Myth, Text, and History at Sparta 9781463237011

Citation preview

Myth, Text, and History at Sparta

Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity

18

Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity contains monographs and edited volumes on the Greco-Roman world and its transition into Late Antiquity, encompassing political and social structures, knowledge and educational ideals, art, architecture and literature.

Myth, Text, and History at Sparta

Edited by

Thomas Figueira

9

34 2016

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2016 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2016

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0595-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Figueira, Thomas J., editor of compilation. Title: Myth, text, and history at Sparta / edited by Thomas Figueira. Description: Piscataway, NJ : Gorgias Press, [2016] | Series: Gorgias studies in classical and late antiquity ; 18 Identifiers: LCCN 2016020259 | ISBN 9781463205959 Subjects: LCSH: Sparta (Extinct city)--History--Sources. | Sparta (Extinct city)--Historiography. | Sparta (Extinct city)--Politics and government. | Sparta (Extinct city)--Social policy. | Myth--Political aspects--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. | Myth--Social aspects--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. | Memory--Political aspects--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. | Memory--Social aspects--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. | Collective memory--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. | Ideology--Greece--Sparta (Extinct city)--History. Classification: LCC DF261.S8 M87 2016 | DDC 938/.9--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016020259

Printed in the United States of America

Title of the Book

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 349

For Anton Powell

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments .................................................................................. vii Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 THOMAS FIGUEIRA Politeia and Lakōnika in Spartan Historiography .................................. 7 THOMAS FIGUEIRA The Lysandreia ......................................................................................105 AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER Getting Carried Away With Theseus: The Evolution And Partisan Use Of The Athenian Abduction Of Spartan Helen .............................................................................................169 AARON HERSHKOWITZ General Index........................................................................................325 AARON HERSHKOWITZ Index Locorum .....................................................................................337 AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Aaron Hershkowitz’s contribution started as a paper for a seminar on ‘Citizenship at Athens’ taught by Jim McGlew, and his encouragement in continuing to work on the subject is much appreciated. Thanks are also due to Lowell Edmunds (Rutgers University, emeritus), who provided Aaron Hershkowitz the opportunity to read his book Stealing Helen before its publication, and to Elizabeth Irwin (Columbia University), who made him aware of several relevant scholarly works and helped in acquiring some of this material. Her insights and perspective on Aaron’s topic were invigorating and challenging. Aaron Beck-Schachter would first like to thank Timothy Power for his unstinting support, as well as the members of our Sparta seminar at Rutgers in 2011 (including Scott Barnard, Christopher Mercurio, and Ella Wallace) for providing the collegial, relaxed, and dedicated atmosphere which prompted his thoughts on Lysander. Thanks also go to his fellow Regular Members and Fellows at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in 2013–14 who allowed him to go off on (many) tangents related to this topic after it first began to progress markedly during their visit to Amphipolis and the ‘tomb’ of Brasidas. Finally, he would like to thank Steve Brandwood (Rutgers University), Nicole Freeto (Rutgers), and Colin Whiting (ASCSA Publications Office) for their stimulating discussion. Without their questions and disagreements (when necessary), his paper would have been much poorer. I should like to thank Paul Cartledge (Cambridge University) for his help during the early gestation of my contribution. Paul’s generosity in sharing his insights and learning has been a major factor in elevating scholarly discourse on Sparta. Naturally, I and my co-authors owe a debt to each other for our mutual discussion of this research. It goes without saying that all errors are our own. vii

viii

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Collectively, we would also like to thank Corey Brennan, Dr. George Anton Kiraz, the President of Gorgias Press, and Dr. Melonie Schmeirer-Lee, who as editor contributed much to the making of the volume. Thomas Figueira April 2016

INTRODUCTION THOMAS FIGUEIRA The origin of the three papers in this volume lies in the work being done on ancient Sparta in the graduate program of the Department of Classics at Rutgers University (New Brunswick). My own long interest in the social history of Lakōnikē (Spartan territory) has led me, since the mid-1980s, to nineteen conference papers, sixteen articles or contributions, and thirteen reviews. Some of this work has been undertaken in fruitful collaboration (since 1997) with the International Sparta Seminar, a scholarly consortium founded by Anton Powell, then associated with the University of Wales, Institute of Classics and Ancient History, and Stephen Hodkinson, then of the University of Manchester, now of Nottingham. Since 2000, meetings of the seminar have occurred at the Celtic Congresses in Classics, and its scholarship has been published by Anton Powell’s estimable Classical Press of Wales. For my own part I organized the Fourth International Sparta Seminar, Second International Celtic Conference in Classics, University of Glasgow, September 2002. This resulted in my editing Spartan Society (Swansea 2004). I have endeavored to share my enthusiam for Spartan studies with my students through periodic graduate seminars on Spartan society and in various individual studies, which have resulted in collaborations with and individual projects by Rutgers doctoral students. Benjamin Hicks, Sean Jensen, and Andrew Scott collaborated with me on a series of short articles on Sparta in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (London 2012). Jensen and I also worked together on a study of hegemonic alliances that much concerned the Peloponnesian League: ‘Interstate Alliances’, in A Companion to Ancient Greek Government, H. Beck, editor (Oxford 1

2

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

2013) 480–96. Jensen went on to produce the chapter on Sparta in America for A Companion to Sparta, Anton Powell, ed. (London 2016). Andrew Scott (now at Villanova University) has impressively published ‘Laconian Black-Figure Pottery and Spartan Elite Consumption’, in Sparta: the Body Politic, A. Powell and S. Hodkinson, eds. (Swansea 2010) 165–181; ‘Plural Marriage and the Spartan State’, Historia 60 (2011) 413–24; ‘The Spartan Heroic Death in Plutarch’s Laconian Apophthegms’, Hermes 143 (2015) 72–82; and ‘Spartan Courage and the Social Function of Plutarch’s Laconian Apophthegms’, Museum Helveticum (forthcoming). In 2002, I delivered a paper in Spartan historiography at a conference at Sparta itself and at Olympia, sponsored by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, under the aegis of the Sosipolis International Institute of Ancient Hellenic History. This paper eventually became ‘The Spartan Constitutions and the Enduring Image of the Spartan Ethos’, in The Contribution of Ancient Sparta to Political Thought and Practice, N. Birgalias, K. Bursaelis, and P. Cartledge, eds. (Athens 2007) 143–58. It is with profound sadness that I note here the death of Nikos Birgalias, the moving force behind Sosipolis. Nonetheless, I understood that some of the ‘constitutionalists’ (writers of politeiai of Sparta) and authors of Lakonika (Spartan local histories) deserved a more substantial treatment because of their crucial place in the transmission of our source material on Sparta. This longer article was soon accepted by the American Journal of Ancient History. The two fine papers that are featured along with it here might well have been directed toward presentation at the International Sparta Seminar and then publication in its series. However, since the Seventh International Sparta Seminar at Cork, Eire, 2008, these meetings have been on hiatus. Corey Brennan and I have shared responsibilities for mentoring our graduate students with interests in ancient history. Thus it was most welcome to the authors when he suggested that these three pieces might be combined in a fascicle of AJAH. Upon the termination of the publication of AJAH, we were pleased to accept an opportunity to publish these pieces in Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity of Gorgias Press. My own study delves into the record of historiography focused exclusively on Sparta, which is a phenomenon quite late in its developing. This exercise is necessary for appreciating the Spartan ‘mirage’, an idealizing vision of Spartan history and life

INTRODUCTION

3

prominent in late sources on Laconia. It is important to understand the nature of the late Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman historiography on Sparta to assess potential distortion in our evidence. At Sparta, description was linked both to prescription about how Spartan society was to be organized and how a truly Spartan life was to be lived, and to the function of the Spartans as exemplars of polis life. At Sparta in its decay, such exemplification was eventually turned inward. Thus post-classical Spartans genuinely sought after authenticity in their individual selfrepresentations as Spartans, and Laconian historiography played a significant role in this process. In my view, the Spartan ‘mirage’ was a true mirage, not a fantasy conceived out of thin air, but a manifestation of distant and distorted realities whose perception was conditioned and enhanced by auto-suggestion. Inasmuch as systematic distortion of our body of evidence by late classical and subsequent Laconian historiography remains at best an unproven, and, quite possibly, a fundamentally erroneous, theory, any specific arguments in favor of ‘contamination’ of our body of source material on any specific Spartan institution or social process must be evaluated narrowly on its own particular merits and faults. The two offerings that are paired with my own piece both present startling new syntheses. Aaron Beck-Schachter offers a new understanding of the way in which legitimacy and ‘ownership’ of the invention of the Spartan polity was contested in classical Sparta. The dominant historiographical understanding of Lycurgus as a sole authoritative lawgiver was indeed challenged in Classical Sparta by assertions not only that Sparta’s Agiad and Eurypontid kings as arkhēgetai ‘founding heroes’ were originators of significant parts of its state order, but also that this creative capacity persisted in successive kings. Hence, those trying to rival royal authority must necessarily become founders or re-founders of poleis, just like Dorieus, Brasidas, and Lysander, on their way to claiming the authority to alter the structure of Sparta itself. Lysander’s reordering of Samos, one of the most mythically and ritually charged Greek communities, reveals the breadth of his ambitions for reshaping Sparta and reformulating its hegemony over the Greek homeland. Aaron Hershkowitz focuses on the tradition that the iconic Athenian king Theseus had abducted Helen of Sparta (well before her marriage to Menelaos and her more famous absconding with

4

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

the Trojan prince Paris). The pluripotency of this most charismatic of Greek heroines is well illustrated by the diversity of statuses that Helen is said to have assumed in Attica, including cherished ward of Theseus and his mother Aithra and the mother herself of Iphigenia, both sacrificial victim and cult founder. The expedition to rescue Helen by her brothers, the archetypal Peloponnesian patrons, Castor and Pollux, the Dioscuri, generated a complex array of multiforms in its retelling. And the narrative of this campaign provides a template or backdrop for all the subsequent Spartan forays into Attica. Hershowitz does yeoman work in clearing away a thicket of speculative and disorganized conjecture on this abduction and the ensuing victorious campaign of the Dioscuri. He constructs a persuasive context for the elaboration of the canonical variant of the myth in the late sixth-century efforts of the Spartan king Cleomenes I, who was assisted by the Athenian Isagoras, to retain Athens within the Spartan sphere of influence in the face of resistance from the Alcmeonid Cleisthenes and his populist supporters. These contributions take the position that not only political, but also social, policies at Sparta, as well as the historical actors giving them shape, were intensely—and to an unusual degree— influenced by myth, tradition, and popular memory about the Laconian past. Sparta drew strength from its professed adherence to the legacy of the Dorian conquest and to the legislative program of Lykourgos. And objectively Sparta represented the most tightly articulated instance of an archaic Greek sociopolitical order. However, past and present at Sparta co-evolved. The reader will find in the studies brought together in this volume that ideology, recollection, and wish-fulfillment existed in dynamic tension not only with practical decision-making, but also with the enthralling, centuries-long quest by individual Spartans for authority, legitimacy, and authenticity. We are dedicating this volume to Anton Powell, a scholar who has been a leading figure in Sparta studies since the publication of his fine introduction to fifth-century Greek history, Athens and Sparta. Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 B.C. (1st edition: 1988; 2nd edition: 2001). Not only does Anton have to his credit many excellent studies on matters Laconian, but he has had an enormous positive influence as a mentor through the International Sparta Seminar (of which he is co-founder) and the

INTRODUCTION

5

series of volumes containing the acta of its meetings (of which he has been usually volume- and always series-editor); through the Celtic Classics Conferences that have come to provide a home to the Sparta seminar; and through his editorship of the Classical Press of Wales, where he has published such important studies as (for example) Stephen Hodkinson, Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta (2000); Daniel Ogden, Aristomenes of Messenia: Legends of Sparta’s Nemesis (2004), and Jean Ducat, Spartan Education: Youth and Society in the Classical Period (2006: translated by Emma Stafford, P.J. Shaw, and Powell). Anton Powell has been additionally an unfailingly generous advisor about and promoter of those doing research on Sparta, one particularly kind and nurturing to younger professionals. The flourishing circumstances of Laconian studies in the wider field of ancient studies are owed in no small part to the leadership of Anton Powell.

P OLITEIA AND L AKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

THOMAS FIGUEIRA The Spartan “mirage” (using F. Ollier’s term) has provided the main perspective for appraising late classical and Hellenistic Spartan historiography, especially for assigning blame for the supposed distortions of received tradition about Spartan society. This simplistic view is gravely unjust to these historians regarding their grounding in genuine tradition and in fourth-century historiography, and misconstrues their relationships to their own historical contexts. This study offers a systematic reinvestigation of three important authorities. Stoic writers on Sparta’s politeia followed the paths blazed by their Peripatetic predecessors, Aristotle and Dicaearchus, modernizing and adding Stoic insights. Among them Sphairus, a Ptolemaic courtier, served as an Egyptian envoy to late third-century Sparta and, more remarkably, as a bridge for the reforming king Cleomenes III to earlier Spartan tradition. The Laconian savant Sosibius was advantaged by his position as a leading intellectual at the court of Ptolemy II, and he integrated traditions on Laconian cult and folkways with Hellenistic learning and is the source for much surviving evidence on Spartan cult and society. The aristocratic Spartan Aristokrates, who wrote under the early Roman Empire, is an important witness to Spartan attempts to preserve their agōgē and diata under Achaean pressure and to efforts at the revivification of Spartan cultural traditions under the Romans.

7

8

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

INTRODUCTION An enduring topic in scholarly investigations of Sparta has been the Spartan ‘mirage’ as a monograph of Ollier (1933/43) so memorably termed it, the idealizing, ahistorical vision of a changeless ‘Lycurgan’ order that embodied archaic and classical Greek social virtues and thus achieved enormous military and political power for Sparta. Sparta differed in the evolution of its local historiography from Athens and from many other Greek poleis, 1 where epichoric schools of historians like the Athenian Atthidographers appeared in the late fifth century and the early fourth century. With various degrees of systemization, such historians collected local traditions that they presented in a patriotic, propagandistic, or apologetic spirit in order to provide their more literate fellow citizens and other Greeks with an accepted version or versions of their past (sometimes distinguished by ideological variation). Sparta and Athens shared the early prompters toward local historiography: Hellanicus collected the victors at the Karneian festival and wrote the first Atthis, while Charon of Lampsakos wrote on the Prutaneis of the Lakedaimonians and may rank as an early source on Themistokles. 2 At Sparta, however, the continuation of archaic orality, military preoccupations and regimentation, and the absence of open and self-conscious ideological debate created a different pattern of self-representation and visualization of the past, one bespeaking a highly articulated societal structure typified by a timeless and non-dateable provenience. 3 Despite their relative scarcity, some of the raw materials for reconstructing the Spartan past did, however, approximate culturewide paradigms, although these documents were generally younger than at Athens and among the east Greeks. King Pausanias I shall use the adjective ‘Lycurgan’ to denote this construct without assumption of its historicity. In discussing the attribution of various actions and experiences to the Spartan lawgiver by ancient sources, I shall call him Lykourgos. Table 1 offers a conspectus of Spartan historiography, and is reproduced from Figueira 2006, 153–4. 2 Hellanicus Atthis: FGH 323a T 1–8, F 1–29; (cf. FGH 4 T 16, 21; F 38–49, 163–72); Karneonikai: FGH 4 F 85–6. Charon FGH 262 T 1, F 11. 3 Thommen 2000 surveys the issue. See also Figueira 2002, 147–8. 1

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

9

produced a pamphlet on the laws of Lykourgos that argued for the abolition of the ephorate. 4 Aristotle singles out for mention a Thibron from the authors who had praised the Spartan lawgiver for creating the institutions conducive to hegemony. 5 Lysander notoriously had a speech prepared by the rhetorician Kleon of Halikarnassos to support his ambition to widen participation in the Spartan kingships. 6 Never delivered, it was found among his papers posthumously, and may well have affected later historians. These works of partisanship resemble contemporary Attic primary material, such as the extant Athenaion Politeia (‘Old Oligarch’), transmitted to us among the works of Xenophon, the politeia of Draco, summarized in the Peripatetic Athenaion Politeia (4.1–4), and a lost political speech of an oligarchic coloration given by Andocides to his hetairoi (fr. 3 Blass). Furthermore, just as the poetry of Solon and the Attic skolia ‘drinking songs’ with their political content were preserved among the Athenians and commented upon for their historical value, the poetry of Terpander, Alcman, and Spendon was almost certainly still performed in fourth-century Laconia, 7 and the same may well be true for Tyrtaeus and even Thaletas. 8 In addition, there probably existed an anecdotal tradition that accompanied performance (as FGH 582 T 2b (Aris. Pol. 1301b19–21), T 3 (Strabo 8.5.5 C366); cf. T 1 (Xen. HG 3.5.22); T 2a (Aris. Pol. 1333b33–5). See David 1979. 5 FGH 581 T 1 (Aris. Pol. 1333b18–22). This Thibron is arguably the early fourth-century Spartan general (Poralla 1985, 65, #374: Xen. HG 3.1.4–8, 4.8.17–19; Ephorus FGH 70 F 71 [Athen. 11.500C]; DS 14.36.1– 3, 38.2; 99.1–3). See Cartledge 1986, 163. 6 DS 14.13.8, cf. 2–7 (FGH 583 T 1a); Plut. Lys. 24.3–25.4 (T 1b), including Ephorus FGH 70 F 206; Plut. Lys. 30.3–4 (T 1c); Nepos Lys. (6) 3.5 (T 1d). The later debate over the scale of access to the kingship, proposed by Lysander, indicates the likely survival of Lysandrian constitutional material (Plut. Lys. 24.4–5). 7 Plut. Lyc. 28.5. For Terpander, note also Hellanicus FGH 4 F 85. For the idea that the laws themselves could be sung, see Clem. Strom. 1.16.78.5 with Piccirilli 1981, 11. 8 Tyrtaeus: Philochorus FGH 328 F 216 with Athen. 14.630E; Thaletas: Strabo 10.4.16 C408 ~ Ephorus FGH 70 F 149. 4

10

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

the work of Hellanicus shows). Balancing these resources is the virtual absence of collected Spartan speeches and associated material. Nonetheless, at Sparta the next stage of transmission was not mediated through a local school of historiography. Nor were there Laconian historians of panhellenic interests or stature; no Thucydides, Xenophon, or an Oxyrhynchus historian. Concomitantly, a prominent place was occupied from the start by the works of foreign admirers, even on the level of basic commentary, where the influential Spartan politeia of Xenophon has survived. 9 The Athenian oligarch Critias extolled Spartan institutions both in an elegiac didactic work and in a prose treatise. 10 All these factors contributed to reserve for derivative political commentary a critical role in propagating a vision of Spartan society for the rest of antiquity. 11 Hence, the treatment of Spartan institutions by Ephorus was important, as recognized by Polybius. 12 His work achieved this significance both because a slighter body of authorities lay in its background and because the period for their accumulation was probably shorter. The same factors affected the position in the source tradition of the attested Peripatetic politeiai ‘constitutions’ devoted to Sparta, one attributed See Thommen 2000, 405–6; Lipka 2002, 13–27. Frs. 6–10, 34–7 DK. 11 Such praise of the Spartan politeia was balanced by a critical treatise of Polykrates (FGH 597: Joseph. Contra Ap. 1.221). See Jacoby FGH 3b, 667–8; cf. Ziegler 1952. Unsurprisingly, this was the same Polykrates who had written a katēgoria of Socrates in the early fourth century (Isoc. Busir. 4 with Arg. Busir.; also DH De Is. 20; Aris. Rhet. 1401a33–6; Aeschrion AG 7.345). The Spartan treatise had some now irrecoverable link to proSpartan polemics that paralleled its controversial connection to the Socratic works of Xenophon and to Plato’s Apology and Gorgias. See Chroust 1957, 69–100; Dodds 1959, 28–9. 12 Polyb. 6.45–6. Here, although we find Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Plato coupled with Ephorus, Ephorus seems to have offered the most complex reconstruction (FGH 70 F 148). Cf. Justin Epitome 3.2.4–4.1, where the underlying account of Pompeius Trogus probably derived from Ephorus. 9

10

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 11 to Aristotle (just like the Athenaion Politeia) and the other under the authorship of Dicaearchus. Extended primary commentary on Spartan institutions is lost save for the treatise of Xenophon, and, moreover, unlike the Athenaion Politeia, Aristotle’s Spartan politeia has not survived. Therefore, the student of Spartan social history is unusually dependent on late material. Amid many scattered references, the works of Plutarch are preeminent, first and foremost, his Lycurgus, and secondarily the Apophthegmata Laconica. The latter work does not possess its sole importance for investigating Spartan society by virtue of its main section, the sayings attributed to various Spartans (named or anonymous) that are culled from a wide range of sources (208B–225F, 229A–236E) or for the abbreviated collection of apophthegms from Spartan women (240C–242D). More interesting for our inquiry are the so-called Dicta Lycurgi (henceforward, Dicta), which is an account, organized topically, of Lykourgos’ legislation (225F–229A), and the Instituta Laconica (Instituta), a series of rubrics treating Spartan mores and political practices (236F–240B). And there is significant material elsewhere, notably in the biographies of Lysander, Agesilaos II, Agis IV (especially in its chapter 5), and Kleomenes III. There are cases where we can reconstruct in considerable detail the emergence of ancient evaluations of a specific Spartan social institution. I offer two examples taken from my own research, regarding, respectively, Spartan iron money and the practice of xenēlasia ‘expulsion of aliens’. 13 Sparta’s cumbrous pelanors (as the iron tokens were called) were treated in Xenophon’s politeia (RL 7.5–6). Both Ephorus and Theopompus referred elliptically to iron currency in recounting a debate c. 400 about the viability of traditional Spartan monetary practices. 14 Plutarch offers extensive treatment of this phenomenon, with Xenophon as his initial source to an important degree (Lyc. 9.1–5; Mor. [Dicta] 226B– D; Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 3.1; cf. Agis 10.2–4). An impressive array of parallel references bespeaks the same general picture, See Figueira 2002, 2003a; cf. Flower 2002, 193–4, 204–6. Plut. Lys. 17.1–6 with Ephorus FGH 70 F 205; Theopompus FGH 115 F 332. 13 14

12

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

notwithstanding individual emphases, distortions of received material, and historical conclusions appropriate to specific historiographical contexts. 15 Plutarch references a key concept for his understanding of the program of Lykourgos in his discussion of iron money. Lykourgos was trying to excise the psychological basis for acquisitiveness, zēlos ‘eagerness’ for enrichment and luxury (Lyc. 10.2; Mor. [Dicta] 226D; Lys. 17.5–6). This motif is clearly Peripatetic, because Plutarch himself cites Theophrastus for a telling thematic deployment. 16 Accordingly, the Peripatetics played a major role in the transmission of our evidence on the sanctioned function of iron money, 17 along with the related prohibition of the usage of gold and silver and the predominance of barter in the Spartan economy. 18 Iron money correlates in our source tradition with several other aspects of Spartan economic behavior. An oracle had predicted that greed (philarguria or philokhrēmatia) would be the downfall of Sparta. Both Ephorus and the Aristotelian politeia of the Spartans vouch for its fourth-century currency (DS 7.12.5; Aris. fr. 550 Gigon). The oracle, coupled with the consequent fourthcentury collapse of Spartan primacy, achieved a massive afterlife in our evidence, as the pronouncement is well represented in Plutarch, Note, e.g., [Plato] Eryias 400A-B; Polyb. 6.49.8–10; Pollux Onom. 7.105; 9.79; Justin Epitome 3.2.11–12; Hesych. s.v. πέλανορ, π 1286 Latte; s.v. ἱππόπορ, ι 848; cf. 849; Olympiod. In Plat. Alcib. 1.18.164; In Plato Gorg. 44.2. 16 Theophr. fr. 512A Fortenbaugh in Lycurgus 10.2 on curbing of greed through the syssitia: τὸ τὸν πλοῦτον ἄζηλον … καὶ ἄπλουτον ἀπεργάσασθαι ‘to engineer wealth as an object of no zeal … and to engineer unwealth’ (from the Politika [Politika Ēthē], Nomothetai, or Nomoi: 589.1–3, 16–17 F). 17 A failure to appreciate the Peripatetic contribution to the concept of Lykourgos as an ‘egalitarian’ has vexed the issue of Hellenistic contamination. See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 81–2 with references. 18 This conclusion is also borne out by the references made by Olympiodorus (In Plat. Alcib. 1.18.164; In Plato Gorg. 44.2). Cf. Aris. Pol. 1271b10–18. 15

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 13 in paroemiography, and in the Aristophanic scholia. 19 The citation from the Peripatetic ‘constitution’ is owed to the scholia to a line from the Andromache of Euripides where the term aiskhrokerdeis (greedy) as applied to the Spartans is glossed. 20 That linkage interweaves the oracle about philokhrēmatia with Attic anti-Spartan polemics from the Peloponnesian War, in which greed was held a dominant Spartan characteristic. 21 While a prediction of similar import, supposedly made by the sixth-century mythographer, Pherecydes of Syros, is unlikely to be either genuine or indeed sixth-century, the anecdote recounting such advice to Sparta’s kings was probably also current in the fifth century. 22 Let us next consider xenēlasia ‘expulsion of aliens’. This was a practice current in fifth-century Spartan statecraft that is also attested in 431 by a proposal of Perikles that it be disallowed for the allies of Athens in return for a rescinding of the Megarian Decree. 23 The invidiousness of xenēlasia and its grounding in Spartan greed were themes also prominent in wartime criticisms of the Spartans in Attic comedy, 24 and, accordingly, received allusions in lost Atthidography, reflected in surviving lexicography and scholia. 25 Just like iron money, xenēlasia is represented in extant primary commentary by an early reference in the Xenophontic politeia (RL 14.4). The related idea of a prohibition against Spartiates living abroad without official permission is drawn directly from the Aristotelian politeia (Aris. fr. 549 Gigon). In addition, Plutarch, once again, probably reflects ‘constitutional’ Plut. Mor. 239F; Agis 9.1; CPG 1.39, 201, 327; 2.150, 320, 452; Suda s.v. διειρωνόξενοι, δ 997 Adler; ΣArist. Peace 623a–c. For full references, see Figueira 2002, 144–5 (esp. nn. 21–2). 20 Andr. 450–2; with ΣEur. 445 Schwartz; cf. Philochorus FGH 328 F 124. 21 Cf. Arist. Peace 623–4; cf. Isoc. 8.96; 11.20; 12.241. 22 See Pherecydes A 1 D/K, cf. DL 1.117; Theopompos FGH 115 F 71; Olympiodorus In Plat. Alcib. 1.18.164 (see Figueira 2002, 144–5). 23 Thuc. 1.144.2; see 1.77.6 with scholia; 2.39.1. 24 Arist. Birds 1010–20. 25 Suda s.v. διειρωνόξενοι, δ 997 Adler; s.v. ξενηλατεῖν, ξ 25; ΣPeace 623a-c, ΣBirds 1013a–b Holwerda. 19

14

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

treatises in his treatments of xenēlasia. 26 The Peripatetic Spartan politeiai probably were also the intermediaries for Nicolaos of Damascus in his Ethōn Synagōgē and Olympiodorus. 27 The scattered late allusions to this procedure are numerous indeed, which prompted comparisons and even philosophical explorations of the nature of social identity. 28 The xenēlasiai drew their impetus in large part from a deep-seated Spartan anxiety over cultural contamination, which is not only prominent in Plutarch, but makes an early appearance in Herodotus. 29 Even sympathetic observers were dubious: Plato has Socrates sarcastically subvert this ostensible rationale for xenēlasia (Protagoras 342C). These two Spartan institutions, the system of exchange dominated by the symbolism of iron money and the regulation of resident aliens and foreign contacts through xenēlasiai, provide a model for understanding the evolution of traditions on ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta. The fundamental stratum formed in the late fifth and early fourth centuries when Spartan self-justification was countered by Athenian polemics (preserved in Thucydides, in drama, and in the traces of Atthidography). Our indirect reading of Spartan selfrepresentation, whether through a Herodotus or Plato or by a decoding from adversarial statements (for example, in Aristophanes), gives way to a scrutiny of primary commentary that, in both of our examples, is offered by Xenophon in his Respublica Lacedaemoniorum. Just like Thucydides, fourth-century historians, Ephorus and Theopompus in my examples, grappled with the Spartan understanding of their own mores in order to treat the decline of the contemporary hegemonic state. For Ephorus, because of the more ‘universal’ character of his work, this exercise necessarily entailed the incorporation of a more complete account 26

237A.

Lyc. 9.3–4, 27.3–4; Agis 10.1–3; Mor. (Dicta) 226D; Mor. (Instituta)

Nic. Dam. FGH 90 F 103z (cf. T 13, 15) = Aris. 143.4, F 25.5 Gigon; Olympiodorus In Platonis Gorgiam 44.2.27–34. See also Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 9.19. 28 See Figueira 2003a, 45 (esp. n. 6). 29 Plut. Lyc. 27.3–4; Mor. 238E; Agis 10.3. Hdt. 3.148.2–149.1; 5.51.2. 27

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 15 of Laconian society and culture. In both my examples, a crucial part in the crystallization of the tradition was played by the Aristotelian politeia. Yet, thematically rich, extensive citations were provided by Plutarchean works. The other scattered references could for the most part be reconciled with the ‘Lycurgan’ image that developed in the later fourth century and was represented systematically in Plutarch. The same exercise cannot, however, be duplicated for every aspect of Spartan society. There are topics for which we cannot fill in the earlier stages of this evolution; they come into focus more exclusively through the lens of Plutarch and of other Hellenistic and Roman sources. It is then open in these cases (n.b.) to hypothesize that Plutarch and other late sources were affected by authorities much closer to themselves in time, Hellenistic and Roman writers whose views of the ‘Lycurgan’ order were contaminated by sheer idealization or by their sympathies with the reform programs of the third-century kings, Agis IV and Kleomenes III. Some of these issues include the nature of Spartan land tenure (including the rents, the klēroi, and arkhaia moira), the mechanisms for transmission of property, features of marriage such as dowries, the legal character of ownership of Helots, and the structure of the agōgē. Admittedly, mere accidents of survival have sometimes played a huge role. The scale of the mess dues is explicitly cited by Athenaeus from Dicaearchus, 30 while neither the mess dues nor the rents from the klēroi, a narrowly connected topic, receive any stated provenance in Plutarch at all (Lyc. 8.4, 12.3). While the demonstrations (just offered) how the ‘constitutional’ vision of ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta evolved do establish a claim on behalf of a similar progression in other cases, that claim can be shaken wherever it is possible to adduce discrepant classical evidence. For instance, note Aristotle’s portrayal of a property regime in the Politics (1270a15–29) that is prima facie different from the one(s) implied in Plutarch. To be sure, one can propose that the Plutarchean account, presumably descending through the FHG 2.242, fr. 23 = fr. 72 Wehrli, cited in Athen. 4.141C; cf. ΣPlato Laws 633A. 30

16

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

‘constitutional’ tradition, describes some earlier dispensation than the one that is depicted in its decay by the Politics. 31 Exercising that option does, however, vitiate a use of the argument of generalization from the better-attested examples of the development of the ancient tradition on Spartan institutions. Nevertheless, the Hellenistic-contamination hypothesis has tended to drive the exploration of the genre of Spartan historiography to an unwarranted degree. The actual intentions, methodology, and even the contents of the works within the genre have thereby become obscured. Thus, any effort to comprehend the authors in the ‘constitutional’ tradition must start by viewing them in their own right and not merely as convenient rationales for rejecting parts of our evidential tradition as tendentious. 32 That process of reinstatement ought also to yield results that interest the Spartan social historian in two areas of interpretation. One, we can learn to what extent Hellenistic and Roman authors had their appreciation of earlier Spartan history colored or even distorted both by the policies of the reformers and by the political upheavals that characterized the Sparta of Agis, Kleomenes, and Nabis. Two, we can assess the degree to which these authorities affected Plutarch and other late sources on Spartan institutions. Nevertheless, it is equally important to distinguish this investigation from two other lines of analysis that also interest social historians. First one might try to determine from archaeological or ecological evidence, as well as from comparative material, which suspect elements of the ‘constitutional’ traditions can in fact be accorded credence. 33 Or, second, the social historian could consider the actual historical record about the reformers, and conclude that the supposedly tainted features differ substantially from attested third-century policies. 34 In that case, not only would the promoters of Hellenistic reform have had no motivation to fabricate these features in order to provide a false pedigree for Figueira 2004, 51–3. See Figueira 2006. 33 See Figueira 2003b, 203–6, 210–17, 34 See Figueira 2004, 57–61. 31 32

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 17 contemporary policies, but they would not have found in the historiography on Sparta policy alternatives that were useful in their own planning. I have already provided a survey of Hellenistic and Roman Spartan historiography, and will not repeat that exercise, although a conspectus is provided below by Table 1. 35 Rather it is my intention to survey several highpoints of the ‘constitutionalist’ tradition: 1) out of the early authors of Spartan politeiai, to discuss the Stoic philosophers, Persaios, Sphairos, and Dioskurides; 2) to explore the under-appreciated accomplishments of the Laconian Sosibios who wrote extensively on Spartan cult, myth, poetry, and political traditions; and 3) to assess historians on Sparta of the Roman period through their most prominent figure, Aristokrates. On the strength of the examples presented above, our working hypothesis must be that the treatises of Aristotle and Dicaearchus played a vital role in the crystallization of the image of ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta, despite the ability of a Plutarch or Athenaeus to reach further back occasionally to draw material. The very fact that much later Spartan historiography takes the form of composing politeiai is surely owed to Peripatetic precedent.

See Figueira 2006. According to Jacoby in FGH, there are thirteen relevant attested authors: Proxenos (FGH 703), Persaios (584), Sphairos (585), Aristokles (586), Nikokles (587), Polykrates (588), Hippasos (589), Molpis (590), Aristokrates (591), Pausanias (592): Phaistos (593), Dioskurides (594) and Sosibios (595). For discussion, Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 55–123; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 41–94; Cartledge & Spawforth 2002, 176–7. 35

18

THOMAS FIGUEIRA Table 1: Sparta–Specific Historiography (from Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker)

Hellanikos (Lesbos, #4): Καρνεονῖκαι: (lived c. 480–406?) Critias (Athens): Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία: 408–404? (lived c. 460–403) Charon (Lampsakos: #262): Πρυτάνεις οἱ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων: c. 400, or c. 425–415 Thibron (Sparta: #581): Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία?: c. 400–391 Pausanias (Sparta: #582): Λόγος κατὰ τῶν Λυκούργου νομῶν: after 395 (reigned 446–26, 408/7–395) Lysander (Sparta: #583): Ὁ περὶ τῆς πολιτείας λόγος: 403–395 Xenophon (Athens): Ἀγησίλαος: c. 355?; Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία; c. 396–83? (lived c. 428/7–354) Aristotle (Stagira): Πολιτεία Λακεδαιμονίων: 340–30? (lived 384–322) Dicaearchus (Messene): Πολιτεία Σπαρτιατῶν; Τριπολιτικός: floruit c. 326–296 Persaios (Kition: #584): Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία: floruit 260–56 (lived c. 307–243) Proxenos (Epirus: #703): Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία: floruit c. 297–272 Sosibios (Laconia: #595): Χρόνων ἀναγραφή; Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι θυσίων; Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος; Περὶ τῶν μιμηλῶν ἐν Λακῶνικῃ; Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἐθῶν; Ὁμοιότητες: floruit c. 275–250 Sphairos (Borysthenes?: #585): Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία (bks. 3); Περὶ Λυκούργου καὶ Σωκράτους: (lived c. 285–215) Dioskurides (Tarsos: #594): Λακωνικὴ πολιτεία: floruit c. 250–200, or c. 150–100 Polemon (Ilion): Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι πόλεων; Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἀναθημάτων; Περὶ τοῦ παρὰ Χενοφῶντι καννάθρῳ: floruit c. 190 Aristokles (#586): Λακώνων πολιτεία: second century? Nikokles (Laconia: #587): Λακώνων πολιτεία: second century? Polykrates (#588): Λακωνικά: second century? Phaistos (#593): Λακεδαιμονικὰ: second century BC? Hippasos (Laconia: #589): Λακώνων πολιτεία (bks. 5): floruit before c. 50 Molpis (Laconia: #590): Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία: floruit c. 150–50 Aristokrates (Sparta: #591): Λακωνικά: first half of first century CE Pausanias (Laconia: #592): Λακωνικά: of imperial date

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 19

THE STOIC POLITEIAI The Stoic ‘constitutionalists’ were Persaios, Sphairos, and Dioskurides. They took their lead from Zeno himself, because Plutarch in his Lycurgus 31.2 speaks of Plato, Diogenes, and Zeno (SVF 1.261) taking from Lykourgos the hupothesis of the politeia. This observation strikes the right note. The Spartan politeia possessed tremendous prestige for its military successes independently of the philosophers who might have been extolling it. Thus, treatments of the Spartan political order from the perspective of individual philosophical schools enhanced the prestige of that school as much as they drew attention to facets of Spartan life worthy of general emulation. Thus Sparta as Stoic polis was a formulation that could be read both ways. Moreover, following on, as they did, the Peripatetics, Aristotle and Dicaearchus, the Stoics’ treatment of Sparta was an appropriation of a subject of considerable significance for political philosophy. As my Table 6 shows in detail, even the sparse fragments of these ‘constitutionalists’, whether Stoic or not, show significant overlaps, convergences, and intersections. The ‘map’ of these remains indicates that descriptions of Spartan institutions in the Hellenistic politeiai do not occupy a free or relaxed realm for imagination. The Stoics appear to have used the title Lakōnikē Politeia ‘Laconian Constitution’ for their works, an appellation they shared with another, early Hellenistic tract (or treatise section) on Sparta that was produced by Proxenos. 36 Unlike Sosibios and the later Laconian ‘constitutionalists’, Sparta was for these Stoics merely one focus among many. Their attested output included various works of philosophical inquiry and other titles that illustrate a range of early Hellenistic learned interests. Unfortunately, we do not have a complete enumeration of the works of Persaios, 37 while Diogenes Persaios (FGH 584 T 1, F 1–2), Sphairos (585 T 1, F 1), and Dioskurides (594 T 2, F 1–2). Cf. Proxenos FGH 703 F 5. 37 Persaios (T 1 = DL 7.36): Περὶ βασιλείας, Περὶ γάμου, Περὶ ἀσεβείας, Θυέστης, Περὶ ἐρώτων, Προτρεπτικοί, Διατριβῶν, Χρειῶν δ’, Πρὸς τοὺς Πλάτωνος νόμους ζ§. The Ἀπομνημονεύματα may be equivalent or have contained the Συμποτικὰ Ἀπομνημονεύματα or 36

20

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Laertius provides us with a most impressive roster of works for Sphairos, numbering 32. 38 Moreover, Sphairos produced a second work of relevance to Spartan historiography, Concerning Lykourgos and Sokrates. Diogenes assigns three books to this work, and by implication only a single book to the ‘constitution’. In contrast, Athenaeus cites from the third book of the Lakōnikē Politeia (F 1). It may be possible that the enumeration of books has been transposed in the list preserved in Diogenes Laertius. The assignment of works to Dioskurides is entangled in the difficulties of determining his identity, but, despite his obscurity, our possible attributions are suggestive of varied interests. 39 The Stoics shared this variety of interests with the aforementioned early third-century ‘constitutionalist’ Proxenos who wrote an Epeirotika, a

Συμποτικοὶ διάλογοι (F 3–6). Possible works are Περὶ θεῶν (F 7) and Περὶ Ὁμήρου (F 8), but both could be subsumed within the attested works. See Deichgräber 1937, 928–9. 38 Sphairos (SVF fr. 620 = DL 7.177 ~ FGH 585 T 1): Βιβλία δὲ γέγραφε τάδε· Περὶ κόσμου δύο, Περὶ στοιχείων, σπέρματος, Περὶ τύχης, Περὶ ἐλαχίστων, Πρὸς τὰς ἀτόμους καὶ τὰ εἴδωλα, Περὶ αἰσθητηρίων, Περὶ Ἡρακλείτου πέντε διατριβῶν, Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς διατάξεως, Περὶ καθήκοντος, Περὶ ὁρμῆς, Περὶ παθῶν δύο, Περὶ βασιλείας, Περὶ Λακωνικῆς πολιτείας, Περὶ Λυκούργου και Σωκράτους τρία, Περὶ νόμου, Περὶ μαντικῆς, Διαλόγους ἐρωτικούς, Περὶ τῶν Ἐρετριακῶν φιλοσόφων, Περὶ ὁμοίων, Περὶ ὅρων, Περὶ ἕξεως, Περὶ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων τρία, Περὶ λόγου, Περὶ πλούτου, Περὶ δόξης, Περὶ θανάτου, Τέχνης διαλεκτικῆς δύο, Περὶ κατηγορημάτων, Περὶ ἀμφιβολιῶν, Ἐπιστολάς. 39 FGH 594 T 3 (IC 1.12 = SIG3 721): Ἐγκώμιον Κνωσίων?; F 5 (Phot. s.v. σκυτάλη): Περὶ νομίμων?; F 6–7 (DL 1.63; Athen. 11.507E): Ἀπομνημονεύματα?; F 8 (Athen. 1.8E-11B ~ Suda s.v. Ὅμηρος, ο 251.44– 76): Περὶ τοῦ τῶν ἡρώων καθ΄ Ὅμηρον βίου?. The Περὶ νομίμων is arguably the Lakōnikē Politeia referenced loosely or might be a larger work out of which the Politeia was a single book. The Apomnēmoneumata perhaps is to be assigned to the fourth-century student of Isocrates. The Enkōmion and the Homeric work could belong to the late second-century Tarsian, who may or may not be the constitution writer.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 21 local history of Epirus, and an account of Pyrrhos’ campaign in Sicily. 40

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE STOIC ‘CONSTITUTIONS’ Let us briefly consider what is known about the biographies of the Stoic treatise writers. Persaios was a compatriot and protégé of Zeno himself (335–263) who was possibly his former slave. 41 Zeno sent him to Antigonos II Gonatas of Macedonia whom Persaios served in assorted intellectual and political roles. He tutored Antigonos’ son Halkyoneus, and also served as an Antigonid general, who was defeated and probably died at Corinth in 243. 42 The career of Persaios was notable for the possibly misplaced enthusiasm with which he immersed himself in the affairs of the Antigonid court, becoming a controversial type-case for defection from the life of a philosopher. 43 Persaios lived circa 307–243 or a Proxenos FGH 703 F 1–3, cf. 6–8: Ēpeirōtika; F 4, cf. 9–10: ta peri Pyrrhon Sikelika: emended title. The basis for Proxenos’ interest in Sparta is unknown (note F 5). Ziegler 1957 suggests that Proxenos may have been Pyrrhos’ court historian, and thereby a contemporary (319–272). 41 For his fragments, see von Arnim SVF #4, fr. 435–62, vol. 1, 96– 102. For his life, see FGH 584 T 1 (DL 7.36), T 2 (Suda s.v. Περσαῖος, π 1368 Adler), T 3a (Isagog. Arat. 325.17 Maass), T 4 (DL 2.143); also SVF fr. 436 (Suda s.v. Περσαῖος); 439 (DL 7.6, 9, 13); Themist. Or. 3.46a. See also Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 68–71; Zeller 1923, 38–9 (n. 2); Deichgräber 1937; Sonnabend 1996, 243–7. For the discussion of Persaios by Philodemos, note PHerc. 1018, cols. IV, XII–XVI, XXXI; cf. SVF fr. 437, 441, 445–6; FGH 584 F3, 5, with Dorandi 1994, 10–13. 42 FGH 584 T 5 ~ Paus. 2.8.4, cf. 7.8.3; Plut. Arat. 18.1, 23.5; Philodem. Ind. Stoic. Herc. 15; also SVF fr. 444 (Polyaen. Strat. 6.5; Hermippos fr. 91 Wehrli). See Jacoby FGH 3b, 620; Tigerstedt 1965/74, 2, 47–8 for criticism of the speculations of earlier scholars; also Scholz 1998, 318–23. 43 Tarn offers an unflattering sketch that is characterized by unreasonable expectations for the role of a philosopher at the Antigonid court and a willingness to credit topoi as historical (1913, 231–3, 235, 237, 397–8). For a more balanced view, see Sonnabend 1996, 245–7. 40

22

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

little earlier: he had arrived in Macedonia at the time of Antigonos’ marriage to Phila, probably 276/5 (SVF 1.440 from the Vita Arati), and his acme was 260–56 (SVF 1.439). Sphairos was another Stoic, a late student of Zeno himself, but more properly a disciple of Cleanthes and a fellow student of Chrysippos. 44 The details of his life are difficult to reconstruct, but the following hypothesis works best, and suggests that Sphairos lived from circa 285 (290, at the earliest) to (at least) the early 210s. 45 Outlining his career in abbreviated notation, we may believe that Sphairos was active at Athens, was sent to Alexandria, visited Sparta for the first time, probably returned to Egypt, then revisited Sparta, possibly returned to Athens, and went again to Alexandria and the court of Ptolemy IV Philopator. When one of the Ptolemies (probably Ptolemy II) made overtures to the Stoics, Sphairos was the most senior Stoic prepared to go to his court—Cleanthes and Chrysippos had refused the invitation—probably between the late 250s and the mid-240s. 46 According to Plutarch, Sphairos also traveled to Sparta before 242 during the youth of Kleomenes III, 47 who shared philosophoi logoi with him, while Sphairos was giving the Spartan young ‘quality time’ (οὐκ ἀμελῶς διατρίβοντος). 48 Plutarch uses the FGH 585 T 1 (DL 7.177), T 2a–b (DL 7.185, Athen. 8.354E). He was either a Bosporianos (T 1 = SVF fr. 620) or a Borysthenitēs (T 3 = 622). See SVF fr. 620–30. 45 Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 73–4, cf. 1, 8, 60; Hobein 1929, 1684; Jacoby FGH 585 3b, 622–3. See also Sonnabend 1996, 274–80; Scholz 1998, 324–5. 46 T 2 (DL 7.185; Athen. 8.354E). Ptolemy III is the less attractive possibility. Cf. Erskine 1990, 96–100. 47 T 3a (Plut. Cleom. 2.2). Kleomenes was a meirakion, and Sphairos active among the neoi and ephēboi, while Kleomenes’ father, Leonidas, was of course still alive (Cleom. 3.1). Cf. Treves 1935, 28–9 (n. 3); Gabba 1957, 36, both of whom doubt the historicity of the first visit (on the basis of its conditioning by λέγεται); and Erskine 1990, 135, who puts the stay c. 235. 48 See Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 103, who erects the gratuitous hypothesis of Sphairos as a mentor of Agis IV and converter of Kleomenes to the cause of reform. Plutarch Cleom. 1.2, presumably 44

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 23 verb παραβάλλω which implies Sphairos had Sparta as a stop on a longer itinerary. The philosopher admired the manliness (andrōdes) of Kleomenes’ nature and intensified (prosekkausai) his ambitious pride (philotimia). 49 Plutarch’s source was careful to limit Sphairos’ influence to stimulating the royal qualities of Kleomenes, a man who hardly exhibited a very philosophical demeanor during his political career. And Plutarch may not have been wholeheartedly committed to his account of Sphairos’ impact on Kleomenes that he qualifies with ἔοικε, after the earlier λέγεται. Indeed the problematic nature of Kleomenes’ tutelage under Sphairos was something to which Plutarch himself seems to have been sensitive, for he observes in his own right that ‘Stoic doctrine has a dangerous and reckless quality with regard to great and keen natures, but suddenly permeating a deep and gentle character it contributes greatly to the innate and proper good’. 50 Sphairos later assisted Kleomenes in 227/6 during his program of reform and revanchism in reestablishing the messes and system of education. 51 On the grounds of content, the politeia of Sphairos is not likely to have been the source for the attestations about the relationship of Sphairos and Kleomenes. Plutarch would have never introduced his notice of Sphairos at Sparta by λέγεται, if Sphairos himself had been his source (cf. Plut. Cleom. 2.2). Rather Phylarchus is the likely source for the involvement of Sphairos with reflecting Phylarchus, is emphatic on the role of Agiatis, widow of Agis and wife of Kleomenes. 49 The role of Blossius of Cumae, the friend of Tiberius Gracchus, balances that of Sphairos in the corresponding biography (Plut. Ti. Gracchus 8.5, 17.4, 20.3–4), as has long been recognized (e.g., Africa 1959, 465; 1961, 16–18; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 73). Blossius’ revolutionary credentials are better than Sphairos’, as he ended up in the entourage of the Pergamene pretender Aristonikos. See Hadot 1970, 134–41. 50 Plut. Cleom. 2.3: ὁ δὲ Στωϊκὸς λόγος ἔχει τι πρὸς τὰς μεγάλας φύσεις καὶ ὀξείας ἐπισφαλὲς καὶ παράβολον, βαθεῖ δὲ καὶ πράῳ κεραννύμενος ἤθει μάλιστ᾽ εἰς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιδίδωσιν. For Plutarch’s psychology of personality, see Duff 1999, 72–98. 51 T 3b (Plut. Cleom. 11.2).

24

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Kleomenes. 52 After the defeat of Kleomenes at Sellasia and his flight to Egypt, Sphairos next appears at the court of Ptolemy IV (222–205). 53 Despite speculation that he returned to Egypt in the entourage of Kleomenes, no evidence supports this supposition and his continuing intimacy with Ptolemy IV makes it unlikely. 54 Sphairos may have made an intervening stop (with the Stoics in Athens) between Sparta and the court of Ptolemy IV that caused his missing the very end of the reign of Ptolemy III. 55 It appears from the context that Diogenes thought his arrival at Philopator’s court was his first arrival in Egypt (DL 7.177), although this is hopelessly at odds with the story also in Diogenes (7.185, confirmed by Athen. 8.554E) that he went to Egypt during the scholarchy of Cleanthes (263–232). The hypothesis that he resumed living in Egypt after a hiatus might explain this confusion. The same passage in Diogenes is our source for another anecdote (7.177): the philosopher Mnesistratos of Thasos, who had founded his own sect in rejection of the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans, attempted to embarrass Sphairos at the Ptolemaic court with the charge that Sphairos denied Ptolemy was king, only to be deftly parried by the Stoic. While the Ptolemy in question could be Philopator from the context, it may well be that Ptolemy II better fits the chronology of Mnesistratos. 56 The alternative to more than

Compare Diogenes Laertius 7.177–8. See (e.g.) Marasco 1978, 72– 3; 1981/83, 1, 41–2. 53 T 1 (DL 7.177). See Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 73–4; Zeller 1923, 38–9 (n. 2); cf. Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 102–3; Gabba 1963, 362. 54 Cf. Hobein 1929, 1686; Ollier 1936, 544; 1933/43, vol. 2, 101, 104; Scholz 1998, 325 (n. 28). 55 See Sonnabend 1996, 279–80. It then becomes an open question whether he also missed the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy IV and the downfall of Kleomenes in 220–219. This reconstruction also renders unlikely the rather bold hypothesis that the counter-revolution at Sparta had far reaching ramifications for Stoic social thought (cf. Erskine 1990, 148–51; note Vander Waerdt 1991, 205). 56 Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 499–500. Note also Athen. 7.279D. Cf. Hobein 1929, 1689. 52

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 25 one Egyptian stay is more radical surgery, namely, to posit that the reference to Philopator is a mistake for Ptolemy II or III. Furthermore, it is difficult to appraise the appearance of Sphairos in a fragment of the meliambic poet, Cercidas (fr. 8 Powell). Cercidas was a Megalopolitan politician and general who, at the instigation of Aratos, was involved in the Achaean approach to Antigonos III Doson that led to Macedonian intervention in the Peloponnesus against Kleomenes and Sparta. 57 The reference to Sphairos is hostile and could suggest that his association with Kleomenean policy vis-à-vis the Achaeans was sufficiently notorious to arouse the ire of Cercidas. Yet, Cercidas was himself a critic of current socioeconomic conditions in the Peloponnesus regarding elite consumption and the distribution of property (fr. 4). 58 Thus it is difficult to determine to what degree hostility by Cercidas toward Sphairos was philosophical (Cynic vs. Stoic), ideological (Achaean oligarch vs. Laconizing radical), or political (pro-Aratus Arkadian vs. pro-Spartan xenos). Moreover, the terms of the criticism in fragment 8 are sexual, a denunciation of the uncontrolled pederastic impulse, that is addressed to an unknown Stoic Kallimedon. 59 Here the implication is that Sphairos promoted a paideia corrupted by sexual exploitation. This charge seems to have taken advantage both of the traditions about Spartan erotic mentoring and of contemporary views that the Stoic school was knitted together intergenerationally through sexual relationships. 60 Was Cercidas then framing a polemic aimed at the rebuilding of the agōgē rather than one focused on Kleomenean foreign policy or redistributions of wealth? Such a For Cercidas’ political career note Polyb. 2.48.4–8, 50.3, 65.3; Steph. Byz. s.v. Μεγάλη Πόλις (Ethn. 437); Ptol. Eph. apud Phot. Biblio. 190.151a4–5; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 1.401.27–8. See Walbank 1957, 1, 247–8; Africa 1959, 466–8; 1961, 20; Lomiento 1993, 10–16. 58 See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 75–6, 352–3 for a review of earlier commentary. 59 Knox 1961, 212–17; Livrea 1986, 146–58; Lomiento 1993, 268–80. 60 See Schofield 1991, 26–8 for the role of erōs in Zeno’s Republic and for other early Stoic works on erotic love including the Dialogoi erōtikoi of Sphairos. 57

26

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

stance would attempt to counteract the prestige of Spartan traditions by considering them in light of Hellenistic sexual mores that were more unsympathetic to archaizing elite homosexuality. Thus, Cercidas might have been concerned over the ideological challenge of a restoration of a ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta. In that case, it is still possible that Cercidas was reacting exclusively to the written works of Sphairos, perhaps his Concerning Lykourgos and Sokrates, so that he was anxious to thwart a Stoic effort to provide philosophical underpinnings for a ‘Lycurgan’ paideia. Yet, the polemic against Sphairos may even have been broader in impetus than his connection with Sparta. 61 No positive evidence indicates that the residence of Sphairos in Sparta was continuous from his first arrival, and common sense suggests otherwise. His long list of works indicates rather that he was a figure active both among the Stoics in Athens 62 and at the Museum in Alexandria. Plutarch’s participial phrase in Cleom. 11.2 may clinch the point: …ἧς τὰ πλεῖστα παρὼν ὁ Σφαῖρος αὐτῷ συγκαθίστῃ… ‘the majority of which [the restoration of the traditional agōgē] Sphairos, being on hand, collaborated with him in establishing’. 63 Zeller, followed by Susemihl and Jacoby, made the attractive suggestion that Sphairos was an intermediary between the Ptolemies and their ally Kleomenes. 64 Several corollaries would accompany acceptance of this hypothesis. First, Sphairos’ first visit to Sparta might have been motivated by the interest of Ptolemy III in assessing how the social and political upheaval at Sparta associated with Agis IV (244–242) would affect the balance of power in the Peloponnesus. Second, the chronology of the Ptolemaic alliance with Kleomenes III would accordingly become important for understanding the later career of Sphairos. The shift of Ptolemaic subventions away from the Lomiento 1993, 278, suggesting an intention to respond to the Dialogoi erōtikoi. 62 Note that Chrysippos wrote a work in disputation with Sphairos (DL 7.198 = SVF fr. 16), and the two shared a student, Hyllos of Soli (SVF fr. 12). Note Hobein 1929, 1683–4, 1686. 63 See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 345 (n. 145). 64 Zeller 1923, 39–40 (n. 4); Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 73–4 (n. 296). 61

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 27 Achaean League toward Kleomenes occurred either in summer 227 or over the winter 226–225. 65 The redirection in policy may reflect the revisiting of Laconia by Sphairos. By the same token, Sphairos may have left Sparta, before or when the Egyptian alliance went sour in 222. Just before Sellasia, Ptolemy cancelled his subsidies, advising Kleomenes to make peace with Antigonos. 66 Third, the choice of Sphairos as an emissary to Sparta may have been based on the previous composition of his Politeia (or, at the very least, his demonstration of a substantial knowledge about and strong interest in Sparta). If the Politeia was not written before the first Spartan visit, the second visit should perhaps be a terminus ante quem. At any event, mere chronological odds would seem to favor a date for the writing of the Politeia during the long years of Sphairos’ intellectual activity between c. 266 and 227 (when he was 58 or older) than in the surely shorter period thereafter. 67 And we shall see shortly that contents point to the earlier time-frame. Later dates for the Lakōnikē Politeia are less attractive. A treatise in the midst of campaigns of Kleomenes seems to misunderstand the audience and function of such a work. Kleomenes had prevailed over his oligarchic adversaries by force de main. The Spartans themselves were in any case working in an environment of oral politics, unsurprising for face-to-face interaction among 700 men. The common people in the Achaean cities were attracted by Kleomenes’ program and disappointed by his failure to abolish debts in his holdings abroad. 68 The Achaean Polyb. 2.51.2 with Walbank 1957, vol. 1, 250. Polyb. 2.63.1 with Walbank 1957, vol. 1, 270; Hölbl 2001, 52–3. After Antigonos’ entry into the Peloponnesus, Ptolemy predicated further subsidies on Kleomenes’ surrender of his mother and children as hostages. Although Kleomenes complied, his mother Kratesikleia found negotiations with the Antigonids under way when she reached Alexandria. She advised her son to entertain Achaean peace feelers regardless of her safety. That the Ptolemaic subsidies were already insufficient may be indicated by Kleomenes offering the Helots freedom in return for cash payments. See Plut. Cleom. 23.1 with 22.3–7, 27.1–5. 67 Cf., e.g., Gabba 1957, 217. 68 Plut. Cleom. 16.2–3, 5; 17.3, cf. 17.5; 18.2; 20.3; cf. Aratus 39.5. 65 66

28

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

elite would not allow itself to be persuaded about the scholarly pedigree of the Kleomenean program; they were too afraid of its actual outcome. 69 As for subsequently, it is doubtful that Kleomenes’ cause in exile, getting Ptolemaic support for a return, would have been helped by a tendentious ‘constitution’ (an entirely ad hoc conjecture in any case) during the short period between his flight in summer 222 and his suicide in winter 220–219. It is scarcely conceivable that a Ptolemaic courtier would write a Lakōnikē Politeia that treated or focused on Kleomenes after his attempted coup d’état and death in Alexandria. This chronology for the composition of the treatise of Sphairos makes it unlikely, in the first place, that the work treated Kleomenes, and, in the second place, that Sphairos was used by Phylarchus specifically for his treatment of Kleomenes. 70 It does not of course rule out that Plutarch (or Phylarchus) used the Politeia of Sphairos for the treatment of the Spartan social crisis in Agis chapters 3 and 5. That treatment is somewhat similar in outline to the description of the pre-Lycurgan social crisis at Sparta (Lyc. 8.1– 2). Therefore, Sphairos has been cast up as a possible common source for Plutarch in both works (although without much positive argument). 71 Much of Agis chapters 3 and 5, however, is recapitulative and the similarities in wording with the Lycurgus are superficial. Spartan social ills were already manifest, when the Peripatetic politeiai were written, and the situation Agis faced differed only in degree. Since a deviation from ‘Lycurgan’ values had supposedly engendered the fourth-century crisis, contemporary commentary assumed that the imposition of ‘Lycurgan’ norms had initially exorcised equivalent social ills. The old anxiety that acquisitiveness (philokhrēmatia) would ruin Sparta added Figueira 2004, 49, 56, 59. See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 78–82. Cf. Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 105–7; 1936, 553–4; Hadot 1970, 159–60; Gabba 1957, 36 (n. 3). 71 See (e.g.) Grote 1872, vol. 2, 310–36; Oncken 1875, 231–2; Africa 1961, 15; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 80–4; Hodkinson 2000, 93; cf. Neuman 1906, 6–7. On the specific issue of the number of Spartan klēroi, see Figueira 2004, 58–9 with n. 84 (p. 70); cf. also Oncken 1875, 2, 226; Neuman 1906, 5; Kessler 1910, 59. 69 70

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 29 corroboration. A Peripatetic politeia is the most likely source in the Lycurgus and a Hellenistic Spartan politeia (not certainly that of Sphairos) in the Agis (whether mediated through Phylarchus or not). 72 In any eventuality, the Stoic diagnosis of Spartan ills would in all likelihood have adapted the Peripatetic analysis. Turning to the third Stoic ‘constitutionalist’, Dioskurides, we confront a basic difficulty in identification. The attribution of works to the various men named Dioskurides is uncertain, as the name is so common. Although there was a Dioskurides, a student of Isocrates, who, like many Spartan ‘constitutionalists’ is cited by Athenaeus, 73 this Dioskurides is an unsatisfactory author for the Lakōnikē Politeia noted by Plutarch. 74 Although such a project is not impossible in the mid-fourth century, the coincidence of some of his fragments with those of Persaios and some putative Hellenistic touches urges this conclusion. Jacoby connects the politeia with the grammatikos from Tarsos who is attested in a Knossian inscription of the late second century. 75 Yet, another possibility is even better: a Dioskurides who seems to have been an ascendant of this same grammarian. This man was the father of the Stoic scholarch Zeno of Tarsos. This elder Dioskurides, to whom Chrysippos dedicated works, 76 may have studied in the Stoic school himself as a mature man. Either Dioskurides must then be identified as the third Stoic author to have written on the Spartan constitution, in the second half of the third century (250–200) or, less likely, 150–100.

Marasco 1978; 1981/83, 1, 36–7, 48–9, 204–8 (Aristotelian politeia); Asheri 1961, 45; Fuks 1962b, 244–5, 250–2, 262 (Phylarchus). 73 FGH 594 T 1 (Athen. 1.11A). 74 Cf. Schwartz 1903. 75 FGH 594 T 2 (Plut. Lyc. 11.4); T 3 (IC 1.12 = SIG3 721). See 3b, 629–30. 76 SVF fr. 13–17 (DL 7.190, 193, 198, 200, 202). Note von Arnim 1903. 72

30

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY WITHIN THE STOIC ‘CONSTITUTIONS’ When we turn to the specific contents of the politeiai of the Stoic ‘constitutionalists’, the idiosyncrasies of the survival of our evidence become the dominant concern. Athenaeus was by far the most important intermediary in the transmission of all the authors of Spartan politeiai or Lakōnika (if we exclude Sosibios who presents a different pattern of intermediation). 77 In light of the alimentary and gustatory interests of Athenaeus, these authors are often cited for Spartan patterns of eating. Particularly important is a discussion of the Kopis ‘Cleaver’ feast which takes place within the context of a treatment by Athenaeus of the Spartan messes. 78 Although our discussion incorporates the late ‘constitutionalists’ before we have contextualized them, it is helpful to grasp in its totality this sequence of citations from Athenaeus. 79 Consider the outline provided in Table 2. In the course of this rich array of attestations, Athenaeus provides about half the citations of these post-classical authorities on Sparta, if we except Sosibios. Because of the role of Athenaeus, a considerable degree of parallelism can be noted on Table 6 that collects their comparanda.

77 78

141A). 79

For Athenaeus’ citation of historians, see Pelling 2000. Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 4.138B–143A (syssitia); Kopis (138E– Figueira 2006 provides discussion.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 31 Table 2: Athenaeus on Spartan Dining With Relevant Hellenistic authors of Spartan Politeiai in Large Bold (Deipnosophistae 4.138B–143A)

138B–D: Hdt. 9.82: Pausanias on Mardonios’ tent & the meals set out by Pausanias after Plataia 138E: Polemon fr. 86 (FHG 3.142–3): Kopis ‘Cleaver’ festival with Kratinos Ploutoi, fr. 175, CPG 4.211.22; Eupolis, Helots fr. 147, CPG 5.376–7 139B: Epicharmus fr. 34, PCG 1.31 (Elpis), fr. 109, PCG 1.71 (Periallos): αἶκλον ‘main meal’ 139C–F: Polykrates FGH 588 F 1 (via Didymus): observances at Hyakinthia including food 140A: Aristophanes (or Philyllios) fr. 15, PCG 7.381 (Poleis); Epilykos fr. 4, PCG 5.70–71 (Koraliskos): Kopis festival 140A: Lycophron; Eratosthenes fr. 26 S: barley cakes at Kopis 140A–B: Molpis FGH 590 F 1: food at Kopis 140B: Persaios FGH 584 F 1; Dioskurides FGH 594 F 2; Aristokles FGH 586 F 1: Kopis sacrifice of suckling pigs 140C: Polemon: αἶκλον is Dorian/Spartan chief meal (fr. 86) 140C: Alcman fr. 5a–b Page: on αἶκλον 140D: Nikokles FGH 587 F 1: ἐπάϊκλα are courses after main meal 140E: Kallias (or Diokles) fr. 7, PCG 4.44, cf. 5.20 (Kyklopes): laurel leaves as part of ἐπάϊκλα 140E: Molpis FGH 590 F 2b: dish called ματτύη as part of ἐπάϊκλα 140E–F: Persaios FGH 584 F 2; Dioskurides FGH 594 F 3: nature of contributions to ἐπάϊκλα 141A: Nikokles FGH 587 F 2: eating laurel leaves; & jurisdiction of the ephor (state official or ephor of the mess?) over ἐπάϊκλα 141A–C: Dicaearchus fr 72 Wehrli = fr. 23 (FHG 2.242–3): meals at the messes & mess dues 141C–D: Sphairos FGH 585 F 1: contributions to ἐπάϊκλα 141D–E: Molpis FGH 590 F 2c: dish called ματτύη forming part of the ἐπάϊκλα 141E–F: Demetrios of Skepsis fr. 1 Gaede: martial character of the meals at the Karneian festival 141F–142F: Phylarchus FGH 81 F 44: the decline of the messes; attempts by Kleomenes III to revive dietary traditions 142F–143A: Antiphanes fr. 46, PCG 2.334 (Arkhōn): humorous comments on Spartan dinners

32

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

The fragments of these authorities do indeed exhibit a synchronic and generalizing, even idealizing tone. All three of the Stoic ‘constitutionalists’ were interested in the messes as a device for communal cohesion. Yet, the impression that the Stoics were merely discussing ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta is misleading. There are also indications of the social disparities of early third-century Spartan society in the comments of Persaios and Dioskurides—the latter cited twice for his agreement with Persaios—on the differential contributions of the wealthy (euporoi), which include monetary payments, and the poor (aporoi) to the epaïkla ‘after-dishes’ at the common meals. 80 And Persaios almost certainly wrote his politeia before the reforms of Agis. We may compare Xenophon RL 5.3 that, however, limits deviations from the standard fare to contributions from the socially-esteemed practice of hunting and to a substitution with bread by the rich. Moreover, F 1 of Sphairos from his Lakōnikē politeia notes the donations from hunting (following Xenophon), which he attributes only to οἱ πολλοί. He remarks that the plousioi made special contributions of wheat bread, again following Xenophon. Sphairos does not, however, limit the processes of substitution to providing bread, but adds a new category in seasonal products from the estates of the wealthy. It is also striking that these provisions for the wealthy are narrated with verbal forms in the present tense. 81 Hence Sphairos was not portraying the syssitia in an idealized and lost, egalitarian ‘Lycurgan’ antiquity, nor was he prescribing the rules for a restored ‘Lycurgan’ and Kleomenean mess system. Just like Persaios, he was probably describing the pre-Kleomenean early and mid-third-century practices of oligarchic Sparta as though they retained a ‘Lycurgan’ quality in the same spirit as Xenophon after whose context for observation there had been an increasing differentiation of ‘class’ behavior in the messes. The absence from this subsidization of the monetary payments, mentioned by Persaios, might be noteworthy, if one could be sure that a similar observation in Sphairos had not been lost in summary generalization. 80 81

FGH 584 F 2; FGH 594 F 3. See Flower 2002, 200.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 33 The same effect of updating what had probably been the Peripatetic treatment of the messes may perhaps also be discerned in the implied reference of Persaios (F 2) to the jurisdiction of the ephor in the mess (cf. Nikokles FGH 587 F 1 where that ephor is mentioned explicitly). This ephor ruled on the appropriate contributions to the epaïkla from the wealthy and poor. While it is possible that the person chairing the mess had been always called an ephor by analogy with the magistrate of that name, it could also be that the actual ephors of Hellenistic Sparta in fact presided over contemporary common meals. In that case, these occasions were already very different from the daily, intimate gatherings of Archaic and Classical Sparta, and approximated the large communal meals of segments of the citizen body envisaged by Agis IV in his restructuring of the messes (Plut. Agis 8.2). Therefore, in early Hellenistic Sparta, the messes had evolved into mechanisms through which a tiny landed elite patronized a large impoverished civic body (100 landowners out of 700 under Agis IV: Agis 5.4). Some remnants of Spartan austerity and homogenization were maintained in the messes as the patronage of the wealthy was envisaged as rectification or even redress. 82 Persaios gets at this idea by observing that the meal had the status of a microcosm of the polity (F 2): τὸ δ᾽ ὅλον ὥσπερ πολίτευμά τι τοῦτο δὴ συνίσταται μικρόν. Note that there is no hint that Stoic ‘constitutionalists’ condemned per se the mess-system of early Hellenistic Sparta. 83 The contemporary agricultural regime may well have led to an objectionable division of the citizens between a wealthy minority and an impoverished mass. For the ‘constitutionalists’, however, the messes had adapted, while retaining important vestiges of earlier ‘Lycurgan’ principles. Figueira 1984, 98 (n. 32). What remained of the Spartan diaita was enforced by the ephor in the mess. In Persaios, the word for his apportionment of dishes to the euporoi is ζημιόω ‘fine’. In Nikokles (487 F 2), the ephor ἀπέλυσεν ἢ κατεδίκασεν ‘acquitted or convicted’; either he or an accuser then assigned fines in dishes (ὁ δὲ νικήσας ἐζημίωσεν). 83 Kessler 1910, 108 assigns Sphairos responsibility for Plutarch’s account of the messes in Lyc. 12, noting the reference (12.7) to a Laconian cook being bought by a Pontic king (from Sphairos’ home region). 82

34

THOMAS FIGUEIRA Table 3: Other Attestations Of Constitutional Writers

Author

Plutarch

Sphairos

F 2: Lyc. 5.5

FGH #585

Number of gerontes

Athenaeus

Hippasos

F 1:

FGH #589

1.14d–e

ΣPindar Pyth.

Photius/Suda

Dances with Ball-playing Molpis

F 2a: 14.664e ἐπάϊκλα

FGH #590 Aristokrates

F 2: Lyc. 4.6

F 1:

FGH #591

Travels of Lykourgos

3.82e

F 3: Lyc. 31.5

Apples

Burial of Lykourgos

of Hesperides

F 4: Philop. 16.4 Philopoimen at Sparta in 189/8 Phaistos

F 1:

FGH #593

4.28, 9.90d Hexameter on Zeus Ammon

Dioskurides

F 1: Lyc. 11.4

F 5:

FGH #594

Lykourgos’

Photius s.v.

wounding

σκυτάλη;

F 4: Ages. 35.1–2

Suda, σ 718

Death of

Its use by

Epameinondas

lenders

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 35 Plutarch is another significant intermediary for Stoic ‘constitutional’ works, and his citations appear to exploit passages where they diverged from the main tradition. 84 He cites Sphairos on the Spartan gerousia (FGH 585 F 2). Fortunately, we can apply here a test of the relationship of Sphairos to Peripatetic constitutional writing on Sparta. His second fragment derives from Plutarch’s Lycurgus 5.5. Aristotle explained the number of twenty-eight gerontes as being owed to the defection of two of the original thirty collaborators of Lykourgos. 85 Sphairos differed in having the original number of accomplices as twenty-eight. Plutarch offers that twenty-eight is the first perfect number after six, being the sum of its factors. This explanation in a Pythagorean spirit seems inconsistent with the historicizing of Sphairos’ rationale and may have been added by Plutarch from another source without attribution. 86 Plutarch then states another rationale as his preferred solution, namely that twenty-eight gerontes with two kings would yield thirty. The difference between Sphairos and the author of the Aristotelian constitution is trivial and interpretative, and both authorities betray equal positivism. Dioskurides was also utilized by Plutarch for his Lycurgus. 87 The treatment of Dioskurides differed from other discussions on the outcome of the attack on Lykourgos by the young noble Alkandros. Lykourgos was not in fact blinded in one eye so that his dedication of a temple to Athena was actually a thank-offering for his recovery. This was a distinctly idiosyncratic view on the episode. This contention may be motivated either by aetiology or by a genealogical claim. Plutarch also cites Dioskurides in the Table 3 above, which reproduces Figueira 2006, 155, Table 2, presents the attestations of the Hellenistic Spartan historians (except for Sosibios) that lie outside Athenaeus’ treatment of Spartan ritual dining and the messes. 85 Aris. fr. 542 Gigon. 86 See Kessler 1910, 32; Hobein 1929, 1691; Ollier 1936, 559–60; 1933/43, vol. 2, 112; Jacoby 3b.624; Erskine 1990, 136–7, for the view that this explanation also derives from Sphairos. See pp. 86–7 below for the suggestion of Aristokrates as a possible source. 87 FGH 594 F 1 (Plut. Lyc. 11.4). 84

36

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Agesilaus for the variant that Antikrates struck the mortal blow to Epameinondas at the battle of Mantineia with a spear, not a short sword. 88 This opinion is based on contemporary, Hellenistic agitation on behalf of Antikrates’ descendants who were claiming the privileges accorded the lineage of the killer of the Theban leader. 89 The last citation of Dioskurides, which is from his work Περὶ νομίμων, is preserved in the lexicographical tradition, and again highlights his role as a contributor of variant material. It seems sensible to suppose that the Περὶ νομίμων, which Photius and the Suda cite, was a larger ‘constitutional’ work, out of which the Lakōnikē politeia stood as a part. 90 Dioskurides provided the detail that the skutalē was not only employed by Spartan emissaries and officers overseas for official business, but was used by lenders at Sparta. 91 That detail might very well reflect once again a postclassical social practice. The constitutional treatises of Persaios, Sphairos, and Dioskurides were Stoic analogues to the earlier works of Aristotle and Dicaearchus. 92 Judged on their careers, neither Persaios nor Sphairos was a friend of Attic-style democracy. Persaios was intimately associated with the regime of Antigonos Gonatas; Sphairos was a Ptolemaic courtier. Persaios also became the enemy of the Cynic Menedemos, because he thwarted an engagement by Antigonos to Menedemos to restore the democracy to his home city, Eretria (SVF 1.460 [DL 2.143]). Moreover, those who cited these works do not offer support for disagreements between the politeiai of the Antigonid courtier, Persaios, and Sphairos, the friend FGH 594 F 4 (Plut. Ages. 35.1–2). Parallel are DS 15.87.5–6; Nepos Epam. 9.1–3. 89 A claim perhaps made in preference to other presumed descendants of Antikrates, the Makhairiones, as Plut. Ages. 35.1 notes (see also Paus. 8.11.5–7). 90 Cf. Jacoby FGH 3b.632. 91 FGH 594 F 5 (Photius s.v. σκυτάλη͵ σ 525.21–526.18; Suda s.v. σκυτάλη͵ σ 718 Adler). 92 Hence we should be reluctant to find the impetus for writing in a particular situation, such as Spartan resistance to Macedonia. Cf. Jacoby 3b.620. 88

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 37 of the Antigonids’ rivals and enemies, the Ptolemies and Kleomenes III. A pattern of basic agreement prevailed between Persaios and Dioskurides, at least, in the two cases we have for judging. Not only did the Stoics update their descriptions of Laconian institutions on the basis of third-century conditions, but they may also have brought a Hellenistic political sensibility to bear. The Stoic treatises gained an impetus from desires to add characteristic philosophical nuances to an account of Spartan society. Jacoby detected Stoic shadings in Persaios F 1. 93 Nothing indicates that this process exceeded an accentuation of motifs involving ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta that showed Lykourgos and the Spartans to have been forerunners of Stoic teaching and comportment. 94 The fragments themselves do not warrant overarching speculations over distortions about Sparta that a Stoic perspective may have engendered. To reach further conclusions about the ‘Stoicization’ of Spartan traditions, we shall have to examine the Instituta Laconica. Kennell has made some interesting observations about Plutarch, Instituta Laconica 1–17 (Mor. 236F–238D) where he detects a Stoic cast to the terminology. 95 He would argue that these chapters were drawn from Sphairos’ constitution. I would stress that the other Stoic ‘constitutionalists’, Persaios and Dioskurides, are also viable possibilities. Moreover, chapter 42 of the excerpts must derive from a source of the Roman era (below pp. 92-5). The Instituta were notes drawn from one or more Spartan constitutional treatises, as has long been recognized. 96 A determination of a FGH 3b.621. Contrast the strong philosophical coloration of the Sympotika Hypomnēmata (F 3–6). 94 Note DL 7.172; Muson. fr. 20.37–48; Epict. fr. 45 Sch. (Stob. Flor. 3.1.163); also Cic. Pro Mur. 74. See Ollier 1936, 549 where the citation of Clearchus of Soli should be excluded as Peripatetic (fr. 39 W = Athen. 15.681C). Yet, idealization was balanced by Stoic criticisms of Lykourgos as political legislator: Cic. Acad. 2.44; Sen. De otio 8.2–3; Plut. Mor. 1033F. See Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 77–82. 95 Kennell 1995, 102–7. 96 For bibliography, see Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 89–92; Santaniello 1995, 19–21. See also Boehm 1885, 33–42. 93

38

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

presence of Stoic terminology reaffirms what was likely on the basis of direct attestation (as outlined above), namely that Plutarch knew Sphairos and Dioskurides. Nonetheless, the differences between the Instituta, on the one hand, and the Lycurgus and Dicta Lycurgi, on the other—insofar as parallel subject matter exists— demonstrate that the Stoic treatise underlying the beginning of the Instituta was not the main source of the Lycurgus. In his biographies, Plutarch cited the Stoics for variation from his main sources, probably Peripatetic politeiai, perhaps Ephorus, and even possibly Aristokrates. The notes from a Stoic ‘constitution’ that were preserved in the Instituta did not affect the Lycurgus significantly, because their treatment did not provide systematic deviation from the main source(s). The Instituta prove the derivative character of any underlying Stoic politeia, and do not entail a contamination of our record, or, for that matter, Stoic distortion of the actual Hellenistic agōgē and diaita of Sparta. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that a Roman ‘constitutionalist’ might even stand as an intervening filter.

SPHAIROS AND ‘LYCURGAN’ SPARTA Our conclusions about the contributions of the Stoic ‘constitutionalists’ will strike anyone familiar with the scholarship on Sphairos as boldly minimalist. Far-reaching claims have been made for Sphairos as the source of Hellenistic contamination within the accounts of the Spartan social and economic order contained in Plutarch. Not only would this judgment make Sphairos atypical of the genre of Spartan politeiai, but it must also be recognized as inference from his relationship with Kleomenes that is based on nothing in his fragments themselves. No matter how tall a scaffolding of speculation has been erected since the publication of Ollier’s works, this conclusion appears unassailable. The Sphairos presented above is, however, firmly grounded in actual examination of his fragments, in reestablishment of the philosopher in his historical context, and in his placement alongside Persaios and Dioskurides. The natural assumption must be that the

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 39 treatise of Sphairos was modeled on the earlier politeia of Persaios, just as Dioskurides later followed Persaios as well. In a didactic use of his Spartan research, Sphairos also composed a work called Concerning Lykourgos and Sokrates. 97 Sphairos probably used these two figures as types exemplary of different moral and social orders, to be contrasted but both praiseworthy in their own terms. 98 So the didacticism of Sphairos is revealed as a modality of his traditionalism. Concerning Lykourgos and Sokrates is exactly parallel to the Tripolitikos of the Peripatetic Dicaearchus—to which Plutarch owed his figures on Spartan mess dues—as a combination of description and prescription, but, for Sphairos’ treatise, with a Stoic coloration. It may have stimulated the response of Cercidas. Sphairos’ involvement with the agōgē also repeats Peripatetic precedent, since the Spartan constitution of Dicaearchus had been read annually to Spartan ephebes at the headquarters of the ephors. 99 The Peripatetic politeia may have been deemed acceptable to the oligarchic interests that dominated the early Hellenistic ephorate. We lack the evidence for a determination, but the Stoic constitutions may have been more sympathetic to the pretensions of the royal families (as will be suggested momentarily). The hypotheses assigning Sphairos central responsibility for a series of distortions in our traditions on Spartan institutions are embarrassing for their lack of definition and for their ambiguity. 100 Sphairos is given two diametrically opposed roles, one active and one passive. On the one hand, he has infected the program of Kleomenes or its historiography with Stoic ideas, but, on the other hand, the revolutionary policies of Kleomenes have infiltrated and FGH 585 T 1 (DL 7.177). This is a preferable option to seeing this as the earlier work and solely philosophical. Cf. Jacoby 3b, 623–4. 98 Jacoby FGH 3b, 623–4. 99 Suda s.v. Δικαίαρχος, δ 1063 Adler. See also Taïphakos 1975. 100 The prime exhibits are Ollier 1936; 1933/43, vol. 2, 99–123; Hadot 1970, 148, 153–61. Cf. Gabba 1957, 36 (n. 3), 52–3; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 68–70, 73 with notes (esp. 2.344–8) who summarizes the earlier work about which he shows deserved skepticism; and also Schofield 1991, 42. 97

40

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

shaped Sphairos’ politeia, creating a fallacious string of precedents for Kleomenes in other works of Plutarch. With every allowance granted speculation, Sphairos might have encouraged Kleomenes to apply Stoic social philosophy to his actual programs, or Sphairos might have overlaid Stoic concepts on the historiography of Kleomenes’ pragmatic plans and activities, or Sphairos might have allowed his knowledge of the Kleomenean actual reforms to warp his treatment of earlier Spartan social customs. That Sphairos’ literary career actually exhibited and melded all three of these phenomena would be incredible. 101 Moreover, Kleomenes III offered a conventional program of polis-reconstruction with similarities to other Hellenistic projects. 102 He augmented the civic body by integrating outsiders; at Sparta such enfranchisement included Helots and Perioeci, alongside the mercenaries and slaves recruited elsewhere. He redressed stark inequalities by canceling debts and by redistributing property. At Sparta such equalization could proclaim a ‘Lycurgan’ lineage and invoke the earlier klēroi. 103 Such an effort at social restructuring

The complications of addressing these contradictions are indicated by Ollier 1936, 560–2; 1933/43, vol. 2, 113–14 where the politeia of Sphairos appears in the reign of Agis, but cannot be instituted in detail because of political constraints, so that Sphairos composes Concerning Lykourgos and Sokrates under Kleomenes to provide a more general imprimatur for the reform program. Not only is this all improbable on grounds of genre and reception, but this hypothesis would also exclude our judging any detail at all in Plutarch (and by implication in Sphairos and Phylarchus) as historical or anachronistic/fabricated. Cf. Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 346 (n. 151). 102 See Figueira 2004, 58–9. 103 See Figueira 2004, 48–53. Cf. Erskine 1990, 138–49, where, for example, the idea that Kleomenes was seeking to implement absolute equality (!) is used to create a contrast with earlier notions of ‘Lycurgan’ equality (cf. rather Ephorus FGH 70 F 148; Plato Laws 3.684D–E; Polyb. 6.48.2). There is, in fact, both little to show that the early Stoics advocated such an equalization of estates (note Vander Waerdt 1991, 201, 205) and nothing to indicate that the land grants of Kleomenes were to be treated 101

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 41 sought to increase the military power of the community through augmenting the pool of potential soldiers. 104 Nothing in the actions of Kleomenes required a Stoic philosophical impetus. 105 And Plutarch does not link Sphairos with Kleomenes’ distribution of land and debt cancellation anyway. And on the assumption that Sphairos’ Stoicism informed the actions of Kleomenes, what are we to make of the similarity of Kleomenes’ policies to the designs of Agis? Indeed, it is a counsel of despair to postulate that Sphairos had to have influenced Agis as well 106 or distorted our historical record about him, 107 two processes that are hardly equivalent in any event. Unfortunately, the program of Kleomenes III has been treated in some early modern scholarship as an experiment in ‘socialism’, whether by sympathizers seeking ancient precedents or opponents who were ready to exploit the antipathy of Polybius to discredit an ancient ‘revolutionary’. 108 This analogy necessarily casts Sphairos anachronistically as the professiorial, intellectual mentor

any differently than conventional military allotments. Note Fuks 1962a; Flower 2002, 196–7. Cf. Figueira 2006. 104 Revived Spartan militarism lay at the core of the Kleomenean program in a manner quite at odds with the anti-militarism of Zeno (Schofield 1991, 50–2). 105 Cf. Ollier 1936, 538, 566–9; 1933/43, vol. 2, 116–22. Note Pozzi 1968, 398–9; Marasco 1981/83, 1, 87–91; Scholz 1998, 324 with n. 27. 106 See Pozzi 1968, 398. Cf. Ollier 1936, 546–7, 563–4; Hadot 1970, 154. 107 Ollier 1936, 558–9; 1933/43, vol. 2, 110–11 traces to Sphairos’ fabrication Agis’ comments in Plut. Agis 10.2–4. And Agis’ reference to the Spartans’ honoring Thaletas, Terpander, and Pherecydes is not Stoic (cf. Erskine 1990, 139–40). Cf. also Erskine 1990, 126–31, who suggests that the record on Agis is a back formation from that of Kleomenes. That is improbable prima facie and demands improbably that Cic. De off. 2.80 depends solely upon Phylarchus. See Figueira 2004, 56–7; also Fuks 1962a. 108 See Bux 1925; Pöhlmann 1925, 1, 385–91;Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 73–4; also Gabba 1957, 220–2, 226; 1963, 362.

42

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

or official ideologue behind the revolutionary leader. 109 Yes, Kleomenes did oppose an exploitative elite, did expropriate the property of his elite enemies, and did promote an equalization of property holdings. His social context, however, differed vastly in structural terms from modern cases of ‘socialist’ expropriation, nationalization, bureaucratization, and central direction of (re)distributive processes. Kleomenes’ policies were implemented without recourse to mechanisms for popular mobilization or to a mass movement, typically mediated through a party elite. Hellenistic agrarian reforms did not create collective farms under bureaucratic supervision, and, concomitantly as well as technologically, could not apply an industrial workforce model to the organization of agricultural labor. Nothing suggests that Kleomenes created anything other than properties that were designed to support soldiers and might possibly have been, therefore, restricted in the conditions of their alienation and inheritance in a manner customary in Classical and Hellenistic military colonization. This image of Sphairos as a philosophical/ideological mentor to an ancient revolutionary leader has undoubtedly been fostered by Naomi Mitchison’s novel of 1931, The Corn King and the Spring Queen. This massive reimagining of ancient life brings into contact with each other a group of partially Hellenized Scythians (from the fictional Marob on the Black Sea littoral) and the dramatis personae of the Sparta of Kleomenes. Mitchison’s own commitment to socialism profoundly influenced her novel. 110 In her introduction to the American reprinted edition of 1990, she is explicit on the grounding of her work in the political context of the 1920s and 1930s. 111 Sphairos from Olbia is the crucial mediating figure in the Note the discussion in Africa 1959, 462–4; 1961, 16–18; Shaw 1985, 45–6 with n. 27. 110 The authorized biography of Benton 1990 is helpful. See pp. 58– 69 on the context for the novel. 111 Mitchison 1990, ix–x. Note ‘Now my story shifted into the revolution in Sparta, led by the last of the Kings. At the time of the writing that seemed very relevant to what was going on in the real world of the early thirties. I would wake from my book to watch these realities 109

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 43 cultural collisions of the novel, as he mentors Tarrik/ Charmantides, the Corn King (after being shipwrecked in Marob), and is presented as the teacher, ideologue, and conscience for Kleomenes in the establishment of the ‘New Times’. The Spring Queen, Erif Der (‘red fire’ transposed), embodies early feminist yearnings concerning women’s potentialities in transforming social consciousness through a progression of civilizational stages. This novel is virtually unknown to American readers by virtue of one of those subtle layers of cultural insulation that sometimes, perhaps somewhat inexplicably, separate Anglophone intellectuals on either side of the Atlantic. 112 Yet, it is my impression that many British ancient historians, at least up to my generation, would have read the Corn King and the Spring Queen at a formative stage, as well as Mitchison’s collection of stories, Black Sparta (1928). That Professor H.T. Wade-Gery of Oxford had been Mitchison’s lover in the 1920s and again in the 1930s informed Mitchison’s perspectives on ancient Greece and has doubtless influenced the currency of her works among English classicists, even if they were ignorant of the intimate details. 113 Kennell has refined earlier hypotheses on the role of Sphairos in order to limit the scope of his contribution to the agōgē, for which, according to Kennell, he may be considered ‘in a very real sense, the inventor of the agōgē’. 114 As Plutarch states, Sphairos assisted Kleomenes with a reestablishment of the agōgē for Spartan and see each in the terms of the other’. Or later, ‘…but the view was moulded by what I—and many another person—was thinking in the Europe of those days, with Mussolini and his fascists and already the shadow of Hitler in Germany’. 112 The Rutgers University library copy of the original edition was charged out only 25 times in over 60 years (mainly in the 1930s and early 1940s). Since the onset of computerized book handling in the early 1990s, this copy and the copy of the Virago edition of 1983 have never been borrowed, up to 2008 (other than by myself). 113 Benton 1990, 38, 48–50, 55–7, 86, 94; cf. Mitchison 1979, 65–6, 164. 114 Kennell 1995, 11–12, 98–111, 120, 127; also Flower 2002, 198–9. Note Figueira 1996/97.

44

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

youths, with especial reference to a restoration of the gymnasia and the syssitia. 115 We have already noted that Sphairos is likely to have formed his views on Sparta from earlier constitutional sources before he came to Sparta during the youth of Kleomenes. 116 The politeia of Sphairos himself is more likely to have preceded his collaboration with Kleomenes than to have followed it. Consequently, the politeia could never have included fabrications about the agōgē for partisan reasons, because Sphairos could never have envisaged the Kleomenean coup d’état long before its occurrence. 117 Going further in an investigation of Kennell’s hypothesis is difficult, because there is no good direct evidence for the Kleomenean agōgē. Kennell’s assertion that glosses to Herodotus and Strabo, that supply a list of age-grades and possibly derive from Aristophanes of Byzantium, represent the agōgē of Sphairos in distinction to an earlier period is mere supposition. 118 We learn from another citation of Aristophanes’ work on the terms for the age-groups that he equated the hippeis (members of a corps of three hundred elite infantryman) with neaniskoi ‘young adult males’, a formulation that must refer to the classical period when that unit still existed. 119 There is, furthermore, no certainty that Sphairos must be Aristophanes’ source. The names for the age-classes may well have come from a Sosibian work. 120 If the source was Sphairos, however, paradoxically, these age-classes are unlikely to have been Kleomenean, unless Kleomenes and Sphairos conformed to earlier tradition, because the ‘constitution’ probably preceded the reforms.

FGH 585 T 3b (Plut. Cleom. 11.2). FGH 585 T 1a (Plut. Cleom. 2.2). Note Kennell 1995, 98–9. 117 Contrast Kessler 1910, 108–9, who attributes to Sphairos the whole discussion of the agōgē and adult diaita in Plut. Lyc. 12–21; 24.1; 25.1–2; 26–27.2 (in part). 118 Cf. Kennell 1995, 201–21, 29–31, 102 with Diller 1941. 119 Arist. Byz. Nomina aetatum (Miller 1868, 428–34) ~ Eustath. Il. 2.630.11–15 (ad Il. 8.727). 120 See just below. 115 116

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 45 This same paradox affects Kennell’s argument that the Instituta Laconica 6 (Mor. 237B), which is hypothetically derived from the politeia of Sphairos, reflects the Kleomenean agōgē. Any such equivalence would be owed to the fidelity of the reforms to the earlier politeia, a treatise describing current or prior practice (cf. Plut. Lyc. 16.4–7). Moreover, Sphairos was in all likelihood not the first person to call the Spartan education the agōgē. Sosibios used the term offhandedly, which is an indication that it was already traditional. 121 Sosibios will have written before Sphairos, unless Sphairos’ politeia was very early in his career, and thereby irrelevant for Kleomenes’ reforms. Finally, the use of the phrase patrios agōgē in the Spartan riposte to Antipater of 331 may also be genuine recollection (Plut. Mor. 235B; cf. Mor. 64D). That renders the concept inherited tradition. To his interest in the configuration of the age-classes—a valid inference of Kennell, notwithstanding our rejection of Sphairos as the inventor of the agōgē—may perhaps be added an appreciation of educational erotics. If our reading above of the nature of Cercidas’ attack on Sphairos is correct (pp. 25-6 above), Sphairos would have sympathized with the homoeroticism of the agōgē, but that concern was also hardly an anachronism, as Xenophon had already discussed Spartan pederasty in this setting (RL 2.12–13). In the period leading up to Kleomenes’ revival, it is likely that some features of the agōgē persisted in attenuated form (just like the messes). 122 A more dramatic rupture of the diaita occurred when Philopoimen intervened in 189/8, as recognized by Polybius. 123 The Spartiate ‘constitutionalist’ Aristokrates considered Philopoimen’s changes as the destruction of the traditional ‘Lycurgan’ order (see below, pp. 90-6). Therefore, if we are determined to see the Roman-era agōgē as predominantly an antiquarian construct, the elite of Roman Sparta and the contemporary Laconian ‘constitutionalists’ are the more likely Sosibios FGH 595 F 4. The Hesychian gloss ἄφορτος· οὐκ ἠγμένος τὴν Λυκουργείαν ἀγωγήν, α 8730 Latte probably derives from Sosibios as well. 122 Note Ducat 1999, 63 (n. 3). 123 As Kennell himself explains (1995, 10–14). 121

46

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

culprits. The best theory, however, is that both Kleomenes and Sphairos, on the one hand, and the late republican/early principate Spartan aristocrats and the late ‘constitutionalists’, on the other hand, had a rich tradition of commentary on the agōgē on which to draw, despite the probable influence of historicizing, antiquarianism, and sheer fabrication in their service of showmanship. In contrast, Erskine focuses on the issue of contamination of our record by Sphairos (which means his influence on Plutarch). 124 He finds Stoic overtones for the phrase ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν in the advice of Kleomenes’ mother, Kratesikleia, to her son (Cleom. 22.7), and in the discussion between the king and his follower Therykion in the aftermath of the disastrous defeat at Sellasia (31.1–6). 125 The treatment of these episodes comes from Phylarchus who must then have derived them from Sphairos who supposedly treated them in his Περὶ τύχης. This work, about which, incidentally, we know nothing, only makes at the very best a slightly more likely guess at such a source than a politeia. Yet, thereby, we can get no closer at all to understanding how the politeia affected the historiography of Sparta. Note again additionally the improbability of Sphairos posthumously glorifying Kleomenes in Ptolemaic Alexandria. 126 And this scenario excludes that Phylarchus cannot have added Stoic highlights to the career of Kleomenes himself which is the option generally adopted by those identifying Stoic terminology and attitudes in these two Plutarchean biographies. 127

Erskine 1990, 132–4. Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 91–2 offers the more natural hypothesis that these episodes are compositions of Phylarchus himself. 126 Hence Erskine’s view (1990, 134) that Plutarch’s musings on aretē and tukhē in Cleom. 39.1 came from Sphairos is singularly unlikely. 127 Compare (e.g.) Ollier 1933/43, vol. 2, 90–3; Gabba 1957, 227–8, who shrewdly notes how Stoicism and laconizing were blended in Phylarchus. Cf. Gabba 1963, 363. 124 125

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 47 In contrast, I find it tempting to envisage the influence of Sphairos on the studied remarks of Kleomenes III before the assembled Spartans at the time of his coup d’état (Plut. Cleom. 10.1– 6). 128 He adopted a position on the ephorate that saw the ephors as usurpers of royal prerogatives that probably descended distantly from the pamphlet written in exile by King Pausanias (Arist. Pol. 1301b20–21 ~ FGH 582 T 2b). In a ritualistic formula, Kleomenes also denounced the ‘imported curses’ of luxury, extravagance, debts, loans and the ‘older evils’ of poverty and wealth in a manner going back to c. 400 at the very latest, which may indeed have become a leitmotif of the ‘constitutionalists’. 129 He cited as a precedent for his coup the extra-legal action vis-à-vis King Kharillos of none other than Lykourgos himself (cf. Plut. Lyc. 5.5). Yet, this conjecture implies that Kleomenes was using a work of Sphairos that was already available and that Phylarchus would later become Plutarch’s source for the speech. To recapitulate, Sphairos shared a Stoic interest in Spartan institutions and mores that expressed itself in his ‘constitutional’ treatise, a work which elaborated within a tradition of commentary, starting from Xenophon, extending through the Peripatetics, and encompassing the Stoic Persaios. As a Ptolemaic courtier versed in Spartan history, Sphairos visited Laconia at least twice. After an earlier visit, in which he developed a rapport with Kleomenes III, he revisited Sparta during Kleomenes’ campaign of political reconstruction, and his knowledge of Spartan tradition allowed him to assist Kleomenes’ revivals or reimaginings of the agōgē and syssitia. Besides the obvious conclusion that Sphairos and Kleomenes shared with each other their conceptualizations of Sparta’s past, there is no persuasive argument that Stoic philosophy through Sphairos shaped Kleomenes’ program, or that the Stoicism of Sphairos contaminated Plutarch’s treatment of primeval Spartan institutions, or that Kleomenes’ reforms have through Sphairos warped the ‘constitutional’ interpretation of Sparta so evident in Plutarch. Note Gabba 1957, 216–17. Cf. Plut. Lys. 17.1 ~ Ephoros FGH 70 F 205; Theopompos 115 F 332. See Figueira 2002, 142–4; 2003a, 69–71. 128 129

48

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

The encounter of Sphairos and Kleomenes leads us to an important realization about memory in later Greek nomothesia. The complexly textured and profoundly interwoven social matrix of Archaic and Classical Sparta had frayed and attenuated in the fourth century through the loss of regional hegemony, demographic and economic decline, an increasing inequality, and a progressive disjuncture between normative demands and actual behavior. Such conditions eroded personal recollection in a primarily oral public culture. Restorative gestures, failing a response in natural memory, can only resort to a revivification of collective memory that is buttressed by written documents whose contents evoke a psychological response for their congruities with scraps of remembrance, communal pride, slogans, and sheer wish fulfillment. Hellenistic Spartan politeiai embody a tacit claim to remember Sparta better than the Spartans. The viability of that claim renders many charges of distortion on the deepest level moot, if not irrelevant. Thus it is more likely that the ‘constitutionalists’ through Sphairos ‘contaminated’ the program of Kleomenes—tolerating for the sake of argument that ‘contamination’ be used for such cultural influence—than that Kleomenes’ program ‘contaminated’ the politeia of Sphairos.

SOSIBIOS The career of Sosibios offers a different pattern when compared to the Stoic ‘constitutionalists’ that we have just been considering. His various works parallel the subject matter of the genre of Spartan politeia (see Table 4 below), but were sufficiently detailed and differentiated to carry more specific names in their citations. These titles were Concerning the Sacrifices at Lakedaimon, 130 Concerning Alcman (in three books), 131 Concerning the Mimetic Dances in Lakōnikē, 132 and

FGH 595 F 4–5: Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι θυσίων. FGH 595 F 6: Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος. 132 FGH 595 T 1 (Suda s.v. Σωσίβιος, σ 859); F 7: Περὶ τῶν μιμηλῶν ἐν Λακῶνικῃ. 130 131

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 49 Concerning the Ethē in Lakedaimon. 133 Perhaps Sosibios’ work Equalities might belong to the same category, if one form of equality under discussion was a political equalization achieved through the ‘Lycurgan’ system (although this view is essentially speculative). 134 The attestation of these works is correspondingly richer than for other authors in this genre, both Stoics and later ‘constitutionalists’. It is possible that these attested works and others, 135 perhaps now anonymous, formed collectively a massive Lakōnika. 136 Caution, however, is advisable: if the chronology offered below for Sosibios is correct, his corpus would precede the works explicitly attested as Lakōnika. Moreover, there is little material supporting the hypothesis that Sosibios dealt much with institutional history or with political history at all. The fragments of the Khronōn Anagraphē of Sosibios (F 1–3) indicate his creation of a framework for Spartan history with which he correlated other dates, basing himself on the king-lists of the dyarchy. 137 F 1 established the lapse in time from the fall of Troy to the first Olympiad, encapsulating as well an implied date for the return of the Heraklids. F 3 shows that Sosibios also set the chronology of the foundation of the Karneia, a fact suggesting that Hellanicus’ list of the victors at the festival was an important resource for his work. Such a framework would nicely structure a Lakōnika. Jacoby argues for the traditionalism of Sosibios’ chronography. 138 Our dating for Sosibios and his possible FGH 595 F 8: Περὶ τῶν ἐθῶν. Jacoby (3b, 636) offers this augmentation. 134 FGH 595 F 9 (Athen. 15.690E–F): Ὁμοιότητες. 135 For possible non-Spartan works, note FGH 595 F 2 (Clem. Stromat. 1.117.10), F 3 (Athen. 14.635E–F): Χρόνων ἀναγραφή, and possibly, F 9: Ὁμοιότητες. 136 See C. Müller, FHG 2, 635; Tresp 1914, 131. Laqueur 1927, 1146–9 offers a similar formulation in which the overarching work is the Peri ethōn. 137 See Wachsmuth 1892, 26–7. 138 Jacoby 3b, 637–8. See Bayliss 2015 (on F 2), who recognizes the significance of placing Sosibios before Eratosthenes. 133

50

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

identification with Sosibios the Alexandrian savant called lutikos ‘resolver’ would affect this appraisal as it would reverse the relationship between Eratosthenes and Sosibios and augment the intellectual standing and impact of the Laconian. Sosibios provides us with particular difficulties in dating. On the basis of his intimate knowledge of Laconian tradition, there is every reason to credit the statement of the Suda that Sosibios was a Laconian (T 1). Yet, not only is his name common, but there also happen to have been several prominent third-century homonyms that can be located at the Ptolemaic court, a locale in which our author seems to be placed (T 2–4). Exclusion helps narrow our examination of the candidates for the identification of the expert on Sparta. Our Sosibios is unlikely to have been the well-traveled man who helped Ptolemy I acquire a statue of Ploutōn, about which the king had dreamt. 139 The statue became important, as it was reinterpreted to represent the cult image of Serapis. This Sosibios appears too early, although he may be the man who was suspected as the author of the work of Theophrastus on kingship. 140 Yet, if

FGH 595 T 2 (~ Plut. Mor. 361F–62A). Cf. Plut. Mor. 984A–B; Tac. Hist. 4.83–4; Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg 255 (all lacking Sosibios). See, for full references and discussion, Griffiths 1970, 160–1, 393–8, who doubts an identification as the Spartan Sosibios; now Bayliss, citing Figueira 2007, 146. Cf. Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 603–5. 140 This work, For Cassander, on Kingship, attributed to Theophrastos, was said by Athenaeus (T 2 = 4.144E) to have possibly been the work of a Sosibios, the honorand of a Callimachean epinikion. That is highly improbable on chronological grounds, leading Jacoby to suggest Sosibios, the friend of Ptolemy I as an alternative. If that were true, he may be a different man from Sosibios lutikos or Sosibios Lakōn (assuming momentarily they are different men), since the treatise ought to precede 297, placing him much too early for these men. See Jacoby FGH 3b (Noten) 368. The putative author of the Peripatetic treatise could also be Sosibios of Taras, a powerful figure who was the co-leader of sōmatophylakes of Ptolemy II during the late 280s (Joseph. AJ 12.18, 25), but that would necessitate a period of service for him in Macedonia. Yet the editors of POxy suggest the Tarentine as the honorand of Callimachus 139

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 51 we are wrong and the Laconian Sosibios were the author of the treatise, he would then become still another Peripatetic interested in Sparta. Nor does the Laconian Sosibios appear to have been the courtier of Ptolemy II for whom Callimachus wrote an elegiac, epinician poem. 141 This powerful and very wealthy figure was certainly a native Egyptian (l. 28). Rather the Laconian Sosibios may be another Sosibios, one associated with Ptolemy II Philadelphos and a grammatikos who was called λυτικός ‘resolver’ and numbered one of the ἐπιλυτικοί. 142 This identification is stated explicitly in T 1 (Suda s.v. Σωσίβιος, σ 859 Adler). 143 The repute of the early Alexandrian savants called the (Grenfell & Hunt 1922, 98–9). See also Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 605; Wachsmuth 1892, 30. 141 FGH 595 T 3 (Athen. 4.144E; Callim. fr. 384 Pf.). Though the honorand could possibly be the son of the courtier of Ptolemy I, he is often equated with Sosibios (son of Dioskurides), a leading minister of Ptolemy IV. That would require the work in his honor to be a late work of Callimachus indeed (see Geyer 1927, 1149–52). Yet the honorand could as well have been the grandfather or uncle of the minister of Ptolemy IV. In either case, Callimachus’ honorand was not the Laconian grammatikos or Sosibios the lutikos (cf. F 26). Note POxy 15, p. 99. See Jacoby FGH 3b, 635–6. 142 Lutikos: FGH 595 T 3, F 26 (Athen. 11.493E–F); epilutikoi: T 1 (Suda s.v. Σωσίβιος, σ 859). See Müller, FHG 2, 625; Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 5–6 (n. 20), vol. 2, 543–4 (n. 125); Tresp 1914, 130–1; Laqueur 1927, 1149; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 88–9; now Bayliss 2015, who would remove the category Epilutikoi as a copyist’s error. Yet, see n. 144 on the usage of ἐπιλύειν and ἐπιλύεσθαι. 143 The implication of Wachsmuth (1892, 27–9) and Jacoby (FGH 3b, 635–6) that this identification may be doubted as a mistaken inference drawn from Athenaeus is unwarranted. The Suda does not merely affix the epithet ‘Laconian’ to Sosibios lutikos, which might be an understandable, if gross, misreading of Athenaeus, but it adds a detail lacking in Athenaeus, namely that Sosibios belonged to the so-called (epi)lutikoi. This specification could never have been drawn from Athenaeus nor fabricated by a lexicographer, but must have an independent provenience. Yet that requires that the term be a genuine variant for lutikos. Moreover, save for assigning him the works of the Laconian Sosibios, not a single attested

52

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

(epi)lutikoi was undoubtedly dimmed by later Hellenistic luminaries, but the nomenclature associated with Sosibios does reflect genuine contemporary scholarly discourse. 144 Hence Sosibios should be dated in the second quarter of the third century. 145 Accordingly, he went to Alexandria well before the reform attempt of Agis IV and the reign of Kleomenes III. 146

fragment, let alone cited work, would be known for this significant Ptolemaic intellectual. 144 See Lehrs 1865, 203–4 (note). Such usage of λύειν and λύσις was common, after Aristotle; ἐπιλύειν and ἐπιλύεσθαι, while rarer, are sufficiently attested even now. Note ΣPin. Pyth. 4.455 about Didymus; Athen 15.670F of a problem set by Plato; also ΣHom. Od. 9.106.3; ΣLyc. Alex. 152.11–12. See also Aris. Rhet. 1403a24–5 (lutika enthumēmata); ΣDem. 20.241 (lutika paradeigmata). 145 That his chronographic work (F 1–3) used the Olympiad dating pioneered by Timaios is no problem for this dating (as Jacoby concedes). Sosibios’ divergence from the Eratosthenic chronology, later so influential, might be thought to place him as a (slightly older?) peer of Eratosthenes rather than, as Jacoby notes hesitantly, someone writing under his influence. Apollodorus (c. 180–119), however, certainly used Sosibios. Cf. Lévy 2007, 279. Significantly, Jacoby did not judge conclusively Sosibios’ relationship to Polemon, whose utilization of him would have forced Jacoby to raise his dates. See pp. 61-2 below. See 3b, 635–6, Noten 368–9 (esp. n. 9). Contrast Lévy 2007, 277–81, who would put Sosibios in the 1st century BCE or CE, but, notwithstanding other objections, he surely presses too far the argument from the apparent absence of Sosibian commentary on the politico-social system of Sparta. 146 Jacoby 3b, 636 opts to put Sosibios after the Kleomenean upheaval. Yet the distinction between his ‘antiquarian’ researches and the politeiai (and especially with the work of Sphairos) is greatly over-stated on the basis of extant examples. For Sparta, investigations of ethē (note the extant F 8), nomima (cf. Dioskurides FGH 594 F 5), and politeia are tightly intertwined. The same arguments could be turned on their heads to indicate a pre-Kleomenean date. Moreover, the idea of Sosibios planting Hellenistic philology at Sparta c. 200 is a bit bizarre on its face.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 53 Table 4: Sosibios

Explicit citations of Sosibian work are in bold , and citations without attributions to works are in plain Roman type. More questionable attributions are followed by ‘?’. Selected hypothetical fragments are prefixed by ‘??’.

54

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Sosibios is cited much more broadly than the other authors that belong to the genre of post-classical Laconian historiography. Athenaeus made heavy use of his Spartan works, being virtually alone in citing them explicitly. These attestations provide a framework for reconstruction, for which see Table 4. 147 Concerning the Sacrifices at Lakedaimon is cited twice in book fifteen, once for the reed stephanoi of the Promakheia and also for Thyreatic palm crowns of the Parparonia that had a connection with the Gymnopaidiai. 148 The lexical and grammatical citations on the festival cited among the comparanda on Table 6 below also probably derive from Sosibios. A further citation by Athenaeus of Sosibios on the cult of Dionysos Sykites is almost certainly from this same work. 149 To reiterate, other intermediaries regularly fail to cite by its title the relevant Sosibian work they were using. Yet, a number of other citations are likely to derive from Concerning the Sacrifices. Clement of Alexandria mentions a reference by Sosibios to the sanctuary of Artemis Podagra. 150 A notice of Clement on the cult of Artemis Khelytis in Laconia lacks any citation of an authority, but it also probably comes from Sosibios ultimately, perhaps through Apollodorus. 151 Citing Sosibios, Hesychius glosses the agōn of Ēlakateia, mentioning as its eponym an erōmenos of Herakles. 152 Another Laconian festival connected with Herakles, the Ergat(e)ia is also glossed by Hesychius; this information may also derive from Sosibios. 153 Zenobius explains the proverb about listening to someone having four ears by invoking a Sosibian mention of the Tresp 1914, 131–42 cites the (often repetitious and superficial) earlier scholarship exhaustively. 148 FGH 595 F 4 (Athen. 15.674A–B) = fr. I/86 Tresp; F 5 (15.678B–C) = II/87. Note Lévy 2007, 283, 286–7. 149 FGH 595 F 10 (13.690E-F) = fr. VII/92 Tresp. Cf. Hesych. s.v. Συκάτης· ὁ Διόνυσος, σ 2226 Latte. 150 FGH 595 F 14 = fr. VIII/93 Tresp (Clem. Protrep. 2.38.3). 151 Clem. Protrep. 2.38.5. See Tresp 1914, 138; Jacoby 3b, 653. 152 FGH 595 F 16 (Hesychius s.v. Ἠλακάτεια, η 310 Latte) = fr. III/88 Tresp. 153 Hesych. s.v. Ἐργάτια, ε 5655. See Table 7. 147

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 55 four-handed and four-eared Spartan statue of Apollo (cf. IG V.1 259). This hint of a Sosibian treatment of a festival at Amyklai caused Tresp to attribute to him its descriptions by Polybius, Strabo, and Pausanias. 154 A number of references to the festival of the Karyateia may also belong in this work. 155 Other attributions to the Peri thusiōn are more speculative. Jacoby assigns fragment 17 which is a bare lexical note mentioning the woman’s name Perphila. 156 I would differ, however, from Jacoby (preferring the Peri Alkmanos) in also placing here several fragments. Fragment 20 deals with the benign or malign character of manifestations of Helen at sea. 157 This feature may belong to treatment of the Laconian festival of Helen, from which other attested details may also descend from Sosibios. 158 Fragment 22 involves the agent for the delivery of Athena from the head of Zeus, with Sosibios proposing Hermes rather than Hephaistos, Palamaon, or Prometheus. 159 The issue may have arisen in an aetiological myth for a Laconian observance involving Athena. The main body of lexicographical references to Spartan myth and cult (for which see Table 7) would derive from this work, if they were genuinely Sosibian. Some instances are conditionally attributed to Peri thusiōn on Table 7. On the basis of this reconstruction, accordingly, the treatise Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι θυσιῶν was a systematic treatment in several books of cults, sanctuaries, festivals, their mythological aitia, and their historical contexts and salient events. 160 FGH 595 F 25 (Zenob. 1.54, CPG 1.22) = fr. V/90 Tresp; cf. Polyb. 5.19.1–2; Strabo 8.5.1 C363; Paus. 3.1.3, 10.8, 16.2. See Table 5. 155 Hesych. s.v. Καρυάτεια, κ 907 Latte. See Table 5.2 and Table 7. 156 Hesych. s.v. Περφίλα, π 2011 Latte. 157 FGH 595 F 20 = fr. XII/97 Tresp (ΣEur. Or. 1637). Cf. Lévy 2007, 287–8. 158 Hesych. s.v. Ἑλένεια, ε 1992, s.v. κάνναθρα, κ 675; Paus. 3.15.3. See Table 5.15 and Table 7. 159 FGH 595 F 22 = fr. XIV/99 Tresp (ΣPin. Ol. 7.66a). Note Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 2, 42–3 (n. 58). 160 On the work’s length, Jacoby 3b.645 raises the issue of the phrasing ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι θυσιῶν (F 4–5). 154

56

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Consider next the Sosibian commentary entitled Concerning Alcman. Athenaeus presents several explicit citations, including one about the breast shaped cakes called kribanai which were used in connection with a Spartan enkōmion of Artemis (or perhaps a maiden honorand). 161 A non-attributed lexicographical tradition on the kribanai has the same original source. 162 Two other explicit references to Sosibios in Athenaeus probably have the same origin, a specification concerning the identity of the kodumalon fruit as the Kydonian apple (quince), 163 and another about the contents of a puanion poltos and white khidron (porridge-like dishes). 164 If one moves outside Athenaeus, fragment 13 on Herakles’ wounding at the hands of the Hippokoontidai could be from the same work (though Peri thusiōn is another possibility), 165 because this episode was treated by Alcman. 166 The references to the incident in Pausanias may also derive from Sosibios. 167 It is likely that Sosibios’ discussion of the history of the dances called hyporkhēmatika, cited in the Pindaric scholia, was included in FGH 595 F 6a–b (Athen. 14.646A, 3.114F–115A, glossing Alcman fr. 94 Page); Lévy 2007, 287. Cf. Bayliss 2015 where the parthenos could be a bride which might render an unlikely social setting for Alcman’s Partheneia. Campbell 1988, 341 (on his T 6) connects this fragment of Sosibios with the claim of Velleius Paterculus (1.18.3) that the Spartans falsely claimed Alcman as their own. 162 Hesych. s.v. κριβάνας, κ 4091-2 Latte. 163 FGH 595 F 11 (Athen. 3.81F, glossing Alcman fr. 100 P). Note also fr. 99. 164 FGH 595 F 12 (Athen. 14.648B, glossing Alcman fr. 96 P). 165 FGH 595 F 13 = fr. IX/94 Tresp (Clem. Al. Protrep. 2.36.2; Arnob. Adv. Nat. 4.25 Marchesi); cf. Lévy 2007, 287. 166 The scholia to Clement’s Protrepticus (27.11, p. 308.3–10 Staehlin) note that the incident was treated in Alcman’s first Partheneion (Page, PMG p. 3; Campbell 1988, 361). If the references in Pausanias (3.15.3, 19.7) do not derive from Peri Alkmanos, the alternative is the Peri thusiōn for aition of the cult of Asklepios Kotyleus (cf. Paus. 3.19.7). Cf. Jacoby 3b.651. 167 Paus. 3.15.3, 19.7. See Immerwahr 1889, 76, 104; Tresp 1914, 139–40; Laqueur 1927, 1147, and pp. 62-4 below with Table 5 and Table 6. 161

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 57 the same work. 168 Inasmuch as Sosibios described this type of dancing as Cretan, he may have treated the role of the Cretan poet Thaletas (whom the scholiast mentions) in introducing them to Sparta. 169 Tresp noted that a discussion of hyporkhēmata in Athenaeus identifies the dances as Cretan and is followed by citation of Timaios to the effect that the Lakōnistai sang in rectangular choruses. 170 This sequence suggested to him a derivation by Athenaeus from Sosibios through Timaios. 171 To the Peri Alkmanos, Jacoby hesitantly assigns F 18 on the sandux ‘red sandalwood,’ a reference that might be understood as an evocation of elite luxury, and is now generally accepted to derive from Alcman. 172 Fragment 24 on the Spartan name for anemones (that is, φαινίδες) is another highly probable debt to this work. 173 There has also been some speculation that Sosibios was the authority for a lexical gloss that connects the naming of Lakedaimon to its role in the apportionment of cities to the gods, 174 or to apportionment of the Peloponnesus. 175 Finally, POxy #2389 (now FGH F 27 Bayliss) is a fragment of a commentary on the

FGH 595 F 23 (ΣPin. Pyth. 2.127). As possibly reflected in [Plut.] Mor. 1134B, 1146B-C; Paus. 1.14.4; cf. Ephoros FGH 70 F 149.16, 19. 170 Tresp 1914, 137 citing Athen. 5.181B and Timaios FGH 566 F 140. 171 Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 88 suggests a direct use of Sosibios by Athenaeus. 172 Hesych. s.v. σάνδυξ, σ 165 = Alcman fr. 175. 173 FGH 595 F 24 (ΣTheoc. 5.92e) = Alcman fr. 176. 174 Etym. Mag. s.v. Λακεδαίμων πόλις, λαχεδαίμων τὶς οὖσα· ἐν αὐτῇ γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ πρῶτοι ἔλαχον καὶ ἐκληρώσαντο τὰς πόλεις, 555.25–7 Gaisford; Etym. Gud. s.v. Λακεδαίμων, p. 361, Sturz; Anecdota Crameri 1.260–1. Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 365–6 (n. 371) contains a discussion citing communications with F. Jacoby, and notes Hes. Theog. 535–7 with Pin. Nem. 9.123b; Call. fr. 119 Pf. 175 Steph. Byz. Ethn. 407; Eustath. Il. 1.453.1–4; Ael. Herod. De pros. cath., GG 3.1.33.813, Peri Pathōn, GG 3.2.380.27–32. 168 169

58

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

First Partheneion. 176 It seems to show that Sosibios discussed the breed of Ibenian horses with regard to our line 59 of the first Partheneion. This derives from the Concerning Alcman. While lines of commentary in POxy #2390 (fr. 5 Page) lack a citation of Sosibios, the apparent reference to the dumainai may betray a Sosibian origin (cf. fr. 4 and see the gloss of Hesychius on Table 7). The content of the likely citations of this work indicates that the intent of Sosibios in the Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος was to illuminate the poems of Alcman from the basis of Laconian myth and cult. Jacoby staked much of his minimizing treatment of Sosibios on his absence from the scant, then extant, scholia to Alcman. 177 Thus the discovery of POxy #2389, citing him on the first Partheneion, not only serves as a graphic reminder of the risks of arguments from silence, but also undercuts Jacoby’s overall evaluation. It is a more reasonable hypothesis that Sosibios played a central role in the preservation and elucidation of Alcman. 178 The relationship of Περὶ Ἀλκμᾶνος to the important edition of Alcman by Aristophanes of Byzantion is vexed by the debate over the chronology of Sosibios. If the Laconian historian was Sosibios lutikos of the court of Ptolemy II, his work would have been early enough to have informed that of Aristophanes. 179 It is then indeed possible that the POxy #2389, fr. 6, col. i, lines 3–14. See Lobel in Lobel et al. 1957, 28–48, who offers as one possibility: Σω[σίβιος δε΄ ὁ Λάκ]ων | Ἰβηνὸ]ν ἔθνος ἀποφ[αίνει. See also Barrett 1961, 686: Σω[σίβιος δὲ τὸ τ]ῷν…; D. Page, PMG p. 7; Tsantsanoglou 2006, 26. Cf. Bayliss 2015 on F 27. 177 FGH 3b, 635, 637, 648; also Lévy 2007, 279. 178 Tsantsanoglou 2006, 20. Bayliss 2015 has reinforced this conclusion by adducing two recent (albeit mutually exclusive) conjectures: Priestley’s suggests (2007, 177 n. 12) that the absence of Sosibios from the vital Louvre papyrus (E 3320: Campbell GL 2.370–6) of Alcman reflects the derivation of this papyrus (unlike POxy #2389) from his text. Tsantsanoglou (2006, 14) argues that the Sosiphanes, mentioned in the Louvre papyrus scholia A on Alcman fr. 1.61–3, is a copying error for Sosibios. The latter conjecture is less convincing. 179 Cf. Jacoby 3b, 648 (with notes), which has, nonetheless, some validity against exaggeration of Sosibios’ role. 176

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 59 Lakōnikai Glōssai (fr. 31–5 L/S) of Aristophanes were also dependent on the works of Sosibios. That influence would provide another telling instance where the contributions of this Laconian savant were effaced by those of a more famous Alexandrian successor. Turning to the Sosibian treatise Concerning the Mimetic Dances, we find a tolerably clear, albeit not explicit, attestation, in Athenaeus in an important passage of the Deipnosophistai about early Laconian comic mimetic performances. 180 Furthermore, Jacoby suggests that the lexical tradition on the transvestite and obscene Laconian performances called brullikhistai may also come from this same work of Sosibios. 181 The one explicit citation of the Peri tōn en Lakedaimoni ethōn is provided by the paroemiographer Zenobius who attributes to Sosibios the derivation of the phrase Ἁμὲς ποτ΄ ἦμες to a traditional song of Spartan elders. 182 There is a rich tradition of citation on this expression (see Table 6), a good part of which, at the very least, may originally stem from Sosibios. Moreover, I would assign to this work Sosibios’ statement that Lykourgos had dedicated an image of Gelōs ‘laughter’. 183 Laughter was a powerful tool for social control among the Spartan Homoioi. 184 Sosibios’ genealogy of the nymph Pitane might belong here too as aetiology for the Spartan oba Pitane. 185 Other works are also options, FGH 595 F 7 (Athen. 14.621D–F). Characteristically, Jacoby’s refutation of attempts to overplay the intellectual significance of this work has the unwarranted effect of underestimating this important passage. Cf. 3b, 648–9. 181 Jacoby 3b, 649 with Hesych. s.v. βρυδαλίχα, βρυλλιχισταί͵ β 1243, 1245 Latte. Compare Table 7 below. 182 FGH 595 F 8 (Zenob. 1.82, CPG 1.28). 183 FGH 595 F 19 = fr. X/95 Tresp (Plut. Lyc. 25.2). The alternative attributions would be Homoiotētes, Peri thusiōn, or less preferably Khronōn Anagraphē (the last two, as suggested by Jacoby 3b, 655). 184 See David 1988, 1–2. 185 FGH 595 F 21 = fr. XIII/98 Tresp (ΣPin. Ol. 6.50a). Cf. Tresp 1914, 142, who collects a series of related passages from the Pindaric scholia that might come from Sosibios. Note Pin. Ol. 46a, 48c, cf. 47b, 180

60

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

including the Peri thusiōn, since the discussion of the agōn gumnikos at Pitane in Hesychius might be owed to Sosibios (see Table 7). 186 A work of Sosibios called Homoiotētes ‘Equalities’ is cited by Athenaeus, 187 and it is a fair assumption that the equality of the ‘Lycurgan’ lifestyle received treatment in a secondary work. Sosibios may have written another of those didactic works that used Spartan institutions as a springboard for a discussion of the ideal constitution and the just society in the manner of Dicaearchus in his Τριπολιτικός and Sphairos in his Περὶ Λυκούργου καὶ Σωκράτους. Unfortunately, the extant fragment deals with varieties of perfume, a rather tangential issue for students of Spartan society. Surmising the basis of my hypothesis, I might offer that the context could involve sumptuary rules. The underlying information may derive from one of the other Sosibian works, such as the Peri ethōn or the Peri Alkmanos. Finally, we also possess in fragment 15 a bare scrap of a reference to the mnēma of Epimenides in the vicinity of the old Ephoreia. 188 There is the trace of a polemic here against Argive claims to the possession of the grave of the seer. 189 In this tradition, Epimenides might have served the Spartans as an authorizer of the ‘Lycurgan’ order. Unfortunately, the work from which this citation derives is unspecified, although the Peri ethōn is a possibility. 190 Sosibios had a widespread influence on later accounts of Spartan culture. Table 6 presents parallel discussions of the subject 48b, 51a, 52e (and, in a somewhat less probative fashion, a series on parthenios). 186 Hesych. s.v. Πιτανάτης, π 2383. Jacoby assigns this gloss to the Peri thusiōn. Bayliss 2015 interestingly suggests Peri Alkmanos, noting fr. 11 P. 187 FGH 595 F 9 (Athen. 15.690E–F). Cf. here Bayliss 2015, who prefers a work noting analogues between Sparta and other poleis. 188 FGH 595 F 15 (DL 1.115). 189 Cf. Paus. 2.21.3. Moreover, Epimenides made predictions about the course of Spartan hostilities with the Arkadians (FGH 457 T 1 [DL 1.114]; Theopomp. FGH 115 F 69). See also Lévy 2007, 288. 190 Jacoby 3b, 654 suggests Khronōn Anagraphē or Peri thusiōn, but the Peri ethōn or even the Homoiotētes is conceivable.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 61 matter of the surviving fragments. As I have noted above seriatim, it is likely that many of these comparanda also come from Sosibios. The cumulative effect of these parallels urges us to promote Sosibios as the font from which the considerable surviving references to Laconian cult flowed. Otherwise it becomes mysterious how the lexicographers knew so much while both lacking recourse to works resembling the corpus of Atthidography and without the rich allusions of Athenian oratory. Some of the specific conduits for the exertion of this influence deserve brief further commentary. The later Laconian authors of the politeiai and Lakōnika seem to have derived much from Sosibios, as is reflected in the growth of a local Laconian school of historiography and in the possibility of longer works by Hippasos and Aristokrates. 191 Thus Sosibios is likely to have been a source directly or through later intermediary for much unattested material on Sparta in Plutarch. 192 Polemon seems to have utilized his works directly, a situation that may explain his very ability to write learned works on the poleis of Laconia and on Laconian festivals. 193 Several convergences may be diagnostic: Polemon fr. 64 and Sosibios F 9 are used by Athenaeus to discuss the same perfume; 194 and, in citation again by Athenaeus, Polemon fr. 43 and Sosibios F 11 both discuss the

Note the work Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λάκωσιν ἑορτῶν of Pausanias FGH 592 T 1. This phenomenon might be specifically witnessed if the Aristokles who dealt with the birth of Athena (fr. 4, FHG 4.330) was the Laconian constitutional writer (FGH 586). 192 Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 604. Kessler thought that Plutarch accessed his works indirectly through both Hermippos and Sphairos (1910, 29, 79, 106, 111). 193 These were Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι πόλεων (Suda s.v. Πολέμων Εὐηγέτου, π 1888 Adler); Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἀναθημάτων (fr. 18 = Athen. 13.574C); Περὶ τοῦ παρὰ Χενοφῶντι καννάθρου (fr. 86 = Athen. 4.138E). Cf. Jacoby 3b, 637, but Bayliss 2015 (on F 9) concurs with my treatment. 194 Athen. 15.690E–F. 191

62

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

kodumalon fruit. 195 Both Clement of Alexandria and Arnobius cite Polemon in the immediate context of a reference to Sosibios on Herakles and the Hippokoontidai. 196 The subject matter of fragments 18 and 86 of Polemon are certainly congruent with the interests of Sosibios. 197 On our present knowledge, it cannot be determined the degree to which Polemon reproduced Sosibios, therefore intermediating Sosibian work in later writers. That might make what appears to be Sosibian in other authors—the example of Pausanias will be highlighted next—merely a product of less reworking by Polemon. A particular aspect of this reprocessing might be the addition of art-historical commentary to cultic and mythological subject matter. 198 Pausanias seems to have drawn from Sosibian works, 199 although the role of intermediation complicates our judgment. 200 Chronography may be telltale, and its significance transcends the issue of Pausanias’ own use of Sosibios as a source. Laqueur believed that the Laconian chronology of Pausanias drew on Sosibian chronography, observing the appearance of a fourteenyear discrepancy that is implied by Paus. 4.6.4 and 4.13.7, 15.1–2. 201 Athen. 3.81F. Yet, Athenaeus specifies that he is citing from book 5 of Polemon, Τὰ πρός Τίμαιον, and not an explicitly Spartanthemed work. 196 F 13 with Clem. Alex. Protrep. 2.26.2, Arnob. Adv. nat. 4.25 Marchesi; Polemon fr. 71. 197 Fr. 18 (Athen. 13.574C from the Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι πόλεων) about the dedications associated with the hetaira Kottina; fr. 86 (Athen. 4.138E from the Περὶ τοῦ παρὰ Χενοφῶντι καννάθρῳ) on the Kopis (see Table 2), for which note Müller FHG 3, 142–3. 198 Immerwahr 1889, 133–7 devotes an excursus to the issue of Sosibian art-historical content. 199 Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 604 (n. 405); Wachsmuth 1892, 26. Note Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 1, 38; vol. 2, 194. Cf. Jacoby FGH 3b, 641. 200 Note the uncertainty whether the details on the throne of Amyklai (Paus. 3.18.9–19.5) derive from Polemon exclusively or exhibit input from Sosibios (on 3.18.5, 7). See Immerwahr 1889, 93–4; Susemihl 1891/92, vol. 1, 676 (n. 187). 201 Laqueur 1927, 1147–8; see also Wachsmuth 1892, 27. 195

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 63 In effect, the narrative of Pausanias illustrates how Apollodorus altered the chronology created by Sosibios by raising Spartan dates systematically by around fourteen or fifteen years. 202 This phenomenon is pervasive within Pausanias and beyond, although it is hard to juxtapose explicit examples of Sosibian and Apollodoran dates for the same events. 203 It does, however, remain a more speculative matter, in the first place, whether the Spartan defense against Messenian polemics found in Pausanias 4.4.1–8 derives from Sosibios, and, secondly, whether Sosibios would have been answering the Messeniaka of Myron of Priene. 204 In book three, Pausanias opens with a long historical abstract (3.1.1–10.5). Here a variety of underlying sources can be identified, including a framework derived from a Hellenistic chronographic source that in turn shows traces of its own sources. 205 Among the possibilities, Timaios may be downplayed because it is as likely as not that he had used Sosibios as a source. Charon remains a possibility, but only if we insist that the chronographer’s contribution did not extend into the fourth century and later. The Khronōn Anagraphē of Sosibios remains the strongest candidate for the underlying chronography. 206 The juxtaposition of political and ritual material throughout Pausanias’ third book seems to reflect the interests and strengths of Sosibian historiography. Thus, while we can doubt the magnification of details in military and hegemonic terms that is so characteristic of epichoric historiography in general, when Spartan kings are connected with monuments, cult, and ritual observances, these testimonia deserve our close attention. Thus, at the least, the spine for the historical narrative of early Sparta, presented at the beginning of book three of Pausanias, was constructed from the repercussions in cult of the historical experience of the early archaic Lakedaimonian polis. See Jacoby 3b, 641. Note the possible instances suggested in Forrest 1963, 166–8. 204 Note Wachsmuth 1892, 30 who would then put Sosibios after Eratosthenes. 205 Forrest 1963, 177–8; Meadows 1995, esp. 95–6 and his table on 102. 206 Wachsmuth 1892, 27. 202 203

64

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

We have already introduced a number of passages in Pausanias that are excellent candidates for having been derived from Sosibios. In several additional cases, Tresp would accord high confidence to an ultimate derivation from Sosibios, even in face of the scant survivals from his works. 207 He noted the relationship of F 13 on the battle of Herakles with the Hippokoontidai to Pausanias 3.15.3, and that of F 15 on the mnēma of Epimenides with Paus. 3.11.11. He also saw F 20 as suggestive that the treatments of the cult of Helen in Pausanias 3.15.3, 19.9 (cf. 3.7.7) derive from Sosibios. 208 The monograph of Immerwahr (1889) has not received acceptance in its totality, although his boldness in suggesting sources for many passages in book three of Pausanias is, in its way, admirable. Table 5 is derived from his Quellenregister (pp. 147–150), and presents all his attributions to Sosibios. Some of these passages may also be noted on Table 6 as parallel material for attested fragments of Sosibios. A whole string of derivative passages are connected with the ultimate dependence of Pausanias on Sosibios for all the ritual ramifications of the struggle of Tyndareos and later Herakles with the Hippokoontidai, for which the interest of Sosibios is demonstrated by his F 13. 209 The degree to which other authorities may have been interested in this nexus of myth and cult would affect any conclusion and, as always for Sosibios, the effects of intermediation are a complication.

Tresp 1914, 139–41. Cf. Hesych. s.v. Ἑλένεια, ε 1992, κάνναθρα, κ 675. See also Immerwahr 1889, 76, 105; Laqueur 1927, 1147. 209 Table 5, Nos. 1, 14, 16, 17, 28, 33, and 37. 207 208

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 65 Table 5: Sosibios In Pausanias Pausanias Reference 1) 3.10.6: Trophy of Herakles for killing of Hippokoontidai 2) 3.10.7: Sanctuary of Artemis Karyatis at Karyai & festival

Immerwahr Citation 51–52

Comparative Passages F 13; see Nos. 14, 16, 17, 28, 33, 37 below.

52

3) 3.10.8: image of Apollo Pythaeus at Thornax 4) 3.11.9: cult places in agora associated with Gymnopaidiai 5) 3.11.11: tomb of Epimenides near ephoreia 6) 3.12.1, 4: dedication of Odysseus after wooing Penelope 7) 3.12.5: precinct of Poseidon of Tainaron 8) 3.12.11: building of Epimenides near Skias 9) 3.13.1: mnēma of Kastor

52–53

Hesych. s.v. κάρυα, Καρυάτεια, Καρυᾶτις (κ 906–8). See App. No. 47. Hesych. s.v. Θόρναξ (θ 647). F 5; Hesych. s.v. Γυμνοπαίδια (γ 1002).

10) 3.13.3: Laconian myth of Karneios 11) 3.13.6: image of Aphetaios & start of race course to win Penelope 12) 3.13.7: shrine of Dionysos Kolonatas & foot race in honor of daughters of Dionysos 13) 3.13.9: xoanon of Aphrodite Hera and her sacrifices 14) 3.15.2–5: hero shrine of the Hippokoontidai

57–58

58–59 59, 60 (marked as questionable)

F 15; cf. Paus. 2.21.3; 3.12.11 below, No. 8. Hesych. s.v. Κελευθείας (κ 2155).

61 (marked as questionable) 64

Hesych. s.v. ταιναρίας (τ 33). F 15 and No. 5 above.

64 (marked as questionable) 65–66 (presented as inferential) 66

See No. 6 above.

67 (coupled with use of Polemon)

68–69 (questionable; coupled with use of Polemon) 75–76

Polemon fr. 18 (Athen. 13.574C); Hesych. s.v Διονυσίαδες (δ 1888).

F 13 & No. 1 above; and 16, 17, 28, 33, 37 below.

66

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Pausanias Reference 15) 3.15.3: sanctuaries of Helen and the grave of Alcman 16) 3.15.6: sanctuary of Athena Axiopoinos; founded by Herakles after fight with the Hippokoontidai 17) 3.15.9: sanctuary of Hera Aigophagos, founded by Herakles after fight with the Hippokoontidai 18) 3.15.10–11: sanctuary and image of Morpho (Aphrodite) 19) 3.16.1: hieron of Hilaira and Phoibe with ritual of the Leukippidai 20) 3.16.6: sanctuary of Lykourgos 21) 3.17.2–3: temple of Athena Polioukhos and Khalkioikos 22) 3.17.5: Spartan martial music 23) 3.17.6: image of Zeus Hypatos

Immerwahr Citation 76–77

Comparative Passages F 20; Polemon fr. 76a.

77–78

F 14; ??Hesych. s.v. ποιναῖς (π 2729); ποινή (2732). See above Nos. 1, 14; and below 17, 28, 33, 37. F 13; Hesych. s.v. Αἰγοφάγος (α 1737). See above Nos. 1, 14, 16; and 28, 33, 37 below.

24) 3.17.7–9: Pausanias’ murder of Kleonike and cult of Epidotas 25) 3.18.2: cult of Athena Ophthalmitis 26) 3.18.7–8: Amyklai: images & tripods of Artemis & Aphrodite by Gitiadas

80

80–81

Hesych. s.v. Μορφώ (μ 1697).

81

Hesych. s.v. πωλία (π 4496).

83 (marked as questionable) 86 (presented as inferential)

??Plut. Lyc. 31.3; cf. Ephorus FGH 70 F 118. See No. 26 below.

87

??Plut. Lyc. 21; Mor. 238B–C.

87–89 (marked as questionable; coupled with use of Polemon) 89–91

91–92

95–97 (presented as inferential; coupled with use of Polemon)

Hesych. s.v. Ἐπιδώτας (ε 4750); cf. Paus. 2.20.2, 27.6; 8.9.2 Plut. Lyc. 11.4; cf. Dioskurides F 1. Polemon fr. 86.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 67 Pausanias Reference 27) 3.19.6: Amyklai: cult of Alexandra (= Kassandra) & of Dionysos Psilax 28) 3.19.7: Amyklai: hieron of Zeus Kotyleos, founded by Herakles after fight with the Hippokoontidai 29) 3.19.8: image of Theritas (Ares) (near Therapne) 30) 3.20.2: sanctuary of Poseidon Gaiaokhos 31) 3.20.3: town of Bryseai and cult of Dionysos 32) 3.20.4: Taleton, site of horse sacrifice to Helios 33) 3.20.5: Eleusinion where Asklepios hid wounded Herakles

Immerwahr Citation 102–103 (coupled with use of Polemon)

Comparative Passages F 5; Hesych. s.v. Κασσάνδρα (κ 980).

104–105

F 13; see Nos. 1, 14, 16, 17 above; and 33, 37 below. See n. 167 above.

105

Hesych. s.v. Θηρίτας (θ 529).

108

Hesych. s.v. γαιήοχος (γ 50). Hesych. s.v. Βρυσιαί (β 1255).

34) 3.20.7: xoanon of Kore at Helos 35) 3.20.9: sanctuary of Kranios Stemmatios (= Apollo)

109–112

36) 3.20.10–11: image of Aidōs, dedicated by Ikarios in honor of Penelope 37) 3.21.2: Pellana, refuge of Tyndareos, when expelled by the Hippokoontidai

113–115 (marked as questionable)

108–109 (marked as questionable) 109–111 111

113–115 (marked as questionable)

115–116

Hesych. s.v. ταλώς (τ 87). F 13; see Nos. 1, 14, 16, 17, 28 above, and 37 below; Hesych. s.v. Ἐλευσίνια (ε 2026). Hesych. s.v. καλαβώται (or Καλαβοιδία, κ 379). Lex. Seg. s.v. στεμματιαῖον (Anecdota Bekkeri 1.305); Hesych. s.v. στεμματιαῖον (σ 1736). Cf. No. 6 above.

F 13 with 1, 14, 16, 17, 28, 33 above; also Paus. 3.1.4.

68

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Our hypothetical channels of intermediation are interlocking. Parallels with Polemon either through the existence of equivalent content or through the proximity of material derived from his works typify a number of the passages identified by Immerwahr as Sosibian. 210 And there is a considerable overlap between material derived from Sosibios in Pausanias and Hesychius. The surviving lexicography on Sparta regarding myth and cult, especially in Hesychius, is manifestly dependent on his works. 211 Tables 4 and 6 present a number of glosses in Hesychius where dependence is quite probable. Table 7 below organizes and supplements all the suggestions of Weber (1887, 56–64). On the basis of our reconstruction, Sosibios emerges as a significant figure, not only in his own right, but also as a vital intermediary for the preservation of Laconian traditions. The material on Laconian cults, mythology, and folkways that is anonymously preserved in Pausanias, Hesychius and other lexicographers, and in the many scholia and incidental references (which are illustrated on Tables 5–7) is generally accepted without cavil by scholars in ancient cultural studies. 212 This reception stands as a virtual homage to Sosibios, and proffers him as the answer to the query regarding how so much about Spartan ‘antiquities’ was preserved in post-Classical contexts. He seems almost uniquely qualified for this role, as a Laconian himself who had traveled to early third-century Alexandria, a place truly receptive to his learned and systematizing approach. Indeed the fragments of his works are now better appreciated from a contemporary outlook formed by late twentieth-century cultural and social historiography, in short, from a perspective quite different from that of the source critics and legal historians who held sway among ancient historians through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. Hence, to classify Sosibios as merely an antiquarian, an anachronistic concept in any case, is grossly unfair. Rather he Table 5, Nos. 12, 15, 23, 26, and 27. Weber 1887, 50; Wachsmuth 1992, 26; Laqueur 1927, 1147; Jacoby 3b, 646; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 291. 212 For example, note the recent comprehensive monograph of Richer on Spartan religion (2012, 47, 66, 230, 268, 389, 399, 603). 210 211

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 69 should be seen as a Laconian analogue to Philochorus, the Athenian exegete and Atthidographer, whose work has never been underestimated or neglected despite its early Hellenistic date. 213 The rich literary documentation afforded Philochorus advantaged him incomparably over Sosibios. And the diachronic spirit of the Athenian mind promoted an unfolding political and cultural trajectory in preference to the synchronic cast of the Laconian mind, pervaded with ‘Lycurgan’ permanence. The citations of the works of Sosibios transmit a wealth of genuine-looking material about Spartan cult, myth, and civic tradition. If Sosibios was of well-to-do perioecic lineage, as the designation Lakōn suggests, his ability to collect such rich documentation may bespeak the survival of a patriotic and conservative cultural milieu outside of Sparta itself, one that remembered Laconian traditions well. Fragment 4 contains just such an observation that distinguishes Spartiate cult activity from Perioecic cult comportment at the Promakheia. 214 If we can trust in the Sosibian origin of many of the glosses about Spartan religion in Hesychius, then it makes good sense to recognize that the variation of terminology in his lexicon probably reflects (however crudely) underlying distinctions made by Sosibios. Hence the specifications such as ἐν Σπάρτῃ, ἐν Λακεδαίμονι, and, less demonstrably perhaps, ἐν Λακεδαιμονίᾳ and παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις are balanced by attributions like Λάκωνες, παρὰ Λάκωσιν, ὑπὸ Λακώνων, and ὑπὸ Λάκωνεις. These identifications may track efforts by Sosibios to distinguish among the ritual activities of the Lakedaimonian state, the Spartiate class, and the Laconians acting as practitioners of cult in the perioecic communities. The fragments of Sosibios are too mediated and abbreviated to suggest certain conclusions on tonality, but also fail to justify Jacoby’s negative comparison with the Atthidographers and his judgment of lack of engagement. As many modern examples demonstrate, learned systemization of the traditions of cultures under challenge can constitute a form of patriotism and advocacy. Cf. Jacoby FGH 3b, 636–7. 214 F 4: …τοὺς μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας καλάμοις στεφανοῦσθαι ἢ στλεγγίδι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἀγωγῆς παῖδας ἀστεφανώτους ἀκολουθεῖν. See Parker 1989, 145–6; Richer 2012, 268. Cf. Bayliss 2015. 213

70

THOMAS FIGUEIRA Table 6: Select Parallel Attestations

Persaios FGH 584 F 1: Aristokles FGH 586 F 1; Hesych. s.v. ὀρθαγορίσκος, ο 1176 Latte; βορθαγορίσκια, β 822 Latte; Pliny NH 32.9.19. F 2: Sphairos FGH 585 F 1; Polemon fr. 86 (FHG 3.142–3); Dioskurides FGH 594 F 3; cf. Nikokles FGH 587 F 1; Molpis FGH 590 F 2; Menippos apud Athen. 14.664E. Sphairos FGH 585 F 1: Persaios FGH 584 F 1; Nikokles FGH 587 F 1; Molpis FGH 590 F 2. F 2: e.g., Plut. Lyc. 6.1 (quoting the Great Rhetra); Hdt. 6.67.5; Plato Laws 692A; Aris. fr. 542 Gigon. Aristokles FGH 586 F 1: Persaios FGH 584 F 1. Nikokles FGH 587 F 1: Persaios FGH 584 F 2. F 2: Hesych. s.v. κάμματα, κ 599 Latte. Polykrates FGH 588 F 1: Polemon fr. 86 (FHG 3.142–3); Didymus apud Athen. 4.139C. Hippasos FGH 598 F 1: Agallis at Athen. 1.14D; Dicaearchus fr. 62 W; Eustath. Od. 1.241.21–4, 304.18; ΣHom. Od. 8.372D. Molpis FGH 590 F 1–2: Persaios FGH 384 F 2.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 71 Aristokrates FGH 591 F 1: Hesych. s.v. Ἑσπερίδων μῆλα, ε 6302 Latte. F 3: Just. 3.3.11; Nic. Dam. FGH 90 F 57, cf. Ephorus FGH 70 F 175; Plut. Lyc. 31.4–5 (Apollothemis; Aristoxenos fr. 44 W; Timaios FGH 566 F 128). F 4: Livy 38.34.3 Dioskurides FGH 594 F 1: Plut. Lyc. 11.1–4; Solon 16.1; cf. Comp. Lyc. et Numae 1.4; Mor. 227A–B; Epictet. apud Stob. Flor. 3.19.13; Ael. VH 13.23; Paus. 3.18.2; Val. Max. 5.3 ext. 2. F 2–3: Persaios FGH 584 F 1–2. F 4: DS 15.87.1; Nepos Epam. (15) 9.3; Just. 6.7.12; Plut. Ages. 35.1; cf. Paus. 8.11.5–6; Plut. Mor. 214C–D. F 5: Thuc. 1.131.1 with scholia; Plut. Lyc. 19.5–8; DS 13.106.8– 10; ΣArist. Aves 1283; Lys. 991; Hesych. s.v. σκυτάλη, 1191 Latte; Apoll. Rhod. fr. 22 Mich. apud Athen. 10.451C–D. Sosibios FGH 595 F 4: Plut. Mor. 239B; ΣPlato Charm. 161E, cf. Hipp. Min. 368C. F 5: Hesych. s.v. θυρεατικοί, θ 938 Latte; s.v. Πάρπαρος, π 1003; cf. s.v. ψιλὸς στέφανος, ψ 204; Greg. Choerob. GG 4.1.297.5–7; Hesych. s.v. Γυμνοπαιδία, γ 1002; EM s.v. Γυμνοπαιδία, 243.1–8 Gaisford; Timaeus Lex. Plat. s.v. Γυμνοπαιδία, γ 981b; Lex. Sabb. s.v. Γυμνοπαιδία, LGM 47; Suda s.v. Γυμνοπαιδεία, γ 486 Adler; cf. Pliny NH 4.5.17. See also F 8. F 6: Hesych. s.v. κριβάνας, κ 61 Latte. F 7: Hesych. s.v. δεικηλισταί, δ 453, cf. δείκηλα (452, 454); δίκηλον, δ 1821 Latte; EM s.v. δεικελισταί, 260.43 Gaisford; Suda s.v. δικηλιστῶν και μιμηλῶν, δ 1098 Adler, cf. s.v. δείκηλα, δ 308, 1097; Phot. s.v. δείκηλα, δ 601; Eustath. Comm. ad Hom. Il. 3.328.13–329.3; Od. 2.142.12; ΣApoll. Rhod. 1.745–746a–b; cf. Plut. Ages. 21.4; Mor. 212F.

72

THOMAS FIGUEIRA F 8: Plut. Lyc. 21.2; Mor. 238A–B, 544E; Diogen. 2.30, CPG 1.199; ΣPlato Leges 633a; cf. Plato Leges 664B; Pollux 4.107. F 9: Pollux 6.104; Helladius apud Phot. Bibl. 279.532b.14–17. F 10: Hesych. s.v. Συκάτης, σ 2226 Latte; Eustath. Od. 2.326.3– 34. F 11: Hesych. s.v. κοδύμαλον, κ 3210 Latte. F 12: Hesych. s.v. πυάνιον, π 4272 Latte; cf. s.v. πόλτος 2814; Ael. Dion. fr. 290 S; ΣArist. Eq. 806a, f; Pax 595a. F 13: ΣClem. Alex. Protrep. 27.11, p. 308.3–10 Staehlin; Paus. 3.15.3, 9, 19.7; cf. 8.53.9. F 15: Paus. 3.11.11, cf. 3.12.11; Diogen. 8.28, CPG 1.309; cf. Paus. 2.21.3; Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 41.1.5. F 16: Theognostus Hypothyposes 774 von Harnack; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἠλακαταῖον (Eth. 299); Anec. Crameri 2.127.22– 23; Arcadius De accentibus 139 Schmidt. F18: J. Lydus De mag. 3.64, citing L. Apuleius Erōtikos and Suetonius Peri episēmōn pornōn; Pliny NH 35.12.30, 22.39; cf. Verg. Ecl. 4.45. F 19: Plut. Cleomenes 9.1. F 20: Polemon fr. 76a; Cf. Aes. Ag. 689; Hesych. s.v. Ἐλένεια, ε 1992, κάνναθρα, κ 675; Paus. 3.7.7; 3.15.3, 19.9. F 21: ΣPin. Ol. 6.46a–d, 48a–d, 52e. F 22: (e.g.) Pin. Ol. 7.34–38; [Apollodor.] 1.20; Aristokles FHG fr. 4 (4.330) F 23: Athen. 5.181B–C, citing Timaeus FGH 566 F 140. F 25: Apostol. 1.93, CPG 2.264; Diogen. 2.5, CPG 1.197; Hesych. s.v. κουρίδιον, κ 3853 Latte; s.v. κυνάκτας, κ 4558; Lib. Or. 11.204.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 73 Table 7: Sosibios in Hesychius Gloss in Hesychius ἀγήτης· ὁ ἱερώμενος, ἄτιμος, ἐν δὲ τοῖς Καρνείοις ὁ ἱερώμενος τῆς θεοῦ. καὶ ἡ ἑορτὴ Ἁγητόρια Ἀγιγαῖος· Ἄργαλος καλεῖται παρὰ Λάκωσιν, ὁ Ἀμύκλαντος υἱός Ἀγλαόπης· ὁ Ἀσκληπιός Λάκωνες ἀγρετήματα· τὰ ἀγρευόμενα τῶν παρθένων Λάκωνες Αἰγοφάγος· ῞Ηρα ἐν Σπάρτῃ ἁλιοβολή· σύνοδος ἡλίου ἅμα Λάκωνες Ἀλκίδαι· θεοί τινες παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἀφείδιτος· ἡμέρα παρὰ Λάκωσιν, ἐν ᾗ θύουσιν ἄφορτος· οὐκ ἠγμένος τὴν Λυκουργείαν ἀγωγήν ἀψίαι· ἑορταί. Λάκωνες βειέλοπες· ἱμάντες, οἷς ἀναδοῦσι Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοὺς νικηφόρους

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No. 1: 500.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references Cf. Xen. RL 13.2, Terpander fr. 2 (PMG #697) for Zeus Agētor.

2: 515.

Cf. Paus. 3.1.3.

3: 604. 4: 771.

Cf. Hesych. ἀγρεταί (769).

5: 1737. See No. 5.17; cf. F 13. 6: 3025. Doubtful (Weber 1887.55–6). 7: 3096.

See Paus. 3.15.9; Suda s.v. Αἰγοφάγος, αι 70 Adler.

8: 8581. 8a: 8730. 9: 8957. 10: 451. Cf. κυνάκτας below. From Peri thusiōn.

See Anec. Crameri 2.290.4–5; Herod. Peri orth., GG 3.2.428.26–9; Eustath. Od. 1.106.32–3. Cf. Suda s.v. βειέλοπες, β 249.

74

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Gloss in Hesychius βήρηκες· μάζαι ὀρθαί. οἱ δὲ ἁπλῶς μάζας. ἄλλοι μάζας ἄνωθεν κέρατα ἐχούσας

βρυδαλίχα· πρόσωπον γυναικεῖον. παρὰ τὸ γελοῖον καὶ αἰσχρὸν ὄρρος τίθεται ὀρίνθω τὴν ὀρχίστραν καὶ γυναικεῖα ἱμάτια ἐνδέδυται. ὅθεν καὶ τὰς μαχρὰς βρυδαλίχας καλοῦσι Λάκωνες γαιήοχος· ὁ τὴν γῆν συνέχων, ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὀχούμενος. ἢ ὁ ἱππικός, ὁ ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀχήμασιν ἅρμασι χαίρων. Λάκωνες Γυμνοπαίδια· ἔνιοι μὲν ἑορτήν φασι Σπαρτιατικήν, ἐν ᾗ τοὺς ἐφήβους κύκλῳ περιθεῖν τὸν ἐν Ἀμυκλαίῳ βωμὸν τύπτοντας ἀλλήλων τὰ νῶτα. ταῦτα δέ ἐστι ψευδῆ. ἐν γὰρ ἀγορᾷ ἑορτάζουσι· πληγαὶ δὲ οὐ γίνονται, ἀλλὰ πρόσοδοι χορῶν γεγυμνωμένων

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No. 11: 572.

12: 1243. See also Tables 4, 6.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references Cf. Com. Adesp. fr. 1038, PCG 8.340; Hesych. s.v. βάρακες (213), τολύπη (1104); Lex. Seg. s.v βήρηκες (226); Phot. s.v. βήρηκες (β 134); Eustath. Od. 1.54.27–31. See Pollux 4.104; cf. Ibycus fr. 54 (PMG 335); Stesichorus fr. 81 (PMG 258); Hesych. s.v. βρυαλίκται (β 1226); βρυλλιχισταί (β 1245).

13: 50.

Cf. EM s.v Γαιήοχος (γ 223); Pin. Ol. 1.26–67.

13: 1002.

See Paus. 3.11.9. Cf. the citations under Table 6, Sosibios F 5.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 75 Gloss in Hesychius δαμοῦαι· οἱ ἐπὶ Μελαντίας πεμπόμενοι. Λάκωνες δεικηλισταί· μιμηταὶ παρὰ Λάκωσι Διονυσιάδες· ἐν Σπάρτῃ παρθένοι, αἱ ἐν τοῖς Διονυσίοις δρόμον ἀγωνιζόμεναι Δριωδόνες· θεοὶ παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις τιμώμενοι Δύμαιναι· αἱ ἐν Σπάρτῃ χορίτιδες Βάκχαι

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No. 15: 207.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

16: 453.

~ Sosibios F 7. See the citations on Table 6. See Paus. 3.13.7; ΣAesch. 1.43. Cf. AP 13.28.1–3.

17: 1888. See Table 5.12. See also δύμαιναι below. 18: 239. See ἐν Δριώνας below. 19: 2600. Mss. δύσμαιναι. See below under καρυάτεια.

Εἰραφιώτης· ὁ Διόνυσος παρὰ τὸ ἐῤῥάφθαι ἐν τῷ μηρῷ τοῦ Διός. καὶ Ἐρίφιος παρὰ Λάκωσιν

20: 1000.

Ἑκατομβεύς· μὴν παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις, ἐν ᾧ τὰ Ὑακίνθια Ἑλένεια· ἑορτὴ ἀγομένη ὑπὸ Λακώνων

21: 1272. See ὑακίνθια below. 22: 1992. See n. 158 & Table 5.15.

Note Theoc. Id. 18. See Alcm. fr. 4.5.4; 5.2.25; Pratinas fr. 1 Snell = fr. 4 (PMG 711). Cf. Euphor. fr. 47 Powell; Herod. De pros. cath., GG 3.1.257.32–3; Hesych. Δύμη (2484); Steph. Ethn. 74. See Herod. Peri orth., GG 3.2.502.6–11, cf. Partit. 52.9–11. Cf. HH 1.2, 17, 20; Orphica 48.1–3; Eustath. GGM 2.566, 939; Suda s.v. Εἰραφιώτης, ει 177. Cf. Strabo 8.4.11 C362. See Herod. Peri orth., GG 3.2.505.

76

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Gloss in Hesychius Ἐλευσίνια· ἀγὼν θυμελικὸς ἀγόμενος Δήμητρι παρὰ Λάκωσιν. καὶ ἐν Σικελίᾳ τιμᾶται Ἄρτεμις, καὶ Ζεὺς Ἐλευσίνιος παρ᾽ Ἴωσιν Ἐλωός· ὁ ῞Ηφαιστος παρὰ Δωριεῦσιν ἐν Δριώνας· δρόμος παρθένων ἐν Λακεδαίμονι Ἐπιδώτας· Ζεὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι

Ἐπικρήναια· ἑορτὴ Δήμητρος παρὰ Λάκωσιν Ἐπιπολαία· οὕτως ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἡ Δημήτηρ ἱδρυμένη τιμᾶται Ἐπίσκηνα· ἑορτὴ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι Ἐργάτια· ἑορτὴ Ἡρακλεῖ τελουμένη παρὰ Λάκωσιν ἔφιππος· ἀγὼν γυμναστικὸς παρὰ Λάκωσιν Ἠλακάτεια· ἀγὼν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ἀπὸ Ἠλακάτου, ὃς ἦν ἐρώμενος [ἠρώμενος] Ἡρακλέους, ὥς φησι Σωσίβιος Ἡράσιος· μὴν παρὰ Λάκωσιν

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No. 23: 2026. See Table 5.33.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references See Paus. 3.20.5; ΣPaus. 1.2.5.

24: 2248.

Cf. Hom. Il. 5.609a.

25: 2823.

Cf. Theoc. Id. 18.39–43.

26: 4750. See Table 5.24. From Peri thusiōn.

Cf. Paus. 2.20.2, 27.6; 8.9.2; Plut. Mor. 1102E.

27: 4898.

Cf. Hesych. s.v. ἐπίκρηνον (4899).

28: 5080.

29: 5177. 30: 5655. See n. 153 above & Table 4. From Peri thusiōn. 31: 7495.

Cf. Plato Leges 8.833B; Polykrates F 1.

32: 310. See n. 152 above. See Tables 4, 6.

= F 16.

33: 736.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 77 Gloss in Hesychius

Θεραπνατίδεια· ἑορτὴ παρὰ Λάκωσι

θεσσαλώπας· ἐναγισμός τις παρὰ Λάκωσι Θηρίτας· ὁ Ἐνυάλιος παρὰ Λάκωσιν Θόαξος· Ἀπόλλων ...

Θοράτης· Ἀπόλλων παρὰ Λάκωσιν Θόρναξ· ὑποπόδιον. ἢ ἱερὸν Ἀπόλλωνος ἐν τῇ Λακωνικῇ, ἀπό τε Θόρνακος Θυρεατικοί· στέφανοί τινες παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις θωστήρια· εὐωχητήρια καὶ ὄνομα

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

34: 335. From Peri Alkmanos or Peri thusiōn.

35: 407. Lemma is probably corrupt. Weber 1887.59: θεσσαλιώτας 36: 529. See Table 5.29. From Peri thusiōn? 37: 614.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

See Alcm. fr. 7.7–13 (ΣEur. Tr. 210); Pin. I. 1.31 with ΣPin. N. 10.103, cf. I. 1.43a–c; Hdt. 6.61.3; Isoc. Hel. 63; Steph. Byz. Ethn. 309. Cf. ΣEur. Tr. 1070; ΣApoll. Rhod. 2.162–3.

See Paus. 3.19.8.

38: 642. From Peri thusiōn?? 39: 647. See Table 5.3. From Peri thusiōn.

Cf. Lycophron Alex. 352. See Paus. 3.10.8, cf. 8.27.17. Cf. Hdt. 1.69.4; Herod. De pros. cath., GG 3.1.42.17.

40: 938. See Tables 4, 6. Cited from Peri thusiōn. 41: 1025. Note Weber 1887.54. From Peri Alkmanos.

= F 5.

See Alcm. fr. 1.81.

78

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Gloss in Hesychius

Ἰσσωρία· ἡ Ἄρτεμις. καὶ ἑορτή. καὶ τόπος ἐν Σπάρτῃ

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

42: 1001. From Peri thusiōn.

καθίππαξις· πομπῆς ὄνομα παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις καλαβῶται· ἐν τῷ τῆς Δερεατίδος ἱερῷ Ἀρτέμιδος ἀιδόμενοι ὕμνοι

43: 173.

κάνναθρα· ἀστράβη ἢ ἅμαξα, πλέγματα ἔχουσα, ὑφ᾽ ὧν πομπεύουσιν αἱ παρθένοι, ὅταν εἰς τὸ τῆς Ἑλένης ἀπίωσιν. ἔνιοι δὲ ἔχειν εἴδωλα ἐλάφων ἢ γυπῶν Καρνεᾶται· οἱ ἄγαμοι, κεκληρωμένοι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ Καρνείου λειτουργίαν. πέντε δὲ ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστης ... ἐπὶ τετραετίαν ἐλειτούργουν

45: 675.

44: 379. Mss. Καλαβοῦτοι. Weber 1887.60: καλαβοίδια. Note ἀσκαλαβώτης ‘gecko’.

46: 838. See σταφυλοδρόμοι below.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

Note Paus. 3.14.2, 25.4; Plut. Ages. 32.3–5; Polyaen. Strat. 2.1.14; Steph. Byz. Ethn. 340; Herod. De pros. cath., GG 3.1.366.14–15. Cf. Hesych. s.v. ἱππετοῦμαι. See Hesych. s.v. καλαοίδια (409); καλαβίς (383); καλαβώτης (386). Cf. Suda s.v. Ἀσκαλαβώτης, α 4156; Phot. s.v. (a 2961); Sept., Lev. 11.30; Pr. 30.28. See Polykrates F 1 (Athen. 4.139E–F); Polemon fr. 86; Didymus apud Athen. 4.139C; Plut. Ages. 19.5–6. Cf. Xen. Ages. 8.7; Eustath. Il. 4.885.14–16; ΣHom. Il. 24.190c.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 79 Gloss in Hesychius

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

Καρυάτεια· θυσία. Λάκωνες

47: 907. See Table 5.2. See δύμαιναι above. From Peri thusiōn.

Κασσάνδρα· Ἀλεξάνδρα ἐν Λακεδαιμονίᾳ κορυθαλίστριαὶ· αἱ χορεύουσαι τῇ Κορυθαλίᾳ θεᾷ

48: 980. See Table 5.27

κουρίδιον· παρθένιον, καὶ τὸν ἐκ παρθενίας ἄνδρα. Λάκωνες δὲ κουρίδιον καλοῦσι παρὰ [δὲ] αὐτοῖς τετράχειρα Ἀπόλλωνα κυνάκτας· ἱμάντας. οἱ ἐκ βύρσης τοῦ σφαγιασθέντος Τετράχειρι Ἀπόλλωνι βοὸς ἔπαθλα διδόμενοι νέαι· ἀγωνισάμεναι γυναῖκες τὸν ἱερὸν δρόμον

50: 3853. See Table 6.

49: 3689.

51: 4558. See Table 6. See βειέλοπες above.

52: 170. See διονυσιάδες, δύμαιναι above.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

See Paus. 3.10.7; Luc. Salt. 10; Hesych. s.v. κάρυα, Καρυᾶτις (906, 908); ΣTheoc. Proleg. B; Anec. Estense 2; Phot. s.v. Καρυάτεια (κ 133); also Pratinas fr. 4 (PMG 711). See Paus. 3.19.6. Cf. Lycophr. Alex. 30. See Polemon fr. 86 (Athen. 139B). Cf. Plut. Mor. 657E; Hesych. s.v. κυριττοί (4684); also κορυθαλία (3688). See F 25. Aristoph. Byz. Nom. Aet., LGM 277.23; Suda s.v. κουρίδιον, κ 2185.

See F 25; also Hesych. s.v. πυρώλοφοι (4476); Phot. s.v. πυρσολόφους, π 477.

80

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Gloss in Hesychius

Ὀρθία Ἄρτεμις· οὕτως εἴρηται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ χωρίου, ἔνθα ἱερὸν Ἀρτέμιδος ἱδρῦσθαι ... Πηρεφόνεια· Περσεφόνεια. Λάκωνες Πιτανάτης· ὁ Πιτανάτης λόχος αὐτοσχεδιάζεται, οὐκ ὢν ταῖς ἀληθείαις. Πιτανάτῃ δὲ ἀγῶνι γυμνικῷ ἐν Πιτάνῃ ἀγομένῳ ποδίκρα· ὄρχησις πρὸς πόδα γινομένη. Λάκωνες Πολύβοια· θεός τις ὑπ᾽ ἐνίων μὲν Ἄρτεμις, ὑπὸ δὲ ἄλλων Κόρη Ποσείδεα· ἑορτὴ Ποσειδῶνι τελουμένη Ποσείδεα· ἑορτὴ Ποσειδῶνι τελουμένη πωλία· χαλκοῦν πῆγμά τι. φέρει δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων τὰς τῶν Λευκιππίδων πώλους. δύο δὲ εἶναι παρθένους φασίν Σελασία· Ἄρτεμις [371] Σελασία· τόπος τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ὅθεν εἰκὸς κληθῆναι τὴν Ἄρτεμιν

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

53: 1182.

54: 2221.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

Cf. (e.g.) Paus. 3.16.9– 11, cf. 8.23.1; Plut. Lyc. 18.1; Mor. 239C–D; ΣPlato Leges 633B; Suda s.v. Λυκοῦργος, λ 824. See Herod. Peri orth., GG 3.2.568.22.

55: 2383.

56: 2677. 57: 2825.

See Paus. 3.19.4

58: 3102. 59: 3565 60: 4496, See Table 5.19 above.

61: 370–71

See Paus. 3.16.1. Cf. ΣTheoc. 5.34c.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 81 Gloss in Hesychius

σταφυλοδρόμοι· τινὲς τῶν Καρνεατῶν, παρορμῶντες τοὺς ἐπὶ τρύγῃ στεμματιαῖον· δίκηλόν τι ἐν ἑορτῇ πομπέων δαίμονος Συκάτης· ὁ Διόνυσος συρμαία· ἀγών τις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι, ἔπαθλον ἔχων συρμαίαν. ἔστι δὲ βρωμάτιον διὰ στέατος καὶ μέλιτος. λέγεται δὲ καὶ συρμαϊσμός, καὶ ἔστι πρὸς κάθαρσιν. καὶ πόμα δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ ἁλῶν. σχινάτας· σχινατίων ἀγών τις ἐπιτάφιος ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ταιναρίας· παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις ἑορτὴ Ποσειδῶνος· καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ Ταιναρισταί. Ταίναρον γὰρ πεδίον Λακωνικῆς ταλῶς· ὁ ἥλιος

τριήμερος· Θεσμοφόρια ὑπὸ Λάκωνεις

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

63: 1736. See Table 5.35

See Paus. 3.20.9; Lex. Seg. s.v. στεμματιαῖον (Anecdota Bekkeri 1.305) See Eustath. Od. 2.326.3–34 Cf. EM s.v. συρμαία (736.31); Phot. s.v. (557); Arist. Pax 1254; Thesm. 857; ΣArist. Pax 1254 (citing Didymus); ΣThesm. 857; also Hdt. 2.77.2, 88, 125.6.

62: 1673.

64: 2226. See F 10. From Peri thusiōn 65: 2782. See Weber 1887.32. Didymus is probably intermediary for Sosibios.

66: 3023.

67: 33.

68: 87. See Table 5.32 above. From Peri thusiōn.

69: 1374.

See Paus. 3.20.4; Hesych. s.v. ταλαιδίτης (τ 80): ἀγὼν γυμνικός; cf. Ταλαιος (τ 79).

82

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

Gloss in Hesychius

τριῶλαξ· ἀγὼν παρθένων δρόμου τυρβασία· χορῶν ἀγωγή τις διθυραμβικῶν ὑακίνθια· ἑορτὴ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι ...

Weber Number: Latte Ref. No.

Comparative Passages with Cross–references

71: 1669. From Peri thusiōn 72: 6.

See Poll. 4.104. Cf. τυρβάζω. Polykrates F 1. Cf. (e.g.) Thuc. 5.23.5, 41.3; Theodoret Gr. affect. cur. 8.28.

70: 1477.

ὑαλκάδαι· χορὸς παίδων. Λάκωνες Φλοιά· τὴν Κόρην τὴν θεὸν οὕτω καλοῦσι Λάκωνες Χαλκηδάνη· ταύτης ἱερὸν ἐν Σπάρτῃ

73: 15. From Peri thusιōn? 74: 636. From Peri thusιōn??

ψίλακα· ψιλόν, λεῖον. πτερὸν [ἢ πτενόν] ψιλάκερ· τὸ ἡγεῖσθαι χοροῦ

76: 195–6. See Table 5.27. See also F 5. From Peri Alkmanos.

75: 100. Corrupt: Weber 1887.63–4.

Possible reference to cult of Athena Khalkioikios underlying the corrupted text. See Paus. 3.19.6; Hesych. s.v. ψιλεῖς (197); Suda Ψιλεύς, ψ 101; Phot. s.v., ψ 654 (both citing Alcman fr. 32).

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 83

ARISTOKRATES AND THE SPARTAN ‘POLITEIA’ UNDER ROME The later writers in the genre of Laconian historiography are less well attested for the most part than their predecessors. I have already noted the important role of Athenaeus, and especially his description of Spartan dietary practices, in the preservation of material from these authors (Table 2). The titulature of their works shows variation from their Peripatetic and Stoic predecessors. One later title variant is Λακώνων πολιτεία ‘Constitution of the Laconians’, a subtle change that may be taken to imply the participation in the genre of Perioecic or Eleutherolaconian historians. It appears in Aristokles (FGH 586), Hippasos (589), and perhaps Nikokles (587). Molpis the Laconian (FGH 590) provides another possibly significant multiform, Λακεδαιμονίων πολιτεία ‘Constitution of the Lakedaimonians’ for which he seems to return to a title used by Aristotle. Ultimately, works in this genre were called Λακωνικά, as in the cases of Polykrates (FGH 588), Aristokrates (591), and Pausanias (592). 215 There are virtually no available clues for establishing the chronology of these historians. Aristokles, Nikokles, 216 and Polykrates cannot be placed save for the probability that Athenaeus knew of their writings through Didymus. 217 So they must precede 100 BCE. The epic poet Phaistos is another writer whose Lakedaimonika, if that was indeed its title, was probably mediated Pausanias interestingly (and uniquely among these authors) offers a wider range of works, now without surviving attestations. FGH 592 T 1 (Suda s.v. Παυσανίας Λάκων, π 818 Adler): Περὶ Ἑλλησπόντου, Λακωνικά, Χρονικά, Περὶ Ἀμφικτυόνων, Περὶ τῶν ἐν Λάκωσιν ἑορτῶν. See Seel 1949. 216 See Laqueur 1936; Jacoby FGH 3b, 624. His name has been considered a mistake for Aristokles (a real possibility) or Aristokrates (with less immediate justification). 217 Athenaeus makes this explicit for Polykrates (4.139D = FGH 588 F 1, for whom see also Mette 1952). See also Jacoby 3b, 621 (on Persaios), 624–35. Jacoby suggests the title of Lakōnika for the work of Polykrates and puts him last in this series. 215

84

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

through Didymus, since he is attested in the scholia to Pindar. 218 Spartan antiquities could have provided a part of the material going into this work. At any event, his epic poem should remind us of the Messeniaka of Rhianos of Bene to which Phaistos’ work might be considered an answer. 219 Molpis falls into the same chronological group, lying toward the end of the temporal range and probably within the first century BCE, because Parmeniskos, the pupil of Aristarchus, supposedly corresponded with him. 220 Molpis also interests us because he illustrates the domestication of the genre of Laconian constitutional writing. He is called a Laconian (Lakōn). 221 Sosibios was a forerunner of these Laconian historians of Laconia, but seems separated from them by, at least, ninety years. I would emphasize that he also differed from them in that he probably worked in Egypt. A second late Hellenistic Lakōn was perhaps Hippasos who can only be dated through a comment about him of Demetrius of Magnesia (first century BCE). 222 Aristokrates, who is arguably the most important of these historians, is described, however, as a Spartiate. 223 If we consider exclusively the known content of work of Aristokrates, an absolute Lakedaimonika of Phaistos would have been an epic poem presumably treating Spartan expansion and perhaps social values and mores. Yet, scholars have posited uncertainty for the title of this poem between Lakedaimonika (1a = ΣPin. Pyth. 4.28) and Makedonika (ΣPin. Pyth. 9.90d). Each passage cites the same hexameter: Ζεῦ Λιβύας Ἄμμον κερατόφορε κέκλυτθι μάντι. Yet it is possible to read 1b as simply identifying its subject as the author of a Makedonika (…ὥς φησι Φαῖστος ὁ τὰ Μακεδονικὰ συνταξάμενος). Sparta had special ties with Zeus Ammon, witnessed most notably by Lysander’s consultation (Plut. Lys. 20.4–6; DS 14.13.5–6). Cf. Stoessl 1938; Jacoby 3b, 629; Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 86. 219 Cf. FGH 265 F 38–46 (c. 300–270). 220 FGH 590 T 1 (Athen. 4.156D). Note Bux 1933. 221 FGH 590 F 2a (Athen. 14.664D). 222 FGH 589 T 1 (DL 8.84). Note Jacoby 1913. 223 FGH 591 T 1 (Plut. Lyc. 4.8); cf. F 1. On Aristokrates, see also Schwartz 1895. 218

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 85 terminus post quem for his work is Philopoimen’s occupation of Sparta in 189/8, which he described in highly negative terms. 224 That Aristokrates probably wrote in criticism of Polybius gives a likely second similar terminus post quem in 146–120. Plutarch’s Philopoimen 16.6 contains a triumphalist notice on the revival of the Spartan patrios politeia after its separation from the Achaean League in 146 that probably derives from Aristokrates. If one considers the issue of the utilization of Aristokrates’ work, it might have been known to Athenaeus through Pamphilos of Alexandria of the first half of the first century CE. 225 Aristokrates seems to be a figure of the last century BCE, or better of the early Principate, 226 if he is the Aristokrates, son of Hipparkhos memorialized in an unpublished funerary inscription in the Spartan museum. 227 In contrast, other than an entry in the Suda, nothing is known of Pausanias the Lakōn. Jacoby assigned him to the empire, detecting a sophistic tone to his works. 228 That he was not consulted by Plutarch, as far as we can tell, may indicate his late date. The existence of these Laconian historians seems to reflect two conflicting trends: the factional grievances of the Achaean Peloponnesus under Roman hegemony and the local pride and more settled conditions of Roman-dominated Laconia. One may suspect that the phenomenon of Laconian historiography may have begun among the Eleutherolaconians. Hence the denomination Lakōn may be taken literally. The works of the earlier individuals from this group may provide the counterpart on a literary level to the agitations of various Laconian factions before Roman officials. 229 They attempted a reclamation of a rich cultural heritage that had been endangered by the convulsions associated with the FGH 591 F 4 (Plut. Philop. 16.4). FGH 591 F 1 (Athen. 3.82E). 226 See Schwartz 1895. 227 See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 89. For the funerary inscription, see Cartledge & Spawforth 2002, 177. 228 FGH 3b, 628–9. 229 Note also the Epicurean philosopher and scholarch, Demetrios Lakōn, c. 100 BCE (DL 10.25; Strabo 14.2.20 C658). See Spawforth & Cartledge 2002, 94, 177–8. 224 225

86

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

supremacy of Nabis. The aristocratic Aristokrates with his inscribed tombstone might be the only Spartiate in the group in a strict sense. He is also the only one, admittedly in a poorly attested group, who engaged in polemics about Hellenistic Spartan history. His work is reflective of the more confident and affluent community of Sparta in the triumviral period and early empire. As already observed above and noted in Table 2, the treatment by Athenaeus of Spartan dining contains the main concentration of references to these historians: the only citation of Aristokles (FGH 586 1), both fragments of Nikokles (FGH 587 F 1–2), the single reference to Polykrates (588 F 1), and both fragments of Molpis (590 F 1–2). The other fragments of these authors are summarized on Table 3. And here again Athenaeus is the dominant intermediary. He provides a second version of Molpis fragment 2 on the ἐπάϊκλα of Spartan meals elsewhere in the Deipnosophistai. 230 Athenaeus is also the intermediary for the sole fragment of Hippasos who assigned the invention of dances with ball playing and gymnastic exercises to the Spartans. 231 Other citations on the subject may also depend on his work. 232 The attraction of Athenaeus to their interests prompted his resort to their works either directly or barring that through consultation of Didymus, Polemon, and other intermediaries. Aristokrates is, however, an altogether more substantial figure. His work had at least four books. Although he is not cited for the treatment of Spartan dining practices, Athenaeus did not pass over him, citing Aristokrates on apples and apple trees called Hesperidian. 233 More significant is the utilization by Plutarch of his Lakōnika. Aristokrates appears among the authorities cited by Plutarch on the travels of Lykourgos where he is notable for his FGH 590 F 2a (Athen. 14.664E). FGH 589 F 1 (Athen. 1.14D–E). The treatise of the Laconian Timokrates Peri sphairistikēs, cited just below by Athenaeus (15C) might be an intermediary. 232 Presumably via Didymus. See Jacoby 3b, 626: Eustath. Od. 1.241.21–4, 304.18; ΣHom. Od. 8.372 D. 233 FGH 591 F 1 (Athen. 3.82E). Kennell & Powell associate the fragment with the travels of Lykourgos to the Iberian peninsula. 230 231

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 87 divergence from tradition. 234 Aristokrates brought Lykourgos into contact with Indian Gymnosophists. This flight of fancy is quite unlike any other, explicitly referenced fragment of the later ‘constitutionalists’ for its air of unreality. Aristokrates was composing in a tradition of imaginary encounters between Hellenic sophoi and Indian sages that began with Onesikritos, the important naval officer of Alexander, whose history brought Alexander into philosophical dialogue with Indian adepts. Even Lykourgos as pseudo-historical legislator of all Spartan nomoi recedes in such a setting to be replaced by Lykourgos, the spokesman for Hellenism and Greek wisdom. Here Aristokrates was hardly striving for verisimilitude, but grasping an opportunity for speculative philosophical exploration in the manner of a Philostratus with Apollonius of Tyana. In a similar vein, Aristokrates may be the source of the explanation offered by Plutarch that the number of twenty-eight gerontes was owed to that number being the first perfect number (that is, it equals the sum of its factors) after six (Lyc. 5.5). Yet, even where he seems to wander from earlier treatments, Aristokrates reveals a perverse fidelity to tradition: ‘Lycurgan’ nomothesia is so quintessentially normative that its relevance to current intellectual trends must be hunted out. Later in Plutarch’s Lycurgus, Aristokrates is again cited for a detail about Lykourgos’ death in Crete. His body was cremated and his ashes scattered by his ‘guest-friends’ to preclude their return to Sparta and the dissolution of the oaths preserving his laws until his return. 235 This is a multiform of the topos in which a nomothetēs ensures that he cannot return to change his legislation and that his people who have been maneuvered in tendering a limited oath of obedience are locked into permanent faithfulness. Rather artificially, Aristokrates’ version assumes that the return of only so much as the ashes of Lykourgos could subvert the oaths contributing to perpetual adherence to his legislation. Hence this eventuality had to be avoided at all costs by the Cretan (n.b.) xenoi of Lykourgos. 234 235

FGH 591 F 2 (Plut. Lyc. 4.6). FGH 591 F 3 (Plut. Lyc. 31.5).

88

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

It is perhaps significant that Aristokrates was arguably the latest authority on Sparta cited by Plutarch. Yet, it is a delicate question how far this insight may be pressed. 236 In nineteenthcentury German philology, Aristokrates was variously considered the main source for the Apophthegmata Laconica, Dicta Lycurgi, the Instituta Laconica, and the Lycurgus, in scholarship marked by the analytic trends of that period, biased as they were toward single sources and against direct consultation of the earlier accounts. 237 The dissertations of Flügel and Boehm synthesized these suggestions. Flügel assigned the role of main final source for the Lycurgus to Aristokrates, emphasizing his role as intermediary even where it is clear that earlier original sources could be identified. 238 Flügel offered this sequence of derivation. Plutarch used Aristokrates in Lyc. 2–4 (Ephorus as original source in chapter 3); 6 (Ephorus as source); 7.2–3 (Ephorus); 8.4 (for the anecdote about Lykourgos’ inspection at harvest); 9 (Xenophon, then Ephorus); 10 (Dicaearchus); 11 (Ephorus); 12 (Dicaearchus); 13 (Ephorus); 14 (Xenophon, then Ephorus); 15–19.1 (Ephorus); 21 (Dicaearchus); 22 (Thucydides, Xenophon, then Ephorus); 24–25.3 (Ephorus); 26 (Xenophon, then Ephorus); 27–31 (Ephorus). The other resources used by Plutarch were a chronographic work of Apollodorus, a collection of anecdotes, and Phylarchus. Flügel’s reconstruction has the curious effect of assigning edifying comment and literary polish to Plutarch while attributing to Aristokrates the synthesis of sources that should ostensibly have belonged to Plutarch as well.

Note Jacoby FGH 3b, 626. This approach is quite at odds with the implications of Lyc. 1.3: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καίπερ οὕτως πεπλανημένης τῆς ἱστορίας, πειρασόμεθα τοῖς βραχυτάτας ἔχουσιν ἀντιλογίας ἢ γνωριμωτάτους μάρτυρας ἑπόμενοι τῶν γεγραμμένων περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀποδοῦναι τὴν διήγησιν ‘however, although the history is so convoluted, following those of the accounts written about the man that have the least contradictions and the clearest witnesses, we shall try to offer a treatment’. 238 Flügel 1870, 23–4, 49–52. Cf. Meyer 1892, 214–15 (n. 1); Kessler 1910, 104. Note also Weber 1887, 1–2, opposing authorship of the Apophthegmata Laconica. 236 237

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 89 Boehm argued that Aristokrates, who followed the interpretations of Ephorus, was a main source of both the Lycurgus and Apophthegmata Laconica (1885). His analysis splits the content of the Lycurgus into historical and constitutional material, with Aristokrates identified as the source for the former. His division yields: Aristokrates: Lyc. 1–6, 7.1–2 (up to μηδὲν ἐνδοῦναι μηδὲ χαλάσαι τῆς ἐξουσίας ἐπὶ τὸ δημοτικὸν ἐθελήσαντας); 8–11; 13–15; 19; 22–3; 26–7; 29.1–4 (to καὶ οὐ διεψεύσθη τῶν λογισμῶν); and 31. The sections derived from a politeia are the following: 7.2–3 (starting from ὃ καὶ μάλιστα…); 12; 16; 17.3–18.1 (from κλέπτουσι δὲ καὶ τῶν σιτίων… through …ἐναποθνήσκοντας ταῖς πληγαῖς); 20?; 21; 24; 27–8; 29.4–30 (from τοσοῦτον ἐπρώτευσεν ἡ πόλις τῆς Ἑλλάδος). Many objections can be raised against this sort of analysis. It sidesteps our uncertainty over whether Aristokrates adopted the form of a narrative history or presented a politeia in whole or part. That more than one ‘constitution’ may have been used by Plutarch in one work tends to be neglected. Analogies between other works of Plutarch and the Apophthegmata Laconica are fallacious because it is a work obviously derived from an array of sources. The ‘historical’ material of the Lycurgus emphasizes the deeds and the dicta of Lykourgos so that the biography of Hermippos is, at least, an equivalent option, 239 if we are convinced that a work of synthesis underlies Plutarch’s biography. In light of these earlier interpretations, the two citations of Aristokrates in the Lycurgus would have to be considered almost misdirection in their attribution of material to him on only secondary points. Are we truly comfortable with considering Plutarch’s citations as being intended to divert attention from the identity of his work’s main source? 240 Even posing this critical query in these terms offers me discomfort. Once we have admitted that our final ‘historical’ source incorporated material and citations from his predecessors, any reconstruction will fail a high standard For Hermippos as a source for the Lycurgus, see also Meyer 1892, 214, 271–2, 274; Kessler 1910, 105–7, 110, 112; Manfredini & Piccirilli 1980, xxvii, 229; Figueira 2004, 55. 240 Cf. Boehm 1885, 35–6. 239

90

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

of proof. Nonetheless, after all these necessary disclaimers have been raised, it remains possible that Aristokrates was utilized by Plutarch as a guide much more than the two explicit citations in the Lycurgus imply. The hypothesis, however, that Aristokrates provided a basis for the last part of the Instituta Laconica admits some more serious argument. 241 Determination of this issue, however, is caught up in the reconstruction of the last section of the Lakōnika of Aristokrates. Aristokrates was cited by Plutarch for a more critical view on the actions of Philopoimen at Sparta in 189/8. 242 Polybius had the executed as 80; Aristokrates as 350. Indeed Plutarch may have been following Aristokrates for the rest of his account that is highly negative toward Philopoimen, accenting his greed and lawlessness in his personal vindictiveness and constitutional impositions. 243 Philopoimen had deported those naturalized by the ‘tyrants’ and had re-enslaved for their intransigence 3,000, who were presumably former slaves or Helots (Philop. 16.4). Aristokrates dramatized in his Lakōnika the Achaean takeover, marking by it a dramatic interruption of the ‘Lycurgan’ order. 244 Plutarch’s indignant description of the abolition of the agōgē (the patrios paideia in a loaded formulation) may reflect Aristokrates’ treatment (Philop. 16.5–6): 245

241 242

22.3.

See Tigerstedt 1965/74, vol. 2, 91–2; 371 (n. 422). FGH 591 F 4 in Plut. Philop. 16.4, which also parallels Polybius

Philop. 16.4–5: …εἶθ᾽ οἷον ἐφυβρίζων ἀπὸ τῶν χρημάτων τούτων ἐν Μεγάλῃ πόλει στοὰν ᾠκοδόμησεν. ἐμπιπλάμενος δὲ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ παρ᾽ ἀξίαν πεπραχόσιν ἐπεμβαίνων, τὸ περὶ τὴν πολιτείαν ἔργον ὠμότατον ἐξειργάσατο καὶ παρανομώτατον ‘…then behaving hybristically to such a degree, he built a stoa from these funds in Megalopolis. Sating his animosity upon the Lakedaimonians and trampling upon people who had suffered undeservedly, he committed the most savage and lawless act regarding their constitution’. 244 See Jacoby FGH 3b.628, comparing Livy 38.34.3. 245 Toneatto 1974/75, 197–8. 243

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 91 ἀνεῖλε γὰρ καὶ διέφθειρε τὴν Λυκούργειον ἀγωγήν, ἀναγκάσας καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐφήβους τὴν Ἀχαϊκὴν ἀντὶ τῆς πατρίου παιδείαν μεταβαλεῖν, ὡς οὐδέποτε μικρὸν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Λυκούργου νόμοις φρονήσοντας. τότε μὲν οὖν ὑπὸ συμφορῶν μεγάλων ὥσπερ νεῦρα τῆς πόλεως ἐκτεμεῖν τῷ Φιλοποίμενι παρασχόντες, ἐγένοντο χειροήθεις καὶ ταπεινοί… [Philopoimen] abolished and destroyed the Lykourgan agōgē [system of upbringing], compelling both their boys and youths to adopt the Achaean mode of education in exchange for their traditional one, as though they would never adopt meek attitudes amid the laws of Lykourgos. Thus, under the impact of great misfortunes, they, submitting then to Philopoimen’s excising, so to speak, the sinews of their polis, became docile and humble…

The agōgē as ‘the sinews of the polis’ stood at the heart of the Spartan system for Plutarch’s source. Philopoimen in 188 was in fact reversing the dispensation under Nabis, 246 but, despite the negative appraisal of Nabis in our source tradition, Aristokrates by implication found Sparta under Nabis to possess still some real claim (however damaged) to ‘Lycurgan’ legitimacy. Plutarch goes on to mention the revival of the ‘Lycurgan’ system in laudatory terms (Philop. 16.6): χρόνῳ δ᾽ ὕστερον αἰτησάμενοι παρὰ Ῥωμαίων τὴν μὲν Ἀχαϊκὴν ἔφυγον πολιτείαν, ἀνέλαβον δὲ καὶ κατεστήσαντο τὴν πάτριον, ὡς ἦν ἀνυστὸν ἐκ κακῶν καὶ φθορᾶς τηλικαύτης. Yet, sometime later, upon making petition to the Romans, [the Spartans] escaped the Achaean politeia [system of government]. And they resumed and reestablished their traditional politeia, as far as practicable after misfortunes and destruction on such a scale.

This remark seems to reflect a coda, possibly in the account of Aristokrates, to the disaster of 188 that celebrated the separation of Sparta from the Achaean League and the reestablishment of the 246

Plut. Phil. 16.3–6; cf. Livy 38.33.6–11.

92

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

archaizing social practices for which Roman Sparta was so renowned. The parallel account of the events of 188 in Pausanias probably derives from Aristokrates as well (Paus. 8.51.3). Pausanias adds a figure of 300 expelled, and then notes the sale of the 3,000 Helots, the razing of the walls, and the change to an Achaean mode of education in a similar vein: τείχη δὲ περιεῖλε τῆς Σπάρτης καὶ τοῖς ἐφήβοις προεῖπε μὴ τὰ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τῶν Λυκούργου μελετᾶν, ἐφήβοις δὲ τοῖς Ἀχαιῶν κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἀσκεῖσθαι. [Philopoimen] destroyed the walls of Sparta and he ordered its youths not train as directed by the laws of Lykourgos, but to exercise in the same manner as Achaean youths.

He then notes the Roman restoration of the agōgē: καὶ τοῖς μὲν ὕστερον ἀποδώσειν ἔμελλον Ῥωμαῖοι παιδείαν τὴν ἐπιχώριον ‘and the Romans were later to give back to them their native paideia [system of education]’. Pausanias goes on to recount the circumstances surrounding the death of Philopoimen. His transitional sentence, however, indicates that the preceding account of the Achaean intervention at Spartan derives from a hostile source, as he speaks of ‘justice for his arrogance’ (ὑπεροψίας δίκη) befalling Philopoimen (Paus. 8.51.5). Therefore, both the accounts from Plutarch and from Pausanias betray a contention that is likely to have derived from Aristokrates: the agōgē of the Roman era was a revival—mutatis mutandis—of the educational system established by Lykourgos. Chapter 42 of the Instituta Laconica (Mor. 239E–240B) begins with ‘Lycurgan’ prohibitions against engaging in naval warfare and amassing gold and silver before noting the influx of precious metals after Lysander’s victory over Athens. This ended the period of fidelity to the laws of Lykourgos (239F): τοῖς μὲν οὖν Λυκούργου χρωμένη νόμοις ἡ πόλις καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμείνασα ἐπρώτευε τῆς Ἑλλάδος εὐνομίᾳ καὶ δόξῃ χρόνον ἐτῶν πεντακοσίων ‘the polis [Sparta], using the laws of Lykourgos and abiding by its oaths [to Lykourgos], held first place in Greece for eunomia [good government] and fair repute for five hundred years’. The next phase of gradual divergence from traditional norms (κατ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ παραβαινομένων) saw the infiltration of pleonexia and philoploutia

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 93 (aggrandizement and love of wealth) with the result of a diminution of strength (τὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ἠλαττοῦτο ‘the elements of their power were reduced’ [240A]: a phrase hinting at oliganthrōpia). Spartan allies thereupon became disaffected, which alludes to the end of the Peloponnesian League. This judgment constitutes a standard fourth-century analysis on the decline of Spartan preeminence. 247 The next comments, however, are more valuable, as they carry ahead this analysis. The Spartans did not (unlike the other Greeks) accede to Philip or Alexander. Their stance should be presented in heroic terms (240A–B): ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὕτως ἔχοντες μετὰ τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ Μακεδόνος ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ νίκην, πάντων αὐτὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγεμόνα κατά τε γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν ἀναγορευσάντων … μόνοι Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καίπερ ἀτείχιστον πόλιν ἔχοντες καὶ ὀλίγοι πάνυ ὄντες διὰ τοὺς συνεχεῖς πολέμους καὶ πολὺ ἀσθενέστεροι καὶ εὐχείρωτοι γενόμενοι ... οὔτε συνεστράτευσαν οὔτε τούτοις οὔτε τοῖς μεταξὺ Μακεδονικοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οὔτ᾽ εἰς συνέδριον κοινὸν εἰσῆλθον οὔτε φόρον ἤνεγκαν. But, nevertheless, being in this situation [the decline we have just noted] after the victory of Philip the Macedonian at Khaironeia, while all the Greeks were proclaiming him their leader both on land and on sea … the Spartans alone, although possessing an unwalled city and being very few in number because of continual wars and much weaker and easy to subdue … neither went on campaign in common either with them [Philip and Alexander] or with the Macedonian kings in the subsequent interval, nor did they enter into a common confederation or did they pay tribute.

The phrase that stood in the second ellipsis marked in this quotation explains their ability to remain autonomous and reveals an appraisal of the attitudes toward their traditions that had been held by the early Hellenistic Spartan elite: πάνυ βραχέα τινὰ See Figueira 2002, 144; also David 1979/80. Note especially DS 15.1.2–5 (from Ephorus). 247

94

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

ζώπυρα διασῴζοντες τῆς Λυκούργου νομοθεσίας ‘preserving some very slight sparks of the legislation of Lykourgos’. 248 This phase continued until the Spartans became completely contemptuous of the legislation of Lykourgos and were tyrannized by their own fellow citizens (ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων πολιτῶν ἐτυραννεύθησαν). The reforming kings who were so notable for Plutarch are absent here. Nabis is obviously one such politēs who tyrannized his fellow Spartans. The third-century oligarchs from the wealthy families who produced gerontes and ephors and who cooperated with Aratos and the Macedonians are candidates for the others who might be meant here. The Spartans’ loss of any vestige of the agōgē (even in an attenuated form) was central: μηδὲν ἔτι σῴζοντες τῆς πατρίου ἀγωγῆς ‘saving yet nothing of the traditional agōgē’. This willingness to surrender the agōgē guarantees that Agis and Kleomenes are not meant to be understood here. The Spartans became similar to other Greeks, relinquished their previous repute (εὔκλειαν) and their civic freedom (here παρρησίαν). They fell into slavery (δουλείαν) which in this context can only mean under Achaean control. The subjection of the Spartans to the Romans came last, signified by a time shift, marked by νῦν. 249 This coda to the Instituta Laconica is unlikely to have been a free composition of Plutarch by virtue of a number of characteristics: its reticence about Agis and Kleomenes, its ethnic chauvinism and xenophobia, and its contempt for the Achaean League. There is no certainty which of the Spartan historians was excerpted by Plutarch here. The source must have been working after the sack of Corinth. Aristokrates is the only one of these authors whose attitude toward the Achaean domination is known, since he treated so negatively the intervention of Philopoimen in 188. And his work was of a sufficient scale to cover these matters If this phrasing is a genuine allusion to the discussion in Plato Laws 677B of the bare survival of a few human beings after the flood in the time of Deukalion, our source was consciously dramatizing in the mode of ‘tragic’ history. 249 Plut. Mor. 240B: καὶ νῦν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις καθάπερ οἱ ἄλλοι Ἕλληνες ἐγένοντο. Cf. Kennell 1995, 20–1, 102–3. 248

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 95 appropriately. On our present knowledge, he is our best choice for Plutarch’s source. If Aristokrates F 5–7 derived from his Lakōnika, we would better judge the dimensions of this work. These passages are merely citations by the name Aristokrates without further specification or an obvious Laconian connection. The best possibility is F 5 that deals with the mid-fifth-century Milesian citharode Phrynis (Arist. Clouds 971 with scholia from which the fragment derives). 250 It seems at first glance that it could hardly come from a Lakōnika, but the ephor Ekprepes supposedly cut two strings from Phrynis’ instrument when he performed at Sparta. This episode provides an apophthegm of Ekprepes (Mor. 220C) that was also told by Plutarch in Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus (Mor. 84A). Agis IV himself supposedly adverted to this episode in an interchange with his fellow king Leonidas (Plut. Agis 10.4). The story embodies a topos about Spartan conservatism and austerity. In the Instituta Laconica (Mor. 238C), the same story is told against Timotheus who was a much more prominent poet. 251 Could Aristokrates have told both versions by citing the speech of Agis with approval for his sentiment but in correction on the identity of the artist criticized? F 6 derived from a controversy in mythography over the number and names of the sons of Eurytos, the king of Oikhalia on Euboia, to which an Aristokrates contributed. Another Euboian reference from an Aristokrates noted that the island of Euboia was also called Abantis (F 7). Although the connection of Eurytos with Herakles means that a Laconian grounding for F 6–7 cannot be entirely excluded, 252 both fragments might be attributed to a mythographer or local historian of the same name from Euboia. 253 Aristokrates does not cut a very impressive figure on the basis of his fanciful innovations in the biography of Lykourgos. He thoroughly, perhaps ruthlessly, attempted to uphold the status of the statesman as a font of Hellenism before a learned audience with Cf. Kennell & Powell 2015. For this variant, cf. Athen. 14.638E; Boethius De musica 1.1. 252 Boehm 1885, 34. 253 See Jacoby 3b, 628 250 251

96

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

novelistic tastes. More serious was his attitude toward Hellenistic politics where his antipathy toward the Achaeans and Philopoimen is palpable. It is a misfortune that his appraisal of Aratos has not survived. A similar spirit may have led his contemporaries to opt for the Triumvirs and then Octavian in distinction to the majority of the Peloponnesians. His focus on the agōgē as the cornerstone of Spartan institutions not only provides him a historical leitmotif, but also isolates the one dimension of the ‘Lycurgan’ heritage that could be prudently and profitably resuscitated in his period. Whether or not all the references in Plutarch to the Roman restoration of the Spartan politeia derive from Aristokrates, Roman endorsement of Spartan ritual and educational archaizing was central for later Spartan historiography. A consideration of this question points up the startling reticence of Aristokrates and his fellow historians—on the present evidence—about kings Agis IV and Kleomenes III. Because revival of the dual kingship was not an option, the memorialization of the Spartan restoration by these late Spartan historians may not have emphasized the military and economic reforms of the kings. The reformers who stand out on the basis of Plutarch’s biographies perhaps slipped back in prominence amid their fellow dynasts in what was conceded to be a sadly reduced third-century Sparta. Plutarch then becomes rather more innovative in his parallel between the kings and the Gracchi. He had to delve beneath several layers of historiography in order to tap the perspective of Phylarchus to establish the validity of his comparatio.

CONCLUSION Inasmuch as later Spartan historiography emerged from the writing of politeiai, it was bound to be a conservative genre, just as the Athenaion Politeia is nearer to Atthidography than is the Politics of Aristotle, and, to all appearances, the trenchant criticism of Sparta in the Politics found slighter echo in the Peripatetic Spartan politeiai. A greater fidelity to received historiography in this genre reinforced the tendency toward descriptiveness and toward glorification of the ‘Lycurgan’ system. With his matrix of interwoven comments on Spartan alimentation, Athenaeus seems to exhibit the Laconian historians as conservative in their reception of the material included in earlier works of the sub-genre. The same impression is garnered from the comparanda in Table 6. There is virtually nothing in the

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 97 surviving fragments to justify a charge of fabrication or whole cloth fiction. Most scholars accept without questioning the details on Spartan sacrifices, festivals, and meals from these authors. As producers of an intellectual product facing their audience as its consumers, these authors can be seen as modest or marginal differentiators of their goods that embodied the ever-alluring image of Sparta, while trying to earn the favor of an audience with a marked propensity for nostalgia. Nonetheless, the Stoic authors did add contemporary touches to their politeiai, as they appropriated Spartan antiquity for Stoic didactics. The literary forms of the politeia and the Lakōnika reveal a cultural lineage that remained doggedly resistant to a historiography that was concerned with causation and progression, one that tried to modulate an existence in history riven between continuity and divergence. Laconian historiography strove for an ever more faithful delineation of ‘Lycurgan’ Sparta; hence the multiplication of treatises. The most significant figure among these historians for his impact on our body of evidence on Sparta was Sosibios. Yet his monumental collection of evidence sought to sharpen the resolution of the inherited images wherever he focused rather than to relight them or envision them on a new angle of sight. If Spartan historiography registered change at all, it tended to view that change either as a fluidity of circumstance, as for features of the third-century syssitia, or as subtraction of traditional substance. Therefore, while epichoric Greek historiography must often have charted a trajectory of ascendance and decline, Spartan historiography offers rather the ‘Lycurgan’ moment, perhaps timeless, perhaps crystallized or frozen, and the descent thence. The authors of the constitutional treatises appear to fall into two chronologically distinct groups. The first cohort was nonLaconian except for Sosibios and worked before the upheavals of late third-century Sparta that started with the reform efforts of Agis IV, embraced the revolution of Kleomenes III, and later saw the rise and downfall of Nabis. Persaios, Proxenos, Sosibios, and Sphairos belong to this group, to whom may be added the somewhat earlier Dicaearchus. Only Dioskurides might belong in the last third of the third century, although we cannot exclude categorically from the period 242–190 any one of the lesser known figures who are usually dated to the second century or later. The second group, which includes more Laconians, seems to have

98

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

followed the period of Nabis by a lapse of time. Rather than the politeiai reflecting the direct partisanship on behalf of the reformers, Agis and Kleomenes, they seem to bookend their reigns. The first group illuminates the sense of history that inspired their new directions. In the present state of our knowledge, the second group seems to have embargoed their memory, whether that silence was historiographical amnesia or amnesty. It is an open question (but quite apropos) whether the brutality attendant on the supremacy of Nabis had not only attenuated sympathy for the earlier reformers, but also inhibited any more direct discussion of third-century Sparta by any Laconian. With Sparta, however, description is ever married to prescription. With their victory over the self-reflective Athenians, the Spartans, scarcely masters of auto-analysis, were condemned permanently to the status of exemplars, although how and what they were embodying could be most elusive. At Sparta in its decay, such exemplification was turned inward. The Laconian works of Dicaearchus, which were read to the ephebes, the politeia of Sphairos, who assisted Kleomenes III, and, perhaps, the historical work of Aristokrates, for whom Sparta was essentially its revived agōgē, not only memorialized Sparta’s past, but also served as templates for a preservation or restoration of the true ‘Lycurgan’ polity. Nonetheless, we must never forget that post-classical Spartans genuinely sought after authenticity in their specific selfrepresentation as Spartans, and that Laconian historiography played a significant role in this process. The Spartan ‘mirage’ was a true mirage, not a fantasy conceived out of thin air, but a manifestation of distant and distorted realities whose perception was conditioned and enhanced by auto-suggestion. The recent tendency to emphasize the influence of Hellenistic distortion or propaganda as a key to decoding Spartan institutions is reductive in its essence. Elimination of evidence on the criterion of ‘contamination’ by Hellenistic historiography has been shown by our analysis above to be much more problematic than is usually accepted. The related inclination to flatten out the differences between the social structures of archaic and classical Sparta and panhellenic or, properly, Athenian norms cannot, admittedly, stand or fall on the propriety of its appeal to the ‘mirage’ hypothesis. Nonetheless, it cannot be privileged through its appeal to Hellenistic

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 99 misrepresentation, unless demonstrated in specific instances, because the supposition of systematic distortion remains at best unproven, and, quite possibly, fundamentally erroneous.

BIBLIOGRAPHY T.A. Africa, ‘Stoics, Cynics, and the Spartan revolution’, International Review of Social History 4 (1959) 461–9. ———, Phylarchus and the Spartan revolution. University of California Publications in History 58 (1961) Berkeley. J. von Arnim, ‘Dioskurides’, #9, RE 5.1 (1903) col. 1129. ———, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (1903–24) Stuttgart = SVF. D. Asheri, ‘Sulla legge di Epitadeo’, Athenaeum 39 (1961) 45–68. W.S. Barrett, rev. of POxy 24 (Lobel et al. 1957), Gnomon 33 (1961) 682–92. A. Bayliss, ‘Sosibios’, in I. Worthington (ed.) Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online, 2015. J. Benton, Naomi Mitchison. A Biography (1990) London. R. Boehm, Quaestiones Laconicae (1885) Bratislava. E. Bux, ‘Zwei sozialistische Novellen bei Plutarch’, Klio 19 (1925) 413–31. ———, ‘Molpis’, #2, RE 16.1 (1933) col. 28. D.A. Campbell, Greek Lyric, vol. 2 (1988) Cambridge MA & London. P. Cartledge, Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (1987) London. P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities2 (2002) London. A.-H. Chroust, Socrates. Man and Myth. The Two Socratic Apologies of Xenophon (1957) London. E. David, ‘The Pamphlet of Pausanias’, PP 185 (1979) 94–116. ———, ‘The Influx of Money into Sparta at the End of the Fifth Century B.C’, SCI 5 (1979/80) 30–45.

100

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

———, ‘Laughter in Spartan Society’, in A. Powell (ed.), Classical Sparta. Techniques behind Her Success (1988) Norman & London, 1–25. K. Deichgräber, ‘Persaios’, #1, RE 19.1 (1937) cols. 926–31. A. Diller, ‘A New Source on the Spartan Ephebia’, AJP 62 (1941) 499–501. E.R. Dodds, Plato: Gorgias (1959) Oxford. T. Dorandi, Filodemo: la storia dei filosofi. La stoà da Zenone a Panezio (PHerc. 1018) (1994) Leiden. J. Ducat, ‘Perspectives on Spartan Education in the Classical Period,’ in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta New Perspectives (1999) Swansea, 43–66. D.R. Dudley, A History of Cynicism (1937) London. T. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice (1999) Oxford. A. Erskine, The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action (1990) London. T.J. Figueira, rev. of K.M. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue, Classical Outlook 74 (1996/97) 155. ———, ‘Iron Money and the Ideology of Consumption in Laconia’, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: Beyond the Mirage (2002) Swansea, 137–70. ———, ‘Xenēlasia and Social Control at Sparta’, CQ 53 (2003a) 44–74. ———, ‘Helot Demography and Class Demarcation in Classical Sparta’, in N. Luraghi and S. Alcock (eds), Helots and their Masters: The History and Sociology of a System of Exploitation (2003b) Cambridge, 183–229. ———, ‘The Nature of the Spartan Klêros’, in T. Figueira (ed.), Spartan Society (2004) Swansea, 47–76. ———, ‘The Spartan Constitutions and the Enduring Image of the Spartan Ethos,’ in N. Birgalis (ed.), The Legacy of Sparta (2006) Athens, 143–58.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 101 M. Flower, ‘The Invention of Tradition in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta’, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: Beyond the Mirage (2002) Swansea, 191–217. G. Flügel, Die Quellen in Plutarchs ‘Lykurgos’ (1870) Marburg. W.G. Forrest, ‘The Date of the Lycurgan Reforms in Sparta’, Phoenix 17 (1963) 157–79. A. Fuks, ‘Non-Phylarchean Tradition on the Programme of Agis IV’, CQ 12 (1962a) 118–21. ———, ‘The Spartan Citizen Body in the Mid-Third Century B.C. and its Enlargement Proposed by Agis’, Athenaeum 40 (1962b) 244–63. E. Gabba, ‘Studi su Filarco: le biografie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene’, Athenaeum 35 (1957) 3–55, 193–239. ———, rev. of Africa 1961, RFIC 27 (1963) 359–63. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part XV (1922) London. F. Geyer, ‘Sosibios’, #3, RE 3.1 (1927) cols. 1149–52. J.G. Griffiths, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride (1970) Cardiff. G. Grote, A History of Greece4 (1872) London. S. Hobein, ‘Sphairos’, #3, RE2 3.2 (1929) cols. 1683–93.

G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001) London & New York. I. Hodot, ‘Tradition stoïcienne et idées politiques au temps der Gracques,’ REL 48 (1970) 133–79. W. Immerwahr, Die Lakonika des Pausanias auf ihre Quellen untersucht (1889) Berlin. N. Kennell, The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education & Culture in Ancient Sparta (1995) Chapel Hill. Kennell, N. & Powell, A., ‘Aristokrates (591).’ in I. Worthington (ed.) Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online, 2015. E. Kessler, Plutarchs Leben des Lykurgos (1910) Berlin.

102

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

A.D. Knox, Herodes, Cercidas, and the Greek Choliambic Poets (1961) Cambridge MA & London. F. Jacoby, ‘Hippasos’, #16, RE 8.2 (1913) col. 1688. R. Laqueur, ‘Sosibios’, #2, RE 5.2 (1927) cols. 1146–9. ———, ‘Nikokles’, #8, RE 17.1 (1936) col. 352. K. Lehrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homericis (1865) Leipzig. E. Lévy, ‘Sosibios le Laconien’, in D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (16–18 juin 2005) (2007) Paris, 277–89. M. Lipka, Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution: Introduction. Text. Commentary (2002) Berlin. E. Livrea, Studi Cercidei (P.Oxy1082) (1986) Bonn. E Lobel, C.H. Roberts, E.G. Turner, and J.W.B. Barns, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part XXIV (1957) London. L. Lomiento, Cercidas. Testimonia et Fragmenta (1993) Rome. M. Manfredini and L. Piccirilli Plutarco. Le vite di Licurgo e di Numa (1980) Milan. G. Marasco, ‘Aristotele come fonte dei Plutarco nelle biografie di Agide e Cleomene’, Athenaeum 56 (1978) 170–81. ———, Commento alle biografie Plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene, 2 vs., (1981/83) Rome. A.R. Meadows, ‘Pausanias and the Historiography of Sparta’, CQ 45 (1995) 92–113. H.J. Mette, ‘Polykrates’, #8, RE 21.2 (1952) col. 1752. E. Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, 1 (1892) Halle. N. Mitchison, The Corn King and the Spring Queen (1930, repr. 1983, 1990) London. ———, You May Well Ask: A Memoir 1920–1940 (1979) London. K.J. Neumann, ‘Die Enstehung des spartiatischen Staates in der lykurgischen Verfassung’, HZ 60 (1906) 3–80. F. Ollier, Le mirage spartiate (1933/43) Paris.

POLITEIA AND LAKŌNIKA IN SPARTAN HISTORIOGRAPHY 103 ———, ‘Le philosophe stoïcien Sphairos et l’oeuvre réformatrice des rois de Sparte Agis IV et Cléomène III’, REG 49 (1936) 536–70. W. Oncken, Die Staatslehre des Aristoteles in historisch-politischen Umrissen (1870/75) Leipzig. R. Parker, ‘Spartan Religion’, in A. Powell (ed.), Classical Sparta. Techniques behind Her Success (1988) Norman & London, 142– 72. C. Pelling, ‘Fun with Fragments: Athenaeus and the Historians’, in D. Braund and J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and his World: Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (2000) 171–90. L. Piccirilli, ‘“Nomoi” cantati e “nomoi” scritti’, Civiltà Classica e Cristiana 2 (1981) 7–14. R. von Pöhlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt3, rev. F. Oertel, 2 vols. (1925) Munich. P. Poralla, A Prosopography of Lacedaimonians2, A.S. Bradford (ed.) (1985) Chicago. F. Pozzi, ‘Le riforme economico-sociali e le mire tiranniche di Agide IV e Cleomene III, re di Sparta’, Aevum 42 (1968) 383– 402. J.M. Priestley, ‘The φαρος of Alcman’s “Partheneion 1”,’ Mnem.4 60 (2007) 175–95. N. Richer, La religion des Spartiates (2012) Paris. C. Santaniello, Detti dei Lacedemoni (Apophthegmata Laconica, Instituta Laconica, Lacaenarum apophthegmata) (1995) Naples. M. Schofield, The Stoic Idea of the City (1991) Cambridge. P. Scholz, Der Philosoph und die Politik. Die Ausbildung der philosophischen Lebensform und die Entwicklung des Verhältnisses von Philosophie und Politik im 4. und 3. Jh. v. Chr. (1998) Stuttgart. E. Schwartz, ‘Aristokrates’, #25, RE 2.1 (1895) col. 941. ———, ‘Dioskurides’, #7, RE 5.1 (1903) cols. 1128–9. O. Seel, ‘Pausanias’, #16, RE 32.1 (1949) cols. 2404–5.

104

THOMAS FIGUEIRA

B.D. Shaw, ‘The Divine Economy: Stoicism as Ideology’, Latomus 44 (1985) 16–54. H. Sonnabend, Die Freundschaften der Gelehrten und die zwischenstaatliche Politik im klassischen und hellenistischen Griechenland (1996) Hildesheim. F. Stoessl, ‘Phaistos’, #5, RE 19.2 (1938) cols. 1608–9. F.

Susemihl, Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur Alexanderinerzeit, 2 vols (1891/92) Leipzig.

in

der

I.G. Taïphakos, ‘Δικαιάρχου Τριπολιτικὸς’, Peloponnesiaca 11 (1975) 124–9. W.W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas (1913) Oxford. L. Thommen, ‘Spartas fehlende Lokalgeschichte’, Gymnasium 107 (2000) 399–407. L. Toneatto, ‘Lotta politica e assetto sociale a Sparta dopo la caduta di Cleomene III’, Index 5 (1974/75) 179–248. A. Tresp, Die Fragmente der griechischen Kultschriftsteller (1914) Giessen. P. Treves, ‘Studi su Antigono Dosone,’ Athenaeum 12 (1934) 382– 411, 13 (1935) 22–56. K. Tsantsanoglou, ‘The Scholia on Alcman’s Partheneion’, Ελληνικά 56 (2006) 7–30. P. Vander Waerdt, ‘Politics and Philosophy in Stoicism’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 9 (1991) 185–211. C. Wachsmuth, Commentatio vernaculo sermone conscripta de Eratosthene, Apollodoro, Sosibio chronographis (1892) Leipzig. F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 1 (1957) Oxford. L. Weber, Quaestionum Laconicarum capita duo (1887) Göttingen. E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung. 3.1 Die Nacharistotelosche Philosophie5 (1923) Leipzig. K. Ziegler, ‘Polykrates’, #9, RE 21.2 (1952) col. 1753. ———, ‘Proxenos’, #13, RE 23.1 (1957) cols. 1033–4.

THE LYSANDREIA AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER This paper argues that the ambitions of the Heraclid Lysander on Samos, which included countenancing his own worship, were an attempt to appropriate and subvert the rights of the Agiad and Eurypontid kings as the arkhēgetai of the original colonization of Sparta. The argument has two parts: first, an analysis of the Spartan dual kings as arkhēgetai. The institution’s relation to the broad genre of Heraclid ktistic narratives, its reinstutionalization by the Lycurgan order, and its ideological role in the development of the Spartan politeia, all together define the legitimizing rights that Lysander was attempting to appropriate. Second, an analysis of Lysander’s manipulation or subversion of these rights is undertaken. Because of its founder’s marginal status within the Spartan ruling elite, any gambit of self-aggrandizement such as the Lysandreia necessarily functioned as a counterclaim to the patrilineal hegemony of the Agiads and Eurypontids. This counterclaim was expressed by the inception and performance of the Lysandreia. The structurally opposed foundation ideologies of the Samian Heraia (autochthony) and the Spartan Karneia (colonization) created an advantageous focus for Lysander’s political agenda and point to an emphasis on autochthonous legitimacy in its elaboration.

105

106

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

LYSANDER AS A HERAKLID ARKHĀGETĒS

The worship of the Heraklid Lysander at Samos 1 is usually explained as a case of simple megalomania or pure power politics. 2 These elements are clearly present–how could they not be? However, it has escaped notice that his program of selfaggrandizement is carried out in a deeply traditional, if inherently subversive context: foundation outside the mechanism of strict inheritance of kingship through primogeniture. 3 When Lysander organized 4 the traditional procession to the Heraion, it was an attempt to subvert and appropriate the timai of the Spartan twin royal lineages: 5 specifically their role as the patrilineal descendants See Douris FGH 76 F 26, F 71 ap. Plut. Lys. 18.3 (below). A Hellenistic (!) statue base at the Heraion confirms the existence of the cult with an inscription to a man who ‘won the pancration four times at the Lysandreia’, see Homann–Wedeking 1965, 440; Habicht 1970, 243–244. On the tenor of Lysander’s worship, Nilsson 1957, 49 nt. 4, disparagingly cites Usener’s 1896, 361 “unmöglich” opinion that Lysander changed the Heraia into an ancestor worship festival. 2 E.g. Lötze 1964, 53–6; Hamilton 1979, 69–98; Habicht 1970, 1–13, 243–4; Bommelaer 1981, 140–1; Cartledge 1987, 81–4. 3 On the political context of matrilineal descent in Greek myth, see Finkelberg 1991; on its Indo-European roots, West 2007, 414–17. For matrilineal descent in terms of 5th-century colonization, see Hornblower 2004, 97–128. On the interdependence of bilateral and patrilineal aspects of marriage, see Redfield 1982, 181–201. 4 There is no direct evidence that Lysander organized the procession, but cf. Polykrates and Syloson at the Heraia in Polyaen. 1.23: Πολυκράτης, μελλόντων Σαμίων θυσίαν ποιεῖν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Ἥρας πάνδημον, ἐν ᾗ μεθ' ὅπλων ἐπόμπευον πλεῖστα ὅσα τῇ προφάσει τῆς ἑορτῆς ὅπλα συλλέξας τοὺς μὲν ἀδελφοὺς Συλοσῶντα καὶ Παντάγνωστον συμπομπεύειν ἔταξε. The chronology of Lysander’s movements during the fall of 404 and the summer of 403 (intercession of Pausanias at Athens) is difficult; cf. Lötze 1964, 38–9, 55, 87–98; Hamilton 1970, 46– 63, 90–4; Andrewes 1971, 213–26; Bommelaer 1981, 132–41; Cartledge 1987, 77–8. 5 The Agiads and Eurypontids had separate burial sites and were thus unlikely to have been in reality from one lineage; see Paus. 3.14.2 1

THE LYSANDREIA

107

of the original, colonial arkhāgetai of Sparta. Conversely, when the repatriated pro-Spartan and anti-democratic Samians renamed their festival to Hera the Lysandreia, they were crediting Lysander with the re-establishment of Samian society after the chaotic revolutions of the late 5th century, and inserting him (albeit violently) into the orbit of their cult center. 6 The details of Lysander’s early career are obscure, but by the spring of 407, he had become fleet commander (nauarchos) of the Spartan navy and installed himself on the Ionian coast at Ephesus. 7 The battle of Notion in 406 was a decisive Spartan victory and after the complete destruction of Athenian sea power at Aigospotamoi in 405, 8 Lysander was the preeminent figure in Greece. Just as the regent Pausanias had inscribed an epigram on the serpent column two generations earlier, claiming that he was the ‘archāgos of the Hellenes’, 9 Lysander dedicated his own massive commemorative statue group at Delphi, which nominally celebrated the Spartan victory at Aigospotamoi, but in truth underlined his own exceptional status. 10 His statue also stood in front of the Acanthian

(Agiads), 3.12.8 (Eurypontids) with Oliva 1971, 23–7; Cartledge 1987, 100–5. 6 For an overview of the connection between communal festivals and socio-political organization, see Burkert 1985, 382–96; for the connection between synoecism and the (sometimes idealized sometimes literal) establishment of cult practice, see Nilsson 1986, 17–25 and Graf 1985, 85–9. 7 Xen. Hell. 1.5.1–7; Plut. Lys. 3.2; cf. Lötze 1964, 13–14. 8 Xen. Hell. 2.1.7–32; DS 13.105–106; Plut. Lys. 9.6–13.2; cf. Hamilton 1970, 40–1; Bommelaer 1981, 103–15. 9 ML 27; Thuc. 1.132.2–3; Anth. Pal. 6.197. 10 The ‘Nauarch’s monument’, is a statue group of thirty-nine or forty statues, about thirty of which represented fleet commanders; the remaining ten statues consisted of six divinities with Lysander in the center flanked by his lieutenants. In the very center was Poseidon, god of the sea, crowning the victorious general; cf. Paus. 10.9.4; Plut. De. Pyth. or. Mor. 394e with Bommelaer 1981, 14–15, T 15.

108

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

treasury at Delphi, 11 inside of which was a huge gold and ivory trireme presented to him by Cyrus. 12 The Samians dedicated a statue of him at Olympia, and the Ephesians followed suit at their famous sanctuary of Artemis. 13 However, Lysander’s hegemony was short-lived. Presumably through unease over his personalized reorganization of the ‘liberated’ Greek cities of Asia and the installation of his followers as ruling cliques of ten (δεκαδαρχίαι), 14 the Agiad king Pausanias, supported by members of the ephorate, undercut and seriously blunted his influence at around 403. 15 At around this time, 16 Lysander began to scheme to obtain the kingship for himself. The plot was ultimately unsuccessful, but, according to Plutarch, it involved the suborning of both the oracles at Siwa and Delphi and was centered on restoring the ancient prerogatives of all the Heraklids to the detriment of the ruling Agiads and Eurypontids. 17 His family was proud – his father Plut. Lys. 1; de Pyth. or. Mor. 397f; cf. Thuc. 4.84–88. The treasury was dedicated jointly by the Acanthians and Brasidas. On the (few) precedents for this type of joint dedication, see Flower 1988, 123–34. 12 Plut. Lys. 18.1. 13 Paus. 6.3.14–16; cf. Bommelaer 1981, 13–23, T 12–13. 14 See generally DS 14.13.1 with Xen. Hell. 3.5.13, 6.3.8; Isoc. 4. 110; Plut. Lys. 13; Nepos. Lys. 1.4, 2.1. On the date of the installation of the decarchies, their independence regarding Sparta, Cyrus, and Tissaphernes (Xen. Hell. 2.1.13–14) and the date of their removal (Xen. Hell. 3.4.2), see Parke 1930, 50–65; Hamilton 1979, 38–63; Andrewes 1971, 206–16. 15 On Pausanias’ relationship with Lysander and the king’s subsequent indictment and trial (acquitted), see Xen. Hell. 2.4.29; DS 14.33.6; Paus. 3.4.2; Plut. Lys. 21.1, with Hamilton 1979, 81–9 who attributes to Pausanias a ‘traditional conservative Spartan outlook’. 16 I.e., in 403–401, or perhaps later, after the accession of Agesilaos. The chronology of the plot is obscure. See DS 14.13.2–8 and Plut. Lys. 24–6, with Hamilton 1979, 76–98; Bommelaer 1981, 223–5; Cartledge 1987, 94–8. 17 Plut. Lys. 24.4–25.3, 30.3; DS 14.13.2–8; Nep. Lys. 3.5; cf. Cartledge 1987, 94–7. Diodorus generally interprets Lysander as an obedient servant of Sparta, while Plutarch and Nepos (both likely following Ephorus) clearly state he was aiming at personal rule. 11

THE LYSANDREIA

109

Aristokritos traced his lineage back to Herakles and was connected through xenia to powerful figures in Libya – but his lineage had become in some way marginalized. 18 According to Phylarchos, Lysander was a mothax, a term which designated a Spartan of irregular extraction who was, nevertheless, incorporated into the agōgē. 19 Presumably, Lysander himself, despite the status of his mother’s side of the family, would have been a natural first selection from this widened pool of eligibility for the kingship. In late 404, just before his showdown with Pausanias, Samos was returned to its ‘one time inhabitants’, 20 and the Lysandreia was inaugurated. Douris tells us that Lysander was the very first living 21 Greek to whom altars were erected and sacrifices were dedicated as to a Plut. Lys. 2.24. See Bomelaer 1981, 36–8; Cartledge 1987, 28–9. For Lysander’s links to Libya and the oracle at Siwa, see DS 14.13.5–6, with Malkin 1990. For the manipulation of Delphi, see Powell 2010a, 121–6. 19 Phylarchus FGH 81 F 43 with Ael. VH 12.43; note also Lötze 1962, 427–35 with Harp. s.v. μόθων and Hesych. s.v. μόθακες. It is possible (e.g. Cartledge 1987, 28) that this terminology now also designated a Spartan who was unable to finance his participation in the agōgē unless mentored by a patron family. 20 Xen. Hell. 2.3.6–7; DS 14.13.5; see generally Shipley 1987, 131–3. On the chronology, see Hamilton 1970, 64 and Bomelaer 1981, 138–41, 171. 21 Badian 1981, 31–8 makes a strong case for rejecting all of Plutarch’s evidence except the citation of Douris and thus positing posthumous worship for Lysander. The question then turns on the distinction in Greek religion between worshiping a hero and worshiping a god – a distinction in which the figure of Herakles played a major, mediating role. Douris must mean that even though Lysander was a man, who would die and have his ashes buried in a tomb, to the Samians he was somehow different from the many Greeks who were honored at and after their deaths with recurring games equivalent to the Lysandreia (e.g. Pelops, Adrastus, Tlepolemus, Miltiades, Brasidas). See Burkert 1985, 190–4, 203–8 and Antonaccio 1993, 43–70; 1995, 1–9, whose differentiation between ancestor and tomb cult in terms of a distinction between a nominal patrilineal founder and an egalitarian-style social 18

110

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

god. He then states that the Samians as a people voted to have the name of their ancient festival of Hera changed from the Heraia to the Lysandreia (Douris FGH 76 F 71): πρώτῳ μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Δοῦρις, ῾Ελλήνων ἐκείνῳ (sc. Λυσάνδρῳ) βωμοὺς αἱ πόλεις ἀνέστησαν ὡς θεῶι καὶ θυσίας ἔθυσαν, εἰς πρῶτον δὲ παιᾶνες ἤισθησαν…Σάμιοι δὲ τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ῾Ηραῖα Λυσάνδρεια καλεῖν ἐψηφίσαντο. He (sc. Lysander) was the first to whom, as Duris narrates, the Greek cities erected altars, as if he were a god, and made sacrifices, and he was the first to whom paeans were sung … the Samians voted to call the festival of Hera that they celebrated the Lysandreia.

The various actions of Lysander at this juncture – the decarchic regimes, the emplacement of an overseas network of patronage, the ostentatious dedications, the claims as a Heraklid, and the reorganization of Samos with the acceptance of extraordinary honors there – are part and parcel of his systemic subversion of the authority of Spartan kingship and his power grab within the Spartan politeia. This was certainly the way king Pausanias took it. 22 Here, Lötze contributes an important specification by connecting Lysander’s worship at Samos with the traditional heroic honors of a founder or oikistēs, and he credits the oligarchic faction at Samos with inaugurating the festival. 23 Cartledge in his detailed and incisive treatment of Lysander’s career stopped short of characterizing the Lysandreia. The ideology surrounding the monarchy of Agiads and Eurypontids was complex, 24 but organization is too rigid. It is likely that after his death the worship of Lysander was a typical instance of Greek religious practice, but it was his actions and his treatment when alive, at the inception of his reorganization of Samos (so Lötze 1962, 54 nt. 1 and Cartledge 1987, 82–6), which inspired Douris’ remark. Yet Badian is correct that any new evidence could significantly alter our picture. 22 Hamilton 1979, 76–82. 23 Lötze 1964, 54. 24 Spartan kingship also reflected the patchwork ethnicity of the Peloponnesus. For overviews, see Kiechle 1963, 20–9 and Malkin 1994.

THE LYSANDREIA

111

fundamentally their legitimacy rested on a patrilineal, genealogical connection to Herakles. As Cartledge states, the royal lineage served to ‘affirm the blue-bloodedness of the Agiads and Eurypontids against the claims of other aristocratic families and to distinguish the aristocracy from the commons’. 25 The creation of the Lysandreia was just such a claim.

SPARTAN HERAKLIDS AS CITY FOUNDERS To understand why, one must consider the Spartan kings as arkhāgetai. According to the ‘constitutional’ tradition of Spartan historiography, the eunomia of Sparta was the creation of Lycurgus. 26 This conclusion is the result of historiographical processing of the evidence of Spartan history. In classical Sparta, we find a more dynamic situation in which traditions on the lawgiving of early Spartan kings vied for primacy with the vision of Lycurgus as exclusive nomothetēs. I shall not attempt a full exploration of this issue here. For Archaic Sparta, consider rather the traditions both on the promulgation of the Great Rhetra and on the institution of the klēros. Relevant aspects include: (1) the ritual importance of Helen as the wife of Menelaus (e.g. Theoc. 18), worshiped at the Archaic Menelaion; note Antonaccio 1995, 155–66; (2) the Pelopid genealogy (Thuc. 1.9.2) and the appropriation of the bones of Orestes (Hdt. 1.65–8) and Tisamenos (Paus. 7.1.3–8); note Boedeker 1993; (3) the Spartan and Messenian autochthonous genealogies in Paus. 3.1.2 and Apollod. 3.10.3–4; note Pearson 1962, 406–10; Kiechle 1963, 20–4; Calame 1986, 153–86; and Malkin 1994, 19–22. 25 Cartledge 1979, 344. 26 The tradition for the Lycurgus as the founding Spartan lawgiver is confused early on: Plut. Lyc. 1.1 tells us as much. Xen. Lac. Pol. 10.8 says unhelpfully that he ‘lived in the time of the Herakleidai.’ In the immense bibliography, note (e.g.) Kahrstedt 1929, RE s.v. Lykurgos 1.2442–2446; Andrewes 1938; Hammond 1950; Den Boer 1954, 1–54; Wade–Gery 1958, 37–85; Kiechle 1963, 193–203; Forrest 1968, 41–65; Jones 1966, 165–75; Oliva 1971, 63–98; van Wees 1999, 1–41 and Kõiv 2005. Tyrtaeus is famously silent about Lycurgus. For the polemics of Ephorus and Hellanicus in FGH 70 F 118, see below, pp. 113-15.

112

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

The reforms of Lycurgus – whatever one imagines their date – were seen as a competing narrative to the authority of the Spartan kings as founders. In fact, the attribution of fundamental nomothesia at Sparta to the kings is enshrined in the document called the Great Rhetra. 27 It is important to note at the outset that the competing ideologies of the king and the lawgiver were framed in synonymous terms: both were seen as colonial founders. This perspective is reflected in Jeffery’s position, following Parke, that the Lycurgan Rhetra was a representation of a Doric prose oracle of the sort that an oikistēs or arkhāgetēs of a colony might be expected to receive before settling on a location for his new polis. 28 Naturally, Jeffery supports her argument by appealing to Plutarch’s gloss of the term ‘arkhāgetai’ with ‘kings’ in the text of the Rhetra. Simultaneously, in a similar fashion to a king or a divinely sanctioned oikistēs, a lawgiver because he is the creator a new, complex social order, could easily be viewed as a ‘founder’. The creation of a synthesis of these two claims, the traditional, preexisting royal timai on the one hand and modern, constitutional reform on the other, has long been considered a fundamental purpose of promulgation of the Rhetra itself. 29 The verses of Tyrtaios’ Eunomia which Plutarch connects with the institution of the Rhetra (some portion of it – that is – the Rider), clearly envisage both the modification and the original document as a oracular response connected to the Heraklid authority of the twin kings – in this case the Eurypontid

Plut. Lyc. 6.1: …ἀρχαγέται δὲ οἱ βασιλεῖς λέγονται. On the Spartan kings as arkhāgetai, see Jeffery 1961. For Delphi’s role, cf. Plut. Lyc. 5.3 with DS 7.12. Wade-Gery 1958, 37 nt. 2 dates the Rhetra to the turn of the seventh-sixth centuries. Andrewes 1938 is non-committal. Den Boer 1954, 5–29 rejects Plutarch’s evidence altogether. Huxley 1962, 49– 50 dates it to 676 along with Terpander’s first victory at the Karneia. Forrest 1968, 157–79 dates it before the second Messenian war. Hammond 1950, 42–64 and Kõiv 2005 place the influence of Lycurgus and thus the Rhetra before the first Messenian war. 28 Jeffery 1961, 147; note Parke 1956, 90. 29 See (e.g.) Andrewes 1938, 99–100 and generally Hölkeskamp 1992, on the place of the Archaic Greek lawgiver in constitutional reform. 27

THE LYSANDREIA

113

Theopompus and his colleague Polydorus in the aftermath of the first Messenian War. 30 Furthermore, within the conflicting accounts of the creation of the klēros system and Spartan land-tenure, there is evidence that Lycurgus was thought to have manipulated an existing system created on the authority of the kings. It is prima facie unlikely that Lycurgus created the entire klēroi system out of whole cloth before the conquest of Messenia, a fact which seems to motivate the tradition (parallel to the Aristotelian tradition of the Rhetra and its Rider) where the Agiad Polydorus 31 is said to have modified an existing Lycurgan system. 32 Similarly, the existence of the famously inalienable ‘arkhaia moira’ indicates – if nothing else – the extent to which the classical Spartan society was always known to be a multitiered and composite system. 33 There is a crucial insight into classical views on the inauguration of Spartan eunomia that helpfully is dated around the time of the very beginnings of ‘constitutionalist’ interpretation, Hellanicus’ treatment of Spartan nomothesia (transmitted through Strabo); (Ephorus FGH 70 F 118 = Hellanicus FGH 4 F 116): Ἑλλάνικος μὲν οὖν Εὐρυσθένη καὶ Προκλέα φησὶ διατάξαι τὴν πολιτείαν, Ἔφορος δ' ἐπιτιμᾷ φήσας Λυκούργου μὲν αὐτὸν μηδαμοῦ μεμνῆσθαι, τὰ δ' ἐκείνου ἔργα τοῖς μὴ προσήκουσιν ἀνατιθέναι· μόνῳ γοῦν Λυκούργῳ ἱερὸν ἱδρῦσθαι καὶ θύεσθαι κατ' ἔτος, ἐκείνοις δὲ καίπερ οἰκισταῖς γενομένοις μηδὲ τοῦτο δεδόσθαι ὥστε τοὺς ἀπ' αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν Εὐρυσθενίδας τοὺς δὲ Προκλείδας καλεῖσθαι, ἀ[λλὰ τοὺς μὲν] Ἀγίδας ἀπὸ Ἄγιδος τοῦ Εὐρυσθένους τοὺς δ' [Εὐρυπωντίδας ἀ]πὸ Εὐρυπῶντος τοῦ Προκλέους· τοὺς μὲν [γὰρ δυναστεῦ]σαι δικαίως, τοὺς δὲ δεξαμένους ἐπ[ήλυδας ἀνθρώ]πους, δι' ἐκείνων δυναστεῦσαι·

Tyrt. F 4 ap. Plut. Lyc. 6.6 with DS 8.12.6. On the role of the kings see e.g. Andrewes 1938, 89–95; Wade-Gery 1958, 54–66. 31 Paus. 3.3.1; 4.7.7. 32 Plut. Lyc. 8.5–6, on which see Figueira 1986, 169–71. 33 Cf. Aris. Tit. 143.1 Gigon; Plut. Apoth. Lacon. Mor. 238e with Polyb. 6.45.3, and e.g., Lazenby 1995. 30

114

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER ὅθε[ν οὐδ' ἀρχηγέτας] νομισθῆναι ὅπερ πᾶσιν ἀποδέδοτα[ι οἰκισταῖς. Now Hellanicus says that Eurysthenes and Prokles established the [Lakedaimonian] constitution, but Ephorus castigates him for this, saying that Hellanicus nowhere mentions Lycurgus and instead attributes Lycurgus’ accomplishments to people that had nothing to do with them. At any rate the Lakedaimonians erected a temple to Lycurgus alone and made annual sacrifices to him, but to Eurysthenes and Prokles, even though they had founded the state, they did not grant even this, namely that those descended from them should be called ‘Eurysthenidai’ and ‘Prokleidai’. Instead, they are called ‘Agidai’ after Agis, the son of Eurysthenes, and ‘Eurypontidai’ after Eurypon, the son of Prokles. For this reason, they were not considered ‘arkhāgetai’, a title which is accorded to all founders.

Between the competing versions of the Lakonian foundation, Hellanicus favored crediting Eurysthenes and Prokles with the formation of the Spartan state, 34 while Ephorus favored Lycurgus. Hellanicus is an early authority who might be considered to reflect to some degree late 5th-century Spartan opinion. More important, however, is his status as a witness active before the first stirrings of the ‘constitutionalist’ tradition (in Xenophon’s politeia and perhaps in the lost treatises of Pausanias and Thibron). There are longstanding textual problems with this passage, including restorations of two critical words ἀρχηγέτας and οἰκισταῖς; however, they are unanimously printed by modern editors and represent a consensus on the restoration of the text. 35 According to Ephorus (through Strabo), the Spartans in his day only sacrificed

He is virtually alone in doing so, though their position as oikistai in the return of the Herakleidai would make it a logical assumption, as Ephorus’ detailed rebuttal implies; for an explanation, see Andrewes 1938, 99–100. 35 Cf. Jacoby 1923, 361 on FGH 582 T 3; also David 1979; Malkin 1987, 242. 34

THE LYSANDREIA

115

and performed yearly rites to Lycurgus 36 and ignored Eurysthenes and Prokles, even though they were the founders (καίπερ οἰκισταῖς γενομένοις). The identification of a Spartan king as an arkhāgetēs is suggestive. 37 The title arkhāgetēs is properly applied to either the founder of a colony as a synonym for oikistēs, or as a cult title for a god in his or her role as ‘first leader’ or protector of a polis. 38 Apollo in his role as the patron of colonization and foundations is the archetype. 39 An oikistēs would be responsible for the original apportionment (klēroi) and organization of the new polis and would receive posthumous honors as a hero. 40 Spartan kings retained significant powers as both the military heads of state and hereditary chief priests. 41 The kings had received the ‘most select land’ in the 36

64–70.

On the cult of Lycurgus, see Wide 1893, 281–5 and Oliva 1971,

I propose to believe that arkhāgetēs was applied to the kings of Sparta meaningfully as descendants of Prokles and Eurysthenes, and not to edge away from its valence as though it were used technically or nominally. Note that Jeffery’s proposal 1961, 145 to restore Ephorus FGH 70 F 118 (see below) with ὅθε[ν οὐδ' ὡς ἡρώας] instead of ὅθε[ν οὐδ' ἀρχηγέτας] is unnecessary. 38 E.g. Athena at Athens (Ar. Lys. 644) and Artemis at Magnesia in Asia (SEG 9.3) are worshiped as the ἀρχαγέτις. Herakles at Sparta (IG XIV 600 with Xen. Hell. 6.3.6); Tlepolemus at Rhodes (Pin. Ol. 7.78–80); Erikhthonios at Athens (Strab. 13.1.48 C604); the Attic eponymous heroes (Dem. 43.66). See also the Themistocles decree ML 23.9, and Parker 2005, 71, with evidence from Sounion, Rhamnous, Aixone (IG II2 1356) and Phegaia (IG II2 1356). Generally, on the arkhāgetēs, see Malkin 1987, 241–60; Figueira (forthcoming) 10–12 with nt. 47. 39 E.g. Apollo with Battos or Aristoteles of Cyrene (Pin. Pyth. 5.60; fr. 140a58); Thoukles’ foundation at Sicilian Naxos (Thuc. 6.3.1); Phot. s.v. ἀρχηγέται α 2926; Hesych. s.v. ἀρχηγέται α 7583. 40 E.g., Xen. Hell. 7.3.12; cf. the Dolonci and their treatment of Miltiades in Hdt. 6.38. For Tlepolemus of Rhodes and Arkhesilaos of Cyrene, see below, pp. 135-6. See generally Malkin 1987, 241–50; Dougherty 1993, 15–27. 41 Including (e.g.) the diabatēria, a ceremony for carrying sacred fire from the altar of Zeus Agētor for sacrifice when a king led an army across 37

116

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

perioecic communities, perhaps in their guise as founders and apportioners. 42 It is arguable that their status as arkhāgetai was also connected with the important royal timai that authorized their selection of ambassadors called pythioi for conducting business with the Delphic oracle. 43 Strikingly, no Spartiate was allowed to touch a ruling king, while all, except the ephors, were required to stand in the king’s presence. 44 Perhaps most relevant are their posthumous rites: kings were given ostentatious funerals that included mass mobilization and lamentation. If killed in war, an image (εἴδωλον) of the king was prepared and taken to the grave in a decked-out bier in place of his remains. The hypothesis is controversial whether this veneration extended to affording a Spartan king cult worship after his death. 45 These privileges of the Spartan kings likely originated from their supposed status as descendants of the original oikistai of a prehistorical Spartan community, in some real sense a Dorian ‘colony’ legitimized by Apollo. 46 This connection can be seen in

the border: see Xen. Lak. Pol. 13.2–4; Thuc. 5.54, 116.3, with Lipka 2002, 211–15 and Hornblower CT 3.143–4. 42 Xen Lak. Pol. 13.3: καὶ γῆν δὲ ἐν πολλαῖς τῶν περιοίκων πόλεων ἀπέδειξεν ἐξαίρετον τοσαύτην. 43 Cf. Hdt. 6.57.2; Xen. Lak. Pol. 15.4, with Parker 1989, 154–6. Cf. also the relationship and bargain of the kings and the oracular Iamidae before Platea in Hdt. 9.3.3, with Powell 2010, 90–5 and 111–17 on Lysander’s mantis. 44 Touching: Plut. Agis. 19.9. For standing, see Xen. Lak. Pol. 15.6; Hdt. 2.80, Plut. Lyc. 20.15; the practice is a deliberate exception to the Spartan custom of standing only in the presence of elders. 45 Xen. Lak. Pol. 15.9: ὡς ἥρωας τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεῖς προτετιμήκασι. This could either mean a simple recapitulation and public affirmation of their Heraklid lineage as in Parker 1988, or a full blown ‘hero cult’ during and after death as in Cartledge 1988. On the role of the εἴδωλον, see Richer 2012, 178–95, 225–38; for lamentation see Hdt. 6.56– 60, with Cartledge 1987, 331–43. 46 Note Pin. Pyth. 5.63–72; Isth. 7.14: Δωρίδ᾽ ἀποικίαν οὕνεκεν ὀρθῷ/ ἔστασας ἐπὶ σφυρῷ Λακεδαιμονίων. Cf. Callim. Hymn. 2.72–3: Σπάρτη τοι

THE LYSANDREIA

117

Thucydides’ account of the Agiad king Pleistoanax’s planned return from exile in 422 (Thuc. 5.16.2–4): τὴν γὰρ πρόμαντιν τὴν ἐν Δελφοῖς ἐπῃτιῶντο αὐτὸν πεῖσαι μετ' Ἀριστοκλέους τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ὥστε χρῆσαι Λακεδαιμονίοις ἐπὶ πολὺ τάδε θεωροῖς ἀφικνουμένοις, Διὸς υἱοῦ ἡμιθέου τὸ σπέρμα ἐκ τῆς ἀλλοτρίας ἐς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀναφέρειν, εἰ δὲ μή, ἀργυρέᾳ εὐλάκᾳ εὐλαξεῖν· χρόνῳ δὲ προτρέψαι τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους φεύγοντα αὐτὸν ἐς Λύκαιον διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ποτὲ μετὰ δώρων δοκήσεως ἀναχώρησιν, καὶ ἥμισυ τῆς οἰκίας τοῦ ἱεροῦ τότε τοῦ Διὸς οἰκοῦντα φόβῳ τῷ Λακεδαιμονίων, ἔτει ἑνὸς δέοντι εἰκοστῷ τοῖς ὁμοίοις χοροῖς καὶ θυσίαις καταγαγεῖν ὥσπερ ὅτε τὸ πρῶτον Λακεδαίμονα κτίζοντες τοὺς βασιλέας καθίσταντο. They charged that he and his brother Aristokles had convinced the priestess at Delphi to give oracles to the Spartan delegations which had come on multiple official visits, commanding them to bring home the seed of the demigod son of Zeus from abroad, or else they would have to plough with a ploughshare of silver. He was exiled because he was supposed to have been bribed to retreat from Attica, and, through fear of the Spartans, half of his house was inside the temple of Zeus. So in the end, he had induced the Spartans in the nineteenth year of his exile to Lykaeon to bring him back with the same choruses and sacrifices as they had used originally when they instituted their kings at the foundation of Sparta.

Pleistoanax, exiled for his suspect withdrawal from Attica in 446, was relying on his ancestral connection to Herakles, ‘the seed of the demigod son of Zeus’ (Διὸς υἱοῦ ἡμιθέου τὸ σπέρμα) to effect his recall to Sparta ‘with the same choruses and sacrifices as they had used originally when they instituted their kings at the foundation of Sparta’ (ὥσπερ ὅτε τὸ πρῶτον Λακεδαίμονα κτίζοντες τοὺς

Καρνεῖε τὸ δὴ πρώτιστον ἔδεθλον/ δεύτερον αὖ Θήρη, τρίτατόν γε μὲν ἄστυ Κυρήνης.

118

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

βασιλέας καθίσταντο). 47 The recovery of his royal status was integrally bound up with his re-establishment as an oikistēs and archāgetēs. The hereditary role of the Spartan kings as arkhāgetai is closely linked to the traditions of other Heraklid oikistai who were active across the Aegean. 48 The various foundation accounts of Rhodes, Syracuse, Corcyra, Epidamnos, and Kos all involved a colonizing member of the Herakleidai from their Dorian mother cities in the Peloponnesus. 49 Just as at Sparta, the ideological thrust of a Heraklid ktistic narrative would focus on the prestige of the aristocratic oikistēs and his individual descendants who retained their authority and timai through a genealogical connection to an ancestral founder. For example, according to the foundation tradition of Rhodes, the Tirynthian Heraklid Tlepolemus settled his subjects in Ialysos, Kamiros, and Lindos ‘arranging his tribes in threes’ and was then subsequently honored as an arkhāgetēs, given a sanctuary, and celebrated ‘as a god’ at the Tlāpolemeia – a cult festival created in his honor. 50 For this episode, see especially Lupi 2014; Cartledge 1987, 99–100; and Hornblower CT 2.465–6. For the traditional timai of divinized mortals in the Hellenistic period, see Habicht 1970, 140–59; for choruses as an expression of thanksgiving, cf. Aes. Ag. 22–5 (beacon fire of Troy); Eur. Her. 662–772 (Herakles returning); Bacchyl. 11.112 (in thanksgiving for the curing of the Proetids by Artemis). 48 On the historical value and legitimacy of foundation stories in general, consider Patterson 2010, 22–48; Hall 2008, 483–526. 49 E.g., Pentathlos (Knidos) in the Lipari Islands in DS 22.10.4, for which see Dunbabin 1948, 328–36; Figueira 1984b, 179–206. Dorieus (Sparta) at Eryx in Hdt. 5.43–8. Archias (Corinth) at Syracuse in Thuc. 6.3.2. Phalios (Corinth via Corcyra) at Epidamnus in Thuc. 1.24.2. Founders of the early archaic Corinthian colonies like Archias and Phalios were perhaps always members of the aristocratic Bakkhiadai, for which see Hdt. 5.92; DS 7.9.6 with Salmon 1984, 55–74 and Fragoulaki 2013, 76–8. 50 Hom. Il. 2.653–5. Rhodes and Kos (cf. Hom. Il. 2.676–80) are the sole representatives of Heraklid narratives in Homer, for which note Kirk 1985, 224–7. For the multiple foundation stories of Rhodes, see Strabo 47

THE LYSANDREIA

119

The Heraklid foundation narrative par excellence was the story of their own ‘return’ to the Peloponnesus. 51 According to Apollodorus, 52 after the sack of Oikhalia and the death of Herakles on Oita, his children were exiled by Eurystheus and wandered throughout Greece, some to Marathon 53 and some to Aigimios, the king of Doris near Parnassus. 54 After the defeat and death of Eurystheus and the Tegean king Ekhemos, 55 the Herakleidai eventually crossed the Corinthian gulf successfully, and occupied the Peloponnesus. At the end of the campaign, the brothers sacrificed to Zeus and divided the Peloponnesus into three lots (klēroi): Temenos received Argos, Kresphontes received Messenia, and the sons of Aristodemus by Argeia, Eurysthenes and Prokles, 14.2.6–7 C653–4; DS 5.58; Thuc. 7.56.6, where the Rhodians are Ἀργεῖοι γένος. On Tlepolemus’ cult see Pin. Ol. 7. 72–7, 78–9: ἵσταται Τιρυνθίων ἀρχαγέτᾳ/ ὥσπερ θεῷ with Prinz 1979, 78–97; Malkin 1994, 36–8; Dougherty 1993, 120–35. 51 On the historicity and chronology of the arrival of the first Dorian-speaking settlers after the collapse of the Mycenean civilization, see especially Chadwick 1975, 805–19; Hammond 1975, 678–712; Hall 1997, 111–31. On Lakonia, see Cartledge 1979, 75–101; Coldstream 1977, 157–64; Kiechle 1963, 1–29; Prinz 1979, 212–15 (including references to earlier scholarship such as that of G. Busolt and E. Meyer). On the subsequent Dorian diaspora across the Aegean (Melos, Thera, Crete, the Dodecanese) see Kiechle 1963, 67–95; Vanschoonwinkel 2008, 134–9. 52 DS 4.37.3, 57–58; Apollod. 2.8.1–5. For a comprehensive list of sources, see Prinz 1979, T 131–92. For analysis, see Fowler 2013, 334–46, 590–602. 53 E.g. Hdt. 9.27.2; Lys. 2.11–16; Isoc. 4.54–60, 5.34; Dem. 60.8; cf. also Aes. Heraclidae TrGF F 73b–77. 54 For Aigimios, see DS 4.37.3–4, 4.58.6; Tyrt. W2 F 2.12–15; Ephorus FGH F 116. See Huxley 1969, 107–9 on the Hesiodic Aigimios M/W F 294–301, comparing with F 233 where Merkelbach and West propose a Hesiodic epic with Tlepolemus and Rhodes as its subject. For the adoption of Hyllos as recompense for a promise made by Aigimios to Herakles, see DS 4.37.3, 58.6, with Hammond 1975, 696–9. For Prinz 1979, 231, 253–77, Aigimios is simply a later addition to the return. 55 Hekataios FGH 1 F 30; DS 4.57; Apollod. 2.8.1.

120

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

received Lakonia. 56 These two became, respectively, the fathers of Agis and Eurypon, eponyms of the twin Aigiad and Eurypontid kingship lines at Sparta. While the narrative of the return can be read simply as a ‘charter myth’ for the Dorian ethnos, 57 and its ability to project ξυγγένεια between mother city (the Dorian mētropolis of central Greece) and its Peloponnesian offshoots (including Lakonia proper), 58 it also – and perhaps more relevantly within Sparta – had the structural potential to determine the identity of a legitimate arkhāgetēs: that is, to select which internal, Heraklid lineage received credit for the founding and thus the political organization of Lakonia. By the time of Tyrtaeus (mid 7th century), both the three Dorian phylai (Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyloi) 59 and the Herakleidai could be relevant ideological foci at Sparta. In Tyrtaeus, the recipient of elegy, perhaps an elite or quasi-elite symposiast, is urged to remember that he is of the lineage of Herakles before he goes into battle, 60 while the diction here also posits a clear contrast between the Dorians, ‘we who arrive’ (ἀφικόμεθα) and the Herakleidai who are gifted the island of Pelops by Zeus to rule. 61

The sources for division of Temenos, and the trick of the Messenian Kresphontes are Soph. Aj. 1283–7; Pin. Pyth. 5.69–72, Paus. 3.1.5–8, Apollod. 2.8.4, Polyaen. 1.6. Cf. Prinz 1979, 309–13; Luraghi 2008, 46–61. According to Paus. 2.19.1, 4.3.3–6, Temenos helped Kresphontes with his trick; for the narrative of the troubled rule of Kresphontes, see Isoc. Arch.; Pl. Leg. 683c–d; Eur. Kresphontes TGrF (39) F 448–459, and Paus. 4.1, with Pearson 1962, 403–7 and Figueira 1999. Cf. also the Spartan King lists at Hdt. 7.204 and 8.131. 57 E.g., Hall 1997, 114–28; 2002, 143–5. 58 There is of course much emphasis placed on ξυγγένεια in colonial contexts in Thucydides, e.g. Hornblower CT 2.61–81; Fragoulaki 2013, 32–57. 59 Tyrt. W2 F 19.8–10. 60 Tyrt. W2 F 11.1–2. 61 Tyrt. W2 F 2.12–15: Ζεὺς Ἡρακλείδαις⌋ ἄστυ δέδωκε τό̣⌊δε,/ οἷσιν ἅμα προλιπ⌋όντες Ἐρινεὸν ⌊ἠνεμόεντα/ εὐρεῖαν Πέλοπ⌋ο⌊ς⌋ νῆσον ἀφικόμ⌊εθα. Cf. Hdt. 8.114.2 with Hall 1997, 56–65; Luraghi 2008, 50–3. 56

THE LYSANDREIA

121

The distinction between two origins emerges as two separate associations, one with the Herakleidai, which connoted a divine right to found and rule, and another with their genealogical association with lineage of king Aigimios, which connoted membership in the Dorian ethnos. 62 Depending on the agenda of person activating the allusion to myth, either of two aspects could be elided. In Herodotus, the Herakleidai are absent from his version of the Dorian immigration, 63 while the story of the Tegean Ekhemos’ final battle with the Temenidai is free of Dorian allusions. Our nominal link between the two systems – the Herakleidai and the family tree of the Dorians – is structural and without the energy of cultural investment: their adoption by king Aigimios. In Euripidean plays such as the Heraclidae and the fragmentary Temenidae/Temenos, we find Athenian acceptance of the legitimacy of the Heraklid occupation of Peloponnesus – that is the Heraklids as oikistai and arkhāgetai – without their accepting all the concomitant claims deriving from the ethnic Dorian chauvinism. However we envisage that archaic Spartans interpreted the function and status of arkhāgetēs, it is clear from Ephorus that the return of the Herakleidai was discussed in the fourth century using the technical language of colonization (Ephorus FGH 70 F 18b): Οὐκ ἄτοπον δ' ἴσως καὶ τοὺς οἰκιστὰς προσθεῖναιτο τῶν τὴν Πελοπόννησον οἰκούντων, οὓς εἶπεν Ἔφορος, τοὺς μετὰ τὴν Ἡρακλειδῶν κάθοδον· Κορίνθου μὲν Ἀλήτην, Σικυῶνος δὲ Φάλκην, Ἀχαΐας δὲ Τισαμενόν, Ἤλιδος δ' Ὄξυλον, Μεσσήνης δὲ Κρεσφόντην, Λακεδαίμονος δ' Εὐρυσθένη καὶ Προκλῆ, Ἄργους δὲ Τήμενον κ[αὶ Κισσόν, τῶν δὲ] περὶ τὴν Ἀκτὴν Ἀγραῖον καὶ Δηιφόντην. It is not irrelevant either to mention also those oikistai who settled the Peloponnese, those whom Ephorus mentions after the return of the Heraklids: Aletes, the founder of Corinth; Phalkes, the founder of Sicyon; Tisamenos, the founder of Achaia; Oxylus, the founder of Elis; Kresphontes, the founder of Messene; Eurysthenes and Prokles, the founders of 62 63

See Nilsson 1986, 68–80; Hall 1997, 56–65; Luraghi 2008, 50–3. Hdt. 1.56.

122

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER Lakedaimon; Temenos and [Kissos,] the founders of Argos; and Agraios and Deïphontes, the founders of the cities on the Argolic peninsula.

Ephorus’ list of Peloponnesian oikistai (τοὺς οἰκιστὰς) include the twins Eurysthenes and Prokles, the original founders of Lakedaimon, Tisamenos, leader of the Achaeans, a non-Dorian people who usually, but not always, are the indigenous defeated opponents of the Herakleidai, Oxylus of Elis, who according to the main tradition is not a descendant of Herakles at all, 64 and Aletes son of Hippotes, the founder of Corinth. 65 Just as historical oikistai made dispositions about heterogeneous groups (including natives), the myths posit the activation of non-Dorian and non-Heraklid prehistoric founders. In the main variant of the ‘Spartan’ portion of the conquest – consonant with the Ephorus passage above – on the eve of departure from Naupaktos, Aristodemos was struck by lightning, necessitating that only Temenos, Kresphontes, and Aristodemos’ twin sons actually crossed the gulf. In contrast, Herodotus tells us that the Spartans themselves believed the lot for Lakonia fell not to the twins but to Aristodemos himself who personally led them to Lakedaimon (Hdt. 6.52.1). 66 Λακεδαιμόνιοι γὰρ ὁμολογέοντες οὐδενὶ ποιητῇ λέγουσι αὐτὸν Ἀριστόδημον τὸν Ἀριστομάχου τοῦ Κλεοδαίου τοῦ Ὕλλου On Oxylus and Sparta, see Ephorus FGH F 115; Plut. Lyc. 1.23; Paus. 5.3.5–4.5, with Prinz 1979, 307–13; Fowler 2013, 335. 65 On Aletes, see Robertson 1980, 4–10; Hammond 1975, 695. The main sources are Apollod. 2.8.3; Paus. 1.5.2, 2.4.3, 5.18.8, 40.5–6, 10.10.1; ΣPin. Nem. 7.105 Drach. 155a; Str. 8.8.5 C366; DS 7.9.2; Theopompus FGH 115 F 357; Hes. M/W F 252.3. 66 Cf. the idiosyncratic position of Hellanicus in Ephorus FGH 70 F 118 and below, pp. 165–6, where the impulse is the same. Our only other source for Aristodemos’ personal arrival at Sparta is Xen. Ages. 1, a panegyrical description of the humble house of Agesilaos, who may be considered an unconventional Spartan king, perhaps wanting to distance himself from the traditional rhetoric of Agiadai and perhaps even his own Eurypontidai. Note Cartledge 1987, 114–15. 64

THE LYSANDREIA

123

βασιλεύοντα ἀγαγεῖν σφεας ἐς ταύτην τὴν χώρην τὴν νῦν ἐκτέαται, ἀλλ' οὐ τοὺς Ἀριστοδήμου παῖδας. For according to the Lakedaemonians (though no poet agrees with them in this) it was Aristodemos himself the son of Kleodaios, son of Hyllos, who led them to this land which they now possess, not the sons of Aristodemos.

This discrepancy between the Spartan version and the version of the poets (ὁμολογέοντες οὐδενὶ ποιητῇ) 67 has been explained in a variety of ways. 68 For Luraghi, the transference of the Aristodemodai to Lakonia contrasts the Argive myth of the division with the quintessential Spartan myth of the twin kingship. 69 For Cartledge, it is ‘transparently obvious’ that the Spartans shifted the founding of Lakedaimon closer to Herakles in order to help legitimize their control of the Peloponnesus. 70 However, seen in the context of 5th-century Sparta, it is more likely that the twin-less version of the founding does not arise from an effort to emphasize the importance of the dual lineage of kings but rather to deemphasize it. Despite the potential of the return of the Herakleidai to underwrite the legitimacy of the twin kings as arkhāgetai, in the view of Sparta, encapsulated in the late Classical and Hellenistic constitutions, the credit for the founding of Sparta lay with the lawgiver Lycurgus, not the Agiads and Eurypontids.

LYCURGUS AND THE HERAKLIDS The question of identity of founders was an important one. The record of numerous foundations with multiple oikistai testifies to As Luraghi 2008, 54 rightly notes, this unknown poet must be prior to the Spartan ‘version’. Options include any (supposed) author of a Herakleia (e.g., Panyassis, Pisander, Kinaethon). See Huxley 1969, 105–6; Burkert 1972. 68 Prinz 1979, 286 attributes it to an unwillingness to believe Sparta was founded by infant noncombatants; Calame 1986, 175, followed by Malkin 1994, 19, notes in passing the matrilineal importance of Argeia, and suggests a link to Perseus and Argos. 69 Luraghi 2008, 55. 70 Cartledge 1987, 102. 67

124

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

the extent to which the identity of the ‘true’ founder was capable of manipulation through the claiming or outright creation of an eponymous ancestor. 71 At its core, this manipulation was an extremely common phenomenon: the humble patronymic marking the son’s connection to his father is the simplest case. If we view the patronymic of the living father as the prime identity marker of the closed, familial group and the ethnic eponymous ancestor (for example, Doros) as the prime identity marker of the open, communal group, where ancestry is to a degree fictive, a simple trend emerges: any shift in the identity of the eponymous ancestor forward in time closes the group and any shift backward in time opens it. 72 Hence the endogamous Heraklid aristocracy of Corinth in its early archaic colonization, the Bakkhiadai, have moved the founding ancestor forward, a parallel with relevance for Sparta. 73 This malleable tendency is directed in political terms by a concern, 74 on the one hand, to identify and appropriate the ‘true’ founder of a colony or social system whose decisions would legitimize the distribution of citizenship rights and land (in principle) in perpetuity, and, on the other, limit the participants in such legitimization. Lycurgus’ prominence reflects an ideological struggle won by those who sought the diminution of the powers of the kings and stands as an example of the reinstitutionalization expressed throughout the Spartan politeia. 75 More broadly, the credit for the complex constitutions of Archaic Greece was almost uniformly given to legendary lawgivers, 76 not conquering founder kings or On multiple foundation narratives see Hall 2008; Hornblower 2004, 119–28. 72 Cf. Nagy 1990, 136–7. 73 On the Bakkhiadai, cf. Hdt. 5.92 with Salmon 1984, 55–74. 74 See Calame 2003, 42–65 and Hornblower 2004, 107–13 for how different viewpoints within a single narrative composition (e.g. Pin. Pyth. 4) direct and recontextualize the naming of the foundation of Cyrene by the pair Euphemus and Battos. 75 Cf. Hammond 1950, 22–4; Finley 1981, 25–30. 76 E.g. Kharondas from Katane and Zaleukos from Italian Lokroi on whom, see Aris. Pol. 1274a 23–31; Pl. Resp. 599d–e; DS 12.11–21; Cic. Leg. 71

THE LYSANDREIA

125

communal, populist processes. 77 Lycurgus stood as the countervailing influence to the Heraklids, an alternative source of ‘foundation’ whose lack of chronological fixity enhanced his ideological value. The traditional hereditary rights of the original Heraklid oikistai were partially transferred to the lawgiver who could establish the Spartiate caste as a whole in quasi-egalitarian authority. 78 The traditions of Lycurgus’ role either as guardian of the early Agiad king Leobades in Herodotus or as regent for the Eurypontid king Kharilaos reflect his function as counter-claimant in legitimization. 79 In this context, it is surely significant that the royal houses were not ‘Eurysthenidai’ and ‘Prokleidai’, after the first Heraklid rulers of Lakonia, but ‘Agiadai’ after Agis, the son of Eurysthenes, and ‘Eurypontidai’ after Eurypon, the son of Prokles. Recalling the case of the Bakkhiadai, we suspect a desire at work here to close and institutionalize the royal Heraklid timai possessed by the Agiads and Eurypontids. This closed system (eunomia), founded by Lycurgus, not Aristodemus, subsumed the still legitimate, but reduced, hereditary privileges of the twin kings as founders. 1.57, with Szegedy-Maszak 1978; Hölkeskamp 1992. The fact that Kharondas and Zaleukos are representatives of the western colonies, the locus classicus for Greek colonization, is no coincidence. 77 Cf. Aris. Pol. 1274a 23–31, with Hölkeskamp 1992, 87–117 on the role of the legendary lawgiver in the process of the codification of laws in Archaic Greece. 78 The existence of other landed aristocratic lineages separate from the royal Agiads and Eurypontids is a controversial point. On the distribution of wealth in Archaic and Classical Sparta, cf. de Ste. Croix 1972, 137–8. On an incipient archaic Spartan aristocracy and the specific role of the Theban Aigeidai, see Kiechle 1963, 60–5, 85–90, 133–41; Oliva 1971, 24, 26 with the earlier views cited there (and below 132-5). Cf. Hdt. 7.134, 6.60, with Cartledge 1987, 102–4, on the Talthybiadai who enjoyed some limited hereditary privileges. On the possible preferential selection for the gerousia from noble Spartian genē, especially in contrast with the ephorate, see Aris. Pol. 1294b–c, with de Ste. Croix 1972, 353–4; Rahe 1980, and Rhodes 1981. 79 Hdt. 1.65–6; Plut. Lyc. 3.1–4. On the famously contested chronology, see especially Andrews 1938.

126

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

An echo of this tension between the hereditary privileges of the Heraklid oikistēs and the normative foundation narrative of Lycurgus can be found in Ephorus and his polemic against Hellanicus (FGH 70 F 118 ap. Strab 8.5.5 C366 = 4 F 116): τοὺς μὲν [γὰρ δυναστεῦ]σαι δικαίως, τοὺς δὲ δεξαμένους ἐπ[ήλυδας ἀνθρώ]πους, δι' ἐκείνων δυναστεῦσαι· ὅθε[ν οὐδ' ἀρχηγέτας] νομισθῆναι ὅπερ πᾶσιν ἀποδέδοτα[ι οἰκισταῖς. Παυ]σανίαν τε τῶν Εὐρυπωντιδῶν ἐκπεσόν[τα ὑπὸ τῆς] οἰκείας ἐν τῇ φυγῇ συντάξαι λόγ[ον κατὰ τοῦ Λυκούρ]γου νόμων ὄντος τῆς ἐκβαλούση[ς αὐτὸν αἰτίου, καὶ] τοὺς χρησμοὺς λέγειν τοὺς δοθέντα[ς αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν] πλείστων… For the latter two reigned justly, but the former two, who accepted immigrants [or persons of non-indigenous stock] into the country, maintained their power through them. For this reason, they were not considered ‘Arkhēgetai’, a title which is accorded to all founders. And Pausanias, who went into exile owing to the enmity of the other royal house, the Eurypontids, while an exile composed a book concerning the laws of Lycurgus, because Lycurgus belonged to the house that had banished him, in which book he recounts even the oracles which Lycurgus received from …< text corrupted>

I have already noted how Hellanicus, as represented here, attributed nomothesia at Sparta to the kings. Moreover, we are also told that the reason the sons of Eurysthenes and Prokles – Eurypon, and Agis – and not the founding twins themselves were considered the eponymous ancestors of the two royal lines (Prokleidai and Eurysthenidai) is that the Lakedaimonians wanted to distance them from the title of archāgetēs which by rights should have been theirs and which applies to all founders (ὅπερ πᾶσιν ἀποδέδοτα[ι οἰκισταῖς). Even if, improbably, this passage did not seem to us as indicative of later disputes on related issues, the existence of another tradition in a further fragment of Ephorus would be clinching (FGH 70 F 117): ὑπακούοντας δ᾽ ἅπαντας τοὺς περιοίκους Σπαρτιατῶν ὅμως ἰσοτίμους εἶναι, μετέχοντας καὶ πολιτείας καὶ ἀρχείων [καλεῖσθαι δὲ Εἵλωτας]. Ἆγιν δὲ τὸν Εὐρυσθένους ἀφελέσθαι τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν καὶ συντελεῖν προστάξαι τῆι Σπάρτηι.

THE LYSANDREIA

127

Although the Perioikoi (‘those who dwelt around (sc. Sparta)’) were all subject to the Spartiates, they enjoyed equal rights and participated both in the citizenship as well as in the public offices. However, Agis, the son of Eurysthenes, took away these equal rights and ordered them to pay tribute to Sparta.

Here Agis, founder and eponym of the Agiadai, is assigned responsibility for Spartiate supremacy within Lakedaimon in language that seems pejorative and out of spirit with the praise which he and Eurypon receive in F 118. Just as with Lycurgus, the credit, blame and legitimacy of any current apportioning within Spartan society – either from the perspective of the ruling elite or constitutionalist reformers – is tightly connected with a desire to identify its original founder and source. Moreover, amid the discussion of the privileges given Lycurgus in preference to the twin kings, we learn that Pausanias had polemicized for or against ‘the laws of Lycurgus’, 80 while in exile for failing to assist Lysander at the battle of Haliartos in 395. 81 Pausanias, as surrogate for his exiled father and as reigning Agiad king, was a major figure of the late 5th and early 4th centuries. The tenor and aims of Pausanias’ pamphlet are deeply obscure and, therefore, fascinating. 82 Here, I would simply call attention to the It is famously uncertain whether this pamphlet was pro-Lycurgan (as the context of Ephorus implies) or anti-Lycurgan (as the manuscript reading implies). I believe the former more likely, as do Cartledge 1987, 134; David 1979; 1985. 81 Pausanias was exiled by a jury consisting of his Eurypontid counterpart Agesilaos, the gerousia, and the ephors; see Xen. Hell. 3.5.25; Paus. 3.5.6; DS 14.89.1; Plut. Lys. 30.1, with Schaeffer RE s.v. Pausanias (26) 18.2 2579–81; Parke 1945; Oliva 1971, 180–4; Cartledge 1987, 134–5; Richer 1994, 25–43. Jacoby 1923, 361, on FGH 582 T 3 identifies the ephorate (Aris. Pol. 1301b17) as the likely target of Pausanias’ propaganda. On the trials of Spartan kings and the ephors’ role therein, see de Ste. Croix 1972, 350–3; David 1985, 131–40. Note also the convergence of exilic contexts with much of the expressed Heraklid foundation rhetoric (e.g. Pleistoanax in Thuc. 5.16.2). 82 The many interpretations of Pausanias pamphlet have mostly centered on the oracles, traditionally said to have been given to Lycurgus 80

128

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

context in which Ephorus mentions the affair. While the ire of Pausanias was most likely aimed at the ephorate, his program would also likely have included adjustments in favor of recognizing the kings as the true sources of the Spartan polity. Did Pausanias’ animus lead him to argue that undue, arrogating influence from the ephorate had underwritten the rise of the thoroughly illegitimate Lysander and his Eurypontid protégé Agesilaos? In his advocacy, this string of usurpers needed to be checked, and Pausanias restored, just like his father Pleistoanax had been, that is, in his reassertion in the place of a king as arkhāgetēs. Further attention to Ephorus’ narrative emphasis can help us understand the relevance of identifying the ‘true’ arkhāgetēs of Sparta to Lysander’s policy. The topic at issue was the inclusion of foreigners in the first years during or after the foundation of Lakonia: Eurysthenes and Prokles included foreigners and maintained their rule through them, while Eurypon and Agis did not and ruled well (τοὺς μὲν [γὰρ δυναστεῦ]σαι δικαίως.) Thus, the general drift of the Agiad Pausanias’ propaganda was likely to hearken back to a time of good government (eunomia) when foreigners – whatever that meant 83 – were not assimilated or tolerated. In both Ephorus’ (as according to Strabo) and Pausanias’ Periegesis, the Heraklid conquest of Lakonia almost must hinge axiomatically on the treatment of heterogeneous elements and their inclusion or non-inclusion in the foundation. 84 The ‘bad

and perhaps mentioned in Tyrt. W2 F 4.2, where the intermediary is famously unknown. See especially Kiechle 1963, 220; David 1979; Richer 1994, 25–43. 83 The 5th-century Athenian stress on Sparta’s rejection of foreigners (including the practice of ξενηλασία) may be juxtaposed with (as here in Ephorus) (1) the mixing of peoples in a colonial situation, balanced by the concomitant necessity for ejection from the resultant social order (cf. especially the colonization of Thera below with ML 20) and (2) a retrojected Lycurgan insistence on ‘cultural purity’ couched in monetary, social and moral terms; see Figueira 2003, 44–74. 84 Ephorus FGH F 117, 118; Paus. 3.2.5–7. In Ephorus FGH F 116, a schematically similar treatment of Kresphontes’ founding of Messenia is

THE LYSANDREIA

129

governance’ of Eurysthenes and Prokles was – according to Ephorus – characterized by including foreigners, the native Achaeans who became Perioeci (dwellers-around). 85 In contrast with these deviant leaders, the ‘good governance’ of Agis, son of Eurysthenes was characterized by the final coherent stratification of Spartan society into fully citizen Spartiates and secondary Perioeci. The Agiad dispensation definitely (as far as Pausanias was concerned) encompassed a marginalization of any other elite Heraklid lineages of Sparta, including the line of Lysander, son of Aristokritos. Refoundation of a Dorian polis evoked the Heraklid foundation of Lakonia as fundamentally an opportunity to recalibrate social roles. The correct apportionment of land to legitimate citizens was not only grist for Pausanias’ factional rhetoric but was also a mechanism of control in any new foundation: allocation was the responsibility of the oikistēs, who was arkhāgetēs of the new community. 86 Since Sparta was itself a Dorian ktisis, led by the Herakleidai, the Spartan drive to migrate abroad was motivated not by an absolute lack of physical resources such as food or land, 87 but by the agitation of groups lacking political rights presented, on which see van Wees 2003, 48–9; Luraghi 2003, 124–35; 2008, 61–7. 85 Ephorus FGH F 117: ὑπακούοντας δ᾽ ἅπαντας τοὺς περιοίκους Σπαρτιατῶν ὅμως ἰσοτίμους εἶναι, μετέχοντας καὶ πολιτείας καὶ ἀρχείων [καλεῖσθαι δὲ Εἵλωτας]. Ἆγιν δὲ τὸν Εὐρυσθένους ἀφελέσθαι τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν καὶ συντελεῖν προστάξαι τῆι Σπάρτηι. Cf. Figueira 1999, 218– 19 on the possible ramifications of isotimia for the Perioeci in terms of Messenian dissidence. On the Perioeci generally, see Kiechle 1963, 95– 115; Oliva 1971, 55–63; Cartledge 1987, 15–16; Figueira 1999. 86 See Figueira 2008, 427–9 on the fundamentally aristocratic basis for land distribution in colonization. On the economic impact of partitioning sacred spaces i.e. temenai, see Malkin 1987, 138–41. 87 On understanding the traditional and obviously varying (e.g. Thera below) motives for Greek colonization (trade, famine, stasis) see Graham 1982, 157–9; Dougherty 1993, 15–17. In its early history, Sparta actually had more land than it could use. Note Thuc. 4.3.2–3 with Figueira 1986, 168–75.

130

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

in the prevailing Lycurgan status quo. The settlement of such groups would have to be represented by marginalized elites competing for power. For example, Lysander had undoubtedly innovated with the institution of Helotage, probably enlisting Helot naval personnel and elevating Helots to positions of high authority abroad, 88 and just as with the regent Pausanias, this must have been an element of the case made against him by his enemies. 89 The terms of this elite competition were dictated by the claims of the Agiads and Eurypontids to be sole Heraklid archāgetai. Thus, conceivably any venture abroad, even if – or especially if – legitimated by protocol or strategic considerations, would be a latent threat to the entrenched interests of the twin kings. Conversely, any explicit threat to the ruling prerogatives of the Agiads and Eurypontids – such as the creation of the Lysandreia – would have to create a space outside the composite Lycurgan system, which was geographically defined by Lakonia and characterized by the patrilineal rights of the twin kings as colonial founders.

HERAKLID ARKHĀGETAI AND SPARTAN COLONIZATION The traditions surrounding the Partheniai at Taras (Tarentum) well demonstrate the stakes of Spartan colonization. A colonial venture was an opportunity to control a new division of klēroi and thus betokened a stratification of social roles across a wide spectrum of society. This re-stratification tended to coalesce around questions of lineage and parentage. There were two variants of the story. 90 According to the 5th-century historian Antiochus of Syracuse, the Partheniai were Spartan adolescents who had not taken part in the Cf. Myron FGH 106 F 1 with Figueira 1993, 132. The Theban ambassadors at Athens before Haliartos might refer to Neodamodeis (?) or perhaps to Lysander’s Helot cronies (or to the man himself?): Xen. Hell. 3.5.12: ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν εἵλωτας ἁρμοστὰς ἀξιοῦσι καθιστάναι, τῶν δὲ συμμάχων ἐλευθέρων ὄντων, ἐπεὶ ηὐτύχησαν, δεσπόται ἀναπεφήνασιν, on which see Parke 1930, 54. For the regent Pausanais and the Helots cf. Thuc. 1.132, with Hornblower CT 1.219. 90 Antiochus FGH 555 F 13; Ephorus FGH 70 F 216; cf. Paus. 10.10.6–8; Just. Epit. 3.4.8. 88 89

THE LYSANDREIA

131

second Messenian war and were thus enslaved as Helots. These children – whose mothers must have been Spartan citizens 91 – organized a conspiracy in order to gain their political rights forcibly. Their leader Phalanthos, the future oikistēs betrayed the conspiracy, 92 but then was allowed to obtain oracles from Delphi stating that the conspirators were not to be killed, but settled in Italy at Taras to form what was to become the sole archaic Spartan colony. On the other hand, according to Ephorus, the Partheniai were derived from young Spartans sent home during the first Messenian war in order to impregnate the Spartan women who had come of age during the war and thus prevent a dearth of births. The children from this union were called ‘partheniai’ (οἱ μὲν παῖδες ὠνομάσθησαν Παρθενίαι) and were excluded from citizenship because born out of wedlock. They then plotted with the Helots to regain full rights and, when their conspiracy was discovered, were persuaded by their fathers to depart and found a colony. The differences between the two accounts have been variously interpreted, but Ephorus’ lack of Phalanthos, 93 the aristocratic oikistēs sanctioned by Delphi, would seem to de-legitimize the foundation and establish his version as the Spartan one and the Antiochan version as Tarantine. 94 Antiochus’ version legitimates the Tarantines: it emphasizes the origins of the colonists as disaffected (!) Helots, born from citizen Spartan mothers and Cf. Xen. Hell. 5.3.9: νόθοι τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν, μάλα εὐειδεῖς τε καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει καλῶν οὐκ ἄπειροι. At least in the early 4th century, the illegitimate sons of male Spartiates were integrated into Spartan society. 92 On Phalanthos as founder, see Malkin 1987, 216–21. 93 It is possible, but unlikely, that Phalanthos was a Helot. For the replacement of Phalanthos with the ‘democratic’ oikistēs Taras in the aftermath of the defeat of the Tarantines by the Iapygians in 473 BCE (Hdt. 7.170.3, DS 11.52). Cf. Hall 2008, 416–17. 94 So Musti 1988, 159–65 and Hall 2008, 412–21, contra Nafissi 1999, 254–5 and Luraghi 2003, 115–17, who notes the unambiguous Helot identity of the partheniai in Antiochus’ version. Cf. also the Messenian (Helot) diaspora recorded in Paus. 4.14.1 (Sikyon, Argos, Arkadia, Eleusis); 4.23.1–10 (Pylos, Messene), and 4.24.2–3 (Rhodes). 91

132

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

connects them to a single male leader capable of creating cohesion and legitimately interacting with Delphi. 95 Contested royal status and matrilineal claims to citizenship also loom large in our accounts of the Dorian foundations of Thera and Cyrene. 96 The tradition involves two families, the Theban Aigeidai and the Minyai from Lemnos. According to Herodotus’ ‘authentic’ Spartan version of the return of the Herakleidai, Aristodemos, after his arrival in Lakonia, married Argeia, the greatgreat-granddaughter of the Theban Polyneices, 97 who was the sister of Theras and mother of the future kings Eurysthenes and Prokles (Hdt 6.52.5): Μετὰ δὲ χρόνον οὐ πολλὸν Ἀριστοδήμῳ τεκεῖν τὴν γυναῖκα, τῇ οὔνομα εἶναι Ἀργείην· θυγατέρα δὲ αὐτὴν λέγουσι εἶναι Αὐτεσίωνος τοῦ Τεισαμενοῦ τοῦ Θερσάνδρου τοῦ Πολυνείκεος· ταύτην δὴ τεκεῖν δίδυμα, ἐπιδόντα δὲ τὸν Ἀριστόδημον τὰ τέκνα νούσῳ τελευτᾶν. Shortly afterwards, his wife Argeia (who is said to have been the daughter of Autesion, the son of Tisamenos, grandson of Thersander and great-grandson of Polyneices) gave birth to twins. Aristodemos lived to see the children but then died of sickness.

Argeia’s family originated in Thebes and, according to Pindar, arrived with the Herakleidai. 98 In Herodotus, they gained their eponym 99 only after the founding of Sparta, through a grandson of The timai of the Spartan kings included privileged interaction with Delphi (see above p. 116). On the importance of a potential founder’s ability to communicate with Apollo, see Malkin 1987, 17–91; Dougherty 1993, 18–21, 45–57. 96 On the literary tradition for the colonization of Thera, see Jeffery 1961; Kiechle 1963, 82–95; Austin 2008, 192–201. 97 Hdt. 4.147; Paus. 4.3.3 with Malkin 1994, 100–6. 98 Pin. Pyth. 5.72–6, Isth. 7.14–17; Ephorus FGH 70 F 16 with Kiechle 1963, 22. 99 Hdt. 4.149; cf. ΣPin. Isth. 7.12 Drach. 18b–c. Hdt. 5.58–61 famously connects Cadmus and the Labdakids from whom the Aigeidai are descended with Phoenicia and the invention of the Greek alphabet. 95

THE LYSANDREIA

133

Theras the future oikistēs of Thera, named Aigeus. 100 The Aigeidai were prominent in early Spartan society. 101 They collaborated in the war to absorb the Spartiate town of Amyklai, and it was Theras who served as the guardian of the twins Prokles and Eurysthenes during their minority. 102 According to Pausanias, Euryleon, one of the Aigeidai, commanded at the side of the kings during the first Messenian war. 103 The position of Argeia as the wife of Aristodemos in Herodotus and the evidence of Pindar, 104 suggest that originally the Aigeidai were – at some level – virtually considered peers of the twin kings but subsequently lost their position and were marginalized politically. This fall was likely framed and promulgated at Sparta as the rightful confirmation of the patrilineal succession of the Agiads and Eurypontids: Argeia’s marriage with Aristodemos did elevate her Aigeid kinsmen. Note, however, for our purposes, how accounts of the Aigeidai show their intermeshing into the ktistic mythology of Sparta. In Herodotus, Theras and the Aigeidai are preceded by the story of the Minyai. Descendants of the famous Argonauts and the

There were also traditions that the Aigeidai were originally from Athens or Aigina, cf. Aris. F 539 Gigon; ΣIsth. 7.12 Drach. 18c; ΣPyth. 5.72 Drach. 101a with Malkin 1994, 102. These traditions have parallels (drawn explicitly by Ephorus) with the Athenian aid both to the Herakleidai (see above) and the Labdakid Gephyraeoi. Note the Kleisthenian Αἰγηὶς φυλή, with Harpokr. s.v. Αἰγεῖδαι (named for Aigeus son of Pandion). 100 According to Hdt. 4.149, Aigeus founded the shrine of Oedipus and the Furies to stop his children from dying; according to Paus. 9.5.8, Aigeus’ father Autesion founded the Theban cult of Oedipus and the Semnai at Sparta because of a crime of his father Tisamenos; see Hdt. 4.149, 6.52.5; Paus. 3.15.6–8, 9.5.8; and Apollod. 2.8.2, with Malkin 1994, 100–2. 101 Hdt. 4.149: φυλὴ μεγάλη ἐν Σπάρτῃ. 102 Pin. Isth. 7.15, Aris. F 539 Gigon. See Huxley 1962, 22–3. 103 Paus. 4.7.8. 104 Pin. Pyth. 5.72–76.

134

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

Lemnian women, 105 the Minyai were ejected from Lemnos and took refuge in ‘the ancient land of their Achaean fathers, the Tyndaridai, Kastor and Polydeukes’. 106 They camped on Taygetos, lit a fire, and when they were interrogated, demanded to ‘settle down, have a share of the land and in the privileges of government’. 107 The Spartans integrated them into their society, but subsequently were betrayed. ‘In the pride of their newly won privileges, they (sc. the Minyai) began to go too far, even claiming a share in the royal power, and doing other things which weren’t holy’. 108 The Spartans decided to eject and kill the traitorous foreigners, who, in the end, were saved by their Spartan wives who, dressed up as men, smuggled them out of prison. 109 Theras then Cf. Plut. Quaest. Graec., Mor. 296b–d and De Mul. Vir., Mor. 247a– f. where the Minyai aid Helots in revolting and settle in Melos, not in Thera. 106 On the Dioscuri and their relationship to Heraklid royal cult, cf. Xen. Hell. 6.3.6: Ἡρακλεῖ τε τῷ ὑμετέρῳ ἀρχηγέτῃ καὶ Διοσκούροιν τοῖν ὑμετέροιν πολίταιν. Cf. also Hdt. 5.75 with Parker 1989, 142–150. Sanders 1992, 205–10, interprets the twins in terms of hoplite ideology, which was created after the second Messenian war. See also Hershkowitz 235-7 below. 107 Hdt. 4.145: δέεσθαι δὲ οἰκέειν ἅμα τούτοισι μοῖράν τε τιμέων μετέχοντες καὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπολαχόντες. 108 Hdt. 4.146: Χρόνου δὲ οὐ πολλοῦ διεξελθόντος αὐτίκα οἱ Μινύαι ἐξύβρισαν, τῆς τε βασιληίης μεταιτέοντες καὶ ἄλλα ποιεῦντες οὐκ ὅσια. 109 The reunion between the Minyai and their Spartan wives recalls and inverts the original myth of the Lemnian women, which dramatizes the separation and then reunion of the married couple as represented by the arrival of a sacred fire from Delos. In this connection see Burkert 1970, 1–16, who adduces the Danaidai as a comparison that is especially apt in a context of colonization and social integration (as here). The episode as a whole should be read in conjunction with the justification for the ejection of the Pelasgians from Lemnos in 461 in Hdt. 6.136–8, 140 (the expansion of the Delian league), with Figueira 1991, 138, 253–6. On the particular symbolic role of fire in colonization, see the excellent treatment of Malkin 1987, 114–34. For the role of intermarriage, see Graham 1982, 155–9; Dougherty 1993, 61–80; Redfield 2003, 291–5. 105

THE LYSANDREIA

135

was chafing at surrendering his regency of Eurysthenes and Prokles, and, in order to avoid bloodshed, he requested that the Minyai accompany him to colonize Thera. 110 Thus, the mixed foundation of Thera included two disaffected groups: the Aigeidai, a Theban genos with matrilineal connections to the Spartan kings, and the Minyai, another nominally Boiotian genos who supposedly claimed the native Peloponnesian Kastor and Polydeuces as their forbears, but were ejected because of their disruptive conduct. 111 The later foundation of Cyrene from Thera, along with the rise of the Battiad dynasty is well attested, but one aspect deserves noting here. As Jeffery states, in the inscription containing the oath of the founder (ὅρκιον τῶν οἰκιστήρων) the parallels to Sparta are striking: both Battos and the Spartan kings are ἡγεμόνες, βασιλεῖς, and ἀρχηγέται. 112 As with all Heraklid founders, the ἀρχηγέται of Cyrene received cult worship and the Aigeidai in their role as Battiad kings have been considered by scholars to have been hereditary priests of Karneian Apollo. 113 Twenty years before the demise of the Battiad dynasty, Pindar composed his fifth Pythian to honor Arkesilas IV for his victory in the four-horse chariot contest of 462. The ode closes with a comparison to his ancestor Battos who, ‘in death now lies apart at the far end of the agora; while living, blessed among men and after his death honored by the people as a hero’. It is possible that not only the original Battos – the arkhāgetēs referred to in the ὅρκιον τῶν οἰκιστήρων – but also his descendants up to and including Arkesilas IV were honored as heroes. That they were perhaps honored as such even in their lifetimes stands as a question equivalent to the debate over the heroization of Spartan kings. 114 It Note also the emphasis on the status of the parents of the Tarantine Partheniai, and Hdt. 1.146 on the foundation of Miletus. 110 Hdt. 4.147. See also the perspective of Paus. 3.21.7 where the expulsion of the Minyae and Aigeidae signals both the birth of the Battiads and the confirmation of the legitimacy of Eurysthenes and Prokles. 111 On this claim, see Kiechle 1963, 25–6. 112 Jeffery 1961, on ML 5 with Graham 1960; Malkin 1994, 106–11. 113 See (e.g.) Malkin 1994, 53, 66. 114 Malkin 1987, 204–16; Currie 2010, 244–56.

136

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

will have relevance as well for our judgment on the 5th-century Spartan oikistai. In Sparta, as we have seen, the title of arkhāgetēs was granted to the first-born sons of the living Agiad and Eurypontid houses, but disaffected claimants to the kingship were not unknown. Three generations before Pausanias’ exile and the composition of his polemic, his great-great-uncle, the Agiad Dorieus had left Lakonia because of conflict with his half-brother the Agiad king Kleomenes. 115 Dorieus was the eldest son of Anaxandridas II and his beloved first wife, while Kleomenes was his first-born to his second wife, whom he was forced to marry by the ephors because they believed his first wife was infertile. 116 Herodotus explicitly tells us that the question was idiosyncratic not systemic, that is, one of personal merit and jealousy on the part of Dorieus, not of the stronger traditional or legitimate claim. 117 According to Herodotus, Dorieus was the finest Spartiate of his generation (ὁ δὲ Δωριεὺς ἦν τῶν ἡλίκων πάντων πρῶτος), 118 while Kleomenes held legitimate power, not through his merits but through his birth (εἶχε τὴν βασιληίην, οὐ κατ' ἀνδραγαθίην σχὼν ἀλλὰ κατὰ γένος). 119 As Hdt. 5.41–8; DS 4.32.3; Paus. 3.16.4–5. For the Dorieus episode see Dunbabin 1948, 348–54; Von Stauffenberg 1960, 181–215; Mastruzzo 1977, 129–47; Figueira 1984b, 188–9; Malkin 1994, 192–219; Hornblower 2004, 103–13; 2007. 116 The complete episode should be read against the story of another of Kleomenes’ rivals, the legitimate Eurypontid king Demaratos (Hdt. 6.64–75). Demaratos was first born and considered illegitimate when he probably was not (one candidate for his father, just like Herakles, was said to be heroized or divine) and was exiled through Kleomenes’ manipulation of the Delphic oracle (Hdt. 6.66). On the entire episode, see Boedeker 1986. Dorieus on the other hand is not, despite his good qualities, the proper heir (he is indubitably the second son, not the first), and thus his ultimate fate is an example – from the Spartan perspective – not of the returning exiled king, but of paying the price (tisis) for his hubris. 117 On the question of Dorieus’ legitimate claim (he had none), see Hornblower 2007, 170–1. 118 Hdt. 5.42. 119 Hdt. 5.39. 115

THE LYSANDREIA

137

soon as Anaxandridas married again, Kleomenes was born and then, immediately afterwards, his first wife gave birth to Dorieus. As the eldest son, Kleomenes, not Dorieus, succeeded Anaxandridas. Dorieus’ ‘claim’ was ultimately expressed as a colonial, Heraklid venture. Without consulting Delphi 120 or observing any of the formalities, Dorieus requested a ‘body’ of Spartiates and organized a colonial campaign to Libya at around 515–14 (αἰτήσας λεὼν Σπαρτιήτας ἦγε ἐς ἀποικίην). 121 The native Makai who lived around the river Kinyps, regarded this as a threat, and drove him out in 512. Upon his return, Dorieus was then advised by a Boiotian named Antikhares to found a Sicilian Herakleia (Ἡρακλείην γῆν ἐν Σικελίῃ). According to an oracle of Laios, ‘all the land of Eryx belonged to the Heraklids, as Herakles himself had acquired it.’ (τὴν Ἔρυκος χώρην πᾶσαν εἶναι Ἡρακλειδέων, αὐτοῦ Ἡρακλέος κτησαμένου). 122 Dorieus accordingly set out with five Spartan co-founders (συγκτίσται), but immediately died upon arrival, while fighting against the allied Carthaginians and Egestans. 123 One of his companions, Euryleon, fared slightly better. After the death of Dorieus, he initiated an autonomous, selfaggrandizing re-foundation campaign, moving south to take Selinous’ colony Minoa (later called Herakleia Minoa), 124 and then See Malkin 1994, 194–6 for the (good) possibility that Dorieus had alternative non-traditional sources for prophecy and legitimacy, e.g. Siwa or a preexisting invitation to colonize. 121 The allocation of a ‘λεὼν’ of Spartiates strongly implies that it was at some level an official colonizing venture (Malkin 1994, 193). On the 100 Athenians (!) who subsequently received a public burial at Sparta, see Paus. 3.16.4 with Dunbabin 1948, 352 nt. 4; Figueira 1984b, 189. 122 Hdt. 5.43. On the legitimacy of this claim (which was not required), the source of which was the ‘oracle of Laios’, see DS 23.1–3; Paus. 3.16.4, 4.36.4, with Malkin 1994, 206. On the possibility that the oracle of Laios was connected to the sons of Aigeus and the Aigeidai at Sparta, see Kiechle 1963, 92, with Paus. 3.15.8. 123 Hdt. 5.46; DS 4.23.3; Paus. 3.16.4. 124 Hdt. 5.46; Polyb. 1.25.9. See Dunbabin 1948, 312; Malkin 1987, 180–1, with Lind. Chron. FGH 532 F 30, 57–8. 120

138

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

‘liberating’ Selinous itself from the tyranny of Peithagoras. Finally, he attempted to seize power himself, and did enjoy it for a while, until the people of Selinous organized a revolt and killed him. 125 Even more to the point, in 424, we find Brasidas – the son of a prominent, but non-Heraklid Spartiate 126 – staging a similar expedition, this time to Thrace. Despite major differences with the Macedonian ruler Perdiccas II, he succeeded in recruiting or capturing a number of Athenian subject allies, including the important Athenian colony of Amphipolis on the Strymon river. The practical influence that Spartan authorities were able to exert over Brasidas during his expedition is unclear. Presumably, just as with Dorieus’ venture, Brasidas’ designs were clearly known at Sparta, if not agreed upon by all or supported in every detail. 127 Thucydides presents his original dispatch to Thrace with two underlying motives (Thuc. 4.81): αὐτόν τε Βρασίδαν βουλόμενον μάλιστα Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἀπέστειλαν προυθυμήθησαν δὲ καὶ οἱ Χαλκιδῆς, ἄνδρα ἔν τε τῇ Σπάρτῃ δοκοῦντα δραστήριον εἶναι ἐς τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐξῆλθε πλείστου ἄξιον Λακεδαιμονίοις γενόμενον. Brasidas himself was sent out by the Spartans mainly at his own desire, although the Chalcidians also were eager to have a man so energetic as he had shown himself whenever there was anything to be done at Sparta, and whose later service abroad proved to be the utmost use to his country.

Hdt. 5.46. Cf. Hornblower 2007, 174, who explicitly compares the behavior of Euryleon with Spartan policy during the Corinthian war. 126 His father was Tellis, one of the signatories on the peace of Nikias in Thuc. 5.19.24. 127 On Brasidas as ‘harmost’, see Parke 1930, 40–3. On the status of the Spartan arkhontes of Herakleia Trachinia, founded in 426 (Thuc. 3.92), see Parke 1930, 38–9, and, generally, Malkin 1994, 221; Hornblower CT 1.501–17 and Fragoulaki 2013, 141–50, who connects the founding of Herakleia Trachinia (rightly) to the intention to strike at the Thraceward district of the Athenian arkhē. Cf. Thuc. 3.92 on Herakleia’s usefulness as a staging point northward. 125

THE LYSANDREIA

139

The eagerness (βουλόμενον μάλιστα) is purposefully contrasted with the wishes of the authorities: on the one hand he is sent out by the Spartans in response to Thracian requests, but, on the other hand, he is quite eager to go. When he arrived at Akanthos, an Andrian colony at the head of the Strymonic gulf, 128 Brasidas told the Akanthian dēmos that he was sent to Thrace with the express purpose of ‘freeing Greece’ (ἐλευθεροῦντες τὴν Ἑλλάδα) and that the authorities at Sparta had sworn ‘great oaths’ (ὅρκοις τε Λακεδαιμονίων καταλαβὼν τὰ τέλη τοῖς μεγίστοις) 129 that any new allies he acquired (that is, the Akanthians) would be autonomous. 130 These oaths must either be genuine reflections of Spartan willingness to cede authority, or, if they are empty rhetoric, they indicate the extent to which Brasidas was willing to act independently to achieve his ends. Whatever his official status, Brasidas received a rapturous welcome in Thrace: at Skione he was given a gold wreath – a traditional Macedonian royal emblem – and treated ‘like an athlete’. 131 However, after the truce of 423, Kleon was dispatched from Athens to retake Amphipolis and in the ensuing battle both generals fell, Brasidas heroically and Kleon at the hands of a Hyrkanian peltast. 132 It is also clear that the expedition itself was a reflection of civil unrest at Sparta and not simply a coolly calculated strategic For the Andrian (Ionian) presence in the Northern Aegean: Thuc. 4.84.1, 88.2, 103.3, with Tiverios 2008, 53–61 on Acanthus in particular. 129 These oaths are later confirmed by Thucydides himself at 4.88. See Hornblower CT 2.50–3, 280–1 on the language of the peace of Nikias (Thuc. 5.18–23.2). On ‘official’ Spartan oaths, see de Ste. Croix 1972, 18– 20; Cartledge 1987, 12–13; Hornblower CT 3.68–9 on Thuc. 5.30.3. 130 Cf. Kallet-Marx 1993, 172, who sees Brasidas’ rhetoric of eleutheria at Akanthos (4.85.1, 85.5, 85.6, 86.1, 86.4, 87.2, 87.4, 87.6) as a specious subtext for the purpose of harming Athenian finances, i.e. tribute = slavery. This was very likely Thucydides’ reading of the situation (cf. the reaction in Athens to the fall of Amphipolis 4.108.1 with Connor 1984, 127–40). 131 Thuc. 4.121.1. 132 Thuc. 5.2, 6–11; cf. Hornblower CT 2.37 with nt. 99 on the epic parallels to the deaths of Kleon and Brasidas. 128

140

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

decision. Spartan society was famously conservative and in many ways, Brasidas was temperamentally the antithesis of a conventional Laconian. 133 The young and energetic general was censured by jealous ‘notables’ (protoi) back home and was refused reinforcements once he arrived in the north. 134 Thucydides’ much discussed characterization of Spartan society as one dominated by ‘guarding against the Helots’ (αἰεὶ γὰρ τὰ πολλὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις πρὸς τοὺς Εἵλωτας τῆς φυλακῆς πέρι μάλιστα καθειστήκει) explicitly contextualizes and explains Brasidas’ venture. 135 The expedition included seven hundred Helots who served as hoplites. Thucydides prefaces their (apparently noteworthy) inclusion with an anecdote: at some unspecified earlier time, the Spartans had summoned two thousand of their most forthcoming and energetic Helots for the expressed purpose of freeing them (ὡς ἠλευθερωμένοι) but instead of that, they were paraded around the holy places (τὰ ἱερὰ) with garlands on their heads and then surreptitiously executed. 136 According to Thucydides, this event was a symptom of what might be called inherent class instability. The Spartans in the late 420s feared a revolution (νεωτερίσωσιν) and were ‘glad to have a good excuse to send some Helots out of the country’.

Note how Brasidas and his ἀρετὴ καὶ ξύνεσις are explicitly contrasted with the ‘rest’ of the Spartans in Thuc. 4.81, with Hornblower CT 2.38–60, 268–9. Brasidas’ semi-providential appearance at Pylos, the language of his speech at Akanthos and his full aristeia at Amphipolis all demonstrably set him apart from other Spartan leaders. 134 Thuc. 4.107.8. Thucydides’ rationale for this decision was the attention paid to recovery of the Spartan prisoners from Pylos. Cf. Brunt 1965, 275; Kallet-Marx 1993, 171. 135 Thuc. 4.80. For discussion, see Gomme 1956, 547; Cartledge 1987, 13, 160–79; Hamilton 1987, 31–41; Talbert 1989, 22–40; and especially Hornblower CT 2.264–5. 136 This amazing story has been the subject of much discussion; see especially Hornblower CT 2.265–7; Hamilton 1987, 34–8; Figueira 1999, 222–3; Jordan 1990, 37–69; Harvey 2004, 199–219; Paradiso 2004, 179– 99. 133

THE LYSANDREIA

141

The protocols of Helot enlistment for Thrace are obscure, and equally so the role of Brasidas in this radical deviation in Spartan treatment of the Helots. It is, however, a natural inference that tapping Helot manpower and Brasidas’ policy of more aggressive prosecution of the war were closely connected. After the death of Brasidas, these seven hundred Helots were manumitted and reappeared at the battle of Mantineia in 418, now strikingly called the Brasideioi, 137 fighting alongside another body of non-Spartiates, the Neodamodeis (new-citizens). 138 The continued identification of the Brasideioi with their leader and subsequent settlement (at Lepreon in Triphylia) suggest that whatever the official motives for their inclusion in the expedition, their bond with Brasidas was one of mutual self-interest not expediency or subjugation. 139 After his death, the Amphipolitans claimed Brasidas as their founder (oikistēs) 140 and worshiped him as a hero (Thuc. 5.11.1–2): μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὸν Βρασίδαν οἱ ξύμμαχοι πάντες ξὺν ὅπλοις ἐπισπόμενοι δημοσίᾳ ἔθαψαν ἐν τῇ πόλει πρὸ τῆς νῦν ἀγορᾶς οὔσης· καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οἱ Ἀμφιπολῖται, περιείρξαντες αὐτοῦ τὸ μνημεῖον, ὡς ἥρωί τε ἐντέμνουσι καὶ τιμὰς δεδώκασιν ἀγῶνας καὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας, καὶ τὴν ἀποικίαν ὡς οἰκιστῇ προσέθεσαν, καταβαλόντες τὰ Ἁγνώνεια οἰκοδομήματα καὶ ἀφανίσαντες εἴ τι μνημόσυνόν που ἔμελλεν αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκίσεως περιέσεσθαι, νομίσαντες τὸν μὲν Βρασίδαν σωτῆρά τε σφῶν γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ἐν τῷ παρόντι ἅμα τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ξυμμαχίαν φόβῳ τῶν Ἀθηναίων θεραπεύοντες, τὸν δὲ Ἅγνωνα κατὰ τὸ πολέμιον τῶν Ἀθηναίων οὐκ ἂν ὁμοίως σφίσι ξυμφόρως οὐδ' ἂν ἡδέως τὰς τιμὰς ἔχειν.

Thuc. 5.67.1; cf. 5.72–3: οἱ ἀπὸ Θρᾴκης Βρασίδειοι στρατιῶται καὶ νεοδαμώδεις μετ' αὐτῶν. 138 Neodamodeis: Thuc. 5.34.1, 67.1, 7.58.3; Xen. Hell. 3.1.4, 3.4.2, 5.2.24. For discussion, see Oliva 1971, 164–74; Cartledge 1987, 39–40. 139 So Figueira 1999, 223. Cf. DS 12.67.3, where the Helots were sent with Brasidas expressly in order to die, an inference from Thucydides and unlikely on its face. For the settlement at Triphylia, see Thuc. 5.34.1. 140 On this passage, see Malkin 1987, 228–32. 137

142

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER After this, all the allies attended in arms and buried Brasidas at public expense in the city, in front of what is now the agora, and the Amphipolitans having enclosed his tomb, ever afterwards sacrifice to him as a hero and have given to him the honor of games and annual offerings. They established him the founder (oikistēs) of their colony and pulled down the buildings of Hagnon and obliterated everything that could be interpreted as a memorial of his [Hagnon] having founded the place; for they considered that Brasidas had been their savior and courting as they did the alliance of Sparta for fear of Athens, in their present hostile relations with the latter they could no longer with the same advantage or satisfaction pay Hagnon his honors.

The people of Amphipolis removed the title of oikistēs from Hagnon and ‘pulled down the buildings of Hagnon 141 and obliterated everything that could be interpreted as a memorial of his (sc. Hagnon) having founded the place’ (καταβαλόντες τὰ Ἁγνώνεια οἰκοδομήματα καὶ ἀφανίσαντες, εἴ τι μνημόσυνόν που ἔμελλεν αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκίσεως περιέσεσθαι). As Hornblower has emphasized, despite Hagnon’s unique status as a living recipient of the honors, these are the traditional timai of an oikistēs. 142 The founder was buried at the edges of, or within, the agora 143 of the The father of Theramenes, he was one of the signatories on the peace of Nikias in 423 and a proboulos along with Sophocles after the Sicilian war, leading up to the Four Hundred. See Thuc. 2.58.1, 6.31.2, 2.95.3. 142 Hornblower CT 2.449–52. 143 In a building complex adjacent to the northeast (Thracian) gates of Amphipolis, a limestone pit grave has been excavated which is likely (despite problems with locating the agora) to have been Brasidas’ grave. It contained a silver larnax with a single grave offering: a laurel wreath of gold. In an adjacent secondary pit, fine Attic black glazed pottery was found dating from the second half of the 5th to the second quarter of the 4th century. See Koukouli-Chrysanthaki 2002, 66–73, with the skeptical Hornblower CT 2.451. Paus. 3.14.1–2 reports a cenotaph of Brasidas near the theatre in Sparta, where agones to both Brasidas and Leonidas were performed annually. 141

THE LYSANDREIA

143

city, and would be honored with an annual festival and sacrifices (ἀγῶνας καὶ ἐτησίους θυσίας), which would serve to mark the time ab urbe condita. 144 In the Sparta of the classical period a tension existed between the pretensions of Lycurgus as primal authority and the selfrepresentations of twin kings to the status of arkhāgetai and their function as the wellspring of the Spartan institutions and diaita. The ‘constitutional’ tradition of historiography on Sparta favored the claims of Lycurgus as nomothetēs and founder to the Spartan politeia, while the practical, if circumscribed, power was limited to the patrilineal Heraklid lineages of the Agiads and Eurypontids. We do not know enough about the status claims of either Dorieus or Brasidas to gauge how far either might have been prepared to advance from his leadership as general, from his willingness to act as a refounder and reshaper of the liberated allied poleis in transcendence of Spartan war aims, and from willingness to contemplate emancipation of Helots in defiance of inveterate ethno-social prejudices. It may be that Brasidas himself had not as yet determined in what sort of Sparta he might want to occupy a leading place. However, Brasidas does appear to have tapped and probably agitated fundamental appreciations at Sparta about charismatic, heroic agency in foundation and refoundation.

THE SAMIAN HERAIA In contrast to the colonial ventures of Dorieus and Brasidas, Lysander’s actions on Samos occurred explicitly in a revolutionary context (one that is recognizable by us, at least in retrospect) and in a situation that was uniquely able to express his assertion of Heraklid ideology. The political environment during the lead-up to Lysander’s arrival was turbulent in the extreme. Nominally an Athenian subject ally, in the aftermath of the Sicilian expedition in The normal Greek practice for ordinary interment was extramural burial. Sparta was the exception. See Plut. Lyc. 27.1 with Richer 2012, 144–9. On the Agora, see ΣPin. Ol. 1.93 Drach. 149a, with Malkin 1987, 194–6, where the reference is to the grave of Pelops in the altis at Olympia. 144

144

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

413, ‘democratic’ factions had gained control of affairs and exiled an aristocratic landowning group (the Geomoroi ‘landsharers’), only to be subsequently deprived of influence in 411 by a portion of their number who had become adherents of Peisander and the incipient oligarchy at Athens. 145 Immediately afterwards, Athenian naval officers who were in practical control of the fleet stationed at Samos and opposed to the Four Hundred, defeated the supporters of the oligarchs and swore an oath along with the Samians to ‘share in the common danger which beset them’. 146 It was this Samian regime which had received the offer of Athenian citizenship for their support after Aigospotamoi and must have been disenfranchised by the ‘one time inhabitants’ brought back by Lysander in 404. 147 That Ionian Samos had close ties to the Dorian Peloponnesus provides a backdrop to this complex situation. 148 Samos was strategically situated less than 1.8 km west of the Ionian coast with Mt. Mycale and the Maiandros delta to the east, while its flanking On the first coup see Thuc. 8.63–73, DS 13.34 with Hornblower CT 3.939–40 who remarks on the slightly paradoxical situation. For the record of the second coup, see Thuc. 8.73 with Shipley 1987, 123–8. 146 Thuc. 8.75.3. 147 IG I3 127= ML 94 with Xen. Hell. 2.2.6 and Cargill 1995, 17–21. The famous inscription is headed by an image of Athena shaking hands with Hera; it was inscribed in 403–2 after the removal of the Thirty and when Samian exiles must have been in Athens. 148 See Cartledge 1982, who adduces as evidence for a particularly tight connection between Dorian Sparta and Ionian Samos: (1) the hostile interactions of Sparta and Corinth on behalf of Samian exiles against Polykrates in 525 (Hdt. 3.39–48); (2) Arkhias the hereditary Samian proxenos at Sparta in 525 (Hdt. 3.55.2); (3) the large amount of Lakonian dedications at the Samian Heraion after 580 (cf. Coldstream 1977, 253–7; cf. Kyrieleis 1993, 125–53, Brize 1997, 123–40 who, however, do not overly stress the Lakonian connection, inasmuch as the Samian Heraion was an ancient, well connected, and metropolitan cult site); and (4), the response of the Peloponnesian league to the reduction of Samos in 440 (see above) with Thuc. 1.37–43, ML 56 on which see Figueira 1993, 131– 4. 145

THE LYSANDREIA

145

position for coastal travel not only necessitated foreign contacts, but granted the Samians military advantages. 149 The foundation narratives of Samos were complex, reflecting ties both to Sparta and the Argolid and to Ionian settlements in Asia. A heroic foundation myth cited Samia, a daughter of the river Maiandros, who married Ankaios, a descendant of Phoinix on his father’s side and Poseidon on his mother’s. 150 A migration narrative described how the Ionian Prokles was ejected from Epidauros by the Temenids, obtained an oracle of Apollo, and then traveled to Samos where he married a native Karian woman named Astypalaia. 151 Afterwards, the Ephesians led by the Kodrid king Androklos were said to have defeated the Epidaurians and colonized Samos themselves, but were later ejected. 152 These traditions blend and contrast Dorian, Ionian, and explicitly native elements. The aetiological accounts of the Tonaia (‘binding’), 153 the most famous festival placed at the Heraion, similarly represent a blend of ‘foreign’ and autochthonous elements. Pausanias’ account is characteristic in its assignment of the foundation of the Heraion For geography, see Shipley 1987, 1–12. Asios of Samos PEGF F 7 ap. Paus. 7.4.1; cf. Huxley 1969, 89– 98; Mac Sweeney 2013, 91–103; Fowler 2013, 520–1. On Ankaios, see Ap. Rhod. 2.865–7; Apollod. 2.851–6, with Fowler 2013, 215, 586–7 on Herod. FGH 31 F 45. 151 Paus. 7.4.2–3. Hdt. 1.146 gives us ‘Dorian’ immigrants from Epidauros. On the Archaic Geomoroi and the Epidaurian Prokles, see Hdt. 3.50–2; Plut. Quaest. Graec. Mor. 303e–34c; Aethlios FGH 536 F 3 with Shipley 1981, 39–80; Fowler 2013, 586–7. Note also Etym. Magn. s.v. Ἀστυπάλαια. 152 Paus. 7.4.3; cf. Fowler 2013, 582 on Ephesus. 153 It is unclear whether the ‘Heraia’ and the ‘Tonaia’ are (1) synonymous, (2) two parts of the same festival, or (3) (less likely) part of a connected group of festivals similar to the Hyakinthia, Gymnopaidiai, and Karneia dedicated to Apollo at Sparta. On the Tonaia generally: Nilsson 1957, 46–50; Burkert 1985, 134–5; Kyrieleis 1993, 135. On the bretas, also called the sanis (board): Callim. F 100, Aethlios FGH 536 F 3 with Romano 1980, 250–71; Bettinetti 2001, 107–26. 149 150

146

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

to legendary Argive figures and a simultaneous specification of the Imbrasos river as the native birthplace of Hera. 154 This tension between programmatically foreign and native is not simply a matter of variant traditions – one true, one false – but a central, integrated component of the ritual performed at the Tonaia. According to the account of Menodotus of Samos, 155 the Argive exile Admete, daughter of Eurystheus, that famous enemy of Herakles and his children, was the first priestess at the temple of Hera at Samos, which had been founded in earlier times (καθιδρυμένου) by the Leleges and the Nymphs. 156 The reason Admete left Argos is unclear, 157 but upon her arrival at Samos, Hera appeared to her in an epiphany (τὴν τῆς ῞Ηρας ἐπιφάνειαν) and inaugurated her service as priestess in the temple. 158 An Argive reprisal, using Paus. 7.4.4. Cf. Strab. 14.1.14–15 C637–8 and the history of Samothrace in Strab. 10.2.17 C457. On geographical, autochthonous origin narratives see Calame 1986, 153–86. 155 Menodotus FGH 541 F 1; his date is unknown but likely BCE. 156 Anacreon called Samos the city of nymphs: Hesych. s.v. ἄστυ νυμφέων. The Leleges were indigenous denizens of Ionia (Hom. Il. 10.428-9, Strab.13.3.1–2 C620–1, 14.2.27 C661), who sometimes were envisaged as having been enslaved by the Karians (Phylarchos FGH 81 F 8; Philippus of Theangela FGH 741 F 2; Plut. Quaest. Graec. Mor. 302a–b) and sometimes seen as subjugated by the invading Ionians (Pherekydes FGH 3 F 155). Hdt 1.172 says that either (1) the Leleges and the Karians are identical and were under the rule (κατήκοοι) of Minos until they were driven out by the Ionians, or (2) they are indigenous; cf. Calame 1986, 156–9; Fowler 2013, 96–100. 157 Apollod. 2.5.9 narrates an intrigue over the belt of the Amazon Hippolyte, for which see Ganz 1993, 397–400; Fowler 2013, 288–91. It is perhaps relevant that the Amazons were considered to have founded cities in Asia Minor, i.e., Ephesus; cf. Paus. 7.2.7–8, with Mac Sweeney 2013, 137–56; Fowler 2013, 580–3. 158 The priestess was called a κλείδουχος; the archetype in myth is Io (cf. Aes. Supp. 291). Cf. Kallithea in Phoronis PEGF 4 ap. Clem. Al. Strom. I.164.1, with Fowler 2013, 238. On the historical importance of the priestesses of the Argive Heraion, see Thuc. 4.133 with Hornblower’s excellent note in CT 2.411–14. 154

THE LYSANDREIA

147

Tyrrhenian pirates, led to the attempted theft of the cult image of Hera (ἁρπάσαι τὸ βρέτας), and its miraculous salvation through the intervention of Hera. After the aborted theft, Admete found the bretas abandoned on the beach, but the native Karians suspected that the goddess had attempted to leave of her own free will (αὐτόματον) and fastened her tight to a mat of willow shoots (πρός τι λύγου θωράκιον ἀπερείσασθαι). 159 From that time forth, the Samians perform the Tonaia in remembrance of the theft, loss, and retrieval of the statue. 160 Just as with the multiple foundation narratives, Admete and the bretas of Hera must represent tension between alternatives: a hopeful desire to claim autochthony for the Heraion (the binding of the statue with willow) and an awareness of the almost certain possibility of foreign contact and influence (the drama of removal and return). 161 When the celebrants of the Tonaia bring the statue of Hera to the beach, purify her, and then re-enthrone her beside her native willow, it is both an expression of anxiety over the possibility of the goddess’s estrangement and departure and an absolute denial of that very possibility. 162 The tension between foreign and native is resolved in favor of the native. Our ancient testimony unanimously connected the Heraia with her marriage to Zeus (hieros gamos). 163 Given the universal, The best treatment of the relationship of the binding spell to civic religion is Harrison 1975, 138–45; cf. also Meuli 1975, 1055–82; Graf 1985, 82–3; Bettinetti 2001, 114–20; Faraone 1991, 171–2. 160 Menodotus FGH 541 F 1: διόπερ ἐξ ἐκείνου καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἔτος ἀποκομίζεσθαι τὸ βρέτας εἰς τὴν ἠιόνα καὶ ἀφαγνίζεσθαι ψαιστά τε αὐτῶι παρατίθεσθαι. 161 Cf. Kyrieleis 1993, 130, 136 on the original succession of orientations of the Heraion. 162 As Bettinetti 2001, 110 notes, Menodotus nowhere states that the celebrants bind the bretas. Many scholars interpret the ritual assuming (naturally) that they did: e.g. Nilsson 1957, 48; Romano 1980, 257–60; Graf 1985, 94; Kron 1988, 140. 163 E.g. Nicaenetus in Menodotus FGH 541 F 1: Διὸς εὐκλέα νύμφην; Varro ap. Lactant. Div. Inst. 1.17.8; August. De civ. D. 6.7. So 159

148

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

cosmic dimensions of their union, it is likely that the ritual recapitulation of their marriage would have held significant sociopolitical implications, and perhaps that was precisely the point. 164 As many festivals across the Greek world, the Heraia included a large procession to an extra-urban sanctuary and communal sacrifices. 165 The celebrants would then recline on stibades or mats made out of lygos (willow), and drink and feast in honor of the renewed marriage of the autochthonous Hera. 166 On the basis of a typological comparison between archaic dedications at the Heraion and imagery connected with Near Eastern ruler cult, 167 FridhHaneson has interpreted the Samian worship of Hera in terms of Farnell 1907, 1.186 who sees ‘an allusion to the secret abduction of the bride’; and Nilsson 1957, 48–9. The approach in Graf 1985, 90–7, which contends that the rite belongs to a New Year festival type where a goddess is released (absence) during a period of chaotic Saturnalian license, followed by a reconfirmation (return) of the social order is not incompatible. Contra Avagianou 1991, 46–58 with an excellent review of earlier views, which, however, seem not to differ quite as much as the author implies. 164 On the term, which is rather elastic, see Nilsson 1955, 120–2; Kerényi 1975, 91–113; Janko 1995, 171–2 on Hom. Il. 14.292–351; Redfield 1982, 188; Burkert 1985, 108–9; Avagianou 1991, xi–xv; Fowler 1993, 35–7. The role of chief priest would probably be a prominent, hereditary position (though perhaps subordinate to the κλείδουχος of a Heraion). See Kron 1988, 136 nt. 9. Cf. the Anthesteria with the Basilinna and the archon Basileus at Athens, with [Dem.] 59. 63, Aris. Ath. Pol. 3.5; Burkert 1985, 176–8; Parker 2005, 303–16. 165 Cf. Kyreleis 1993, 137–8, noting Polyaen. Strat. 1.23. 166 Cf. Kron 1988, 138–40. On the λύγος, willow or withy tree, the branches of which were strewn by matrons on their beds at the Thesmophoria, see Burkert 1985, 134–5, 243–4; Kron 1988, 138–42; Parker 2005, 274 nt. 16 with Ael. Nat. An. 9.26; Plin. Nat. Hist. 24.59. 167 Cf. Brize 1997, 136–7. Fridh-Haneson 1988, 205–13 further cites Etruscan iconographic evidence of 6th-century Tarquinia where there are dedications to Hera in Ionian Greek. Cook 1906, 365–78; 1906a, 416–19 gathered the same Italian evidence for Herakles, while Farnell 1921, scrupulously avoided it.

THE LYSANDREIA

149

an original ur-cult where Hera married Herakles (!) not Zeus. 168 Critical for this view is a carved wooden votive bed support (now lost), which shows a male figure, holding the breast of a female figure. 169 The pose can be described as a goddess suckling a mortal man: he sucks her milk in order to obtain divine force and become a god himself. 170 According to Fridh-Haneson’s hypothesis, this original stratum of Hera’s cult at Samos was then re-understood in the classical period as a marriage between the divine consorts, not the hero Herakles and the immortal goddess Hera. 171 Whatever the Cf. Cook 1906, 365–78; 1906a, 416–19. The only festival to Herakles in Lakonia was called the Ergatia, on which see Hesych. s.v. Ἐργάτια, with Farnell 1921, 155–74 who denies any connection to the labors of Herakles. 169 Note Ranke 1950, 228–36, who distinguishes between two Egyptian prototypes (1) a standing goddess nursing a young male (similar to the Samian relief), which was superseded by (2), a seated female suckling a naked baby. Cf. also Winter 1983, 387–404. 170 On Herakles and Hera as mother and son, note that both at the beginning of Herakles’ life and at his apotheosis, Hera plays a role, which by its very marginality and its correspondingly vehement rejection, hints at other submerged possibilities for maternal status. In Hom. Il. 5.392, Herakles strikes Hera’s breast with a three-pronged arrow and causes her pain. The scholiast (among other amazing explanations) states: διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐᾶσαι αὐτὴν νήπιον ὄντα σπάσαι τὸν ἴδιον μαζόν. In Eratosth. [Cat.] 44.2– 4, Hermes gives the baby Herakles to a sleeping Hera to nurse but she wakes up and pushes him away. The suckling is specifically stated to enable him to reach heaven: οὐ γὰρ ἐξῆν τοῖς Διὸς υἱοῖς τῆς οὐρανίου τιμῆς μετασχεῖν εἰ μή τις αὐτῶν θηλάσειε τὸν τῆς Ἥρας μαστόν. See Ganz 1993, 378. In DS 4.9.6, Lycoph. Alex. 38, 1327 with scholia, it is Athena who tricks Hera who then realizes her mistake and refuses to nurse Herakles. In Paus. 9.25.2, it is Zeus who (for reasons unknown) attempts to make Hera nurse Herakles. Nor is Hera absent from Herakles’ final apotheosis and marriage to Hebe. In Diodorus, Hera adopts Herakles by lying on a bed, drawing him into her clothes and then dropping him on the floor – an imitation of a real birth. According to DS 4.39, this was still the custom for adoption among the barbarians of his time. 171 For the literary comparanda in the Near East and Egypt, see, e.g. Kramer 1963, 489–527 on the marriage of the legendary king of Erech 168

150

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

temporal context of the influence of Near Eastern religion on the cult of the Samian Heraion (which must have been significant), there is absolutely no evidence for such a festival where this marriage would have been explicitly re-enacted by priest and priestess. 172 What we do have, however, is the veneration of the Heraklid Lysander in 404.

THE KARNEIA Lysander’s political positioning on Samos was, by necessity, delicate. On the one hand, the recalled Samian ‘oligarchs’ were the bitter enemies of those ‘of the dēmos’ who had supported Athens after Aigospotamoi, and, on the other, they were committed to Lysander, who nominally, though not always in practice, was supported by and supported the policies of the Spartan government. The creation of the Lysandreia necessarily gestured both to his Samian constituents and to the power structure of the Lycurgan status quo in Lakonia. Just like the Attic Panathenaia or Dionysia, besides celebrating the annual ‘return’ of their native goddess to her sanctuary, the Samian Heraia celebrated and thus reinforced the birth and renewal of the social order. At Sparta this foundational moment was celebrated at the Karneia festival and conceptualized not as a recurring marriage of an autochthonous goddess, but as the return of the Herakleidai as arkhāgetai to their ancestral land.

(texts from Sumer EB II) Dumuzi and the earth goddess Inanna; Ristvet 2015, 40–91 on the kingdom of Ebla’s (Syria EB III–MB) procession for the marriage and coronation of their queen elect. For a survey of Eastern aspects of Herakles, see Burkert 1979, 88–99 on Herakles, and 100–11 on the Greek earth goddess. 172 For Herakles in cult, see Farnell 1921, 155–74. The explicit performance of this type of ceremony has numerous comparanda in the Near East and Egypt across all periods and no explicit instances in Greece, though the submerged valence may be there. On the creation of the Lysandreia as a watershed moment, see Nilsson 1955, 786.

THE LYSANDREIA

151

The Karneia was a pan-Dorian festival celebrated in late August or early September and lasted nine days. 173 It celebrated the beginning of the New Year and was almost certainly a harvest festival of some kind in origin. 174 Images called stemmataia were carried or worn in the pompē of the god (Karneios stemmataios), 175 which recalled the boats on which the Herakleidai crossed the Corinthian gulf and made their landing in the Peloponnesus. 176 Athenaeus, citing Demetrios of Skepsis, tells us that the festival was ‘a mimesis of a military education.’ 177 Nine tents (skiades) were On the Karneia, see Wide 1893, 63–95; Farnell 1907, 4.259–63; Nilsson 1957, 118–29; Burkert 1985, 234–6; Pettersson 1992, 57–71; Robertson 2002, 5–74; and Richer 2012, 423–6. Note Hdt. 6.106, 7.206. On the date, see Farnell 1907, 4.259; Burkert 1985, 234; Pettersson 1992, nt. 323; Ferrari 2008, 128–35; Robertson 2002, 36–41. Richer 2009, 219– 22; 2012, 447–54 links both the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia (which were celebrated sequentially) with the Heliacal rising of Sirius (July 21 in 120 CE) and the second full moon after the summer solstice (similar to Olympia in mid-August/September). 174 This was the opinion of Wide 1893, 78, following Mannhardt 1877, 254, as well as Farnell 1907, 4.260. Robertson’s 2002, 50–74 extreme emphasis on the military aspect of the festival is skewed and unnecessarily polemical, as many have remarked. Note the relationship of a Spartiate to his fields tilled and tended (grain, wine, figs) by Helots in fertile Messenia with Figueira 1984a, 87–109 and 1986, 199. Perhaps the Karneia at Sparta was an opportunity to both collect and redistribute mess dues in a communal, non-stratified (and thus out of the ordinary) festival situation. 175 Hesych. s.v. Στεμματιαῖον: δίκηλόν τι ἐν ἑορτῇ πομπέων δαίμονος. According to Ath. 16.621d, the performers who wore them were called δεικηλισταί. The performances were οὐκ ἄγαν σπουδαῖος, and perhaps related to the stealing of food at the temple of Artemis Orthia. See Nilsson 1955, 1.488–90, with nt. 6 and Hdt. 2.171. 176 Anecd. Bekk. 1.305 s.v. Στεμματιαῖον: μίμημα τῶν σχεδίων, αἷς ἔπλευσαν οἱ Ἡρακλεῖδαι τὸν μεταξὺ τῶν Ῥίων τόπον. For discussion of the μίμημα τῶν σχεδίων generally, see Malkin 1994, 149–58, and Robertson 2002, 46–9, who interprets the Karneia as a pan–Dorian colonizing sea voyage tout court. 177 Demetrios of Skepsis FGH 2013 F 1. 173

152

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

erected where communities of nine men were recruited from the three Dorian phylai (Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyloi), and would eat a sacred meal and carry out everything under the military command of a herald. This arrangement echoed the arrangement of klēroi and sussitia, which characterized daily Spartan life. 178 The head priest of the Karneia was called the agētēs and the portion of the festival program in which he was the protagonist was called the agētoria. 179 As a central component of an annual festival recalling the Heraklid conquest of Lakonia, the Spartan agētoria must have, to a certain extent, invoked the Agiads and Eurypontids as arkhāgetai. However, both its role as a pan-Dorian festival and the horizontal diffusion of the ‘myth of the return’ by the figure of Lycurgus renders this connection less tangible. In the 5th-century, the annual reassertion of the Dorian domination over the native Lakonian population must have been an extremely complex phenomenon, 180 and not just (though it could very well have included) a reaffirmation of the supremacy of a single Heraklid genos, or hereditary aristocratic faction. The broad collective interests of the egalitarian Spartiate citizen body, young and old, would have been represented in intricate, formalized coming of age rituals. 181 Despite this diffusion of perspectives, the agētoria can be compared with a specific ceremony for the investiture of new war leaders

A synonym for the sussitia or pheiditia was suskēnia ‘tents’ (suskēnoi for the members): Xen. Lak. Pol. 5.2, 5.4. 7.4, 9.4, 15.5. 179 Hesych. s.v. ἀγήτης· ὁ ἱερώμενος, ἄτιμος, ἐν δὲ τοῖς Καρνείοις ὁ ἱερώμενος τῆς θεοῦ. καὶ ἡ ἑορτὴ Ἁγητόρια. 180 The ‘return of the Herakleidai’ most likely had reciprocal meaning for Spartiates and Helots alike. Note (1), the temple to Apollo Karneios in Messenia with Paus. 4.31.1; (2), the ephors’ declaration of war against the Helots at the beginning of their office (the Karneia?) with Luraghi 2003, 132–3 on Plut. Lyc. 28.4 = Aris. F 543.35–40 Gigon; and (3), the rhetorical prominence of a Messenian ‘return’ (!) to Lakonike during the Theban foundation of the polis of Messene in 368 and its roots in 5thcentury ideology with Figueira 1999, 219–20 nts. 31, 32. 181 Cf. Robertson 2002, 60–7. 178

THE LYSANDREIA

153

(ἡγήτορες) at Thebes described by Plutarch as well as with the aetiological traditions of the Karneia itself. 182 The Theban ceremony ritually linked each Hipparch in a charismatic concatenation that was bound by the transmission of secret knowledge along with emblems of office. 183 The location of the rite was the secret grave of Dirke, who was acting as a tutelary heroine. This observance is known to us through Plutarch’s narrative on Pelopidas’ retaking of the Kadmeia in 379, during which we learn that the Spartan harmost Lysanoridas was seeking the location of Dirke’s grave in order to expiate the crime of opening a different grave, Alkmene’s at Haliartos 184 – and See Robertson 1980, 1–22. Relating this ceremony to the race of the staphylodromoi is plausible (contra Nilsson 1957, 123). The combination has clear analogues both with the Ionian Thargelia (with expulsion of a pharmakos) and with Frazer’s ritual slaying of the god priest as eniautos daimon. Farnell 1907, 4.262–3 gives an excellent and sober critique of the difficult combination of (1), the slaying of the god priest (via Frazer; cf. e.g. Cornford in Harrison 1927, 235–8) and (2), the catching of the Harvest daemon as in Wide (via Mannhardt 1877). One obvious sticking point is the fact that the Spartan kings were not, in fact, removed at the Karneia each year. However, cf. Kastor FGH 250 F 2 where the Sikyonian kings were replaced by the priests of Apollo Karneios in 1161 (BCE!). For a general discussion of the issues involved, see Burkert 1979, 59–77, and the excellent survey of Versnel 2014, 86–141. 183 Plut. De genio. Mor. 578b–c; Plut. Pelop. 6–13.1; Xen Hell. 5.4.1–10; Nep. Pelop. 2.1–4, with Riley 1977. 184 For the grave of Alkmene, see Pherecydes FGH 3 F 84; Plut. Rom. 28.6; Paus. 9.16.7. In Pherecydes, her grave was originally beside the Electryon gate at Thebes, but a stone was left in her place when Hermes took her to the isles of the blessed. This stone was discovered by the Herakleidai and was placed in a grove where Alkmene’s heroon now stands. In Pausanias, Alkmene has no grave at Thebes, specifically because she was turned into a stone; see Fowler 2013, 342–4. According to Xen. Hell. 3.5.17–20, Lysander died at Haliartos but Plut. Lys. 29.3 (contra Paus. 9.33.1) puts his grave at Panopeus between Khaironeia and Delphi because the Spartan elders (!) wanted to bury him in the territory of Spartan allies. 182

154

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

transporting the relics to Sparta at the order of Agesilaos. 185 This form of appropriation has a long history at Sparta that includes the bones of Orestes and Tisamenos. 186 Agesilaos as a Heraklid had a special rationale for asserting a Lakonian (and Dorian) claim to Alkmene over the traditional Theban associations of Herakles. Since the local cults of Alkmene and Dirke constituted appropriation of originally inimical figures, as already propitiated and honored by a reconstituted polis, they lent themselves to still further efforts at appropriation by Agesilaos and Lysanoridas. 187 This principle of ritual assimilation as part of polis creation can be seen in the aetiological traditions concerning the murder of the seer Karnos (or Krios ‘ram’) and the Karneia. 188 Just like the aitiai for the Samian Heraia, the foundational narratives of the Karneia 189 exemplify circular, aetiological patterning, which would have to simultaneously navigate immediate and historical, local and panethnic spheres of reference. 190 Pausanias’ two-part version is centered on Sparta. Karnos is first represented as an indigenous god (Καρνειός οἰκέτας) worshiped (ἵδρυτο) in the house of a seer named Krios. Krios’ daughter, encountered by Dorian spies while fetching water, betrayed Sparta and allowed it to be taken. This is only recorded in Plutarch’s De genio (Mor. 578b–c) On the relationship between Plutarch’s narrative of these events and Xenophon’s, see Cartledge 1987, 147–8; Buckler and Beck 2008, 76–8. 186 See Welwei 2004. 187 Such inherited cult of residuary gods or heroes was deeply rooted in the Greek psyche, and is usually considered apotropaic. Cf. especially Rohde 1925, 174–82 with Xen. Hell. 3.3.4 where the choice to sacrifice to τοῖς ἀποτροπαίοις καὶ τοῖς σωτῆρσι, is clearly owed to an extreme emergency and confusion. For the ‘murderous business of colonization’, see Dougherty 1993, 15–30; 1993a, 178–98; Hornblower 2004, 103–31. 188 So Robertson 1980, 10–14, who took a different approach in 2002, 55–6. 189 Theopompus FGH 115 F 357; Apollod. 2.174–5; cf. Konon FGH 24 F 1.24. For the complete sources, see Prinz 1979, 305–7. 190 The best analysis of this complex phenomenon is Nagy 1986, 71– 88 and 1990, 116–35 on Pin. Ol. 1. For pan-ethnicity in terms of the Karneia, see Robertson 2002, 5–19. 185

THE LYSANDREIA

155

Pausanias then juxtaposes the story of the murder of Karnos by the Heraklid Hippotes and the resultant plague, which occasioned his exile. 191 These two variants are nominally incompatible, but also interrelated and structurally parallel. In order to create a panDorian legitimizing perspective, the crime which necessitates the inception of the Karneia must be pushed back to the earlier, more widely relevant figure of Hippotes (‘horseman’) 192 while from the perspective of the Spartan Karneia, the invading Dorians must displace a ‘native’ Karneios (Καρνειός οἰκέτας). According to the logic of Pausanias’ Spartan aition for the Karneia, the daughter of the seer Krios – just like Dirke or Admete – is a preexisting, indigenous figure who is compromised and then assimilated. Similar to the co-identification of the willow tree next to the Imbrasos, the goddess Hera, her priestess Admete and the bretas (the primeval cult image), the daughter of the priest of Karneios Oiketas should fit as a representative of the physical land of Lakonia, and thus as the consort of Karneios Oiketas himself. 193 Paus. 3.13.4: Κάρνειον δὲ Ἀπόλλωνα Δωριεῦσι μὲν τοῖς πᾶσι σέβεσθαι καθέστηκεν ἀπὸ Κάρνου γένος ἐξ Ἀκαρνανίας, μαντευομένου δὲ ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος· τοῦτον γὰρ τὸν Κάρνον ἀποκτείναντος Ἱππότου τοῦ Φύλαντος ἐνέπεσεν ἐς τὸ στρατόπεδον τοῖς Δωριεῦσι μήνιμα Ἀπόλλωνος, καὶ Ἱππότης τε ἔφυγεν ἐπὶ τῷ φόνῳ καὶ Δωριεῦσιν ἀπὸ τούτου τὸν Ἀκαρνᾶνα μάντιν καθέστηκεν ἱλάσκεσθαι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ Λακεδαιμονίοις οὐχ οὗτος ὁ Οἰκέτας ἐστὶ Καρνειός, ὁ δὲ ἐν τοῦ μάντεως Κριοῦ τιμώμενος Ἀχαιῶν ἔτι ἐχόντων τὴν Σπάρτην. 192 Robertson 1980, 12, theorized a Spartan ceremony, the agētoria, at the Karneia, corresponding to the Theban transmission of the Hipparchy. However, according to Robertson this ceremony would have occurred not at a grave of Krios or his nameless daughter, but at the ‘monument of the horse’ which was located outside of town, next to a statue of Apollo Karneios (Paus. 3.20.9: Ἵππου καλούμενον μνῆμά… καὶ Κρανίου τέμενος κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἐπίκλησιν Στεμματίου) and would have concerned, not the Agiad and Eurypontid kings, but the investiture of members of the Spartan Hippeis. On the elite corps of Hippeis, see Xen. Lak. Pol. 4.3; Hdt. 8.124; Thuc. 5.72, with Lipka 2002, 143–5; Figueira 2006. 193 In Hesychios, the Karneian agētēs is said to be the priest of an unnamed goddess (ὁ ἱερώμενος τῆς θεοῦ) and not the male Apollo 191

156

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

However, at Sparta the foreign invader is privileged over the native goddess. The structure of the aetiological myth of the Karneia, encourages and allows the identification of Krios’ daughter as an indigenous ‘goddess’, but treats her meeting with the Dorians as one of subjugation or appropriation not of marriage. These autochthonous, matrilineal claims to legitimacy naturally arrayed themselves against the traditional Heraklid colonization rhetoric of the Karneia. In essence, the rejection of autochthonous legitimacy at Sparta provides a negative reflection of its importance to the propaganda of Lysander and his ‘founding’ or reorganization of Samos.

CONCLUSION Lysander’s attempt to assume the mantle of a Heraklid arkhāgetēs involved a complete reformulation and subversion of its and his traditional place in Spartan society. By the 5th century, the role of the Spartan King as Heraklid arkhāgetēs had undergone a long evolution which resulted in its partial replacement and marginalization by the narrative of Lycurgan eunomia as represented in our constitutionalist sources. If Lysander wanted to be king (and he did), his program of political subversion needed to extend ideologically beyond this compromise and its traditional avenue of dissent: colonization and emigration from Lakonia. The compromise position of the Agiads and Eurypontids as the arkhāgetai of a unified Lycurgan Spartan politeia was likely reaffirmed annually at the Karneia as a recapitulation of the ‘return of the Karneios. Nilsson 1957, 121 nt. 2, followed by Robertson 2002, 63 nt. 170 (with no comment), simply changed the article to masculine and interpreted the sentence as a transcription mistake or an interpretive error. Usener 1898, 360 suggested Persephone as an identification for the goddess, while Pettersson 1992, 67 suggested Artemis Hēgmonē. Both are intelligent, if problematic, proposals. It must be emphasized (so Richer 2012, 426 nt. 26) that the definition of Hesychios does not refer to any specific location. It is likely that ὁ ἱερώμενος τῆς θεοῦ refers not to Sparta but another Dorian polis, perhaps one where the dominant religious paradigm was similar to that of Samos, e.g. Argos. Cf. also Hesych. s.v. ἀγήτορ, a priest of Aphrodite on Cyprus.

THE LYSANDREIA

157

Herakleidai’. On Samos, Hera was worshiped as an indigenous goddess, born on the banks of the Imbrasos. The social systems embodied and reenacted annually in the festivals of the Spartan Karneia and the Samian Heraia differed structurally in terms of their conception of act of founding: foreign invasion on the one hand and native descent on the other and thus were open to Lysander’s manipulation. A traditional space existed in the ritual of the Heraia where the accepted, final, authoritative figure gained his status (that is, as oikistēs, or as high priest agētēs) not through the apportionment of Zeus and his patrilineal descendants, but through the modality of autochthony, that is, through exogamous marriage. The ritual of the Lysandreia occupied this space. Despite interference from Lysander and his partisans, the Heraia likely was performed in much the same manner as it had been for centuries. In direct and explicit opposition to the ideology of the Karneia, the Lysandreia was figured as a ritual adoption or hieros gamos, specifically, a ceremony where an autochthonous goddess adopts (as mother) and marries (as wife) a human ‘prince’. What was Lysander’s ultimate aim? Our interpretation points to a ceremony where the aspirant to power could be notionally transformed into a king, and granted divine status and the authority to reorganize the social structure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Andrewes, ‘Eunomia’, CQ 32.2 (1938) 89–102. ———, ‘Two Notes on Lysander’, Phoenix 25.3 (1971) 206–26. C. Antonaccio, 1993, ‘The Archaeology of Ancestors’, in C. Dougherty, and L. Kurke (eds), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (1993) Cambrige, 46–72. ———, An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (1995) London. A. Avagianou, Sacred Marriage in the Rituals of Greek Religion (1991) Berlin. E. Badian, ‘The Deification of Alexander the Great’, in H.J. Dell (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (1981) Thessalonikē, 27–71. S. Bettinetti, La statua di culto nella pratica rituale greca (2001) Bari.

158

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

D. Boedeker, ‘The Two Faces of Demaratus’, Arethusa 20 (1987) 185–201. ———, ‘Hero Cult and Politics in Herodotus: The Bones of Orestes’, in C. Dougherty and L. Kurke (eds), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (1993) Cambrige, 164– 77. J.F. Bommelaer, Lysandre de Sparte: Histoire et Traditions (1981) Paris. P. Brize, ‘Offrandes de L’epoque geometrique et archaique à l’Heraion de Samos’, in J. De La Genière (ed.) Héra: Images, Espaces, Cultes: Actes Du Colloque International Du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques, de l’Université de Lille III et de l’Association PRAC (1997) Lille, 123–39. P.A. Brunt, ‘Spartan Policy and Strategy in the Archidamian War’, Phoenix 19.4 (1965) 255–80. J. Buckler, and H. Beck, Central Greece and the Politics of Power in the Fourth Century BC (2008) Cambridge. W. Burkert, ‘Jason, Hypsipyle, and New Fire at Lemnos a Study in Myth and Ritual’, CQ 20.1 (1970) 1–16. ———, ‘Die Leistung eines Kreophylos’, Museum Helveticum (1972) 74–85. ———, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (1979) Berkeley, CA. ———, Greek Religion (1985) Cambridge, M.A. C. Calame, ‘Spartan Genealogies’, in J.N. Bremmer (ed), Interpretations of Greek Mythology (1986) London 153–86. ———, Myth and History in Ancient Greece: The Symbolic Creation of a Colony (2003) Princeton, NJ. J. Cargill, Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century B.C (1995) Leiden. P. Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 BC (1979) London. ———, Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (1987) London. ———, ‘Sparta and Samos: A Special Relationship?’, CQ 32.2 (1982) 243–65.

THE LYSANDREIA

159

———, ‘Yes, Spartan Kings Were Heroized’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 13.3 (1988) 43–4. P. Cartledge, and F.D. Harvey (eds), Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to G.E.M. de Ste. Croix on His 75th Birthday (1985) London. W.R. Connor, Thucydides (1984) Princeton, NJ. A.B. Cook, ‘Who Was the Wife of Zeus?’, CR 20 (1906a) 365–78. ———, ‘Who Was the Wife of Zeus? (Continued)’, CR 20.8 (1906b) 416–19. B. Currie, Pindar and the Cult of Heroes (2010) Oxford. E. David, ‘The Pamphlet of Pausanias’, PP 34 (1979) 94–116. ———, ‘The Trial of Spartan Kings’, RIDA 32 (1985) 131–40. W. Den Boer, Laconian Studies (1954) Amsterdam. G.E.M. De Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (1972) Ithaca, N.Y. C. Dougherty, The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece (1993) Oxford. T.J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks: The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (1948) Oxford. L.R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, 5 vol. (1907) Oxford. ———, Greek Hero Cults (1921) Oxford. G. Ferrari, Alcman and the Cosmos of Sparta (2008) Chicago, IL. T.J. Figueira, ‘Mess Contributions and Subsistence at Sparta’, TAPA 114 (1984a) 87–109. ———, ‘The Lipari Islanders and Their System of Communal Property’, CA 3.2 (1984b) 179–206. ———, ‘Population Patterns in Late Archaic and Classical Sparta’, TAPA 116 (1986) 165–213. ———, Athens and Aigina in the Age of Imperial Colonization (1991) Baltimore, MD.

160

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

———, Excursions in Epichoric History: Aiginetan Essays (1993) Lanham, Md. ———, ‘The Evolution of the Messenian Identity’, in S. Hodkinson and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives (1999) Swansea, 211–44. ———, ‘Xenelasia and Social Control in Classical Sparta’, CQ 53.1 (2003) 44–74. ———, ‘The Spartan Hippeis’, in S. Hodkinson, A. Powell, and J. Christien (eds), Sparta & War (2006) Swansea, 57–85. ———, ‘Colonization in the Classical Period’, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas (2008) Leiden, 426–507. ———, ‘Ethnogenesis and Hegemony in Classical Power Politics’, in P. Debnar and A. Powell (eds), Sparta in Thucydides, (forthcoming) Swansea. M. Finkelberg, ‘Royal Succession in Heroic Greece’, CQ 41.2 (1991) 303–16. M.I. Finley, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece (1981) New York, NY. M.A. Flower, ‘Agesilaus of Sparta and the Origins of the Ruler Cult’, CQ 38.1 (1988) 123–34. W.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta, 950–192 BC (1968) New York, NY. R.L. Fowler, ‘The Myth of Kephalos as an Aition of Rain-Magic (Pherekydes FGH 3 F 34)’, ZPE 97 (1993) 29–42. ———, Early Greek Mythography: Volume 2: Commentary (2013) Oxford. M. Fragoulaki, Kinship in Thucydides: Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative (2013) Oxford. B.M. Fridh-Haneson, ‘Hera’s Wedding on Samos: A Change of Paradigms’, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29, June, 1986, (1988) Athens 205–13.

THE LYSANDREIA

161

T. Ganz, Early Greek Myth 2 vols (1993) Baltimore, MD. F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte: Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokaia (1985) Zurich. A.J. Graham, ‘The Authenticity of the ὅρκιον τῶν οἰκιστήρων of Cyrene’, JHS 80 (1960) 94–111. ———, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (1964) New York, NY. ———, ‘The Colonial Expansion of Greece’, in J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond (eds), CAH2 3.3 (1982) Cambridge, 83– 162. C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und Griechische Städte (1970) München. ———, Athens from Alexander to Antony (1997) Cambridge, MA. J.M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997) Cambridge. ———, ‘Foundation Stories’, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas (2008) Leiden 383–426. C. Hamilton, ‘Spartan Politics and Policy, 405–401 B.C.’, AJP 91 (1970) 294–314. ———, Sparta’s Bitter Victories: Politics and Diplomacy in the Corinthian War (1979) Ithaca, NY. ———, ‘Social Tensions in Classical Sparta’, Ktèma 12 (1987) 31– 41. N.G.L. Hammond, ‘The Lycurgean Reform at Sparta’, JHS 70 (1950) 42–64. ———, ‘The End of Mycenaean Civilization and the Dark Age: The Literary Tradition for the Migrations’, in I.E.S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger (eds), CAH2 3.3 (1975) Cambridge 678–712. J.E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1975) Princeton, N.J. ———, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (1927) Cambridge.

162

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

D. Harvey, ‘The Clandestine Massacre of the Helots (Thucydides 4.80)’, in T. Figueira (ed.), Spartan Society (2004) Swansea 199– 218. S. Hodkinson, ‘Social Order and the Conflict of Values in Classical Sparta’, Chiron 13 (1983) 239–81. K-J. Hölkeskamp, ‘Written Law in Archaic Greece’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 38 (1992) 87–117. E. Homann-Wedeking, ‘Samos 1964’, Archaeologischer Anzeiger (1965) 428–46. S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (1991–8) Oxford. (CT) ———, Thucydides and Pindar (2004) Oxford. ———, ‘The Dorieus Episode and the Ionian Revolt (5. 42–8)’, in E. Irwin, and E. Greenwood (eds) Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories (2007) Cambridge 168– 78. G.L. Huxley, Early Sparta (1962) London. ———, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis (1969) Cambridge, MA. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker 15 vols (1923-) Leiden. R. Janko, The Iliad: A Commentary. Books 13–16 (1995) Cambridge. L.H. Jeffery, ‘The Pact of the First Settlers at Cyrene’, Historia 10 (1961) 139–47. A.H.M. Jones, ‘The Lycurgan Rhetra’, in E. Badian (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on His 75th Birthday (1966) Oxford, 165–75. B. Jordan, ‘The Ceremony of the Helots in Thucydides, IV, 80’, L’Antiquité Classique 59 (1990) 37–69. L. Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1–5.24 (1993) Berkeley, CA. K. Kerényi, Zeus and Hera: Archetypal Image of Father, Husband, and Wife, trans. Christopher Holme (1975) London.

THE LYSANDREIA

163

F. Kiechle, Lakonien und Sparta: Untersuchungen zur ethnischen Struktur und zur politischen Entwicklung Lakoniens und Spartas bis zum Ende der archaischen Zeit (1963) Nürnberg. G.S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary. Books 1–4 (1985) Cambridge. M. Kõiv, Ancient Tradition and Early Greek History: The Origins of States in Early-Archaic Sparta, Argos and Corinth (2003) Avita. ———, ‘The Origins, Development, and Reliability of the Ancient Tradition about the Formation of the Spartan Constitution’, Historia (2005) 233–64. C. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, ‘Excavating Classical Amphipolis’, in M. Stamatopoulou, and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (2002) Oxford, 53–73. S.N. Kramer, ‘Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107.6 (1963) 485–527. U. Kron, ‘Kultmahle im Heraion von Samos archaischer Zeit. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion (Cult Meals in the Heraion of Samos in the Archaic Period. A Tentative Reconstruction)’, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29, June, 1986 (1988) 135–48. H. Kyrieleis, ‘The Heraion at Samos’, in R. Hägg, and N. Marinatos (eds), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (1993) London, 125– 53. J.F. Lazenby, ‘The Archaia Moira: A Suggestion’, CQ 45.1 (1995) 87–91. M. Lipka, Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution: Introduction. Text. Commentary (2002) Berlin. D. Lötze, ‘MΟΘΑΚΕΣ’, Historia 11 (1962) 427–35. ———, Lysander und der Peloponnesische Krieg (1964) Berlin. N. Luraghi, ‘The Imaginary Conquest of the Helots’, in N. Luraghi, and S. E. Alcock (eds), Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and

164

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures (2003) Cambridge, MA, 109–41.

———, The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory (2008) Cambridge. N. Mac Sweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (2013) Cambridge. I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (1987) Leiden. ———, ‘Lysander and Libys’, CQ 40.2 (1990) 541–45. ———, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (1994) Cambridge. M. Manfredini, and L. Piccirilli (eds), Plutarco: Le vite di Licurgo e di Numa (1980) Milan. W. Mannhardt, Wald und Feldkulte (1877) Berlin. G. Mastruzzo, ‘Osservazioni sulla spedizione di Dorieo’, Sileno 3 (1977) 129–47. D. Musti, Strabone e la Magna Grecia: città e popoli dell’ Italia antica (1988) Rome. M. Nafissi, ‘From Sparta to Taras: Nomisma, Ktiseis and Relationships between Colony and Mother City’, in S. Hodkinson, and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives, (1999) Swansea, 245–72. G. Nagy, “Pindar’s Olympian 1 and the Aetiology of the Olympic Games’, TAPA (1986) 71–88. ———, Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (1990) Baltimore, MA. T.H. Nielsen and J. Roy (eds), Defining Ancient Arkadia (1999) Copenhagen. M.P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die Griechische Weltherrschaft vol. 1 (1955) München. ———, Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der Attischen (1957) Stuttgart.

THE LYSANDREIA

165

———, Cults, Myths, Oracles, and Politics in Ancient Greece (1986) New York, NY. P. Oliva, Sparta and Her Social Problems, trans. by Iris UrwinLewitová, (1971) Amsterdam. H.W. Parke, ‘The Development of the Second Spartan Empire (405–371 B. C.)’, JHS 50 (1930) 37–79. ———, ‘The Deposing of Spartan Kings’, CQ 39 (1945) 106–12. ———, The Delphic Oracle (1956) Oxford. R. Parker, ‘Were Spartan Kings Heroized?’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 13 (1988) 9–10. ———, ‘Spartan Religion’, in A. Powell, (ed.) Classical Sparta: Techniques behind Her Success (1989) London, 142–72. ———, Polytheism and Society at Athens (2005) Oxford. L. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (2010) Austin, TX. L. Pearson, ‘The Pseudo-History of Messenia and Its Authors’, Historia 11.4 (1962) 397–426. M. Pettersson, Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidai and the Karneia (1992) Stockholm. A. Powell, ‘Divination, Royalty and Insecurity in Classical Sparta’, in A. Powell (ed.), Sparta: The Body Politic (2010) Swansea, 85– 135. F. Prinz, Gründungsmythen Und Sagenchronologie (1979) München. P.A. Rahe, ‘The Selection of Ephors at Sparta’, Historia 29.4 (1980) 385–401. H. Ranke, ‘Ein Ägyptisches Relief in Princeton’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 9.4 (1950) 228–36. J. Redfield, ‘Notes on the Greek Wedding’, Arethusa 15.1–2 (1982) 181–201. ———, The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy (2003) Princeton, NJ. P.J. Rhodes, ‘The Selection of Ephors at Sparta’, Historia 30.4 (1981) 498–502.

166

AARON J. BECK-SCHACHTER

N. Richer, Les Éphores. Aspects de l’histoire et de l’image de Sparte (VIIIeIIIe Siècle A.C.) (1994) Paris. ———, ‘Les Karneia de Sparte (et la date de la bataille de Salamine)’, BSA 16 (2009) 213–23. ———, La Religion des Spartiates (2012) Paris. M. Riley, ‘The Purpose and Unity of Plutarch’s De Genio Socratis’, GRBS 18.3 (1977) 257–73. L. Ristvet, Ritual, Performance, and Politics in the Ancient Near East (2015) Cambridge. N. Robertson, ‘The Dorian Migration and Corinthian Ritual’, CP 75.1 (1980) 1–22. ———, Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual (1992) Toronto. ———, ‘The Religious Criterion in Greek Ethnicity: The Dorians and the Festival Carneia’, AJAH 2 (2002) 5–74. E. Rohde, Psyche; the Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks (1925) New York, NY. I.B. Romano, Early Greek Cult Images (Diss.) (1980) Philadelphia, PA. J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 BCE (1984) Oxford. J. Sanders, ‘The Early Lakonian Dioscuri Reliefs’, in H.W. Catling, and J. M. Sanders (eds), Philolakōn: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (1992) London, 205–10. G. Shipley, A History of Samos, 800–188 BC (1987) Oxford. R.J.A. Talbert, ‘The Role of the Helots in the Class Struggle at Sparta’, Historia 38.1 (1989) 22–40. M. Tiverios, ‘Greek Colonization of the Northern Aegean’, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, (2008) Leiden 1–154. H. Usener, Götternamen (1896) Bonn.

THE LYSANDREIA

167

———, ‘Göttliche Synonyme’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie. 53 (1898) 329–79. H. Van Wees, ‘Tyrtaeus’ Eunomia: Nothing to Do with the Great Rhetra’, in S. Hodkinson, and A. Powell (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives (1999) Swansea, 1–41. ———, ‘Conquerers and Serfs: Wars of Conquest and Forced Labor in Archaic Greece’, in N. Luraghi, and S. E. Alcock (eds), Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures (2003) Cambridge MA, 33–80. H.S. Versnel, ‘What’s Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander: Myth and Ritual, Old and New’, in L. Edmunds, Approaches to Greek Myth (2014) Baltimore, Md, 84–151. H.T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History (1958) Oxford. K-W. Welwei, ‘Orestes at Sparta: The Political Significance of the Grave of the Hero’, in T. Figueira (ed.) Spartan Society (2004) Swansea, 219–230 M.L. West, Indo-European Poetry and Myth (2007) Oxford. S. Wide, Lakonische Kulte (1893) Leipzig.

GETTING CARRIED AWAY WITH THESEUS: THE EVOLUTION AND PARTISAN USE OF THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN AARON HERSHKOWITZ The myth of Theseus’ abduction of Helen and her retrieval by the Dioscuri in an invasion of Attica has received relatively little scholarly discussion, although it treats the first (albeit mythical) Spartan expedition against Athens. This is perhaps because it is overshadowed by Helen’s other, more famous abduction, and possibly also because it was not a topic depicted in Athenian tragedy or monumental art. This myth, however, both deserves scholarly interest because of its clear pan-Hellenic status and historical resonances, and requires scholarly investigation because of the fragmentary and fragmented state of its transmission. This study is divided into three sections, each of which tries to advance our understanding of the abduction and retrieval mythology. First it reconsiders the evidence for Hellanicus’ account, which, although it has long been held as one of the most important sources for the myth, has never been properly interpreted. Second, it explores the features of the myth that vary from account to account, using these changing details to uncover the basic structures of this narrative and to show how the myth was adapted for differing audiences in time and place. Third, building upon this analysis, it locates the confrontations between Cleomenes, Isagoras, and Cleisthenes in the late sixth-century as a critical context for the evolution and political deployment of the myth. Finally, in addition to this analysis of the Dioscouric expedition, there are four appendices which provide and organize the various literary and visual depictions of the abduction and retrieval myth. 169

170

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

INTRODUCTION Besides Athena herself, there is perhaps no figure from myth more closely associated with Athens than Theseus. Over the course of the late 6th and early 5th century, mostly in vase-painting and sculpture, but occasionally in the surviving literature from the period, Theseus accumulated a series of deeds (deliberately) rivalling those of Herakles, 1 including his contests with brigands on his journey from Troizen 2 to Athens and several battles with transgressive opponents. 3 During the 5th century Theseus increasingly became the mythic representative of Athens, 4 a sort of national hero for all Athenians, and by the end of the century not only the synoecism of Athens 5 but even the invention of the Athenians’ characteristic politeia (democracy) had been attributed to the hero. 6 This evolution of Theseus was inextricably tied up with 1

See Neils 1987, 1–2. See Mills 1997, 2–3 for the importance of Theseus’ non-Attic origin in the development of his status as representative hero of the entire polis of Athens. 3 Such as the bestial centaurs (and the Minotaur, although the latter episode is developed much earlier; see Brommer 1982, 35–64), and the Amazons, who are at best representations of a dangerous ‘other’ by virtue of their female appropriation of masculine prerogatives, and are at worst (and mostly after the Persian wars) ‘Amazon imperialists [who] oppose Athenian imperialists as women oppose men … [and who] had to be eliminated through total annihilation’ (Tyrrell 1984, 16). On the mythic interactions of Amazons and Athenians, see now also Mayor 2014, 259– 86. 4 See Mills 1997, 16, 45–7; Walker 1995, esp. 2–6, 10–11, 13, 24–9, 36–42, 263–7. 5 See Thuc. 2.15; for discussion of the validity of Athenian belief in a Thesean (i.e., Bronze Age) synoecism of Attica, see Hornblower 1991, 261–4. On the latter subject, it is worth noting that, although Theseus is not mentioned in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ in Iliad 2.546–58, all of Attica (with the exception of the Salaminian force under the command of Aias) is represented under the heading of the Athenians; see Gomme 1945, 49. 6 See Eur. Suppl. 352–3. This connection was further developed in th the 4 century: Theoph. Char. 26.2 and Isoc. Helen (Or. 10) 35. For the 2

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

171

Athenian politics: he was (almost certainly) employed as a symbol or model by such varied figures as the Peisistratids, 7 Kleisthenes, 8 and Kimon, 9 and the interpermeation of the heroic and the contemporary moved both ways, with the deeds of Theseus becoming increasingly political (that is, suited to archaic and classical notions of the polis, such as balancing the duties of the individual politēs towards the group and the responsibilities of the group towards its members, or the central importance of polis life in Greek identity) 10 even as his 6th- and 5th-century adherents sought to frame their own deeds as continuing Theseus’ heroic tradition. However, the transformation of Theseus into Athens’ national hero rendered some of the hero’s earliest deeds problematic. 11 The introduction to Plutarch’s Life of Theseus brings the unsavory issue straight to the forefront: Ἐδόκει δ’ οὖν ὁ Θησεὺς τῷ Ῥωμύλῳ κατὰ πολλὰς ἐναρμόττειν ὁμοιότητας· ἄμφω μὲν γὰρ ἀνεγγύω καὶ σκοτίω γενόμενοι δόξαν ἔσχον ἐκ θεῶν γεγονέναι, ἄμφω δ’ αἰχμητά, τό γε δὴ καὶ ἴδμεν ἅπαντες (Hom. Il. 7.281), (2.) καὶ μετὰ τοῦ δυνατοῦ τὸ ξυνετὸν ἔχοντες· πόλεων δὲ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων ὁ μὲν ἔκτισε τὴν Ῥώμην, ὁ δὲ συνῴκισε τὰς Ἀθήνας· ἁρπαγὴ δὲ γυναικῶν ἑκατέρῳ πρόσεστιν… 12

notion that Kleisthenes and the Alcmaeonids were responsible for casting Theseus as the founder of democracy, see Tyrrell 1984, 3–4 (and n. 10 on 131 for bibliography). For the line of thought and imagery connecting Herakles  Theseus  Democracy, see Mills 1997, 28–9. 7 See Connor 1970, 144–50, and more recently, Hall 2007, 338–46. 8 See n. 6 above. 9 See Barron 1980 and Podlecki 1971. 10 See Figueira’s excursus on the Greek polis in Figueira 2006, 261–2 and esp. sections D and E (with attendant subsections). 11 For a convenient chart showing the dates of evidence for the various deeds and stories associated with Theseus, see Brommer 1982, 75. 12 Plut. Theseus 2.1–2: ‘And indeed Theseus seemed to approximate Romulus through many similarities: for both, although born of uncertain and unwedded origins, had the repute of having descended from gods, “and both were warriors, which indeed all of us know,” (Hom. Il. 7.281)

172

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

‘Uncertain and unwedded origins’ appear at first to be a problem, especially given the increasing emphasis placed on birth heritage for citizenship rights in Classical Athens. 13 However, the narrative of a man with unclear ancestry first proving himself by his deeds and ultimately being validated by the revelation of high birth (in this case royal, through Aigeus, or even divine, through Poseidon) not only appears repeatedly in ancient Greek literature, 14 it is particularly apropos for a democratic context that was caught between a long-standing (and still pervasive to the end of the classical period) aristocratic ethos and a new ethos that at least aspired to level the playing field for all Athenians to compete on the basis of merit, rather than birth. 15 This leaves us with ‘the abduction of women’, which, although quite appropriate for Bronze Age and Homeric heroes, was an embarrassment in the Classical period, especially for the populist king of a civilized polis. Furthermore, while the deed of Romulus in question (the seizure of the Sabine women) could be excused on several counts − it was critical to the success of the Roman state, it was provoked by neighbors’ hostility, it was ultimately successful in consolidating the Latins, it was eventually codified by legal marriages − Theseus’ abductions could not so easily be excused. and were intelligent with their power; and of the most renowned cities, the one founded Rome, and the other carried out the synoecism of Athens; and the abduction of women was attached to each…’. Text and text divisions of Plutarch from Zeigler 2000. All translations are my own. 13 For the Periclean Citizenship Law of 451, see Ath. Pol. 26.3 and Plut. Per. 37.2–5. 14 E.g. Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus; Euripides’ Ion and Alexander; Herodotus 1.108–18 (Cyrus the Great). 15 For egalitarianism and meritocracy in Classical Athens, see Loraux 1986, esp. 172–220, where she examines the epitaphios of Pericles at Thuc. 2.35–46. Cohen 1992, 82–90 touches on egalitarianism at Athens in his discussion of the evolving place of the oikos in Athenian society. Vlassopoulos 2007 collects a number of the 5th- and 4th-century forensic speeches concerned with citizenship, and makes a case that the distinction between statuses at Athens (i.e., citizen, metic, slave, woman) was not as visibly obvious or deeply felt as is often assumed.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

173

His abductions of Helen and Antiope incited invasions of Attica, imperiling his own country, and the abduction of Ariadne only concluded when he abandoned her on Naxos. 16 Thus, as Sophie Mills says, [w]here Theseus is simply one of the ‘men of old’, he is much like other gods and heroes, who are not bound to follow the ordinary rules of society, but his adoption as the national hero and representative of Athens means that he can no longer be sufficiently distanced as an educational example; hence any deeds which conflict with what Athenians need to believe about their representative (and therefore themselves) must be pushed into the background or sanitized in Athenian literature, although for non-Athenians they are less disturbing and can be retained. 17

I cite this at length to start us thinking about the deed of Theseus that is both the oldest and perhaps least well known, the act that constitutes my subject here: his abduction of Helen. I shall consider all the surviving sources for the abduction myth, from its possible beginnings in the Mycenaean period to the latest ancient authors working with the myth, the latter of whom crafted their narratives by aggregating material from earlier versions. These late authors, however, often provide our only 16

The story is variable in its parts, but Ariadne never accompanies Theseus to Athens. In Odyssey 11.321–5 Ariadne is killed by Artemis on the testimony of Dionysus, but the authenticity of the passage has been called into question by the Attic form of the name Dionysus (see Walker 1995, 17). Theogony 947–9 relates the marriage of Ariadne to Dionysus (perhaps presupposing her abandonment by Theseus, but with no direct comment). Hesiod frs 147 and 298 West explain that Theseus abandoned Ariadne for love of Aigle or Hippe. Mills 1997, 14–16 and Ganz 1993, 268–70 outline the sources, coming to relatively opposed conclusions: Mills thinks that the Athenians invented ‘new versions to “set the record straight”’ (18, citing the Odyssey, Pherekydes FGrH 3 F 148, and Isoc. 12.193), while Ganz is more skeptical about whether such matters can be ‘an Athenian invention to save Theseus’ reputation in the matter’ (269). 17 Mills 1997, 6–7.

174

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

insight into those earlier sources themselves. My main emphasis will fall on exploration of the places in myth where our surviving accounts disagree. Although our accounts are often incomplete, and so they do not always confirm each other, it is rarer to find instances where they actually contradict each other. Because of the fragmentary nature of our evidence, the first appearance of each detail of the myth should always be considered its terminus ante quem rather than necessarily its moment of innovation. Thus, one would never propose that Alcman, our first literary source, created all of the details in his Theseus-Helen-Dioscuri narrative out of wholecloth. Rather, we will accept that many details likely existed in lost accounts pre-dating Alcman’s poem, and only attribute the innovation of a detail to Alcman himself if something about Alcman, his poem, or his milieu promotes itself as a likely inspiration. Moreover, after correlating the evolution(s) of the abduction myth with relevant moments of particular historical resonance, I shall suggest that the myth played a major role in late6th-century propaganda, and was a central concern in the battle over the identity of Theseus during that same period. Before embarking, however, there are a few necessary preliminaries. The first is to discuss the four appendices. Appendix A lists in chronological order all of the literary accounts (known to me) of the abduction of Helen by Theseus and of her retrieval by the Dioscuri. It includes the author or work to whom an account has been attributed, fragment number(s) if applicable, a date of composition, where such is possible to determine, or a date of author’s floruit, and its source, where relevant. The list is accompanied by a table of the major details of the abduction myth, attributing such details to their accounts. Appendix B is a more granular visualization, presenting all the sources important for reconstructing Hellanicus’ account of the abduction, as well as indicating which details are present in these authorities. 18 Appendix C provides the full text of the abovementioned literary accounts in Greek or Latin and in English translation. Appendix D is a list of the visual depictions of the abduction myth, providing the date, 18

For more on Hellanicus, see 176-99 below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

175

artist (where applicable), and reference for each such work, as well as some brief descriptive remarks. The second preliminary is to sketch a composite version of the abduction, one including the best attested variant of each narrative element, excluding poorly attested elements as outliers. Hereby some of the cruxes, important for my analysis, will easily stand out. I shall postpone enumeration of dissenting narratives. The ancient version closest to this synopsis is Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 4.63. Some uncontested contextual details are referenced in my notes. 19 Our story begins not with Theseus, but with the death of Peirithous’ wife Hippodameia, whereupon Peirithous goes to Athens to visit Theseus. Learning that Theseus’ own wife, Phaedra, has died, he persuades Theseus to abduct Helen, daughter of Tyndareus. They go to Lacedaemon, abduct Helen from the temple of Artemis Orthia, and, with pursuit stopping in Tegea, 20 they bring her back to Athens. Once there they decide to cast lots to determine who will get to marry Helen, with the winner being obliged to help the loser acquire a wife of his own; Theseus wins the lottery and Helen. The Athenians are displeased with these events, and so Theseus, fearing them, hides Helen in Aphidna, a city in Attica, with his mother, Aithra, and other friends as guards. Peirithous determines to pursue Persephone as a wife, and, although Theseus attempts to dissuade him, they embark upon his course, as Theseus is compelled by an earlier oath to assist Peirithous in his quest. After descending to the underworld both are trapped by Hades, although Theseus will later be freed by Herakles. While the heroes are stuck in the underworld, the Dioscuri come to Attica to retrieve their sister. After discovering 19

For the sake of simplicity I cite here only first level sources, not underlying authorities. Thus, if a detail comes from Diodorus Siculus and is further attributed (either by him or a modern scholar) to the Cypria, I limit my reference to Diodorus. Appendix A provides a table of all the sources for narrative elements, including those cited by later compilers/aggregators. 20 The details about the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and Tegea are from Plut. Thes. 31.2.

176

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

that she is at Aphidna, they take the city in a battle, retrieve their sister, and lead away Aithra as a slave. Not meeting with Theseus, they go on to sack Athens before returning to Lacedaemon. 21 Considering Hellanicus’ account on the adduction of Helen constitutes my final preliminary. Reconstructing this important authority is essential for an understanding of the entire array of our evidence and will entail grappling with many distinct points of interpretation. Thus a rather extensive reconsideration of Hellanicus’ account of the abduction becomes necessary.

HELLANICUS AND THE ABDUCTION OF HELEN The reconstruction of Hellanicus, promulgated by Jacoby in supplement I to volume 3B of his Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 22 has been accepted with little comment or examination by most subsequent scholars. 23 However, Jacoby’s reconstruction does not hold up under close review, while the attempts at reformulation of Elizabeth Irwin (in ‘“The hybris of Theseus” and the date of the Histories’) 24 are misguided. A new reconstruction is essential given the pivotal role Hellanicus played at the very head of the Atthidographic tradition. Our source document for Hellanicus is Plutarch Theseus 31–4, citing him at 31.1. We consider two scholarly interpretations of the extent of Hellanicus’ contribution to Plutarch’s abduction narrative, Jacoby and Irwin. Jacoby argues for Hellanicus as the primary source of Theseus 31:

21

This detail is not in Diodorus, but is in Pausanias, [Apollodorus], Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Homeric scholia. 22 FGrH 3b I 35–40 (323a ‘Hellanikos von Lesbos’ commentary on fragments 14–19, 18–19). 23 For example, Harding 2008 and Ampolo and Manfredini 1988 both simply attribute the entirety of Theseus 31 (excluding, of course, the anonymous Peloponnesian accounts, on which see below) to Hellanicus, Harding without comment and Ampolo and Manfredini with a paraphrase. Fowler 2013 follows Jacoby as well, without a single comment on the fragment. 24 Irwin 2013.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

177

H. is directly quoted only for the statements concerning the ages of Theseus and Helen which we will not examine as to their particulars… Since Plutarch after the statement from H. adds anonymously the variants given by apologists for Theseus we are fully justified in taking the πλεῖστοι μάρτυρες to include, or even to mean primarily, H.: after the digression the main account continues as in ch. 25, 2–7, where no doubt the treaty with Corinth derives from H. 25

However, Jacoby concedes that there is little evidence for Hellanicus as the primary source for Theseus 32–6, noting that ‘in the last part of the Vita, as in the history of Theseus’ youth, quotations from H. are lacking; we cannot trace immediately back to the first Atthis either the whole account in ch. 32–36, or single facts; Philochoros decidedly has a stronger claim’. 26 Although basing herself on Jacoby, Irwin derives almost the entirety of Plutarch’s account (31–4) from Hellanicus. 27 Her main arguments are: (1) Plutarch’s citing of variants suggests an intent to adhere to a single version (based on Jacoby) 28; (2) the etymologizing of the cult title of anakes for the Dioscuri and the mention of autochthony date this version to the end of the 5th century; (3) Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 ‘confirms that the end of Hellanicus’ account is the same as that appearing in Plutarch’; (4) a scholion to Aristophanes’ Clouds v. 1006 confirms the similarity of the accounts. 29 I shall begin with Irwin’s broader interpretation and work my way back towards Jacoby. There are several problematic aspects to her argument from etymology and autochthony. First, her idea that ‘whether a figure is an autochthonous native or instead a foreigner seems stressed in all three authors’ accounts of Theseus, and as such finds its best explanation in a climate of the Athens following 25

FGrH 3b suppl. I 39. FGrH 3b suppl. I 35–6. 27 Irwin 2013, 70–1. 28 Irwin 2013, 70 n. 129 quotes Jacoby FGrH 323a F 18–19 (cited above). 29 Irwin 2013, 70–1. 26

178

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

the Periclean Citizenship Law’. 30 A late dating for the Athenian belief in autochthony, argued most fully by Rosivach, has found little support, 31 and even Rosivach placed the growth of the autochthony mythos before the Periclean Citizenship Law (which might reflect it). 32 Notions of citizen and foreigner were important for all Greek poleis stretching back as far into the archaic period as we have evidence. The passage of Pericles’ law on citizenship may have brought discussion of these matters to the fore (or may have been caused by an already existing sensitivity to such matters: laws rarely initiate societal discussion of whatever issue they are designed to address), but a quick glance at [Demosthenes] 59 (Against Neaira) should make abundantly clear that no law on citizenship need have been passed recently for Athenians to be concerned about the categories of citizen and foreigner and the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. The argument placing etymologizing most at home as an activity in a late 5th-century context is equally problematic. On this subject Irwin claims that ‘such a degree of etymologizing, particularly in relation to the onomata of divinities, was an intellectual obsession at the time, practiced by the so-called “Neo30

Irwin 2013, 56. Fowler 2013 says that ‘Rosivach, “Autochthony and the Athenians”, too skeptically argues that the Athenian myth of autochthony was a creation of the early 5th c.’ (459 n. 32); Figueira [forthcoming] is more ardent in his rejection (‘The tendency to end-load this phenomenon, as a product of the 5th-century democracy and arkhē is deplorable (cf. Rosivach 1987, 304–5)’) and goes on to say in a footnote that ‘[i]ts manifest early traces reflect efforts by Dark Age/early archaic Athenians to grapple with continuities with Bronze Age Attica, an island of relative demographic stability within a more unsettled context’. Shear 2002, 68–9 makes a compelling argument for the existence and importance of the autochthony myth no later than the mid-6th century. 32 Rosivach 1987, 305: ‘The most likely time for both these developments, I would suggest, was the same time that the standard [citizen] list was being formulated, viz. in the period between the Persian Wars and the middle of the fifth century.’ 31

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

179

Heracliteans”, and best represented in Plato’s Cratylus.’ 33 In fact, etymologizing, and especially etymologizing about the names of divinities and heroes, has a long and distinguished pedigree in Greek literature indeed. In his monograph Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers, Jaeger explains that ‘[e]tymologizing is an old method that we have already found used rather extensively in the Theogony of Hesiod, and indeed it is one that has always played an important role in Greek theology. It rests on the assumption that the names of mysterious divine powers, when rightly interpreted, give the key to their nature’. 34 In a footnote he continues that ‘[e]tymology is one of the most important and most frequent methods of early Greek theology’. 35 Even the ‘Neo-Heracliteans’ and the Cratylus betray the earlier popularity of etymology: the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus (active in the late 6th and early 5th centuries) used etymology to help understand the true nature of a thing, and Cratylus was in fact a student of Heraclitus. That our largest surviving Greek work specifically devoted to etymology (the aforementioned Cratylus) dates to the end of the 5th century is a poor basis for placing any and all extensive etymological commentary in the same time period. Perhaps most significantly, however, there is simply no textual support in Plutarch’s account for autochthony and etymologizing as pointing to Hellanicus. Although Irwin asserts that ‘[t]he various etymologies given to the title of the Dioscuri, “anakes”, no less than the repeated references to autochthony in this logos, date this version firmly to the period in which Hellanicus was active’, there 33

Irwin 2013, 70. Jaeger 1936, 68–9; the italics are mine. See also New Pauly s.v. ‘Etymology’ (Klaus Sallmann) and Oxford Classical Dictionary s.v. ‘Etymology’ (Robert Maltby), both of which note the etymologizing play around Odysseus’ name in Odyssey 1.55 and 1.62 and the existence of similar examples in subsequent poets such as Hesiod, Pindar, and the Athenian tragedians. 35 Since Jaeger bounds his work with ‘the time of the Sophists’ (v), it can be assumed that the late 5th century falls at the end of ‘early Greek theology’. For more on etymology in early Greek theology, see Warburg 1929. 34

180

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

are in fact no references to autochthony in Theseus 31–6: the word does not appear even once. The most that can be mustered on this point 36 is that Menestheus’ lineage is recited back through Erechtheus, 37 and that Menestheus accuses Theseus of being a foreigner and a stranger. 38 The longstanding tenure of the issue of citizens juxtaposed with foreigners has been discussed above, and the nexus of Erechtheus, autochthony, Theseus, and Athens has been well-explored in scholarship. 39 Importantly, both Menestheus’ lineage and his accusation come in the one section of the Theseus that even Irwin says is the ‘only one segment of the account narrated by Plutarch where we are forced to take it on trust that he has been adhering to Hellanicus throughout’. 40 This is as much as an admission that nothing in the section is particularly Hellanican, and in point of fact Theseus 32 sits better in a 6th-century context, as we shall see below. 41

36

See Irwin 2013, 56–7. Theseus 32.1: ‘Μενεσθεὺς ὁ Πετεὼ τοῦ Ὀρνέως τοῦ Ἐρεχθέως’. 38 Theseus 32.1: ‘ἔπηλυν καὶ ξένον’. It is not, however, at all certain that this accusation would reflect poorly on Theseus as opposed to Menestheus. Whatever small quibbles might be made about the morality of some of Theseus’ actions, in myth and cult (there was both a temple and a festival dedicated to him at Athens) Theseus was not only Athenian but a stand-in for the sort of arkhēgetēs figure that Athens lacked. Any attempt to argue this hero into being an alien could only be received as demagogy. For more on the possible chronological settings for Menestheus’ undermining of Theseus and usurpation of Athens, see 227– 40 and 243–4 below. Mills 1997, 21 points out that ‘Theseus’ birth outside Athens is, in fact, more useful to his city than an Athenian birth would have been’, referring to Walker 1995’s observation that ‘the Theseus cycle is shaped, in part, by Athenian fantasies of having the whole Isthmus under Athenian control’. 39 See Shear 2002, 68–9; Fowler 2013, 447–89; Kearns 1989, 110–19. 40 Irwin 2013, 71. 41 Gianfrancesco 1975 hypothesizes that Theseus 32, or at least Menestheus’ arguments therein, should be attributed to a fictive λόγος δικανικός composed by Antiphon in the late 5th century, but his 37

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

181

Irwin also points to a variant attributed by Plutarch to Dicaearchus, which makes Ekhedemos and Marathos (eponyms for the Academy and Marathon) Arcadians, noting that ‘in other versions which Dicaearchus seems to be countering, this [autochthonous expression of dissent toward the policy of retaining Helen] is done by Echedemus and Marathus, who in historical terms (that is, the time of the late 5th century) would represent the denizens of these territories’. 42 There are two major problems with this notion. First, Dicaearchus’ recording a variant with the detail that Ekhedemos and Marathos were Arcadian is not evidence for an ‘active dispute reflected in our sources over who is or is not autochthonous’. 43 Dicaearchus was active in the 4th century and early 3rd century, and as his version is of entirely undeterminable antiquity, using its support to create a late-5th-century milieu into which it fits is circular reasoning at best. Second, there is absolutely no positive evidence that Marathos or Ekhedemos (or Akademos) were ever considered autochthons. 44 The Greeks (and even the Athenians) in no way restricted themselves to autochthons when considering mythic origins of place-names, founder figures, and eponymous heroes. We are left, then, with only a single reference to autochthony: that to Menestheus as a descendent of Erechtheus (not surprising given that this is Menestheus’ first appearance in the Theseus, and some ancestry is necessary to explain why such a personage could be challenging Theseus’ regime). This point, as was shown above, cannot be attributed with any confidence to Hellanicus, and, like Dicaearchus’ variant, cannot be fixed to the late 5th century. As for the etymologizing, Plutarch’s actual wording suggests multiple sources: arguments are unconvincing. For a detailed consideration of Theseus 32 and its likely historical context, see 227–40 below. 42 Irwin 2013, 57; Theseus 32.4 (Plutarch 1). Dicaearchus’ account runs counter to those narratives privileging autochthony by highlighting Attic inclusiveness. 43 Irwin 2013, 57. 44 See Kearns 1989, 157 (s.v. Ἑκάδημος / Ἀκάδημος) and 183 (s.v. Μάραθος/Μαραθών)

182

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Ἄνακες προσαγορευθέντες ἢ διὰ τὰς γενομένας ἀνοχάς, ἢ διὰ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν τοῦ μηδένα κακῶς παθεῖν στρατιᾶς τοσαύτης ἔνδον οὔσης· ἀνακῶς γὰρ ἔχειν τοὺς ἐπιμελομένους ἢ φυλάττοντας ὁτιοῦν· καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἴσως ἄνακτας διὰ τοῦτο καλοῦσιν. εἰσὶ δ’ οἱ λέγοντες διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιφάνειαν Ἄνακας ὀνομάζεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ἄνω τοὺς Ἀττικοὺς ἀνέκας ὀνομάζειν, καὶ ἀνέκαθεν τὸ ἄνωθεν. 45

Plutarch provides two possible etymologies for the Anakes: one related to this episode (anokhē or ekhein anakōs for the restraint they showed in Attica), and one from their celestial associations. The second etymology is prefaced with ‘eisi d’ hoi legontes’, which suggests that it was advocated by a different group of sources than the first etymology. Thus, we apparently have two different etymologies, advocated by different sources, the latter of which actually bears no relation at all to the story at hand. It is, of course, possible that Hellanicus found the two etymologies and passed both on, and that Plutarch has taken both etymologies from him and is presenting them without citing Hellanicus. However, it is equally, if not more, plausible that Plutarch found the two etymologies in different sources and that ‘eisi d’ hoi legontes’ are his own words. Furthermore, any other writer, especially an Atthidographer or mythographer interested in aetiologies, could be responsible for one or both of the etymologies. Ultimately, the vague plausibility of attributing these etymologies to Hellanicus is not sufficient to use them to support the attribution of other sections of Plutarch’s Theseus to Hellanicus. The next pillar of Irwin’s argument is that Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 (Hellanicus 3 in Appendix C) ‘confirms that the end of Hellanicus’ account is the same as that appearing in Plutarch’. 45

Theseus 33.2: ‘…being called the “Anakes”, either on account of their forbearance (anokhē) or on account of their care and solicitude that nothing bad happen even with such a great army being within: for to take care (ekhein anakōs) is being concerned with or guarding anything: and perhaps they call kings “lords” (anakes) on account of this. And there are those who say they are named “Anakes” on account of the appearance of their stars: for the Athenians call “up” anekas, and “on high” anekathen.’

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

183

It is true that some of the points in this scholion match up with the Plutarch narrative: that Peirithous and Theseus are both involved; that they abduct Helen when she is young; that they leave her in Aphidna with Aithra; and that the Dioscuri ravage Attica and take Aithra prisoner. There are two problems, however: first, these are not unique details in any way. At least sixteen literary accounts include Peirithous in the abduction; at least six literary accounts indicate Helen’s youth; 46 at least twenty literary accounts have Helen kept at Aphidna; at least twenty-seven have the Dioscuri invading Attica and twelve have Aithra taken as their prisoner. 47 Furthermore, the only detail of these that is not attested before Hellanicus is the age of Helen, which may well be a Hellanican innovation. 48 There is no reason, then, to assume that, because these details existed in Hellanicus’ account and in Plutarch’s account, Plutarch’s account summarizes that of Hellanicus. Second, some of the important details do not match up. Our scholion specifies that divine lineage is an important aspect of Hellanicus’ account: Peirithous is a son of Zeus, Theseus of Poseidon, and they have agreed to marry daughters of Zeus. 49 This certainly matches up with what we know of Hellanicus, who worked extensively with the mythic lineages of the Greeks. 50 It does not, however, match up with Plutarch’s account: in Theseus 6.1 Theseus is the son of Aigeus and grandson of Pittheus, with the latter spreading the rumor that Theseus is the son of Poseidon, and nothing at all is said of Peirithous’ parentage when he is introduced in Theseus 30. In the same vein, the scholion explicitly refers to Hades, which never appears as such in Plutarch; more on this, however, when we turn to Jacoby. 46

For more on Helen’s youth, see 204–11 below. See the ‘Table of Major Details in Abduction Myth’ in Appendix A for details by account. 48 On Helen’s age in Hellanicus, see 194–9 below. 49 Pindar fr. 243 Maehler may indicate that this particular collocation is first attested in Pindar, but it could of course have been independently derived by Hellanicus in his work on genealogies. 50 See n. 121 below. 47

184

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Irwin’s final piece of evidence, then, is that a scholion to Aristophanes’ Clouds v. 1006 (Hellanicus 7 in Appendix C) confirms that Plutarch’s account matches that given by Hellanicus. We are faced in this scholion with much the same problems that we encountered in the Homeric scholion. The issues of etymology (the ‘anaktes’) and Helen’s age have already been addressed. The latter is in fact the only thing tying this account to Hellanicus: he is not mentioned by name, but our source for his figure of Helen’s age as seven years is another Tzeztes’ scholion (to Lycophron 513), so that we can assume that Tzetzes had a source that attributed the seven-year-old figure to Hellanicus, and that here he was drawing on that same account in whole or in part. 51 The number (and early date) of sources with the details about the campaign of the Dioscuri, Aphidna, the absence of Theseus, and the abduction of Aithra have been discussed above. An interesting difference is the detail that the Dioscuri did no harm to anyone else of the Athenians (aside from taking Aithra captive). It is hard to reconcile this with the Plutarchean narrative, which explicitly says that the Dioscuri went to war and eventually took Aphidna and destroyed it. 52 One could argue that subsequently the Dioscuri are gentle with Athens, but our scholion here, despite speaking of Athenians, never mentions Athens, only Aphidna. 53 The account of Dio 51

It is worth noting, however, that in the scholion to Lykophron 143 (Douris 3) Tzetzes attributes the seven-year-old figure to Douris of Samos. There are two possibilities here: either Tzetzes has confused the two sources to which he most often refers on this subject, or Douris, like Hellanicus, claimed that Helen was 7 years old upon her abduction. The former possibility problematizes the reliability of Tzetzes’ scholia generally, while the latter problematizes the assignation of any particular scholion based on the seven-year-old figure to either Hellanicus or Douris with any certainty. 52 See Theseus 32.3–4 (Plutarch 1 in Appendix C). 53 And the sentence ‘μετά τινα καιρὸν κατ΄ Άθηναίων στρατεύσαντες ἐν Ἀφίδναις τῆς Ἀττικῆς’ makes it clear that the Dioscuri’s opponents in Aphidna are Athenians, so the later use of ‘τῶν Ἀθηναίων’ cannot be held to refer to the denizens of Athens proper as opposed to those of Aphidna.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

185

Chrysostom may provide a better parallel here: although he, like Plutarch, has the Dioscuri carry out acts of war, he does specifically note that they ‘set free the other women they took; but they led away the mother of Theseus as a captive, taking vengeance on him’. 54 So that sets to rest three of the four supports of Irwin’s argument for Hellanicus as author of the Plutarchean narrative. Now we must turn to Jacoby, formulator of the more authoritative position on Hellanicus’ involvement with the account of the abduction myth in Plutarch and the final prop of Irwin’s more extensive theory. Jacoby’s argument 55 is that Plutarch begins Theseus 31 with Hellanicus and then interrupts the narrative to give other sources as variants before returning to the initial logos; 56 as such, we should consider the witnesses for the subsequent ‘main account’ to include, or perhaps mean primarily, Hellanicus. At the beginning of Theseus 31, 57 after the mention of Theseus’ and Helen’s respective ages and the intra-Peloponnesian variants, Plutarch says, ‘τὰ δ’ εἰκότα καὶ πλείστους ἔχοντα μάρτυρας τοιαῦτ’ ἐστιν’ (But these sorts of things are likely and have the most witnesses). The choice of a plural, generalizing deictic like toiauta suggests more a hodgepodge of details culled from various sources than a single account passed (perhaps) from Hellanicus down through other Atthidographic intermediaries. So, to review, the structure of Theseus 31 is as follows: the ages of Theseus and Helen at the time of the abduction, as Hellanicus gives them; intra-Peloponnesian variants contesting the ‘greatest of charges’ (whether it be the age difference or the abduction itself); ‘the following sorts of things are most likely and have the most witnesses’. Jacoby cites as a parallel Theseus 25.5–7: 58 54

See Chest of Cypselus 2 in Appendix C. For a direct quote see 177 above. 56 For more on these variants, which I usually refer to for the sake of specificity as ‘intra-Peloponnesian variants’, see 213-16 below. 57 See Plutarch 1 in Appendix C. 58 Text and divisions from Zeigler 2000 as usual, but I have added the breaks between the main narrative of the chapter and the interruption for variants. 55

186

AARON HERSHKOWITZ καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα πρῶτος ἔθηκε κατὰ ζῆλον Ἡρακλέους, ὡς δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον Ὀλύμπια τῷ Διΐ, [καὶ] δι᾽ αὐτὸν Ἴσθμια τῷ Ποσειδῶνι φιλοτιμηθεὶς ἄγειν τοὺς Ἕλληνας. ὁ γὰρ ἐπὶ Μελικέρτῃ τεθεὶς αὐτόθι νυκτὸς ἐδρᾶτο, τελετῆς ἔχων μᾶλλον ἢ θέας καὶ πανηγυρισμοῦ τάξιν. ἔνιοι δέ φασιν ἐπὶ Σκείρωνι τὰ Ἴσθμια τεθῆναι, τοῦ Θησέως ἀφοσιουμένου τὸν φόνον διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν· Σκείρωνα γὰρ υἱὸν εἶναι Κανήθου καὶ Ἡνιόχης τῆς Πιτθέως. οἱ δὲ Σίνιν, οὐ Σκείρωνα, καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα τεθῆναι διὰ τοῦτον ὑπὸ Θησέως, οὐ δι᾽ ἐκεῖνον. ἔταξεν οὖν καὶ διωρίσατο πρὸς τοὺς Κορινθίους, Ἀθηναίων τοῖς ἀφικνουμένοις ἐπὶ τὰ Ἴσθμια παρέχειν προεδρίαν, ὅσον ἂν τόπον ἐπίσχῃ καταπετασθὲν τὸ τῆς θεωρίδος νεὼς ἱστίον, ὡς Ἑλλάνικος (FGrH 323a F 15) καὶ Ἄνδρων ὁ Ἁλικαρνασεὺς (FGrH 10 F 6) ἱστορήκασιν. 59

The interruption of narrative here is comparable to Theseus 31: we have here ‘ἔνιοι δέ φασιν… οἱ δὲ…’, just as we have ‘ἔνιοι λέγουσιν… ἢ…’ in Theseus 31. However, in 25.5–7 we have no attribution at all for the portion of the narrative before the interruption and a final position citation of Hellanicus and Andron, a citation position that is more often used for attribution of an entire section. In Theseus 31, we have a clear attribution to 59

‘And he first established the games there [at the Isthmus] through rivalry with Herakles, aspiring for the Greeks to carry out the Isthmia to Poseidon on his account just as they did the Olympia to Zeus on Herakles’ account. For the games established there in memory of Melikertes were carried out in the night, having the function of mystic rites rather than of spectacle and assembly. – But some say the Isthmia was established in memory of Skiron, with Theseus atoning for his murder because of their kinship; for Skiron was the son of Kanethos and Heniokhe, daughter of Pittheus. And others argue for Sinis, not Skiron, and say that the games were established by Theseus on account of this man, and not of Skiron. – So he prescribed and ordained for the Corinthians, that they furnish proedria to those of the Athenians coming to the Isthmia, as much room as would be covered by the sail of the sacred ship bringing them, as Hellanicus and Andron of Halikarnassus record.’

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

187

Hellanicus for the portion of the narrative before the interruption, and then our second, more general attribution after the interruption. Theseus 25.5–7 as a parallel is simply not compelling evidence that Hellanicus should be considered one of the πλεῖστοι μάρτυρες of Theseus 31.2. Whether or not he is should be decided on the basis of the details found within Theseus 31. Jacoby goes on to say, ‘[t]hat H. is among the πλεῖστοι μάρτυρες is established by F 20’. 60 Jacoby’s fragment 20, it turns out, is none other than Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 (Hellanicus 3), the Homeric scholion on which Irwin had leaned as evidence that the end of Plutarch’s abduction story matched that of Hellanicus. As such use of the scholion as evidence that Plutarch summarizes Hellanicus has already been criticized above, here I shall limit myself to reexamine the issue of Hades in Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144, which is a symptom of a larger problem. Neither Irwin nor Jacoby have looked closely enough at Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 to discern its incompatibility with their argument. 61 There are three details that make it abundantly clear that we cannot simply label Theseus 31 as exclusively derived from the work of Hellanicus. The first two are connected and have already been mentioned: the focus on the divine parentage of all of the participants in the myth, and the literal nature of the journey to Hades. The issue of parentage has already been treated, but why is the literal descent to Hades so important? The answer is that in Plutarch the descent to Hades is otherwise heavily rationalized, being transformed into a journey to Epirus to abduct Kore, the human daughter of the Molossian king Aidoneus and his wife 60

FGrH 3b suppl. I 39 n. 3. Fowler 2013, 488, to his credit, at least acknowledges that the mention of Hades in F 20 strikes a discordant note with Plutarch’s account, but he says only (and very unsatisfyingly) ‘one should not place weight on the detail that they went to “Hades” instead of “Aidoneus” as in fr. 168a’ (see Appendix B for the parallels for the Hellanicus fragment). Would that we could do away with all details inconvenient for our schema by simply not placing weight on them! See 183 above for the extensive examination of why the Homeric scholion clashes with Plutarch’s rationalized account in more ways than just the mention of ‘Hades’. 61

188

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

P(h)ersephone (guarded by their real dog, Kerberos). 62 The similarities between this account and the original, fully supernatural account are quite clear, but, as is the point in such rationalized narratives, a sharp line is being drawn between the mythic, that is to say, the domain of poets, and the historical. 63 Nowhere in this Vita does Plutarch even admit the possibility that Theseus and Peirithous actually went to Hades to abduct the Persephone. As we saw, however, Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 both attributes divine parentage to the participants in the myth and includes an actual katabasis to Hades. Jacoby, seemingly oblivious to this, says in his commentary on his F 14 (Theseus 17.3, concerning the tribute to Minos and the voyage to Crete, including the statement that ‘the death of the Minotaur would be the end of the punishment’), 64 ‘we must assume that H. still took him for the fabulous monster. The rationalization was (conceivably enough) not so fully carried into effect as it was in the tale of the expedition to Hades F 18 and in the descriptions of the 4th century Atthidographers we know, for whom the divergence between the account of Minos in Homer on the one hand and in tragedy on the other also became a problem’. 65 We have here evidence in Plutarch that Hellanicus was not conducting any significant rationalization on the Theseus myth, 66 and that the later, 62

See Plutarch 1. As Hawes 2014, 149 notes, ‘Plutarch organizes his story along rationalistic lines, overtly separating the stuff of poetry from the cleareyed vision of historiography’. For more on rationalization as a technique mediating myth and historia, see Hawes 2014, 1–23. 64 Theseus 17.3: ‘ἀπολομένου δὲ τοῦ Μινωταύρου πέρας ἔχειν τὴν ποινήν.’ 65 FGrH 3b suppl. I 37. 66 The other ‘rationalizations’ that Jacoby wants to see in Hellanicus’ narrative are a treaty between the Corinthians and the Athenians on the subject of the Isthmian Games (see comm. ad F 15) and a similarly formal description of the agreement between Athens and Minos on the tribute for the Minotaur (see comm. ad F 14). It should be immediately apparent that treating the agreement by which the Athenians were sending their youths to Crete, or from which Athenians had the right of proedria at the Isthmian games, as a treaty with formal terms, although an anachronism, 63

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

189

4th-century Atthidographers were doing just that. F 14, far from providing evidence that Hellanicus rationalized the myth of Theseus, confirms the evidence of F 20 that the opposite is the case: Hellanicus had a fully mythological account that not only included but featured direct descent from and interaction with divinities on the part of the main characters. The only evidence for rationalization is the account in F 18 and that fragment serves to subvert direct derivation from Hellanicus. 67 The final detail that tells against attributing Theseus 31 to Hellanicus tout court leads us to an even more dramatic conclusion, and has, so far as I can tell, gone completely unnoticed. Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 begins with ‘Aithra [daughter] of Pittheus. This Aithra is different from the mother of Theseus. For it is shameful, that Aithra should follow Helen in the manner of a handmaiden, although considered her mother-in-law (ἑκυρὰν).’ 68 That Aithra is here called ἑκυρὰν to Helen throws a whole new light on the rest of the passage. Usually, considering Helen’s age and the underlying structure of most narratives of the abduction story, a reader would interpret the section where ‘Peirithous and Theseus … agreed to marry daughters of Zeus. And having snatched Helen quite young, they entrust her to Aithra, daughter of Pittheus and mother of Theseus, in Aphidna of Attica’ to imply that no marriage had actually taken place. However, the reference to Hellanicus’ version is introduced specifically to support the contention that Aithra has become

is far different from making a katabasis into a trip to Epirus to steal Kore, the daughter of people named Aidoneus and Phersephone. 67 For Theseus in Hellanicus and later Atthidographers with special emphasis on rationalization (or the lack thereof), see Walker 1995, 199– 201. 68 See Hellanicus 3. The word ἑκυρά appears twice in the Homeric corpus: at Il. 22.451 and 24.770. In both cases it is used in direct speech to refer to Hecuba: at Il. 22.451 Andromache is the speaker, and at Il. 24.770 Helen is the speaker. We have little information about the circumstances of Andromache’s marriage to Hector, but there are the obvious parallels between the Paris/Helen abduction and the Theseus/Helen abduction.

190

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Helen’s mother-in-law. 69 So if we do away with our imperative to interpret all of Theseus 31 as evidence for Hellanicus’ narrative, the only evidence we have for said narrative (beyond the datum about the ages of Helen and Theseus) is in this scholion, and the words of this scholion suggest that Hellanicus had Helen marry Theseus. Before returning to consider in more depth the question of how Hellanicus treated the relationship between Theseus and Helen, let us stop here and lay out our new reconstruction of the narrative of Hellanicus into which such an investigation will fit. We have two classes of sources: those that mention Hellanicus by name (Plut. Thes. 31, ΣLyc. Alex. 513, and Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144), and those that do not mention him by name, but have meaningful and noticeable overlap with the sources of the first class (ΣLyc. Alex. 102 and 143 and ΣClouds 1006 use the seven-year-old figure for Helen, and ΣLyc. Alex. 503 has significant verbal overlap with Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 70). Appendix B provides a convenient visual 69

The conclusion to Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 serves as an excellent illustration in the care necessary in working with this source. It says that ‘the Dioscuri, not receiving their sister, ravage all of Attica, and take Aithra prisoner’. Again, the obvious assumption is that, as (e.g.) in Plutarch, the Dioscuri cannot find their sister, ravage Attica, then ultimately retrieve their sister and take Aithra as a captive. In actuality, though, the scholion never says that the Dioscuri retrieve their sister. Of course, we should not use Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 to claim that Hellanicus’ version of the abduction story had the Dioscuri return to Lacedaemon empty handed and Helen stay in Attica with Theseus: that would be completely impossible to reconcile with the rest of the mythological tradition, and reconciling mythic traditions and genealogies was what Hellanicus was perhaps best known for (see n. 121 below). Rather, we should keep in mind that this scholion is extremely condensed, and place extra weight not on the slight overlap of major details, but any divergences in those details. 70 (Hom.) ‘Πειρίθους καὶ Θησεὺς, ὁ μὲν Διὸς ὢν, ὁ δὲ Ποσειδῶνος, συνέθεντο γαμῆσαι Διὸς θυγατέρας. Καὶ ἁρπάσαντες τὴν Ἑλένην…’ (Lyk.) ‘Πειρίθους καὶ Θησεὺς ὁ μὲν Διὸς ὤν, ὁ δὲ Ποσειδῶνος φιλίαν ποιησάμενοι συνέθεντο ἁρπάσαι Διὸς θυγατέρα … ἁρπάσαντες οὖν τὴν Ἑλένην…’

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

191

tabulation for these two classes of sources, and it shows that the second-class sources diverge from the first on only five points: they explicitly state that Theseus and the Dioscuri did not meet, and that the Dioscuri retrieve Helen; they claim that the Dioscuri were mild towards the Athenians after retrieving Helen; and they provide additional evidence for Hellanicus’ position on the marriage of Theseus and Helen and the birth of Iphigenia. That the Dioscuri retrieved Helen without meeting Theseus in Hellanicus’ account has never been called into question, and a mild treatment of the Athenians after that retrieval matches many accounts of the abduction. Finally, the relationship between Theseus and Helen in Hellanicus is a fraught issue even without the second-class sources. Thus, because the sources of the second class do not conflict with those of the first class in any meaningful way, we shall include all of our sources in both our reconstruction of Hellanicus’ narrative and our consideration of his treatment of the relationship of Theseus and Helen. To begin with Plutarch, we saw above that the attribution to Hellanicus of Theseus 31 after the intra-Peloponnesian variants and the new declaration of most-likely details is doubtful. 71 If we want to see everything that follows as a single account, it cannot be that of Hellanicus, because it presents a rationalized rendition of the katabasis which clashes both with our other evidence in Plutarch for Hellanicus’ Theseus and with our Homeric scholion. If we would rather see it as a variety of details from different accounts, as I have argued, only the portion before the rationalized katabasis can be from Hellanicus. In this case we can attribute to Hellanicus the details that Helen was abducted from the temple of Artemis Orthia, that the pursuit followed only up to Tegea before stopping, and that Theseus won a lottery with Peirithous over the right to marry Helen. And, given that we will already have discarded the notion that all details must come from the same account, any of these individual details can be easily discarded if they do not coincide with our information from other sources. The story in Hellanicus, as we could reconstruct it, would be something like the following: 71

See 185-9 above.

192

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Theseus, the son of Poseidon, was fifty when he and Peirithous, the son of Zeus, abducted Helen, the seven-yearold daughter of Zeus, from the temple of Artemis Orthia in Sparta. The two cast lots to decide who would marry Helen, with both giving oaths that the winner would help the loser to obtain another daughter of Zeus; Theseus won. The two then left Helen with Aithra and Aphidnos in Aphidna and went to Hades to abduct Persephone. While they were gone, the Dioscuri ravaged Attica, retrieved Helen, and took Aithra prisoner, doing as little harm as possible to the other Athenians.

I have purposefully omitted any mention here of whether Theseus and Helen were married, and whether they produced Iphigenia together. Now that we have an outline of Hellanicus’ account from which to work, we can return and consider these issues in more depth. The two main consideranda for the issues of marriage and procreation in Hellanicus’ account are how we define marriage and how we approach Helen’s age. To begin with, it is obviously difficult to determine whether Theseus and Helen should be considered married without a solid grasp of what criteria would constitute such a marriage in its ‘heroic’ setting. At Athens, at least, the terminology regarding marriage seems to have pertained to two areas: the transfer of the wife from the father to the husband (ἐγγύη and ἐκδιδόναι) and the physical cohabitation and consummation of the husband and wife pairing (συνοικεῖν and γάμος). 72 Witnesses would often have been involved in ἐγγύη because it was a legal contract, but as Harrison points out, ‘[t]here is… little evidence that the completion of marriage by ἔκδοσις or γάμος required any special formality’. 73 In the case of Theseus and Helen, ἐγγύη or approval from Helen’s family is obviously not possible. 74 However, Theseus and Helen were not marrying in 72

See Harrison 1968, 2–3. Harrison 1968, 18. 74 Tyndareus and the Dioscuri are variously treated as the guardians of Helen in matters pertaining to her marriage. On the involvement of the 73

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

193

classical Athens, and rituals existed in a number of Greek poleis that alluded to abductive marriage, notably including Sparta. 75 Within the historical period at Sparta there was the famous incident of Demaratos stealing the fiancé/bride of Leutychidas II: Herodotus even uses the word ἁρπάσας to describe the action. 76 If we remove the necessity of a contract between father and prospective husband (and the later ceremonies at Athens aimed at proving the legitimacy of children, especially after the citizenship law of 451), all that remains is συνοικεῖν and γάμος, which, as we already noted, required no special formality. 77 Certainly some amount of ceremony may be involved: at Il. 19.297–9 Briseis laments Patroclus by saying ἀλλά μ' ἔφασκες Ἀχιλλῆος θείοιο / κουριδίην ἄλοχον θήσειν, ἄξειν δ' ἐνὶ νηυσὶν / ἐς Φθίην, δαίσειν δὲ γάμον μετὰ Μυρμιδόνεσσι. 78 However, this kind of event should probably be considered more a celebration of the union than a sine qua non, and there are any number of well-attested and important marriages for which we have no evidence of similar ceremony. 79 Finally, Dioscuri in the wooing of Helen, see Gantz 1993, 565. Isocrates is deliberately agnostic on the subject, referring to Helen’s ‘τῶν κυρίων’ (guardians). The critical difference in the vases examined by Shapiro 1992b appears to be that a reconciliation between Theseus and the Tyndarids has taken place, allowing a more traditional marriage. 75 For survivals of abduction/capture marriage in Sparta, see Plut. Lyk. 15.3–5 and Cartledge 1981, 100–1. 76 See Hdt. 6.65 and Cartledge 1981, 100. 77 Regarding the term ‘συνοικεῖν’ Cartledge 1981, 100–1 points out that ‘although marriage at Sparta began, as at Athens, when the bride entered the house of the groom (or his parents), a Spartan marriage seems to have been conceived, not as the bilateral “living together” of Athens, but as a one-sided “having” of the wife by the husband (Hdt. V. 39. 2; VI. 57. 4, 65. 2; Xen. L. P. 1. 8; Plut. Kleom. 29. 3)’. 78 ‘but you promised that you would make me the wedded wife of godlike Achilles, and you would lead me in the ships to Phthia, and would feast the marriage with the Myrmidons’. 79 To my knowledge there is no mention of any marriage or ceremony between Menelaus and Helen, and our only potential notice of some kind of solemnification between Paris and Helen is the laconic

194

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

although it is not mentioned per se in Greek sources, the intent of the man to make a woman his wife, and his declaration and treatment of her as such, must have been a crucial factor, especially in the period before marriage became largely a matter of polis law regulating legitimate heirs. Alan Shapiro has argued, rightly I think, that ‘the version known best from Plutarch, making Theseus a dirty old man and Helen a little girl, was not as firmly entrenched in the 5th century as is often assumed,’ and in its place we should see a well-known version ‘in which Theseus abducted a nubile Helen and consummated the affair’. 80 I would argue that this version should be interpreted as a marriage-by-abduction between Theseus and Helen, with the requirements of intent and cohabitation met and that of consummation frequently explicitly met as well. 81 It then seems to be assumed in scholarship (although I can nowhere find it bluntly stated) that a marriage between Theseus and Helen in statement in Proklos’ summary of the Cypria that ἀποπλεύσας εἰς Ἴλιον γάμους τής Ἑλένης ἐπετέλεσεν (‘sailing away to Ilion he brought to pass the marriage of Helen’). Obviously such a ceremony should likely be assumed, but would not be narrated unless it was the stage for some other, important event (as e.g. in the marriage of Peleus and Thetis). 80 Shapiro 1992b, 234. For more on Helen’s age at her abduction, see 204-11 below. 81 Theseus abducts Helen with the express intent of making her his wife in seven authors, or eight if we include Alcman (that depends on how one reads Paus. 1.41.4–5: for what material is genuinely Alcman, see Appendix A n. 1.). Among these eight authors are four of our earliest narratives in Alcman, Pindar, Hellanicus, and Isocrates. Four authorities report a child resulting from the union (which guarantees consummation), including the early Stesichorus. Intent to marry: Pindar frs 243 + 258 (163) Maehler, Plut. Thes. 31, Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 (Hellanicus), Isoc. 10.18–20, DS 4.63, Apollod. Epit. 1.23, Lib. Decl. 4.2.85. Iphigenia born from Theseus-Helen union: Euphorion of Chalcis, Alexander Aetolus, Stesichorus (all from Paus. 2.22.6), and Douris (ΣLyc. Alex. 102, 143, 183, 513). Lucian Gallus 17 is also worth considering: there Theseus is said to ‘εἶχε’ Helen in Aphidna, and ἔχειν is apparently the verb used at Sparta in place of συνοικεῖν to describe marriage.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

195

Hellanicus is impossible because of Helen’s youth. SourvinouInwood admits that there was no legal minimum age for girls to marry at Athens, but points out that ‘[t]here is a close connection between menarche and marriage… indicating that the latter followed (at least ideally) soon after the former’. 82 It is certainly difficult to imagine that the Greeks pictured the relationship between a fifty-year-old Theseus and a seven-year-old Helen as a marriage, although Louis Okin’s argument that Douris of Samos presented a Helen pregnant by Theseus at age seven may push for the possibility. 83 A marriage with Helen still seven years of age may also receive some support from the connection at Sparta between beauty and marriageability. 84 However, I would like to argue for 82

Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 26 n. 87. Regarding the fact that all surviving vase-paintings of Helen and Theseus depict Helen as a young woman (and not a child), Shapiro 1992b, 233 says, ‘Sourvinou-Inwood has recently argued forcefully but, I think, ultimately unconvincingly, that the vase-painters, though well aware of the ‘standard version’ of Hellanikos, wilfully disregarded it because of the irresistable constraints of an artistic formula signifying erotic pursuit’. Sourvinou-Inwood’s conception that Hellanicus’ version of Helen’s age was standard appears to be based on a misreading of Ghali-Kahil 1955 and a privileging of consistency in mythological biographies that is unwarranted in early Greek mythography. For the former, Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 52 n. 252 claims that ‘all the surviving literary sources concur in attributing a very young age to Helen (on Helen’s age in the literary sources cf. Kahil 1955, 307 and nn. 10–13)’; Kahil never makes such an assertion (for more on Helen’s age in literary sources see Appendix A). On the latter point of mythological biography, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 52 n. 252: ‘the childish age for Helen and the older age for Theseus in the narratives were determined by the desire to accommodate the incident in the careers of the two protagonists (cf. Kahil 1955, 307), to make the two mythological biographies fit, and were therefore strongly motivated’. 83 Okin 1980, 100–1. 84 Cartledge 1981, 96 and n. 75: ‘What we cannot judge is whether feminine beauty was as it were the icing on the matrimonial cake or one of its essential ingredients – unless of course ‘beauty’ may also be interpreted figuratively as equivalent to ripeness for marriage, as some of Alcman’s poems suggest. [NOTE 75: The connection between beauty and marriage,

196

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

another possibility: that Helen remained with Theseus in Attica long enough to reach a more conventional age for marriage (and for the conception of Iphigenia). The key to this possibility is that Hellanicus’ seven-year figure is always associated specifically with Theseus’ abduction of Helen. 85 Okin, like other scholars, assumes that this means the entire episode happens within a year or so: he speaks of ‘Duris’ acceptance of the age of seven for the kidnaping of Helen, and therefore seven or eight for the birth of her child’. 86 However, there are multiple indicators in our surviving narratives that the recovery of Helen was not an instantaneous process, and the obvious comparison of Paris’ abduction of Helen should give us some pause before jumping to any conclusions about timely retrieval. 87 This interpretation, allowing Helen to reach some degree of normal physical maturity before her retrieval, runs counter to Shapiro’s understanding of Hellanicus’ rationale for making Helen seven years of age: that Hellanicus was ‘above all at pains to reconcile this story with the Homeric tradition that Helen’s first husband was Menelaos and with the Greek insistence on female virginity at first marriage’. 88 However, the passages used to support at least royal marriage, at Sparta was so strong that Plutarch (Mor. 1 D) misrepresents a story told by Theophrastos about Archidamos II (reigned c. 479–27) being fined for marrying a small woman (Plut. Ages. 2. 6). In the former passage the ground of guilt has become the wife’s ugliness.]’ Even in many of the accounts explicitly calling Helen young, she is said to already be distinguished with respect to her beauty. 85 See ΣLyc. Alex. 102, 143, 513. 86 Okin 1980, 101. 87 The length of time that elapses between Helen’s abduction by Paris and her retrieval by Menelaus is difficult to compute with any certainty, but the abduction takes place as a result of Eris’ actions at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, and their grandchild Neoptolemus is able to take part as a warrior in Helen’s retrieval. On the possibility that the retrieval of Helen from Attica by the Dioscuri was a lengthy, large-scale conflict, see also Smoot 2015. 88 Shapiro 1992b, 235. Sourvinou-Inwood 1988 and Edmunds 2016 have similar, and also unconvincing, positions. Sourvinou-Inwood, 52 n.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

197

the notion that Menelaus had to be Helen’s first husband in Homer will not bear that interpretation, and as such the necessity of Helen being a virgin at her marriage to Menelaus disappears. 89 Helen’s age will be discussed in greater detail below, but for now it will suffice to say that a generational explanation is not a particularly good fit for an age-gap of forty-three years. 90 Without an obvious explanation for Helen and Theseus’ respective ages and without 252 states that ‘Helen’s age in particular is especially determined by the fact that the incident had to take place in her pre-marriageable stage, since her marriageable stage is occupied by a different myth,’ and Edmunds, 109–10 that ‘[t]he childhood of Helen presented itself, within the Greek reception of the Helen myth, as a virtual space into which a new episode could be introduced. That episode was Theseus’s Brautraub’. Both make the mistake of assuming that early Greek story-tellers and mythographers were trying to fit myths into a delicate and carefully maintained biography of the participants. Helen was distinguished for her beauty, desirability, and many husbands: having another tryst of sorts in her youth would not have conflicted with or displaced the Paris/Menelaus narrative. 89 Ghali-Kahil 1955, 305–6 discusses the major underlying prop for this theory: that Aristarchus condemned Il. 3.144 (the verse mentioning Aithra) as a late interpolation ‘car, d’après lui, l’Iliade entière présuppose qu’Hélène n’avait pas eu d’aventure amoureuse avant son mariage’. This school of thought depends on three passages: Il. 13.626, Il. 7.392, and Il. 3.139–40. The former two passages refer to Helen as Menelaus’ ‘κουριδίην ἄλοχον’ (wedded wife). That this term could refer to a woman’s second marriage is guaranteed by Il. 19.297–9 (cited above), where Briseis refers to the possibility of being κουριδίην ἄλοχον to Achilles, having just spoken of the death of her previous husband by Achilles’ own hand. Il. 3.139–40 refers to Menelaus as Helen’s ‘ἀνδρός προτέροιο’ (former husband). Πρότερος can mean former of two, but since it can also simply mean ‘former’ it should not be relied upon to mean ‘former of two’ without other support. Menelaus was clearly Helen’s previous husband, and that is what matters at Il. 3.139–40, not how many previous husbands Helen might have had. As to virginity, none of Helen’s later husbands (of which there may be as many as five) seem to have had a problem with her previous sexual experience. 90 On Helen’s age, 204-11 below. On generational dating, see Ball 1979; Mitchel 1956.

198

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

any evidence requiring an immediate retrieval of Helen, the possibility that Helen, abducted at seven, remained with Theseus long enough to reach marriageable (and procreative) age best fits our evidence for Hellanicus. Having a physically mature Helen in the narrative of Hellanicus leads us to the question of whether Hellanicus included the birth of Iphigenia to Theseus and Helen. For this question we have less explicit evidence, and so our exploration and our results will by necessity be more speculative. 91 Okin states that Douris ‘could not have drawn the entire story [of Iphigenia’s birth] from Hellanicus; the words of Tzetzes make it clear that only Duris wrote of the birth of Iphigenia’. 92 However, Okin also convincingly argues that Douris’ account of Helen bearing Iphigenia to Theseus must be differentiated from that related in Pausanias (and treated already in Stesichorus) because Iphigenia’s birth is consistently placed before her retrieval by the Dioscuri in Douris, while it is placed after, on the way back to Sparta, in Pausanias. 93 This conclusion invalidates that drawn by Okin about Hellanicus: the words of Tzetzes make clear that only Douris wrote that Helen was turned over to the Dioscuri already having given birth to Iphigenia, not that only Douris wrote of the birth of Iphigenia. With no clues about the aspect of Hellanicus’ narrative to which Douris was responding, it is every bit as possible that he was correcting Hellanicus’ utilization of the variant in Stesichorus, not Hellanicus’ assertion of Helen’s non-pregnant state. That is to say, ‘Douris, however, says that Iphigenia was already born when Helen was turned back over to the Dioscuri’ is replying not to an unspoken ‘Helen returned a virgin’ but to an unspoken ‘Helen returned pregnant with Iphigenia’. Thus Hellanicus may well be the first or one of the first who incorporated an Attic Iphigenia into the 91

In none of our sources related to Hellanicus (excluding those portions of Plut. Thes. 31 which we concluded above should not be attributed to Hellanicus) do we get a definite statement about the virginal, pregnant, or post-partem status of Helen upon her return to Sparta. 92 Okin 1980, 101. 93 See Okin 1980, 100; ΣLyc. Alex. 102, 143, 513 (Hellanicus 4, Hellanicus 5, Hellanicus 2).

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

199

greater biography of Theseus by creating a marriage between a young Helen and middle-aged Theseus. This version would be both exculpatory of Theseus and assertive of the validity of an Attic epichoric myth. It would have the weight of Stesichorus’ authority behind it, and would fit better in an endeavor to integrate epichoric Attic Theseus/Helen myths into broader pan-Hellenic mythic tradition. Iphigenia is not named as a daughter of Agamemnon in Homer (instead we have an Iphianassa), 94 so that making Iphigenia a daughter of Helen and Theseus, born in Argos and adopted by Clytemnestra and Agamemnon, would satisfy Attic myth, Argive myth, and Homeric myth, and would provide a familial motivation for Iphigenia’s later movement to Brauron by virtue of her father, Theseus, and her maternal grandmother, Nemesis, whose cult was in nearby Rhamnous. 95 Our exploration of Hellanicus confutes the idea that there was a single authoritative account of the abduction of Helen that headed Attic local historiography. It also establishes that both before and after the late 5th century there existed considerable variation in the retellings of the myth. Plutarch’s Theseus does not offer some privileged version, but merely one synthesis, albeit by an unusually widely-read student of earlier treatments. Establishing what is known of the Hellanican story in its own terms allows us to appreciate the significance of his portrayal of Helen as the sexual partner of Theseus in a (quasi-)marriage.

CRUXES IN THE MYTH After our reconsideration of Hellanicus, it should be apparent that the composite version of the abduction myth that we laid out above in the second preliminary is just a skeleton. Not only do various accounts provide far more detail on particular portions of the myth, but many directly contradict each other. In this section I 94

See Gantz 1993, 582: ‘In Iliad 9 Agamemnon speaks of three daughters who are available for Achilleus to wed, Chrysothemis, Laodike, and Iphianassa (Il. 9.144–5). Neither here nor elsewhere does Homer ever mention Iphigenia or any difficulty in departing from Aulis.’ 95 For more on Nemesis as the mother of Helen, see 202-4 below.

200

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

consider those cruxes, those moments of disagreement or contradiction in the narratives of the abduction myth. There are nine of them: Peirithous’ involvement in the abduction, Helen’s parentage, at what age Helen was abducted, whether a forcible abduction actually occurred at all, whether any sexual interaction occurred between Theseus and Helen, Theseus’ absence or presence during the Dioscuric incursion into Attica, which city or cities were sacked by the Dioscuri, and the scale of the campaign for the retrieval of Helen. Similarly to our composite abduction narrative, I shall begin not with Theseus but with Peirithous. Peirithous is specifically mentioned as a companion for Theseus in 11 of the 28 literary testimonia, and at least 7 of the 19 visual testimonia. 96 In no literary source is it explicitly stated that Theseus carried out the abduction by himself, but there are a number that narrate the abduction with no mention of Peirithous. 97 Regardless, the presence of Peirithous is actually more important for the narrative than his absence, because Peirithous is often used to mitigate Theseus’ guilt for the actions of the abduction myth. 98 As pointed out above, Diodorus Siculus uses Peirithous to begin the action of the myth by actively persuading Theseus to abduct Helen. Although abducting Helen was potentially morally questionable (and would grow to be definitively so over time), even in Aristotle’s day a negative valence 96

See Appendix A. It is, of course, more difficult to be certain about the presence of Peirithous on visual testimonia than in literary ones, since the figures are not always labeled. The number of literary testimonia grows to 12 if we interpret Pausanias’ assertion about the agreement between Pindar’s account and that of Alcman as meaning that Alcman, like Pindar, included Peirithous. See Appendix A n. 1. I have included the Throne at Amyklai under literary sources here as in the appendices, because all of our surviving information about it is literary, and not material, in character. 97 D.Chr. Oration 11.44–5, Cypria (see Appendix B note 3), Isoc. 10 (Encomium Helenae) 18–20, Polemon fr. X Preller, [Apollod.] (Library 3.10.7; Epitome 1.23 explicitly includes Peirithous), Lucian (Gallus 17), Lib. Decl. 4.2.85, Steph. Gramm. In art. rhet. comm. 1397 b 20. 98 See Mills 1997, 11–12, and esp. n. 40.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

201

for the abduction was not necessarily assumed: Rhetoric 2.23.4–5 99 shows that arguments could be made defending Paris from the perspective that Theseus did no wrong in abducting Helen, and the Dioscuri none in abducting the Leukippids, which argues for a prevailing view by which the abduction of Helen did not particularly require defending in its context. 100 The attempted abduction of Persephone, however, was unquestionably impious, and the responsibility for this, even more so than the abduction of Helen, is placed squarely on Peirithous’ shoulders. 101 This diversion 99

‘And the saying that he who beats his father beats his neighbors from the notion that “if the less likely predicate exists, the more also exists”: for fewer beat their fathers than their neighbors… and that, if Theseus did no injustice, neither did Alexander [Paris], and if the Tyndarids did none, neither did Alexander.’ The 12th century grammarian Stephanus, who wrote a commentary on the Rhetoric, provides notes that the references here are to Theseus’ abduction of Helen and the Tyndarids of the Leukkipids (In art. rhet. comm. 1397 b 20–1). 100 Only Diodorus Siculus places the initiative for the abductions with Peirithous alone (DS 4.63 (=Diodorus 1)). In [Apollodorus] (Epitome 1.23 (=Apollodorus 2)) and Hellanicus (Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 (=Hellanicus 3); ΣLyc. Alex. 503 (=Hellanicus 6)), Peirithous and Theseus make a pact to marry/abduct daughter(s) of Zeus (in the latter two cases the divine lineage of Peirithous and Theseus is emphasized, suggesting perhaps the greater relative appropriateness of these marriages/abductions). 101 The initiative for the attempted abduction of Persephone is strongly attributed to Peirithous, with Theseus pointedly objecting, in Isoc. 10 and DS 4.63 (on [Lucian] Charidemus see Appendix A n. 8). In Plut. Thes. 31 (which may to a greater or lesser extent come from Hellanicus; see 185-92 above), Theseus does not attempt to dissuade a Peirithous set on abducting Persephone, but he clearly takes a back seat as a helper for the adventure. Pausanias (1.17.4–6) has Theseus invade Thesprotis, a rationalized Hades, in order to steal the king’s wife, but he later notes that Peirithous is on the campaign eagerly seeking the marriage; it is difficult in this version to tell whether the impetus for the abduction should be attributed to Peirithous (for whose advantage the marriage must have been), or Theseus (who is clearly the dominant member of the pair). In Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, and [Apollodorus’] Epitome Peirithous’ punishment for the attempted abduction of Persephone is greater than

202

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

of impiety from Theseus is further accomplished by the accounts that highlight his devotion to his friend in helping Peirithous with the attempt after being unable to persuade him against it, 102 and in rationalizing accounts by making Persephone just another king’s daughter like Helen. 103 Note that in this latter case (that is, when Persephone has been rationalized into a human woman) the impiety of the abduction is no longer at issue: heroes do go on campaign to acquire nubile princesses after all. The next crux to consider is Helen’s parentage. The subject is complex enough to begin with: Helen, Clytemnestra, and the Dioscuri are all variously children of Leda with Tyndareus and with Zeus. In the Homeric poems, Leda is said to be the mother of Kastor, Polydeukes, and Helen, and Tyndareus the father of Kastor, Polydeukes, and Clytemnestra, while Zeus is the father of Helen. 104 Subsequently Kastor, Polydeukes, and Clytemnestra are sometimes the children of Leda by Zeus, and sometimes by Tyndareus, culminating with one version that (rather logically) would have Helen and Polydeukes as the children of Leda and Zeus, and Clytemnestra and Kastor of Leda and Tyndareus. 105 Helen’s parentage, however, is even more complicated than this that of Theseus, perhaps suggesting greater responsibility on his part; in Pausanias Theseus is eventually freed, while no further mention is made of Peirithous. 102 Isoc. 10 and DS 4.63; see the note immediately preceding. See also Mills 1997, 11–12, esp. n. 40. 103 On the rationalization of Theseus’ and Peirithous’ katabasis in Plutarch’s Theseus, see 187-9 above; Paus. 1.17.4–6 makes the target the wife of the king of the Thesprotians (whose geography is described as that which inspired Homer’s description of the underworld); Aelian (Var. Hist. 4.5) also mentions Aidoneus and the Molossians, drawing on Plutarch or, more probably, his Atthidographic source. 104 See Gantz 1993, 318. 105 On the evolution of the parentage of Leda’s children, see Gantz 1993, 318–23. I call this distribution logical because Helen seems never to be anything but the child of Zeus, and is certainly more spectacular than Clytemnestra in myth, while Kastor is the mortal being of the ‘Tyndarid’ twins.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

203

already somewhat twisted tableau. In a narrative attributed to the Cypria, Helen is the daughter not of Zeus and Leda, but of Zeus and Nemesis. 106 The latter, who attempted to escape Zeus by transforming into all manner of animals in flight, was eventually caught while both had assumed the forms of birds. The egg produced from this union was that from which Helen emerged, and it was found and guarded, and then Helen raised, by Leda. Although the issue of Helen’s mother might seem at first blush unrelated to the story of her abduction, this notion of Nemesis as Helen’s mother is important for two major reasons. First, it appears in the Cypria, a poem of the epic cycle which was coming into its final shape in Attica in the late 6th century, and which included a prominent account of Helen’s abduction by Theseus. 107 Second, Nemesis directs us back to northeastern Attica through her cult at Rhamnous, an area that is otherwise central to our myth and which may be an early home for cult activity related to Theseus and Helen. Emily Kearns places the ‘Attic Helen’ in Aphidna and Rhamnous (the latter through her connection with Rhamnousian Nemesis), and Theseus in Aphidna and Marathon, all in the same general area in Attica: The eastern coast and the Mesogeia, everything east of Hymettos and Pentelikon, may be taken as forming an approximate unity. It is roughly in this area that we can trace the Attic Helen. The story of her rape by Theseus (Hellanicus FGrH 323a F 18) places her in Aphidna, a tradition which gives more credibility to the source which calls her daughter of Rhamnousian Nemesis (Cypria fr. 6 K, cf. Callim. Hymn 3.232). At the other extremity of the eastern coast, she is worshipped with the Anakes (identified with her brothers the Dioscuri) at Thorikos ([IG I3 256bis lines 37–8], cf. Eust. Od. 1.339). Brauron is situated between Rhamnous and Thorikos. 106

See Gantz 1993, 319–20: Cypria fr. 7 Davies (EGF 37–8 = Athen. Cypria fr. 13.II Bernabé (PEG 51–2 = [Apollod.] Library 3.10.7). 107 On the date of the Cypria, see Davies 1989a, esp. 97–100. For the account of Helen’s abduction in the Cypria, see Cypria fr. 13.I Bernabé (PEG 51–2 = Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242).

8.334B-D);

204

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Theseus’ connexions are rather more with the northeast – Aphidna and Marathon – and of course also with the Megarid. 108

This east-Attic nexus gains some support from Strabo 9.1.17 C396, where the list of demes with noteworthy myths and narratives is Aphidna, Marathon, Rhamnous, Dekeleia, and Phyle. The first three fit directly into our geographical region, Dekeleia is part of our myth, and both Dekeleia and Phyle are on the path from the Peloponnesus to our region. Furthermore, Brauron and Marathon were areas associated in the 6th century with Peisistratos, whose involvement with the abduction myth I discuss below. 109 In addition to her parentage, it is necessary to consider the question of Helen’s age at the time of the abduction. The first known account to provide an age for Helen explicitly is that of Hellanicus, probably from around the end of the 5th century. 110 We 108

Kearns 1989, 34 and esp. n. 121. Paus. 1.33.8 describes the base of the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous: ‘ταῦτα ἀκηκοὼς Φειδίας πεποίηκεν Ἑλένην ὑπὸ Λήδας ἀγομένην παρὰ τὴν Νέμεσιν, πεποίηκε δὲ Τυνδάρεών τε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας’ (Having heard these things, Pheidias made Helen being led under the care of Leda by Nemesis, and he made also Tyndareus and his children). For more on the base and the figures depicted thereon, see Lapatin 1992. 109 See Davies 1971, 452–3: ‘The family’s primary, if not only, holding of agricultural land can be located without any doubt at Brauron within the later deme of Philaidai ([Plato], Hipparchos 228 b; Plut. Solon x. 3), a localization probably confirmed by the extant definitions of the area called Diakria which gave its name to Peisistratos’ party in the 560s … Family influence (though not necessarily family property) can be safely traced both further inland and further up the coast as far as Marathon.’ 110 I do not accept Bernabé’s (PEG) Cypria fr. 13 parts III and IV (excerpts from the Epitome of [Apollodorus] and the account of Diodorus Siculus, respectively). The excerpts themselves make no reference to the Cypria or even to Cyclic epic more generally, and Bernabé provides no rationale for their inclusion. Davies 1988 (EGF) does not include the excerpts in question, and some discussion of the problematically loose grounds for including fragments can be found in Davies 1989b. I mention this here because parts III and IV of PEG fr. 13 specify Helen’s age as 12

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

205

saw above that combining our evidence from Plutarch and the Tzetzes Lycophron scholia gave us ages of fifty and seven for Theseus and Helen respectively at the time of the abduction. 111 Many of the subsequent accounts pick up on this theme. Isocrates does not give an exact age for Helen at her abduction, but he does say that she is ‘not yet in her prime’ (οὔπω μὲν ἀκμάζουσαν) and that Theseus cannot get her from her guardians because they are awaiting the ‘maturity of the child’ (τῆς παιδὸς ἡλικίαν). 112 Later, upon her return to Lacedaemon, she is said to ‘achieve the maturity for being courted for marriage’ (πρὸς τὸ μνηστεύεσθαι λαβούσης ἡλικίαν). In Diodorus’ account Helen is ten years old at her abduction, and in the Epitome of [Apollodorus] she is twelve. In Dio Chrysostom Helen is said to be ‘still a small child’ (αὐτῆς ἔτι σμικρᾶσπαιδὸς οὔσης) at the time of her abduction by Theseus. Plutarch repeatedly describes Helen as ‘οὐ καθ᾽ ὥραν’ (not in conjunction with the appropriate time), so presumably not yet old

or 10 years, respectively. This would be difficult to believe of an archaic work, and impossible to believe of a Homeric one (for the strata of the Cyclic epics see Davies 1989a). The issue is further complicated by Bernabé’s inclusion (Cypria fr. 13.V) of a Hellenistic Megarian Bowl presenting the abduction of Helen by Theseus and Peirithous in relief (Visual 19 in Appendix D). The Helen in this bowl is a fully grown woman (as she always is in visual depictions of the abduction). It would be odd to suggest that this bowl reproduced the narrative of the Cypria faithfully enough to provide us with otherwise unconfirmed evidence, but reject its evidence for Helen’s age. 111 On Helen’s age in Douris and possible confusion with Hellanicus, see n. 51 above. 112 [Lucian] Charidemus is substantially the same material as Isocrates, and here he follows Isocrates in commenting on her youth: she is ‘ἔτι τῆς ἡλικίας οὖσαν ἐντὸς’ (still short of marriageable age), ‘μήπω ἡλικίας ἡμμένην’ (not yet of marriageable age), and after her return the Greek kings came to court her only ‘ἐπειδὴ καθ’ ὥραν ἦν γάμων’ (when she was the right age for marriage).

206

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

enough for marriage or childbearing. 113 Libanius calls Helen ‘νέαν οὖσαν κομιδῆ’ (being quite young). In Stephanus the Grammarian Helen is described with the more complicated observation ‘οὔπω μὲν ἀκμάζουσα, εἴδει δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἀκμάζουσα’ (while Helen was not yet in her prime, but at her prime in beauty compared to others). There are, however, a substantial number of accounts, even after Hellanicus, which either do not mention Helen’s age (that we know of) or provide evidence suggesting a woman of age appropriate for marriage and childbearing. Of our named sources, Dicaearchus, Hereas, Polemon, Hyginus, Strabo, Pausanias, 114 Herodian, and Aelian say nothing about Helen’s age during the abduction. 115 Another group of sources record a tradition that Helen was impregnated by Theseus during her abduction, and subsequently gave birth to Iphigenia. Pausanias 2.22.6 relates this, and attributes it to an Argive tradition (of unknown antiquity), 116 Stesichorus of Himera, Euphorion of Chalcis, and Alexander of Pleuron. If this story does indeed go back as far as Stesichorus (6th c.), it would be significantly older than that of Hellanicus and other testimonia. Such a conclusion is unsurprising given that the youth of Helen is likely a Hellanican innovation. 117 The Etymologicum Gudianum also records the story of Helen’s rape by Theseus and the subsequent birth of Iphigenia. [Apollodorus’] Library provides only the somewhat bland assertion that γενομένην δὲ αὐτὴν κάλλει 113

Confirmed by Theseus 31.3: ‘παραλαβὼν τὴν παρθένον οὔπω γάμων ὥραν ἔχουσαν εἰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκόμισε’ (taking the maiden not yet having the maturity of marriage, he conveyed her to Aphidna). 114 In his rationalizing account involving Thesprotis (1.17.4–6). 115 The Homeric scholia are conflicted. Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 (PEG Cypria fr. 13.I) says nothing about Helen’s age, while Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 calls Helen ‘κομιδῇ νέαν’ (quite young). In addition to the named sources, the accounts attributed by Pausanias to the Megarians and to the Lacedaemonians also say nothing of Helen’s age. 116 Presumably it was a fairly old tradition, since it placed the foundation of the Argive temple of Eileithuia in legendary time. 117 On which see below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

207

διαπρεπῆ Θησεὺς ἁρπάσας εἰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκόμισε. 118 One of the most interesting references to Helen’s age, however, comes from Lucian’s Gallus, where the rooster in question, boasting of his past life as Euphorbos of the Trojan War, says, ‘I saw a white and long neck, so as to appear to be the daughter of a swan, but otherwise altogether an old woman, nearly a contemporary of Hekabe, whom [sc. Helen] indeed Theseus first abducting held in Aphidna in the time of Herakles, and Herakles formerly took Troy around the time of our fathers.’ 119 Here we begin to see that the issue of Helen and Theseus’ respective ages was an issue not in an effort to cast aspersions upon Theseus for abducting a young girl, 120 but rather to standardize mythic chronology. It has long been recognized that one of Hellanicus’ greatest interests and achievements fell in the realm of chronology: stitching together the genealogies of the mythic ancestors of Greece into a single coherent tapestry. 121 The Lucianic passage above clearly 118

‘And Theseus, having abducted her when she became distinguished in beauty, carried her away to Aphidna.’ 119 Lucian Gallus 17 (Lucian 1). 120 This is the position espoused by Irwin 2013, 10–11 (‘Indeed, on another contemporary account, Theseus was rather worse than Paris. For according to Hellanicus Theseus was no young man, but was rather fifty years old, and Helen was only aged seven’). 121 For a general overview of Hellanicus’ work, see Lendle 1992, who notes that ‘Hellanikos von Lesbos (FGrH 4) spielte eine nicht unbedeutende Rolle zwischen den traditionellen mythographisch orientierten Vorstufen der eigentlichen Historiographie und den neuen Formen, die Herodot und Thukydides, seine berühmten Zeitgenossen, entwickelten. Er führte, so kann man sagen, die “Universalhistorie” in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung ein und erwarb sich dabei besondere Verdienste auf dem Gebiet der Chronographie’ (63); see also Schreiner 1997, 11–20. On Hellanicus and the chronological organization of mythic Greek history, see RE VIII, 1913, col. 104–55., FGrH I, 1923, no. 4, and FGrH 3B suppl. I. On 7 of the last of these Jacoby notes that ‘[i]n the five works (comprising nine volumes as against the four of Hekataios’ Ἱστορίαι) which dealt with the history of the heroic age from Deukalion to the Trojan War he seems to have collected the whole scattered and

208

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

shows that the difficulty we are encountering with ages is one of generations: in most myth, Theseus is contemporaneous with Herakles, who took Troy in the generation before the Trojan War. Indeed, in the cyclic epics, the children of Theseus (Demophon and Akamas) come to Troy to retrieve their grandmother Aithra. As such, Helen cannot have been at her acme both when she was abducted by Theseus and when she was abducted by Paris. The fact that we have two separate myth traditions that were never meant to be reconciled did not stop chronologists like Hellanicus from doing just that. The chronologist is left with two options: either Helen was at her acme when abducted by Theseus, or she was at her acme when abducted by Paris. 122 Given the popularity of the Trojan War story as compared to Theseus’ abduction of Helen, it should come as no surprise that the story to be altered would be the one that survived in bits of Alcman and Stesichorus, rather than the narrative portrayed in the mighty Homeric Poems. 123 Our conclusion that Hellanicus, as a chronologist, reconciled disparate mythological traditions by making Theseus ‘old’ and Helen ‘young’ at the time of the abduction still leaves us with a problem: how did he decide upon their exact ages? As was mentioned above, simple generational calculations will not suffice to explain an age gap of 43 years: generations of 30, 33, or 40 years are fairly common, but 43 years is unattested. 124 In lieu of generational dating, the best explanation is that Hellanicus took the simple fact of relative youth and age and provided appropriate exact ages. This may draw some conflicting tradition about the pre-Trojan period, the πολλοὶ λόγοι Ἑλλήνων, arranging them in four or five great pedigrees, binding them together by a well-conceived system of synchronisms, and crowning the whole genealogical combination by a narrative of the Trojan War as the first joint enterprise of the Greeks.’ 122 A third option, of course, is that she was an un-aging goddess, which does not seem to have been a popular choice despite the semidivine status Helen almost certainly enjoyed at Sparta, on which see West 1975, esp. p 81. 123 For more on the age of Hellanicus’ Helen and Theseus, see 194–9 above. 124 See Ball 1979, Mitchel 1956.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

209

support from the ages in question: seven for Helen is half of a ‘normative’ female marriage age, 125 and 50 for Theseus is double a minimum male marriage age. I note that Spartan males were probably released from the discipline of sleeping in the mess at thirty, and some had married and sired children well before that age (Xen. LP 1.5; Plut. Lyc. 15.5, 25.1). Lucian, however, shows us that the opposite road was conceivable, especially for comedic effect, even if it was not taken (that we know of) in the classical period. In point of fact, of the accounts that point out Helen’s young age, only Plutarch makes any comment about it making the abduction more morally fraught. 126 To a modern eye Helen’s young age may be 125

See immediately below on female marriage age. Male marriage age was more variable. 126 In Dio Chrysostom and the Epitome of [Apollodorus] no moral comment at all is made about Helen’s age, and the same is true for Hellanicus if we do not associate him with Plutarch’s own judgment (i.e. that Helen’s youth is μέγιστον τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ‘the greatest of the charges’), which he does not attribute to Hellanicus. In [Lucian], Isocrates, Diodorus Siculus, and Stephanus the grammarian, not only is no moral comment made about Helen’s age, but she is specifically described as appearing to be in her prime or surpassing all others in beauty. This is a way to defeat the generational issue: Helen is now younger than marriageable age, but already physically at her peak and as beautiful as her legend requires her to be. Libanius makes no moral comment, and his rhetorical structure makes clear that Paris’ abduction should be considered the more offensive. Isocrates adds the interesting note that Helen’s guardians were not only waiting for her to mature, but were awaiting a Pythian oracle. This interesting detail attributes to Tyndareus and the Dioscuri the kind of slowness and religious scruple which was stereotypical of the Spartans in late 5th-century Athenian eyes; the help of the Pythian oracle was also required in the late 6th century to convince the Spartans to expel the Peisistratids. In terms of modern scholars, many jump to the conclusion that, because Plutarch thought the age difference a great charge against Theseus and modern morality seems to concur, Hellanicus intended the same charge. Jacoby is an exception to this trend: even in his extensive commentary on F 18 of Hellanicus he nowhere suggests that Hellanicus meant to calumniate Theseus over the age difference.

210

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

extremely problematic, but we should not make assumptions that our values always overlap with those in antiquity, and we have precious little evidence to suggest that Helen’s young age was viewed as extremely problematic in antiquity. It is worth noting that there would have been a difference in an ancient Greek context between the figure of a seven year old Helen and that of a ten, or especially twelve, year old Helen. From a modern perspective, the difference between seven, ten, and twelve is minor: Helen would be considered a child at any of these ages, would be legally protected as such, and any sexual contact with her would be stigmatized as child abuse. In ancient Greece, however, marriage was often much earlier: at Athens, epikleroi were required to marry at fourteen, and at Gortyn the minimum marriage age for girls was twelve. Age was not so much the determining factor as menarche, which signaled readiness for marriage. 127 The ages for marriage mentioned above in Greek laws closely correspond to the ages of menarche mentioned by Sourvinou-Inwood: ‘[t]he earliest age for menarche mentioned in our sources is the twelfth year, that is after a girl’s eleventh birthday, while the usual age for it was the fourteenth year (i.e. after the thirteenth birthday).’ 128 A twelve-year-old Helen, then, would be of an appropriate (if on the early side) age for marriage. A tenyear-old Helen would be right on the verge of that age, potentially a year or less away from menarche and marriage. A seven-year-old Helen, by contrast, would be solidly in the pre-menarche, premarriage age bracket, barring supernaturally early fecundity. 129 A final facet of Helen’s (variously reported) age is that it is one of several small details connecting her to Artemis, and potentially to the Brauronia. In Plut. Thes. 31.2, Theseus and Peirithous abduct 127

See Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, p. 26 n. 87: ‘There is a close connection between menarche and marriage (cf. King passim) indicating that the latter followed (at least ideally) soon after the former.’ The ‘King’ mentioned here is King 1983. 128 Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 25. I have not included notes here. 129 For the female age bracket from about five to ten years of age, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 21–67. On the possibility of supernatural fecundity, see Okin 1980, 100–1.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

211

Helen ἐν ἱερῷ Ἀρτέμιδος Ὀρθίας χορεύουσαν. 130 In Athens, girls would take part in a rite of passage at either the temple of Artemis in Brauron (the Brauronia/Arkteia) or that in Mounichia (the Mounichia); girls at Brauron were called ‘bears’. 131 SourvinouInwood concludes that ‘the age of the younger bears… lies in the age-band five to seven/eight… [a]nd… the older bears are represented through the iconographical type corresponding to the age of about ten… This age reflected the nature of the arkteia as a rite of transition from childhood to the period of maturation culminating in menarche.’ 132 Thus Helen’s abduction would be situated during the period for the taming of a young girl for marriage. 133 This connection strengthens our geographical nexus in north-eastern Attica and suggests the intriguing possibility that the abduction of Helen was used as a ritual model for some portion of the Brauronia/Arkteia. As to Theseus’ own advanced age, an observation by Elizabeth Irwin is important (although her conclusion is ultimately misguided): ‘if Istros is indicative of the Atthidographers in general, they by contrast place the abduction in Theseus’ youth, before his abduction of Ariadne (Athen. 13.557a).’ 134 The sentence in Athenaeus that places the abduction of Helen before that of Ariadne should not be attributed to Istros. The text reads, And Theseus having abducted Helen afterwards also abducted Ariadne. Istros, at least, in the fourteenth book of his Attika, listing those who became the wives of Theseus, says some of them became so from eros, and some from abduction, and

130

‘Dancing in a chorus in the temple of Artemis Orthia.’ We concluded above that this detail is likely to derive from Hellanicus; see 191–2. 131 On the relationship between the Brauronia and the Mounichia and the question of a few girls representing an entire age-class, see Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 21–3. 132 Sourvinou-Inwood 1988, 67. 133 See King 1983, 111. 134 Irwin 2013, 11 n. 9; her italics.

212

AARON HERSHKOWITZ others from legal marriage: from abduction Helen, Ariadne, Hippolyta, and the daughters of Kerkyon and Sinis… 135

If we only consider the sentence that is specifically attributed to Istros, the implied order of abductions might be Helen, Ariadne, Hippolyta, and the daughters of Kerkyon and Sinis. There are problems, however, posed by taking this list chronologically: Kerkyon and Sinis are highwaymen killed by Theseus during his journey to Athens, but in this order Theseus would have to have abducted Ariadne before them (and how could Theseus visit Crete before reaching Athens?). Of course, it takes significant mental gymnastics just to place the abduction of Helen before that of Ariadne: this would mean that Theseus was not yet king of Athens since his becoming king is inextricably bound up with the voyage during which he acquired Ariadne. Placing the abduction of Helen before Theseus’ ascension to the Athenian monarchy would invalidate almost every portion of the Helen abduction myth, most of which is predicated on Theseus’ position and rights as the King of Attica, and would additionally require the abduction to be squeezed in somewhere between Theseus’ arrival in Athens and his decision to free the city from its obligation to Minos. It is far more reasonable to assume that Istros did not list these abductions chronologically in this array, 136 and that Athenaeus has misread Istros (if he indeed meant to suggest that the first sentence of the passage should be also attributed to Istros). In point of fact, most writers who provided a comprehensive account of Theseus’ life would have placed the abduction of Helen 135

For the Greek see Athenaeus 1. Even if the Atthidographers wrote annalistically, as Rhodes 2014a thinks they do, there is no guarantee that they did so for legendary, prearchontic times, nor is there a particularly convenient dating system at that point by which to do so. Besides, Athenaeus’ own wording explicitly claims that this was a catalogue by Istros, and so one should not assume that it would either be broken up and fitted into a chronological framework or be internally chronologically organized (especially since we are given the categories into which Istros divided the wives, which were based not upon chronology, but upon the type of relationship). 136

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

213

near the end. The interaction between Athens and Aphidna in most of the myth variants place the abduction after Theseus’ consolidation of power at Athens and more broadly in Attica (what would become the synoecism), which requires that he already have completed his trek around the Isthmus and his trip to Crete. Furthermore, in the vast majority of the narratives Theseus is absent for the retrieval of Helen because he is trapped in the underworld. 137 Originally this likely involved a permanent stay and meant his death, and, even when a return was arranged with the help of Herakles, Theseus died in Skyros not long afterwards. 138 So for writers interested in reconciling myth chronologies and in recounting the entirety of Theseus’ life, the most logical option was for Theseus to be rather old and Helen rather young at the time of the abduction. 139 Thus, for example, Plutarch’s accounts with ‘the most probability and witnesses’ clearly place the abduction of Helen at the end of Theseus’ life, and Plutarch within his own larger chronology has situated it thus as well. Another crux that affects the degree of Theseus’ guilt for the abduction of Helen, like Helen’s age and the presence of Peirithous, is the question of whether the abduction was violent or, in fact, was supported (or even organized) by some Peloponnesians themselves. In almost every surviving account that we have either Theseus explicitly abducts Helen or nothing is said about why the Dioscuri are invading Attica to retrieve their sister. In the latter 137

Diodorus seizes on this by explicitly noting Phaedra’s death as occurring before the abduction of Helen. 138 On the evolution of this myth, see Mills 1997, 10–13. 139 Ampolo and Manfredini 1988 come to the same conclusion: ‘Questo calcolo, che probabilmente fu effettuato per la prima volta da Ellanico, Studioso di cronologia, aveva lo scopo di mettere d’accordo i dati dell’epica con quelli della tradizione mitica. Nell’Iliade (I 262–8) Teseo viene descritto da Nestore come appartenente alla generazione precedente alla sua e, quindi, alla generazione precedente alla guerra di Troia. L’unico sistema per coordinare i dati delle genealogie mitiche e conciliarle con i due rapimenti di Elena ad opera di Teseo e di Menelao, era quello di trasformare Teseo in una persona matura o anziana, Elena in una bambina’ (251).

214

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

case, given the preponderance of narratives on the pattern of Theseus as abductor, such a model must be assumed. However, Plut. Thes. 31 preserves for us two variants of the story wherein Theseus does not, in fact, abduct Helen from the Peloponnese: Already being fifty years old, as Hellanicus says, he (sc. Theseus) carried out the (events) concerning Helen, who was not in the appropriate time of life. Wherefore some, as correcting this greatest of charges, say that he did not abduct Helen, but when Idas and Lynkeus abducted her, receiving her as a ward he watched over her and did not give her up to the Dioscuri when they demanded her back, or (by Zeus!) with Tyndareus himself handing her over, fearing that Enarsphoros the son of Hippocoon would take Helen, still a child, by force. 140

So we have here two variants: in one Theseus receives Helen from Idas and Lynkeus, and in the other from Tyndareus himself. We are not told where these variants originated or in what source Plutarch found them (we are given only a terse ‘ἔνιοι λέγουσιν’), but we can assume that it was not Hellanicus, since Plutarch situates these variants as a corrective to Hellanicus, and even if that is potentially inaccurate (as I will argue) it should still mean that such details were not in Hellanicus’ own work. What, then, can we take away from these particular variants? Irwin accepts at face value Plutarch’s assertion that their purpose is to mitigate the ‘greatest of charges’ (the difference in age between Theseus and Helen). 141 However, as we have seen above, 142 Plutarch is the only ancient author to place such special weight upon this age difference, and his interest in moralizing is well documented, as is his inclination toward normalizing companionate marriage. 143 The only aspect of the myth ameliorated by these 140

For the Greek see Hellanicus 1. Irwin 2013, 10–11 n. 9. 142 See n. 126 above. 143 See Russell 1973, 84–116. Shapiro 1992b, 232 notes: ‘As always Plutarch, the moralizing biographer, has a particular axe to grind. For him, Theseus’ abduction of Helen, a symptom of sexual incontinence in late 141

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

215

variants is Theseus’ abduction of Helen itself. Given Theseus’s refusal to turn Helen over to the Dioscuri on their arrival, the invasion (and ravaging) of Attica is not avoided. Furthermore, this version appears to involve a direct confrontation between Theseus and the Dioscuri, a detail which otherwise exists only in Megarian accounts. 144 Finally, what reason could Theseus have for refusing to turn Helen over to the Dioscuri? The most obvious one is that he wants her for himself, and thus Theseus’ sexual and marital interest in Helen would not be removed. 145 It is also worth pointing out that the ‘defenses’ of Theseus that we know to be Athenian were different: vase-painting suggests the formal marriage of Theseus and Helen as one possibility; 146 Isocrates praises Theseus’ daring, stresses the notion of marriage (as seen in vase-painting), and draws on the theme of Peirithous and the impiety of the quest for Kore as a contrast with the abduction of Helen (he also removes, or elides, the Dioscuric invasion of Attica); we have already discussed the arguments from Aristotle’s Rhetoric 2.23.5. 147 On the other hand, the variants under examination here are both Peloponnesiancentric: Lynkeus and Idas are the Messenian analogues of the

middle age, is a minor indiscretion that triggers a whole chain reaction of events, culminating in Theseus’ fall from power, exile, and ignominious death on the island of Skyros.’ 144 See 219–22 below. N.b. the Megarians in question supposedly fought on the side of the Peloponnesians, and so their account should probably be considered a ‘Peloponnesian’ account. 145 This variant presents a more obvious lapse of time between Theseus receiving Helen and the Dioscuri demanding her back, but for the likelihood that the early abduction narrative involved a significant amount of time that has subsequently been telescoped, see 196–8 above. 146 For a comprehensive discussion, see Shapiro 1992b. On 235 he notes that ‘[b]y re-imagining the story as one of Theseus’ many amorous conquests and even formalizing it as a wedding, the Athenians were able to assimilate the myth to what was already acknowledged to be one of the salient features of his character’. 147 See n. 99 above.

216

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Dioscuri, 148 and the family of Hippocoon vied with Tyndareus for control of Sparta. 149 As such, in addition to the existing interpretation by which these alternate versions were created to exculpate Theseus, the possibility must be admitted that these are instead Peloponnesian variants that focus on intra-Peloponnesian conflict in place of Attic/Peloponnesian conflict. A final crux related to Helen’s age revolves around the sexual activity of Theseus and Helen. As Okin notes, we can see in the accounts of Diodorus and Plutarch a tradition in which there was no sexual contact between Theseus and Helen. 150 We have already discussed above the versions in which Helen bears Iphigenia to Theseus, which obviously entail sexual intercourse between the two. 151 K.J. Dover points out another relevant variant: ‘it seems that Aristotle mentioned the idea that Theseus and Helen 148

See Ampolo and Manfredini 1988, 251: ‘Ida e Linceo, i gemelli figli di Afareo (considerato a sua volta fratello di Tindareo, il padre dei Dioscuri), sono il corrispettivo dei Dioscuri in Messenia; in Laconia sono ben noti, tanto che a Sparta era indicata la loro tomba (Pausania, III 13, 1).’ 149 See Gantz 1993, 217: ‘Hippokoon is a more shadowy figure: Diodoros (4.33.5), Pausanias (3.15.3–5), Apollodorus (ApB 3.10.5), and various scholia say that he drove out Tyndareus and Ikarios from Lakedaimonia (or was aided by Ikarios in driving out Tyndareos) but offended Herakles and perished with his ten (twelve? twenty?) sons when the latter attacked… the Dioscuri seem here to have been involved (if early tradition recognized the parentage given by Apollodorus, Hippokoon would be their uncle), and there is also in the poem something about not aspiring to marry above one’s station, which might indicate rivalry between the Hippokoontidai and the Dioscuri.’ 150 Okin 1980, 100 n. 35: ‘Diod. 4. 63. 5, states that Helen was still a virgin when she was brought back to Lacedaemon. The wording of Plut. Thes. 31 = FGrH IA, Hellanicus 4 F 168 a, implies that Theseus sent Helen to Aphidna without touching her because she was not of marriageable age. Since Theseus in this account immediately departs for Epirus, Helen presumably was rescued by her brothers in an unmolested state.’ 151 See 198–9 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

217

(abducted by Theseus as a child) “invented” anal intercourse, and since Helen was a Spartan heroine the original sexual meaning of “lakonize” will have been “have anal intercourse”, irrespective of the sex of the person penetrated’. 152 The grounding for this conclusion is somewhat problematic, because (as Dover mentions in a note) the text 153 does not originally read ‘Helen’ at all, but rather ‘Melainē’. 154 Because the name Melainē does not appear in any of our extent material about Theseus, and because one might be expected to lakonize with a Lakonian, Helen has been adduced as a replacement for Melainē. 155 There appear to be two likely 152

Dover 1978, 187–8. There is an active debate among commentators as to whether this ‘Aristotle’ should be considered to be Aristoteles of Khalkis. 153 Photius s.v. κυσολάκων. 154 Also problematic is that Melainē should almost certainly be a woman’s name, and nothing about this entry in Photius would lead us to expect a woman’s name here. To make the female name comprehensible modern scholars are compelled to introduce Hagnon’s assertion (Athenaeus 13.602d; see n. 158 below) about heterosexual pederasty at Sparta. We have no evidence for Theseus taking part in a homosexual pederastic relationship, which might otherwise lend support to the idea that a masculine name had been transformed into Μελαίνη by Photius (a Christian source). 155 There are several other figures in the biography of Theseus who might make suitable alternative candidates to replace Melainē, if we wish to insist on avoiding a reference to an unknown myth. The name of the daughter of Kerkyon, whom Theseus rapes, does not come down to us, making her a potential Melainē. A son named Melanippos (obviously etymologically related to Melainē) is born to Theseus and the daughter of Sinis, named Perigoune in Plut. Thes. 8. Perigoune seems clearly to be a speaking name indicating simply ‘exceptional woman’, which would go hand in hand with her description in Plutarch as ‘καλλίστη καὶ μεγίστη’ (‘greatest and most beautiful’). There is one other possibility for a Melainē emendation in Theseus’ mythic biography. According to [Apollod.] Epitome 1.16: ‘συστρατευσάμενος δὲ ἐπὶ Ἀμαζόνας Ἡρακλεῖ ἥρπασεν Ἀντιόπην, ὡς δέ τινες Μελανίππην, Σιμωνίδης δὲ Ἱππολύτην’ (campaigning against the Amazons with Herakles, [Theseus] abducted Antiope, or as some say, Melanippe, but Simonides says Hippolyta). It is

218

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

derivations for such a detail. It could come from a comic tradition: Aristophanes is full of jokes about sexuality, deviance, mythological figures, and Laconians. 156 Alternatively, it could come from a Spartan tradition: it allows Helen to return to Sparta and marry Menelaus while still a parthenos, while acknowledging that sexual interaction would be expected with abduction. Edmunds, however, goes too far in making the detail reliant on Helen’s physical immaturity by stating that ‘because of [Helen’s] minority, following a Spartan custom, [Theseus] had anal intercourse with her’. 157 There is no evidence to support the reading that Theseus and Helen had anal intercourse on account of Helen’s age. 158 To turn to our next narrative crux, already in Plutarch’s discussion of Alcman, our first literary source, we see a point of every bit as easy to see how Melanippe could be contracted by a scribe to the simpler Melainē as it is to imagine Melainē coming from Helen. 156 Aristophanes in the Lysistrata pokes fun at the Spartan preference for heterosexual anal intercourse. See Figueira 2010, 273 n. 43. 157 Edmunds 2016, 70. The italics are mine. 158 Hagnon ap. Athenaeus 13.602d, the major passage used to support an emendation of Melainē to Helen, reads, ‘παρὰ δὲ Σπαρτιάταις, ὡς Ἅγνων φησὶν ὁ Ἀκαδημαικός, πρὸ τῶν γάμων ταῖς παρθένους ὡς παιδικοῖς νόμος ἐστὶν ὁμιλεῖν’ (And among the Spartiates, as Hagnon of the Academy says, it is custom to consort with maidens before marriage as with paidika.) The eromenos in a pederastic relationship was expected to be post-pubescent (see Buffière 1973, 605–17), so that we should not assume from this statement that the Spartiates were accustomed to have anal intercourse with pre-pubescent Spartan girls. Rather, this should be a coupling of the preference for anal intercourse (even in heterosexual relationships) indicated by the verb lakōnizein with the relatively late marriage-age for girls at Sparta to comment on the kind of pre-marital sexual interactions described at Hermippus fr. 87 Wehrli. On such a Spartan custom, see Figueira 2010, 272–3 and notes 40–3. Figueira has noted by correspondence (Oct. 23 2015) that an assumption of Helen’s youth is a leap in judgment that goes beyond the evidence of Hermippus, Σ Hom. Il. 1.609 and 14.296 (on Zeus and Hera as a mythic paradigm), and Arist. Lysistrata (on Spartan women and anal intercourse), all of which can be read to signal mature and late teenage females as their focus.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

219

conflict: was Theseus present when the Dioscuri came to retrieve Helen? Pausanias provides our fragment: ‘how, having come, would [Timalkos] be thought to have been killed by Theseus, when also Alcman, having composed a poem about the Dioscuri, how they took Athens and led the mother of Theseus as a captive, nevertheless says that Theseus himself was absent?’ 159 Alcman, then, is being cited in defense of Theseus’ absence when the Dioscuri came to retrieve Helen, an absence that was apparently being challenged by the Megarian local historians. 160 By far the majority of accounts hold that Theseus was absent when the Dioscuri came to Attica: of the 16 accounts that mention Theseus’ absence or presence at the retrieval, only 3 (Douris, the Megareis [Megarian local historians] and, specifically, the Megarian historian Hereas) have Theseus present. 161 The issue is understandably more controversial in the visual evidence than in the literary. From a visual point of view it is less than ideal that the major participants in the abduction are not, as it were, onstage at the same time. As such, it is not surprising that in a number of visual representations of the myth we see both the Dioscuri and Theseus depicted in the same tableau. 162 Furthermore, it is not at all unusual for vase

159

1.41.4–5 (Alcman 1). Perhaps going all the way back to Theognis. 161 This does not include the ‘Peloponnesian variants’ above as separate accounts; on them see 213–16 above and esp. n. 144. 162 E.g. the Louvre aryballos (Visual 3) and the late Geometric stamnos in Princeton (Visual 2). About the stamnos in Princeton, Brommer, 94 notes that ‘[w]ill man in diesen Reitern nicht Gefährten des Theseus sehen, dann könnte es sich nur um die Dioskuren handeln, die zwar nach der Sage beidem Raub eigentlich nicht anwesend waren, die aber so stark vom Schicksal ihrer Schwester betroffen waren, daß den Vasenmaler auf sie nicht verzichten wollte,’ (If one does not want to see companions of Theseus in these horsemen, then it could be the Dioscuri, who, although according to the legend were not actually present at the abduction, nevertheless were so severely affected by the fate of their sister that the vase painter did not want to do without them). 160

220

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

paintings to collapse time or space to create a striking connection between (potentially disparate) parts of a myth. 163 On a mythographic level, however, it is meaningful that in these earliest accounts (Peloponnesian in origin, as will be discussed further below) Theseus is deliberately removed from a potential confrontation with the Dioscuri. Even if the body of myth as it existed at the time made it unlikely for the Dioscuri to kill Theseus, and we have no guarantee that this was the case, 164 there is no a priori reason that the kind of incident that Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 says occurred between the Dioscuri and Aphidnos could not have occurred between the Dioscuri and Theseus. 165 Clearly 163

See Neils 1987, 85–6 and esp. the discussion of Athens Acropolis Museum 735. This vase from around 480 depicts the brothers of Aigeus, as well as Orneus and Minos, watching Theseus battle the Minotaur. Clearly a literal spectators’ gallery was not intended, since Aigeus’ brothers would not have made the journey from Athens to Crete, but all of the onlookers presented would be particularly affected by the outcome of the combat. 164 As Gayton 1935, 285 notes, ‘[a]s much a factor in the dissemination and re-formation of tales as the narrator, is the listener. He must be satisfied with what he hears; if not, modifications must sooner or later be subtly or overtly demanded.’ This speaks more to oral folktales than written iterations of a myth, but Shapiro 1992b applies a similar observation to a more specifically Greek milieu: ‘again and again, especially in Attic tragedy, it appears that the tragedians did create new versions of old myths to suit their dramatic purpose, or combined already existing elements of myth into a new narrative… We may presume that Athenian audiences did not complain that the playwright had no textual authority for his plot. Rather, they readily accepted such logical leaps as long as these did not violate the basic premises of the myth.’ If a body of widely dispersed myth about Theseus included deeds of any kind after the retrieval of Helen it would affect the audience reception of a variant presenting that retrieval as causing Theseus’ death. However, given our lack of evidence about Theseus mythology (and mythology generally) before Alcman, we should exercise caution making assumptions about the course of the abduction narrative before Alcman. 165 (Alcman 2): ‘on account of the abduction occurring at that time, Aphidna, a city of Attica, was sacked, and Kastor is wounded in the right

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

221

removing Theseus was a deliberate choice, 166 and since most of the literary and visual evidence is meant to glorify the Dioscuri 167 it is equally clear that this choice was not made to diminish their achievement. 168 However, just as much as abduction (or outright rape) of women 169 is a recurring theme for Theseus, so too is the hero’s almost immediate abandonment of those same women. 170 As thigh by Aphidnos, then king [of Aphidna]. And the Dioscuri, not having encountered Theseus, looted Athens.’ 166 And indeed according to the Megarian logos (which Pausanias uses Alcman to refute) Theseus was present at Aphidna and killed a Megarian who had accompanied the Dioscuri. 167 See the quote from Neils 1987 on 5 above for the visual evidence. Pausanias makes a point of mentioning that Alcman’s poem was about the Dioscuri (rather than focused on Helen or Theseus). 168 See Mills 1997, 8 n. 27. I speculate below on the possible historical reasoning behind Theseus’ absence (233–7). 169 Athen. 13.557a, citing Istros, lists the ‘wives’ of Theseus (see Athenaeus 1). Plut. Thes. 29.1–2 has a similar list, naming the mother of Ajax as ‘Periboia’ and adding Iope, daughter of Iphicles. Meliboia, Periboia, and Phereboia should probably all be considered the same woman (whose importance was that she was the mother of Ajax, thus giving Attica a claim on the hero – See Figueira 2012, n. 162 and the surrounding discussion). The extent of the contribution of Pherekydes on Theseus is uncertain, starting from the question of breadth of his interest in the hero’s sexual partners. Was he limited to specifying the parentage of Ajax? At the edge of speculation, the existence of a narrative by Pherekydes on the life of Theseus, including the abduction, could transform any reconstruction of those who shaped later accounts. 170 Most of the women in the note above were abandoned nearly immediately: the story of Ariadne’s abandonment is of course well-known; Theseus did not long delay his trip from Troizen to Athens during his dalliance with the daughters of two of the highwaymen whom he had killed, nor did he bring them with him to his new city; the importance of his relationship with Meliboia/Periboia/Phereboia is that Ajax becomes his offspring, and this is the work of no more than a night (nor is there any surviving mythic evidence for a continued relationship); we know no more about Hippe, Aigle, Anaxo, and Iope than that Theseus abducted them, and certainly there is no evidence for prolonged relationships with

222

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

such, we might see two critical elements to a Thesean abduction myth: the hero’s daring abduction/seduction of the woman, and his absence thereafter. If this latter element should indeed be considered indispensable for Thesean abduction myth, Alcman (and other early sources) could actually make their own mythography more credible by Theseus’ absence, although it seems counter-intuitive to a modern audience. Of course, narratives in the later phases of the myth, and especially those composed from an Attic point of view or for an Attic audience, had different motivations for leaving out Theseus; we will address those below. Another point of disparity between our narratives is whether the Dioscuri sack Aphidna, Athens, or both in their retrieval of Helen. The Chest of Kypselos, 171 as described by both Pausanias and Dio Chrysostom, bore an inscription that put it right on the Aphidna/Athens fault-line. Chrysostom claims to have seen ‘in Olympia in the opisthodomos of the temple of Hera a memorial of the abduction of that girl in the wooden chest dedicated by Kypselos, the Dioscuri holding Helen treading on the head of Aithra and pulling her hair, and an epigram inscribed with ancient letters’. 172 Pausanias is more specific in his description of the scene, and he includes the inscription itself:

any (and the sheer numbers make such a relationship with any of the victims all the less likely). 171 On the era to which the Chest was attributed in antiquity versus the current scholarly consensus, Snodgrass 2001, 128 comments, ‘[f]or the last hundred years, the learned consensus has been that Pausanias had been misled by his guides when he relayed the story that the chest was the actual one in which the infant Kypselos, later tyrant of Corinth, had been concealed; this would have happened at some date in the early seventh century by our reckoning. Yet the remarkable correspondences between Pausanias’s account of the iconography and epigraphy of the chest and the iconography and inscriptions on surviving Corinthian vase scenes are enough to prove beyond reasonable question that he was describing a genuine product of archaic Corinth, dating perhaps from somewhat after 600 B.C.’ 172 Oration 11.44–5 (Chest of Cypselus 2)

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

223

And there are on the chest the Dioscuri, one not yet having a beard, and between them Helen; and Aithra the daughter of Pittheus is there, having black clothing and thrown to the ground at the feet of Helen, and the epigram for these (figures) is a hexametric verse and the addition of one word: The Tyndarids fetch Helen, and drag away Aithra From Athens. 173

Despite Pausanias’ assertion, the inscription does not work metrically, and no proposed solution has met with general acceptance. H.S. Jones 174 has an extensive discussion of the scholarly discourse about whether to keep Ἀθάναθεν in the inscription or emend to Ἀφίδναθεν, eventually siding with Bergk 175 in favor of the emendation. Employing such an emendation would be a mistake. First, Ἀφίδναθεν does not fix the metrical problem. More importantly, however, we know from Pausanias that both Alcman and Pindar included the capture of Athens, and from Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 that Athens made an appearance in the Cypria as well. Even the Hellenistic Megarian bowl (Visual 19), which might be thought to represent a Corinthian local variant given that it includes an otherwise unattested stop at Corinth by Theseus and Peirithous, has the two continue to Athens from Corinth. The conclusion that the Chest of Cypselus represented a narrative in which the Dioscuri retrieve Helen from Athens brings us back around to our central question: how should we approach the Athens/Aphidna discrepancy, and can we make an argument for one version or the other as ‘original’? Most scholars agree that Aphidna should be regarded as the original hiding place of Helen. Mills notes Aphidna’s importance as a Mycenaean citadel and location in northeastern Attica, 176 and Walker (drawing on Herter) adds that ‘nobody would have had any incentive to transpose an Athenian legend to a remote spot like 173

Paus. 5.19.2–3 (Chest of Cypselus 1) H.S. Jones 1894, 76–7. 175 Bergk 1882 iii4, 19. 176 Mills 1997, 8–9 n. 24. On the nexus of connections between our myth and northeastern Attica, see 203–4 above. 174

224

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Aphidna, and … even the Athenian version says that the Dioscuri attacked Aphidna first’. 177 While it is possible that the abduction myth originally centered on Aphidna, the case has been overstated. With any myth that clearly stretches back into Greek pre-history, as this myth does, we must keep in mind the paucity of our evidence, which goes from ‘largely fragmentary’ in the historical period to ‘nearly non-existent’ in Bronze Age and EIA Greece. Trying to discover the ur-form of a myth in these conditions is a tricky (and often futile) proposition. Furthermore, the arguments made for the primacy of Aphidna lack strength. First, Athens was also an important Mycenaean citadel, and although it is not located in northeastern Attica, it does have closer connections to Theseus himself than does northeast Attica. 178 Secondly, Walker misses one obvious group of people when he claims that nobody had an 177

Walker 1995, 28 n. 56, citing Herter 1936. More caution is in order in assuming that the ‘Athenian version’ had the Dioscuri attack Aphidna before Athens. This assumes a single monolithic Athenian version unchanging over the course of time, a version presumably to be reconstructed from that ascribed by Herodotus to the Dekeleians and that of Hellanicus. 178 Walker himself (1995, 20–1) points out this connection between Theseus and Athens, and lack thereof between Theseus and Aphidna: ‘[t]here is, however, a fairly simple explanation for this discrepancy between the myth of Theseus, which comes from the area around Aphidna, and the cult of Theseus, which is located in Athens alone. The myth of Theseus goes back to a time when Aphidna and its lord had some sort of independent existence, an autonomy which came to an end when Attica was united as a city-state. The cult of Theseus, on the other hand, is a product of the newly united state of Athens. He was worshipped at hero shrines, and this type of worship does not begin until the time of the citystates. So, as far as hero cult is concerned, Theseus is purely Athenian. This is why all his shrines were within the boundary of the city and its suburbs. There was, therefore, no transfer of his cult from the northeast of Attica to the capital, but rather a new invention of such a cult in Athens.’ Of course, if we do not assume that the myth of Theseus must originally come from the area around Aphidna, the discrepancy he mentions disappears.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

225

incentive to transpose an Athenian legend to a place like Aphidna: the inhabitants of Aphidna and its environs. It is abundantly clear that our abduction myth was told by many groups, and that each groups of tellers added details that made it their own: in Megara we see the remnants of a tradition where Theseus was present at the retrieval of Helen and killed a Megarian prince; at Argos Helen gave birth and founded a temple of Eilethyia on her way back to Sparta; at Dekeleia Dekelos was responsible for aiding the Dioscuri and preserving Attica from ruin. A version of the myth in which Helen was stored at Aphidna, rather than Athens, would have been useful to anyone interested in presenting a version of the retrieval of Helen without the necessity of the Dioscuri sacking Athens itself (that is, Athenians or anyone building a relationship with Athens). Two ancillary issues related to Aphidna deserve brief mention here. For one thing, I must side with Ghali-Kahil in her estimation of the theory of Maass (followed by Yanaginuma) that Aphidnos, the eponymous figure from Aphidna who guards Helen and wounds Castor in Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242, is the original abductor of Helen and stands as an alter Hades in a parallel to the abduction of Persephone: ‘l’opinion de E. Maass … demeure pure hypothèse, et ne s’appuie sur aucun texte ni sur aucun document figuré.’ 179 The other issue is the possibility that a version of the legend located Aphidna in Laconia, rather than Attica. This idea draws its inspiration from identical passages in Aelius Herodianus and Stephanus of Byzantium which mention that ‘ἔστι καὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ὅθεν ἦσαν αἱ Λευκιππίδες Φοίβη καὶ Ἐλάειρα.’ 180 J. Labarbe suggests ‘un doublet péloponnésien’ of the abduction myth wherein Helen is taken to, and retrieved from, an Aphidna he places at the boundaries of Laconia, southern Arcadia, and Messenia. 181 Labarbe would then see the wounding of Castor by 179

1962.

180

Ghali-Kahil 1955, 308; see Maass 1890, 356 and Yanaginuma

‘There is also [an Aphidna] of the Laconian region, whence came the Leukippids Phoibe and Elaeira.’ Robert 1888 and Wide 1893 argue on the basis of this passage for the Laconian Aphidna as the original scene of the myth. 181 Labarbe 1958, 39.

226

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Aphidnos (Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242) 182 as contamination from the conflict between the Dioscuri and the Apharetidai: in addition to Aphidna as the homeland of the Leukippides (over whom the Dioscuri and the Apharetidai fought in some traditions), Ovid Fasti 5.708 mentions an Aphidna as the location of the Dioscuri’s fatal battle with the Apharetidai. 183 As ingenious and intriguing as the work that Labarbe has done to create this theory is, it ultimately falls at the same hurdle as that of Maass and Yanaginuma: it lacks sufficient evidence to elevate it beyond mere speculation. In his exhaustive consideration of the perioikic communities of Laconia and Messenia, Graham Shipley classifies Aphidna as ‘Non-poleis not extant in archaic or classical period.’ 184 Aphidna’s only other appearance in the Copenhagen Polis Centre publications is its inclusion by Shipley in An inventory of archaic and classical poleis as one of five ‘alleged settlements’ found in Stephanus of Byzantium. 185 It does not appear at all in the Laconia Survey of the British School at Athens. 186 Perhaps most importantly, there is no literary account in which Helen is taken to Aphidna in Laconia. Such an account must be fabricated by reading into details in accounts which explicitly include Athens or Aphidna in Attica. This Aphidna in Laconia is better seen as a late speculation or confusion than evidence of an early variant in the myth of Helen’s abduction.

THE DIOSCURIC INVASION OF ATTICA Our final crux to consider is the extent of the conflict in Attica during the retrieval of Helen by the Dioscuri. In a real sense, understanding the nature of this conflict helps to integrate much of our previous discussion and will allow us to suggest a historical context for the crystallization of the myth. We have already touched on this subject in several of our previous cruxes: namely, 182

Hygin. Astron. 2.22 and Avienus Aratea 372–3 go further and speak of Castor being killed at Aphidna in Attica. 183 Labarbe 1958, 38–40. 184 Shipley 1997, 268. 185 Hansen and Neilsen 2004, 571. 186 Cavanagh et al. 1996–2002.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

227

Theseus’ absence or presence and the possibility that two communities in Attica were sacked. The amount of support received by the Dioscuri especially varies from author to author. In Herodotus, our first non-fragmentary account, they already arrive in Attica with an army. Dicaearchus gives them two Arcadian heroes as allies and clearly makes those heroes part of a larger army. 187 In Hereas and the Megareis, the Dioscuri unsurprisingly have Megarian allies (and Theseus himself is present to oppose the invaders). This breadth of involvement both confirms how widespread the myth was (it was not just told by Megarians or Arcadians, but they actively inserted themselves into it) and suggests that an important facet of the myth was to present a united force of Peloponnesians under the aegis of the Spartan Dioscuri. 188 The inhabitants of Attica themselves form another, unexpected source of assistance for the Dioscuri in some branches of the tradition. In Herodotus, Dekelos reveals to the Dioscuri Helen’s hiding place in Aphidna, and Titakos betrays that city. A very similar story appears in Plutarch, but Akademos has replaced Dekelos. 189 A figure lurking even more frequently behind this antiThesean sentiment in Attica is Menestheus, who appears in [Apollodorus], Plutarch, Pausanias, and Aelian. In these sources he is always opposed to Theseus and aligned with the Dioscuri. In [Apollodorus], Pausanias, and Aelian he is given the kingship of Athens by the Dioscuri after their invasion and deposition of the 187

Marathos, one of the Arcadian heroes, gives himself over to be sacrificed ‘before the front rank of the array’ (πρὸ τῆς παρατάξεως). 188 Smoot 2015, 86–128 sees the abduction of Helen by Theseus and her retrieval by the Dioscuri as a ‘pre-Homeric epic tradition of … “a protoPeloponnesian war” pitting invading Dorians against besieged Athenians (Atticans)’. Such a possibility is intriguing, but the evidence to make the idea anything more than speculative is lacking. 189 The version with Dekelos appears again in Herodian, and that with Titakos in Steph. Byz.; both are without question derivative. Irwin 2013’s argument that this narrative in Herodotus is later than, and responding to, the narrative in Plutarch (which would all come from Hellanicus) is unconvincing, not least because the idea that Plutarch’s account should be assigned to Hellanicus is faulty; see 176–85 above.

228

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Theseids. Plutarch, however, takes this further and reports a tradition that he actually incited the invasion: ‘while [Menestheus] was conducting this business [that is, destabilizing Theseus’ regime in Athens during his absence], the war contributed great overbalance to the revolutionary movement when the Tyndarids attacked: in short, some indeed say that they came being persuaded by him.’ 190 These traditions concerning Dekelos, Akademos, Titakos, and Menestheus reveal an undercurrent of Attic discontent and even stasis into which the Peloponnesians are intruding; this political situation suggests an as-yet unappreciated chronological context as a particular ‘hot spot’ for the abduction/retrieval myth. Scholars often compare the retrieval of Helen by the Dioscuri to the (Second) Peloponnesian War, and in its aftermath that war must certainly have had some influence on the mythic tradition about the retrieval. 191 However, a variety of details point to the late 6th century, and specifically the conflict between Kleomenean Sparta and Peisistratid/Kleisthenic Athens, as a better climate for the development and deployment of the abduction/retrieval myth. The degree to which Thesean mythology in general, the development and popularity of which over the course of the 6th century we can track to some degree through artistic representations, was dependent on or encouraged by Peisistratos and his dynastic successors has been a point of scholarly debate. 192 190

Plut. Thes. 32.2 (Plutarch 1). Irwin 2013 would see the entire narrative of the retrieval of Helen as largely shaped by late 5th-century politics; on the problems with her assessment of Hellanicus’ account, see 176–89 above. Her evaluation of Peloponnesian-War-era politics is undermined by her selective distrust of Thucydides and her strongly anti-Athenian bias. Pelling 2002 remarks on the resonances between Plutarch’s account of the retrieval and the second Peloponnesian War: he attributes the patterning to Plutarch himself. Although his rebuttal to Gianfrancesco 1975 (‘One wins few adherents by associating one’s enemies with a great national hero’) is on the mark, his favoring of Plutarch as innovator over Atthidographic intermediaries reflects his own investment in Plutarch. 192 On Theseus in Attic vasepainting of the 6th century, see Brommer 1982 and Neils 1987, 24–51. Brommer 1982 is organized by mythic 191

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

229

Boardman and Connor provided early contributions to this debate, but it has been most fully contested in Walker and Hall. 193 Both sides have their merit. Walker wisely advises caution in drawing conclusions about the 6th century based on circumstantial evidence, while Hall significantly strengthens the circumstantial case built by Connor. Unfortunately, Hall does not respond directly to Walker’s criticisms, despite using many of the very pieces of evidence from Connor criticized by Walker. There is room for such a response: Walker’s standard of proof for Peisistratid involvement with Theseus is unreasonably high, to the point that it reaches the level of argument from silence. 194 However, for all his strident argument subject, rather than chronologically, but discusses chronology for literary and visual sources in every section. 193 Connor 1970, 144–50 argues in favor of deliberate use of Theseus as a mythic forebear/paradigm. Boardman 1972 responds, claiming that instead the Peisistratids associated themselves with Herakles. 194 Walker 1995, 40: ‘If the Peisistratids had made such extensive use of the myth of Theseus as this theory requires, surely some ancient author would have mentioned it, just as Herodotus records that Peisistratus used Athena for such political purposes. Unfortunately, no such statement has survived.’ Walker is also open to criticism on his overly strict application of dates and analysis of mythic parallels. An example of the former is his ruling out Peisistratid influence in the François vase dated to 570 because that falls before Peisistratos’ tyranny: it is naïve to believe that Peisistratos was a non-entity in Attic society before his tyranny. On the latter point, an association between Theseus – Marathon and Peisistratos – Marathon is dismissed because Peisistratos defeated ‘the Athenians’ at Marathon (i.e., Pallene), and casting them as a monstrous bull in a myth would be unlikely in the extreme. However, the notion that a tyrannous Peisistratos defeated the monolithic ‘Athenians’ at Marathon is clearly a post-expulsion interpretation. It is more likely that Peisistratos had a positive spin on his actions (e.g., the legitimate leader, favored by divinity and chosen by popular acclaim, returning from exile to punish the tyrannical usurpers who had driven him out) than that he hid his actions as shameful and tyrannical. For the possibility that Peisistratos had relatively broad support among the Athenians at the battle of Pallene, and that this support was only later effaced in Athenian historical traditions, see Forsdyke 2005, 118–21.

230

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

against Peisistratid application of Theseus myth, he follows Kron in a point critical for understanding Theseus: ‘[a]ny attempt to attribute the dissemination of this myth to any one political personality seems futile. As Kron has pointed out, all Athenian politicians used Theseus as a model; he stood for the whole of the Athenian state.’ 195 Perhaps, then, instead of simply looking for Thesean connections of politicians or regimes in a vacuum, we should think of Theseus as a malleable figure and try to see in what ways particular politicians shaped him. In one sense this makes Walker right to stress the date 510 and the transfer from Peisistratid tyranny to Kleisthenic isonomia. Theseus was clearly an important Athenian mythic paradigm before and after this turning-point. How, then, could he ‘represent’ two such opposed political regimes? 196 Our myth, that of the abduction of Helen by Theseus and her retrieval by the Dioscuri, serves as excellent evidence for answering that question, although it is left completely unmentioned by Walker and Hall alike. Hall does mention the connection between Theseus and Peisistratos at Marathon, but as we have seen there is a much larger eastern-Attic nexus connecting Theseus and Peisistratos, centering especially on Brauron. 197 The idea of an originally Attic Helen, born from Zeus and Nemesis, abducted (or retrieved) by Theseus and subsequently bearing Iphigenia to him, who serves as a mythic paradigm for the coming-of-age rituals enacted in the cult 195

Walker 1995, 46–7 (italics Walker’s). In his notes to this passage, Walker quotes Kron 1976 in translation, including an idea quite important for our purposes and left unmentioned by Walker (47 n. 89): ‘In no way does Theseus play a role just in the political propaganda of certain Athenian clans, such as the Philaïds, but since Peisistratus he stands as a mythical role-model for all Athenian politicians.’ N.b. that Kron suggests that the first Athenian politician to use Theseus as a mythical role-model was Peisistratos. 196 This problem is part and parcel of Walker’s point on p. 46 that ‘equally competent scholars can come to completely different results’ in whether Kleisthenes or Peisistratos ‘promoted the myth of Theseus and looked upon the hero as his mythical forerunner’. 197 See 203–4 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

231

of Artemis at Brauron (mythically and ritually associated with Iphigenia), may well have been invented, or at least promoted by the Peisistratids. 198 As Hall notes, ‘Theseus’ celebrated friendship with Pirithous, king of the Thessalian Lapiths, could serve as a charter for Peisistratus’ ties to powerful Thessalian families – he named one of his sons Thessalos and, against a first unsuccessful Spartan invasion under Anchimolus, Hippias was able to count on the assistance of 1,000 cavalry under the Thessalian Cineas.’ 199 There is not just positive evidence to support a connection between the Theseus/Helen/Dioscuri myth and the Peisistratids, however: there is also negative evidence. Mills points out that the abduction myth ‘does feature on fifth-century vases, but only rarely, [and] tragedy and monumental art ignore it’. 200 Mills claims that the problem was not so much the fact of the abduction as that it caused an enemy invasion of his country, and she explicitly notes a similar ‘shift of emphasis’ in Theseus/Amazon myths. However, Amazonomachies are a major theme of 5th-century Athenian monumental art: they feature on the western metopes of the Parthenon, and are reported to have been on the shield of Athena Parthenos and painted on the Theseion and the Stoa Poikile. We know from Herodotus that the Dekeleians and Peloponnesians 198

This idea, although admittedly speculative, is still better attested than the notion of an exclusively Peloponnesian myth utilizing an Aphidna in Laconia, which has been much discussed in scholarship. Walker 1995 covers the problems of assuming a 6th-century Theseid, regardless of Peisistratid or Kleisthenic stimulus, but we know that the Cypria, which according to M. Davies 1988 (confirming Wackernagel 1916) reached its final form in a late 6th-century Attic context, included both the birth of Helen to Zeus and Nemesis and the abduction of Helen stories. If we want to consider the possibility that Peisistratos (or his descendents) already merged the Attic and Peloponnesian Helens with a story of a marriage between Theseus and Helen accepted by the Tyndarid line, we may find some support from the close relationship between Sparta and the Peisistratid dynasty before the events of 511 (see Herodotus 5.63.2). 199 Hall 2007, 343. 200 Mills 1997, 8.

232

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

kept the memory of the abduction myth alive, but the Athenians in general seem to have deliberately reduced it in Theseus’ story. 201 Nor was the story irredeemable. Although in some versions Theseus was absent, we know that Megarian accounts had him present to defend his territory and inflict losses on the Peloponnesian forces. Certainly the Persian Wars presented a watershed moment to which Amazonomachies could refer, but such a moment existed for the abduction of Helen as well. In Aristophanes Lysistrata 272–85 the chorus of men boast about expelling Kleomenes from the Acropolis; the chorus leader affirms this boast and mentions as well the Marathonian trophy in the Tetrapolis. Clearly during the 5th century the ‘defeat’ of an invading group of Peloponnesians was an achievement worthy of comparison to the success at Marathon, albeit in the bombastic mouths of this chorus. I would argue that the reason that the democratic government of Athens, from Kleisthenes onward, did not attempt to assimilate this victory into the Thesean story, despite its obvious suitability, is because the abduction/retrieval of Helen was already being deployed during the Athenian political struggles of the late 6th century, and in such a way that incentivized the Athenian democracy to deemphasize the myth. It is no secret that the abduction/retrieval myth has deep roots in Laconia. Our first reported literary source for it is the Spartan poet Alcman; the abduction was depicted on the throne of Apollo at Amyklai; Pausanias reports that the temple of Athena Khalkoikos was built in part by the Dioscuri with spoils from Aphidna. 202 It is my contention that Kleomenes played upon the popularity of the Dioscuric retrieval of Helen at Sparta, and used it as a mythical exemplum to garner support both in Sparta and the broader Peloponnesus for his interventions on behalf of Isagoras in Athens (and perhaps also for the two earlier, Spartan excursions to Athens). Before laying out the details of this theory, I shall 201

It is naïve to think that the lack of its appearance is a coincidence. Paus. 3.17.2–3 (Pausanias 4). Pausanias also here reports that Gitiadas, the purported creator of the later bronze temple, worked in images of various deeds of the Tyndarids. This likely would have included the retrieval of Helen, although Pausanias does not specifically say so. 202

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

233

summarize Herodotus’ account of the happenings. 203 When the Alkmeonids in exile were unable to defeat the Peisistratids in battle, they bribed the Pythia to urge the Spartans to intercede. The Spartans’ first attempt, an invasion by sea at Phaleron, was decisively defeated by the Peisistratids and their allied Thessalian cavalry. A second invasion, by land, led by king Kleomenes himself, routed the Thessalian cavalry, besieged the Peisistratids on the Acropolis, and eventually drove them out by capturing their children and using them as bargaining pieces. 204 Subsequently Isagoras and Kleisthenes competed for primacy at Athens; Isagoras was more successful with the hetairiai, and Kleisthenes turned to the dēmos with his promises of reorganizing the state. Isagoras then appealed to Kleomenes, who came to Athens and expelled 700 families named by Isagoras as implicated in the Kylonian bloodguilt. He also attempted to put Isagoras and 300 of his supporters in power, but was rebuffed, besieged, and ultimately driven out by the Athenians. 205 In response Kleomenes gathered a full Peloponnesian league army, enlisting Theban and Khalkidian support, and marched to invade Attica. However, at Eleusis, before even engaging in battle, the Corinthians declared the expedition unjust and abandoned it, as did Demaratos, Kleomenes’ fellow king; the remaining allies followed suit, and the invasion dissolved. One thing that is quite clear from Herodotus’ account is that religion was an extremely effective motivator for the Spartans. On the surface of Herodotus’ narrative alone, the Alkmeonids manipulate their awareness of this disposition to cause the Spartans to reverse completely their previous relationship with the Peisistratids. Figueira makes a compelling argument that Kleomenes had his own motivation for acting against the Peisistratids in the (eventually realized) possibility that Hippias might turn to Persia for aid. 206 Given the well-known difficulties in 203

For the full Herodotean account, see Hdt. 5.62–78. This invasion may well have included the full Peloponnesian levy. 205 This is the event memorialized in Aristophanes Lysistrata: see n. 232 above. 206 Figueira 2012, §1. Figueira cites Kleomenes’ later actions ‘against Argos at Sepeia in c. 494 (Herodotus 6.76–81) and at Aigina itself in c. 204

234

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

convincing the Spartans to take action outside of the Peloponnesus and our evidence for Kleomenes’ xenia relationship with at least one partisan at Athens, we should probably assume that Kleomenes was aware of, if not involved in, the manipulation at Delphi, and that he made good use of it. 207 Hall, in his exploration on ‘Politics and Greek Myth’, suggests that there were rival mythic prototypes of Peloponnesian alliances employed by the Spartans and the Argives in the mid-6th century. 208 The Argives supported their ‘claims to centrality and primacy within the Peloponnese by appealing to their leadership of a legendary Peloponnnesian alliance against the most powerful Bronze Age city north of the Corinthian isthmus,’ (that is, the Seven Against Thebes). 209 The Spartans, on their side, seem to have claimed Agamemnon, and through him the leadership of the Greek alliance at the Trojan war. Hall concludes that the Spartan paradigm was more effective ‘because Agamemnon’s “coalition of the willing” was far more expansive and inclusive than that of the Seven and, unlike the disastrous Theban expedition, it was collectively (if not individually successful)’. 210 An important aspect of the Spartan use of Agamemnon that Hall has missed is its eastern target: we know from Herodotus that by the mid-6th century the Spartans were 490 (6.49.2–50.3, 61.1, 73.1–2)’ as evidence of Kleomenes’ ‘ruthlessness when confronting similar challenges from those Medizing’. 207 In response (at least in part) to Demaratos’ actions at Eleusis, Kleomenes would later bribe Kobon, a Delphic noble, and the Pythia, Perialla, to declare that Demaratos was illegitimate (Hdt. 6.66). This is further confirmation of Kleomenes’ awareness of, and willingness to use, Spartan religious scruple to his own ends. 208 Hall 2007, 333–8. 209 Hall 2007, 337 210 Hall 2007, 338. The myth of the Seven Against Thebes, however, was inextricably tied to that of the Epigonoi. This later attack on Thebes was again led by Argives (including several who played important parts in the Trojan War, such as Euryalos, Amphilokhos, and Sthenelos, and perhaps the greatest warrior of Homer’s Iliad in Diomedes), and it was marvelously successful. We know from Paus. 2.20.5 that there was a statue group of the Epigonoi at Argos.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

235

already aware of, and concerned with, Persian expansion into Hellenic territory. 211 When it came to invading Attica, however, Kleomenes had to hand a far more fitting motivator than the Greek alliance against Troy: he had the Dioscuric retrieval of Helen. The outlines of the myth seem perfectly suited to Kleomenes’ purpose: a Spartan-led invasion of an Attica missing its quondam tyrant, carried out not for conquest but to set matters to right. We can see how many of the small, later details of the myth would find a perfect genesis in this situation: the involvement of Arcadian and Megarian allies, the stasis in Athens, the goal of punishing a political leader and effecting regime-change rather than destroying Athens. Irwin makes much use of Herodotus’ mention of Theseus’ hybris in narrating the retrieval of Helen: Herodotus also says that Kleomenes invaded Attica ἐπιστάμενος περιυβρίσθαι (believing

211

During the first Ionian-Persian interactions in the 540s the Spartans refused to send military aid to the Ionians, but did send messengers to warn Cyrus against harming any Greeks (Hdt. 1.152). This was, of course, before Kleomenes’ reign. When Aristagoras was fomenting the Ionian rebellion from Persian domination in 499, he too came to Sparta seeking military aid. This time Kleomenes was in power, and we are given by Herodotus the memorable (and suspiciously domestic) story of Aristagoras’ attempts to persuade, trick, and ultimately bribe the king, with Kleomenes finally being saved by the intervention of his daughter Gorgo (Hdt. 5.49–51). Despite Herodotus’ relative chronological proximity to this event, the sheer number of tropes present should cast doubt on his account’s historical accuracy: the liability of the Spartans to bribery; the role of Spartan women as overseers and enforcers of Spartan behavior; the wily and deceptive Ionian tyrant. Perhaps beneath this story we should see an effort by Kleomenes to argue on Aristagoras’ behalf for Spartan intervention against the Persians. This effort would have been unsuccessful (given how much it took to impel the Spartans to fight north of the Isthmus in Greece less than twenty years later, convincing them to invade Asia was almost certainly a doomed effort), and would have led to accusations that Kleomenes was motivated by bribery.

236

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

himself to have suffered extreme hybris). 212 Kleomenes, whose father Anaxandridas must have been involved in the deliberate deployment of Agamemnon as a Spartan, could have framed the invasion as a quest to restore Menestheus to the helm at Athens: Menestheus was a fellow commander in the Trojan War, unlike Theseus, and could trace his lineage to Erechtheus. 213 Plutarch’s note that the Dioscuri, upon entering Athens, asked only to be initiated into the Mysteries like Herakles is suspiciously wellmatched to Herodotus’ story that Kleomenes, during his previous time in Athens, entered the shrine on the Acropolis, despite the protestations of the priestess that Dorians were not allowed to enter, on the basis of his Achaean identity. 214 Unfortunately for Kleomenes, his opponents appear to have been able to use his mythic paradigm against him. After Demaratos’ abandonment of the invasion, Herodotus provides the interesting footnote that Ἀπὸ δὲ ταύτης τῆς διχοστασίης ἐτέθη νόμος ἐν Σπάρτῃ μὴ ἐξεῖναι ἕπεσθαι ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς βασιλέας ἐξιούσης στρατιῆς· τέως γὰρ ἀμφότεροι εἵποντο· παραλυομένου δὲ τούτων τοῦ ἑτέρου καταλείπεσθαι καὶ τῶν Τυνδαριδέων τὸν ἕτερον· πρὸ

212

Irwin 2013, 7–13; Hdt. 5.74. This may have been an early example of attempts to turn the Alkmeonid network of foreign marriages and alliances against them with the Athenian public. We know that the ‘purity’ of the citizen body was a concern of the Athenians throughout the 6th century, as it was addressed by both Solon (Ath.Pol. 12.4) and the Kleisthenic reforms (Ath.Pol. 21), and Isagoras attempted to exploit such anxieties (Ath. Pol.13.5). 214 Plut. Thes. 33; Hdt. 5.72.3. The most obvious claim to Achaean identity for Kleomenes is the claim of the Spartan kings to descend from Herakles (also mentioned in Plutarch’s passage as a participant at the Mysteries), but a connection to the Tyndarids and Agamemnon, both figures of Panhellenic myth, would have helped counter-act the tribal identification that the priestess (and presumably the Athenians more generally) was asserting. 213

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

237

τοῦ γὰρ δὴ καὶ οὗτοι ἀμφότεροι ἐπίκλητοί σφι ἐόντες εἵποντο. 215

That the Spartans felt the need to address legislatively the relationship between the Dioscuri and the campaigning kings at this moment speaks to the degree to which such a topic was already present and charged in its associations. Kleomenes had framed the invasion of Attica as a Dioscuric expedition, but a key facet of the Dioscuri was their inseparability: the very emblem of the Dioscuri which likely accompanied the kings (and continued to accompany the single king) was the dokana, an aniconic, indissoluble object with the shape of two uprights connected by a cross-beam. Once Demaratos left, Kleomenes’ paradigm broke down within the Peloponnesian, and probably especially Spartan, forces. We can also see evidence that the retrieval myth was attacked at Athens, for which we return to Plut. Thes. 32. 216 In this passage we see a Menestheus who attempts to unite the powerful and demagogically throw the many into confusion by accusing Theseus of giving them a ‘dream of freedom’ while robbing them of their native homes and cults, and exchanging native, legitimate rulers for a foreign and strange despot. Irwin, in the same line as Gianfrancesco and Cantarelli, would see this as a product of the late 5th century, but in fact it fits better as a Kleisthenic attack on Isagoras, one that subsumes and refutes his propaganda. 217 On the subject of foreignness, Irwin points out that ‘Pericles had, of course, a grandmother (sic) who was the daughter of the Sicyonian tyrant and, according to one tradition (Paus. 2.18.9 contra Hdt. 215

Hdt. 5.75.2: ‘And from this dissension a law was made at Sparta that it not be allowed for both kings to follow the army when it went out: for until then both did just that; and that, with one of them (sc. the kings) being thus left out, (they ruled that) one of the Tyndarids also be left behind; for before this indeed both of these called upon as allies followed them setting out.’ 216 See n. 189 above. 217 This is especially true if Kleomenes framed Isagoras as a Menesthean figure, but the parallels I shall outline do not require such to be the case.

238

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

5.62.2), the Alcmaeonids were originally from Pylos’. 218 Kleisthenes, however, was the son of Agariste I, the very daughter of the Sicyonian tyrant, and was a direct male scion of Megacles in the Alkmeonid family: it would have been digging rather deep in the past to call Pericles foreign, while Kleisthenes’ mother herself was foreign. Perhaps more importantly, as I noted above it is not Theseus who comes off badly for being accused of foreignness here, but Menestheus for daring to make such an accusation of a hero emblematic of Athens. It is easy to imagine Isagoras playing upon his superior Athenianness to Kleisthenes, and the latter’s scorn at the notion of the Alkmeonids ever being considered unAthenian. Furthermore, where Pericles’ war strategy certainly has some overlap with the Thesean synoecism, the Kleisthenic reorganization of Attica is probably a better parallel. Finally, Menestheus is accused of actively arranging the Dioscuric invasion: οἱ δὲ καὶ ὅλως φασὶν ὑπὸ τούτου πεισθέντας ἐπελθεῖν. 219 This allegation, more than any other, aligns the Menestheus here with Isagoras. Thankfully, to my knowledge no one, ancient or modern, has even tried to make the argument that Pericles invited or persuaded the Peloponnesians to invade Attica. The claim usually made (for example by Cantarelli, Gianfrancesco, and Pelling) that the most cogent context for this Menesthean betrayal is the events of 415–411 BCE is, however, also unconvincing. 220 Menestheus is rumored to invite the Dioscuri to invade, and he opens the gates of the city to them. The oligarchic conspirators of 411 do try to treat with the Spartan king Agis for peace, but when he marches towards the city Athens makes a united and resolute show of its continued ability to resist. 221 There is nothing treacherous about treating for 218

Irwin 2013, 57. Agariste I, the daughter of Kleisthenes of Sicyon, was in fact Pericles great-grandmother, not his grandmother: see J.K. Davies 1971, 368–85. 219 Plut. Thes. 32.2: ‘some indeed say that [the Tyndarids] came being persuaded by him’. 220 Cantarelli 1974, Gianfrancesco 1975. For a summary of the positions of all three, see Pelling 2002, 182–4. 221 The closest the oligarchic coup of 411 comes to such a betrayal is the power struggle within the 400 described in Thucydides 8.90–3. Those

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

239

peace, and it is not at all akin to inviting the enemy to invade and convincing the people to open their gates and surrender. Herodotus, however, reports accusations that Isagoras committed almost the exact same betrayal as Menestheus: ἐν τῷ μέρεϊ δὲ ἑσσούμενος ὁ Ἰσαγόρης ἀντιτεχνᾶται τάδε· ἐπικαλέεται Κλεομένεα τὸν Λακεδαιμόνιον. 222 It was this invitation that spurred Kleomenes to seize the Acropolis and expel the 700 Athenian families, before being driven out and seeking to organize his full Peloponnesian invasion. Furthermore, we know very little about the local Attic or (what would become) the deme affiliations of Isagoras and other anti-Kleisthenic leaders. Thus it cannot be excluded that some of the places like Dekeleia that have a place in post-500 variants of the myth (starting from Herodotus) had late 6th-century resonances. If I am right about the reciprocal use by both Peloponnesians and Athenians of the myth of the Dioscuric retrieval of Helen as a paradigm for their own actions in international and internecine conflict in the late 6th century, it would go a long way towards explaining why that myth was never employed in Athenian monumental art and architecture (or the similarly public Athenian tragedy). For one thing, it raised associations between Theseus and the Peisistratids, Isagoras, and the Peloponnesians, all of which were aspects of Theseus that the Kleisthenic regime and those immediately following had every reason to downplay. For another, the conflict between Athens and Sparta waned and the poleis grew closer together as the threat from Persia grew: by the late 490s, Kleomenes himself would extract hostages from the medizing Aiginetans at Athens’ request. 223 Finally, the retrieval myth had been used in, and so it represented, Athenian stasis, a subject avoided in Athenian propaganda for obvious reasons. By emphasizing Theseus’ characteristics as a democratic innovator, a of the 400 who were fortifying Eetionia were accused of preparing to allow the Peloponnesian fleet to take the city. Thucydides is unclear about whether, and to what degree, such charges were warrented. 222 Hdt. 5.70.1: ‘And in his turn, being bested, Isagoras devises the following counterplan: he summons to his aid Kleomenes the Lacedaemonian.’ 223 Hdt. 6.49–50, 6.73.

240

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

civilizer, and (after 490) a fighter against eastern foes, Kleisthenes and his successors could regain control of Theseus, who had already been made a panathenaic hero and whose popularity was accelerating in the final decades of the 6th century.

CONCLUSION Although Theseus is an extremely popular subject of Athenian literary and visual art, public and private alike, the myth of his abduction of Helen and her return is less widespread. To our knowledge, it does not appear in public (or perhaps, rather, civic) art, either of the literary (tragedy, comedy) or visual (monumental adornment of temples and other architecture) variety. 224 The myth does appear in some early epic and lyric: Alcman, Stesichorus, Pindar, and the Cypria all treat it in whole or in part. It is likewise an occasional subject for vase painting, although these depictions are often difficult to identify with confidence and rarely yield new interpretive details. 225 Aside from this, however, the abduction and retrieval myth was contained mostly to historiographic and mythographic traditions: Herodotus, Hellanicus, and a variety of later local and universal historians and mythographers preserved the myth and integrated it, to a greater or lesser extent, into the larger landscape of Greek myth-history. The account of Pausanias also reveals that the myth was incorporated in the literal landscape of Greece by temples, rituals, toponyms, and stories in a surprising number of places. For all that this myth seems to us a minor one, perhaps a calque on a more famous story of Helen’s abduction, our evidence suggests that this seeming is due more to greater privileging and preservation (in great part during antiquity) of the literary traditions that ignored the myth than those that repeated it. The aforementioned Hellanicus was one of the more influential authors to narrate the abduction, but as with any 224

The myth does occur on two pieces of monumental, public art, but neither is Athenian: the Chest of Kypselos at Olympia and the Throne of Apollo at Amyklai. 225 The issue is, of course, complicated by the fact of Theseus’ many abductions: the figures in our vase paintings are rarely labelled.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

241

fragmentary narrative his has required reconstruction and interpretation. Jacoby assigned most of Plutarch Theseus 31–4 to Hellanicus, and he thought that Hellanicus presented a rationalized account of the abduction and retrieval. He based these conclusions upon his reading of Theseus 31, as well the evidence of Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 and Theseus 17.3. However, his reading of Theseus 31 is unconvincing, and both Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 and Theseus 17.3 lead one to the opposite conclusion: Hellanicus did not rationalize his account of Theseus. This conclusion makes attribution of the entirety of Theseus 31–4 to Hellanicus impossible. Furthermore, a close reading of Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 reveals an as-yet unappreciated facet of Hellanicus’ account: there he calls Aithra the mother-in-law of Helen, and thus, he must have considered Helen and Theseus to be married. Whether he integrated the Attic story by which Theseus fathered Iphigenia on Helen is less obvious, but the possibility that he did is compelling. It is important to remember in this context that the stories about Theseus, Helen, the Dioscuri, and their respective lives were already by Hellanicus’ time many, varied, and not intended to function as a cohesive whole. Pherekydes had likely preceded Hellanicus in crafting a mythological biography of Theseus, but we should neither ascribe undue weight to the importance of cohesion in mythological biography nor assume that Hellanicus reinvented the myth in response to contemporary events. Appendix B lists all of the sources that are important for reconstructing Hellanicus’ account, cross-references these sources to their text in Appendix C, and indicates which details each authority includes. In addition to the question of Helen’s marriage to Theseus, there are eight further cruxes upon which our accounts differ or contradict each other: the involvement of Peirithous, the parentage of Helen, the age of Helen, Peloponnesian complicity in Helen’s stay in Attica, sexual interactions between Theseus and Helen, the absence or presence of Theseus to confront the Dioscuri upon their retrieval of Helen, whether Athens or Aphidna was sacked by the Dioscuri, and the scale of the Dioscuri’s invasion. Peirithous is never deliberately excluded from the abduction, although he is sometimes unmentioned. His presence, when noted, is often used to mitigate the degree of Theseus’ guilt for the abduction of Helen and the attempted abduction of Persephone. Zeus is always considered to be the ‘biological’ father of Helen, although she, like

242

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

the Dioscuri, operates within the house (and dynastic lineage) of Tyndareus. Normally Leda is Helen’s mother, just as she is mother to the Dioscuri; in a variant preserved by the Cypria, however, Nemesis is Helen’s mother. That this variant may have been Attic is suggested by the fact that the Cypria reached its final form in Attica and the cult of Nemesis was active at Rhamnous, which included a statue base featuring Helen as Nemesis’ daughter. Helen’s age at the time of her abduction varies greatly from account to account. In early literary accounts she was old enough to bear a child to Theseus, and in vase painting she is universally depicted as a fully mature woman. In Hellanicus she was seven at the time of the abduction, although I have argued that his account kept her in Attica until she reached the appropriate age to marry Theseus and perhaps bear Iphigenia to him. In later accounts, likely influenced by Hellanicus but moderated to fit better into the larger scope of mythological tradition, she is young, but not a child (ten to twelve years old) at her abduction. In several variants, of which only a brief, tantalizing mention in Plutarch survives, Theseus did not abduct Helen at all. Instead, she ended up in Attica as a result of internecine Peloponnesian conflict, either between the Hippocoontidai or the Apharetidai and the Tyndarid guardians of Helen. The details that do survive from these variants suggest that they should be considered Peloponnesian in origin. As was the case with Helen’s age (and the two cruxes are obviously related), the existence or lack of sexual interaction between Helen and Theseus varies from account to account. According to several authorities, Helen returned to Sparta still a virgin; others had her give birth to Iphigenia either in Attica or on her way back. A very tenuous suggestion survives that Theseus and Helen engaged in anal intercourse, a preference for which was associated with Laconia in antiquity. Our sources almost universally agree that Theseus was absent (often explicitly having already descended to Hades to abduct Persephone) when the Dioscuri came to retrieve their sister. Megarian local historians, however, preserved a version wherein he was present and fought against the Peloponnesian invasion force, even killing the son of a Megarian king. The city, or cities, that were sacked as a result of this invasion also varied: some authorities had the Dioscuri sack Athens itself; others only took the invasion to Aphidna, the town in Attica where Theseus was supposed to have hidden Helen; often

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

243

both cities were sacked, and in two accounts neither was sacked. Some scholarly discussion exists about whether the Aphidna in the myth should be considered an Aphidna in Laconia, but insufficient evidence exists to lift such a notion beyond mere speculation. These two final cruxes (the absence or presence of Theseus and the communities sacked by the Dioscuri) lead us to the consideration of the extent of the Dioscuric invasion. A surprisingly large number of Peloponnesian, or pseudoPeloponnesian, groups involved themselves in the myth of the retrieval, including the Arcadians, the Laconians, and the Megarians as part of the invading army itself (Argos was also involved: according to the Argives Helen stopped in Argos to give birth on her way back to Sparta). We have seen how internal Spartan politics, both within Laconia and between Laconia and Messenia, intruded on the story of the abduction in some accounts. The Peloponnesians also received support from the very inhabitants of Attica. Dekelos, Akademos, and Titakos, all toponymic for locations or demes in Attica, betray the hiding place of Helen or the community of Aphidna itself to the Dioscuri in many accounts. An even more frequent opponent to Theseus and supporter of the Dioscuri was Menestheus, a shadowy figure descended from Erechtheus and present in the Iliad, but largely otherwise absent from myth and ritual. This intra-Attic, and even intra-Athenian, conflict helps us locate an important hotspot in the development and deployment of the abduction and retrieval myth: the late 6thcentury conflicts between Sparta and Athens. These conflicts included two major incursions into Attica by Spartan forces: first to expel the Peisistratids, and the second in an attempt to oust Kleisthenes and install Isagoras as leader at Athens. Religious propaganda and the manipulation of Delphi were used by the Alkmeonids to impel the Spartans into the first invasion. Kleomenes, cautious about the potential opportunities for medizing, had his own reasons for wanting to expel the tottering Peisistratid regime; he would later manipulate Delphi in order that the Spartans might expel his fellow king, Demaratos. The Dioscuric invasion suggests itself as an obvious mythic precedent for Kleomenes to encourage the participation not only of the Spartans, but of their relatively recently consolidated Peloponnesian League. From this perspective, the figure of Menestheus makes a great deal of sense, as Kleomenes could intimate to the Peloponnesians that

244

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

they were not interfering in the government of another polis so much as restoring a legitimate leader with Homeric pedigree. Surviving details suggest that both the Spartan and the Athenian opponents of Kleomenes and Isagoras responded to this deployment of the retrieval myth. Demaratos left the army to return to Sparta, and in the wake of this unprecedented disagreement between kings in the field it was made law that only one king should go out with the army at a time, but more importantly that one of the Tyndarids, who had previously gone on campaign with the kings, should likewise remain behind. On the Athenian side, in Plutarch’s account we can see traces of a pseudodemagogic Menestheus who claims that Theseus is an un-Athenian despot and who invites his Spartan friends to invade on his behalf; we can also see a long-standing unwillingness to use the abduction or retrieval myth in any public Athenian artwork, an unwillingness that makes sense if this myth became closely associated with an ugly stasis at Athens. Thus, while the Dekeleians and the Spartans considered themselves to have a special relationship on the basis of this myth even down into the Second Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were happy to allow the Dekeleians to claim this credit and this myth.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

245

APPENDIX A: LITERARY TESTIMONIA (CHRONOLOGICAL) Attribution Alcman

Fragment Numbers, If Applicable Alcman Fr. 21 Davies (PMGF pp. 74–5)

Chest of Kypselos Stesichorus Throne of Amyklai Cypria

Pindar

Date

Source Location

Late 7th c. BCE

1 – Paus. 1.41.4 2 – Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 1 – Paus. 5.19.1–3 2 – D.Chr. Oration 11.44–5 1 – Paus. 2.22.6

6th c. BCE Stesichorus fr. 191 Davies 1991 (PMGF 176–7) Cypria fr. 10 (I–III) Bernabé (PEG p. 51) Cypria fr. 13 (I–V) Bernabé (PEG p. 51– 2) Adespota vel Dubia fr. 8 Davies 1988 (EGF 161)

Frs 243 + 258 (163) Maehler

6th c. BCE Late 6th c. BCE Late 6th c. BCE

498–446 BCE

Herodotus Hellanicus Isocrates

See Appendix D

431–421 BCE Late 5th c. BCE ~370 BCE

Dicaearchus Douris of Samos

Fr. 66 Wehrli FGrH 76 F 92

4th c. BCE 340–270 BCE

Hereas Euphorion of Chalcis

FGrH 486 F 2 Euphorion fr. 90 Powell p. 46

~300 BCE 3rd c. BCE

Alexander Aetolus

Alexander Aetolus fr. 12 Powell p. 128

3rd c. BCE

1 – Paus. 3.18.14–15 1 – Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 2 – [Apollod.] Library 3.10.7 3 – [Apollod.] Epitome 1.23 4 – DS 4.63 6 – Plut. Thes. 32.6– 7 7 – Philodem. De piet. 8 – Clement. Homil. 5.13.7 9 – Ath. 8.10 1 – [Hdn.] de figuris 50, p. 130.40-2 Hajdú 2 – Paus. 1.41.5 1 – Histories 9.73 See Appendix D 1 – Isoc. 10 (Helen) 18–20 2 – Isoc. 10 (Helen) 39 1 – Plut. Thes. 32.4 1 – ΣLyc. Alex. 513 2 – ΣLyc. Alex. 102 3 – ΣLyc. Alex. 143 4 – ΣLyc. Alex. 183 1 – Plut. Thes. 32.6 1 – Paus. 2.22.6 2 – Etym. Gud. s.v. Ἰφιγένεια 1 – Paus. 2.22.7

246 Attribution Megareis Lacedaemonians Polemon Periegetes Diodorus Siculus Hyginus Strabo

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Fragment Numbers, If Applicable Frs 5 F 8a, 5 F 9 Piccirilli Polemon fr. X Preller p. 43

Date

Source Location

Unknown

1 – Paus. 1.41.3 2 – Plut. Thes. 32.6 1 – Paus. 3.18.4–5 1 – Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 1 – Library 4.63 1 – Fabulae 79 1 – Geography 9.1.17 (C396–7) 1 – Library 3.10.7 2 – Epitome 1.23 1 – Oration 11.44–5 1 – Theseus 31–4 1 – Graecae Descriptio 1.17.4–6 2 – Graecae Descriptio 1.41.3–5 3 – Graecae Descriptio 2.22.5–7 4 – Graecae Descriptio 3.17.2–3 5 – Graecae Descriptio 3.18.4–5 6 – Graecae Descriptio 3.18.14–15 7 – Graecae Descriptio 5.19.2–3 1 – Gallus 17 2 – Charidemus [spur.] 16 1 – De pros. cath. 3.1, 256.24–7 2 – De pros. cath. 3.1, 277.38 3 – [Hdn.] de figuris 50, p 130.40-2 Hajdú 1 – Varia historia 4.5 1 – Declamationes 4.2.85 1 – Ethnica (epitome) s.v. Ἄφιδνα 2 – Ethnica (epitome) s.v. Τιτακίδαι

Unknown Early 2nd c. BCE

Late 1st c. BCE Late 1st c. BCE 14–24 CE

[Apollodorus]

1st/2nd c. CE

Dio Chrysostom Plutarch Pausanias

Late 1st c. CE 96–125 CE 2nd c. CE

Lucian

2nd c. CE

Aelius Herodian1

Fr. 243 Maehler

2nd c. CE

Claudius Aelianus Libanius

190–240 CE 314–393 CE

Stephanus Byz.1

Early 6th c. CE

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN Attribution Etymologica

Fragment Numbers, If Applicable Euphorion fr. 90 Powell p. 46

Date

Source Location

9th–12th c. CE

1 – Etym. Gen. s.v. Ἀστυάναξ, α 1314 2 – Etym. Gud. s.v. Ἰφιγένεια 1 – ΣLyc. Alex. 102 2 – ΣLyc. Alex. 143 3 – ΣLyc. Alex. 183 4 – ΣLyc. Alex. 503 5 – ΣLyc. Alex. 513 6 – ΣAristoph. Clouds 1006 1 – In art. rhet. comm. 1397 b 20 2 – In art. rhet. comm. 1397 b 21 1 – Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 2 – Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242 3 – Eustathius comm. Hom. Il. vol. 1 p. 438

J. Tzetzes

12th C. CE

Stephanus Gramm.

12th c. CE

Scholia to Homer

Cypria Fr. 13 (I) Bernabé (PEG p. 51– 2)

247

Various

1. Herodian mentions Aphidnos and the Aphidna in Lakonia whence came the Leukippides. Stephanus Byz. mentions the latter. On the nexus of Aphidnos, Aphidna in Lakonia, and the Leukippides, see 222–6 above.

248

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

TABLE OF MAJOR DETAILS IN ABDUCTION MYTH

Herodotus

Pindar4

Cypria 3

Amyklai Throne

Stesichorus2

Collaborators with Dioscuri20 Helen is retrieved21 Abduction of Aethra

Chest of Cypselus

Alcman1 Mention of Nemesis Peloponnesian Parallels10 Peirithous is involved Abduction by Theseus Mention of Helen’s age11 Helen’s relations with Theseus12 Drawing lots for Helen Helen Kept at Aphidna13 Theseus seeks Persephone14 Invasion of Dioscuri15 Peloponnesian losses in battle16 Kastor wounded by Aphidnos17 Theseus present for retrieval18 Aphidna or Athens taken19 Discontent in Attica20

● [●] [●]

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

P ●

●

[H] D

H D

D

●

D

D

●

A

A

A

A

A

At

At

Ap

B

At

●

G

● ●

●

Ap D Ti D Ti

●

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

● ● Y

● 7

M

M?

MP

● ●

●

●

●

H

H

D

N

D

M Ha

M Ti Ha

A

A

P

P

P

B

N

Ap

Ap

Ap

● ●

●

●

Lacedaemonians

Megareis

Hereas

● ● 7

A Ma

Duris

Dicaearchus

Isocrates6

Collaborators with Dioscuri20 Helen is retrieved21 Abduction of Aethra

Hellanicus 5 Mention of Nemesis Peloponnesian Parallels10 Peirithous is involved Abduction by Theseus Mention of Helen’s age11 Helen’s relations with Theseus12 Drawing lots for Helen Helen Kept at Aphidna13 Theseus seeks Persephone14 Invasion of Dioscuri15 Peloponnesian losses in battle16 Kastor wounded by Aphidnos17 Theseus present for retrieval18 Aphidna or Athens taken19 Discontent in Attica20

249

L Kn

Ap

250

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

{●} Leu

[●]

I+L E ●

●

●

[●]

10

[12]

Y

V

[M?]

●

●

●

●

●

●

[●] ● ● [P]

●

●

●

H

H

D

D

●

D

A Ap

Lucian 9

Pausanias 8

Plutarch

●

[Apollodorus] 7

Strabo

Hyginus

Diodorus Siculus

Mention of Nemesis Peloponnesian Parallels10 Peirithous is involved Abduction by Theseus Mention of Helen’s age11 Helen’s relations with Theseus12 Drawing lots for Helen Helen Kept at Aphidna13 Theseus seeks Persephone14 Invasion of Dioscuri15 Peloponnesian losses in battle16 Kastor wounded by Aphidnos17 Theseus present for retrieval18 Aphidna or Athens taken19 Discontent in Attica20 Collaborators with Dioscuri20 Helen is retrieved21 Abduction of Aethra

N

Ap

At

●

●

●

●

●

{●}

●

[●]

H

NW

NW

{D} [AL]

G

D

Ma Ha

[Ti] [Kn]

A

A

A

{At} [Ap] [M]

B

Ap [B] M

●

M Ak M Ak ●

{●}

●

[●] [●]

●

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

Homer Scholia

Aph

Steph. Gramm.

Etymologica

Aph

Steph. Byz.

Libanius

Claudius Aelian

Aelius Herodian

Mention of Nemesis Peloponnesian Parallels10 Peirithous is involved Abduction by Theseus Mention of Helen’s age11 Helen’s relations with Theseus12 Drawing lots for Helen Helen Kept at Aphidna13 Theseus seeks Persephone14 Invasion of Dioscuri15 Peloponnesian losses in battle16 Kastor wounded by Aphidnos17 Theseus present for retrieval18 Aphidna or Athens taken19 Discontent in Attica20 Collaborators with Dioscuri20 Helen is retrieved21 Abduction of Aethra

251

I+L Leu

● ●

●

Y

●

●

Y

M?

P

●

●

D

D

NW D

P

D

D

●

Ap De

M

Ap

Ap

A

A

At

B M

Ti

De

Ti ● ●

●

252

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Notes 1.

2.

3.

Pausanias’ citation of Alcman says only that Theseus was absent when the Dioscuri sacked Athens, but there is no specific mention of Hades, nor (in point of fact) of Helen, her abduction, or any involvement in either activity by Peirithous. The lack of mention of Helen is almost certainly owed to Pausanias’ partial citation of Alcman specifically to refute the Megarian account of the campaign of the Dioscuri: the abduction of Helen is simply from an earlier, uncited portion of Alcman’s account (it is difficult to believe that Alcman would fail to treat the abduction or would have invented another justification for the Dioscuric campaign). The lack of mention of Hades is likely because Pausanias prefers the account that rationalizes the captivity of Theseus and Peirithous in Hades as captivity in Thesprotia, a variation which was almost certainly not in Alcman’s account. A further point in favor of assuming that Alcman’s account included both the abduction of Helen by Theseus and Peirithous and the subsequent captivity of the two in Hades is the testimony of Pindar. Pausanias says that Pindar agrees with Alcman’s account, and cites Pindar as having Theseus guard Helen ‘until he went off to carry out with Peirithous the oft-spoken marriage’ (ἐς ὃ ἀπελθεῖν αὐτὸν Πειρίθῳ τὸν λεγόμενον γάμον συμπράξοντα), which can only be a reference to their joint attempt to abduct Persephone. Despite the near certainty that Alcman’s account included the abduction of Helen and katabasis of Theseus and Peirithous, these events are indicated in square brackets to reflect the fact that they are not explicitly mentioned. The information that we have about the accounts of Euphorion of Chalcis and Alexander Aetolus are substantively the same as Stesichorus, and as such do not have their own columns in this table. See Appendix C for all passages pertaining to Euphorion and Alexander. Bernabé 1987 and Davies 1988 have broadly differing assessments of the extent of our knowledge about the Cypria’s description of Theseus’ abduction of Helen. Bernabé includes both [Apollodorus] passages (apparently judging them to pass on the account from the Cypria), some of Diodorus Siculus, and the epigram on the Megarian Bowl [Visual 19]. A passage in Athenaeus (8.10, Bernabé fr. 9, Davies fr. 7; Cypria 9) attributes the story of Nemesis as Helen’s mother to the Cypria, which is presumably the basis for linking all of the similar passages to the Cypria. Davies is rather more circumspect

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

4.

5.

6.

253

about how much to include: he includes none of the [Apollodorus], Diodorus, or Megarian Bowl material, keeping only the Homeric scholion which explicitly refers to ‘cyclic epics’ (Cypria 1) and the above mentioned Athenaeus passage. Davies includes Cypria 6 (the lines cited by Hereas in Plut. Theseus 32.6–7) in his fragmenta adespota vel dubia section, noting that Allen attributed it to the Cypria. I have included it in Appendix C for the sake of completeness, but it conflicts with Cypria 1, the only fragment describing the abduction that Davies and Bernabé agree should be attributed to the Cypria: Cypria 1 states explicitly that the Dioscuri fail to encounter Theseus, while Cypria 6 is Hereas’ proof that Theseus was present for the fight against the Dioscuri. As such, it is my judgment that it does not belong to the Cypria, and its evidence is not considered here. I see insufficient evidence to support Bernabé’s assumption that the accounts in [Apollodorus] and Diodorus Siculus should be considered drawn from the Cypria, and so in this table the Cypria consists only of Cypria 1 and Cypria 9. Pindar 2 (= Alcman 1) reads, ‘Alcman, having composed a poem about the Dioscuri, how they took Athens and led the mother of Theseus as a captive, nevertheless says that Theseus himself was absent… And Pindar wrote in the same way about these things and that Theseus, wanting to be brother-in-law to the Dioscuri, until he left with Peirithous to carry out the aforementioned marriage.’ In accordance with this, Pindar here has the same notations for ‘Invasion of the Dioscuri’, ‘Theseus present for retrieval’, and ‘Aphidna or Athens taken’ as Alcman. For a full discussion of the problems involved in determining the extent and details of Hellanicus’ account of the abduction, see 176– 98 above. There I lay out two possible reconstructions of Hellanicus’s narrative, one skeptical, one broad. There is, as I note there, actually little difference between the two: the table here reflects the broad reconstruction, but the only difference the skeptical reconstruction presents for the purpose of this table is that it has no explicit mention of Athens being sacked, as opposed to just Aphidna. See also Appendix B, which has a table of events more closely tailored to the potential fragments of Hellanicus. Isocrates is very careful in the way that he discusses the return of Helen to Sparta. He does not say outright that the Dioscuri did not invade Attica, but he deliberately elides that portion of the myth while narrating everything that comes before and afterwards. It’s

254

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

worth noting here that Isocrates is not fragmentary, so we know that he excludes the invasion, rather than simply being uncertain, as is the case with most of the more fragmentary accounts. 7. For the relationship between [Apollodorus] and the Cypria, see n. 3 above. There are two surviving [Apollodorus] passages: Library 3.10.7 and Epitome 1.23. Details appearing only in the Library passage are marked with curly brackets, and details appearing only in the Epitome are marked with square brackets; details appearing in both are indicated without additional punctuation. 8. Although there are seven Pausanias passages treating the abduction, five of them attribute their details to other authorities: Pausanias 2 to the Megarians, Alcman, and Pindar; Pausanias 3 to Stesichorus, Euphorion, and Alexander Aetolus; Pausanias 5 to the Lacedaemonians; Pausanias 6 and 7 are descriptions of the Throne of Apollo at Amyklai and the Chest of Cypselus respectively. The details for each of those passages are included under the authority to whom they are attributed. In this column details from Pausanias 1 and Pausanias 4, i.e. details of Pausanias’ narrative that are not explicitly attributed to another authority, are indicated as usual, while those from the other Pausanias passages are marked with square brackets. 9. Lucian 2 (Charidemus 16) is almost certainly spurious, but more importantly it is essentially a paraphrase of Isocrates 1. Thus only the details from Lucian 1 are included here; for the details from Lucian 2, see Isocrates 1. 10. Several accounts preserve details suggesting the existence of a (potentially earlier) version of the abduction of Helen myth occurring entirely within the Peloponnese. ‘Leu’ indicates a mention of the Leukippides, cousins of the Dioscuri and brides-to-be of the Apharetidai, Idas and Lynkeus, whose abduction at the hands of the Dioscuri leads to the deadly conflict between the Dioscuri and the Apharetidai; ‘Aph’ indicates a mention of the Aphidna in Lakonia as home of the Leukippids; ‘I+L’ indicates a mention of the Apharetidai, Idas and Lynkeus; ‘E’ indicates a mention of Enarsphoros, a Hippokoontid rival of the Tyndarid reign at Sparta. For more on the Aphidna in Lakonia as opposed to that in Athens, see 225–6 above. 11. If an account gives an explicit age, that age is listed in the appropriate box. If a more generic mark about Helen’s (usually unseasonable) youth is made, a ‘Y’ appears in the box. For more on

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

12.

13.

14.

15.

255

the exact terminology used to describe Helen’s youth in various accounts, see 204–7 above. For Helen’s age in Lucian’s variant and the importance of that account for this issue, see 207–10 above. For the question of whether ‘7’ is an appropriate figure to ascribe to Douris’ account, see n. 51 above. There are five possible status notations here: ‘V’ indicates that Helen is explicitly said to be a virgin on her return from Attica; ‘P’ indicates that Helen is explicitly said to be pregnant (or have given birth); ‘M’ indicates that Helen is explicitly said to be married to Theseus; ‘MP’ indicates that Helen is explicitly said to be both married to and pregnant by Theseus; ‘M?’ indicates that the idea of a marriage between Helen and Theseus is mentioned and neither explicitly rejected nor explicitly narrated. A mark in this row indicates that Helen is explicitly stated to be in Aphidna. Circumstantial evidence such as the sack of Aphidna is not sufficient; on that issue, see the row ‘Aphidna or Athens taken’ and n. 19 below. For example, Stesichorus 1, which states that ‘Aphidna was taken by the Dioscuri and Helen was led back to Lacedaemon’ would qualify, since the obvious inference is that Helen was retrieved from Aphidna during the sack. Alcman 2, however, which states that ‘on account of the abduction occurring at that time, Aphidna, a city of Attica, was sacked, and Kastor is wounded in the right thigh by Aphidnos, then king [of Aphidna]. And the Dioscuri, not having encountered Theseus, looted Athens’ would not qualify, because the Dioscuri take two cities and there is, in fact, no mention at all of the retrieval of Helen. In the case that a literal journey to Hades is indicated, ‘H’ will appear in the square. If Hades has been rationalized into Thesprotis or Epirus, ‘NW’ for ‘Northwest Greece’ will appear. An ‘H’ appears in Pindar’s column although the Pausanias passage from which our information derives does not explicitly say that Pindar had Theseus and Peirithous undertake a literal katabasis. Pausanias consistently rationalizes the journey to Hades into one to Thesprotis, but it defies belief that Pindar would have done so. If Pindar had Theseus and Peirithous leave Helen in Aphidna to ‘carry out the aforementioned marriage’, this must have involved a descent to the underworld. The same is true for Alcman. Poetic accounts, especially those before the 4th century, will not have presented rationalized versions of myth. There are seven possible notations here: ‘N’ indicates that we possess the entirety of an account describing the entire arc of the

256

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

abduction and retrieval, and that said account excludes an invasion by the Dioscuri (if an account is fragmentary, we cannot assume that, because no mention of an invasion survives, the source did not include an invasion; likewise, that a figurative piece like the Throne of Apollo at Amyklai does not depict the retrieval of Helen by the Dioscuri should not be taken to indicate that the creator or audience of the artwork assumed that no retrieval/invasion took place); ‘D’ indicates that only the Dioscuri are mentioned as invading Attica; ‘G’ indicates that a generic army is mentioned but not its composition; ‘L’ indicates that Lacedaemonians are mentioned as accompanying the Dioscuri; ‘A’ indicates that Arcadians are mentioned as accompanying the Dioscuri; ‘M’ indicates that Megarians are mentioned as accompanying the Dioscuri; ‘P’ indicates that Peloponnesians generally are mentioned as accompanying the Dioscuri; no mark indicates that no mention whatsoever is made of an invasion of Attica. More than one of these notations may be used together (if e.g. both the Arcadians and Lacedaemonians are specifically mentioned as accompanying the Dioscuri). 16. There are three casualties and one prisoner-of-war lost from the Peloponnesian side in various accounts: ‘Ma’ indicates Marathos (who sacrificed himself); ‘Ha’ indicates Halukos (killed, possibly by Theseus); ‘Ti’ indicates Timalkos (killed, possibly by Theseus); ‘Kn’ indicates Knageus (taken prisoner). 17. Only one passage preserves the detail that Kastor was wounded in the right thigh by Aphidnos during the fight for Helen at Aphidna: Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242. That scholion, however, variously attributes its account to the cyclic poets, famous authors, Polemon, and Alcman. It thus appears in the table above under Alcman, Cypria, and Homeric Scholia. It is unsurprising that Kastor, the mortal twin, would be the one wounded; see n. 105 above. 18. There are two issues to consider regarding the question of the presence of Theseus during the retrieval of Helen by the Dioscuri. First, does the account make any mention at all of Theseus’ absence or presence? If no remark at all is made, the square will remain blank. Second, does the account say that Theseus was present or that he was absent during the retrieval? If present, the square will contain a ‘P’, if absent, an ‘A’. For more on this question with regard to the Cypria, see n. 3 above. On the return of Helen to the Peloponnesus in Isocrates see n. 6 above. Douris of Samos is not an entirely clear

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

257

cut case. Douris 3 (ΣLyk. 143, also Hellanicus 5) says that Theseus loses Helen ‘ἐν τῷ ἡττηθῆναι ὑπὸ Πολυδεύκους καὶ Κάστορος τῶν αὐτῆς ἀδελφῶν ἐν Ἀφίδναις’ (in being defeated by Polydeukes and Kastor, her brothers, at Aphidna). While for Hellanicus this passage is overruled by Hellanicus 3, which explicitly states that Hellanicus had Theseus depart for Hades before the Dioscuric invasion, the only evidence we have for Douris (who is, in fact, the source mentioned by name in ΣLyk. 143) on this issue is Douris 3. As such, it is (tentatively) assumed here that Douris, like the Megarians, had Theseus present for a showdown with the Dioscuri at Aphidna. 19. Two cities feature prominently in the abduction myth: Aphidna, where Theseus is usually said to leave Helen, and Athens, of which Theseus is usually the king and (ad hoc) representative. In the course of retrieving Helen, the Dioscuri often take one or both cities. In this row, ‘At’ indicates that only Athens is recorded as having been taken, ‘Ap’ indicates that only Aphidna is recorded as having been taken, ‘B’ indicates that both cities are recorded as having been taken, and ‘N’ indicates that we possess the entirety of an account, and that said account excludes the capture of either city (see n. 11 above). This table presents only my conclusions: for the full discussion of individual accounts on this particular issue, see 222–6 above. 20. The issues of division in Attica and collaborators with the Dioscuri are related, but not identical. There may be multiple parties in Attica at odds with each other without one actively assisting the invaders. There are five people (or groups of people) who find themselves more or less violently at odds with Theseus: ‘At’ for the Athenians; ‘M’ for Menestheus; ‘D’ for Dekelos or the Dekeleans; ‘T’ for Titakos; ‘Ak’ for Akademos. Dicaearchus receives no mark in either category: although he presents an ‘Ekhedemos’ (for Akademos) and Marathos who fight on the side of the Dioscuri, they are explicitly said to be Arcadians whose names were later adopted for places in Attica. Menestheus is a somewhat complicated figure. Only in Plutarch does he actively work with the Dioscuri (and it is even suggested that they invaded at his instigation); as a result, he is only noted as a collaborator for Plutarch’s account. In Homeric Scholia 3 Menestheus takes over the government after the Theseids have fled to Euboea, but he is not described as being in conflict with Theseus or the Theseids, nor is he said to be ‘restored’, a term which suggests that his rightful (or former) throne had been taken by Theseus (or

258

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

perhaps Aigeus) in the first place. In Aelian the kingship is ‘given’ to Menestheus, not restored to him, but he is said to be thankful towards the Dioscuri for driving out the Theseids, suggesting some conflict between Menestheus and Theseus/the Theseids. In the Epitome of [Apollodorus] and in Pausanias 1 Menestheus is said to be ‘restored’ or ‘recalled’ and is hostile towards Theseus (and the Theseids) and takes steps against their return to rule. 21. A mark in this row indicates that Helen’s return from Attica is explicitly stated.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

259

APPENDIX B: HELLANICUS Theseus 31 ‘strong’1 = Hellanicus 1

Theseus 31 ‘weak’1 = Hellanicus 1

ΣLyc. Alex. 513 = Hellanicus 2

Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 = Hellanicus 3

ΣLyc. Alex.102 = Hellanicus 4

ΣLyc. Alex. 143 = Hellanicus 5

ΣLyc. Alex. 503 = Hellanicus 6

ΣClouds 1006 = Hellanicus 7

FGrH 323a fragment number

18

18

19

20

-

-

-

-

Fowler fragment number

168a

168a

168b

168c

-

-

-

-

Harding fragment number

76a

76a

76b

76c

-

-

-

-

●

●

●

●

Hellanicus explicitly named

●

Theseus is fifty years old

●

Helen is not of age

●

● ●

Helen is seven years old Peirithous is mentioned

●

Divine lineage for participants Temple of Artemis Orthia

●

Pursuit up to Tegea

●

Lottery to marry Helen

●

Theseus wins lottery

●

Theseus considered married to Helen

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

260

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

●

●

Aphidnos mentioned

●

●

Aithra is mother-in-law of Helen

●

Literal katabasis

●

●

● ●

●

Theseus absent on arrival of Dioscuri Dioscuri ravage Attica

●

●

Aithra taken prisoner

●

● ●

Dioscuri DO get Helen Dioscuri do NOT get Helen

Dioscuri do not harm other Athenians

Notes 1.

● ●

● ●

Helen bears Iphigenia to Theseus

ΣClouds 1006 = Hellanicus 7

Aithra in Aphidna

ΣLyc. Alex. 503 = Hellanicus 6

●

ΣLyc. Alex. 143 = Hellanicus 5

●

ΣLyc. Alex.102 = Hellanicus 4

Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144 = Hellanicus 3

ΣLyc. Alex. 513 = Hellanicus 2

Theseus 31 ‘weak’1 = Hellanicus 1

Theseus 31 ‘strong’1 = Hellanicus 1

Helen put in Aphidna

●

●

Plut. Thes. 31 is subdivided here into ‘strong’ and ‘weak’. ‘Strong’ refers to only the first sentence of the passage (i.e. the portion that is explicitly attributed to Hellanicus), ‘weak’ to the portion from there to the rationalized katabasis. For more, see 185–92 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

261

APPENDIX C: LITERARY ACCOUNTS OF THE ABDUCTION NARRATIVE Alcman (Late 7th c. BCE, Laconia): 1 [Paus. 1.41.4–5] 226 – ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω γενέσθαι λέγουσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ γράφειν μὲν ἐθέλω Μεγαρεῦσιν ὁμολογοῦντα, οὐκ ἔχω δὲ ὅπως εὕρωμαι [PMGF: συμφέρωμαι] πάντα σφίσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀποθανεῖν μὲν λέοντα ἐν τῷ Κιθαιρῶνι ὑπὸ Ἀλκάθου πείθομαι, Μεγαρέως δὲ Τίμαλκον παῖδα τίς μὲν ἐς Ἄφιδναν ἐλθεῖν μετὰ τῶν Διοσκούρων ἔγραψε; πῶς δ’ ἂν ἀφικόμενος ἀναιρεθῆναι νομίζοιτο ὑπὸ Θησέως, ὅπου καὶ Ἀλκμὰν ποιήσας ᾆσμα ἐς τοὺς Διοσκούρους, ὡς Ἀθήνας ἕλοιεν καὶ τὴν Θησέως ἀγάγοιεν μητέρα αἰχμάλωτον, ὅμως Θησέα φησὶν αὐτὸν ἀπεῖναι; (5.) Πίνδαρος δὲ τούτοις τε κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐποίησε (fr. 243 Sn.) καὶ γαμβρὸν τοῖς Διοσκούροις Θησέα εἶναι βουλόμενον , ἐς ὃ ἀπελθεῖν αὐτὸν Πειρίθῳ τὸν λεγόμενον γάμον συμπράξοντα. They say that these things were thus; but I, although I want to write in agreement with the Megarians, 227 am not however able to find everything with them, but while I believe that a lion was killed by Alkathos in Kithairon, who has written that Timalkos the son of Megareus came to Aphidna with the Dioscuri? And how, having come, would he be thought to have been killed by Theseus, when also Alcman, having composed a poem about the Dioscuri, how they took Athens and led the mother of Theseus as a captive, nevertheless says that Theseus himself was absent? And Pindar 228 wrote in the same way about these things and that Theseus, wanting to be brother-in-law to the Dioscuri, until he left with Peirithous to carry out the afore-mentioned marriage.

226

Fr. 21 in Page and Davies. See also Pausanias 2 below. See also Megareis 1 below. 228 See also Pindar 2 below. 227

262

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

2 [Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242] 229 – Ἑλένη ἁρπασθεῖσα ὑπὸ Ἀλεχάνδρου, ἀγνοοῦσα τὸ συμβεβηκὸς μεταξὺ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Διοσκούροις κακόν, ὑπολαμβάνει δι’ αἰσχύνην 230 αὐτῆς μὴ πεπορεῦσθαι τούτους εἰς Ἴλιον, ἐπειδὴ προτέρως ὑπὸ Θησέως ἡρπάσθη, καθὼς προείρηται· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τότε γενομένην ἁρπαγὴν Ἄφιδνα πόλις Ἀττικῆς πορθεῖται, καὶ τιτρώσκεται Κάστωρ ὑπὸ Ἀφίδνου τοῦ τότε βασιλέως κατὰ τὸν δεξιὸν μηρόν. οἱ δὲ Διόσκουροι Θησέως μὴ τυχόντες λαφυραγωγοῦσι τὰς Ἀθήνας. 231 ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ τοῖς πολυωνύμοις 232 ἢ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς, καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους παρὰ Ἀλκμᾶνι τῶι λυρικῶι (fr. 21 Page). 233 Helen, having been carried off by Alexander, ignorant of the misfortune having occurred in the meantime to her brothers the Dioscuri, assumes that they did not go to Ilium out of shame about her, since formerly she had been abducted by Theseus, as was said before; for, on account of the abduction occurring at that time, Aphidna, a city of Attica, was sacked, and Kastor is wounded in the right thigh by Aphidnos, then king [of Aphidna]. And the Dioscuri, not having encountered Theseus, looted Athens. This account [is attested] among the famous [authors] 234 or the Cyclic poets, 235 and in part in Alcman the lyric poet.

229

Text from PEG, q.v. for ap. crit. See footnotes for different readings in EGF. See also Cypria 1, Homeric Scholia 2 below. 230 EGF: αἰσχύνης. 231 EGF: (A: Ἀφίδνας D). 232 EGF: Πολεμονίοις. 233 EGF: ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Κυκλικοῖς cod. Leidensis Voss 64 Valckenaer, Τελαμωνίοις pro Πολεμονίοις cod. Vat. 915 (vid. Baumeister, Philol. 11 (1856) 168). 234 For more on whom this first citation is referencing, see note 285 below. See also Polemon 1 below. 235 See also Cypria 1 below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

263

Chest of Kypselos (6th c. BCE, Peloponnese): 236 1 [Paus. 5.19.2–3] 237 – εἰσὶ δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ λάρνακι Διόσκουροι, ὁ ἕτερος οὐκ ἔχων πω γένεια, μέση δὲ αὐτῶν Ἑλένη· (3.) Αἴθρα δὲ ἡ Πιτθέως ὑπὸ τῆς Ἑλένης τοῖς ποσὶν ἐς ἔδαφος καταβεβλημένη μέλαιναν ἔχουσά ἐστιν ἐσθῆτα, ἐπίγραμμα δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἔπος τε ἑξάμετρον καὶ ὀνόματός ἐστιν ἑνὸς ἐπὶ τῷ ἑξαμέτρῳ προσθήκη· Τυνδαρίδα Ἑλέναν φέρετον, Αἴθραν δ’ ἕλκετον Ἀθάναθεν. And there are on the chest the Dioscuri, one not yet having a beard, and between them Helen; and Aithra the daughter of Pittheus is there, having black clothing and thrown to the ground at the feet of Helen, and the epigram for these (figures) is a hexametric verse and the addition of one word: The Tyndarids fetch Helen, and drag away Aithra From Athens. 2 [D.Chr. Oration 11.44–5] 238 – εἶναι δὲ τὴν Ἑλένην ἐπὶ κάλλει περιβόητον καὶ πολλοὺς μνηστῆρας αὐτῆς ἔτι σμικρᾶς παιδὸς οὔσης γενέσθαι καὶ ἁρπαγὴν ὑπὸ Θησέως βασιλέως ὄντος Ἀθηνῶν. τοὺς οὖν ἀδελφοὺς τῆς Ἑλένης εὐθέως ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θησέως χώραν καὶ πορθῆσαι τὴν πόλιν καὶ κομίσασθαι τὴν ἀδελφήν. τὰς μὲν οὖν ἄλλας γυναῖκας ἀφιέναι λαβόντας· τὴν δὲ τοῦ Θησέως μητέρα αἰχμάλωτον ἄγειν, τιμωρουμένους αὐτόν· εἶναι γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἀξιομάχους πρὸς ἅπασαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα, καὶ καταστρέψασθαι ῥᾳδίως ἄν, εἰ ἐβούλοντο. εἶπον οὖν ὅτι καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν ταῦτα λέγεται, καὶ προσέτι ὡς αὐτὸς ἑορακὼς εἴην ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ ἐν τῷ ὀπισθοδόμῳ τοῦ νεὼ τῆς Ἥρας ὑπόμνημα τῆς ἁρπαγῆς ἐκείνης ἐν τῇ ξυλίνῃ κιβωτῷ τῇ ἀνατεθείσῃ ὑπὸ Κυψέλου, τοὺς Διοσκόρους ἔχοντας τὴν Ἑλένην ἐπιβεβηκυῖαν τῇ κεφαλῇ τῆς Αἴθρας καὶ τῆς κόμης ἕλκουσαν, καὶ ἐπίγραμμα ἐπιγεγραμμένον ἀρχαίοις γράμμασι. 236

See Jones 1894 42: ‘The historical tradition, such as it is, and the scanty evidence to be gleaned from the inscriptions, predispose us to believe that the chest of Kypselos was an early Corinthian work of art, dating from the first decade of the sixth century B.C.’ 237 See also Pausanias 7 below. 238 See also Dio Chrysostom 1 below.

264

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

And Helen was famous for her beauty, and there were many suitors for her while she was still a small child, and the abduction by Theseus, then king of Athens. So the brothers of Helen came straightaway to the land of Theseus and ravaged the city and carried away their sister. So they set free the other women they took; but they led away the mother of Theseus as a captive, taking vengeance on him; for they were a match for all Greece in battle, and would have easily subdued them, if they wanted. So I said that these things are spoken by us, and besides that I myself had seen in Olympia in the opisthodomos of the temple of Hera a memorial of the abduction of that girl in the wooden chest dedicated by Kypselos, the Dioscuri holding Helen treading on the head of Aithra and pulling her hair, and an epigram inscribed with ancient letters. Stesichorus (6th c. BCE, Sicily/Southern Italy): 1 [Paus. 2.22.6] 239 – πλησίον δὲ τῶν Ἀνάκτων Εἰληθυίας ἐστὶν ἱερὸν ἀνάθημα Ἑλένης, ὅτε σὺν Πειρίθῳ Θησέως ἀπελθόντος ἐς Θεσπρωτοὺς Ἄφιδνά τε ὑπὸ Διοσκούρων ἑάλω καὶ ἤγετο ἐς Λακεδαίμονα Ἑλένη. ἔχειν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν λέγουσιν ἐν γαστρί, τεκοῦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἄργει καὶ τῆς Εἰληθυίας ἱδρυσαμένην τὸ ἱερὸν τὴν μὲν παῖδα ἣν ἔτεκε Κλυταιμνήστρᾳ δοῦναι (συνοικεῖν γὰρ ἤδη Κλυταιμνήστραν Ἀγαμέμνονι) αὐτὴν δὲ ὕστερον τούτων Μενελάῳ γήμασθαι. καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε Εὐφορίων Χαλκιδεὺς (fr. 90 Powell) καὶ Πλευρώνιος Ἀλέξανδρος (fr. 12 Powell) ἔπη ποιήσαντες, πρότερον δὲ ἔτι Στησίχορος ὁ Ἱμεραῖος, κατὰ ταὐτά φασιν Ἀργείοις Θησέως εἶναι θυγατέρα Ἰφιγένειαν. And near the Anaktes is a temple of Eilethuia dedicated by Helen, when, with Theseus having gone away to Thesprotis with Peirithous, Aphidna was conquered by the Dioscuri and Helen was led to Lacedaemon. For they say she was with child, and, having given birth in Argos and founded the temple of Eilethuia, she gave the child whom she bore to Clytemnestra (for Clytemnestra was already married to Agamemnon) and after these things she married 239

6.

Stesichorus fr. 191 Davies 1991 (I. 158 sq. Rocha-Pereira) 314 F

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

265

Menelaus. And on this Euphorion of Chalcis 240 and Alexander of Pleuron 241 wrote verses, and earlier still Stesichorus of Himera, saying in the same way as the Argives 242 that Iphigenia is the daughter of Theseus. Throne of Apollo at Amyklai (Late 6th c. BCE): 243 1 [Paus. 3.18.14–15] 244 – τοῦ θρόνου δὲ πρὸς τοῖς ἄνω πέρασιν ἐφ’ ἵππων ἑκατέρωθέν εἰσιν οἱ Τυνδάρεω παῖδες· καὶ σφίγγες τέ εἰσιν ὑπὸ τοῖς ἵπποις καὶ θηρία ἄνω θέοντα, τῇ μὲν πάρδαλις, κατὰ δὲ τὸν Πολυδεύκην λέαινα. ἀνωτάτω δὲ χορὸς ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ πεποίηται, Μάγνητες οἱ συνειργασμένοι Βαθυκλεῖ τὸν θρόνον. ὑπελθόντι δὲ ὑπὸ τὸν θρόνον τὰ ἔνδον ἀπὸ τῶν Τριτώνων ὑός ἐστι θήρα τοῦ Καλυδωνίου καὶ Ἡρακλῆς ἀποκτείνων τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς Ἄκτορος, Κάλαϊς δὲ καὶ Ζήτης τὰς Ἁρπυίας Φινέως ἀπελαύνουσιν· Πειρίθους τε καὶ Θησεὺς ἡρπακότες εἰσὶν Ἑλένην καὶ ἄγχων Ἡρακλῆς τὸν λέοντα, Τιτυὸν δὲ Ἀπόλλων τοξεύει καὶ Ἄρτεμις· And towards the upper extremities of the throne upon horses on each side are the children of Tyndareus; and there are both sphinxes below the horses and beasts running above, on one side a leopard, and by Polydeukes a lioness. And uppermost on the throne has been made a chorus: Magnesians, the ones helping Bathykles make the throne. And going underneath the throne, the inner part, away from the Tritons, is the hunt of the Calydonian boar and Herakles killing the children of Aktor, and Kalais and Zetes driving the harpies away from Phineus; and there are Peirithous and Theseus having abducted Helen and Herakles strangling the lion, and Apollo and Artemis are shooting Tityus. 240

See also Euphorion 1 below. See also Alexander of Pleuron 1 below. 242 N.B. how the Argives are said to have an independent tradition about this matter. 243 See Cook 1962 157. That the late 6th century is still scholars’ best guess about the date for the throne at Amyklai has been confirmed to me in conversation by A. Stewart. There is, however, relatively little support for the date, so that no great weight should be placed upon it. 244 See also Pausanias 6 below. 241

266

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Cypria (Material varies from Homeric through Archaic; final version compiled late 6th c. BCE in Attica): 245 1 [Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242] 246 – See Alcman 2 above. 2 [[Apollod.] Library 3.10.7] 247 – Διὸς δὲ Λήδᾳ συνελθόντος ὁμοιωθέντος κύκνῳ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν νύκτα Τυνδάρεω, Διὸς μὲν ἐγεννήθη Πολυδεύκης καὶ Ἑλένη, Τυνδάρεω δὲ Κάστωρ . λέγουσι δὲ ἔνιοι Νεμέσεως Ἑλένην εἶναι καὶ Διός. ταύτην γὰρ τὴν Διὸς φεύγουσαν συνουσίαν εἰς χῆνα τὴν μορφὴν μεταβαλεῖν, ὁμοιωθέντα δὲ καὶ Δία κύκνῳ συνελθεῖν· τὴν δὲ ᾠὸν ἐκ τῆς συνουσίας ἀποτεκεῖν, τοῦτο δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἄλσεσιν εὑρόντα τινὰ ποιμένα Λήδᾳ κομίσαντα δοῦναι, τὴν δὲ καταθεμένην εἰς λάρνακα φυλάσσειν, καὶ χρόνῳ καθήκοντι γεννηθεῖσαν Ἑλένην ὡς ἐξ αὑτῆς θυγατέρα τρέφειν. γενομένην δὲ αὐτὴν κάλλει διαπρεπῆ Θησεὺς ἁρπάσας εἰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκόμισε. Πολυδεύκης δὲ καὶ Κάστωρ ἐπιστρατεύσαντες, ἐν Ἅιδου Θησέως ὄντος, αἱροῦσι τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν Ἑλένην λαμβάνουσι, καὶ τὴν Θησέως μητέρα Αἴθραν ἄγουσιν αἰχμάλωτον. And with Zeus mating with Leda, having become like a swan, and Tyndareus [mating with her] in the same night, Polydeukes and Helen were begotten of Zeus, and Kastor of 245

See Davies 1989a. On 97 he notes that ‘[s]ince fr. 1 of the Cypria seems to be part of a proem to the work as a whole, Wackernagel deduced that it cannot be explained or excused as a later addition, and consequently assigned the whole of the Cypria to an Attic context not long before 500 B.C.’ At 100, n. 64 he continues: ‘As for the undeniably early and primitive material present in these works, and the vexed question of the relationship with Homer, Lesky’s solution is the most persuasive: “It should again be emphasized that the material in them was much older, and that the cycle arose from a later re-handling, under Homeric influence, of traditional themes” (similarly e.g. Burkert in The Greek Renaissance of the eighth century B.C. (cited above n. 62) p. 62).’ 246 Fr. 13.I Bernabé; fr. 12 Davies. See also Homeric Scholia 2 below. 247 Fr. 13.II Bernabé, fr. 10.II Bernabé. See also Apollodorus 1 below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

267

Tyndareus. But some say that Helen is [the child] of Nemesis and Zeus. For she, fleeing the sexual attentions of Zeus, changed her shape into a wild goose, but Zeus also becoming like a swan mated with her; and she bore an egg from this mating, and some shepherd, finding this in the groves, having carried it away, gave it to Leda, and she, placing it in a chest, guarded it, and in the normal time she raised Helen, born [from it], as her own daughter. And Theseus, having abducted her when she became distinguished in beauty, carried her away to Aphidna. But Polydeukes and Kastor going on campaign while Theseus was in Hades seize the city and take Helen, and lead away Aithra, the mother of Theseus, as a captive. 3 [[Apollod.] Epitome 1.23] 248 – Ὅτι Θησεύς, Πειρίθῳ συνθέμενος Διὸς θυγατέρας γαμῆσαι, ἑαυτῷ μὲν ἐκ Σπάρτης μετ’ ἐκείνου ἥρπασεν Ἑλένην δωδεκαέτη οὖσαν, Πειρίθῳ δὲ μνηστευόμενος τὸν Περσεφόνης γάμον εἰς Ἅιδου κάτεισι. καὶ Διόσκουροι μὲν μετὰ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ Ἀρκάδων εἷλον Ἀθήνας καὶ ἀπάγουσιν Ἑλένην καὶ μετὰ ταύτης Αἴθραν τὴν Πιτθέως αἰχμάλωτον· Δημοφῶν δὲ καὶ Ἀκάμας ἔφυγον. κατάγουσι δὲ καὶ Μενεσθέα καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν Ἀθηναίων διδόασι τούτῳ. Θησεὺς δὲ μετὰ Πειρίθου παραγενόμενος εἰς Ἅιδου ἐξαπατᾶται, καὶ ὡς ξενίων μεταληψομένους πρῶτον ἐν τῷ τῆς Λήθης εἶπε καθεσθῆναι θρόνῳ, ᾧ προσφυέντες σπείραις δρακόντων κατείχοντο. Πειρίθους μὲν οὖν εἰς Ἀϊδωνέα δεθεὶς ἔμεινε, Θησέα δὲ Ἡρακλῆς ἀναγαγὼν ἔπεμψεν εἰς Ἀθήνας. ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ὑπὸ Μενεσθέως ἐξελαθεὶς πρὸς Λυκομήδην ἦλθεν, ὃς αὐτὸν βάλλει κατὰ βαράθρων καὶ ἀποκτείνει. Theseus, having agreed with Peirithous to marry daughters of Zeus, for himself abducted Helen, still twelve years old, from Sparta with [Peirithous], and seeking a marriage with Persephone for Peirithous he goes down to Hades. And the Dioscuri with the Lacedaemonians and Arkadians took Athens and brought back Helen and with her Aithra, daughter of Pittheus, as a captive; and Demophon and Akamas fled. And they also restore Menestheus and give the rule of the Athenians to him. And Theseus arriving at 248

Fr. 13.III Bernabé. See also Apollodorus 2 below.

268

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Hades with Peirithous was deceived, and he said they, as if about to participate in guest hospitality, should first sit on the throne of forgetfulness, growing attached to which they were held down by the coils of serpents. So Peirithous remained bound in Hades, but Herakles leading Theseus up sent him to Athens. But having been driven out from there by Menestheus he came to Lykomedes, who threw him down the pits and killed him. 4 [DS 4.63] 249 – καταλαβὼν δὲ τετελευτηκυῖαν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ Θησέως Φαίδραν ἔπεισεν αὐτὸν ἁρπάσαι τὴν Λήδας καὶ Διὸς Ἑλένην, δεκαετῆ μὲν τὴν ἡλικίαν οὖσαν, εὐπρεπείᾳ δὲ πασῶν διαφέρουσαν. παραγενόμενοι δ’ εἰς Λακεδαίμονα μετὰ πλειόνων, καὶ καιρὸν εὔθετον λαβόντες, ἥρπασαν τὴν Ἑλένην κοινῇ καὶ ἀπήγαγον εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας…. φοβηθεὶς ὁ Θησεὺς ὑπεξέθετο τὴν Ἑλένην εἰς Ἄφιδναν. And [upon Peirithous] learning that Phaedra, the wife of Theseus, had died he persuaded him to abduct Helen, the daughter of Leda and Zeus, ten years old at the time, excelling all others in beauty. And coming to Lacedaemon with more people, and seizing the convenient opportunity, they abducted Helen in common and brought her back to Athens…. Theseus, being fearful, smuggled Helen away to Aphidna. 5 [Sinn MB 37] 250 – (a) Ἑλένη / Θησεύ[ς] / Πε[ ]υσ[ ] (b) Θησεὺς ἁρπάσας τὴν Ἑλένην, πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὴν εἰς Κόρινθον, εἶτεν εἰς Ἀθήνας... εκτου... μρη... ταῖς... καὶ... α.... (c) Κόρινθο[ς] (d) κρ ‘α / Πε[ι]ρ[ίθ]ος / Θη[σεύς] / Ἀθῆν[αι]. (a) HELEN / THESEU[S] / PE[]US[] (b) THESEUS, HAVING SNATCHED HELEN, FIRST [takes?] HER TO CORINTH, THENCE TO ATHENS…[EKTOU]…[MRE]…[TAIS]…[KAI]…[A]… 249

Fr. 13.IV Bernabé. See also Diodorus Siculus 1 below. Fr. 13.V Bernabé Vas Homericum prim. ed. Koumanoudis, Ephem. 1884, 59ss (cf. Snn. Die Homerischen Becher, Berlin 1979, 101 s = MB 37). See also Visual 19 in Appendix D below. 250

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

269

(c) CORINTH (d) [KR ‘A] / PE[I]R[ITH]OUS / THE[SEUS] / ATHEN[S]. 6 [Plut. Thes. 32.6–7] 251 – ἐλθόντες οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας καὶ μάχῃ κρατήσαντες, ἐξεῖλον τὸ χωρίον. ἐνταῦθά φασι καὶ Ἁλυκὸν πεσεῖν τὸν Σκείρωνος υἱόν, συστρατευόμενον [τότε] τοῖς Διοσκούροις [Davies: V: -ίδαις UMA], ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τόπον τῆς Μεγαρικῆς Ἁλυκὸν καλεῖσθαι τοῦ σώματος ἐνταφέντος. Ἡρέας δ’ ὑπὸ Θησέως αὐτοῦ περὶ Ἀφίδνας ἀποθανεῖν τὸν Ἁλυκὸν ἱστόρηκε, καὶ μαρτύρια ταυτὶ τὰ ἔπη παρέχεται περὶ τοῦ Ἁλυκοῦ· τὸν ἐν εὐρυχόρῳ ποτ’ Ἀφίδνῃ μαρνάμενον Θησεὺς Ἑλένης ἕνεκ’ ἠυκόμοιο κτεῖνεν. οὐ μὴν εἰκὸς αὐτοῦ Θησέως παρόντος ἁλῶναι τήν τε μητέρα καὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας. There they say Halukos fell, the son of Skeiron, campaigning then with the Dioscuri, from whom also a place of the Megarid is named Halukos because his body was buried there. But Hereas 252 recorded that Halukos was killed at Aphidna by Theseus himself, and produces these verses about Halukos as proof for this: Him once in spacious Aphidna fighting, Theseus on account of fair-haired Helen slew. It is not likely that with Theseus himself present both his mother and Aphidna were taken.

251

Fr. 8 Adespota vel Dubia Davies fr. adesp. 1155 Suppl. Hell. Davies: ‘Cypriis tribuit Allen, Theseidi Wilamowitz; de Megaricis cogitant Lloyd-Jones et Parsons.’ See also Plutarch 1 below. 252 See also Hereas 1 below.

270

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

7 [Philodem. De piet. (P. Hercul. 1815, 1 ss, prim. ed. G. Crönert, AFP 1, 1901, 109)] 253 – ὧν ἦν καὶ Νέμ]εσις [ἥν φη]σίν γ’ ὁ τὰ Κύπρια γράψας ὁμοιωθέ[ντ]α (sc. Δία) χηνὶ καὶ αὐτ[ὸν δ]ιώκειν καὶ μιγέν[τα]ς ὠοὶν τεκεῖν, [ἐξ] οὗ γενέσθαι τὴν [Ἑλ]ένην. ὡς δὲ [Λή]δας ἐρασθεὶς [ἐγ]ένετο κύκνος... Of whom there was also Nemesis whom the writer of the Cypria says Zeus, taking the shape of a Goose, pursued and mingling with her begat, from which Helen was born. And lusting after Leda he became a swan… 8 [Clement. Homil. 5.13.7 (98.5 Rehm)] 254 – Νεμέσει τῆι Θεστίου τῆι καὶ Λήδαι νομισθείσηι κύκνος ἢ χὴν γενόμενος Ἑλένην ἐτεκνώσατο (sc. Ζεύς). (Zeus), having taken on the seeming of a swan or a goose, impregnated Nemesis, daughter of Thestios, or Leda, with Helen. 9 [Ath. Deipnosophistae 8.10] 255 – καὶ ὅτι ὁ τὰ Κύπρια ποιήσας ἔπη, εἴτε Κύπριός τίς ἐστιν ἢ Στασῖνος ἢ ὅστις δή ποτε χαίρει ὀνομαζόμενος, τὴν Νέμεσιν ποιεῖ διωκομένην ὑπὸ Διὸς καὶ εἰς ἰχθὺν μεταμορφουμένην διὰ τούτων (fr. 6 K)· τοὺς δὲ μέτα τριτάτην Ἑλένην τέκε, θαῦμα βροτοῖσι· τήν ποτε καλλίκομος Νέμεσις φιλότητι μιγεῖσα Ζηνὶ θεῶν βασιλῆι τέκεν κρατερῆς ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης. φεῦγε γὰρ οὐδ’ ἔθελεν μιχθήμεναι ἐν φιλότητι πατρὶ Διὶ Κρονίωνι· ἐτείρετο γὰρ φρένας αἰδοῖ καὶ νεμέσει· κατὰ γῆν δὲ καὶ ἀτρύγετον μέλαν ὕδωρ φεῦγεν, Ζεὺς δ’ ἐδίωκε· λαβεῖν δ’ ἐλιλαίετο θυμῷ ἄλλοτε μὲν κατὰ κῦμα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης ἰχθύι εἰδομένην, πόντον πολὺν ἐξορόθυνεν, ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ Ὠκεανὸν ποταμὸν καὶ πείρατα γαίης, ἄλλοτ’ ἀν’ ἤπειρον πολυβώλακα. γίγνετο δ’ αἰεὶ θηρί’ ὅσ’ ἤπειρος αἰνὰ τρέφει, ὄφρα φύγοι νιν. 253

Fr. 10.I Bernabé. Fr. 10.III Bernabé. 255 Fr. 7 EGF. 254

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

271

And the man who wrote the Cypria poems, whether some Cyprian or a man named Stasinos or whatever else he may have happened to be named, described Nemesis being chased by Zeus and changing into a fish in the following lines:

And after these she bore Helen in third place, ‘a wonder for mortals’ (Hom. Od. 11.287); her, then, fair-haired Nemesis, mingling with the love of Zeus, king of the gods, bore under violent compulsion. For she fled, nor did she wish to be mixed in love with father Zeus, son of Cronus; for she was distressed in her mind by shame and righteous anger; and across the earth and the barren black water she fled, and Zeus gave chase: and he longed in his spirit to take her. Now across the billow of the susurrus sea she made herself like a fish, leaping out of the mighty main, now along the river Oceanus and the boundaries of the earth, now along the many-clodded plain. And always she became whatever monstrous beasts the land bears, so that she might avoid him.

Pindar (522/518–442/438 BCE, Boeotia): 1 [[Hdn.] de figuris 50, p 130.40-2 Hajdú] 256 – [καὶ τὸ παρὰ Πινδάρῳ ἐπί τε τοῦ Πειρίθου καὶ τοῦ Θησέως λεγόμενον], φὰν δ’ ἔμμεναι Ζηνὸς υἱοὶ καὶ κλυτοπώλου Ποσειδάωνος. [And the one in Pindar speaking about Peirithous and Theseus:] And they said they were the sons of Zeus and Poseidon with noble steeds. 2 [Paus. 1.41.4] 257 – See Alcman 1 above.

256 257

Fr. 243 Maehler. See also Herodian 3 below. Fr. 258 (163) Maehler. See also Pausanias 2 below.

272

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Herodotus (485–424 BCE, Halicarnassus): 1 [Histories 9.73] – Ἀθηναίων δὲ λέγεται εὐδοκιμῆσαι Σωφάνης ὁ Εὐτυχίδεω, ἐκ δήμου Δεκελεῆθεν, Δεκελέων δὲ τῶν κοτε ἐργασαμένων ἔργον χρήσιμον ἐς τὸν πάντα χρόνον, ὡς αὐτοὶ Ἀθηναῖοι λέγουσι. Ὡς γὰρ δὴ τὸ πάλαι κατὰ Ἑλένης κομιδὴν Τυνδαρίδαι ἐσέβαλον ἐς γῆν τὴν Ἀττικὴν σὺν στρατοῦ πλήθεϊ καὶ ἀνίστασαν τοὺς δήμους, οὐκ εἰδότες ἵνα ὑπεξέκειτο ἡ Ἑλένη, τότε λέγουσι τοὺς Δεκελέας, οἱ δὲ αὐτὸν Δέκελον ἀχθόμενόν τε τῇ Θησέος ὕβρι καὶ δειμαίνοντα περὶ πάσῃ τῇ Ἀθηναίων χώρῃ, ἐξηγησάμενόν σφι τὸ πᾶν πρῆγμα κατηγήσασθαι ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας, τὰς δὴ Τιτακός, ἐὼν αὐτόχθων, καταπροδιδοῖ Τυνδαρίδῃσι. Τοῖσι δὲ Δεκελεῦσι ἐν Σπάρτῃ ἀπὸ τούτου τοῦ ἔργου ἀτελείη τε καὶ προεδρίη διατελέει ἐς τόδε αἰεὶ ἔτι ἐοῦσα, οὕτω ὥστε καὶ ἐς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν ὕστερον πολλοῖσι ἔτεσι τούτων γενόμενον Ἀθηναίοισί τε καὶ Πελοποννησίοισι, σινομένων τὴν ἄλλην Ἀττικὴν Λακεδαιμονίων, Δεκελέης ἀπέχεσθαι. And of the Athenians Sophanes son of Eutuxides is said to be held in good repute, from the deme of Dekelea, and with the Dekeleans once doing a deed helpful for all time, as the Athenians themselves say. For indeed when long ago the Tyndarids in their rescue of Helen invaded the Attic land with the mass of an army and were depopulating the demes, not knowing where Helen was stowed away, then they say the Dekeleans, and some say Dekelos himself, vexed with the hubris of Theseus and frightened for the entire land of the Athenians, relating the whole matter to them led them to Aphidna, which Titakos, being autochthonous, handed over (betrayed) to the Tyndarids. From this deed the rights of ateleia ‘freedom from taxes’ and of proedria ‘right of favored seating’ has existed uninterrupted at Sparta even to this day, so much so that even in this recent war happening for many years between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians, when the Lacedaemonians harm the rest of Attica, they refrain from Dekelea. 258

258

See also Constantius VII Porphyrogenitus (10th c. Byzantine emperor) De virtutibus et vitiis vol. 2 pp. 27–8 line 19 [ch. 57–8], which is

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

273

Hellanicus 259 (Last 3rd of 5th c. BCE, Mytilene, Lesbos): 1 [Plut. Thes. 31] 260 – Ἤδη δὲ πεντήκοντα ἔτη γεγονώς, ὥς φησιν Ἑλλάνικος (FGrH 323a F 18), ἔπραξε τὰ περὶ τὴν Ἑλένην, οὐ καθ’ ὥραν. ὅθεν ὡς δὴ μέγιστον ἐπανορθούμενοι τοῦτο τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, οὐκ αὐτὸν ἁρπάσαι τὴν Ἑλένην, ἀλλ’ Ἴδα καὶ Λυγκέως ἁρπασάντων παρακαταθήκην λαβόντα τηρεῖν καὶ μὴ προΐεσθαι τοῖς Διοσκούροις ἀπαιτοῦσιν, ἢ νὴ Δία Τυνδάρεω παραδόντος αὐτοῦ, φοβηθέντος Ἐναρσφόρον τὸν Ἱπποκόωντος, ἔτι νηπίαν οὖσαν βιαζόμενον τὴν Ἑλένην λαβεῖν. (2.) τὰ δ’ εἰκότα καὶ πλείστους ἔχοντα μάρτυρας τοιαῦτ’ ἐστιν. ἦλθον μὲν εἰς Σπάρτην ἀμφότεροι, καὶ τὴν κόρην ἐν ἱερῷ Ἀρτέμιδος Ὀρθίας χορεύουσαν ἁρπάσαντες ἔφυγον. τῶν δὲ πεμφθέντων ἐπὶ τὴν δίωξιν οὐ πορρωτέρω Τεγέας ἐπακολουθησάντων, ἐν ἀδείᾳ γενόμενοι καὶ διελθόντες τὴν Πελοπόννησον ἐποιήσαντο συνθήκας, τὸν μὲν λαχόντα κλήρῳ τὴν Ἑλένην ἔχειν γυναῖκα, συμπράττειν δὲ θατέρῳ γάμον ἄλλον. (3.) ἐπὶ ταύταις δὲ κληρουμένων ταῖς ὁμολογίαις, ἔλαχε Θησεύς, καὶ παραλαβὼν τὴν παρθένον οὔπω γάμων ὥραν ἔχουσαν εἰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκόμισε, καὶ τὴν μητέρα καταστήσας μετ’ αὐτῆς Ἀφίδνῳ παρέδωκεν ὄντι φίλῳ, διακελευσάμενος φυλάττειν almost identical to Herodotus’ account, including the context (the Battle of Plataea). 259 In his Ἀττικὴ ξυγγραφή, called from the time of Callimachus ‘᾿Ατθίς,’ like the later chronicles of Attic history that expanded upon and responded to his work. Harding 2008, the most recent edition of the fragments of Atthidography, follows Jacoby (FGrH 3b) in characterizing Hellanicus’ Atthis as a two-book work, the first of which covered the ‘mythical’ period of the kings of Athens and Attica, and the second of which covered the ‘historical’ period, beginning with and structured by the archon list and stretching down to 407/6 or 404/3. Harding attributes 29 surviving fragments to the Atthis, three of which he categorizes as ‘doubtful’; Jacoby is more vague, counting 12 quotations with the title and ‘between twenty five and thirty fragments’ without the title. For each fragment I cite the source as well as the fragment numbers in FGrH, Fowler 2013, and Harding 2008 (if the fragment was included in those editions; if it was not, only the source citation appears). 260 FGrH 4 F 168(a); FGrH 323a F 18; fr. 168a Fowler; fr. 76a Harding. See also Plutarch 1 below.

274

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

καὶ λανθάνειν τοὺς ἄλλους. (4.) αὐτὸς δὲ Πειρίθῳ τὴν ὑπουργίαν ἀποδιδοὺς εἰς Ἤπειρον συναπεδήμησεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀιδωνέως θυγατέρα τοῦ Μολοσσῶν βασιλέως, ὃς τῇ γυναικὶ Φερσεφόνην ὄνομα θέμενος, Κόρην δὲ τῇ θυγατρί, τῷ δὲ κυνὶ Κέρβερον, ἐκέλευε τούτῳ διαμάχεσθαι τοὺς μνωμένους τὴν παῖδα, καὶ λαβεῖν τὸν κρατήσαντα. (5.) τοὺς μέντοι περὶ τὸν Πειρίθουν οὐ μνηστῆρας ἥκειν ἀλλ’ ἁρπασομένους πυνθανόμενος, συνέλαβε, καὶ τὸν μὲν Πειρίθουν εὐθὺς ἠφάνισε διὰ τοῦ κυνός, τὸν δὲ Θησέα καθείρξας ἐφύλαττεν. Already being fifty years old, as Hellanicus says, he (sc. Theseus) carried out the (events) concerning Helen, not according to the appropriate time (sc. for marriage). Wherefore some, as correcting this greatest of charges, say that he did not abduct Helen, but when Idas and Lynkeus abducted her, receiving her as a ward he watched over her and did not give her up to the Dioscuri when they demanded her back, or (by Zeus) with Tyndareus himself handing her over, fearing that Enarsphoros the son of Hippocoon, would take Helen, still a child, by force. But such is the (account) having the most probability and witnesses. Both (Theseus and Peirithous) came to Sparta, and abducting the maiden while she was dancing in the temple of Artemis Orthia they fled. And with the ones pursuing having been sent for the chase not farther than Tegea, being in safety and having passed through the Peloponnesus they made a compact, that first the one winning in a lottery would have Helen to wife, and then would help achieve another marriage for the other. And when they drew lots by these agreements, Theseus won, and the two of them, taking the maiden (who was not yet timely for marriage) conveyed her to Aphidna, and stationing the mother of Theseus with her committed them to Aphidnos, a friend, directing him to guard them and avoid detection. And he himself, having tendered his service to Peirithous, traveled with him to Epirus for the daughter of Aidoneus the king of the Molossians, who, having given his wife the name Persephone, and his daughter Kore, and his dog Kerberos, ordered the suitors for his child to fight this beast, and the winner would take her. However, learning that those about Peirithous came not as suitors but as abductors, arrested them, and straightaway did away with Peirithous with his dog, but imprisoning Theseus he guarded him.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

275

2 [ΣLyc. Alex. 513] 261 – στείλαις ἀρωγοὺς· σημειωτέον δὲ· ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν στείλαις ἀρωγοὺς ἐδήλωσεν ὅτι ἀκουσίως ἡ Ἑλένη ἡρπάγη καὶ εἰς βοήθειαν αὐτῆς μὴ ἐλθεῖν τοὺς Διοσκούρους. … may send rescuers …; and noteworthy; in saying ‘may send rescuers’ he revealed that Helen was abducted unwillingly and the Dioscuri did not come to her rescue. δισάρπαγον δὲ αὐτὴν εἶπεν, ἐπειδὴ ὑπὸ Θησέως καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἡρπάγη. φησὶ δὲ ὁ Ἑλλάνικος ἑπταετῆ οὖσαν Ἑλένην ἁρπαγῆναι ὑπὸ Θησέως (FHG I 55), Δοῦρις δὲ λέγει ἀποδοθῆναι αὐτὴν τετοκυῖαν τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν (FHG II 470). And he calls her twice-abducted, since she was abducted by Theseus and Alexander. And Hellanicus says Helen was abducted by Theseus at seven years of age (citing FHG I 55), but Douris (FGrH 76 F 92) says she was returned having given birth to Iphigenia (FHG II 470). δισαρπάγῳ· δεύτερον γὰρ ἡρπάγη, ὑπὸ Θησέως πρότερον ἑπταετὴς *οὖσα*, ὥς φησιν Ἑλλάνικος. Δοῦρις δὲ ἀποδοθῆναι αὐτήν φησι τεκοῦσαν τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν, ὡς ὄπισθεν εἶπον πλατυτέρως (103. 143. 183). καὶ πρῶτος μὲν ἅρπαξ αὐτῆς Θησεύς, δεύτερος δὲ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος. Twice-abducted; for she was abducted twice, by Theseus previously being seven years of age, as Hellanicus says. But Douris says she was returned having given birth to Iphigenia, as I said before rather more broadly (103. 143. 183). And her first abductor was Theseus, and the second Alexander. 3 [Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144] 262 – Αἴθρη Πιτθῆος. Ἑτέρα τῆς Θησέως μητρός ἐστιν αὕτη ἡ Αἴθρα. Αἰσχρὸν γὰρ ὑπάρχει, θεραπαίνης 261

FGrH 4 F 168(b); FGrH 323a F 19; fr. 168b Fowler; fr. 76b Harding. See also Douris 1, Tzetzes 5 below. 262 FGrH 4 F 134; FGrH 323a F 20; fr. 168c Fowler; fr. 76c Harding. See also Homeric Scholia 1 below.

276

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

τρόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ Ἑλένῃ τὴν Αἴθραν, ἑκυρὰν νομισθεῖσαν. Ὡς γὰρ ἱστορεῖ Ἑλλάνικος, Πειρίθους καὶ Θησεὺς, ὁ μὲν Διὸς ὢν, ὁ δὲ Ποσειδῶνος, συνέθεντο γαμῆσαι Διὸς θυγατέρας. Καὶ ἁρπάσαντες τὴν Ἑλένην κομιδῇ νέαν, παρατίθενται εἰς Ἄφυδναν τῆς Ἀττικῆς Αἴθρῃ, τῇ Πιτθέως μὲν θυγατρὶ, μητρὶ δὲ Θησέως. Οὕτως εἰς ᾅδου παραγίγνονται ἐπὶ τὴν Περσεφόνην. Οἱ δὲ Διόσκουροι, μὴ ἀπολαμβάνοντες τὴν ἀδελφὴν, τὴν Ἀττικὴν σύμπασαν πορθοῦσιν, Αἴθραν δὲ αἰχμαλωτίζουσι. Aithra (daughter) of Pittheus. This Aithra is different from the mother of Theseus. For it is shameful, that Aithra should follow Helen in the manner of a handmaiden, although considered her mother-in-law. For, as Hellanicus relates, Peirithous and Theseus, the one being a son of Zeus, the other of Poseidon, agreed to marry daughters of Zeus. And having snatched Helen quite young, they entrust her to Aithra, daughter of Pittheus and mother of Theseus, in Aphydna of Attica. With matters thus they come into Hades for Persephone. And the Dioscuri, not receiving their sister, ravage all of Attica, and take Aithra prisoner. 4 [ΣLyc. Alex. 102] 263 – καὶ τὴν ἄνυμφον πόρτιν ἁρπάσας λύκος, δυοῖν πελειαῖν ὠρφανισμένην γονῆς … ‘πολύνυμφον’ λέγει δὲ τὴν Ἑλένην. ‘καὶ τὴν ἄνυμφον πόρτιν’ καὶ τὴν πολύανδρον δάμαλιν ‘ἁρπάσας’ σὺ ‘ὁ λύκος’ ἤτοι ἅρπαξ ‘δυοῖν πελειαῖν’ ὀρφανὴν καὶ ἔρημον οὖσαν τῆς ‘γονῆς’ τῶν β περιστερῶν ἤτοι Ἰφιγενείας ἣν ἔσχεν ἐκ Θησέως, ὥς φησι Δοῦρις ὁ Σάμιος καὶ Ἑρμιόνης, ἣν ἐκ Μενελάου γεννᾷ· ἑπταετῆ γὰρ ταύτην πρῶτον ἁρπάσας Θησεὺς μετὰ τὸ τεκεῖν ἐξ αὐτῆς Ἰφιγένειαν ἀφῃρέθη αὐτὴν … He calls Helen ‘much-married’. ‘And you, wolf, snatched the unmarried girl’ (Lyk. 102); the unmarried girl is the much-married girl, i.e. Helen; you are the wolf, namely, the abductor. (Helen) here 263

See also Douris 2, Tzetzes 1 below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

277

is described as orphaned and bereft of two doves, of her family; i.e. of two doves, namely Iphigenia whom she had from Theseus, as Douris of Samos says, and Hermione, whom she begat from Menelaus. For Theseus having snatched her first at seven years of age after begetting Iphigenia from her, Helen was bereft of her (Iphigenia)… 5 [ΣLyc. Alex. 143] 264 – τῆς πενταλέκτρου τῆς Ἑλένης· πέντε γὰρ αὐτὴν ἔγημαν Θησεύς, Μενέλαος, Πάρις, Δηίφοβος, Ἀχιλλεὺς κατ’ ὄναρ. πεντάλεκτρον θυάδα ἤτοι βάκχην τὴν Ἑλένην καλεῖ· πέντε γὰρ ταύτην ἔγημαν ἄνδρες, πρῶτος Θησεὺς ἑπταετῆ ταύτην ἁρπάσας, καθά φησι Δοῦρις ὁ Σάμιος ἀφαιρεθεὶς δὲ αὐτὴν ἐν τῷ ἡττηθῆναι ὑπὸ Πολυδεύκους καὶ Κάστορος τῶν αὐτῆς ἀδελφῶν ἐν Ἀφίδναις πολιχνίῳ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν γεννήσασαν Ἰφιγένειαν ἣν Ἰφιγένειαν θετὴν παῖδα ἡ Κλυταιμνήστρα ποιεῖται. εἷς μὲν οὖν Ἑλένης νυμφίος, ὡς ἔφημεν, ὁ Θησεὺς δεύτερος Μενέλαος … Of Helen five times married. For five (men) married her: Theseus, Menelaus, Paris, Deiphobus, Achilles in a dream. He calls Helen a five-times-married possessed woman or bacchant. For five men married her, first Theseus having snatched her at seven years of age, as Douris of Samos says, but having lost her in being defeated by Polydeukes and Kastor, her brothers, at Aphidna, a small town of Athens, when she had already borne Iphigenia, the same Iphigenia whom Clytemnestra adopted. So as we said Theseus was the first husband of Helen, Menelaus the second… 6 [ΣLyc. Alex. 503] 265 – Πειρίθους καὶ Θησεὺς ὁ μὲν Διὸς ὤν, ὁ δὲ Ποσειδῶνος φιλίαν ποιησάμενοι συνέθεντο ἁρπάσαι Διὸς θυγατέρα. ἁρπάσαντες οὖν τὴν Ἑλένην παρατίθενται ἐν Ἀφίδναις τῆς Ἀττικῆς Αἴθρᾳ τῇ Πιτθέως μὲν θυγατρί, μητρὶ δὲ Θησέως. Κάστωρ δὲ καὶ 264 265

See also Douris 3, Tzetzes 2 below. See also Tzetzes 4 below.

278

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Πολυδεύκης οἱ Διόσκουροι, οἱ τῆς Ἑλένης ἀδελφοὶ πορθήσαντες τὴν Ἀττικὴν διὰ τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῆς Ἑλένης Αἴθραν λαμβάνουσιν αἰχμάλωτον εἰς αἰσχύνην αὐτοῦ, ἥτις ἁρπαγείσης πάλιν τῆς Ἑλένης ὑπ’ Ἀλεξάνδρου συναπῆρεν αὐτῇ ἐπὶ Τροίαν. Peirithous and Theseus, the one being the son of Zeus, the other of Poseidon, having struck up a friendship agreed to abduct the daughter of Zeus. So having abducted Helen they entrusted her to Aithra, the daughter of Pittheus and mother of Theseus, in Aphidna of Attica. And the Dioscuri, Kastor and Polydeukes, the brothers of Helen, ravaging Attica on account of the abduction of Helen took prisoner to his (Theseus’) shame Aithra, who, with Helen having been abducted again by Alexander, sailed with her to Troy. ὅταν τεκόντος τοῦ Ἀκάμαντος αἰχμάλωτος δὲ ἡ Αἴθρα. οἱ γὰρ Διόσκουροι διὰ τὴν ἁρπαγὴν τῆς Ἑλένης τὴν ὑπὸ Θησέως εἷλον τὰς Ἀθήνας καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαβον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως εἰ μὴ Αἴθραν τὴν Θησέως μητέρα πρὸς αἰσχύνην αὐτοῦ, ἥτις σὺν Ἑλένῃ εἰς Τροίαν ἦλθε. καὶ Ὅμηρος Αἴθρη Πιτθῆος θυγάτηρ (Γ 143) Κλυμένη τε βοῶπις. ὅθεν αἰχμάλωτον εἶπεν αὐτὴν ὡς αἰχμαλωτισθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τῶν Διοσκούρων. Since Aithra was a captive when Akamas was born. For the Dioscuri on account of the abduction of Helen by Theseus seized Athens and took nothing from the city except the mother of Theseus to his shame, Aithra, who came to Troy with Helen. So Homer: ‘Aithra daughter of Pittheus and ox-eyed Klumene.’ Whence he calls her a captive as having been taken captive by the Dioscuri. 7 [ΣAristophanes Clouds 1006] 266 – καλάμῳ λευκῷ· καλάμῳ λευκῷ, φησί, στεφανωθήση. ἁπλῷ στεφάνῳ, ὄζων· καὶ μῦρον καὶ εὐωδίαν ἀπραγμοσύνης ἐκπνέων. ἤ ὅτι καὶ οἱ Διόσκουροι καλάμῳ ἐστέφοντο διὰ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς δικαιότητος, ἄνακτες ἤτοι θεοὶ καὶ σωτῆρες τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις κληθέντες. 266

See also Tzetzes 6 below.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

279

ἁρπαγείσης γὰρ ἑπταετοῦς τῆς Ἑλένης ὑπὸ Θησέως μετά τινα καιρὸν κατ΄ Άθηναίων στρατεύσαντες ἐν Ἀφίδναις τῆς Ἀττικῆς, ἐπεὶ τὸν Θησέα ἔτυχεν ἐκεῖ μὴ παρεῖναι, Ἑλένην λαβόντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀδελφὴν καὶ μόνην τὴν Θησέως μητέρα Αἴθραν αἰχμάλωτον, ἕτερον δὲ [μηδαμῇ / μηδαμοῦ] τῶν Ἀθηναίων μηδένα κακοποιήσαντες ὑπέστρεψαν οἴκαδε πᾶσι τῆς τόσης φιλανθρωπίας καὶ δικαιότητος κηρυττόμενοι. With a white reed: having been crowned, he says, with a white reed. With a simple crown, of branches: breathing out both perfume and bouquet of apragmosyne. Or because also the Dioscuri were crowned with reed on account of the extremity of justice, being called ‘anaktes’ or gods and saviors by the Athenians. For with Helen having been abducted at seven years of age by Theseus, campaigning against the Athenians after some time in Aphidna of Attica, since it happened that Theseus was not there, taking Helen (their sister) and only Aithra, the mother of Theseus, as a captive, but doing ill in no other way to anyone else of the Athenians, they turned back towards home, being heralded by all of so great a philanthropy and justice. Isocrates (436–338 BCE, Athens): 1 [Isoc. 10.18–20 (Helenae encomium)] 267 – Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν Θησεὺς, ὁ λεγόμενος μὲν Αἰγέως γενόμενος δ’ ἐκ Ποσειδῶνος, ἰδὼν αὐτὴν οὔπω μὲν ἀκμάζουσαν, ἤδη δὲ τῶν ἄλλων διαφέρουσαν, τοσοῦτον ἡττήθη τοῦ κάλλους, ὁ κρατεῖν τῶν ἄλλων εἰθισμένος, ὥσθ’ ὑπαρχούσης αὐτῷ καὶ πατρίδος μεγίστης καὶ βασιλείας ἀσφαλεστάτης ἡγησάμενος οὐκ ἄξιον εἶναι ζῆν ἐπὶ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀγαθοῖς ἄνευ τῆς πρὸς ἐκείνην οἰκειότητος, (19.) ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τῶν κυρίων οὐχ οἷός τ’ ἦν αὐτὴν λαβεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἐπέμενον τήν τε τῆς παιδὸς ἡλικίαν καὶ τὸν χρησμὸν τὸν παρὰ τῆς Πυθίας, ὑπεριδὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν τὴν Τυνδάρεω καὶ καταφρονήσας τῆς ῥώμης τῆς Κάστορος καὶ Πολυδεύκους καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι δεινῶν ὀλιγωρήσας, βίᾳ λαβὼν αὐτὴν εἰς Ἄφιδναν τῆς Ἀττικῆς κατέθετο, (20.) καὶ τοσαύτην χάριν ἔσχεν Πειρίθῳ τῷ μετασχόντι τῆς 267

See also Lucian 2 below.

280

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

ἁρπαγῆς ὥστε, βουληθέντος αὐτοῦ μνηστεῦσαι Κόρην τὴν Διὸς καὶ Δήμητρος, καὶ παρακαλοῦντος ἐπὶ τὴν εἰς Ἅιδου κατάβασιν, ἐπειδὴ συμβουλεύων οὐχ οἷός τ’ ἦν ἀποτρέπειν, προδήλου τῆς συμφορᾶς οὔσης, ὅμως αὐτῷ συνηκολούθησεν, νομίζων ὀφείλειν τοῦτον τὸν ἔρανον, μηδενὸς ἀποστῆναι τῶν ὑπὸ Πειρίθου προσταχθέντων ἀνθ’ ὧν ἐκεῖνος αὐτῷ συνεκινδύνευσεν. And first Theseus, reputedly son of Aigeus but actually of Poseidon, seeing her not yet in full bloom, but already surpassing the others, was overcome to such an extent by her beauty, he, accustomed to overcome others, that, with there already being for him the greatest fatherland and safest dominion, considering life to be unworthy even among the present goods without affiliation with her, since it was not possible to get her from her guardians, but they were awaiting the child’s prime and the oracle from the Pythia, looking down on the power of Tyndareus and disdaining the might of Kastor and Polydeukes and esteeming little all the dangers in Lacedaemon, taking her by force he deposited her for safety in Aphidna of Attica, and he had such gratitude to Peirithous, the accomplice of the abduction, that, with (Peirithous) desiring to woo Kore the daughter of Zeus and Demeter and summoning him (Theseus) for the descent into Hades, since it was not possible to advise him to turn back, although the trespass was clear, nevertheless he accompanied him, thinking he owed this repayment: to shrink from nothing of the commands of Peirithous in return for what dangers that man had shared with him. 2 [Isoc. 10.39 (Helenae encomium)] – Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν Θησέως εἰς Ἅιδου κατάβασιν, ἐπανελθούσης αὐτῆς εἰς Λακεδαίμονα καὶ πρὸς τὸ μνηστεύεσθαι λαβούσης ἡλικίαν, ἅπαντες οἱ τότε βασιλεύοντες καὶ δυναστεύοντες τὴν αὐτὴν γνώμην ἔσχον περὶ αὐτῆς· ἐξὸν γὰρ αὐτοῖς λαμβάνειν ἐν ταῖς αὑτῶν πόλεσι γυναῖκας τὰς πρωτευούσας, ὑπεριδόντες τοὺς οἴκοι γάμους ἦλθον ἐκείνην μνηστεύσοντες. After the descent of Theseus into Hades, with her (Helen) returning to Lacedaemon and achieving her prime age for courtship, all the ones holding kingships or power at the time had the same opinion about her; for, it being possible to take wives holding prime position in their cities, looking down on marriages at home, they came courting her (Helen).

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

281

Dicaearchus (4th c. BCE, Peloponnese and Athens): 1 [Plut. Thes. 32] 268 – ὁ δὲ Δικαίαρχος Ἐχέμου φησὶ καὶ Μαράθου συστρατευσάντων τότε τοῖς Τυνδαρίδαις ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας ἀφ’ οὗ μὲν Ἐχεδημίαν προσαγορευθῆναι τὴν νῦν Ἀκαδήμειαν, ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ Μαραθῶνα τὸν δῆμον, ἐπιδόντος ἑαυτὸν ἑκουσίως κατά τι λόγιον σφαγιάσασθαι πρὸ τῆς παρατάξεως. But Dicaearchus says with Echemos and Marathos campaigning with the Tyndarids at the time from Arcadia, from the first of whom the now-Akademeia was called the Echedemia, and from the second of whom the deme Marathon, since he gave himself willingly to be sacrificed according to some oracle before the front rank of the phalanx. Douris of Samos (c. 340–270 BCE, Samos): 1 [ΣLyc. Alex. 513] 269 – See Hellanicus 2 above. 2 [ΣLyc. Alex. 102] 270 – See Hellanicus 4 above. 3 [ΣLyc. Alex. 143] 271 – See Hellanicus 5 above. 4 [ΣLyc. Alex. 183] 272 – τινὲς δὲ τὴν Ἰφιγένειαν ταύτην, ὥσπερ καὶ Δοῦρις, οὐκ Ἀγαμέμνονος λέγουσι θυγατέρα, ἀλλὰ Θησέως ἐξ Ἑλένης γεννηθεῖσαν, ὑπὸ *δὲ* Κλυταιμνήστρας θυγατροθετηθεῖσαν, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον ἔφην. And some, like also Douris, say that this Iphigenia was not the daughter of Agamemnon, but was begotten of Theseus from Helen, and adopted by Clytemnestra, as I also said earlier.

268

Fr. 66 Wehrli. See also Plutarch 1 below. FGrH 76 F 92 (=FGrH 4 F 168(b)). See also Tzetzes 5 below. 270 FGrH 76 F 92. See also Tzetzes 1 below. 271 FGrH 76 F 92. See also Tzetzes 2 below. 272 FGrH 76 F 92. See also Tzetzes 3 below. 269

282

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Hereas (Late 4th c. BCE, Megara): 1 [Plut. Thes. 32.6] 273 – See Cypria 6 above. Euphorion (3rd c. BCE, Greece): 1 [Paus. 2.22.6] 274 – See Stesichorus 1 above. 2 [Etym. Gud. s.v. Ἰφιγένεια, ι 285.48)] 275 – Ἰφιγένεια, Εὐφορίων αὐτὴν ἐτυμολογεῖ, ἀγνοῶν αὐτὴν Ἀγαμέμνονος, ὡς οἴεται δὲ αὐτὴν Ἑλένης καὶ Θησέως ὑποβλῆθιν δοθῆναι Κλυταιμνήστραν οὕνεκα δ’ ἡμῖν ἶφι βιασαμένη Ἑλένη ὑπεγείνατο Θήσει· ἐξ Ἑλένης καὶ Θησέως. Iphigenia, Euphorion etymologizes her, not knowing her as the daughter of Agamemnon, since he believes that she was the [changeling] daughter of Helen and Theseus, relinquished and given to Clytemnestra, ‘and on account of which in our view Helen, ravished by force by Theseus, gave birth (from Helen and Theseus)’. Alexander Aetolus (3rd c. BCE, Greece): 1 [Paus. 2.22.7] 276 – See also Stesichorus 1. Megareis (Uncertain date, Megarian local historians): 1 [Paus. 1.41.3–4] 277 – οὐ πόρρω δὲ τοῦ Ὕλλου μνήματος Ἴσιδος ναὸς καὶ παρ’ αὐτὸν Ἀπόλλωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος· Ἀλκάθουν δέ φασι ποιῆσαι ἀποκτείναντα λέοντα τὸν καλούμενον Κιθαιρώνιον. ὑπὸ τούτου τοῦ λέοντος διαφθαρῆναι καὶ ἄλλους καὶ Μεγαρέως 273

FGrH 486 F 2. See also Plutarch 1 below. 314 F 6 = Stesichorus fr. 191 Davies. See also Pausanias 3, Alexander Aetolus 1 below. 275 Euphorion fr. 90 Powell (p. 46). See Powell 1925 for ap. crit. See also Etymologica 2 below. 276 Alexander Aetolus fr. 12 Powell (p. 128). See also Euphorion 1 above, Pausanias 3 below. 277 Frs 5 F 8a, 5 F 9 Piccirilli. See also Alcman 1 above, Pausanias 2 below. 274

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

283

φασὶ τοῦ σφετέρου βασιλέως παῖδα Εὔιππον, τὸν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῶν παίδων αὐτῷ Τίμαλκον ἔτι πρότερον ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὸ Θησέως, στρατεύοντα ἐς Ἄφιδναν σὺν τοῖς Διοσκούροις· Μεγαρέα δὲ γάμον τε ὑποσχέσθαι θυγατρὸς καὶ ὡς διάδοχον ἕξει τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὅστις τὸν Κιθαιρώνιον λέοντα ἀποκτείναι· διὰ ταῦτα Ἀλκάθουν τὸν Πέλοπος ἐπιχειρήσαντα τῷ θηρίῳ κρατῆσαί τε καὶ ὡς ἐβασίλευσε τὸ ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, Ἀγροτέραν Ἄρτεμιν καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα Ἀγραῖον ἐπονομάσαντα. ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω γενέσθαι λέγουσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ γράφειν μὲν ἐθέλω Μεγαρεῦσιν ὁμολογοῦντα, οὐκ ἔχω δὲ ὅπως εὕρωμαι [PMGF: συμφέρωμαι] πάντα σφίσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀποθανεῖν μὲν λέοντα ἐν τῷ Κιθαιρῶνι ὑπὸ Ἀλκάθου πείθομαι, Μεγαρέως δὲ Τίμαλκον παῖδα τίς μὲν ἐς Ἄφιδναν ἐλθεῖν μετὰ τῶν Διοσκούρων ἔγραψε; And not far from the monument of Hyllos is a temple of Isis, and beside it one of Apollo and Artemis. And they say Alkathous made it, having killed the lion called Kithaironian. By this lion, they say, both others and Euippos, the son of Megareus their king, were slain, but the eldest of his children, Timalkos, died still earlier by Theseus’ hand, campaigning at Aphidna with the Dioscuri; and Megareus promised the marriage of his daughter and that he will have succession of his rule, to whomever kills the Kithaironian lion; in this way Alkathous the son of Pelops attacking the beast overpowered it and when he was king he made this temple, calling it Artemis Agrotera and Apollo Agraios. They say that these things were thus; but I, although I want to write in agreement with the Megarians, am not however able to find everything with them, but, while I believe that a lion was killed by Alkathos in Kithairon, who has written that Timalkos the son of Megareus came to Aphidna with the Dioscuri? 2 [Plut. Thes. 32.6.] 278 – ἐλθόντες οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας καὶ μάχῃ κρατήσαντες, ἐξεῖλον τὸ χωρίον. ἐνταῦθά φασι καὶ Ἁλυκὸν πεσεῖν 278

See Cypria 6, Hereas 1 above, Plutarch 1 below. Note how, for Hereas, an author of a Megareis, not only did Halukos fall at Aphidna, he was killed by Theseus. Furthermore, Hereas can adduce (Homeric-style) verses in support of this assertion. Hereas’ assertion dovetails nicely with Megareis 1, wherein Timalkos is said to die by Theseus’ hand.

284

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

τὸν Σκείρωνος υἱόν, συστρατευόμενον τότε τοῖς Διοσκούροις, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τόπον τῆς Μεγαρικῆς Ἁλυκὸν καλεῖσθαι τοῦ σώματος ἐνταφέντος. Ἡρέας (FGrH 486 F 2) δ’ ὑπὸ Θησέως αὐτοῦ περὶ Ἀφίδνας ἀποθανεῖν τὸν Ἁλυκὸν ἱστόρηκε, καὶ μαρτύρια ταυτὶ τὰ ἔπη παρέχεται περὶ τοῦ Ἁλυκοῦ· τὸν ἐν εὐρυχόρῳ ποτ’ Ἀφίδνῃ (4) μαρνάμενον Θησεὺς Ἑλένης ἕνεκ’ ἠυκόμοιο (5) κτεῖνεν. οὐ μὴν εἰκὸς αὐτοῦ Θησέως παρόντος ἁλῶναι τήν τε μητέρα καὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας. So coming to Aphidna and being victorious in battle they destroyed the place. There they say Halukos fell, the son of Skeiron, campaigning then with the Dioscuri, from whom also a place of the Megarid is named Halukos because his body was buried there. And Hereas 279 recorded that Halukos was killed at Aphidna by Theseus himself, and produces these verses about Halukos as proof for this: Him once in spacious Aphidna fighting, Theseus on account of fair-haired Helen slew. 280 However, it is not likely that with Theseus himself present his mother and Aphidna were captured.

279 280

See Hereas 1 above. See Cypria 6 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

285

Lacedaemonians (Spartan local historians and ‘constitutionalists’): 281 1 [Paus. 3.18.4–5] 282 – τὰ δὲ ἐς τὴν Κναγίαν Ἄρτεμίν ἐστιν οὕτω λεγόμενα· Κναγέα ἄνδρα ἐπιχώριον στρατεῦσαί φασιν ἐς Ἄφιδναν ὁμοῦ τοῖς Διοσκούροις, ληφθέντα δὲ αἰχμάλωτον ἐν τῇ μάχῃ καὶ πραθέντα ἐς Κρήτην δουλεύειν ἔνθα ἦν Ἀρτέμιδος τοῖς Κρησὶν ἱερόν, ἀνὰ χρόνον δὲ αὐτόν τε ἀποδρᾶναι καὶ παρθένον τὴν ἱερωμένην ἔχοντα οἴχεσθαι τὸ ἄγαλμα ἀγομένην. ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ λέγουσιν ὀνομάζειν Κναγίαν Ἄρτεμιν· (5.) ἐμοὶ δὲ οὗτος ὁ Κναγεὺς ἄλλως ἀφικέσθαι πως ἐς Κρήτην φαίνεται καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοί φασιν, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ γενέσθαι δοκῶ πρὸς Ἀφίδνῃ μάχην Θησέως τε ἐν Θεσπρωτοῖς ἐχομένου καὶ Ἀθηναίων οὐχ ὁμονοούντων ἀλλὰ ἐς Μενεσθέα ῥεπόντων μᾶλλον ταῖς εὐνοίαις. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀγῶνος συμβάντος πείθοιτο ἄν τις αἰχμαλώτους ληφθῆναι παρὰ τῶν κρατησάντων, ἄλλως τε καὶ παρὰ πολὺ γενομένης τῆς νίκης, ὥστε ἁλῶναι καὶ αὐτὴν Ἄφιδναν. And the story of Artemis Knagia is thus. They say that Knageus, a native man, went to Aphidna on campaign together with the Dioscuri, and having been taken as a prisoner of war in the battle and sold to Crete he was a slave where there was a temple of Artemis for the Cretans, but over time he ran away and the maiden holding the priesthood went (with him) taking the image (from the temple). On account of this they say that they name Artemis Knagia; but this Knageus seems to me to have come to Crete some other way and not as the Lacedaemonians say, since I do not think it likely that there was a battle at Aphidna, both with Theseus being held in Thesprotis and the Athenians not being of one mind but inclining towards Menestheus with their goodwill. Nor, even with a conflict occurring, would someone believe that captives were taken 281

The role of Sosibios (3rd c. BCE) in the traditions on the abduction cannot now be determined, although this particular discussion ressembles the aetiological material found in his works. His treatise on Alcman may have discussed that poet’s contribution to the tradition on Theseus and Helen. In general, see Figueira pp. 48−82 above. 282 See also Pausanias 5.

286

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

from the victors, especially with it being so far a victory that Aphidna itself was taken. Polemon Periegetes of Ilium (Early 2nd c. BCE): 1 [Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242] 283 – X*. Σ Venet. et Didymi ad Il. 3.242. Ἑλένη ἁρπασθεῖσα ὑπὸ Ἀλεχάνδρου, ἀγνοοῦσα τὸ συμβεβηκὸς μεταξὺ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς Διοσκούροις κακόν, ὑπολαμβάνει δι’ αἰσχύνης αὐτῆς μὴ πεπορεῦσθαι τούτους εἰς Ἴλιον, ἐπειδὴ προτέρως ὑπὸ Θησέως ἡρπάσθη, καθὼς προείρηται· διὰ γὰρ τὴν τότε γενομένην ἁρπαγὴν Ἄφιδνα πόλις Ἀττικῆς πορθεῖται, καὶ τιτρώσκεται Κάστωρ ὑπὸ Ἀφίδνου τοῦ τότε βασιλέως κατὰ τὸν δεξιὸν μηρόν. οἱ δὲ Διόσκουροι Θησέως μὴ τυχόντες λαφυραγωγοῦσι τὰς Ἀθήνας. ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Πολέμωνι ἢ τοῖς κυκλικοῖς καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους παρὰ Ἀλκμᾶνι τῷ λυρικῷ. 284 Helen, having been carried off by Alexander, ignorant of the misfortune having occurred in the meantime to her brothers the Dioscuri, assumes that they did not go to Ilium out of shame about her, since formerly she had been abducted by Theseus, as was said before; for, on account of the abduction occurring at that time, Aphidna, a city of Attica, was sacked, and Kastor is wounded in the right thigh by Aphidnos, then king [of Aphidna]. And the Dioscuri, not having encountered Theseus, looted Athens. This account [comes from] Polemon 285 or the Cyclic poets, and in part from Alcman the lyric poet. 283

Fr. X Preller, p. 43. See also Alcman 2, Cypria 2 above. Apparatus/commentary from Preller: ‘De cyclicorum mentione cum Polemonis coniuncta v. cap. I S. 11. Pro τὰς Ἀθήνας in ΣDid. est Ἀφίδνας, sed cf. Apollod. III. 10, 7. et Pausan. I. 41, 5, qui item Laudat Alcmanem, cf. Alcm. Frgmm. p. 19 sq. Welcker. –Res (ἡ πρὸς Ἀφίδνῃ μάχη Paus. III. 18, 3, ἡ στρατεία τῶν Διοσκούρων ἐπὶ τῆν πόλιν Lucian. de Saltu c. 40) notissima atque ex iis, quas repetebat quicunque scripsit de antiquitatibus Atticis. Cf. Heyne in Apollod. l. c.’. 285 The only difference between this version and Alcman 2 as printed above is that τοῖς πολυωνύμοις is replaced by Πολέμωνι (and hence in translation ‘the famous [authors]’ is replaced by ‘Polemon’. What word to 284

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

287

Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE, Sicily, Egypt, Rome): 1 [DS 4.63] 286 – Ἡμεῖς δ’ ἐπεὶ τὸν περὶ Θησέως λόγον ἀποδεδώκαμεν, ἐν μέρει διέξιμεν περί τε τῆς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλένην ἁρπαγῆς καὶ τῆς μνηστείας Φερσεφόνης ὑπὸ Πειρίθου· αὗται γὰρ αἱ πράξεις συμπεπλεγμέναι ταῖς Θησέως εἰσί. Πειρίθους γὰρ ὁ Ἰξίονος, ἀποθανούσης αὐτοῦ τῆς γυναικὸς Ἱπποδαμείας καὶ καταλιπούσης υἱὸν Πολυποίτην, παρῆλθεν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας πρὸς Θησέα. καταλαβὼν δὲ τετελευτηκυῖαν τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ Θησέως Φαίδραν ἔπεισεν αὐτὸν ἁρπάσαι τὴν Λήδας καὶ Διὸς Ἑλένην, δεκαετῆ μὲν τὴν ἡλικίαν οὖσαν, εὐπρεπείᾳ δὲ πασῶν διαφέρουσαν. παραγενόμενοι δ’ εἰς Λακεδαίμονα μετὰ πλειόνων, καὶ καιρὸν εὔθετον λαβόντες, ἥρπασαν τὴν Ἑλένην κοινῇ καὶ ἀπήγαγον εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας. ἔπειτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμολογίας ἔθεντο διακληρώσασθαι, καὶ τὸν μὲν λαχόντα γῆμαι τὴν Ἑλένην, τῷ δ’ ἑτέρῳ συμπρᾶξαι περὶ ἑτέρας γυναικός, ὑπομένοντα πάντα κίνδυνον. περὶ δὲ τούτων δόντες ἀλλήλοις ὅρκους ἔλαχον, καὶ συνέβη τῷ κλήρῳ λαχεῖν Θησέα. οὗτος μὲν οὖν κύριος κατέστη τῆς παρθένου τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων ἀγανακτούντων ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι, φοβηθεὶς ὁ Θησεὺς ὑπεξέθετο τὴν Ἑλένην εἰς Ἄφιδναν, μίαν τῶν Ἀττικῶν πόλεων. παρακατέστησε δ’ αὐτῇ τὴν μητέρα Αἴθραν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων τοὺς ἀρίστους, φύλακας τῆς παρθένου. Πειρίθου δὲ κρίναντος μνηστεῦσαι Φερσεφόνην καὶ παρακαλοῦντος συναποδημῆσαι, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὁ Θησεὺς μετέπειθεν ἀποτρέπων τῆς πράξεως αὐτὸν διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν· τοῦ δὲ Πειρίθου βιαζομένου συνηναγκάσθη διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους ὁ Θησεὺς μετασχεῖν τῆς πράξεως. καὶ πέρας καταβάντων αὐτῶν εἰς τοὺς καθ’ ᾅδου τόπους, συνέβη διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἀμφοτέρους δεθῆναι, καὶ Θησέα μὲν ὕστερον διὰ τὴν Ἡρακλέους χάριν ἀπολυθῆναι, Πειρίθουν δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα· ἔνιοι δὲ τῶν μυθογράφων φασὶν ἀμφοτέρους μὴ τυχεῖν τοῦ νόστου. καθ’ ὃν δὴ χρόνον λέγουσι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τῆς read here is a crux that has not been entirely satisfactorily settled by scholars. The manuscripts have τοῖς τελαμωνίοις, τοῖς λεμωνίοις, τοῖς λειμωνίοις, or nothing at all. Fabricius suggested Πολέμωνι (and Davies 1988 would have Πολεμωνίοις), while Valk proposed τοῖς πολυωνύμοις. For more details see the ap. crit. in Bernabé 1987. 286 See also Cypria 4 above.

288

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Ἑλένης Διοσκόρους στρατεύσαντας ἐπὶ τὴν Ἄφιδναν καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἑλόντας ταύτην μὲν κατασκάψαι, τὴν δ’ Ἑλένην ἀπαγαγεῖν εἰς Λακεδαίμονα παρθένον οὖσαν, καὶ μετ’ αὐτῆς δούλην τὴν μητέρα Θησέως Αἴθραν. And since we have rendered the account about Theseus, in turn we relate about the abduction of Helen and the courtship of Persephone by Peirithous; for these deeds are twined together with those of Theseus. For Peirithous, the son of Ixion, with his wife Hippodameia having died and left behind a son Polypoetes, went to Theseus in Athens. And learning that Phaedra, the wife of Theseus, had died he persuaded him to abduct Helen, the daughter of Leda and Zeus, ten years old at the time, excelling all others in beauty. And coming to Lacedaemon with more people, and seizing the convenient opportunity, they abducted Helen in common and brought her back to Athens. Then they made agreements with each other to choose by lot, and the winner of the lottery would marry Helen, but he would assist the other about a different wife, daring every danger. And giving oaths to each other about these things they drew lots, and it happened that Theseus won in the lottery. So he became guardian of the maiden in this way; but with the Athenians being vexed over what had happened, Theseus, being fearful, smuggled Helen away to Aphidna, one of the Attic poleis. And he stationed his mother and the best of his other friends beside her, guards of the maiden. But with Peirithous having decided to pursue Persephone as a wife and summoning [Theseus] to travel with him, Theseus first tried to persuade him, turning him away from the deed on account of its impiety; but with Peirithous forcing his hand Theseus was compelled on account of the oaths to share in the deed. And at length with the two of them having gone down into the nether places of Hades, it happened on account of the impiety that both were bound, and although Theseus was later set free on account of the favor of Herakles, Peirithous continuing on in Hades met the fate of eternal punishment; but some of the mythographers say that both failed to achieve their homecoming. During which time they say the brothers of Helen, the Dioscuri, campaigning against Aphidna and taking the city razed it to the ground, and they brought back Helen to Lacedaemon still a maiden, and with her as a slave the mother of Theseus, Aithra.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

289

Hyginus (1st c. BCE, Rome): 1 [Fabulae 79] 287 – Theseus Aegei et Aethrae Pitthei filiae filius cum Pirithoo Ixionis filio Helenam Tyndarei et Ledae filiam virginem de fano Dianae sacrificantem rapuerunt et detulerunt Aphidnas in pagum Atticae regionis. quod Iovis eos cum vidisset tantam audaciam habere ut se ipsi ad periculum offerrent, in quiete eis imperavit ut peterent ambo a Plutone Pirithoo Proserpinam in coniugium; qui cum per insulam Taenariam ad inferos descendissent et de qua re venissent indicarent Plutoni, a furiis strati diuque lacerati sunt. Quo Hercules ad canem tricipitem ducendum cum venisset, illi fidem eius implorarunt; qui a Plutone impetravit eosque incolumes eduxit. ob Helenam Castor et Pollux fratres belligerarunt et Aethram Thesei matrem et Phisadiem Pirithoi sororem ceperunt et in servitutem sorori dederunt. Theseus, son of Aigeus and of Aethra daughter of Pittheus, with Pirithoos, son of Ixion, abducted Helen, the virgin daughter of Tyndareus and Leda, from the temple of Diana where she was sacrificing and carried her off to Aphidna in a region of the Attic country. When Jove saw that they had so great audacity as to offer themselves to danger, in sleep he ordered them that they both seek Proserpina in marriage from Pluto for Pirithoos; who when they had descended through the Taenarian island to the depths and they were indicating to Pluto what their object was, they were laid out by the furies and tormented for a long time. When Hercules had come to lead out the three-headed dog, they begged him for his protection; he in turn obtain [this] from Pluto and he lead them out alive. On account of Helen, Castor and Pollux, her brothers, made war and captured Aethra, the mother of Theseus, and Phisadie, the sister of Pirithoos, and gave them to their sister Helen as slaves. Strabo (1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE, Roman Empire): 1 [Geographica 9.1.17 (C396–7)] – Ἔχουσι δὲ κἂν εἰ μὴ πάντες οἵ γε πολλοὶ μυθοποιίας συχνὰς καὶ ἱστορίας· καθάπερ Ἄφιδνα μὲν τὴν τῆς Ἑλένης ἁρπαγὴν ὑπὸ Θησέως καὶ τὴν ὑπὸ τῶν Διοσκούρων 287

For ap. crit. see Marshall 1993.

290

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

ἐκπόρθησιν αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνακομιδὴν τῆς ἀδελφῆς, Μαραθὼν δὲ τὸν Περσικὸν ἀγῶνα, Ῥαμνοῦς δὲ τὸ τῆς Νεμέσεως ξόανον, ὅ τινες μὲν Διοδότου φασὶν ἔργον τινὲς δὲ Ἀγορακρίτου τοῦ Παρίου, καὶ μεγέθει καὶ κάλλει σφόδρα κατωρθωμένον καὶ ἐνάμιλλον τοῖς Φειδίου ἔργοις. οὕτω δὲ καὶ Δεκέλεια μὲν τὸ ὁρμητήριον τῶν Πελοποννησίων κατὰ τὸν Δεκελεικὸν πόλεμον, Φυλὴ δὲ ὅθεν ἐπήγαγε τὸν δῆμον Θρασύβουλος εἰς Πειραιᾶ κἀκεῖθεν εἰς ἄστυ. οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἐπ’ ἄλλων πλειόνων ἔστιν ἱστορεῖν πολλά· καὶ ἔτι τὸ Λεωκόριον καὶ τὸ Θη[σεῖον μύθο]υς ἔχει, καὶ τὸ Λύκειον καὶ τὸ Ὀλυμπικὸν ... ὸ τὸ Ὀλύμπιον, ὅπερ ἡμιτελὲς κατέλιπε τελευτῶν ὁ ἀναθεὶς βασιλεύς· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ Ἀκαδημία καὶ οἱ κῆποι τῶν φιλοσόφων καὶ τὸ Ὠιδεῖον καὶ ἡ ποικίλη στοὰ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ ἐν τῇ πό[λει πλεῖστα] ἔχοντα τεχνιτῶν ἔργα. And many [demes], if not all, have many myths and narratives; just as Aphidna [has] the abduction of Helen by Theseus and its sack at the hands of the Dioscuri and the recovery of their sister, and Marathon the Persian conflict, and Rhamnous the wooden image of Nemesis, which some say is a work of Diodotus, and some of Agorakritos the Parian, [a work] extremely successful in size and beauty and a match for the works of Pheidios. And thus also Dekeleia [has] the base of operations of the Peloponnesians during the Dekeleian war, and Phyle, whence Thrasyboulos led the people to Peiraius and thence to the city. And thus also to relate many things about more of the others; and still the Leokorion and the Theseion have myths, and the Lykeion and the Olympikon… the Olympion, which the king who dedicated it left half-finished on his death; and likewise also the Academy and the gardens of the philosophers and the Odeion and the Stoa Poikile and the temples in the city having very many works of craftsmen. [Apollodorus] (Attributed to Apollodorus, possibly derived from his genuine writings; 1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE): 1 [[Apollod.] 3.126–8] – See Cypria 2 above. 2 [[Apollod.] (epitomae e codd. Vat. 950 + Sabbaitico 366) 1.23–4] – See Cypria 3 above. Dio Chrysostom (1st and early 2nd c. CE, Prusa, Rome): 1 [D.Chr. Oration 11.44–5] – See Chest of Cypselus 2 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

291

Plutarch (1st and early 2nd c. CE, Chaeronea, Boeotia): 1 [Plut. Thes. 31–4] – Ἤδη δὲ πεντήκοντα ἔτη γεγονώς, ὥς φησιν Ἑλλάνικος (FGrH 323a F 18), ἔπραξε τὰ περὶ τὴν Ἑλένην, οὐ καθ’ ὥραν. ὅθεν ὡς δὴ μέγιστον ἐπανορθούμενοι τοῦτο τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, οὐκ αὐτὸν ἁρπάσαι τὴν Ἑλένην, ἀλλ’ Ἴδα καὶ Λυγκέως ἁρπασάντων παρακαταθήκην λαβόντα τηρεῖν καὶ μὴ προΐεσθαι τοῖς Διοσκούροις ἀπαιτοῦσιν, ἢ νὴ Δία Τυνδάρεω παραδόντος αὐτοῦ, φοβηθέντος Ἐναρσφόρον τὸν Ἱπποκόωντος, ἔτι νηπίαν οὖσαν βιαζόμενον τὴν Ἑλένην λαβεῖν. τὰ δ’ εἰκότα καὶ πλείστους ἔχοντα μάρτυρας τοιαῦτ’ ἐστιν. ἦλθον μὲν εἰς Σπάρτην ἀμφότεροι, καὶ τὴν κόρην ἐν ἱερῷ Ἀρτέμιδος Ὀρθίας χορεύουσαν ἁρπάσαντες ἔφυγον. τῶν δὲ πεμφθέντων ἐπὶ τὴν δίωξιν οὐ πορρωτέρω Τεγέας ἐπακολουθησάντων, ἐν ἀδείᾳ γενόμενοι καὶ διελθόντες τὴν Πελοπόννησον ἐποιήσαντο συνθήκας, τὸν μὲν λαχόντα κλήρῳ τὴν Ἑλένην ἔχειν γυναῖκα, συμπράττειν δὲ θατέρῳ γάμον ἄλλον. ἐπὶ ταύταις δὲ κληρουμένων ταῖς ὁμολογίαις, ἔλαχε Θησεύς, καὶ παραλαβὼν τὴν παρθένον οὔπω γάμων ὥραν ἔχουσαν εἰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκόμισε, καὶ τὴν μητέρα καταστήσας μετ’ αὐτῆς Ἀφίδνῳ παρέδωκεν ὄντι φίλῳ, διακελευσάμενος φυλάττειν καὶ λανθάνειν τοὺς ἄλλους. αὐτὸς δὲ Πειρίθῳ τὴν ὑπουργίαν ἀποδιδοὺς εἰς Ἤπειρον συναπεδήμησεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀιδωνέως θυγατέρα τοῦ Μολοσσῶν βασιλέως, ὃς τῇ γυναικὶ Φερσεφόνην ὄνομα θέμενος, Κόρην δὲ τῇ θυγατρί, τῷ δὲ κυνὶ Κέρβερον, ἐκέλευε τούτῳ διαμάχεσθαι τοὺς μνωμένους τὴν παῖδα, καὶ λαβεῖν τὸν κρατήσαντα. τοὺς μέντοι περὶ τὸν Πειρίθουν οὐ μνηστῆρας ἥκειν ἀλλ’ ἁρπασομένους πυνθανόμενος, συνέλαβε, καὶ τὸν μὲν Πειρίθουν εὐθὺς ἠφάνισε διὰ τοῦ κυνός, τὸν δὲ Θησέα καθείρξας ἐφύλαττεν. 32. Ἐν δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ Μενεσθεὺς ὁ Πετεὼ τοῦ Ὀρνέως τοῦ Ἐρεχθέως, πρῶτος ὥς φασιν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθέμενος τῷ δημαγωγεῖν καὶ πρὸς χάριν ὄχλῳ διαλέγεσθαι, τούς τε δυνατοὺς συνίστη καὶ παρώξυνε, πάλαι βαρυνομένους τὸν Θησέα καὶ νομίζοντας ἀρχὴν καὶ βασιλείαν ἀφῃρημένον ἑκάστου τῶν κατὰ δῆμον εὐπατριδῶν εἰς ἓν ἄστυ συνείρξαντα πάντας ὑπηκόοις χρῆσθαι καὶ δούλοις, τούς τε πολλοὺς διετάραττε καὶ διέβαλλεν, ὡς ὄναρ ἐλευθερίας ὁρῶντας, ἔργῳ δ’ ἀπεστερημένους πατρίδων καὶ ἱερῶν, ὅπως ἀντὶ πολλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ γνησίων βασιλέων πρὸς ἕνα δεσπότην ἔπηλυν καὶ ξένον ἀποβλέπωσι. ταῦτα δ’ αὐτοῦ πραγματευομένου, μεγάλην ῥοπὴν ὁ πόλεμος τῷ νεωτερισμῷ προσέθηκε τῶν Τυνδαριδῶν

292

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

ἐπελθόντων· οἱ δὲ καὶ ὅλως φασὶν ὑπὸ τούτου πεισθέντας ἐπελθεῖν. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον οὐδὲν ἠδίκουν, ἀλλ’ ἀπῄτουν τὴν ἀδελφήν. ἀποκριναμένων δὲ τῶν ἐν ἄστει μήτ’ ἔχειν μήτε γινώσκειν ὅπου καταλέλειπται, πρὸς πόλεμον ἐτράποντο. φράζει δ’ αὐτοῖς Ἀκάδημος, ᾐσθημένος ᾧ δή τινι τρόπῳ, τὴν ἐν Ἀφίδναις κρύψιν αὐτῆς. ὅθεν ἐκείνῳ τε τιμαὶ ζῶντι παρὰ τῶν Τυνδαριδῶν ἐγένοντο, καὶ πολλάκις ὕστερον εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἐμβαλόντες Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ πᾶσαν ὁμοῦ τὴν χώραν τέμνοντες, τῆς Ἀκαδημείας ἀπείχοντο διὰ τὸν Ἀκάδημον. ὁ δὲ Δικαίαρχος (fr. 66 Wehrli) Ἐχεδήμου φησὶ καὶ Μαράθου συστρατευσάντων τότε τοῖς Τυνδαρίδαις ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας, ἀφ’ οὗ μὲν Ἐχεδημίαν προσαγορευθῆναι τὴν νῦν Ἀκαδήμειαν, ἀφ’ οὗ δὲ Μαραθῶνα τὸν δῆμον, ἐπιδόντος ἑαυτὸν ἑκουσίως κατά τι λόγιον σφαγιάσασθαι πρὸ τῆς παρατάξεως. ἐλθόντες οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας καὶ μάχῃ κρατήσαντες, ἐξεῖλον τὸ χωρίον. ἐνταῦθά φασι καὶ Ἁλυκὸν πεσεῖν τὸν Σκείρωνος υἱόν, συστρατευόμενον τότε τοῖς Διοσκούροις, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τόπον τῆς Μεγαρικῆς Ἁλυκὸν καλεῖσθαι τοῦ σώματος ἐνταφέντος. Ἡρέας (FGrH 486 F 2) δ’ ὑπὸ Θησέως αὐτοῦ περὶ Ἀφίδνας ἀποθανεῖν τὸν Ἁλυκὸν ἱστόρηκε, καὶ μαρτύρια ταυτὶ τὰ ἔπη παρέχεται περὶ τοῦ Ἁλυκοῦ· τὸν ἐν εὐρυχόρῳ ποτ’ Ἀφίδνῃ μαρνάμενον Θησεὺς Ἑλένης ἕνεκ’ ἠυκόμοιο κτεῖνεν. οὐ μὴν εἰκὸς αὐτοῦ Θησέως παρόντος ἁλῶναι τήν τε μητέρα καὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας. 33. Ἐχομένων δ’ οὖν τῶν Ἀφιδνῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν ἄστει δεδιότων, ἔπεισε τὸν δῆμον ὁ Μενεσθεὺς δέχεσθαι τῇ πόλει καὶ φιλοφρονεῖσθαι τοὺς Τυνδαρίδας, ὡς μόνῳ Θησεῖ βίας ὑπάρξαντι πολεμοῦντας, τῶν δ’ ἄλλων εὐεργέτας ὄντας ἀνθρώπων καὶ σωτῆρας. ἐμαρτύρει δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ παρ’ ἐκείνων· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἠξίωσαν ἁπάντων κρατοῦντες ἀλλ’ ἢ μυηθῆναι, μηδὲν ἧττον Ἡρακλέους τῇ πόλει προσήκοντες. καὶ τοῦτ’ οὖν ὑπῆρξεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀφίδνου ποιησαμένου παῖδας ὡς Πύλιος Ἡρακλέα, καὶ τιμὰς ἰσοθέους ἔσχον, Ἄνακες προσαγορευθέντες ἢ διὰ τὰς γενομένας ἀνοχάς, ἢ διὰ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν καὶ κηδεμονίαν τοῦ μηδένα κακῶς παθεῖν στρατιᾶς τοσαύτης ἔνδον οὔσης· ἀνακῶς γὰρ ἔχειν τοὺς ἐπιμελομένους ἢ φυλάττοντας ὁτιοῦν· καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἴσως

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

293

ἄνακτας διὰ τοῦτο καλοῦσιν. εἰσὶ δ’ οἱ λέγοντες διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιφάνειαν Ἄνακας ὀνομάζεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ἄνω τοὺς Ἀττικοὺς ἀνέκας ὀνομάζειν, καὶ ἀνέκαθεν τὸ ἄνωθεν. 34. Αἴθραν δὲ τὴν Θησέως μητέρα γενομένην αἰχμάλωτον ἀπαχθῆναι λέγουσιν εἰς Λακεδαίμονα, κἀκεῖθεν εἰς Τροίαν μεθ’ Ἑλένης, καὶ μαρτυρεῖν Ὅμηρον (Hom. Il. 3.144), ἕπεσθαι τῇ Ἑλένῃ φάμενον Αἴθρην Πιτθῆος θύγατρα Κλυμένην τε βοῶπιν. οἱ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος διαβάλλουσι καὶ τὴν περὶ Μουνύχου μυθολογίαν, ὃν ἐκ Δημοφῶντος Λαοδίκης κρύφα τεκούσης ἐν Ἰλίῳ συνεκθρέψαι τὴν Αἴθραν λέγουσιν. ἴδιον δέ τινα καὶ παρηλλαγμένον ὅλως λόγον ὁ Ἴστρος (FGrH 334 F 7) ἐν τῇ τρισκαιδεκάτῃ τῶν Ἀττικῶν ἀναφέρει περὶ Αἴθρας, ὡς ἐνίων λεγόντων, Ἀλέξανδρον μὲν τὸν [ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ] Πάριν ὑπ’ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ Πατρόκλου μάχῃ κρατηθῆναι παρὰ τὸν Σπερχειόν, Ἕκτορα δὲ τὴν Τροιζηνίων πόλιν λαβόντα διαρπάσαι, καὶ τὴν Αἴθραν ἀπάγειν ἐκεῖ καταληφθεῖσαν. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἔχει πολλὴν ἀλογίαν. And already being fifty years of age, as Hellanikos 288 says, he carried out the deeds concerning Helen, who was not in the appropriate time of life. Whence some, as if amending this greatest of charges, say that he did not abduct Helen, but with Idas and Lynkeus having abducted her, Theseus, taking her as a ward guarded her and did not give her up to the Dioscuri when they demanded her back: or (by Zeus above!) with Tyndareus himself handing her over, fearing that Enarsphoros the son of Hippokoon would take her by force while she was still a child. But the likely thing, and the thing with the most support, is as such: Both came to Sparta and, snatching the maiden while she danced in the temple of Artemis Orthia, they fled: and with the followers sent 288

See Hellanicus 1 above; for further discussion of just how much of Theseus 31 should be considered derived from Hellanicus, see 185-92 above.

294

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

in the pursuit not farther than Tegea, being homefree and escaping the Peloponnese they made a compact, that the one winning in a lottery would have Helen to wife, but would help the other in getting a different marriage. With the two casting lots upon these premises, Theseus won: and taking the maiden not yet having the maturity of marriage, he conveyed her to Aphidna; and stationing his mother with her he gave them over to Aphidnos, a friend of his, bidding him guard them and keep them hidden from others. And he himself, paying back his obligation to Peirithous, traveled with him to Epirus for the daughter of Aidoneus, king of the Molossians, who, having given the name P(h)ersephone to his wife, and Kore to his daughter, and Kerberos to his dog, ordered those courting his child to fight the latter, and the one who won would take her. However, learning that the colleagues of Peirithous had not come as suitors, but to abduct her, he seized them: and Peirithous he straight-away undid by the dog, but Theseus he imprisoned under guard. And in this time Menestheus son of Peteos grandson of Orneus great grandson of Erechtheus first, as they say, of men employed himself in demagoguery and spoke with an eye towards the goodwill of the mob, both united and provoked the powerful, long having wearied of Theseus and thinking that he had bereft each of the Eupatrids in the demes of their arkhē and kingship, shutting everyone up into one city to use as subjects and slaves, and (Menestheus) threw the many into confusion and set them at variance, on the basis that they were seeing a dream of freedom, but were in fact being robbed of their native homes and cults, so that in place of many, good, legitimate kings, they were looking up to one despot, foreign and strange. And while he was conducting this business, the war contributed great over-balance to the revolutionary movement when the Tyndarids attacked: in short, some indeed say that they came being persuaded by him. At first they were harming nothing, but demanding to have their sister returned. But when those in the city answered that they neither had her nor knew where she was hidden, they turned to war. But Akademos pointed out her hiding place to them, having learned it in some way. Whence there were both honors for him living from the Tyndarids, and often later the Lakedaimonians,

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

295

when invading Attica and ravaging the whole land at once, abstained from ravaging the Akademeia on account of Akademos. But Dikaiarkhos 289 says that with Ekhedemos and Marathos from Arkadia campaigning with the Tyndarids at the time, from the former of whom was called Ekhedemia what is now Akademeia, and from the latter of whom the deme of Marathon [was called], with this one giving himself up willingly by the instruction of some oracle to be slaughtered before the battle line. So coming to Aphidna and being victorious in battle they destroyed the place. There they say Halukos fell, the son of Skeiron, campaigning then with the Dioscuri, from whom also a place of the Megarid is named Halukos because his body was buried there. But Hereas 290 recorded that Halukos was killed at Aphidna by Theseus himself, and produces these verses about Halukos as proof for this: Him once in spacious Aphidna fighting, Theseus on account of fair-haired Helen slew. 291 However, it is not likely that with Theseus himself present his mother and Aphidna were captured. And so with Aphidnae being occupied and those in the city afraid, Menestheus persuaded the demos to receive the Tyndarids into the city and to show them favor, as they were making war upon Theseus alone, who began the violence, but were benefactors of all others and saviors of mankind. And everything around them (the Dioscuri) gave witness to this: for having all in their power, they asked nothing other than to be initiated into the mysteries, belonging to the city no less than Herakles as they did. And so this was permitted to them, with Aphidnos adopting them as Pylios had Herakles: and they had honors equal to gods, being called the ‘Anakes’, either on account of their forbearance (anokhē) or on 289

See Dicaearchus 1 above. See Hereas 1 above. 291 See Cypria 6 above. 290

296

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

account of their care and solicitude that nothing bad happen even with such a great army being within: for to take care (ekhein anakōs) is being concerned with or guarding anything: and perhaps they call kings ‘lords’ (anakes) on account of this. And there are those who say they are named ‘Anakes’ on account of the appearance of their stars: for the Athenians call ‘up’ ‘anekas’, and ‘on high’ ‘anekathen’. And they say Aithra, the mother of Theseus, having been made a captive was led off to Lakedaimon, and from there to Troy with Helen: and Homer testifies to this, saying that she followed Helen: ‘Aithra daughter of Pittheus and cow-eyed Klymene.’ (Hom. Il. 3.144) But some declare this story spurious along with the legend about Mounykhos, whom they say Aithra raised in Ilion after his birth in secret to Demophon and Laodike. But Istros relates a unique and completely extraordinary story about Aithra in the thirteenth book of his ‘Attika’, that with some saying that while Alexander (Paris) was overcome in battle by Achilles and Patroclus in Thessalia beside the Sperkheios, Hector, taking the city of Troizen plundered it and led off Aithra, who was left there. But this has much absurdity to it. Pausanias (2nd c. CE, eastern Mediterranean): 1 [Paus. 1.17.4–6] – ἐς δὲ τὴν τελευτὴν τὴν Θησέως πολλὰ ἤδη καὶ οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντα εἴρηται· δεδέσθαι τε γὰρ αὐτὸν λέγουσιν ἐς τόδε ἕως ὑφ’ Ἡρακλέους ἀναχθείη, πιθανώτατα δὲ ὧν ἤκουσα· Θησεὺς ἐς Θεσπρωτοὺς ἐμβαλών, τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Θεσπρωτῶν γυναῖκα ἁρπάσων, τὸ πολὺ τῆς στρατιᾶς οὕτως ἀπόλλυσι, καὶ αὐτός τε καὶ Πειρίθους—Πειρίθους γὰρ καὶ τὸν γάμον σπεύδων ἐστράτευεν— ἥλωσαν, καὶ σφᾶς ὁ Θεσπρωτὸς δήσας εἶχεν ἐν Κιχύρῳ. (5.) γῆς δὲ τῆς Θεσπρωτίδος ἔστι μέν που καὶ ἄλλα θέας ἄξια, ἱερόν τε Διὸς ἐν Δωδώνῃ καὶ ἱερὰ τοῦ θεοῦ φηγός· πρὸς δὲ τῇ Κιχύρῳ λίμνη τέ ἐστιν Ἀχερουσία καλουμένη καὶ ποταμὸς Ἀχέρων, ῥεῖ δὲ καὶ Κωκυτὸς ὕδωρ ἀτερπέστατον. Ὅμηρός τέ μοι δοκεῖ ταῦτα ἑωρακὼς ἔς τε τὴν ἄλλην ποίησιν ἀποτολμῆσαι τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τοῖς ποταμοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν Θεσπρωτίδι θέσθαι. τότε δὲ ἐχομένου Θησέως στρατεύουσιν ἐς Ἄφιδναν οἱ Τυνδάρεω παῖδες καὶ τήν τε Ἄφιδναν αἱροῦσι καὶ Μενεσθέα ἐπὶ βασιλείᾳ

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

297

κατήγαγον· (6.) Μενεσθεὺς δὲ τῶν μὲν παίδων τῶν Θησέως παρ’ Ἐλεφήνορα ὑπεξελθόντων ἐς Εὔβοιαν εἶχεν οὐδένα λόγον, Θησέα δέ, εἴ ποτε παρὰ Θεσπρωτῶν ἀνακομισθήσεται, δυσανταγώνιστον ἡγούμενος διὰ θεραπείας τὰ τοῦ δήμου καθίστατο, ὡς Θησέα ἀνασωθέντα ὕστερον ἀπωσθῆναι. στέλλεται δὴ Θησεὺς παρὰ Δευκαλίωνα ἐς Κρήτην, ἐξενεχθέντα δὲ αὐτὸν ὑπὸ πνευμάτων ἐς Σκῦρον τὴν νῆσον λαμπρῶς περιεῖπον οἱ Σκύριοι κατὰ γένους δόξαν καὶ ἀξίωμα ὧν ἦν αὐτὸς εἰργασμένος· καί οἱ θάνατον Λυκομήδης διὰ ταῦτα ἐβούλευσεν. ὁ μὲν δὴ Θησέως σηκὸς Ἀθηναίοις ἐγένετο ὕστερον ἢ Μῆδοι Μαραθῶνι ἔσχον, Κίμωνος τοῦ Μιλτιάδου Σκυρίους ποιήσαντος ἀναστάτους—δίκην δὴ τοῦ Θησέως θανάτου—καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ κομίσαντος ἐς Ἀθήνας· And on the death of Theseus many things are said which do not agree among themselves; for they say that he was imprisoned until he was led up by Herakles, but the most plausible of those I’ve heard is as follows: Theseus, invading the Thesprotians intent on abducting the wife of their king, lost most of his army in that way, and he himself and Peirithous—for Peirithous was campaigning also seeking eagerly after the marriage—were captured, and the Thesprotian (king), binding them, held them at Kikhyros. Of the land of Thesprotis on the one hand there are some other things worthy of seeing, both the temple of Zeus at Dodona and an oak sacred to the god; on the other there is near Kikhyros both the lake called Akherousia and the river Akheron, and there flows also the Kokytos, most joyless water. And Homer seems to me having seen these things to have made bold in his other poem especially to put the names of the rivers in Hades from those in Thesprotis. And then while Theseus was thus held, the sons of Tyndareus went on campaign to Aphidna and sacked Aphidna and recalled Menestheus to the kingship; and Menestheus, with the children of Theseus having secretly withdrawn to Elephenor in Euboea, took no account of them, but considering that Theseus would be a difficult opponent, if ever he should be brought back from the Thesprotians, he ordered the affairs of the demos through careful attendance so that Theseus returning later was driven out. Theseus set out for Deukalion in Krete, but when he was blown astray by the winds to the isle of Skyros the Skyrians treated him glowingly in accordance with the glory of his family and the worth of those things of which he himself was the doer; and Lykomedes plotted

298

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

death for him on account of these things. The burial place of Theseus at Athens happened later than the Medes landed at Marathon, when Kimon son of Miltiades laid waste to the Skyrians – in retribution for Theseus’ death – and conveyed his bones to Athens. 2 [Paus. 1.41.3–5] – οὐ πόρρω δὲ τοῦ Ὕλλου μνήματος Ἴσιδος ναὸς καὶ παρ’ αὐτὸν Ἀπόλλωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος· Ἀλκάθουν δέ φασι ποιῆσαι ἀποκτείναντα λέοντα τὸν καλούμενον Κιθαιρώνιον. ὑπὸ τούτου τοῦ λέοντος διαφθαρῆναι καὶ ἄλλους καὶ Μεγαρέως φασὶ τοῦ σφετέρου βασιλέως παῖδα Εὔιππον, τὸν δὲ πρεσβύτερον τῶν παίδων αὐτῷ Τίμαλκον ἔτι πρότερον ἀποθανεῖν ὑπὸ Θησέως, στρατεύοντα ἐς Ἄφιδναν σὺν τοῖς Διοσκούροις· Μεγαρέα δὲ γάμον τε ὑποσχέσθαι θυγατρὸς καὶ ὡς διάδοχον ἕξει τῆς ἀρχῆς, ὅστις τὸν Κιθαιρώνιον λέοντα ἀποκτείναι· διὰ ταῦτα Ἀλκάθουν τὸν Πέλοπος ἐπιχειρήσαντα τῷ θηρίῳ κρατῆσαί τε καὶ ὡς ἐβασίλευσε τὸ ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο, Ἀγροτέραν Ἄρτεμιν καὶ Ἀπόλλωνα Ἀγραῖον ἐπονομάσαντα. (4.) ταῦτα μὲν οὕτω γενέσθαι λέγουσιν· ἐγὼ δὲ γράφειν μὲν ἐθέλω Μεγαρεῦσιν ὁμολογοῦντα, οὐκ ἔχω δὲ ὅπως εὕρωμαι [PMGF: συμφέρωμαι] πάντα σφίσιν, ἀλλὰ ἀποθανεῖν μὲν λέοντα ἐν τῷ Κιθαιρῶνι ὑπὸ Ἀλκάθου πείθομαι, Μεγαρέως δὲ Τίμαλκον παῖδα τίς μὲν ἐς Ἄφιδναν ἐλθεῖν μετὰ τῶν Διοσκούρων ἔγραψε; πῶς δ’ ἂν ἀφικόμενος ἀναιρεθῆναι νομίζοιτο ὑπὸ Θησέως, ὅπου καὶ Ἀλκμὰν ποιήσας ᾆσμα ἐς τοὺς Διοσκούρους, ὡς Ἀθήνας ἕλοιεν καὶ τὴν Θησέως ἀγάγοιεν μητέρα αἰχμάλωτον, ὅμως Θησέα φησὶν αὐτὸν ἀπεῖναι; (5.) Πίνδαρος δὲ τούτοις τε κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἐποίησε (fr. 243 Sn.) καὶ γαμβρὸν τοῖς Διοσκούροις Θησέα εἶναι βουλόμενον , ἐς ὃ ἀπελθεῖν αὐτὸν Πειρίθῳ τὸν λεγόμενον γάμον συμπράξοντα. ὅστις δὲ ἐγενεαλόγησε, δῆλον ὡς πολλὴν τοῖς Μεγαρεῦσι σύνοιδεν εὐήθειαν, εἴ γε Θησεὺς ἦν ἀπόγονος Πέλοπος· ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸν ὄντα λόγον οἱ Μεγαρεῖς εἰδότες ἐπικρύπτουσιν, οὐ βουλόμενοι δοκεῖν ἁλῶναί σφισιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς Νίσου τὴν πόλιν, διαδέξασθαι δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν γαμβρὸν Νίσου τε Μεγαρέα καὶ αὖθις Ἀλκάθουν Μεγαρέως. And not far from the monument of Hyllos is a temple of Isis, and beside it one of Apollo and Artemis. And they say Alkathous made it, having killed the lion called Kithaironian. By this lion, they say, both others and Euippos, the son of Megareus their king, were

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

299

slain, but the eldest of his children, Timalkos, died still earlier by Theseus’ hand, campaigning at Aphidna with the Dioscuri; and Megareus promised the marriage of his daughter and that he will have succession of his rule, whoever kills the Kithaironian lion; in this way Alkathous the son of Pelops attacking the beast overpowered it and when he was king he made this temple, calling it Artemis Agrotera and Apollo Agraios. They say that these things were thus; but I, although I want to write in agreement with the Megarians, 292 am not however able to find everything with them, but while I believe that a lion was killed by Alkathos in Kithairon, who has written that Timalkos the son of Megareus came to Aphidna with the Dioscuri? And how, having come, would he be thought to have been killed by Theseus, when also Alcman, 293 having composed a poem about the Dioscuri, how they took Athens and led the mother of Theseus as a captive, nevertheless says that Theseus himself was absent? And Pindar 294 wrote in the same way about these things and that Theseus, wanting to be brother-in-law to the Dioscuri, until he left with Peirithous to carry out the afore-mentioned marriage. But whoever has drawn out the genealogy, knows clearly that this is much silliness for the Megarians, if Theseus was a descendant of Pelops; for, however, the Megarians, knowing the real story, conceal it, not wanting it to seem that their city was conquered in the reign of Nisos, but that Megareus succeeded to the kingdom of his father-in-law Nisos and Alkathous in turn to that of Megareus. 3 [Paus. 2.22.5–7] – προελθόντι δὲ οὐ πολὺ τάφος ἐστὶν Ἄργου Διὸς εἶναι δοκοῦντος καὶ τῆς Φορωνέως Νιόβης· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Διοσκούρων ναός. ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν Ἄναξις καὶ Μνασίνους, σὺν δέ σφισιν αἱ μητέρες Ἱλάειρα καὶ Φοίβη, τέχνη μὲν Διποίνου καὶ Σκύλλιδος, ξύλου δὲ ἐβένου· τοῖς δ’ ἵπποις τὰ μὲν πολλὰ ἐβένου καὶ τούτοις, ὀλίγα δὲ καὶ ἐλέφαντος πεποίηται. (6.) Πλησίον δὲ τῶν Ἀνάκτων Εἰληθυίας ἐστὶν ἱερὸν ἀνάθημα Ἑλένης, 292

See Megareis 1 above. See Alcman 1 above. 294 See Pindar 2 above. 293

300

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

ὅτε σὺν Πειρίθῳ Θησέως ἀπελθόντος ἐς Θεσπρωτοὺς Ἄφιδνά τε ὑπὸ Διοσκούρων ἑάλω καὶ ἤγετο ἐς Λακεδαίμονα Ἑλένη. ἔχειν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν λέγουσιν ἐν γαστρί, τεκοῦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἄργει καὶ τῆς Εἰληθυίας ἱδρυσαμένην τὸ ἱερὸν τὴν μὲν παῖδα ἣν ἔτεκε Κλυταιμνήστρᾳ δοῦναι—συνοικεῖν γὰρ ἤδη Κλυταιμνήστραν Ἀγαμέμνονι—, αὐτὴν δὲ ὕστερον τούτων Μενελάῳ γήμασθαι. (7.) καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε Εὐφορίων Χαλκιδεὺς καὶ Πλευρώνιος Ἀλέξανδρος ἔπη ποιήσαντες, πρότερον δὲ ἔτι Στησίχορος ὁ Ἱμεραῖος, κατὰ ταὐτά φασιν Ἀργείοις Θησέως εἶναι θυγατέρα Ἰφιγένειαν. And for the person going forward not far there is the grave of Argos, thought to be the son of Zeus and of Niobe, daughter of Phoroneus; and after these things the temple of the Dioscuri. And the images (agalmata) are these themselves and their children Anaxis and Mnasinous, and with them their mothers Hilaeira and Phoibe, a work of Dipoinos and Skyllis, of ebony wood; and for the horses mostly the work is of ebony, but a little is made also of ivory. And near the Anaktes is a temple of Eileithuia dedicated by Helen, when, with Theseus having gone away to Thesprotis with Peirithous, Aphidna was conquered by the Dioscuri and Helen was led to Lacedaemon. For they say she was with child, and, having given birth in Argos and founded the temple of Eileithuia, she gave the child whom she bore to Clytemnestra (for Clytemnestra was already married to Agamemnon) and after these things she married Menelaus. And on this Euphorion of Chalcis and Alexander of Pleuron wrote verses, and earlier still Stesichorus of Himera, they say in the same way as the Argives that Iphigenia is the daughter of Theseus. 295 4 [Paus. 3.17.2–3] – ἐνταῦθα Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερὸν πεποίηται Πολιούχου καλουμένης καὶ Χαλκιοίκου τῆς αὐτῆς. τοῦ δὲ ἱεροῦ τῆς κατασκευῆς Τυνδάρεως καθὰ λέγουσιν ἤρξατο· ἀποθανόντος δὲ ἐκείνου δεύτερα οἱ παῖδες ἐξεργάσασθαι τὸ οἰκοδόμημα ἤθελον, ἀφορμὴ δέ σφισιν ἔμελλε τὰ ἐξ Ἀφιδναίων ἔσεσθαι λάφυρα. προαπολιπόντων δὲ καὶ τούτων, Λακεδαιμόνιοι πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον τόν τε ναὸν ὁμοίως καὶ ἄγαλμα ἐποιήσαντο Ἀθηνᾶς 295

See Stesichorus 1, Euphorion 1, and Alexander Aetolus 1 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

301

χαλκοῦν· Γιτιάδας δὲ εἰργάσατο ἀνὴρ ἐπιχώριος. ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ᾄσματα Δώρια ὁ Γιτιάδας ἄλλα τε καὶ ὕμνον ἐς τὴν θεόν. (3.) ἐπείργασται δὲ τῷ χαλκῷ πολλὰ μὲν τῶν ἄθλων Ἡρακλέους, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ὧν ἐθελοντὴς κατώρθωσε, Τυνδάρεω δὲ τῶν παίδων ἄλλα τε καὶ ἡ τῶν Λευκίππου θυγατέρων ἁρπαγή… There is built a temple of Athena called ‘city-protecting’ and ‘of the Brazen House’. And as they say Tyndareos began the construction of the temple; and when he died his children wished to finish the aedifice second, and their resources were supposed to be the spoils (laphura) from Aphidna. But when these men also failed to finish it, the Lakedaimonians many years later made both the temple and the statue (agalma) of bronze; and a native man named Gitiadas did the work. And Gitiadas also made Dorian songs, and especially a hymn to the goddess. And he worked into the bronze many deeds of Herakles on the one hand, and on the other many also of those he accomplished willingly, and various deeds of the Tyndarids including the abduction of the daughters of Leukippos… 5 [Paus. 3.18.4–5] – See Lacedaemonians 1 above. 6 [Paus. 3.18.14–15] – See Throne of Apollo at Amyklai 1 above. 7 [Paus. 5.19.2–3] – See Chest of Cypselus 1 above. Lucian (2nd c. CE, eastern Roman Empire): 296 1 [Gallus 17] – ἐγὼ δὲ τοσοῦτόν σοί φημι, ὑπερφυὲς μηδὲν γενέσθαι τότε, μήτε τὸν Αἴαντα οὕτω μέγαν μήτε τὴν Ἑλένην αὐτὴν οὕτω καλὴν ὡς οἴονται. Εἶδον γὰρ λευκὴν μέν τινα καὶ ἐπιμήκη τὸν 296

The Charidemus is likely spurious. See MacLeod 1967, 467: ‘It is generally agreed that this work is not by Lucian. It is not found in the better MSS. of Lucian, and both its Greek and its uninspired contents are quite unworthy of him. The author is presumably a sophist of quite unknown date, who knew his Lucian as he introduces several of Lucian’s motifs and Homeric quotations, though he is also influenced by Plato and Xenophon, and draws heavily from Isocrates’ Helen, particularly in cc. 16– 18 which are largely a paraphrase of Helen 18–20, 39–43 and 50–53.’

302

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

τράχηλον, ὡς εἰκάζειν κύκνου θυγατέρα εἶναι, τἆλλα δὲ πάνυ πρεσβῦτιν, ἡλικιῶτιν σχεδὸν τῆς Ἑκάβης, ἥν γε Θησεὺς πρῶτον ἁρπάσας ἐν Ἀφίδναις εἶχε κατὰ τὸν Ἡρακλέα γενόμενος, ὁ δὲ Ἡρακλὴς πρότερον εἷλε Τροίαν κατὰ τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν τοὺς τότε μάλιστα. Διηγεῖτο γάρ μοι ὁ Πάνθους ταῦτα, κομιδῇ μειράκιον ὤν ἑωρακέναι λέγων τὸν Ἡρακλέα. But I say this much to you, that there was nothing extraordinary then, neither Ajax so great nor Helen herself so beautiful as they think. For I saw a white and long neck, so as to appear to be the daughter of a swan, but otherwise altogether an old woman, nearly a contemporary of Hekabe, whom [sc. Helen] indeed Theseus first abducting held in Aphidna in the time of Herakles, and Herakles formerly took Troy around the time of our fathers, speaking literally. 2 [Charidemus 16–17)] – ἀλλ’ οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἄνω χρόνοις ἐκ Διὸς Ἑλένη γενομένη οὕτως ἐθαυμάσθη παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, ὥστ΄ ἔτι τῆς ἡλικίας οὖσαν ἐντὸς κατά τινα χρείαν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ γενόμενος ὁ Θησεὺς οὕτω τῆς ὥρας ἰδὼν ἠγάσθη, ὥστ’ οὔσης αὐτῷ καὶ βασιλείας ἀσφαλεστάτης καὶ δόξης οὐ τῆς τυχούσης ὅμως οὐκ ᾤετο βιωτὸν αὐτῷ ταύτης ἐστερημένῳ, παρελθεῖν δὲ πάντας εὐδαιμονίᾳ, εἰ ταύτην αὐτῷ γένοιτο συνοικεῖν. Οὕτω δὲ διανοηθεὶς τὸ μὲν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς λαβεῖν ἀπειπών, μὴ γὰρ ἂν αὐτὴν αὐτὸν ἐκδοῦναι μήπω ἡλικίας ἡμμένην, τὴν δ’ ἀρχὴν ὑπερφρονήσας ἐκείνου καὶ παριδών, ὀλιγωρήσας δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πάντων δεινῶν, κοινωνοῦντ’ αὐτῷ τῆς ἁρπαγῆς καὶ Πειρίθουν παραλαβών, βίᾳ λαβών αὐτὴν τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς Ἄφιδναν ἐκόμισε τῆς Ἀττικῆς, καὶ τοσαύτην ἔσχε χάριν αὐτῷ τῆς συμμαχίας ταυτησί, ὥσθ’ ὅυτως ἐφίλησε τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ὥστε καὶ τοῖς ἐπιγενομένοις παράδειγμα γενέσθαι τὴν Θησέως καὶ Πειρίθου φιλίαν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔδει κἀκεῖνον ἐν Ἅιδου γενέσθαι τὴν Δήμητρος μνηστευσόμενον κόρην, ἐπειδὴ πολλὰ παραινῶν οὐκ ἠδυνήθη ταύτης αύτὸν τῆς πείρας ἀποσχέσθαι καταπεῖσαι, συνηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ταύτην πρέπουσαν οἰόμενος αὐτῷ καταθήσειν τὴν χάριν περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ κινδυνεῦσαι. 17. ἐπανελθοῦσαν δ’ εἰς Ἄργος, αὖθις ἀποδημοῦντος αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ καθ’ ὥραν ἦν γάμων, καίτοι γε ἔχοντες καλάς τε καὶ εὖ γεγονυίας ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλαδος βασιλεῖς, οἱ δὲ συνελθόντες ἐμνηστεύοντο ταύτην τὰς ἄλλας ἁπάσας ὑπεριδόντες ὡς φαυλοτέρας.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

303

But in olden times Helen born from Zeus was so marveled at by all men, that while she was still short of marriageable age Theseus, in the Peloponnesus on some business, was so amazed at seeing [her] that, although there was a very steadfast kingdom for him and a reputation not like [to any], he did not think it worth living for him being deprived of her, but he would excel all in good fortune, if it should happen for her to live with him. And being thus minded but giving up the idea of taking [her] from her father, for he would not give her away not yet having reached marriageable age, but despising and disregarding his rule and little esteeming even all the dangers in the Peloponnesus, taking also Peirithous as his partner in the abduction, taking her from her father by force conveyed her to Aphidna of Attica, and he felt such gratitude to him [sc. Peirithous] for this alliance, that he loved him so for all time that the bond of Theseus and Peirithous was an example even for later generations. But when it was necessary for the latter to be in Hades about to court the daughter of Demeter, when despite much advising he was not able to persuade him to hold off from this attempt, accompanied him thinking this fitting for him to pay down his debt of gratitude by risking his life on his [sc. Peirithous] behalf. 17. And [Helen] going back to Argos, with [Theseus] being away from home again, when she was the right age for marriage, although the kings had fine and good women born from Greece, coming together they courted her despising all the other as inferior. 297 Athenaeus (late 2nd c. CE, Naukratis): 1 [Athen. 13.557a] – Ἴστρος γοῦν ἐν τῇ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ τῶν Ἀττικῶν καταλέγων τὰς τοῦ Θησέως γενομένας γυναῖκάς φησιν τὰς μὲν αὐτῶν ἐξ ἔρωτος γεγενῆσθαι, τὰς δ’ ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς, ἄλλας δ’ ἐκ νομίμων γάμων· ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς μὲν Ἑλένην, Ἀριάδνην, Ἱππολύτην καὶ τὰς Κερκύονος καὶ Σίνιδος θυγατέρας, νομίμως δ’ αὐτὸν γῆμαι Μελίβοιαν τὴν Αἴαντος μητέρα. Ἡσίοδος δέ φησιν καὶ Ἵππην καὶ 297

See n. 296 and Isocrates 1 (to which this account is heavily indebted) above.

304

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Αἴγλην, δι’ ἣν καὶ τοὺς πρὸς Ἀριάδνην ὅρκους παρέβη, ὥς φησι Κέρκωψ. Φερεκύδης δὲ προστίθησι καὶ Φερέβοιαν. πρὸ δὲ τῆς Ἑλένης καὶ ἐκ Τροιζῆνος ἥρπασεν Ἀναξώ. μετὰ δὲ τὴν Ἱππολύτην Φαίδραν ἔσχεν. Istros, at least, in the fourteenth book of his Attica, listing the wives of Theseus, says that some of them came about from eros, and some from abduction, and others from lawful marriage; from abduction were Helen, Ariadne, Hippolyta, and the daughters of Kerkyon and Sinis, while he lawfully married Meliboia the mother of Ajax. But Hesiod says (that he also married) Hippe and Aigle, on account of the latter of whom he broke his oaths to Ariadne, as Kerkops says. And Pherecydes adds also Phereboia. And before Helen he also snatched Anaxo from Troizen. And after Hippolyta he had Phaedra. Aelius Herodianus (2nd c. CE, Alexandria, Rome): 1 [Hdn. De pros. cath. 3.1, 256.24–7] – Τὰ εἰς να ὑπερδισύλλαβα μετ’ ἐπιπλοκῆς συμφώνου προπαροξύνεται, μάραγνα ἡ μάστιξ, Ἄφιδνα δῆμος Ἀττικῆς καὶ Λεοντίδος φυλῆς ἀπὸ Ἀφίδνου αὐτόχθονος· ἔστι καὶ πληθυντικὸν Ἀφίδναι. ἔστι καὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ὅθεν ἦσαν αἱ Λευκιππίδες Φοίβη καὶ Ἐλάειρα. Words of more than two syllables with [a liquid consonant?] are pronounced with the acute accent on the antepenult, ‘μάραγνα ἡ μάστιξ’ (lash or scourge), Aphidna of the Attic deme and Leontid Phyle from the autochthon Aphidnos; Aphidnae is plural. There is also one of Lakonia, whence the Leukippids Phoebe and Elaeira are. 2 [Hdn. De pros. cath. 3.1, 277.38] – Δεκέλεια δῆμος τῆς Ἱπποθοωντίδος φυλῆς ἀπὸ Δεκέλου τοῦ ἡγησαμένου τοῖς Διοσκούροις εἰς Ἀφίδνας, ὡς Ἡρόδοτος ἐνάτῳ (c. 73). λέγεται καὶ Δεκελιά, ὅθεν τὸ τοπικὸν Δεκελιᾶθεν. Dekeleia a deme of the Hippothoontid tribe from Dekelos who led the Dioscuri to Aphidna, as Herodotus [says] in his ninth book (c. 73). And Dekelia is also said, whence the place-word Dekeliathen. 3 [[Hdn.] de figuris 50, p 130.40-2 Hajdú] – See Pindar 1 above.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

305

Claudius Aelianus (Active 190–240 CE, Rome): 1 [Ael. VH 4.5] – Εὐεργεσιῶν ἀπεμνήσθησαν καὶ χάριτας ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀπέδοσαν Θησεὺς μὲν Ἡρακλεῖ. Ἀιδωνέως γὰρ αὐτὸν τοῦ Μολοττῶν βασιλέως δήσαντος, ὅτε ἐπὶ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἦλθε μετὰ Πειρίθου ἁρπασόμενος αὐτὴν ὁ Θησεύς (οὐχ ἑαυτῷ σπουδάζων τὸν γάμον, ἀλλὰ γὰρ τῇ τοῦ Πειρίθου χάριτι τοῦτο δράσας) Ἡρακλῆς ἐς τοὺς Μολοττοὺς ἀφικόμενος ἐρρύσατο τὸν Θησέα, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐκεῖνος αὐτῷ βωμὸν ἀνέστησε…. καὶ Μενεσθεὺς δὲ ὁ Πετεῶο περὶ τοὺς Τυνδαρίδας οὐκ ἐγένετο ἀχάριστος. ἐκβαλόντες γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς Θησέως υἱοὺς καὶ τὴν μητέρα τὴν Θησέως Αἶθραν αἰχμάλωτον λαβόντες ἔδωκαν τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Μενεσθεῖ. διὰ ταῦτα πρῶτος ὁ Μενεσθεὺς Ἄνακτάς τε καὶ Σωτῆρας ὠνόμασε. Theseus remembered favors and gave thanks for them to Herakles. For, with Aidoneus, king of the Molossians, keeping him bound, when Theseus came against his wife with Peirithous, intending to abduct her (not eager for a marriage for himself, but indeed doing this in gratitude towards Peirithous); Herakles coming to the Molossians rescued Theseus, and that one (Theseus) on account of these things set up an altar to him…. And Menestheus the son of Peteus was not unthankful concerning the Tyndaridae. For these, driving out the sons of Theseus and taking the mother of Theseus, Aithra, as a captive, gave the kingship to Menestheus. On account of these things Menestheus first named them ‘Anaktes’ and ‘Saviors’. Libanius (4th c. CE, Antioch, Athens, Constantinople, Nicomedia): 1 [Lib. Decl. 4.2.85] – πάντων δὲ σχετλιώτατον, εἰ Θησέως μὲν αὐτὴν τολμήσαντος λαβεῖν νέαν οὖσαν κομιδῆ καὶ βουλομένου γυναῖκα ποιήσασθαι πρὸς τῷ μηδένα λυπεῖν, οὐ γὰρ συνῴκει γε οὐδενί, ἔδει μὲν κινεῖσθαι τὴν Πελοπόννησον, ἔδει δὲ πολέμου τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἐμπίπλασθαι καὶ τὰς Ἀφίδνας πορθεῖσθαι καὶ πάλιν Ἑλένην ἐπὶ Λακεδαίμονος εἶναι, τῶν δ’ ἀλλοφύλων ταὐτὰ εἰργασμένων μετὰ γάμον, ὦ Ζεῦ, καὶ παῖδα μὴ πᾶν ὅσον ἐστὶν ἐν ἡμῖν πρὸς τιμωρίαν ζητῆσαι.

306

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

And the most wicked thing of all, if, when Theseus dared to take her while she was entirely young and wished to make her his wife with the intent of harming no one, for he was not married to anyone, it was necessary that the Peloponnesus be roused, and that Attica be filled with war and Aphidna sacked and Helen go back to Lakedaimon, then with foreigners doing the same things after she was married, Zeus above, let them not at any rate seek the the child among us for retribution. Stephanus of Byzantium (Early 6th c. CE, grammarian from Byzantium): 1 [Ethnica (epitome) s.v. Ἄφιδνα] – Ἄφιδνα, δῆμος Ἀττικῆς καὶ Λεοντίδος φυλῆς, ἀπὸ Ἀφίδνου αὐτόχθονος. ὁ δημότης Ἀφιδναῖος ὡς Πυδναῖος. τὰ τοπικὰ δῆλα, Ἀφίδνηθεν Ἀφίδναζε Ἀφίδνησιν. ἔστι καὶ πληθυντικὸν Ἀφίδναι. ἔστι καὶ τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ὅθεν ἦσαν αἱ Λευκιππίδες Φοίβη καὶ Ἐλάειρα. Aphidna, of the Attic deme and Leontid Phyle, from the autochthon Aphidnos. The demotic is Aphidnaios like Pydnaios. The place names are clear, Aphidnathen Aphidnaze Aphidnesin. There is also the plural Aphidnae. There is also one of Lakonia, whence the Leukippids Phoebe and Elaeira are. 2 [Ethnica (epitome) s.v. Τιτακίδαι] – Τιτακίδαι, δῆμος τῆς Ἀντιοχίδος φυλῆς, ἀπὸ Τιτακοῦ τοῦ προδόντος Ἀφίδνας τοῖς Διοσκούροις. ὁ δημότης Τιτακίδης ὁμοφώνως. καὶ τὰ τοπικὰ ἐπιρρήματα ὡσαύτως. Titakidai, a deme of the Antiokhid tribe, from Titakos who betrayed Aphidna to the Dioscuri. The demotic Titakides with the same sound. And the adverbs of place just so.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

307

Etymologica: 298 1 [Etym. Gen. s.v. Ἀστυάναξ, α 1314] – Ἀστυάναξ (Ζ 403)· ὁ υἱὸς Ἕκτορος· οὐκ ἔστι δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἀνάσσω, τὸ βασιλεύω, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὸ ἀνακῶς ἔχει τοῦ ἄστεος τὸν Ἕκτορα. οἱ γὰρ Ἀττικοὶ τὸ ἐπιμελῶς ἔχειν καὶ φροντίζειν ἀνακῶς ἔχειν λέγουσιν· καὶ Ἄνακας ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς Διοσκούρους, ὅτι ἀνακῶς αὐτοῖς ἐχρήσαντο διὰ τὴν Ἑλένην τὰς Ἀφίδνας ἐκπορθοῦντες. οὕτως Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Μυρλεανός (p. 443 Lehrs). Astyanax: the son of Hector; but it is not from ‘to anasso’ (to rule, be king of, ‘to basileuo’), but from Hector taking care (‘ekhein anakōs’) of the city. For the Attikoi say ‘to take care’ (‘epimelōs ekhein’) and ‘to have a thought for’ (‘phrontizen anakōs’) ‘to take care’ (‘anakōs ekhein’); and the Dioscuri are the Anakes thence, that they took care with them when they were sacking Aphidna on account of Helen. Thus Asklepiades the Myrlean. 2 [Etym. Gud. s.v. Ἰφιγένεια]– See Euphorion 2 above.

298

About lexical evidence Dickey 2007, 91 says: ‘A number of enormous, anonymous Byzantine etymological lexica have survived more or less intact and preserve much valuable ancient scholarship. Though tradionally referred to as etymologica, they are by no means strictly concerned with etymologies. They consist of lemmata (in alphabetical order) followed by some type of explanation, such as a definition, an etymology, and/or further information on usage, often including quotations from literature… the sources of the etymologica vary but generally date to the second century AD and later; major sources include Herodian, Orus, Orion, Theognostus, Choeroboscus, scholia, and the Epimerismi Homerici. But since these works were themselves usually based on earlier scholarship, the etymologica are indirect witnesses to a considerable amount of Hellenistic scholarly work, as well as preserving numerous fragments of classical literature otherwise lost.’

308

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

Tzetzes (12th c. CE, Constantinople): 299 1 [ΣLyc. Alex. 102] 300 – See Hellanicus 4, Douris 2 above. 2 [ΣLyc. Alex. 143] 301 – See Hellanicus 5, Douris 3 above. 3 [ΣLyc. Alex. 183] 302 – See Douris 4 above. 4 [ΣLyc. Alex. 503] – See Hellanicus 6 above. 5 [ΣLyc. Alex. 513] 303 – See Hellanicus 2, Douris 1 above. 6 [ΣAristophanes Clouds 1006] – See Hellanicus 7 above. Stephanus the Grammarian (12th c. CE, Constantinople): 1 [Steph. in Rh. p. 306 lines 16–30 (Aris. 1397b20)] – Καὶ ὅτι εἰ μὴ Θησεὺς ἠδίκησεν. ὄπισθεν εἴρηται τοῦτο εἰς τὸν τέταρτον τόπον. ἡρπάγη γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἡ Ἑλένη ὑπὸ Θησέως, Ἕλληνος σώφρονος καὶ μεγάλου, υἱοῦ Αἰγέως τῷ φαινομένῳ, τῇ δ’ ἀληθείᾳ Ποσειδῶνος, οὔπω μὲν ἀκμάζουσα, εἴδει δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἀκμάζουσα. εἰς Ἄφιδναν δὲ πόλιν τῆς Ἀττικῆς ταύτην ἐκόμισε παραθέμενος τὴν κόρην Αἴθρᾳ, τῇ Πιτθέως μὲν θυγατρί, μητρὶ δὲ ἑαυτοῦ· ὅτε καὶ οἱ Διόσκουροι λαφυραγωγοῦσι τὰς Ἀθήνας μὴ τυχόντες Θησέως, αἰχμαλωτίζουσι δὲ καὶ Αἴθραν τὴν αὐτοῦ μητέρα.

299

Two brothers of this name, Isaac and Johannes, were Byzantine scholars active in the 12th century. The commentary on Aristophanes from which our scholion to Clouds 1006 comes is attributed to Johannes, and scholarly consensus attributes the commentary on Lykophron’s Alexandra to him as well on stylistic and metrical grounds (although the manuscripts attribute it to Isaac). 300 FGrH 76 Fr. 92 301 FGrH 76 Fr. 92 302 FGrH 76 Fr. 92 303 FGrH 4 Fr. 168(b); FGrH 323a Fr. 19; Fowler Fr. 168b; Harding 76b.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

309

‘And that if Theseus did no wrong [neither did Paris]’ (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.23.5). Afterwards this is discussed in the fourth topos. For Helen was snatched before Alexander by Theseus, a Hellene prudent and great, son of Aigeus in appearance but of Poseidon in truth, while Helen was not yet in her prime, but at her prime in beauty compared to others. And to Aphidna, a city in Attica, he conveyed her, committing the maiden to the hands of Aithra, the daughter of Pittheus (and his own mother); and when the Dioscuri did not meet Theseus while plundering (laphuragōgousi) Athens, they also took Aithra, his mother, prisoner. 2 [Steph. in Rh. p. 306 lines 16–30 (Aris. 1397b21)] – Καὶ εἰ μὴ Τυνδαρίδαι, οὐδ’ Ἀλέξανδρος. Τυνδάρεως καὶ Ἀφαρεὺς καὶ Λεύκιππος ἀδελφοί. ὁ δὲ Λεύκιππος εἶχε θυγατέρας δύο, Φοίβην καὶ Ἱλάειραν, ἃς οἱ Διόσκουροι ἔτι παρθένους οὔσας ἐξήρπασαν. εἰ γοῦν μὴ οἱ Τυνδαρίδαι πρῶτοι περὶ τὰς ἐξαδέλφας αὐτῶν ἐμάνησαν, οὐδ’ ἂν Ἀλέξανδρος περὶ τὴν αὐτῶν ἀδελφήν. οὕτως ἐν τῷ γάμμα τὸ λεξικὸν τοῦ Ὁμήρου λέγει, εἰ καὶ ὁ Λυκόφρων ἄλλως λέγει περί τε τούτων ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν τοῦ Ἀφαρέως υἱῶν, Ἴδου καὶ Λυγκέως. ‘Also if the Tyndarids [did no wrong], neither [did] Alexander’ (Aristotle Rhetoric 2.23.5). Tyndareos and Aphareus and Leukippos were brothers. And Leukippos had two daughters, Phoebe and Hilaeira, whom the Dioscuri carried off when they were still maidens. If at all events the Tyndarids had not first been mad for their cousins, Alexander would not have for their sister. Thus the lexicon of Homer says in the third book, even if Lykophron says otherwise both about these things and also about the sons of Aphareus, Idas and Lynkeus. Homeric Scholia: 1 [Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144] 304 – See Hellanicus 3 above. 2 [Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242] – See Alcman 2 and Cypria 1 above. 304

FGrH 4 F 134; FGrH 323a F 20; fr. 168c Fowler; fr. 76c Harding.

310

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

3 [Eust. Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem vol. 1, p. 438 on Hom. Il. 2.552] – Περὶ δὲ Πετεῷο καὶ ὅλως περὶ τῆς Ἀθηναίων ταύτης ἀρχῆς καὶ τοιαῦτα ἱστορεῖται. Θησεὺς τοὺς Παλλαντίδας ἑλὼν ἐκβάλλει Πετεὼν ἅμα τῷ παιδὶ Μενεσθεῖ ὡς συναιρόμενον τοῖς Παλλαντίδαις. ἐπεὶ δὲ ὕστερον αἱ Ἀφίδναι ὑπὸ Διοσκούρων ἑάλωσαν διὰ τὴν ἀδελφὴν Ἑλένην καὶ οἱ Θησεῖδαι εἰς Εὔβοιαν ἔφυγον, ἐπιθέμενος ἦρξεν Ἀθηναίων ὁ Μενεσθεύς· περὶ δὲ τὸν ἀπόπλουν στασιάσαντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι προϊστῶσιν ἄρχειν σφῶν Δημοφῶντα τὸν Θησείδην, οὗ καὶ Εὐριπίδης μέμνηται ὄζους Ἀθηνῶν ὀνομάζων αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἀκάμαντα. And about Peteos and generally about the rule of the Athenians he also relates such things. Theseus taking the Pallantids exiled Peteos with his son Menestheus as collaborators with the Pallantids. And when later Aphidna was conquered by the Dioscuri on account of their sister Helen and the Theseids fled to Euboea, Menestheus, applying himself, ruled the Athenians; about the time of the sailingaway the Athenians, falling to faction, chose Demophon the Theseid to lead them, whom also Euripides recalled, naming him and his brother Akamas the scions of Athens.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

311

APPENDIX D: VISUAL TESTIMONIA Date

Painter

Work

Reference

N/A

Ashmolean

LIMC IV.i Helen 56

Aryballos

Neils 1987 p. 20 n.

(BCE) Visual 1

c. 700

72 Description:1 The main participants are limited to two riders (Dioscuri?), a female wearing a polos (Helen?), and a suppliant clinging to a statue of Athena (Aithra?). Visual 2

c. 700

N/A

Princeton

F. F. Jones 1967.

Stamnos Description:1 A horseman on his mount and a man clutching the head of a diminutive female; the horse and rider on the reverse is merely a common late geometric motif, and as such has no narrative significance.2 Visual 3

c. 680

Ajax Painter

Louvre

LIMC IV.i Helen 28

Aryballos

Neils 1987 p. 20 n. 73

Description:1 A pair of bearded males, one brandishing a sword, the other holding a spear, are threatening a woman posed like an orant in the center. She looks to her rescuers, two horsemen riding up from the left, and urging on their mounts. There is no polos or other attribute to identify Helen, other than her large size, but for once, all the major participants in the legend are depicted. Visual 4

670–660

N/A

Breastplate at

LIMC IV.i Helen 58

Olympia

Neils 1987 p. 20 n. 75

Description:1 Helen, goddess-like and again in the center, wears a tall polos and long embroidered robe with short cape. Two pairs of young men stand at her sides, the nearer ones clasping her outstretched hands. It is difficult to determine which pair are her abductors and which her liberators. Visual 5

600–550

N/A

Shieldbands at

LIMC IV.i Helen 46

Olympia

Neils 1987 p. 21 n. 77

Description:3 Woman in center flanked by two men who grasp her wrists and shoulders. Visual 6

560–510

The Amasis

Oinochoe

Painter Description:4 Theseus and Peirithous carrying off Helen.5

LIMC IV.i Helen 43 ABV 153, no. 34

312

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Date

Painter

Work

Reference

The Amasis

Lekythos

LIMC IV.i Helen 44

(BCE) Visual 7

560–510

ABV 155, no. 62

Painter Description:4 Rape of Helen by Theseus and Peirithous.5 Visual 8

560–510

The Amasis

Tripod pyxis

Painter

Shapiro 1989 153; Bothmer 1985 236–8

Description: Less than half of the leg of this tripod survives, and there was surely room 6

for several more figures, doubtless Polydeukes with his horse, and probably Leda as well. That the brothers were departing is made clear by Tyndareus’ gesture of farewell, and the unique depiction of Kastor armed enables us to surmise their destination. For most of the adventures in which the Dioscuri took part—the Argonautika, the Kalydonian Hunt, the Rape of the Leukippidai—armor would be inappropriate. Only for the rescue of Helen would this make sense, for her abduction was an act of war. Visual 9

520–500

The Leagros Group

Hydria 1

LIMC IV.i Helen 30 ABV 361, no. 12

Description:4 Herakles and Geryon. On the shoulder, Theseus carrying off Helen (with chariot). Visual

520–500

10

The Leagros

Hydria 2

LIMC IV.i Helen 31 ABV 363, no. 44

Group

Description:4 Theseus carrying off Helen. On the shoulder, fight (with Athena, and women watching) Visual 11

c. 500

The Edinburgh

Small neck-

LIMC IV.i Helen 45

Painter

amphora

ABV 477, no. 1

Description:4 A, Theseus and Peirithous carrying off Helen. B, a warrior standing at the head of a chariot, only the forepart of which is shown.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN Date

313

Painter

Work

Reference

Euthymides

Amphora

LIMC IV.i Helen 41

(BCE) Visual

510–500

12

ARV2 27, no. 4

(Pioneer Group)

Description:7 Theseus (his name inscribed retrograde near his head) dashing off to the right, with a young maiden clutched tightly in his arms. He is nude except for a chlamys draped in an unlikely fashion over his right arm, and his long curly hair is tied up in a wreath. The woman carried by Theseus is labeled Korone, while the one coming to her rescue is inscribed Helen. Surely the stephanē worn by the former singles her out as the daughter of Zeus, while the latter is merely her nurse or companion. Peirithous, Theseus’ inevitable accomplice in abductions, brings up the rear, marching forward with his sword and spear, yet looking back toward the pursuers. The reverse shows two vigorous females, not fleeing for their safety as one might expect, but in hot pursuit. The first, in the conversational style typical of the Pioneers, says ‘Eidon; themen’ (‘I have seen; let us run’). Her companion is named Antiope, no doubt for lack of a more appropriate appellation. At the far left, an anonymous, elderly man with a knobbed staff raises his hand and utters ‘chaire, Theseus’, whether in farewell or greeting, one is not certain. Visual

525–500

Oltos

Cup

ARV2 58, no. 51

13 Description:8 I, Theseus and one of the rescued maidens (the victory dance, see the Francois vase, FR. pl. 13). A, Theseus and Antiope. B, man (or youth) and woman, between two boys on horseback. On B, ΧΑΧΥΛΙΟΝ retr. The verb may have been on one of the missing parts. Visual

500–475

14

Painter of Munich

Hydria

LIMC IV.i Helen 32 ARV2 246, no. 11

Amphora

Description: Theseus carrying off Helen. On the shoulder, death of Priam. 8

Visual

500–475

Diogenes Painter

Column-krater

15

LIMC IV.i Helen 33 ARV2 248, no. 1

Description:8 A, Zeus and Athena. B is lost. Visual 16

480–470

Manner of the

Cup

Byrgos Painter

Description:8 I, symposion. A-B, Theseus carrying off Helen.

LIMC IV.i Helen 42 ARV2 386, no. 1

314

AARON HERSHKOWITZ Date

Painter

Work

Reference

The Boreas

Volute-krater

LIMC IV.i Helen 50

(BCE) Visual

475–450

17

ARV2 536, no. 1

Painter

Description:8 Youth with spears (Theseus?) pursuing a woman (Helen?). On the neck: A, animals (lion and panther attacking fawn; on the left, lion and boar; on the right, the like). B, symposion. Visual

475–450

Altamura Painter

Krater

18

Corinth C–33–129 ARV2 592, no. 29

Description: Theseus grasps Helen while Athena calms a bearded man who should be 9

identified as Tyndareus. Visual

450–425

Polygnotus

Stamnos

19

LIMC IV.i Helen 35 ARV2 1028, no. 13

Description: A, youth with spears pursuing a woman; with chariot (Theseus and Helen?). 8

B, satyr dancing, and two maenads. Visual

400

N/A

Krater

20

Greco, RIASA 8–9 (1985–6) 5–35

Description:9 The wedding of Helen and Theseus. Bride and groom (names inscribed) attended by Eros; Peirithous, Leda, and a group of a bearded man and two youths (probably the Dioscuri and Tyndareus or Zeus) are present as well. Visual

Early

21

Hellen.

N/A

Megarian Bowl

LIMC IV.i Helen 37 Sinn MB 37

Description:10 A, Theseus has pulled the bristling Helen onto the chariot. Peirithous directs the four horse chariot first to Corinth. Written: ΕΛΕΝΗ; ΘΗΣΕΥ[Σ];ΠΕ[.]ΥΣ[.]. B, Written above the four-horse chariot: ΘΗΣΕΥΣ ΑΡΠΑΣΑΣ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΕΝΗΝ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ ΜΕΝ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΕΙΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΝ ΕΙΤΕΝ ΕΙΣ ΑΘΗΝΑΣ [.... ΕΚΤΟΥ [.... ΜΡΗ [.... ΤΑΙΣ [.... ΚΑΙ [.... Α [.... C, Walls of the city of Corinth in perspective plan view. Written: ΚΟΡΙΝΘΟ[Σ]. D, Theseus has the now willingly following Helen (?) and drives her to Athens. Peirithous precedes them. The walls of the state of Athens in perspective plan view. Written: ΚΡ΄Α; ΠΕ[Ι]Ρ[ ]ΟΣ; ΘΗ[ΣΕΥΣ]; ΑΘΗΝ[ΑΙ].

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

315

Notes 1. 2.

From Neils 1987 20. Brommer 1982 94 has a different interpretation of the horse and rider on the reverse: ‘Theseus hat die klein gebildete Helena am Haar gepackt. Er ist waffenlos. Es handelt sich also nicht um Kampf oder Mord, sondern um Raub. Dabei ist ein Reiter zu Pferd. Auf dem Rückseitenbild ist ein weiterer, aber abgesessener Reiter. Will man in diesen Reitern nicht Gefährten des Theseus sehen, dann könnte es sich nur um die Dioskuren handeln, die zwar nach der Sage beidem Raub eigentlich nicht anwesend waren, die aber so stark vom Schicksal ihrer Schwester betroffen waren, daß der Vasenmaler auf sie nicht verzichten wollte.’ 3. From Neils 1987 21. 4. From ABV. 5. Neils 1987 27–8 sees these vases as depicting Helen’s rescue by the Dioscuri rather than her abduction. 6. From Shapiro 1989 153. 7. From Neils 1987 40. 8. From ARV2. 9. From Shapiro 1992b 233–4. 10. From Sinn 1979.

316

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

BIBLIOGRAPHY

C. Ampolo and M. Manfredini, Le Vite di Teseo e di Romolo (1988) Milan.

M.J. Anderson, The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art (1997) Oxford.

D. Asheri, ‘Ellanico, Jacoby e la “Tradizione Alcmeonida”’, Acme 34 (1981) 15–31.

D. Asheri, A. Lloyd, and A. Corcella, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV (2007) Oxford.

R. Ball, ‘Generation Dating in Herodotus’, CQ 29.2 (1979) 276– 281.

J.P. Barron, ‘New Light on Old Walls: The Murals of the Theseion’, JHS 92 (1972) 20–45.

———, ‘Bakchylides, Theseus and a Woolly Cloak’, BICS 27 (1980) 1–8. J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters2 (1963) Oxford. ———, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (1978) New York.

T. Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci (1882) Leipzig.

A. Bernabé, Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta Pars I (1987) Leipzig.

A.M. Biraschi, ‘L’ “altro” Teseo: mito, storia, politica e storiografia ad Atene nel V secolo a.C.’, Atene e Roma 48 (2003) 49–62. J. Boardman, ‘Herakles, Peisistratos, and Sons’, Revue Archéologique, N.S. Fasc. 1 (1972) 57–72.

———, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period (1975) London. ———, ‘Exekias’, American Journal of Archaeology 82 (1978) 11–25.

———, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period (1989) London. F. Brommer, Vasenlisten zur griechischen Heldensage (1973) Marburg.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

317

———, ‘Theseus-Deutungen’, Archäologischer Anzeiger (1979) 487– 511.

———, Theseus (1982) Darmstadt.

F. Buffière, Eros adolescent: la pédérastie dans la Grèce antique (1973) Paris.

S.M. Burstein and L.A. Okin, Panhellenica: Essays in Ancient History and Historiography in Honor of Truesdell S. Brown (1980) Lawrence.

F. Cantarelli, ‘Il personaggio del Menesteo nel mito e nelle ideologie politiche greche’, RIL 108 (1974) 459–505.

W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwell, R.W.V. Catling, and G. Shipley, Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey Vols 1 and 2 (1996–2002) London.

W.R. Connor, ‘Theseus in Classical Athens’, in A.G. Ward, W.R. Connor, R.B. Edwards, and S. Tidworth (eds) The Quest for Theseus (1970) New York, 143–174. ———, ‘The problem of Athenian civic ideology’, in A.L. Boegehold and A.C. Scafuro (eds) Athenian identity and civic ideology (1994) Baltimore, 34–44. R.M. Cook, ‘Spartan History and Archaeology’, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 1 (1962) 156–158.

C. Cooper, ‘Making Irrational Myth Plausible History: Polybian Intertextuality in Plutarch’s Theseus’, Phoenix 61 (2007) 212– 233.

J.N. Davie, ‘Theseus the King in Fifth-Century Athens’, Greece & Rome, Second Series 29 (1982) 25–34.

J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (1971) Oxford.

M. Davies, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta (1988) Göttingen.

———, ‘The Date of the Epic Cycle’, Glotta 67 Bd., 1./2. H. (1989a) 89–100. ———, ‘Kinkel Redivivus’, Classical Review, New Series vol. 39, no. 1 (1989b) 4–9.

———, Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Volumen I (1991) Oxford.

318

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

W. Den Boer, ‘Theseus: The Growth of a Myth in History’, Greece & Rome, Second Series 16 (1969) 1–13. E. Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship (2007) Oxford.

K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (1978) Cambridge, MA.

T.J. Figueira, ‘The Ten Archontes of 579/8 at Athens’, Hesperia 53 (1984) 447–73.

———, ‘The Copenhagen Polis Centre: A Review-Article of Its Publications, Parts 1–2’, AWE 5 (2006) 252–303.

———, ‘Gynecocracy: How Women Policed Masculine Behavior in Archaic and Classical Sparta’, in A. Powell, S. Hodkinson, and P. Christesen (eds) Sparta: the Body Politic (2010) Swansea.

———, ‘The Aiakidai, the Herald-less War, and Salamis’, in V. Bers, D. Elmer, D. Frame, and L. Muellner (eds) Donum natalicium digitaliter confectum Gregorio Nagy septuagenario a discipulis collegis familiaribus oblatum (2012) Washington, DC. http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=ArticleWrapper&bdc= 12&mn=4610 ———, ‘Ethnogenesis and Hegemony in Classical Power Politics’, (Forthcoming).

M. Fialho, ‘Φιλανθρωπία and φιλαυτία in Plutarch’s “Theseus”’, Hermathena 182 (2007) 71–83.

M.I. Finley, Democracy Ancient and Modern (1985) New Brunswick.

K. Fittschen, Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen (1969) Berlin.

M.A. Flower and J. Marincola, Herodotus: Histories Book IX (2002) Cambridge. S. Forsdyke, Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy: Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece (2005) Princeton.

R.L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography II: A Commentary (2013) Oxford. M. Fox, ‘History and Rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, JRS 83 (1993) 31–47.

K. Friis Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens (1923) Paris.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

319

F.J. Frost, ‘Plutarch and Theseus’, Classical Bulletin 60.4 (1984) 65– 73.

E.C. Gastaldi, ‘L’Amazzonomachia “teseica” nell’elaborazione propagandistica ateniese’, Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino T.2, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche CXI (1977) 283–96. L.B. Ghali-Kahil, Les enlèvements et le retour d’Hélène (1955) Paris.

L. Gianfrancesco, ‘Un frammento sofistico nella Vita di Teseo di Plutarco?’ in Marta Sordi ed. Storiografia e propaganda: Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica, volume terzo (1975) Milan.

V. Gouschin, ‘Athenian Synoikism of the Fifth Century B.C., or Two Stories of Theseus’, Greece & Rome, Second Series 46 (1999) 168–87.

A.W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (1945) Oxford.

K. Hajdú, Ps.-Herodian, De figuris: Überlieferungsgeschichte und kritische Ausgabe (1998) Berlin.

J.M. Hall, ‘Politics and Greek Myth’ in Roger Woodward ed. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology (2007) Cambridge, 331– 54. M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004) Oxford.

P. Harding, The Story of Athens: The fragments of the local chronicles of Attika (2008) New York.

A.R.W. Harrison, The Law of Athens: the Family and Property (1968) Oxford. G. Hawes, Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity (2014) Oxford.

H. Herter, ‘Theseus der Ionier’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 85 (1936) 177–91, 193–239.

———, ‘Theseus der Athener’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 88 (1939) 244–86, 289–326. S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (1991) Oxford.

W.W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus (1928) Oxford.

320

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

E. Irwin, ‘“The hybris of Theseus” and the date of the Histories’ in B. Dunsch and K. Ruffing (eds) Herodots Quellen—die Quellen Herodots (2013) Wiesbaden.

F. Jacoby, Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens (1949) Oxford. W. Jaeger, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (1947) Oxford.

F.F. Jones, ‘A Greek Pot of the Geometric Period’, Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 26 (1967) 4–12. H.S. Jones, ‘The Chest of Kypselos’, JHS 14 (1894) 30–80.

E. Kearns, The Heroes of Attica, BICS Suppl. 57 (1989) London.

H. King, ‘Bound to bleed: Artemis and Greek women’ in A. Cameron and A Kuhrt (eds) Images of Women in Antiquity (1983) London. U. Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen (1976) Berlin.

J. Labarbe, ‘Timodémos d’Aphidna’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 36 (1958) 31–50.

K.D.S. Lapatin, ‘A Family Gathering at Rhamnous? Who’s Who on the Nemesis Base’, Hesperia 61, no. 1 (1992) 107–19.

D. Larmour, ‘Plutarch’s Compositional Methods in the Theseus and Romulus’, TAPA 118 (1988) 361–75. J. Larson, Greek Heroine Cults (1995) Madison.

O. Lendle, Einführung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung (1992) Darmstadt.

N. Loraux, The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (1986) Cambridge, MA.

E. Maass, Review of Kyrene eine altgriechische Göttin (F. Studniczka), Göttingische gelehrte Anziegen 9 (1890) 337–84.

M.D. MacLeod, Lucian: Volume VIII (1967) Cambridge, MA. H. Maehler, Pindarus Pars II Fragmenta, Indices (1989) Leipzig.

J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (1997) New York.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

321

P.K. Marshall, Hygini Fabulae (1993) Stuttgart. A. Mayor, The Amazons (2014) Princeton.

S. Mills, Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire (1997) Oxford.

F. Mitchel, ‘Herodotus’ Use of Genealogical Chronology’, Phoenix 10.2 (1956) 48–69. J. Neils, The Youthful Deeds of Theseus (1987) Rome.

D. Ogden, Aristomenes of Messene: Legends of Sparta’s Nemesis (2004) Swansea.

D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci: Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, poetarum minorum reliquias, carmina popularia et convivialiaquaeque adespota feruntur (1962) Oxford. V. Parker, ‘The Dates of the Messenian Wars’, Chiron 21 (1991) 23– 45.

C. Pelling, ‘Plutarch’s Adaptation of his Source-Material’, JHS 100 (1980) 127–40.

———, Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies (2002) Swansea.

D.D. Phillips, ‘The Bones of Orestes’ in G.W. Bakewell and J.P. Sickinger (eds) Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold (2003) Oxford.

A.J. Podlecki, ‘Cimon, Skyros and “Theseus’ Bones”’, JHS 91 (1971) 141–3. ———, ‘Theseus and Themistocles’, Rivista storica dell’antichità V (1975) 1–24.

S.L. Positano, D. Holwerda, and W.J.W. Koster, Jo. Tzetzae Commentarii in Aristophanem (1960) Groningen. J.U. Powell, Collectanea alexandrina: reliquiae minores poetarum graecorum aetatis ptolemaicae, 323–146 A.C., epicorum, elegiacorum, lyricorum, ethicorum (1925) Oxford.

P.J. Rhodes, Atthis: the Ancient Histories of Athens (2014a) Heidelberg.

———, ‘Theseus the Democrat’, Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica 15.3 (2014b) 98–118.

322

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

G.M.A. Richter, Attic Red-Figured Vases: A Survey2 (1958) New Haven.

C. Robert, ‘Olympische Glossen’, Hermes 23 (1888) 424–53. D.A. Russell, Plutarch (1973) London.

K. Schefold, Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art (1966) London.

J.H. Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (1997) Aarhus. H.A. Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (1989) Mainz.

———, ‘Theseus in Kimonian Athens: The iconography of Empire’, Mediterranean Historical Review VII (1992a) 29–49.

———, ‘The Marriage of Theseus and Helen’, in H. Froning, T. Hölscher, and H. Mielsch (eds) Kotinos. Festschrift für Erika Simon (1992b) Mainz. ———, ‘Cult Warfare: The Dioskouri between Sparta and Athens’, in R. Hägg ed. Ancient Greek Hero Cults, (1999) Stockholm, 99– 107.

P-J. Shaw, Discrepancies in Olympiad Dating and Chronological Problems of Archaic Peloponnesian History (2003) Stuttgart.

J. Shear, Polis and Panathenaia: the History and Development of Athena’s Festival (2002) Ann Arbor.

G. Shipley, ‘“The Other Lacedaimonians”: the Dependent Perioikic Poleis of Laconia and Messenia’ in M.H. Hansen (ed.) The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (1997) Munksgaard, 190–281.

U. Sinn, Die homerischen Becher: hellenistischen Reliefkeramik aus Makedonien (1979) Berlin.

O. Skutsch, ‘Helen, Her Name and Nature’, JHS 107 (1987) 188– 93.

A.M. Snodgrass, ‘Pausanias and the Chest of Kypselos,’ in S.E. Alcock, J.F. Cherry, and J. Elsner (eds) Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece (2001) Oxford, 127-41. C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘The Young Abductor of the Locrian Pinakes’, BICS 20 (1973) 12–21.

THE ATHENIAN ABDUCTION OF SPARTAN HELEN

323

———, ‘A Series of Erotic Pursuits: Images and Meanings’, JHS 107 (1987) 131–53.

———, Studies in Girls’ Transitions (1988) Athens.

———, ‘Ancient Rites and Modern Constructs: On the Brauronian Bears Again’, BICS 37 (1990) 1–14.

P.A. Stadter, ed., Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (1992) New York.

K. Tausend, ‘Theseus und der delisch-attische Seebund’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Neue Folge, 132 (1989) Bd., H. 3/4, 225– 35.

C.G. Thomas, ‘Theseus and Synoicism’, Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 23 (1982) 337–49.

R.A. Tomlinson, ‘The Menelaion and Spartan Architecture’, in J.M. Sanders (ed.) ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (1992) Oxford.

W.B. Tyrrell, Amazons, a Study in Athenian Mythmaking (1984) Baltimore. K.

Vlassopoulos, ‘Free Spaces: Identity, Experience and Democracy in Classical Athens’, CQ vol. 57 no. 1 (2007) 33– 52.

R. von den Hoff, ‘Theseus—Stadtgründer und Kulturheros’, in E. Stein-Hölkeskamp and K-J. Hölkeskamp (eds) Die griechische Welt: Erinnerungsorte der Antike (2010a) München, 300–15.

———, ‘Media for Theseus, or: The Different Images of the Athenian Polis-hero’, in L. Foxhall, H-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (eds) Intentional History – Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (2010b) Stuttgart, 161–88.

J. Wackernagel, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (1916) Göttingen. H.J. Walker, Theseus and Athens (1995) New York.

A.G. Ward, W.R. Connor, R.B. Edwards, and S. Tidworth, The Quest for Theseus (1970) New York.

324

AARON HERSHKOWITZ

F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles Texte und Kommentar: Dikaiarchos (Heft I) (1967) Basel.

M.L. West, ‘Immortal Helen’, (1975) reprinted in Hellenica (2011) Oxford, 80–96.

S.K.A. Wide, Lakonische Kulte (1893) Leipzig.

S. Yanaginuma, ‘Observation on the legend of the rape of Helen by Theseus’, Journal of Classical Studies 10 (1962) 49–61. K. Ziegler, Plutarchus: Vitae Parallelae Vol. I Fasc. 1, (2000) Leipzig.

GENERAL INDEX References found exclusively in footnotes appear in italics. A Achaea 7, 25, 27, 85, 90–2, 94, 96, 122, 129, 134, 236 Admete 146–7, 155 aetiology 35, 55, 59, 145, 153– 4, 156, 182, 285 Agesilaos II (Spartan King) 11, 36, 108, 122, 127–8, 154 agētoria 152, 155 Agiads 3, 105–8, 111, 113, 117, 122–3, 125, 127–30, 133, 136, 143, 152, 155, 157 – Agis (son of Eurysthenes) 114, 120, 125–9 Agiatis 23 Agis II (Spartan King) 238 Agis IV (Spartan King) 11, 13– 16, 22–3, 26, 28–9, 32–3, 40–1, 52, 94–8, 116 agōgē 7, 15, 25–6, 38–9, 43–7, 90–2, 94, 96, 98, 109 Aigeidai 125, 132–3, 135, 137 – Aigeus (of Sparta) 133, 137 Aigeus (Athenian) 133, 172, 183, 220, 258, 280, 289, 309 Aigimios 119, 121 Aigle (daughter of Panopeus) 173, 221, 304 Aigospotamoi 107, 144, 150

Aithra 4, 175–6, 183–4, 189– 90, 192, 197, 208, 222–3, 241, 260, 263–4, 267, 276, 278–9, 288, 296, 305, 309, 311 Ajax 221, 302, 304, 311 Akademos 181, 227–8, 243, 257, 294–5 – Akademeia 181, 218, 281, 290, 295 – Ekhedemos 181, 257, 281, 295 Alcman 9, 31, 48, 55–8, 60, 66, 77, 82, 174, 194–5, 200, 208, 218–23, 232, 240, 245, 248, 252–6, 261–2, 266, 271, 282, 285–6, 299, 310 Alcmeonids 4, 171, 233, 236, 238, 243 Alexander III of Macedon 87, 93 Alexandra (= Kassandra) 67, 308 Alexandria 22, 26–8, 46, 50–2, 54, 59, 62, 68, 85, 304 (see also Egypt) Alkmene 153–4 Amazons 146, 170, 217, 231–2 Amphipolis vii, 138–42

325

326

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Amyklai 55, 62, 66–7, 133, 200, 232, 240, 245, 248, 254, 256, 265, 301 Antigonos II Gonatas 21–2, 36–7 Antigonos III Doson 25, 27 Antiochus of Syracuse (FGH 555) 130–1 Antiope 173, 217, 313 antiquarianism 45–6, 52, 68 Apharetidai (Idas and Lynkeus) 214–15, 226, 242, 254, 274, 293, 309 Aphetaios 65 Aphidna – in Attica 175–6, 183–4, 189, 192, 194, 203–4, 206–7, 213, 216, 220–7, 231–2, 241–3, 247–51, 253–7, 260–2, 264, 267– 9, 272, 274, 276–80, 283–6, 288–90, 294–5, 297, 299–304, 306–7, 309–10 – in Laconia 225–6, 231, 243, 247, 254, 304, 306 Aphidnos 192, 220–1, 225–6, 247–51, 255–6, 260, 262, 274, 286, 294–5, 304, 306 Aphrodite 66, 156 – Morpho (= Aphrodite) 66 Apollo 55, 115–16, 132, 145, 232, 240, 254, 256, 265, 283, 298, 301 – Apollo Agraios 283, 299 – Apollo Karneios 135, 152–3, 155–6 (see also Karneia) – Apollo Pythaeus 65

– Kranios Stemmatios (= Apollo) 67, 155 Apollodorus 52, 54, 63, 88, 119, 176, 201, 204–6, 209, 216, 227, 246, 250, 252–4, 258, 266–7, 290 Aratos of Sicyon 25, 27, 94, 96 Ares (Theritas) 67 Argeia (wife of Aristodemos) 119, 123, 132–3 Argos, Argives 60, 119, 122–3, 131, 145–6, 156, 199, 206, 225, 233–4, 243, 264–5, 300, 303 Ariadne 173, 211–12, 221, 304 aristocracy, and theory of 7, 46, 85, 111, 118, 124–5, 129, 131, 144, 152, 172 Aristokles (FGH 586) 17–18, 31, 61, 70, 72, 83, 86 Aristokrates (FGH 591) 7, 17– 18, 34–5, 38, 45, 61, 71, 83– 92, 94–6, 98 Aristophanes of Athens 13–14, 31, 177, 184, 218, 232–3, 247, 278, 308 Aristophanes of Byzantium 44, 58–9, 79 Aristotle 7, 9, 11, 15, 17–19, 35–6, 52, 83, 96, 200, 215–7, 309 Arkadia 25, 60, 131, 181, 225, 227, 235, 243, 256–7, 267, 281, 295 arkhēgetai 3, 105, 107, 111–12, 115–16, 118, 120–1, 123, 128–30, 135–6, 143, 150, 152, 156–7 Arkteia 210–11 Artemis 56, 66, 108, 115, 118, 173, 210–11, 231, 265, 283, 298

INDEX – Artemis Agrotera 283, 299 – Artemis Hēgmonē 156 – Artemis Karyatis 65 – Artemis Knagia (and Knageus) 256, 285 – Artemis Orthia 151, 175, 191–2, 211, 259, 274, 293 – Artemis Podagra 54 Asklepios 56, 67 Athena 35, 55, 61, 115, 144, 149, 170, 229, 231, 311–14 – Athena Axiopoinos 66 – Athena Ophthalmitis 66 – Athena Polioukhos / Khalkioikos 66, 82, 232, 301 Athenaeus 15, 17, 20, 29–31, 34–5, 50–1, 54, 56–7, 59–62, 83, 85–6, 96, 151, 211–12, 217–18, 221, 252–3, 303 Athens, Athenians vii, 3–4, 8– 11, 13–14, 18, 22, 24, 26, 61, 69, 92, 96, 98, 106–7, 115, 121, 128, 130, 133, 137, 138–9, 142, 144, 148, 150, 169–73, 175–82, 184, 186, 188, 191–3, 195, 209–13, 215, 219–44, 248–55, 257, 260–4, 267–9, 272–3, 277–9, 281, 285–6, 288, 296, 298–9, 305, 309–10, 314 Atthidography 8, 13–14, 61, 69, 96, 176–7, 185, 188–9, 199, 202, 211–12, 228, 273 Attica 4, 117, 169–70, 173, 175, 178, 183, 189–90, 192, 196, 200, 203, 211–13, 215, 219–21, 223–7, 233, 235, 237–8, 241–3, 248–51, 253,

327 255–8, 260, 262, 266, 272–3, 276, 278–80, 286, 289, 295, 303–4, 306, 309 autochthony 105, 111, 146–8, 150, 156–7, 177–81, 272, 304, 306 B Bakkhiadai 118, 124–5 Battos and Battiads 115, 124, 135 Blossius of Cumae 23 Brasidas vii, 3, 108–9, 138–43 Brasideioi see Neodamodeis Brauron 199, 203–4, 210–11, 230–1 Brauronia see Arkteia brullikhistai 59 burial (heroic, Spartan) 34, 106, 109, 137, 142–3, 153, 269, 284, 295, 298 C Cercidas (Cynic) 25–6, 39, 45 Charon of Lampsakos (FGH 262) 8, 18, 63 chronography, chronographers 49, 52, 62–3, 88, 207 Chrysippos (Stoic) 22, 26, 29 Cleanthes (Stoic) 22, 24 Clytemnestra 199, 202, 264, 266, 277, 281–2, 300 Corinth (-ians) 21, 94, 118–9, 121–2, 124, 138, 144, 151, 177, 188, 222–3, 233, 234, 263, 268–9, 314 Crete and Cretans 57, 87, 119, 188, 212–13, 220, 285 Critias (Athenian) 10, 18 Cypria, discussion of 175, 194, 200, 203–6, 223, 231, 240, 242, 245, 247–8, 252–3, 256, 262, 266, 269, 271, 282–4, 286–7, 290, 295, 310

328

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Cyrene 115, 124, 132, 135 Cyrus the Great 172, 235 Cyrus the Younger 108 D Dekeleia 204, 224–5, 231, 239, 244, 272, 290, 304–5 Dekelos 227–8, 243, 257, 272, 304 Delphi 107–9, 112, 116–7, 131–2, 136–7, 153, 234, 243 – Pythia at 116, 209, 233– 4, 280 Demaratos (Spartan king)136, 193, 233–4, 236–7, 243–4 democracy 36, 107, 131, 144, 170–2, 178, 232, 239 Dicaearchus7, 11, 15, 17–19, 31, 36, 39, 60, 70, 88, 97–8, 181, 206, 227, 245, 249, 257, 281, 295 Didymus (of Alexandria) 31, 52, 70, 78, 81, 83, 86, 286 Dio Chrysostom 176, 185, 205, 209, 222, 246, 263, 290 Diodorus Siculus 108, 149, 175–6, 200–1, 204–5, 209, 213, 216, 246, 250, 252–3, 268, 287 Diogenes (Cynic) 19–20, 24 Dionysus 65, 67, 173 – Dionysus Kolonatas 65 – Dionysus Psilax 67 – Dionysus Sykites 54 Dioscuri (= Tyndarids) 134, 192–3, 201–2, 223, 228, 231–2, 236–8, 242, 244, 254, 263, 272, 281, 294–5, 301, 305, 309 – as Anakes (anaktes) 177, 179, 182, 184, 203, 264, 279, 295–6, 300, 305, 307

– dokana of 237 – invasion of Attica by 169, 173, 183, 213, 215, 226–8, 238–9, 241–4, 248–54, 256–7, 272 Dioskurides (FGH 594) 17– 20, 29, 31, 34–9, 51–2, 66, 71, 97 Dirke 153–5 Dorian(s) (ethnē) 4, 31, 112, 116, 118–22, 129, 132, 144– 5, 151–2, 154–6, 227, 236, 301 – phylai of 120, 152 Dorieus 3, 118, 136–8, 143 Douris (FGH 76) 106, 109– 10, 184, 194–6, 198, 205, 219, 245, 249, 255–7, 275–7, 281, 308 E Egypt (esp. relations with Greece) 7, 22, 24–5, 27, 51, 84, 149–50, 287 Eileithuia 206, 225, 264, 300 Eleusis (Mysteries) 67, 131, 233–4, 236, 295 Eleutherolaconians 83, 85 Epameinondas 34, 36 ephēboi 22, 39, 98 Ephorus (FGH 70) 9–12, 14, 38, 40, 66, 71, 88–9, 93, 109, 111, 113–15, 119, 121–2, 126–33 Epidotas 66 Epimenides 60, 64–5 Epirus 18, 21, 187, 189, 216, 255, 274, 294 Erectheus 180–1, 236, 243, 294 Eretria 36 etymology 177–9, 181–2, 184, 206, 217, 247, 251, 282, 307

INDEX Euboia 95 Euripides 13, 121, 172, 310 Eurypontids 3, 105–8, 111, 113–14, 120, 122–3, 125–8, 130, 133, 136, 143, 152, 155, 157 (see also Sparta, government of) Eurysthenes (Spartan hero) 114–15, 119, 121–2, 125–9, 132–3, 135 G genealogy 35, 59, 111, 118, 121, 183, 190, 207–8, 213, 299 genos 125, 135, 152 Gitiadas 66, 232, 301 H Hades 175, 183, 187–8, 192, 201, 225, 242, 252, 255, 257, 267–8, 276, 280, 288, 297, 303 Hagnon (Athenian) 142 Halukos (hero) 256, 269, 283– 4, 295 hekyra 189, 276 Helen vii, 174, 181, 217, 221, 269, 281, 284–5, 296 – abduction of 3, 169, 173–6, 183, 189, 191–2, 194, 196, 198–209, 211– 15, 225–7, 230–2, 240–2, 248–54, 261–2, 265, 267–8, 274–80, 282, 286, 288–90, 293, 299, 302–4, 306, 309, 311–15 – age of 177, 183–5, 189– 90, 192, 194–200, 204– 11, 213–14, 216, 218, 241–2, 248–51, 254–5, 259, 267–8, 274–7, 279, 288, 293, 303

329 – allotment of 175, 192, 248–51, 259, 274, 288, 294 – cult of 4, 55, 64, 66, 111, 203, 208, 211 – marriage of 111, 175, 189–99, 210, 215, 231, 241, 255, 259, 274, 276– 7, 294, 314 – parentage of 175, 192, 200, 202–3, 241–2, 252, 266–7, 270–1, 288, 303 – retrieval of 4, 169, 174, 176, 183, 191–2, 196, 198, 200, 213, 215–16, 219–20, 222–4, 226, 228, 230, 232, 235, 239–41, 243, 248–53, 255–8, 260, 262–4, 267, 272, 276–9, 281, 286, 288–90, 294–5, 300, 306–7, 309–10, 312, 315 Helios 67 Hellanicus (FGH 4 and 323a) 8–10, 49, 111, 113–14, 122, 126, 169, 174, 176–7, 179– 92, 194–6, 198–9, 201, 203– 9, 211, 214, 216, 224, 227–8, 240–2, 245, 249, 253, 257, 259–60, 273–6, 281, 293, 308–9 Hera 107, 110, 144, 146–50, 155, 157, 218, 222, 264 – Aphrodite Hera 65 – bretas of 145, 147, 155 – Hera Aigophagos 66 Herakles 54, 56, 62, 64–7, 95, 109, 111, 115, 117–20, 122– 3, 136–7, 146, 149–50, 154, 170–1, 175, 186, 207–8, 213, 216–17, 229, 236, 265, 268,

330

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

288, 295, 297, 301–2, 305, 312 Heraklids 49, 105–6, 108, 110– 11, 113–14, 116, 118–30, 132–5, 137–8, 143, 150–7 – return of 119–20, 152– 3 hero, hero cult 3–4, 65, 109– 10, 115–16, 135–6, 141–3, 145, 150, 153–4, 170–3, 175, 179–81, 192, 202, 207, 217, 221–2, 224, 227–8, 230, 238, 240 Herodotus 14, 44, 121–2, 125, 132–3, 136, 172, 193, 207, 224, 227, 229, 231, 233–6, 239–40, 245, 248, 272–3, 304 Hesiod 119, 173, 179, 304 hieros gamos 148, 157 Hippasos (FGH 589) 17–18, 34, 61, 70, 83–4, 86 Hippokoontidai 56, 62, 64–7, 214, 216, 242, 254, 274, 293 – Enarsphoros 214, 254, 274, 293 historiography – didacticism in 10, 39, 60, 97 – local (= epichoric) 8, 10, 63, 97, 199 – Attic see Atthidography – Lakōnika 30, 49, 61, 83, 86, 90, 95, 97 hubris 90, 136, 176, 235–6, 272 Hyllos (Heraclid) 119, 123, 283, 298 Hyllos of Soli 26 I Ionia, Ionians 107, 139, 144–6, 148, 153, 235

Iphigenia 4, 191–2, 194, 196, 198–9, 206, 216, 230–1, 241–2, 260, 265, 275–7, 281–2, 300 Isagoras 4, 169, 232–3, 236–9, 243–4 Isocrates 20, 29, 193–4, 205, 209, 215, 245, 249, 253–5, 279, 301, 303 Isthmus (of Corinth) 180, 186, 213, 234–5 – games at (Isthmia) 186, 188 Istros (FGH 334) 211–2, 221, 296, 304 J Jacoby, F. 10, 17, 21–2, 26, 29, 35–7, 39, 49–52, 54–63, 68– 9, 83–6, 88, 90, 95, 114, 127, 176–7, 183, 185, 187–8, 207, 209, 241, 273 K Karneia 8, 31, 49, 105, 112, 145, 150–7 (see also Apollo) – Karneios (hero) 65, 151, 154–6 – Karnos (hero) 154–5 Kastor (see also Dioscuri) 4, 65, 134–5, 153, 202, 220, 225–6, 248–51, 255–7, 262, 266–7, 277–8, 280, 286, 289, 312 katabasis (see also Hades) 188– 9, 191, 202, 252, 255, 260 Kerkyon 212, 217, 304 Kharillos (Spartan king) 47, 125 Kimon 171, 298 Kleisthenes 4, 133, 169, 171, 228, 230–3, 236–40, 243

INDEX Kleomenes I (Spartan king) 136–7, 228, 232–7, 239, 243–4 Kleomenes III (Spartan king) 11, 15–6, 22–8, 31–2, 37–48, 52, 94, 96–8 Kore 67, 187–8, 215, 274, 280, 294 Kypselos, chest of 185, 222–3, 240, 245, 248, 254, 263–4, 290, 301 L Lawgiver see Nomothetes Leda 202–4, 242, 266–8, 270, 288–9, 312, 314 Leleges 146 Lemnos 132, 134 Leonidas I (Spartan king) 143 Leonidas II (Spartan king) 22, 95 Leukippidai (Hilaira and Phoebe) 66, 201, 225–6, 247, 254, 300–1, 304, 306, 309, 312 lexicography, lexicographers 13, 36, 51, 55–6, 61, 68–9 Lucian 194, 200–1, 205, 207, 209, 246, 250, 254–5, 279, 286, 301 Lycurgus 3–4, 8–9, 11–12, 14– 15, 17, 19–20, 26, 28–9, 32– 5, 37–40, 45, 47, 49, 59–60, 66, 69, 86–98, 105, 111–15, 123–8, 130, 143, 150, 152, 156–7 Lysander vii, 3, 9, 11, 18, 84, 92, 105–10, 116, 127–30, 143–4, 150, 153, 156–7 Lysandreia 105–7, 109–11, 130, 150, 157 Lysanoridas 153–4

331 M Mantineia 36, 141 Marathon 119, 181, 203–4, 229–30, 232, 281, 290, 295, 298 Marathos (hero) 181, 227, 256–7, 281, 295 marriage 2–3, 15, 22, 106, 133– 4, 148–50, 156–7, 172–3, 189, 191–9, 201, 205–6, 209–12, 214–16, 218, 231, 236, 241, 252–3, 255, 261, 267, 274, 280, 283, 289, 294, 297, 299, 303–5 – law at Athens 192–4 Megara, Megarid, Megarians 204, 206, 215, 219, 221, 225, 227, 232, 235, 242–3, 252, 254, 256–7, 261, 269, 282–4, 295, 299 – Megareis (historians of) 219, 227, 246, 249, 261, 269, 282–3, 299 Megareus (hero) 261, 283, 299 Melainē 217–18 Menedemos 36 Menelaus 3, 111, 193, 196–7, 213, 218, 265, 276–7, 300 Menestheus 180–1, 227–8, 236–9, 243–4, 257–8, 267–8, 285, 294–5, 297, 305, 310 Messene, Messenians 5, 18, 63, 84, 111, 113, 119–21, 129, 131, 151–2, 215–16, 225–6, 243 – Messenian wars 112– 13, 131, 133–4 Minyai 132–5 Mitchison, Naomi 42–3 Mnesistratos (Thasos) 24 Molpis (FGH 237) 17–18, 31, 34, 70, 83–4, 86

332

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Mounichia see Arkteia Myron of Priene (FGH 106) 63, 130 myth, mythology, mythologizing 3–4, 13, 55, 58, 62, 64–5, 68, 95, 106, 120–3, 133–4, 145– 6, 152, 156, 169–70, 173–4, 178, 180–1, 183, 185, 187–8, 195, 197, 199–200, 202–4, 207–8, 212–15, 217–32, 234–7, 239–41, 243–4, 253– 5, 257, 273, 288, 290 – traditions of 4, 17, 69, 190, 208, 228, 240, 242 N Nabis 16, 85, 91, 94, 97–8 Nemesis (Goddess) 199, 203– 4, 230–1, 242, 248–52, 267, 270–1, 290 Neodamodeis (and Brasideioi) 130, 141 Nikokles (FGH 587) 17–18, 31, 33, 70, 83, 86 nomothesia 48, 87, 112–13, 126 nomothetēs/nomothetai 12, 87, 111, 143 O Odysseus 65, 179 oikistēs, oikistai 110, 112, 114– 16, 118, 121–3, 125–6, 129, 131, 133, 136, 141–2, 157 oligarchy 9–10, 25, 27, 32, 39, 94, 110, 144, 150, 238 Ollier, F. 7–8, 17, 22, 24, 28, 35, 37–41, 46 Olympia 2, 49, 52, 108, 143, 151, 186, 222, 240, 264, 290, 311 Olympiodorus (commentator on Aristotle) 12–14

oracle, oracles 12–13, 108–9, 112–13, 116–17, 126–7, 131, 136–7, 145, 209, 280–1, 295 Orestes, bones of 111, 154 P Panathenaia 150, 240 Paris (Alexandros) 4, 172, 189, 193, 196–7, 201, 207–9, 262, 275, 277–8, 286, 296, 309 Partheniai (Taras) 130–1, 135 Pausanias (Lakon; FGH 592) 17, 18, 61, 83, 85 Pausanias (Periegetes) 55–6, 62–8, 92, 128, 133, 146, 153–5, 176, 198, 200–2, 206, 216, 219, 221–3, 227, 232, 240, 246, 250, 252, 254–5, 258, 261, 263, 265, 271, 282, 285, 296 Pausanias (Spartan king) 8, 18, 47, 106–10, 114, 126–9, 136 Pausanias (Spartan regent) 31, 66, 130 pederasty 25, 45, 217–18 Peirithous 175, 183, 188–9, 191–2, 200–2, 205, 210, 213, 215, 223, 231, 241, 248–53, 255, 259, 261, 264–5, 267–8, 271, 274, 276, 278, 280, 288–9, 294, 297, 299–300, 303, 305, 311–12, 314 Peisistratus, Peisistratids 171, 204, 209, 228–31, 233, 239, 243 Peloponnesian(s) 4, 96, 120, 122, 135, 176, 185, 191, 213, 215–6, 219–20, 227–8, 231– 2, 234, 238–9, 241–3, 248– 51, 256, 272, 290 – Peloponnesian League 1, 93, 144, 233–4, 237, 243

INDEX – Peloponnesian War 13, 227–8, 244, 272, 290 Peloponnesus 25–7, 57, 85, 111, 118–9, 121, 123, 144, 151, 204, 214, 232, 234, 254, 256, 263, 274, 281, 294, 303, 306 – division of 57, 119 Penelope 65, 67 Perikles 13, 172, 178, 237–8 – citizenship law of 172, 178, 193 Persaios (FGH 584) 17–19, 21, 29, 31–3, 36–9, 47, 70–1, 83, 97 P(h)ersephone 156, 175, 188– 9, 192, 201–2, 225, 241–2, 248–52, 267, 274, 276, 288 Persia(ns) 170, 178, 232–3, 235, 239, 290 Phaistos (FGH 593) 17–18, 34, 83–4 Pherecydes of Athens (FGH 3) 146, 153, 173, 221, 241, 304 Pherecydes of Syros 13, 41 Philochorus (FGH 328) 9, 13, 69, 177 Philopoimen 34, 45, 84–5, 90– 2, 94, 96 Photius 34, 36, 217 Phylarchus (FGH 81) 23, 28–9, 31, 40–1, 46–7, 88, 96, 109 Plato 10, 12, 14–15, 19, 40, 52, 70–2, 76, 80, 94, 179, 204, 301 Pleistoanax (Spartan king) 117, 127–8 Plutarch 2, 11–17, 19, 22–3, 26, 28–9, 33–5, 37–41, 43, 46–7, 61, 85–92, 94–6, 108– 109, 112, 153–4, 171–2, 176–7, 179–85, 187–8, 190–

333 1, 194, 196, 199, 201–2, 205, 209, 213–14, 216–18, 227–8, 236, 241–2, 244, 246, 250, 257, 269, 273, 281–3, 291 Polemon 18, 31, 52, 61–2, 65– 8, 70, 72, 78–9, 86, 200, 206, 246, 256, 262, 286 polis 3, 19, 40, 63, 91–2, 112, 115, 129, 152, 154, 156, 170–2, 194, 226, 244 – citizenship in vii, 124, 127, 131–2, 144, 172, 178, 193 – cults of 4, 7, 17, 50, 54– 6, 58, 61–9, 82, 106–7, 110, 115–16, 118–19, 133–5, 144, 147–50, 154–5, 177, 180, 199, 203–4, 224, 230, 237, 242, 294 – festivals of 8, 31, 49, 54–5, 61, 65, 97, 106–7, 110, 118, 143, 145, 148– 52, 157, 180 politeia (constitution) 2, 7, 9–15, 17, 19–20, 23, 27–32, 36, 38–40, 44–6, 48, 52, 61, 83, 85, 89, 91, 96–8, 105, 110, 114, 124, 143, 157, 170 Polybius 10, 41, 45, 55, 85, 90 Polydeukes (see also Dioscuri) 4, 134, 202, 257, 265–7, 277–8, 280, 289, 312 Polydorus (Spartan king) 113 Polykrates (FGH 588) 17, 18, 31, 70, 76, 78, 82–3, 86 Polykrates (FGH 597) 10 Polykrates of Samos 106, 144 Poseidon 65, 107, 145, 172, 183, 186, 192, 271, 276, 278, 280, 309 – Poseidon Gaiaokhos 67

334

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Prokles (see also Eurysthenes) 114–15, 119, 121–2, 125–6, 128–9, 132–3, 135, 145 propaganda 8, 98, 127–8, 156, 174, 230, 237, 239, 243 Proxenos (FGH 703) 17–21, 97 Ptolemy I 50–1 Ptolemy II 7, 22, 24–5, 50–1, 58 Ptolemy III 22, 24–7 Ptolemy IV 22, 24, 51 Pyrrhus (Epirus) 21 R Rhamnous 115, 199, 203–4, 242, 290 S sacrifice 31, 48, 54, 65, 67, 97, 109–10, 114–15, 117, 119, 142–3, 148, 154, 227, 256, 281 Samos 3, 105–10, 143–7, 149– 50, 154, 156–7, 184, 195, 245, 256, 276–7, 281 – Heraia (Heraion) at 105–6, 110, 143–8, 150, 154, 157 – stemmataia at 151 – Tonaia at 145–7 Sellasia 24, 27, 46 Sinis 186, 212, 217, 304 Siwa, oracle at 108–9, 137 Skyros 213, 215, 297 Solon 9, 71, 204, 236 Sosibios (FGH 595) 7, 17–19, 30, 35, 44–5, 48–66, 68–9, 71, 73–5, 81, 84, 97, 285 Sparta, culture of – acquisitiveness in 12– 13, 28, 90 – diaita of 33, 38, 44–5, 143

– ethē of 49, 52 – gymnopaidia in 44, 54, 65, 86–7, 145, 151 – hyporkhēmatika in 56–7 – iron money (pelanors) of 11–14 – local historiography (= Laconian historiography) of 2–3, 7–8, 10, 16–8, 20, 46, 54, 61, 63, 83, 85, 96–8, 111, 143 – proedria in 186, 188, 272 Sparta, government of – decarchies of 108, 110 – dyarchy in 3–4, 7–9, 13, 15, 35, 39, 42, 46–7, 49, 63, 94–6, 105–6, 108–13, 115–8, 120, 122–8, 130, 132–6, 143, 153, 155–6, 196, 233, 235–8, 243–4 – timai of kings in 106, 112, 116, 118, 125, 132, 142 – ephors, ephorate in 9, 31, 33, 39, 47, 60, 65, 94–5, 108, 116, 125, 127–8, 136, 152 – eunomia of 92, 111–13, 125, 128, 156 – gerontes, gerousia in 34–5, 87, 94, 125, 127 – Great Rhetra of 70, 112–13 – homoioi in 59–60 Sparta, military of 8, 19 – hegemony by 1, 3, 9, 14, 48, 63, 85, 105, 108 – hippeis in 44, 155 – invasion of Attica by 231–3, 235–9, 243–4, 295

INDEX – laphura (= spoils) at Sparta 262, 286, 300–1, 308–9 Sparta, religion of – diabatēria in 115 – Ergatia in 149 – kribanai in 56 – Pythioi in 116 Sparta, society of – age-classes in 44–5 – conservatism of 69, 95– 6, 108, 140 – Helots and Helotage in 15, 27, 31, 40, 90, 92, 130–1, 134, 140–1, 143, 151–2 – land tenure (klēroi) in 15, 28, 40, 112–3, 115, 119, 130, 152 – ‘mirage’ of 2–3, 7–8, 98–99 – perioeci in 40, 69, 83, 116, 127, 129, 226 – reform in 7, 15–16, 22– 3, 32, 40, 42, 44–5, 47, 52, 94, 96–8, 112, 127, 236 – Spartiates in 13, 45, 69, 84, 86, 116, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 136–8, 141, 151–2, 218 Spendon 9 Sphairos (FGH 585) 7, 17–20, 22–9, 31–48, 52, 60–1, 70, 86, 97–8 stasis 129, 228, 235, 239, 244 Stesichorus 74, 194, 198–9, 206, 208, 240, 245, 248, 252, 254–5, 264–5, 282, 300 Stoics, Stoicism 7, 17, 19–26, 29–30, 33, 36–41, 46–9, 83, 97

335 Strabo 9, 44, 55, 75, 113–14, 119, 128, 204, 206, 246, 250, 289 synoecism 107, 170, 172, 213, 238 syssitia (messes) 12, 15, 23, 30– 3, 35, 39, 44–5, 47, 97, 151– 2, 209 – epaïkla (meals at) 32–3 T Terpander 9, 41, 73, 112 Thaletas 9, 41, 57 Thebes 132, 153, 234 Themistokles 8, 115 Theophrastus 12, 50, 196 Theopompus (FGH 115) 11, 13–14, 47, 60, 122, 154 Theopompus (Spartan king) 13 Thera 119, 128–9, 132–5 Therykion 46 Theseids (Akamas and Demophon) 208, 228, 257–8, 267, 278, 310 Theseus 3–4, 169–77, 180– 225, 227–32, 235–44, 246, 248–53, 255–62, 264–5, 267–9, 271–2, 274–86, 288– 90, 293–300, 302–6, 309–15 – Hippe and 173, 221, 304 Thesprotis 201–2, 206, 252, 255, 264, 285, 297, 300 Thibron (FGH 581) 9, 18, 114 Thucydides 10, 14, 88, 117, 120, 138–41, 228, 238–9 Timaios (FGH 566) 52, 57, 63, 71 Timalkos 219, 256, 261, 283, 299 Titakos 227–8, 243, 257, 272, 306 Tlepolemus 109, 115, 118–19

336

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Troy 49, 118, 207–8, 235, 278, 296, 302 Tyndareus 64, 67, 175, 192, 202, 204, 209, 214, 216, 242, 265–7, 274, 280, 289, 293, 297, 301, 309, 312, 314 (see also Dioscuri) tyranny, tyrants 90, 94, 138, 222, 229–30, 235, 237–8 Tyrtaeus 9, 111, 120 W wealth/land, redistribution of (anadasmos) 25, 33, 40–2, 57, 115–16, 124–5, 127, 129, 151, 157 X xenēlasia (at Sparta) 11, 13–14

xenia (guest friendship) 109, 234 Xenophon 9–11, 13–14, 18, 32, 45, 47, 88, 114, 154, 301 xoanon 65, 67 Z Zeno (Stoic) 19, 21–2, 25, 41 Zeus 55, 117, 119–20, 148–9, 157, 183, 186, 189, 192, 201–3, 214, 218, 230–1, 241, 266–8, 271, 274, 276, 278, 280, 288, 293, 297, 300, 303, 306, 313–14 – Zeus Agētor 73, 115 – Zeus Ammon 34, 84 – Zeus Hypatos 66 – Zeus Kotyleos 67

INDEX LOCORUM References found exclusively in footnotes appear in italics. Aelian Varia Historia 4.5: 202; appendix C, 305.

Aristokrates (FGH 591) T 1: 84; F 1: 85–6; F 2: 87; F 3: 87; F 4: 85; 90; F 1–4: Table 3, 34; Table 6, 70–2; F 5–7: 95–6. See Table 1, 18.

Aethlios of Samos (FGH 536) F 3: 145.

Aristophanes Aves 1010–20: 13. Lysistrata 272–85: 232.

Alcman (PMGF) Fr. 5a–b: Table 2, 31; appendix A, 245–6: appendix C, 261; F 21: 194.

Aristophanes (scholia to) ΣClouds 1006: 177; 184; 190; appendix C, 278–9.

Andocides (Blass) Fr. 3: 9.

Aristotle Politics 1270a15–29: 15–16; 1274a 23–31: 125; 1333b18–22: 9. Rhetoric 2.23.4–5 (1397b); 201– 2; 215. Fragmenta (Gigon) Fr. 542: 35; Fr. 543.35–40: 152; Fr. 549: 13; Fr. 550: 12. See Table 1, 18.

Antiochus of Syracuse (FGH 555) F 1: 130–2. Apollodorus Library 2.8.1–5: 119–20; 120; 2.174–5: 154–5; 154; 3.10.3–4: 24; 3.10.7: 203; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 266–7; 3.126– 8: appendix C, 290 Epitome 1.16: 217; 1.23–4: 201; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 267–8.

[Aristotle] Athenaion Politeia 4.1–4: 9. Asios of Samos (PEGF) Fr. 7: 145.

Aristokles (FGH 586) F 1: 86; Table 6, 70.

337

338

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 3.81f: 61–2; 4.138b–143a: 30; 8.334b– d: 204; 13.557a: 211–2; 221; appendix C, 303–4; 13.602d: 217; 218; 15.690e–f: 61. See Table 2, 31.

Diodorus Siculus 4.9.6: 149; 4.32.3: 136–8; 4.33.5: 216; 4.39.1: 149; 4.63: 175; 201; 204–5; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 268; 287– 8; 7.12.5: 12; 8.12.6: 113; 14.13.2–8: 9; 108–9; 14.33.6: 108.

Callimachus Hymn to Apollo 2.72–3: 116–7.

Diogenes Laertius 1.185: 24; 2.143: 36; 7.172: 37; 7.177–8: 24.

Cercidas (Powell) Fr. 4: 25; F 8: 25.

Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 2.38.5: 54.

Dioskurides (FGH 594) T 1: 29; T 2: 19; 29; T 3: 20; 29; F 1–2: 19; F 1: Table 3, 34; 35; F 3: 32; F 4: 36; Table 3, 34; F 5: 36; 52; Table 3, 34; F 1–5: Table 6, 71. See Table 1, 18.

Critias (D/K) Fr. 6–10: 10; Fr. 34–7: 10.

Douris of Samos (FGH 76) F 1: 106; 109–11.

Demetrios of Skepsis (FGH 2013) F 1: 151–3; Table 2, 31.

Ephorus (FGH 70) F 18b: 121–2; F 116: 128–9; F 117: 126–7; F 118: 113–4; 122; 126–7; F 148: 10; 40; F 206: 9; F 216: 130–2; F 205: 11; 47.

Charon of Lampsacus (FGH 262) T 1: 8; F 8: 8.

[Demosthenes] Against Neaira (Or. 59): 178. Dicaearchus (Wehrli) F 66: 181; appendix A, 245–6; F 72: 15. see Table 1, 18. Dio Chrysostom Orationes 11.44–5: 185; 200; 204–5; 209; 222–3; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 263–4; 290–1.

Euripides Andromache 450–2: 13. Supplices 352–3: 170. Hellanicus (FGH 323a) T 1–8: 8; F1–29: 8; F 14– 19:175–6; F 14: 188–9; F 15: 188; F 18: 189; F 85: 9; F 116: 113; 126–7; F 168: 216. See Table 1; 18; appendix B, 259–60.

INDEX Herodotus 1.65–6: 125; 1.172: 146; 3.39.48: 144; 3.55.2: 144; 4.147: 132; 135; 4.145–6: 134; 5.41–8: 136–8; 5.49–51: 235; 5.58–61: 132; 5.62–78: 233–4; 5.70.1: 239; 5.72.3: 236; 5.75.3: 237; 6.49–50: 239; 6.52.1: 122– 3; 6.52.5: 132–3; 6.57.2: 116; 6.66: 234; 6.73: 239; 6.76–81: 233; 9.73: Table 2, 31; appendix A, 245–6; 9.82: appendix C, 272–3. Hesychius See Table 7, 73–82. Hippasos (FGH 589) T 1: 84; F 1: 86; Table 3, 34; Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Homer Iliad 2.546–58: 170; 2.653–5: 118; 3.139–40: 197; 3.144: 197; 5.392: 149; 9.144–5: 199; 10.428–9: 146; 19.297–9: 193; 197; 22.451: 189; 24.770: 189 Odyssey 11.321–5: 173. Homer (scholia to) Σ AD Hom. Il. 3.242: 203; 206; 220; 223; 225–6; appendix A, 245–7; appendix C, 262; 266; 286. Σ D Hom. Il. 3.144: 177; 182; 187–90; 201; 206; 241–2; appendix A, 245–7; appendix C, 275–6. Σ Hom. Od . 8.372 D: 86.

339 Eustathius Od . 1.241.21–4: 86; Od . 1.304.18: 86.

Hyginus Fabulae 79: appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 289. Isocrates 10.18–20: 200; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 279–80; 39: appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 280. Justin Epitome 3.2.4–4.1: 10. Konon (FGH 24) F 1.24: 154–6. Libanius Declamationes 4.2.85: 206; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 305–6. Lucian Gallus 17: 207; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 301–3. Charidemus 16–17: 205; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 301–3. Lycophron (scholia to) ΣLyc. Alexandra 513: 190; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 275. ΣLyc. Alexandra 102: 190; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 281. ΣLyc. Alexandra 143: 190; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 281.

340

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

ΣLyc. Alexandra 503: 190; 201; appendix C, 281. ΣLyc. Alexandra 183: 190; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 281–2. Lysander (FGH 583) T 1a: 9; 126–30. Menodotus (FGH 541) F 1: 145–50. Molpis (FGH 590) T 1: 84; 86; F 1: Table 2, 31; F 2a: 84; 86; Table 3, 34; F 1–2: Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Myron (FGH 106) F 1: 130. Nicolaos of Damascus (FGH 90) F 103z: 14. Nikokles (FGH 587) F 1: 33; 86; Table 2, 31; Table 6, 70–2; F 2: 33; 86; Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Pausanias 1.17.4–6: 201; 206; appendix C, 296–8; 1.33.8: 204; 1.41.3–5: 194; 219; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 261–2; 271; 282– 3; 298–9; 2.18.9: 237–8; 2.21.3: 60; 2.22.6–7: 206; appendix A, 245–6; 3.1.1–10.5: 63–4; 3.2.5– 7: 128; 3.3.1: 113; 3.5.17–20: 153; 3.10.6–21.2: Table 5, 65– 7; appendix C, 299–300; 3.13.4: 154–6; 3.11.11: 64; 3.15.3: 55;

64; 216; 3.16.4–5: 136–8; 3.17.2–3: 232; appendix C, 300–1; 3.18.14–15: appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 285–6; 3.19.7: 55; 3.19.9: 64; 3.20.9; 155; 3.21.7: 135; 4.6.4: 62; 4.7.7: 113; 4.13.7: 62; 4.14.1: 131; 4.31.1: 152; 5.19.2–3: appendix C, 263; 6.3.14–16: 108; 7.4.1–4: 145–8; 8.51.3–5: 92; 9.16.7: 153; 9.25.2: 149; 10.9.4: 107; 15.1–2: 62. See Table 5, 65–7. Pausanias (rex) (FGH 582) T 1: 61; T 1a: 9; T 2b: 9; 47; T 3: 9. see Table 1, 18. Persaios (FGH 584) T 1: 19; F 1–2: 19; F 1: 37; Table 2, 31; Table 6, 70–2; F 2: 32; 33; Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Phaistos (FGH 593) F 1: Table 3, 34. Pherecydes (FGH 3) F 84: 153; F 155; 146. Pherecydes (of Syros) (D/K) Fr. A 1: 13. Philochorus (FGH 328) F 216: 9. Phylarchus (FGH 81) F 8: 146; F 43, 109; F 44: Table 2, 31.

INDEX Pindar (Snell/Maehler) Pythian 5.60: 116; 5.63–72: 116; 5.72–76: 132; 135–6. Isthmian 7.14: 115; 132. Fr. 140a58: 115; Fr. 243: 183; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 271. Pindar (scholia to) ΣPin. Olympian 149a: 143. ΣPin. Olympian 6.46a–d: 59; 48a–d: 59: 52e: 59. ΣPin. Pythian 9.90d: 84. ΣPin. Isthmian 7.18b–c: 132–3. ΣPin. Nemean 155a: 122. Plato Protagoras 342c: 14. Leges 3.684d–e: 40. Plutarch Agesilaus 2.6: 196; 9.1: 13; 10.4: 11; 95; 19.9: 116; 35.1: 36. Agis 3: 28; 5: 28; 5.4: 33; 8.2: 33; 9.1: 13; 10.2–4: 11; 14; 41. Cleomenes 2.3: 23; 10.1–6: 47; 11.2: 26; 16.2–3: 27; 17.3: 27; 22.7: 46; 23.1: 27; 31.1– 6: 46. Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 3.1: 11. Lycurgus 1.3: 88; 1.6: 89; 2–4: 88–9; 3.1–4: 125; 5.5: 35; 47; 6.1: 112–3; 7.2–3: 88–9; 8.1–2: 28; 8.4: 15; 88–9; 8.5–6: 113; 9.1–5: 11; 88–9; 10.2: 12; 12.3: 15; 88–9; 13– 14: 88; 15–19: 88; 15.3–5: 193; 15.5: 209; 16.4–7: 45; 25.1: 209; 27.3–4: 13; 28.4:

341 152; 28.5: 9; 31.2: 19; 24– 31: 88–9. Lysander 1: 108; 3.2: 107; 17.1– 6: 11; 17.5–6: 12; 18.1: 108; 18.3: 110; 24.3–25.4: 9; 24.4: 108–9; 25.3: 108–9; 29.3:153. Moralia 64D: 45; 84A: 95; 208B–225F: 11; 220C: 95; 225F–229A: 11; 226B–D: 11–12; 14; 229A–236E: 11; 235B: 45; 236F–238D; 11; 37; 237B: 45; 238C: 95; 239F: 13; 239E–240B: 92– 5; 240C–D: 11; 247A–F: 134; 296B–D: 134; 578B– C: 153–4; 984A–B: 50. Pelopidas 6.13.1: 153–4. Philopoemen 16.3–6: 90–1. Theseus 2.1–2: 171–2; 6.1: 183; 17.3: 188; 241–2; 22.6–7: appendix C, 269; 25.5–7: 185–7; 29.1–2: 221; 30: 183; 31: 190; 201; 214; 241– 2; appendix C, 273–4; 291– 6; 31.2: 175; 185–7; 189; 32.1: 180–2; 32.2: 228; 238; 32.3–4: 184; 210; appendix A, 245–6; 32.6–7: 177–80; 182; appendix A, 245–6; appendix C, 269–70; 282– 4; 33: 236–8.

Polemon of Ilium Fr. 43: 61; Fr. 64: 61; Fr. 86: Table 2, 31. See Table 1, 18. Polybius 2.51.2: 27; 2.63.1: 27; 6.45–6: 10; 6.48.2: 40.

342

MYTH, TEXT AND HISTORY AT SPARTA

Polykrates (FGH 588) F 1: 86; Table 2, 31; Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Polykrates of Athens (FGH 597) F 1: 10. Proxenos (FGH 703) F 1–4: 20–1. Sosibios (FGH 595) T 1: 48; 50–1; T 3: 51; F 1–3: 49; T 2–4: 50; F 2: 49; F 4: 45; 54; F 4–5: 48; F 6: 48; F 6a–b: 55; F 7: 48; 59; F 8: 48–9; 59; F 9: 49; 60–1; F 10: 54; F 11: 55; 61; F 12: 55; F 13: 55; 62; 64; F 14: 54; F 15: 60; F 16: 54; F 18: 62; F 19: 59; F 20: 55; F 21: 59; F 22: 55; F 23: 56; F 24: 57; F 25: 55. See Table 1, 18; Table 4, 53; Table 5, 65–7; Table 6, 71–2; Table 7, 73–82. Sphairos (FGH 585) T 1: 19–20; 22; 24; 39; T 1a: 44; T 2: 22; T 3a: 22; T 3b: 23; 44; F 1: 19–20; 32; Table 6, 70–2; F 2: 35; Table 3, 34; Table 6, 70–2. See Table 1, 18. Stesichorus (PMGF) Fr. 191: 206; appendix A, 245–6. Strabo 9.1.17 C396–7: 204; appendix C, 289–90; 10.4.16 C408: 9; 13.3.1–2 C620–1: 146; 14.1.14– 5 C637–8: 146.

Theophrastus (Fortenbaugh) T 2: 50; Fr. 512A:12. Theopompus (FGH 115) F 69: 60; F 332: 47; F 357: 154–6. Thibron (FGH 581) T 1: 9; see Table 1; 18. Thucydides 1.37–43: 144; 1.144.2: 13; 2.15: 170; 3.92: 138; 4.80: 140–1; 141; 4.81: 138–9; 4.88: 139; 4.107.8: 140; 4.121.1: 139; 4.133: 147; 5.16.2–4: 117–8; 5.19.24: 138; 5.11.1–2: 141–2; 8.63–7: 144–5; 8.75.3: 144. Tyrtaeus (W2) Fr. 2.12–15: 120; Fr. 4: 112–3; Fr. 11.1–2: 120; Fr. 19.8–10: 120. Xenophon Agesilaus 1: 122. Hellenica 1.5.1–7: 107; 2.1.7–32: 107; 2.1.13–14: 108; 2.2.6: 144; 2.3.6–7: 109; 2.4.29: 108; 3.4.2: 108; 3.5.25: 127; 5.3.9: 131; 6.3.6: 134; 5.4.1: 153. Respublica Lacedaemoniorum 1.5: 209; 2.12–13: 45; 4.3: 155; 5.3: 32; 7.5–6: 11; 10.8: 111; 13.3: 116; 14.4: 13; 15.4: 116; 15.9: 116. [Xenophon] (‘Old Oligarch’) Athenaion Politeia 4.1–4: 9.

343