1. On this Heracleides and on the text, its date, and the tradition in which it was written, see Pfister 1951.

2. On the family and policies of Eurycleides, see Habicht 1982b, 179–82; MacKendrick 1969, 39–43.

3. Habicht 1982b, 79–142.

4. On the role of Diogenes as “benefactor” and on his cult, see Le Bohec 1993, 165–72, 264; Habicht 1982b, 79–84; M. Osborne 1982, 187–88; Oikonomides 1982.

5. Cf. IG II² 3870. On Pausimachos and the family, see M. Osborne 1981–82, 2:187–88.

6. Inscribed seat in the theater: IG II² 5080; sacrifices of two bulls by ephebes, IG II² 1011.14–15 (107/6), 1028.23–24 (101/0), 1029.14 (99/8), 1039.55–57, 1040.2, 1043.48–49; festival Diogeneia, IG II² 1029.14, 1039.55–57, 1040.2, 1043.48–49.

7. For the recent argument that the Diogeneion was a palaestra adjoining the gymnasion of Ptolemy and for its location and close association with the ephebes, see Miller 1995a. See also Frantz 1979, 201–3; Dow 1960, 408.

8. 211 B.C.: IG II² 844.32–43. Ca. 215: IG II² 834.25–26, for the text and date of which see Habicht 1982b, 118–27.

9. On this cult see Habicht 1982b, 84–93; Rocchi 1980; Maass 1972, 109; Oliver 1960, 106–17; Wycherley 1957, ##125–31.

10. See H. Thompson’s remarks in Habicht 1982b, 92–93 n. 73.

11. IG II² 4676 (Eurycleides), 2798 (Micion III). See Habicht 1982b, 84 n. 32.

12. IG II² 844 (of 212/1), 908, 909, 987, 1236; Josephus AJ 14.153 of 106/5.

13. E.g. SEG 15.104.5–8. For other examples, see Pélékidis 1962, 217 n. 3; and below, chapter 8, p. 254.

14. Nilsson 1967–74, 1.144.

15. Habicht 1982b, 81–82.

16. On the personification and development of Demos, see Lawton 1995, 55–58. For representations of Demos on the document reliefs of the fourth century, see Lawton, #38 (the antityranny law of 337/6), 49, 54, 117, 126, 133, 149, 150, 167, 172, 176.

17. Above, n. 12. The statue of Eumaridas of Cydonia was moved from the Acropolis to this sanctuary on the recommendation of Eurycleides and Micion in 212/1 (IG II² 844.33–43). On links with Ptolemy III Euergetes in IG II² 4676, see below, pp. 178–79.

18. On this cult of the Charites and a votive reliefs from it, see Palagia 1989–90.

19. SEG 33.115. See chapter 5, pp. 164-65.

20. On the role of the daughters of Cecrops in the Arrephoria and on varying interpretations of the significance of the ritual, see Kearns 1989, 23–27; Brulé 1987, 79–98; Robertson 1983; Burkert 1966.

21. For the identification of a larger than life-size statue, found in the Agora, as this Aphrodite Hegemone, see E. Harrison 1990.

22. For the role of Aphrodite here Judith Binder has suggested to me a simpler and more elegant, hence perhaps more attractive possibility: that the new cult of Demos and the Graces was founded in the venerable sanctuary of the Athenian Aphrodite Ourania (on whom see above, pp. 107–108), that this makes explicable Aphrodite Hegemone of the Demos on the altar of 194/3, and that the Charites of that altar are simply the usual attendants of Aphrodite and are not and need not be given individual names.

Further complicating the situation is, however, the recent discovery of a naiskos of Aphrodite Hegemone in the fort at Rhamnous and particularly patronized by the commander of the garrison (SEG 41.90; see above chapter 5, p. 158). How this Rhamnousian Aphrodite Hegemone of 222/1 relates to the Aphrodite Hegemone “of the Demos” of 194/3 remains uncertain. The simultaneous or prior existence of a Rhamnousian Aphrodite Hegemone may, however, explain why Aphrodite Hegemone of the state cult needed the further definition “of the Demos.” Whether either the Ramnousian or Agora Aphrodite should be associated with the Aphrodite who “led” Theseus on his mission to Crete (Plut. Thes. 18) is equally uncertain. On this Rhamnousian Aphrodite Hegemone, see Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 39–40.

23. Polyb. 5.106.6–8, on which see Habicht 1982a, 93–105.

24. It is noteworthy that honors for citizens were apparently not displayed there.

25. Sounion: IG II² 1300 (from 220s, for Eurycleides as general of the hoplites), 1302 (of 220/19). Rhamnous: SEG 15.111 (ca. 229/8), 112 (225/4), and 22.128 (after 229). Eleusis: SEG 25.157 of ca. 217/6, IG II² 1304 (after 211). See above, chapter 5, pp. 155–60.

26. IG II² 2869; SEG 41.162, 164–65, 248F.

27. On these honors, their date and occasion, see Habicht 1982a, 105–17, and 1992a, 74–75. Pausanias (10.10.2) claims that the Athenians dedicated at Delphi a statue of Ptolemy among their eponymous and other heroes because of their “goodwill” (εὐνοία) toward him. The statues of Demetrios Poliorcetes and his father they dedicated “in fear” (δέει).

28. On the restoration and use of IG II² 4676, see Maass 1972, 108–18.

29. Habicht 1992a, 83–84 1994, 155–56. The last securely dated expectation of the Ptolemaia is from an ephebic decree of 101/0 (IG II² 1028.100–101), but the festival has been reasonably restored also in IG II² 1029.32 of 98/7. Thereafter it disappears and may well have been among the casualties of Sulla’s sack in 86 B.C.

30. For evidence, see Wycherley 1957, #456–63. For the probable location, on the lower north slope of the Acropolis, see Miller 1995a. On the possibility that the gymnasion was built not by Ptolemy III but by Ptolemy VI in the second quarter of the second century B.C., see Miller 1995a, 230.

31. E.g., Apollodoros, FGrHist 244 F 59; IG II² 1006.19–20; Cic. de Fin. 5.1.

32. On the Eurysakeion, see Kearns 1989, 165: Wycherley 1957, #246–55.

33. On Sarapis in Athens, see Dunand 1973, 1.45–66 and 2.4–17, 144–53; Dow 1937a.

34. Plut. Mor. 362A; Tac. Hist. 4.83; D.L. 5.76. See also chapters 7, pp. 229–31, and 8, pp. 275–77.

35. Dow 1937a, 186.

36. Dow placed the birth of the first Athenian attested to have the name Sarapion ca. 250. The text honoring his son (SEG 18.20) is now known to have been inscribed by a letter-cutter working from 179/8 to 161/0, and it is not impossible that the birth of the senior Sarapion should be dated somewhat later, to the time of the great Athenian interest in Ptolemy in 224. See Tracy 1990a, 134; Dow 1937a, 221–22. Other Athenians named Sarapion (see list in M. Osborne and Byrne, 1994, 393) can all be dated to the late third century, the second century, or later.

37. IG II² 1292, on which see Dow 1937a, 188–97.

38. For Dow’s dating of an Athenian priest of Sarapis to 226/5–222/1 from IG II² 4692, see chapter 8, note 94.

39. Agora XV, #120.9–13 of 228/7; #121.7–9 of 226/5; #128.9–12 of 223/2; #130.6–9 of 220/19; #135.7–10 of 214/3; #129.7–10 of 212/1; and #147.1–4 of 203/2. Cf. #134, 138.

40. Cf. IG II² 851, 3145, 3146; SEG 25.108.10–11. For the date of IG II² 2313, see Tracy and Habicht 1991, 218 Habicht 1994, 102.

41. IG II² 836.20–21, 851.12–13, 861.19–20; SEG 25.108.10.

42. On SEG 29.116, see Tracy 1979, 174–78.

43. Tracy 1995, 40; Habicht 1992b 1994, 248–50; Gauthier 1985a, 161–63; Reinmuth 1971, 101–15.

44. Tracy 1979, 177–78; 1982a, 158–59.

45. On SEG 26.98, see Gauthier 1985a.

46. For the later evidence, see below, chapter 8, pp. 243–54.

47. Ajax’s cult as eponymous hero of the Aiantis tribe was centered in the shrine of his son Eurysakes in Athens. On the two cults of Ajax, see Kearns 1989, 81–82, 141–42. On the Aianteia, see Culley 1977, 294–296; Deubner 1932, 228.

48. SEG 29.116.17–20; 15.104.21–23, 130–31 of 127/6; IG II² 1006.30–32, 72–74 of 122/1; 1008.22–24, 75–77 of 118/7; 1011.16–18, 53–55 of 106/5; 1028.24–27 of 101/0; 1029.14–16 of 98/7; 1030.24–26. While at the Aianteia the ephebes might also sacrifice to Asclepios (SEG 15.104.23; IG II² 1011.17, 55).

49. This event is always listed separately from the Aianteia and should not be considered part of the same festival: SEG 15.104.22; IG II² 1006.28–29; 1008.17–18; 1028.27–28; 1032.8.

50. For later ephebic celebrations of the Epitaphia: IG II² 1006.22–23, 77–78; 1008.16–17; 1009.4; 1011.9–10; 1028.19–20; 1029.12–13; 1030.9, 18–19.

51. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 58.1. On the Epitaphia, see Deubner 1932, 230–31.

52. Lardinois 1992, 315–22; Mikalson 1991, 214–17.

53. Hesp. 15 (1946): 198, #40.16–17; SEG 15.104.26. The ephebic procession for the Semnai Theai may be that described by Polemon (frag. 49 Preller) and Apollodoros (FGrHist 244 F 101). Pausanias in the second century A.D. saw as part of an apparently still-living cult the altars and statues of the Semnai on the Areiopagos (1.28.6, 7.25.1–2).

54. For text, commentary, and discussion, see Aleshire 1989, 345–50.

55. On IG II² 839 see Dow 1985. On Hero Iatros, see Kearns 1989, 20–21, 171–72; Wycherley 1957, #340, 347.

56. Cf. IG II² 840, a later record of a similar procedure for the Hero Iatros. For other contemporary inventories or records of repairs of dedications, see IG II² 841, 842; Aleshire, Inv. VI, VIII, IX; SEG 26.139.

57. On this and on other events and the chronology of the period, see Habicht, 1982b, 142–58.

58. Habicht (1982b, 142–50) argues that Livy’s chronology is mistaken here, and that this decree should be dated, like the elimination of the two tribes, to late 201.

59. For examples, see Habicht 1982b, 148 n. 137; Dow 1937b, 48–50.

60. Cf. the Eleusinian reaction against Alcibiades, Diagoras the Melian, and Andocides (Clinton 1974, 15–16, 70; Mylonas 1961, 224–25).

61. Attalos may well have making a political statement as well as fulfilling personal needs when he had himself initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries in 199 (Livy 31.47).

62. Cf. Livy 31.14.11–15.7.

63. For the divine honors paid to Antigonos Gonatas, see chapter 5, pp. 160–61.

64. Attalos’ wife Apollonis was made the eponym of a new deme, Apollonieis, as had been Ptolemy’s wife Berenice in 224 (Whitehead 1986, 20).

65. For the text of which see Daux 1963. For the locations and bouleutic quotas of the demes used here, see Traill 1975.

66. These numbers are obtained by assuming that Erchia provided 7 bouleutai in the fourth century and that the demes later destroyed by Philip provided 450. The ratio of 7:450 is then applied to the number of local Erchian deities (34) and cult sites (15).

67. The exceptions are from the fort at Rhamnous: the Nemesia of 187/6 (SEG 21.435.24) and sacrifices to Zeus Soter, Athena Soteira, and sometimes Themis and Nemesis at the end of the second and the beginning of the first centuries (IG II² 2869; SEG 41.162, 164–65, 248F).

68. For archaeological evidence of the destruction of rural temples, see H. Thompson 1981, 352–54. The extensive reclamation, cleansing, restoration, and reconsecration of ca. 80 shrines and sanctuaries in the last quarter of the first century B.C. (SEG 26.121) concerned almost exclusively sites on Salamis, in Piraeus, between Athens and Piraeus, and in Athens. Only one other sanctuary, “near Hymettos” (line 58) is included. Many of these sanctuaries had probably been damaged in the Roman attacks of 87/6 (Sulla) and 48 (Calenus).

69. Parker 1987; Whitehead 1986, 176–222; Mikalson 1977.

70. For this Philip is consistently condemned by Polybius: e.g., 5.9–12, 7.14.3, 11.7.2–3, 16.1. See F. Walbank 1957–79, 1.517.

71. Polybius (5.10.1–8), writing less than a century later, after describing the impious pillaging of Thermon by Philip V, introduces for comparison Philip II and Alexander the Great:

Philip II, who first enlarged the (Macedonian) empire and led the adornment of the royal house, after he defeated the Athenians in the battle at Chaeroneia, accomplished more through his reasonableness and humaneness than through weapons. For by the war and weapons he defeated and gained authority over those who faced him on the battlefield, but by his considerateness and moderation he won over all the Athenians and their city, not, in anger, adding to what already was being done, but competing and warring only until he had the opportunity to show his gentleness and goodness. Therefore he returned prisoners of war without a ransom, provided funeral rites for the Athenian dead and delivered their bones to Antipater, and provided clothing for most of those released. And thus at little expense because of his shrewdness he accomplished a great deal.…

And what of Alexander? He was so angry at the Thebans that he enslaved the inhabitants and razed the city to the ground, but in the taking of the city he did not neglect piety toward the gods. He took the greatest care that not even an involuntary sin be committed about the temples and the sanctuaries in general. And even when he crossed into Asia and was punishing the Persians’ impieties against the Greeks, he tried to take from men a deserved punishment for what they had done, but he held off from everything consecrated to the gods, even though the Persians especially in this regard had sinned in the Greek lands.

72. In the early third century one deme had undertaken repair of sacred buildings and dedications that had been damaged, probably in warfare (IG II² 1215).

73. On the proclamation and on Greek antecedents for it, see Gruen 1984, 132–57.

74. The prytanists’ sacrifices are recorded for 196/5 (Agora XV, #166), 195/4 (#165), 193/2 (#186), 192/1 (#187), 190/89 (#171, 172), 189/8 (#173), 188/7 (#174), 185/4 (#179), 184/3 (#180), 182/1 (#183, 184), 181/0 (#167), 178/7 (#194), 175/4 (#199, 200), 174/3 (# 202), 173/2 (#206), and 169/8 (#212).

75. On the epigraphical evidence for Artemis Phosphoros, see Wycherley 1957, 56–57. On her cult in Athens see Palaiokrassa 1991, 37–38. On her cult in Athens and the rest of the Greek world and her associations with stability after a period of severe crisis, see Graf 1985, 228–36.

76. Garland 1992, 72.

77. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.24.163) reports an altar of Artemis Phosphoros at Mounichia, where a fire in the sky at night had led Thrasyboulos from Phyle. See Garland 1987, 35–36. A private dedication to her, dating perhaps from the fourth or third century B.C., was found on the south slope of the Acropolis (IG II² 4659).

78. The Hermaia attested for Athens in the fourth century (Pl. Lysis 206D; Aeschines 1.10) may have been highly localized, celebrated at each gymnasion. If IG II² 2971 refers to the Athenian Hermaia, ca. 250 B.C.; it also included a chariot race (on the date see Tracy 1995, 43–44, 171–74). On the Hermaia, see Habicht 1961, 140 1994, 37. The Eleutheria of SEG 21.458 is probably the Plataean festival attested in IG II² 3149a. On the latter see also SEG 38.178. On the Plataean Eleutheria, see Robertson 1986.

79. Tracy and Habicht 1991 Habicht 1994, 73–139; see also Tracy 1991.

80. Here it is noteworthy that in 169 there was an Athenian delegation, headed by the pankratistēs Callias, in the court of Ptolemy VI on some matter concerning the Panathenaia. There was also a separate Athenian delegation there about the Eleusinian Mysteries (Polyb. 28.19–20).

81. For a list of victors associated with the Ptolemies, see Habicht 1992a, 78–79 1994, 150–51; and for all foreigners on these lists, Tracy and Habicht 1991, 213–17, 229–33 Habicht 1994, 108–14, 130–36.

82. Tracy and Habicht 1991, 203–4 Habicht 1994, 95–97. Cf. D.L. 3.56; Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 56.

83. See Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 108–11. I list only those references to the City Dionysia that can be securely dated.

84. The accusative τὸν πατέρα of line 9 suggests that Zopyros the archon and Zopyros the father of Timothea were separate individuals, but the rest of the text would indicate otherwise. Perhaps in line 9 we have a simple grammatical error, with an accusative for a nominative.

85. For the various current theories on the Arrephoria and the nature of the service of the arrēphoroi, see Robertson 1983; Brulé 1987, 79–98; Burkert 1983, 150–54.

86. For honors of errēphoroi: IG II² 3465 by father and mother; 3470 by father, mother, and uncle; 3471 and 3472 by fathers; 3473 by father, mother, and brothers; 3482 by father; 3486 by father and mother; 3488 and 3497 by father, mother, and brothers; and 3496 by grandfather (cf. 3461, 3466). On ἐρρέφορος vs. ἀρρέφορος, see Brulé 1987, 79–82; Burkert 1966, 3–6.

87. IG II² 3488, 3497. In IG II² 3473 the errēphoros appears still to be in office.

88. According to [Arist.] Ath. Pol. (56.4) of the late fourth century, earlier the ten epimelētai had been elected and contributed to the expenses of the procession, but in the late fourth century they were selected by lot and received 10,000 drachmas from the state for expenses.

89. On the Antiochean Olympieion, see Polyb. 26.1.11; Livy 41.20.8; Strabo 9.936; Vitr. de Arch. 7.praef.15; Vell. Pat. 1.10.1; IG II² 4009. For modern studies, see Tölle-Kastenbein 1994; Abramson 1975; Travlos 1971, 402–3; Wycherley 1964; Dinsmoor 1950, 280–82; Welter 1923.

90. For a differing view of the later prosperity of the cult, see Wycherley 1964.

91. IG II² 1496.82–83, 113–114; Plut. Phoc. 37.1; IG II² 3079.5–6; Hesp. 9 (1940): 111–12, #21. On the Olympieia, see Parke 1977, 144–45; Deubner 1932, 177.

92. On the nature of the Hadrianic cult of Zeus Olympios, see Benjamin 1963.

93. Cf. Green 1990, 437–38, 505, 526; A. Stewart 1979, 47.

94. For poems concerning Athens and the city’s limited importance in this collection, see Hartigan 1979, 104–6.

95. On Phaidimos, his origins and career, and on the texts and problems of these two epigrams, see Gow and Page 1965, 2:452–55.

96. Habicht 1961, 130 1994, 26. On the family and especially on the pro-Roman activities of Leon II, see Habicht 1982b, 194–97.

97. On the Piraeic cult of the Mother of the Gods, see Garland 1987, 129–31; Vermaseren 1982, 68–97; Ferguson 1944, 107–15, 137–40; and above, chapter 5, pp. 142–43. The lack of a demotic and patronymic for Ergasion, listed among the epimelētai of the cult (IG II² 1327.33), may indicate that he was not a citizen (Ferguson 1944, 111, 113). If so, he would be the first surely attested noncitizen member in a cult association of orgeōnes.

98. The designation of a male and female deity together as αἱ θεαί (IG II² 1315.14, 1329.25) is certainly odd but may be done to suggest the prominence of the Mother. It seems better to assume this than to introduce another goddess into the cult.

99. The cult’s concern for funerals of the dead would be easily explicable if some members, such as Ergasion of IG II² 1327.33, were foreigners. See above, note 97.

100. On the cult of the Dionysiastai, see Garland 1987, 124; Ferguson 1944, 115–19.

101. For the family tree of Dionysios, see PA 4213.

102. Excavations at the site where these inscriptions were found seem to reveal a large house (of Dionysios ?) with a very large attached and colonnaded courtyard where Dionysios’ temple of Dionysos may have stood. For description and plans, see Rider 1916, 222–24; Dörpfeld 1884. The complex was probably destroyed in the sack of Sulla in 86 B.C.. (Oeconomides-Caramessini 1976).

103. The plural ξόανα (line 2) is probably poetic license.

104. The syntax of this line is muddled, but the sense seems clear.

105. IG II² 958.87–88, 93–94; 964.23–26; 2452.19.

106. See chapters 4, pp. 109–10, and 6, 171–72. For celebrations of the Chalkeia in the second century, see IG II² 930.3, 990.2. For private dedications to Athena, IG II² 4339a, b.