. “The one and the many. Athenian financial officials in the Hellenistic period’, ZPE 72, 129-136. Henry, M.M. 1986. ‘Ethos, Mythos, Praxis. Women in Menander’s Comedy’, in

Skinner, M. (ed.) 1986. Rescuing Creusa. New Methodological Approaches to Women in Antiquity. Helios 13.2, Special issue, 141—150.

Herman, G. 1987. Ritualized Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge. Higgins, R.A. 1967. Greek Terracottas. London. Higgins, R.A. 1969. Greek Terracotta Figures. Oxford. Higgins, R.A. 1987. Tanagra and the Figurines. London.

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge. Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.

Cambridge. Hodder, I. 1990. ‘Style as Historical Quality’, in Conkey, M. & Hastorf, C. (eds.) 1990.

The Uses of Style in Archaeology. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge. 44—5].

Howgego, C. J. 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks. Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. Royal Numismatic Society. Special Publication no. 17. London. Hülser, K. 1987-8. Die fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker. Neue Sammlung der Texte

mit deutschen Übersetzung und Kommentar. Vols. 1-4. Stuttgart. Humphreys, S. 1977/1978. ‘Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens’, CJ 73, 97— 104.

Humphreys, S. 1985 ‘Lycurgus of Butanidae. An Athenian Aristocrate’, in Eadie, J.W. & Ober, J. (eds.) 1985. The Craft of the Ancient Historian. Essays in Honor of C.G. Starr. Lanham. 199—236. Humphreys, S.C. 1978. Anthropology and the Greeks. London. Hunter, R.L. 1985. The New Comedy of Greece and Rome. Cambridge. Hussey, E. 1990. ‘The Beginnings of Epistemology: From Homer to Philolaus', in Everson, S. (ed.) 1990. Epistemology. Companions to Ancient Thought 1. Cambridge. 11-38. Hutton, C.A. 1899. Greek Terracotta Statuettes. London.

IKosSegre = Segre, M. 1993. Iscrizioni di Cos. Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 6. Roma. ID = Inscriptions de Délos. 1926-1972. Paris. IG z Inscriptiones Graecae.

IGCH = An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. 1973. Thompson, M. & Morkholm, O. & Kraay, C.M. (eds.) Published for the International Numismatic Commission. The American Numismatic Society. Glückstadt. Ind.Sto. = Stoicorum Index Herculanensis. Dorandi, T. 1994. Isager S. 1988. ‘Once upon a Time. On the Interpretation of [Aristotle], Oikonomika II’,

in Damsgaard-Madsen, A. & Christiansen, E. & Hallager, E. (eds.) 1985. Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics Presented to Rudi Thomsen. Aarhus. 77-83.

204

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Isnardi Parente, M. 1982. Senocrate Ermodoro Frammenti. La Scuola di Platone 3. Napoli. Jacoby, F. 1923-1958. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Vols. 1-3. Berlin, Leiden. Jaeger, W. 1960. ‘Uber Ursprung und Kreislauf des philosophischen Lebensideals',

Scripta Minora. Roma, 347—393. JHS Ξ Journal of Hellenic Studies. Joly, R. 1956. Le théme philosophique des genres de vie dans l'Antiquité classique. Bruxelles. Jordan, W. 1990. Ancient Concepts of Philosophy. London. Just, R. 1989. Women in Athenian Law and Life. London, New York. Kaerst, I. 1896. 'Asandros', RE 2, 1515-1516. Kaimio, J. 1979. The Romans and the Greek Language. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 64. Helsinki. Kane, S. 1992. 'Kore's Return, Statuary from the Sanctuary', Expedition 34, 67—75. Karlsson, L. 1996. 'The City Walls on the Pnyx Put into Context', in Forsén, B. & Stanton, G. (eds.) 1996, 87—92. Kassel, R. 1985. 'Der Peripatetiker Prytanis', ZPE 60, 23-24.

Katsouris, A.G. 1975. Linguistic and Stylistic Characterization. Tragedy and Menander. Ioannina. Kerferd, G.B.

1978. ‘What Does the Wise Man Know”’, in Rist, J.H. (ed.) 1978. The

Stoics. Berkeley. 125-136.

Kienast, D. 1973. 'Presbeia Πρεσβεία᾽, RE Suppl. 13, 499-628. Kleiner, F.S. 1975. “The Earliest Athenian New Style Bronze Coins. Some Evidence from the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 44.3, 302-330.

Kleiner, F.S. 1976. ‘The Agora Excavations and Athenian Bronze Coinage, 200-86 B.C.', Hesperia 45.1, 140.

Kleiner, G. 19842, Tanagrafiguren: Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Kunst und Geschichte. (First ed. 1942.) Berlin, New York. Knoblauch, P. 1943. ‘Catalogue of Terrakottas. Breitenstein, N. 1943’, Gnomon 19, 131-140. Knoepfler, D. 1991. La vie de Ménédéme d' Erétrie de Diogéne Laérce. Schweizerische Beitráge zur Altertumswissenschaft 21. Basel. Köhler ‚U. 1898. ‘Ein Fragment des Demetrius von Phaleron', RhM 53.3, 491—493. Kohler, U. 1877. ‘Der Südabhang der Akropolis zu Athen nach den Ausgrabungen der archáologischen Gesellschaft’, MDAI(A) 2, 171-186; 229-260. Köhler, U. 1878. ‘Documente zur Geschichte des Athenischen Theaters’, MDAI(A) 3.2,

104—134.

Krämer, H.J. 1983. ‘Die Ältere Akademie’, in Flashar, H. (ed.) 1983, 1-174. Kroll, J.H. 1974. ‘Numismatic Appendix’ in Grace V.R. ‘Revisions in Early Hellenistic Chronology’, MDAI(A) 89, 201-203. Kroll, J.H. 1979. ‘A Chronology of Early Athenian Bronze Coinage, ca. 350-250 B.C.’, in Morkholm, O. & Waggoner, N.M. (eds.) 1979. Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thompson. Wetteren. 139-154. Kroll, J.H. 1993. Agora 26:The Greek Coins. Baltimore, Maryland.

Kroll, W.

1935. ‘Nausikles’, RE 16.2, 2019-2020.

Lacey, W.K. 1968. The Family in Classical Greece. London. Laumonier, A. 1921. Catalogue des terres cuites du Musée Archéologique de Madrid. Paris.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

205

Lawrence, A.W. 1927. Later Greek Sculpture and its Influence on East and West. London. LCL z Loeb Classical Library. Liampi, K. 1986. “Zur Chronologie der sogennanten "anonymen" makedonischen

Münzen des spáten 4. Jhs. v. Chr.', Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 34, 41—65. Lloyd, G.E.R. 1979. Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge. Long, A.A. 1974. Hellenistic Philosophy. Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London. Long, A.A. 1978. ‘Dialectic and the Stoic Sage’, in Rist, J.H. (ed.) 1978. The Stoics.

Berkeley. 101-124. Long, A.A. 1985. ‘Pleasure and Social Utility: The Virtues of Being Epicurean’, in Flashar, H. & Gigon, O. (eds.) 1985. Aspects de la philosophie hellénistique. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 32. Vandoevres, Genéve. 283-323. Long, A.A.

1993. ‘Hellenistic Ethics and Philosophical Power’, in Green, P. (ed.).

1993, 138-156.

Long, A.A. ἃ Sedley, D.N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vols. 1-2. Cambridge. Lord, C. 1982. Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle. Ithaca, London.

LS = Long, A.A. ἃ Sedley, D.N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol 1. Lucas, D.W. 1968. Aristotle: Poetics. Introduction, Commentary and Appendixes. Oxford. Luschnat, O. 1958. ‘Das Problem des ethischen Fortschritts in der Alten Stoa’, Philologus 102, 179-214. Lynch, J.P. 1972. Aristotle's School. Berkeley, Los Angeles. MacDowell, D.M. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. London. MacDowell, D.M.

1986. “The Law of Periandros about symmones’, CQ 36, 438-449.

MacDowell, D.M. 1990. Demosthenes: Against Meidias. Oxford.

Maier, F.G. 1959. Griechische Mauerbauinschriften I. Texte und Kommentare. Vestigia 1. Heidelberg. Mansfeld, J. 1990. Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy. Assen Van Gorcum. Martha, J. 1880. Catalogue des figurines en terre cuite du musée de la Société Archéologique d'Athénes. Paris Martin, T. 1985. Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece. Princeton. Mathisen, R.W. 1981. 'Antigonus Gonatas and the Silver Coinages of Macedonia circa 280-270 B.C.', The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 26, 79-124. Mattingly, H. 1990. "The Beginning of Athenian New Style Silver Coinage’, Numismatic Chronicle 150, 67-78

McCredie, J.R. 1966. Fortified Military Camps in Attica. Hesperia Suppl. 11. Baltimore, Maryland. MDAI(A) = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts (Athenische Abteilung). Meiggs, R. 1972. The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Mejer, J. 1978. Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background. Hermes Einzelschriften 40. Wiesbaden. Mekler, 5. 1958. Academicorum Philosophorum Index Herculanensis. Berlin (First ed. 1902).

206

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Meritt, B.D. 1935. 'Prytanis', Hesperia 4, 525-529. Meritt, B.D. ἃ Traill, J.S. 1974. Agora 15: Inscriptions. The Athenian Councillors.

Princeton. Merlan, P. 1976. ‘Zum Problem der drei Lebensarten’, Merlan, F. (ed.) 1976. Kleine

philosophische Schriften. Collectanea 20. Hildesheim. Mette, J. 1984. 'Zwei Akademiker heute: Krantor und Arkesilaos', Lustrum 26, 7—94.

Mette, J. 1985. "Weitere Akademiker heute: von Lakydes bis zu Kleitomachos’, Lustrum 27, 39-148. Meyer, M.W. (ed.) 1987. The Ancient Mysteries. A Sourcebook. Sacred Texts of the Mystery Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World. San Francisco.

Migeotte, L. 1984. L'emprunt public dans les cités grecques: recueil des documents et analyse critique. Paris. Migeotte, L. 1992. Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Genéve. Miller, S.G. 1974. 'Menon's Cistern', Hesperia 43, 194—245. Millett, P. 1983. ‘Maritime Loans and the Structure of Credit in Fourth-Century Athens’,

in Garnsey, P. & Hopkins, K. & Whittaker, C.R. (eds.) 1983. Trade in the Ancient Economy. Berkeley. 36-52; 186—189. Millett, P. 1989. ‘Patronage and Its Avoidance in Classical Athens’, in Wallace-Hadrill,

A. (ed.) 1989. Patronage in Ancient Society. London. 15-48. Millett, P. 1991. Lending and Borrowing in Ancient Society. Cambridge. Modrzejewski, J. 1981. 'La structure juridique du mariage grec', in Bresciani, E. & Geraci, G. ἃ Pernigotti, S. & Susini, G. (eds.) Scritti in onore di Orsolina

Montevecchi. Bologna. 231—268. Momigliano, A. 1973. ‘Freedom of Speech in Antiquity’, Wiener, P.P. (ed.) 1973. Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. 2. New York. 252-253. Momigliano, A. 1975. Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge. Moretti, L. 1967. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche. Vol 1. Bibliotheca di studi superiori 63. Firenze. Morgan, C.H. 1949. ‘The Style of Lysippos', Hesperia Suppl. 7, 228-235.

Morgan, C.H. 1935. ‘The Terracotta Figurines from the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens 1933-1934’, Hesperia 4, 189-213. Mgrkholm, O. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accesion of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336—188 B.C.). Grierson P. & Westermark U. (eds.).

Cambridge. Morrison, E.J. 1978. 'Victors in the Prytaneion Decree IG I? 77’, GRBS

19, 121-125.

Mosse, C. 1962. La fin de la démocratie athénienne. Paris.

Mosse, C. 1989. ‘Lycurge l'athénien: homme du passé ou precourseur de l'avenir', Quaderni di Storia 30, 25-34. Müller, C. 1858. Oratores Attici. Vol. 2. Parisiis. Miinch. Beitr. = Münchener Bettrdge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte. Natali, C. 1987. "᾿Αδολεσχία, Λεπτολογία and the Philosophers in Athens’, Phronesis 32, 232-241. Neutsch, B. 1952. Studien zur vortanagräisch-attischen Koroplastik. Ergánzungsheft zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 17. Berlin Nicolet-Pierre, H. & Kroll, J.H. 1990. 'Athenian Tetradrachm Coinage of the Third Century B.C.', American Journal of Numismatics 2, 1-35. Nilsson, M.P. 1972. Cults, Mvths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece. New York.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

207

Nussbaum, M. 1986. "Therapeutic Arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle', in Schofield, M. & Striker, G. (eds.) 1986. The Norms of Nature. Studies in Hellenistic Ethics. Cambridge, Paris. 31—74. Ober, J. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Rhetoric, Ideology and the Power of the People. Princeton. Ober, J. & Strauss, B. 1990. ‘Drama, Political Rhetoric and the Discourse of Athenian Democracy', in Winkler, J.J. & Zeitlin, F.I. (eds.) 1990, 237-270. Oehler, J. 1927. ‘Leiturgia’, RE 12, 1871-1879. Onians, J. 1979. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age. The Greek World View 350-50 B.C. London. Osborne, M.J. 1981a. ‘Entertainment in the Prytaneion at Athens’, ZPE 41, 153-170.

Osborne, M.J. 1981b. ‘Some Attic Inscriptions’, ZPE 42, 171-177. Osborne, M.J. 1981-83. Naturalization in Athens. Vols. 1—4. Brussel. Osborne, M.J. 1989. ‘The Chronology of Athens in the Mid Third Century B.C.’, ZPE

87, 234—236. Otto, W.F. 1965. Dionysos, Myth and Cult. Bloomington.

Page, D.L. (ed.) 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge. Pakkanen, P. 1996 Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion.

A Study Based on the Mystery

Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens. Vol. 3. Helsinki. PCG = Poetae Comici Graeci. Kassel, Ε & Austin, C. (eds.) 1983-1995. Berlin, New York. Pecirka, J. 1976. "The Crisis of the Athenian polis in the Fourth Century B.C.', Eirene 14, 5-29. Peek, W. 1942 ‘Attische Inschriften’, MDAI(A) 67, 1-217. Peek, W. 1960. Griechische Grabgedichte. Berlin. Picard, O. 1979. Chalcis et la confédération eubéenne. Etude de numismatique et d'histoire (IVe-Ier siécle). Bibliothéque des Ecoles Frangaises d' Athénes et de Rome. Vol. 234. Paris.

Pickard-Cambridge, A. 19682. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd ed. revised by Gould, J. & Lewis, D.M. Oxford.

Pierart, M. 1971. ‘Les εὔθυνοι Athéniens', L'Antiquité Classique 15, 526—573. Poland, F. 1909. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig.

Pollitt, J.J. 1988. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge. Pottier, M. 1890. Les statuettes de terre cuite dans L'Antiquité. Paris.

Praktika = Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ᾿Αρχαιολογικῆς ‘Etaipeiac. Préaux, C. 1957. ‘Ménandre et la société Athénienne', Chronique d'Egypte 63, 84—100.

Préaux, C. 1960. ‘Les fonctions du droit dans la comédie nouvelle. A propos du Dyscolos de Ménandre', Chronique d'Egypte 35, 222-39. Price, MJ. 1967. ‘Coins from Some Deposits in the South Stoa at Corinth’, Hesperia

36.4, 348—388, Quass, F. 1979. 'Zur Verfassung der griechischen Stádte in Hellenismus', Chiron 9, 37—

52. Randall, R.H. Jr. 1953. ‘The Erechteum Workmen’, AJA 57, 199-210. Rathbone, D. 1983. “The Grain Trade and Grain Shortages in the Hellenistic East’, in Garnsey, P. & Whittaker, C.R. (eds.) 1983. Trade and Famine in Classical

Antiquity. Cambridge. 45-55. RE = G. Wissowa et alii (eds.), Paulys Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart 1894-1980.

208

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Reisch, E. 1899. 'Choregia', RE 3, 2409-2422. Renfrew, C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. London. Renfrew, C. 1994. ‘The Archaeology of Religion’, in Renfrew, C. ἃ Zubrow, E.B.W

(eds.) 1994. The Ancient Mind. Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge. 47-54. RhM = Rheinisches Museum (für Philologie). Rhodes, P.J. 1972. The Athenian boule. Oxford. Rhodes, P.J. 1980. ‘Athenian Democracy after 403’, CJ 75, 305-323. Rhodes, P.J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion politeia. Oxford . Rhodes, P.J. 1982. 'Problems in Athenian eisphora and Liturgies', AJAH 7, 1—19. Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. A Source Book. Chicago. Richter, G.M.A. 1944. ‘Archaeological Notes. Two Greek Statues’, AJA 48, 229-239. Richter, G.M.A. 1984. The Portraits of the Greeks. (Abridged and revised by Smith,

R.R.R.) Over Wallop, Stockbridge, Hants. Robert, L. 1935. ‘Notes d'épigraphie hellénistique XLV. Décret d’ Athénes, BCH 59, 436-437. Robinson, D.M. 1952. Excavations at Olynthus. Vol. 14: Terracottas, Lamps, and Coins found in 1934 and 1938. London.

Rohde, E. 1968. Griechische Terrakotten. Tübingen. Roller, D. W. 1987. “Tanagra Survey Project 1985. The Site of Grimadha’, in ABSA 82, 213-232.

Rotroff, S.I. 1982. Agora 22: Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Princeton, New Jersey. Rotroff, S.I. 1996. 'Pnyx III: Pottery and Stratigraphy', in Forsén, B. & Stanton, G. (eds.) 1996, 35—46. Ruschenbusch, E. 1978 ‘Die athenischen Symmorien des 4. Jh. v.Chr.’, ZPE 31, 275-

284. Ruschenbusch, E. 1979. ‘Die Einführung des Theorikon', ZPE 36, 303-308.

Ruschenbusch, E. 1985. ‘Die trierarchischen Syntelien und das Vermögen der Syntelienmitglieder', ZPE 59, 240-249.

Ruschenbusch, E. 1987. 'Symmorienprobleme', ZPE 69, 75-81. San Nicoló, M. 1913-1915. Agyptische Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemder und Römer. | München 1913, 2 München 1915 (= Münch. Beitr. 2). Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage mit Nachtrágen von J. Herrmann. München 1972 (= Münch. Beitr. 22.1—2). Sandbach, F.H. 19902. Menandri reliquiae selectae. Oxford. Schofield, M. 1991. The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge. Schofield, M. & Burnyeat, M. & Barnes, J. (eds.) 1980. Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies

in Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford.

Schultheiss, ©. 1926 'λογισταί᾽, RE 13, 1012-1019. Schwenk, C.J. 1985. Athens in the Age of Alexander. The Dated Laws and Decrees of

the Lykourgan Era, 338—322 B.C. Chigago. (A concordance of inscriptions in SEG XXXV, 1985, 239.) Sealey, R. 1955. ‘Athens after the Social War’, JAS 75, 74-81. Sedley, D. 1976. ‘Epicurus and his Professional Rivals’, in Bollack, J. & Laks A. (eds.) 1976. Etudes sur l'Epicurisme antique. Cahiers de Philologie 1. Lille. 121—157. Sedley, D. 1989. ‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World’, in Griffin, M. & Barnes, J. (eds.) 1989. Philosophia Togata. Essays on Philosophy and Roman Soctety, Oxford. 97-119.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

209

SEG - Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. Sekunda, N.V. 1990. ‘IG I? 1250: A Decree Concerning the lampadephoroi of the Tribe

Aiantis', ZPE 83, 149-182. SG - La Sicilia Greca. 1989. Mostra organizzata dalla Regione Siciliana Assessorato Regionale Beni Culturali e Ambietali. Palermo. SGDI Ξ Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften 1-4. Bechtel, F & Collitz, H. ἃ

Hoffmann, O. 1884—1915. Géttingen. Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1987. Re-Constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice. New

Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge. Shaw, B.D. 1985. ‘Divine Economy. Stoicism as Ideology’, Latomus 44, 16-54. Shear, T.L. Jr. 1969. ‘The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1968’, Hesperia 38, 382-

417. Shear, T.L. Jr. 1978. Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. Hesperia Suppl. 17. Sihvola, J. 1993. ‘Why Does Contemplation Not Fit Well into Aristotle's εὐδαιμονία γ᾽,

Arctos 27, 103-121. Simms, R.R. 1988. ‘The Cult of the Thracian Goddess Bendis in Athens and Attica’, Ancient World 18, 59-70. Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica. An Archaeological Commentary. Madison/ Wisconsin.

Sismondo Ridgway, B. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture. Vol. 1: The Styles of c. 331-200 B.C. Bristol. Smith, R.R.R. 1988. Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. Oxford. Smith, R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture. A Handbook. London. Smith, R.R.R. 1993. ‘Kings and Philosophers.’ in Bulloch, A. et al. (eds.) 1993. Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley. 202—

211. SNG Berry = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. |961. The Burton Y. Berry Collection, Part 1: Macedonia to Attica. Thompson, M. & Holloway, R. (eds.). Glückstadt. SNG Cop. Ξ Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. 1943. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Macedonia Part 3: Philip III-Philip VI, Macedonia under the Romans, Kings of Paeonia. Munksgaard E. (ed.).

Copenhagen. SNG Cop. = Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. 1982. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Vol. 2: Thrace and Macedonia. New Jersey.

Solmsen, F. 1961. 'Griechische Philosophie und die Entdeckung der Nerven', in Flashar, H. (ed.) 1961. Antike Medizin. Wege der Forschung 221. Darmstadt.

202-279. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1988. Studies in Girls' Transitions. Aspects of the Arkteia and Age Representations in Attic Iconography. Athens.

Steinhauer, G. 1993. ‘Neétepa στοιχεῖα γιὰ τὸν Σαλαμίνιο θίασο τῆς Βενδῖδος᾽, AE 132, 31-47. Steinmetz, P.1994. 'Die Stoa', in Flashar, H .(ed.) 1994, 491—716. Stewart, A. 1979. ATTIKA. Sudies in Athenian Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. Plymouth. Stewart, A.F. 1977. Skopas of Paros. Park Ridge, New Jersey. Striker, G. 1980. ‘Sceptical Strategies’, in Schofield, M. & Burnyeat, M. & Barnes, J.

(eds.) 1980, 54-83.

210

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Striker, G. 1990. 'The Problem of criterion', in Everson, S. (ed.) 1990. Epistemology.

Companions to Ancient Thought 1. Cambridge. 143-160. Stroud, R.S. 1965. 'The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth, Preliminary Report I: 1961-1962’, Hesperia 34, 1-24. Syll.3 = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Dittenberger, W. (ed.) 1915-1924. 3rd. ed. Leipzig. Süsserot, H. 1938. Griechische Plastik des 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christus. Untersuchungen zur Zeitbestimmung. Frankfurt am Main.

Sventsiskaya, I.S. 1985. ‘Private Associations in the Greek Cities of Hellenistic and Roman Times' (In Russian), Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4, 43—61. TAPhA = Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. Thesleff, H. 1990. ‘Presocratic Publicity’, in Teodorsson S.-T. (ed.) 1990. Greek and

Latin Studies in Memory of Cajus Fabricius. Studia Graeca & Latina Gothoburgensia 54. 110-121. Thomas, R. 1989. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge

Thompson, D.B. 1950. ‘A Bronze Dancer from Alexandria’, AJA 54, 371—385. Thompson, D.B. 1966. “The Origin of Tanagras', AJA 70, 51-63. Thompson, D.B. 1973. Prolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faiance. Aspects of the Ruler Cult. Oxford. Thompson, D.B. 1982. ‘A Dove for Dione’, Hesperia Suppl. 20, 155-162.

Thompson, H.A. 1934. "Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery’, Hesperia 3, 311— 476. Thompson, H.A. 1936. Thompson, H.A. 1988. (ed.) 1988. Pots Monograph 24. 7-19.

'Pnyx and Thesmophorion', Hesperia 5, 151—200. "The Athenian Vase-Painters and their Neighbors', in Rice, P.M. and Potters. Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Los Angeles.

Thompson, H.A. & Thompson, D.B. & Rotroff, S.I. 1987. Hellenistic Pottery and

Terracottas. Princeton, New Jersey. Thompson, M. 1942. 'Coins for the Eleusinia', Hesperia 11.3, 214-229. Thompson, M. 1954. Agora 2: Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period. Glückstadt. Thompson, M. 1961. The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens. The American Numismatic Society. Numismatic Studies 10. Glückstadt. Thompson, W.E. 1974. ‘More on the Prytaneion Decree’, GRBS 20, 325-329. Thomsen, R. 1964. Eisphora. A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen. Tod, M.N. 1957. 'Sidelights on Greek Philosophy', JHS 77, 132-141. Tod, M.N. (ed.) 1948. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. Vol. 2: From 403 to 323 B.C. Oxford. Touratsoglou, Ioannis. 1989. "The Adam Zagliveriou/ 1983 Hoard in the Museum of Thessaloniki (Athenian "New Style" tetradrachms in Macedonia)’, Νομισματικὰ

Xpovixa 8, 7-20. Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. London. Treu, K. 1981. 'Menanders Menschen als Polisbürger', Philologus 125, 211—214.

Turner, E.G. 1979. 'Menander and the New Society of his Time', Chronique d'Egvpte 54. 106-26. Uhlenbrock, J.P. 1992. "History, Trade and Terracottas', Expedition 34, 16-23. Us. = Usener, H. 1887. Epicurea. Leipzig.

Bibliography and Abbreviations

211

Vatai, Frank L. 1984. Intellectuals in Politics in the Greek World: From Early Times to the Hellenistic Age. London. Vernant, J.-P. 1992. Mortals and Immortals. Collected Essays. Zeitlin, F.I. (ed.). Oxford.

Veyne, P. 1990. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. Harmondsworth.

Vidal-Naquet, P. 1981. Le Chasseur Noir. Paris. Vierneisel, K. (ed.) 1988. Glyptothek Miinchen, Katalog der Skuipturen. Band 3: Klassische Grabdenkmäler und Votivreliefs. Bearbeitet von Vierneisel-Schlörb, B. München.

Vondeling, J. 1961. Eranos. Groningen. Walbank, M.B. 1991. ‘Leases of Public Land’, Agora 9: Inscriptions. 145-198. Walbank, M.B. 1994. ‘A Lex Sacra of the State and of the deme of Kollytos.' Hesperia 63:2, 233-230. Wallace, R.W. 1989. ‘The Athenian proeispherontes' , Hesperia 58, 473—490. Walters, H.B. 1903. Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum, London. Walton, J.M. 1980. Greek Theatre Practice. London. Webster, T.B.L. 1950. Greek Terracottas. Harmondsworth.

Webster, T.B.L. 1953. Studies in Later Greek Comedy. Manchester. 2nd ed. 1970 London. Webster, T.B.L. 19602. Studies in Menander. 2nd ed. Manchester. Webster, T.B.L. 1972. Potter and Patron in Classical Athens. Bungay, Suffolk. Wehrli, F. 1944. Dikaiarchos. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Heft 1.

Basel. Wehrli = Wehrli, F. 1949. Demetrios von Phaleron. Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte

und Kommentar. Heft 4. Basel. Wehrli, F. 1983. ‘Der Peripatos bis zum Beginn der rómischen Kaiserzeit’, in Flashar, H. (ed.) 1983, 458—600. Westman, R. 1955. Plutarch gegen Kolotes: seine Schrift "Adversus Colotem" als philosophiegeschichtliche Quelle. Acta Philosophica Fennica 7. Helsinki. Whitehead, D. 1981. ‘Xenocrates the Metic’, RAM 124, 223-244. Whitehead, D. 1983. ‘Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: philotimia in Athens’, Classica et Medievalia 34, 55—74. Whitehead, D. 1986. The Demes of Attica 508/7—ca. 250 B.C. A Political and Social Study. Princeton. Whitehead, D. 1993. ‘Cardinal Virtues’, Classica et Medievalia 44, 37-76. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1881. Antigonos von Karystos. Berlin.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von 1887. ‘Demotika der Attischen Metoeken', Hermes 22, 107-128. Will, E. 1972. Le monde grec et l'Orient I: Le V* siécle (510—403). Peuples et civilisations 2.1. Paris

Winiarczyk, M. 1981. Diagorae Melii et Theodori Cyrenaei reliquiae. Leipzig. Winkler, J.J. & Zeitlin, F.I. (eds.) 1990. Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context. Princeton, New Jersey. Winter, F. 1903. Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten. Band 2. Berlin & Stuttgart. Wycherley, R.E. 1978. The Stones of Athens. Princeton. Young, R.S. 1951. ‘An Industrial District of Ancient Athens’, Hesperia 20, 135-288.

212

Bibliography and Abbreviations

Zaidman, L.B. & Pantel, P.S. 1992. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Melksham, Wiltshire.

Zanker, P. 1995. Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst. München. Zeitlin, F.I. 1990. "Thebes. Theater of Self and Society in Athenian Drama', in Winkler, J.J. ἃ Zeitlin, F.I. (eds.) 1990, 130-167.

Ziebarth, E. 1896. Das griechische Vereinswesen. Leipzig. ZPE - Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

Data-Base Corpora: PHI Ξ Greek Documentary Texts. Inscriptions, Papyri, Coptic Texts. CD ROM ἢ 6. The Packard Humanities Institute. 1991. TLG = Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. CD ROM # D. The Packard Humanities Institute. 1992.

Inscriptions

Agora 15 85 Fine 1951 28 ID 4 1774 IG [2 77 (=IGB IG II/II2 29 215 222 223 223 B 226 244 304 337 338 347 351 354 360 380 450 457 463 488 492 500 513 554 555 567 64 | 646 648 649 653 654

23 111; 112 117 27 131) 5 2] 6 25 5 5 107 32 115 2] 83 21 83 18 5 27; 28 9 7 29 26 28, 111 27; 28 13 28 7 5] 28; 5] 7; 28 10; 26; 27 28 28

657 660 668 672 675 682 707 709 715 791 792 807 832 834 835 844 847 886 896 956 957 958 959 961 963 966 968 983 996 1006 1013 1023 1132 1138-1171 1172-1221 177 1183 1191 1195 1236 1237

7; 22; 25; 28; 84 13 12 21 7 12; 21; 27; 32; 113 7 7 13 13; 85 28 24 27 23 12; 13 28 8; 24 84 12 23 23 23 23 23 23 28 23;31 28 32 84 137 32 117 25 25 114 110 24; 29 9 52 114

214

Inscriptions 1241

13

1252

104; 108; 114

SEGI

114 111 110 110 114 104 104 108; 111; 116 112 109; 110 110 24 112 116 104 116 116 107 116 116 120 120 6 5 20; 26 12] 122 6 13 13 104; 114 108 155 114 114 11 12 168 106 106

368 SEG X 330 SEG XII 100 SEG XIV 64 65 SEG XV 112 SEG XVIII 13 21 92 SEG XIX 108 119 SEG XXI 530 352 SEG XXII 110 122 SEG XXIV 135 SEG XXV 106 112 SEG XXVIII 60 SEG XXIX 1183 SEG XXX 1608D SEG XXXII 118 132 488 SEG XXXIII 115 SEG XXXVI [86 SEG XXXIX [25

1253 1255 1258 1263 1265 1275 1289 129] 1292 1297 1298 1304 1322 1327 1334 1335 1339 1361 1366 1369 1421 1424 a 1443 1493-1495 1496 1534 1534B 1627-1618 2330 2334 2343 2501 2617-2619 2935 2940 3073-3088 3206 5820 12409 12501 IG XII.7 58 IKosSegre EV 199

112 117

52; 84; 85 114 106 28 28 12 6 32 24 28 7 107 3 26 116 28 5] 8; 27; 28; 30 12; 28 117 [17 13 ὃ 117 8 1] 22,32

Inscriptions

148 SEG XLI 86 SGDI IIL! 3089 Syll.3 460

32 24 51 117

215

Terracottas Acropolis Museum

Danish National Museum

1202-1462

164 (Casson & Brooke

1921) T 1195 T 1422

161 170

T 1424

170

Breitenstein 1941

589 590 866 Ergon 1957

T 1447

164

T 1451

165

T 1462

157

Tk 86

Agora T 101

161

Tk 95 Louvre

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

165; 154 161; 161 161; 156 156 156; 156 156 160; 161 161 161 156 156

139 116 1626 1679 1680 1688 1692 1709 1710 1711 1753 1755 1756 1758 1769 1797

10-11

166 162 162; PI. IV Fig. 3. 161 Pl. III Fig. 1.

162

156

T T T T T T

156 169; Pl. XII Fig. 13. 156 16] 156 Pl. VIII Fig. 9.

British Museum

C 308

162

Ceramicus

164

Heidelberg collection

T 1799

1803 1823 1849 1861 2612 3807

178 178 161; Pl. V Fig. 4.

164; Pl. VII Fig. 7. 157

MNB 550 165 National Archaeological Museum (Athens) 4586 165 4673 170; Pl. XV Fig. 19. North Slope of the Acropolis, Broneer 1933 a-g 28 161 AF 34 169 AF 80 169 AF 85 169 AF 88 169; Pl. XIII Fig. 15. AF 87 169 AF 162 165; Pl. VIII Fig. 8. AF 269 169 AF 290 Pl. XIII Fig. 14. Pnyx

T 5 a-b 18. T 11 T 13 T 46 T 93

170; Pl. XIV Figs. 17. & 161 169; Pl. XIII Fig. 16. 157; Pl. III Fig. 2. 161

T 94

160; 162

T 95

161

T 96

161

T 863

| 70

T 99

Ι6]

Τ 867 T 909 T 940

170 171 170

T 103 T 105 T 106

162; 163 161 161; 162; Pl. VI Fig. 6.

T 943

| 70

T 107

162; 163

Terracottas

218

T 145 T 165 T 167 T 170 T 183 T 163 T 181 T 193 Tj. 1

161 161 161 161 161 157 157 165 161; 162; Pl. VI Fig. 5.

Siracusa, Museo Archeologico Regionale “Paolo Orsi" (zSG 1989)

46829 (2368)

163

Wien Antikenkabinett

1264

162

Index of Greek Words The most important Greek terms used in this volume are listed in this index. Please note that the General Index contains only the Greek words used in transliterated form in the articles.

—

ἀγωνοθεσία, 12; 22; 23; 32 ἀγωνοθέτης, 22; 23; 184 αἵρεσις, 55; 62; 77; 85 ἀλλότριος. See οὐκ ἀλλότριος ἀναλώματα, 7; 8 ἀνδραγαθία, 111 ἀντίδοσις, 107 ἀποδέκτης, 5 ἀραβών, 111 ἀρκτεία, 174; 175 ἀρρηφορία, 175; 176; 181 &pxepaviotnc, 108 ἀρχερανίστρια, 112 ἀρχιθεωρία, 11; 12

ἀσέβεια, 80; 82; 83

ἀτέλεια, 10; 15; 16; 18; 107 ἀφανὴς οὐσία, 108 ἀφιλότιμος, 14

ἔμπορος,11 ἐρανιστής, 109; 114 ἔρανος, 108

ἐπὶ τῇ διοικήσει, 7; 8

ἐπίδοσις, 12; 13; 15; 18; 21; 30; 31 ἐπίκληρος, 189 ἐπιμέλεια, 5; 22; 32 ἐπιμελητής, 24 ἑταίρα, 187-188 ἑταιρία, 103 εὐεργεσία, 179 εὔθυνα, 5; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 29; 30

_9 θεωρικόν, 6; 7; 19; 26; 185 θίασος, 103

θιασώτης, 103; 114

—K—

κοινόν, 81

κοινὸν ἐμπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων, 117

—p— βίος θεωρητικός, 94; See also philosophical way of life (General Index)

βουλή, 3; 5; 7; 12; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29 —Y—

γυμνασιαρχία, 10; 11; 13; 14

_§—

κοινὸν ἐρανιστῶν, 108; 114 κοινὸν ὀργεώνων, 103 κοινὸν τῶν θιασωτῶν, 114 κοινωνία ἐρανιστῶν, 114 κύριος, 189; 19]

....-λαμπαδαρχία, 10 λαγυνοφορία, 115 λειτουργία, 107 --μ--

διατριβή. 76. 77: 84; 85; 89; 93 διοίκησις, 4: 7: 8

μέγισται τίμαι, 18; 25; 27; 28; 30; 31

δημότης. 105

μερισμός, 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 21; 31 —E—

εἰσφορὰ, II: 12 ἐκκλησία, 3: 5:6: 7: 11; 12; 21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29

ἐλευθερία, 135

—t—

ξένος, 114

220

Index of Greek Words —Q—

—*x—

οἰκονομία, 2; 3; 4

χάρις, 11; 14; 15; 16; 17; 19; 25; 29; 30;

ópyeóv, 103; 105 οὐκ ἀλλότριος, 185 οὐσία, 108

χορηγία, 10; 11; 13; 14; 19; 22

οἶκος, 109; 166; 172; 181; 183ff.

---Κ-.:...οΘ

παλλακή, 187; 190 παρρησία, 50; 51; 53; 54; 57; 67; 68; 98 περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται, 117

πληρωτής, 112

πληρώτρια, 112 πολλοί, 65; 66; 75; 99

προεδρία, 18; 21; προκοπή, 68; 69; πρόσοδοι, 3; 4; 7; πρᾶσις ἐπὶ λύσει,

25; 27; 28; 30 70 8 106

πρυτανεῖον, 7; 27 jo

σίτησις, 18; 21; 25; 27; 28; 29; 30 σιτονία, 179 σπουδαῖοι, 68; 69; 84; 98 στρατιωτικά, 6 συμμορία, 11; 17 σύνοδος, 106; 115

σύνοδος ἐμπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων, 117

συνουσία, 116 σχολή, 64; 77; 85 —T-—

ταμίας, 106 ταμίας τῶν στρατιωτικῶν, 6; 8 τετρᾶχμα ᾿Αντιγόνεια, 123; 124; 134 τετρᾶχμα στεφανηφόρος, 132 τεχνίτης, 117

τριηραρχία, 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 18 —(p—

φανερὰ οὐσία, 108 φαῦλοι, 68; 69; 70; 75; 84; 98; 99

φιλία, 48; 64; 65; 66; 71; 75; 99 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, 15 φιλοτιμία, 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19: 21; 25; 28; 30; 31; 51; 56: 57; 65; 75; 107

φιλότιμος, 16; 17 φράτωρ, 105

31; 107

General Index The following index contains only the Greek terms used in transliterated form in the

articles. For a more complete index of Greek words, see the Index of Greek Words. It is also to be noted that since the subject of the present book is Athens, many terms in the index are connected only with the city of Athens.

—A-— Academy, 58; 75; 78; 79; 82

concept of philosophy, 73

Epicrates, the comic poet, 87 New Academy, 38; 71—73; 74; 90; 95 philosophical way of life, 73; 98 Acrocorinth, 174

Acropolis, 153; 164; 165; 169; 171; 173 shrine of Artemis Brauronia, 175 Aeschines, 26; 28; 29

agonothetes, 184 Agora, 119-120; 121; 123; 126; 127; 128; 129; 130; 131; 132; 136; 152; 161; 162; 164; 165; 171; 175; 180 excavations, 153

the industrial zone, 156 Alexander the Great, 121; 122; 124; 125;

126; 127; 130

Alexandria, 115; 178 Amphictyonic League, 117 analomata, 7: 8

Anaxippus, 86; 88; 91; 95 antidosis, 107

Antigonus Doson, 127 Antigonus Gonatas, 119; 121; 122; 123; 124; 125; 126; 128; 129; 130; 133; 134; 136; 138 donation of coins to the city, 135 Antigonus of Carystus, 36; 42; 46; 49; 79 aphilotimos, 14 Aphrodite, 114; 115; 157; 173; 175; 176 apodektai, 5 archeranistria, 112 archetype used for making moulds, 157 Arcesilaus, 36; 38; 45; 46-47, 48; 49-51;

52. 58,71; 72; 73; 86; 90 Archippe, 110 Aristophanes, 80; 86; 87; 88

Aristotle, 30; 40; 53; 54; 62; 67; 78; 83; 87; 100; 109; 115 Athenaion Politeia, 6; 7; 24 concept of philosophy, 58ff.; 98 philosophical way of life, 55; 59—61; 74; 98: 99 Rhetorica, 3 arkteia, 174; 175 arrephoria, 175; 176; 181 Arsinoe, 115

Asclepius, 173 Asclepieion, 118; 120; 122-124; 126;

127; 128; 130; 131; 134; 137; 153; 171; 173 inscription, 123 Asandros of Macedonia, 27

asebeia. See philosophers Asia Minor, 117; 133 association, 104; 105; 107; 108; 110-114; 116; 117 ateleia, 10; 15; 16; 18; 107 Athena Alkis, 138 Athena Parthenos, 175; 176 Athenaeus, 115 Athens, 128 Aristotelian Constitution, 179

artistic atmosphere of, 148; 158

as a city of philosophers and philosophical schools, 33; 83

conquest and fall of, 117 emergence of Hellenistic art, 180 excavations, 119 fall of the city in 261 B.C., 129 food crisis, 179 restoration of the liberties, 135

troops, 133 athletics, 117 Attica, 133

fortified military camps and forts, 133 funerary art. See funerary art Augustus, 127

222

General Index

—B—

Aristophanes

bank, 110

banking business, 105; 108 banquet, 104 Bato, 86; 89-91; 94; 95 Bendis, 114; 116

bios theoretikos. See philosophical way of life Boeotia, 128; 133; 178

town of Tanagra, 150; 165; 170; 181 boule, 3; 5; 7; 12; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29 Brauron Sanctuary of Artemis, 169; 174; 175

—— Carneades, 40-41; 47; 50; 73

Cassander, 121; 122; 124; 125; 133 Ceramicus, 119; 124; 154; 164; 170; 171; 173; 175; 180 as "Potter's Quarter", 155

Chalcis, 128 change, 149; 166; 181

Charias, 22; 32 charis, the public gratitude towards an individual, 11; 14; 15; 16; 17; 19; 25; 29; 30; 31; 107 children, 166; 181 abandoning of, 188 statues of (Attic), 160

Chremonidean War, 133; 171 Chrysippus, 37; 38; 40 concept of philosophy, 68—69 philosophical way of life, 66—67 Citian merchants, 114

Citium, 114 citizens, 110; 111 Cleanthes, 39; 66-69; 86 Cleisthenes, 103; 104; 105; 117 coinage, 156 Athenian currency law, 135 beginning of the circulation of Antagonid bronze, 128 dedications of Macedonian silver, 123 hoards, 132; 136 impact of military detachment, 135 mining industry and minting, 118; 133 monetary system, 127 "Intermediate Style", 129 New Style, 117; 129; 132 Old Style, 117; 129; 131 Comeas of Lamptrai, 20

comedy intellectuals in general in, 86 Middle Comedy, 87; 94—96; 100 New Comedy, 166. See also Menander

Old Comedy, 86; 87; 95. See

also

philosophical tenets in, 85-86; 92; 93; 94 comic soldiers, 190-192 Conon (strategos), 15; 16; 25; 27

coroplasts, 152-156; 167; 180 Crates (the Academic), 36; 45—47 Critolaus, 41—42; 100

Cynics, 48; 54; 61; 72; 75; 82; 91; 96; 99 Cyprus, 114

—D— damnatio memoriae

name of the Antigonides, 123 Damoxenus, 86; 93-94; 95; 96

dancers, 162 Deinias, 9; 21

Delian League, 1; 10 Delos, 117

Demeter, 157; 172; 173; 174; 176; 178; 181 Demetrius Demetrius 42; 43; 91; 97;

II, 127 of Phalerum, 8; 11; 22; 23; 36; 44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 75; 80; 83; 111; 184

the sumptuary laws of, 152; 157; 160; 164; 179; 182

Demetrius Poliorcetes, 121; 122; 124; 125; 127; 132 Demochares, 45; 51; 75; 78; 79; 81; 82:

100 Demosthenes, 3; 6; 7; 10; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 21; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 107 Dicaearchus, 113

Diogenes of Babylon, 41 Diogenes of Sinope, 53; 61 dioikesis, 4, 7, 8

Dione, the goddess, 175 Dionysos,

116; 178

Dionysiac artists, 116 Dionysiac mysteries, 173 Diotimos, 9; 20; 26 Dodona,

169; 175

dowry, 112 dramauc figurines, 177

—E— economy, 2; 90; 108; 119; 136; 137. See also oikonomia embedded, 106

Egypt, 133 eisphora, 11; 12: 108 ekklesia, 3, 5, 6,7, 11; 12; 21; 23; 24; 25; 26; 29

Eleusinian mysteries and rituals, 156; 172; 173; 181

223

General Index Eleusinion, 157; 172; 173 Eleusis, 170; 172; 173 embassies Aeschines

On the Embassy, 42-43; 46; 51 of Arcesilaus, 49-50 of Carneades, Critolaus, Diogenes, 40— 42 of Crates, 45-47

of the Epicureans, 52 of Menedemus, 48-49; 50

of Prytanis, 51—52 of the Stoics, 52 of Theodorus, 47-48; 50 of Xenocrates,42—45 Epicrates, 87; 93

Epicurus, 40; 53; 61; 67; 71; 77; 83; 84;

86; 88; 93—95; 96; 100 concept of philosophy, 62; 64 Epicureanism, 62; 65; 66

Garden, 38; 41; 52; 62; 64; 66; 74; 94; 95

philosophical way of life, 63; 74; 98; 99

Heracles, 116 Heraclides Ponticus, 55

Heracleides the Critic, 113 hetaira, 187-188

honours. See megistai timai. See also philosophers

—L image concept of, 35; 54 individualism, 84; 99; 150; 159; initiation, 181; 174; 177 intellectuals as creators of new values, 34; 61; 62;

63 other than philosophers, 36; 39; 41; 76 Iphicrates (strategos), 15; 27 Isaeus, 104 Isis, 114 Isocrates, 4; 26 Isthmus, 117

—K—

epidoseis, 12; 13; 15; 18; 21; 30; 31

epikleros, 189 epimeleia, 5; 22; 32

epimeletai of the Eleusinian mysteries, 24 eranos, 108; 112; 114; 116 Eros, 71; 153; 169; 171; 175; 176 Euboea, 128; 133 Eurykleides, 8

euergesia, 179 euthyna, 5; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 29-30

—F-— family, 181 famine, 179; 182

Kephisodoros of Hagnus, 21 koina. See philosophical schools koinon eraniston, 116 Kore, 174 Kore-Persephone, 157; 172; 173; 178; 181 kyrios, 112; 189; 190

—L— Lamian war, 6 Leptines the law proposal of, 13; 15; 18

liturgies, 10-19; 25; 32; 107

fertility cults and rites, 173; 176; 177 festivals

Panathenaia, 23; 26; 31; 176 Theseia 23

Thesmophoria, 172; 174; 181 funerary art, 166 steles, (Attic) 160; 163; 168; 175 monuments, ( Attic) 153

—_G—

agonothesia, 11; 22; 23, 32 architheoria, 11; 12

choregia, 10; 11; 13; 14; 19; 22 gymnasiarchia, 10; 11; 13; 14

lampadarchia, 10 loan, 106; 108; 112 Lyco, 36; 85; 100 Lycophron, 20; 21 Lycurgus,7; 9; 15; 19; 20; 28; 31; 159 Lysimachus of Thrace, 132

Lysippos, 151; 155; 160

Gallienus, 127

—_M—

—H— Habron, son of Lycurgus, 7 Hegemon, the law of, 6 Hegesippus, 86; 94 Hellenism emergence ın arts, 158

Macedonia forts, 134

garrison, 134 influence, 182 Macedonian rule, 113; 149

67;

224

General Index

—p—

suppressed local coinage, 134 troops, 134 Magna Mater or Cybele, 114 mass production, 180 Mausoleum of Halikarnassos, 151 Maximinus I, 126

Megara, 127 "Megarian bowls", 154 megistai timat, 18; 25; 27, 28; 30; 31 bronze statue, 9: 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 27;

28; 30 proedria, 18; 21; 25; 27-28; 30 sitesis, 18; 21; 25; 27; 28; 29; 30 Meidias, the harangue in Demosthenes’ Contra Meidiam, 14. 15; 16; 17; 107

members of eranistai, synodoi, phyle and demos, 115 Menander, 183-194

slaves female, 186 male, 185-186 Menedemus (of Eretria), 36; 48-49; 50; 52; 53; 76; 87 merismos, 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 21; 31 metics, 110; 114; 116. See

also

philosophers Miltiades of Marathon, 23

mining industry and minting, 133 Athenian autonomous coin, 118

monarchs. See philosophers monetary system, Roman, 127 Mother Earth, 175

motifs, the style repertoire, 149; 166 moulding, 152; 154 moulds, 155; 156

archetype used for making, 157 Munichia

Sanctuary of Artemis, 175 mysteries Dionysiac, 173

Eleusinian, 156; 172; 173; 181

—N-— Nemea,

117

Neoptolemos, 9; 21; 26; 2 non-citizens, 110; 116 Nymphe, 153; 164; 171; 177

—Qo-— oikonomia, 2; 3, 4 oikos, 109; 166; 172; 181; 183ff. Oeconomica, 2; 3. 4

Olynthos, 178 defeat of Olynthos in 348 B.C., 152 orgeones, 104; 105; 114

pallake, 187; 190 Pan, the god, 173 Panathenaic festivals, 23; 26; 31 Panathenaic Way, 171 parrhesia, 50; 51; 53; 54; 57; 67; 68; 98 Parthenon, 171 Pasicles, 110 Pasion, 106;110 Peloponnese,

133

Peripatetic school, 51; 52; 61; 66; 81; 82; 90 persecutions. See philosophers;

philosophical schools

Persephone. See

Kore-Persephone

Perseus (king of Macedonia), 120; 121;

122; 124; 125 Phaidros and Kallias of Sphettos, 113 Philemo, 38; 86; 87; 88; 90; 91-92; 95 philia, 48; 64; 65-66; 71; 75; 99

Philip II, 120; 121; 122; 124; 125; 130;

132; 136

Philip II, 122; 124; 125; 127 Philip V, 120; 121; 122; 124; 125; 127; 133 Philippides of Kephale, 22; 25

Philippides of Paiania, 10 Philochoros, 105 Philodemus, 34; 42; 43; 45; 54 philosophers accused of asebeia, 80. 82; 83 and common people, 46; 54; 57; 61; 65; 66; 70; 72; 74; 98; 99 as ambassadors. See embassies as an elite, 57; 96; 99 as masters of eloquence, 41; 43; 45; 47 as metics or outsiders, 34; 44; 61; 75;

85; 96; 100 concepts of ordinary men of, 54; 60; 65; 66; 68; 70; 75; 99 contacts with monarchs, 42; 44; 45; 47; 49; 50; 51; 52; 67; 81; 95; 97; 98 honours of, 33; 34; 35; 39; 50; 52; 83; 97 in New Comedy, 85-96; 99; 100 in Middle Comedy, 87; 94; 95; 96; 100 in Old Comedy, 86; 87; 95

participation/non participation in public

life, 35-36; 46; 55; 57; 59; 62; 63; 67. 73-74, 92; 95; 98 persecutions of, law against (307 B.C.) 75-85; 100 portraits of, 39; 74 public image of, 35; 37; 53; 61; 75-96:

97; 98; 100; 10] seen as public figures, 34; 74; 85

General Index

225

85; 96; 97; 98

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 133 Pyrrho, 36; 49; 61; 72.

97

Pytheas of Alopeke, 21

self-concept of, 35; 40; 541f.; 74; 77; status of, 33; 34; 35; 37; 52; 57; 83; 86; testaments of, 64; 66; 77; 84 texts (role of scriptures) of, 38; 90; 93 unusefulness of, 57; 60; 74; 96

philosophical schools as diatribai, 77 as haireseis, 55; 77; 84; 85 as institutions, 75 as koina, 81 as sects, 84

as skholai, 77, 85 in comedy, 87; 101 instruction in, 39; 83

juridical position of, 81 persecutions of, 77; 83 position and status of, 33; 34; 52 public image of, 35; 82; 100 social history of, 35; 100

philosophical way of life, 46; 55ff.; 70; 71; 72; 74; 84; 89, 93; 96; 97; 98 philosophy ancient versus modern, 35; 37

and language, 37-38; 95

and metaphilosophy, 73 as history of ideas, 40 as self-mastery, 54

as transcendental, 34; 57; 99 concept of, 37; 88 pessimistic view of, 55; 59; 67; 69

progress in, 68; 69—70

social history of, 35; 40 philotimia, 14—19; 21; 25; 28; 30; 31; 51; 56; 57; 65; 75 philotimos, 16; 17 Phormion, 110 phratry, 104;105

Piraeus, 106; 114; 117 Plato, 37; 39; 40; 42; 52; 53; 54; 59; 60, 61; 62; 65; 66; 67; 70; 71; 74; 78; 79;

81; 82; 83; 87; 88; 90; 91; 93; 95; 98 concept of philosophy 56-58 philosophical way of life, 55; 99

plerotes, 112 Pnyx, 153; 157; 161; 162; 163; 165; 169;

170; 172; 180

politics of theatre, 184; 192-194

Polyeuktos, 159 Pompen, 178 portraits, 159 Praxiteles, 151; 159

prokope, 68; 69; 70 property, 104 prosodoi, 3, 4, 7, 8 prytaneion, 7; 27] Prytanis, 51-52; 57

Pyrrhonism, 36; 72

—R— Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, 4, 5; 30

religion, 113; 104 rites de passage, 174; 176; 177; 182

—S— Sabazius, 114 sanctuaries of Artemis at Brauron, 169; 174; 175 of Artemis at Munichia, 175 of Demeter Thesmophoros, 172 of Eros and Aphrodite, 153; 169; 171;

175; 176

of Nymphe, 153; 164; 171; 177 of Zeus.at Dodona, 169; 175

Sceptics, 71-73; 98 schools. See philosophical schools; Stoics, school

Scopas, 151 sculpture, 166

sculptors, 156 sculptural art, 168 Second League, 2 Second Social War, 1; 2; 15; 30; 107 Severus Alexander, 126 Sextus Empiricus, 72; 73 Sicily, 173; 178 schole, 65; 77; 85 sitonia, 179 slaves, 109; 110; 116 Socrates, 56; 57; 78; 80; 86; 87; 92; 99

as an exemplar philosopher, 54; 55

soldier. 134. See also comic soldier sophists, 39; 41; 56; 77; 80; 82; 83; 85; 95; 96; 99; 100 Solon, 104

Sophokles of Sounion, 40; 47; 75, 104 Sulla, 127; 128

sumptuary laws. See Demetrius of Phalerum Stoics and Stoicism, 38; 61; 66—71; 75;

84; 85; 92; 93; 96; 97; 99 concept of philosophy, 68—69 philosophical way of life, 70; 74; 98 school, 84; 86; 90 symmoria, 11; 17 synodos, 115; 106 synousia, 116

—T— Tanagra, 150; 165; 170; 181

226

General Index

—Z—

excavations, 161

Tanagra style as a new style, 148; 181 emergence of the style in Athens, 148 individualistic character of the

figurines, 150 Macedonian impact, 164 motifs, the style repertoire, 149

moulding technique, 150

provenance of the style, 150 transition period of the style in Athens 350-330 B.C., 151; 179 terracotta figurines motifs, 166

mass production, 180 theatre

politics of, 184; 192-194

Thebes, 128 Theognetus, 86; 92-93; 95 Theophrastus, 116 theorikon, 6; 7; 19; 26; 184 Theseia festivals, 23

Thesmophoria, 174; 181 Thesmophorion, 171; 172 thiasoi, 116 thiasoi and thiasotai of Dionysos and Heracles, 104 thiasoi and thiasotai of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, 104 Thracians, 114 Theodorus, 47—48; 50; 52; 65; 80; 83

Timo (of Phlius), 36; 49; 52; 61; 72; 76; 85 trierarchia, 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 18; 107

ιν.. Vitae decem oratorum, 9 votive offerings, 168

—W— wealth, 105; 107

West Slope ware, 175 women,

110; 112; 166; 172; 181; See

also pallake and hetaira

—X— Xenocles of Sphettos, 7 Xenocrates, 42—45; 47; 50: 55; 58; 70: 79; 83; 97: 98 xenot, 114

Xenophon, Memorabilia, 3; Poroi, 2,4

Zeno of Citium, 36; 37; 39; 40; 50-51;

53; 54; 65; 66; 67; 68; 60; 75; 83-85: 86; 91—92; 93; 95; 98; 99: 101

philosophical way of life, 71 Zeus, 169; 175

Phratrios, 104

ERRATA The following errors have occurred during the editorial process. The editors responsibility for them. We regret any inconvenience they may cause the reader.

take

all the

Please note the correct forms of the monograms A p. 124 n. 27, Il. 2 and 7; p. 132, 1. 27; p. 138, 11. 15 and 26; p. 140, last 1. and n. 92, 1. 1 ΑΙ p. 124 n. 27, 1. 3; p.141, 1. 26

Il p. 140 η. 92,1.4 « p. 141 n. 98 Pages 143—145 The arrows traditionally used for showing the direction of the die axis of the coins have not been changed with stylistically correct arrows. The direction of the arrows depicted in the text is still indicative of the true die axis of the coins. The author of the paper assumes the responsibility of the error on p. 127 n. 38. ]. 8. Read 162: coins instead of 156 coins. Page 139, footnotes 87-91. Please correct 87

Small Macedonian helmet without the crest (sic!), but with cheek-pieces hanging down on either side, as

is shown on SNG Cop. No. 1201. This can clearly be seen from the Athenian Agora specimen No. ME328 which has preserved ἃ nice helmet. See Kroll 1993, 189, group 507, helmet with two side plumes". When there is a legible ANTI-monogram occurring in principal combinations as follows: 1. 1. down in the field below down in the field a wreath (SNG Cop. No. 1207); 2. monogram /X 1. down

trident £ 88

coin type ἢ, "Macedonian it is in the shape of A. helmet a monogram & , τ. in the field as in nr. 1, but a

r. right down in the field instead of wreath (McClean No. 3601).

Macedonian helmet with two side plumes and 1. uncertain letter I. down in the field, possibly a 8 or ® (Agora No. ME-328); the © in the helmet series is known from several other specimens. 2. a sun r. down

in the field (McClean No. 3599); 3. pedum r. down in the field (McClean No. 3603); 4. a letter B right down in the field. 5. a letter IT r. down in the field. 1. K and ® (Agora Nos. TIT1-260 and K-1307).

1. £ 1. down in field (SNG Cop. No. 1212) (Plate 1, No. 13). 2. Ἔ r. down in field (Agora No. Θ-- 189). 3. El. down (or trident?; McClean No. 3597, cf. nr. 1 in this note; . 4.

Agora No. NN-1585). 5. Al (McClean No. 3607).6. Ζ 3595).

9.

1. FR and T ? (McClean No. 3598).

© down |. (McClean No. 3608;

(Agora No. 00-305), 7. A (McClean No.

Plates

' Pl. I Macedonian coinage, see pp. 143-144

5

4

3

2

•

6

8

7

•

12

9

•

••

15

14

11

16

I p1II~ I

11p 111p 11111 UII I

43

44

45

13

Pl. 11 Athenian coinage. seep. 145

19

17

20

18

... Ttl', 21

22

23

111H1p1111~ u11iu11w 46 47 4B

24

Pl. LU

Fig. I. Terracotta cast from a mould T 1709 (the Agora, Athen. ). Comte y of the American School of Cla ical Studie at Ath.ens.

Fi". 2. Female terracolta pro1ome T 46 (the Pnyx:. Athen. ). Courte.y of the American School of Classical · tudies al then .

Pl. lV

Fig. 3. landing female terracotta figurine. T 1680 (the Agora. Athen ). Courtesy of the American School of la., ical tudie at Athen .

Pl. V

Fig. 4. Standing female terracona figurine. Inv. o. 866 (Tanagra . Courte y of the Dani h National Mu~eum. Copenhagen.

Pl. VI

~ Fig. 5 Fragment of a tanding female terracotta figurine, Tj I (the Pnyx.,Athen ). Courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athen'.

Fig. 6. Fragment fa landing female terracotta figurine, T I 06 (the Pnyx, Athens). Counesy of the Amerian chool of la ·sical ludie · at then .

J

Pl. VII

Fig. 7. Female terracotta figurine of the "'cwragalo player" t pc Tk 86 (the West lope of the Acropoli . then. . ourte. y f the ·'Antikenmu·eum und Abguss- arnmlung. rchaologi hes ln tituL der Universitat Heidel rg". cale ·a. 1: I.

PI.Vill

[:S Fig. 8. A terracotta fragment of a draped figurine AF 162 (the tesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athen .

orth Slope of CheAcropoli , Athens). Cour-

Fig. 9. Terracotta figurine of a tanding boy T 3807 the Agora, Athens). Counesy of the American School of lassical tudies at Athen .

J

Pl. IX

~

~

. -~ :-·--,1$~ \ .l '

Fig. I0. Fragments of a moulded relief beaker (or so-called Megarian b wl P 408 depicting Anemi leaning on a column on the lefl the gora, 1h~n. ). Drawing b M. Uinnq i. t afrerThomp.on 1934, 353, Fig. 36b.

Pl. X

ig. 11. unerar ·' stele of ..Plangon" GL 199 ALhen ). Counesy of the Staatliche Antiken ammlungen und Glyp1111hd,.Mum:ht:n.. ale ea. I :J.

J

Pl. XI

ig. 12. Statue of a girl with a dove GL 490. Courie y of lhe Staa11icheAntikensammlungen und Glyptothek. Munchen. cale ea. I :5.

PI.XII

Fig. 13. Fragmentary terracotta figurine of a girl (?) with a dove T 1823 (the Agora, Athens). Coune y of the American School of Clas ical Studies at Athens.

Pl. XlU

Fig. 14-15. Fragment of lerracorta figurine depicting children AF 290 and AF 88 (the North Slope of the Acropoli , Athen ). Coune y of the American School of ClassicaJ Studies at A then .

Fig. 16. Terracotta figurine of a :landing young boy T 13 (the Pny , Athens). School of Cla sical tudics al thens.

ourte y of the American

Pl. XIV

Fig~. 17-18. Terracotta figurines of eatcd oung girl American chool of las 'ical Studic: at thens.

?) TSa and T5b (the Pnyx Athens). Courte y of the

J

Pl. XV

Fig. 19. Terracoua figurine o a . emed young girl Inv. o. 4673 (Tanagra). chacological Mu eum of then ..

unesy of th

ational Ar•

Pl. XVI

N

ANOENT A1HENS

"".,.

t

T

..

·•:·.: ..,',:.....··-1'.'ana~W~y . .. : : . ..'

.·.:

.:. ''

..... ~

Street.; .

0

300m

rig. 20. Am.:icnt Athens -;lwwing the provenances (Nos. 1.-10.J of the Pre-Tanagran and the Tanagra figurine~. Drawn hy M. U1nnq,·ist.