1. The Age of Lycourgos

In 330 B.C. Lycourgos, son of Lycophron, of the deme Boutadai, prosecuted a certain Leocrates for treason.^[1] For six years, since 336/5, Lycourgos had dominated Athenian politics, largely through control of the city’s finances, and he would continue to do so until 324. Leocrates had fled Athens, with money and mistress in hand, immediately after the victory of Philip II, king of Macedon, over the combined Athenian and Theban forces at Chaeroneia in 338, at the very moment when Athenians were expecting Philip to turn his wrath upon their city. Philip spared Athens, but Leocrates chose to live abroad, in Megara, for eight years. When Leocrates took up his life in Athens again, Lycourgos brought him to court on several charges: treason, because by abandoning the city, he subjected it to the enemy; dissolution (of the power) of the people, because he had not withstood the danger on freedom’s behalf; impiety, because for his part, he would have been responsible for the sanctuaries being torn to pieces and the temples being razed; maltreatment of parents, because he was letting disappear their tombs and depriving them of the traditional rites of the dead; and desertion and refusal to serve in the armed forces, because he, by flight, avoided military assignment (Leoc. 147).

Lycourgos’ speech against Leocrates is critically important, though usually overlooked, as a source for the religion of Athenians of its time, 330 B.C., and for understanding the development of Athenian religion in the fourth century as a whole.^[2] For us it will serve as the centerpiece of a report on the status of Athenian religion in the 330s and 320s: that is, of the status of Athenian religion at the very beginning of the Hellenistic period, the status against which we must measure changes in Athenian practiced religion in the last quarter of the fourth century, in the third and second centuries, and in the first century up to the sack of Athens by the Roman general Sulla in 86 B.C.

We first cull from the speech what Lycourgos says on religion and religious matters and then attempt to place Lycourgos’ statements into the context of his life and career, and, finally, into the context of what we know, from other sources, of the religion practiced in fourth-century Athens. The first question is what Lycourgos said; the second question is whether what he said is idiosyncratic or reflective of the views and practices of his contemporaries.

Lycourgos “believes” (ἡγοῦμαι), literally as a creed, that “the concern of the gods watches over all human activities, but especially over piety toward parents, toward the dead, and toward the gods themselves” (Leoc. 94). From parents we have received the beginning of life and the most benefits, and “it is the greatest impiety not only to sin against them but also not to spend one’s life benefiting them” (94). He relates a story, a bit mythical but fit for the younger men to hear, telling of an eruption of Mount Etna on Sicily, when burning lava flowed through a village. It caught and killed those who, in fleeing for safety, had abandoned their parents, but it spared the one young man who had stayed behind to rescue his aged, infirm father. He and his father alone were saved, and the site of the event is still called “the Place of the Pious.” From this one ought to see, Lycourgos concludes, “that the divine (τὸ θεῖον) is well intentioned (εὐμενῶς ἔχει) to good men” (95–96). Athenians in general excel other men in acting in a holy way toward parents (15), but Leocrates had left behind his parents to the enemy (97). Leocrates’ father, now dead, would be, if the dead have any perception of the affairs of the living, Leocrates’ harshest judge (136).

By his cowardly and lengthy flight, Leocrates abandoned the tombs of his ancestors to the enemy and neglected the cult owed them (8, 59, 97, 147). The old men among the jurors will vote Leocrates guilty because, for his part, he surrendered them to the enemy so that they would be not cared for in old age or buried in the free soil of their fatherland (144). The Greeks fighting the Persians at Plataea in 479 had sworn to bury all the allied troops who died in battle (81), but Leocrates did not stay even to help collect and bury his fellow Athenians who had died on the battlefield at Chaeroneia. Now he passes by their tomb shamelessly, although, so far as it depended on him, they would have been unburied (45, 144).

In regard to the gods themselves, Leocrates betrayed their temples, their statues, their sanctuaries, their honors outlined in the laws, and their sacrifices that have been handed down by the ancestors (1). So far as Leocrates was concerned, the gods’ sanctuaries would have been destroyed and their temples razed (147). Because of this, Lycourgos’ indictment is, if correct, “just,” “pious,” and “on behalf of the gods” (1; cf. 2, 27, 35, 38, 97, 146). The Athenians surpass other men in their piety toward the gods (15), but Leocrates brought no help to their sanctuaries (8), and in his flight felt not the slightest fear in abandoning the Acropolis and the sanctuary of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira (17). “The help from the gods does not aid traitors, and with good reason. For their first act of injustice is impiety concerning the gods, by depriving them of their traditional, ancestral rites” (129). Now “Leocrates will call upon the gods to save him from these dangers, but which gods? Surely not those whose temples, statues, and sanctuaries he betrayed” (143). The ancestors of the Athenians, having taken Athena as their patroness, named their city after her so that those who honor the goddess would never abandon the city. Leocrates took no thought of the traditions, of his fatherland, or of its sanctuaries, and, so far as he could, caused divine aid to be lost (26).

And not only did Leocrates betray the gods of the state. When living in Megara Leocrates had his house in Athens sold and had removed from there to Megara the domestic cults of his family, those cults which his ancestors had founded and, in the traditional and ancient ways of the Athenians, had handed down to him. Ignoring these traditions, Leocrates reestablished these cults as strangers in a land foreign and alien to them, amid Megarian not Athenian traditions. He felt no fear at their very name, “cults of the fathers” (25).

Why did Leocrates return to Athens after years of exile? “Some god led him to his punishment, so that, having fled the glorious danger (in battle), he might find an inglorious death and be subject to those whom he betrayed. For so the gods mislead the minds of wicked men” (91–92). Thus “As you vote, jurors, think that the temples and the sanctuaries are asking you to help them,” and remember that “though you vote in secret, the gods will know your way of thinking, and if you favor the traitor you subject yourselves to punishment from the gods” (146–50).

Such are the ways that Lycourgos in this speech details and applies his belief that “the concern of the gods watches over all human activities, but especially over piety toward parents, toward the dead, and toward the gods themselves.” Lycourgos expresses his thoughts on other religious topics also, in particular on oracles, on the religious services called liturgies, and on oaths.

In Against Leocrates Lycourgos cites, each time without a hint of skepticism, four Delphic oracles: one historical, one possibly historical, and two literary. Each oracle promotes, successfully, a political or moral purpose. In ca. 361 Callistratos of Aphidna (APF 8157), a prominent statesman and orator, was condemned to death by the Athenian people. He fled the city and eventually went to Delphi to inquire about his return. Delphic Apollo told him that if he returned to Athens he would find justice (literally, “he would find the laws”), and so he returned and took refuge at the altar of the Twelve Gods in the Agora. Nonetheless he was put to death by the Athenians. The point is, Lycourgos claims, that justice for criminals is punishment, and the god rightly returned the criminal to his victims. “It would be terrible (δεινὸν),” he says, “if the same messages should be given to the pious and to criminals” (93).

In the seventh century B.C. the Lacedaimonians, fighting the Messenians, sent to Delphi and were told that they should take an Athenian leader and they would then win the war. They therefore fetched the general Tyrtaeus from Athens and with his help defeated the Messenians. The Lacedaimonians also learned from the poetry of Tyrtaeus the moral system upon which they based their education of the young (105–9). In even more remote, legendary times the Peloponnesians were besieging Athens and learned from Delphi that they would capture the city if they did not kill its king Codros. Codros learned of the oracle and, by a ruse, induced the invaders to kill him. The Peloponnesians, when they realized what they had done, withdrew, and Codros by his sacrifice saved the city (83–89). Similarly, in the reign of Erechtheus Athens was about to face an invasion by Eumolpos, his Eleusinians, and the Thracians. Erechtheus learned from Delphi that the Athenians would be victorious if, before the invasion, he sacrificed his daughter. Lycourgos read out fifty-five lines from Euripides’ Erechtheus, in which Praxithea, Erechtheus’ wife, for intensely patriotic reasons, expresses her approval of the sacrifice. Erechtheus’ daughter was sacrificed, or sacrificed herself, and Athens was again saved, because of Delphic Apollo and the patriotism of her leaders and citizens (98–101).

In fourth-century Athens the wealthiest citizens were subject to appointment, by an archon, to a liturgy, a service that might involve paying the expenses for a chorus at the City Dionysia or other state festival (chorēgia) or for a team of athletes in competition at the Great Panathenaia (gymnasiarchia).^[3] Defendants in criminal trials often listed the liturgies they had performed, hoping thereby to win favor with the jury. Lycourgos, no doubt anticipating one line of Leocrates’ defense, expressed his annoyance at such persons, because they undertook these liturgies on behalf of their own families but then expected public rewards. The liturgist himself, Lycourgos claimed, was awarded a crown for his service but was in no way benefiting others. Public gratitude should go to those who supported a trireme or helped build the city walls or provided in other ways for public safety from their private funds. Here one could see the virtue (ἀρετήν) of the givers, but in liturgies one sees only the prosperity of those who have spent the money (139–40).

Finally, the oath is, according to Lycourgos, what holds the democracy together. The government consists of three things—the archon, the juryman, and the private citizen; each of these gives a pledge under oath, and for good reason. Many men, after deceiving others, escape detection and receive no punishment, either then or perhaps for their whole life. But the gods know who has committed perjury and they will punish him. If, perchance, the individual should escape, his family falls into great misfortunes (79). Those who remain true to their oaths have the goodwill (εὔνοιαν) of the gods with them as a help (βοηθόν) (82).

We have some record of each of the three oaths Lycourgos cites, that of the archon, the juryman, and the private citizen, and each, fortunately, comes from a roughly contemporary source. From the Constitution of the Athenians (55.5) we learn that archons-select went to the Agora, made sacrifices on a specially designated stone near the Stoa Basileios, and then mounted this stone and swore that they “would govern justly and according to the laws; that they would not take gifts because of their office; and that if they should take anything, they would set up a golden statue.” ^[4] The archons-select then had to repeat this oath on the Acropolis.

Lycourgos is concerned that the jurors bring a vote in accordance with their oath (εὔορκον ψῆφον, 128) and that they not, in violation of their oath, allow speakers to get off the topic (13). The oath to which he refers is recorded by Demosthenes:^[5]

I will vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the Demos of the Athenians and of the Boule of five hundred. And I will not vote to have a tyrant or an oligarchy. If someone attempts to destroy (the power) of the Demos of the Athenians or if he speaks or brings a vote contrary to this, I will not be persuaded. Nor will I vote for the cancellation of private debts or for the redistribution of the land or houses of Athenians. I will not bring back those who have been exiled or condemned to death. I will not myself banish, nor will I allow anyone else to banish, the residents here contrary to the established laws and decrees of the Demos of the Athenians and of the Boule. And I will not confirm in office a person in such a way that he holds one office when he is subject to audit for another, and these offices include the nine archons, the hieromnēmōn,^[6] those who are chosen by lot with the nine archons on this day, a herald, an embassy, and delegates to the council of allies. Nor will I allow the same man to hold the same office twice or the same man to hold two offices in the same year. And I will not accept bribes because of my jury service, not I myself nor another for me nor in any other way with me knowing of it, not by a trick or by any contrivance. And I am not less than thirty years old. And I will listen to both the prosecutor and the defendant equally, and I will bring my vote on the basis of the issues being prosecuted. (Dem. 24.149–51)

The juror swore this oath by Zeus, Poseidon, and Demeter, and he cursed himself and his family to utter destruction if he transgressed any of these provisions. But he prayed that if he kept this oath, he might have “many good things.” It is this oath that Lycourgos asks the jurors to abide by.

Of the oath of private citizens Lycourgos says, “You have an oath which all the citizens swear when they are enrolled onto the register of demes and become ephebes, that you will not shame your holy weapons or leave your position in battle, that you will defend your fatherland and hand it down better than it is” (76). The full text of this oath, preserved on a fourth-century inscription from the deme Acharnai, is as follows:^[7]

I will not bring shame upon these sacred weapons nor will I abandon my comrade-in-arms wherever I stand in the ranks. I will defend both the holy and profane things. I will not hand on the fatherland smaller than I received it, but larger and better, so far as it lies in my power with the assistance of all the other citizens. I will obey the officials who govern wisely and the laws, both those which are already established and those which are wisely established in the future. If anyone attempts to destroy them, I will not allow it, so far as it lies in my power with the assistance of all the other citizens. I will hold in honor the ancestral sanctuaries. The following gods are witnesses: Aglauros, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalios, Ares and Athena Areia, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone, Heracles, the territory of the fatherland, the wheat, barley, vines, olive trees, and fig trees.

These are the three oaths—of the archon, the juryman, and the private citizen—that, in Lycourgos’ view, “hold the democracy together” (79). The jurymen are to uphold theirs as they vote on Leocrates’ guilt. Lycourgos has read to them the ephebic oath and then details how Leocrates broke each of its provisions (76–78). As a traitor Leocrates’ crime is against his fellow citizens. As a perjurer it is against the gods.

It is also the Athenian ephebic oath upon which, according to Lycourgos, the Greek allies formed the oath that they swore before they joined battle with Xerxes’ Persians at Plataea in 479 B.C. Lycourgos had also this oath read to the jurors, the text of which survives on the very stone that preserves the ephebic oath:^[8]

I will not make life more important than freedom, nor will I abandon my leaders whether they be alive or dead. I will bury all of our allies who die in the battle. And when we have defeated the barbarians, I will destroy no one of the cities that fought on Greece’s side, but I will exact a tenth from all those who chose the barbarians’ side. I will most certainly not rebuild any of the sanctuaries burned or razed by the barbarians, but I will leave them for our descendants as a memorial of the impiety of the barbarians.

Because the Greeks, including the ancestors of the jury, remained faithful to the terms of this oath, they had the goodwill of the gods as their helper (80–82).

And, finally, the ancestors of the jurymen had sworn, by the decree of Demophantos of 410 B.C., to kill any man betraying the fatherland by word, by deed, by hand, or by vote. This oath survives in Andocides’ speech on the Mysteries (1.96–98):^[9]

Let the oath be this: “I will kill, [by word and deed and vote] and by my own hand, if I am able, whoever destroys the democracy at Athens and if anyone holds an office in the future after the democracy has been destroyed and if anyone attempts to set up or help set up a tyrant. And if someone else kills him, I shall consider him holy in the view of the gods and daimones since he has killed an enemy of the Athenians, and after selling the property of the dead man I will give half of it to the killer and will deprive him of nothing. And if someone dies killing or attempting to kill anyone of such men, I will treat well him and his children as I do Harmodios and Aristogeiton and their descendants. Whatever oaths have been sworn at Athens or in the army or elsewhere against the Demos of the Athenians, I do away with and dismiss.” Let all Athenians swear these things on the sacred victims before the Dionysia. And let them pray that for the one keeping his oath there be many and good things, but that if he violates this oath, he and his family may perish utterly.

In Lycourgos’ view the jurors have inherited this oath from their fathers, who gave it, like a hostage of the happiness of the commonwealth, to the gods. And, in the case of Leocrates, they must prove themselves no worse than their fathers (127).

Such are the main religious sentiments expressed by Lycourgos in his prosecution of Leocrates. They permeate the speech, giving it much of its content and structure. They provide, so far as they go, a consistent and unified view of the role of the gods in Athenian political life, of humans’ responsibilities to the gods, and of sin and piety. In sum, the gods are concerned with all human activities, in particular those concerning parents, the dead, and the gods themselves. The pious person will care for his parents while living; will see to the proper burial, tomb, and tomb cult of the dead; and will protect and maintain the sanctuaries, temples, statues, honors, sacrifices, and traditional rituals of state and domestic gods. Through impiety in these areas divine aid can be lost to the individual and the city. The gods seek out and see to the punishment of individual sinners and know even their secret thoughts and votes.

Lycourgos takes for granted the accuracy of the oracles from Delphic Apollo, treating identically those of historical times and those found in poetry. He views them as promoting justice, morality, and patriotism, and as beneficial to and favoring the Athenian state. Oaths are, as he puts it, critical to “holding together the democracy,” and the provisions in the oaths of the archons, jurors, and ephebes put under religious sanctions much of the political behavior of Athenian citizens. The gods will punish perjurers or their descendants, but offer goodwill and help to those who keep their oaths. Lycourgos is skeptical of the public benefit of the religious liturgies of the wealthy, seeing them as only ostentatious demonstrations of private wealth, especially in comparison to services that the wealthy might provide in rebuilding the city’s walls or supporting the navy. And, finally, Lycourgos claims Athenians surpass other Greeks in their piety toward parents and the gods, and that Leocrates’ impious behavior is the exception.

The Leocrates, a forensic speech, was delivered in court before a jury numbering, probably, five hundred Athenian citizens and was later published for all Athenians to read. As a general rule one can assume that prosecutors and defendants speaking in such trials attempted to avoid controversy on points not essential to their case, that they attempted to show themselves in tune with the moral and religious norms of their peers. For this reason courtroom orations are a particularly valuable source for the social, moral, and religious standards of their time.^[10] This general rule, unfortunately, does not apply to the Leocrates, because its tone and purpose are patently didactic. Lycourgos was giving moral, patriotic, and religious instruction, and in large sections the effect is more that of Pericles’ “Funeral Oration” from Thucydides than that of a forensic oration of Isaeus or Demosthenes: hence Lycourgos’ review of events in Athens’ legendary or historical past, his anecdotes, and, in particular, his reading of oaths and of passages from Euripides and Aeschylus. We cannot therefore assume that because the Leocrates is a forensic speech, Lycourgos assumed his auditors all shared these beliefs. Nor, however, should we deduce from the speech’s didactic character that the audience did not share these beliefs.^[11] Lycourgos may have thought that in those times and in that case, Athenians needed to be reminded of their fundamental beliefs. And here it should be noted that Lycourgos presents these beliefs as commonly known, not as beliefs currently being ignored, challenged, or rejected, except by the impious Leocrates. He does not defend the beliefs themselves against attack; he simply presents them and applies them to Leocrates. Lycourgos’ frequent appeal to the traditions and laws of the fathers and ancestors also should not incline us to assume that he was trying to revive old, long-dead beliefs. Such appeals are soundly based in the Greek oratorical tradition as far back as Homer and can be found throughout the orations of the classical period. That Lycourgos describes beliefs and practices as traditional and ancestral by no means indicates that they are not current. It rather proves that they have a good pedigree and are deserving of continued respect. I would thus argue that there is nothing in the speech itself to allow us to judge the commonality or sincerity of the religious statements that Lycourgos makes. For that we must turn to other, contemporary sources.

I begin by examining these religious beliefs in the context of Lycourgos’ career and other activities in the domain of religion. For those of us skeptical of politicians’ and lawyers’ words—and Lycourgos was functioning as both in the Leocrates—we need to see how words correlate with deeds, how what Lycourgos says in the Leocrates accords with his public career. Then I turn to other sources from the period to assess how Lycourgos’ sentiments and actions appear to fit into the tenor of his times. As I discuss both topics, I shall add, as they appear, other religious elements from the period to complement those found in the Leocrates.

In 307/6 B.C., about seventeen years after his death, the Athenians voted for Lycourgos the highest honors the state then offered its citizens: a statue in the Agora and dining privileges in the Prytaneion for descendants. The formal decree, proposed by Stratocles, survives and serves to indicate how Lycourgos’ near contemporaries viewed his contributions to the state.

In the archonship of Anaxicrates (307/6), in the sixth prytany, that of the tribe Antiochis, Stratocles, son of Euthydemos, of the deme Diomeia, proposed: whereas

Lycourgos, son of Lycophron, of the deme Boutadai, inherited from his ancestors long-standing goodwill toward the Demos […], and his ancestors, Lycomedes and Lycourgos, were honored by the Demos when they lived and received burial at public expense in the Cerameicos when they died because of their goodness and manliness; and

Lycourgos himself, when engaged in state affairs, made many good laws for the fatherland, and having been treasurer of the general revenues for the city for twelve years and having spent from the general revenues 18,600 talents, and having collected, on credit, 650 talents from private citizens, and having spent all these for the needs of the city and the Demos, and having appeared to have administered all these things justly, he was crowned by the city many times; and

having been selected by the Demos again, he collected much money into the Acropolis and he prepared adornment for the goddess, viz. golden Nikai, gold and silver processional vessels, and gold adornment for 100 kanēphoroi; and

elected for the oversight of military preparations he brought many weapons and 5,000 missiles into the Acropolis and prepared 400 seaworthy triremes, having repaired some and constructed others anew; and

in addition to these things, he received the ship sheds, the armory, and the theater of Dionysos half built and completed them, and he completed the Panathenaic Stadium, and he built the gymnasion at the Lyceum, and he adorned the city with many other buildings; and

after King Alexander subjugated all of Asia and thought it his right to give orders to all Greeks, and after Alexander demanded Lycourgos from us as his enemy, the Demos did not, despite fear of Alexander, give Lycourgos up; and

although many times submitting public audits of what he administered, when the city was free and under a democracy, he was throughout all that time not convicted of any crime and not susceptible to bribes;

So that all may know that (the Demos of the Athenians) consider most valuable, when they are alive, those who choose to handle public affairs justly for the benefit of democracy and freedom, and when they die, express their always-to-be-remembered gratitude,

It has been decided, with good fortune, by the Demos to praise Lycourgos, son of Lycophron, of the deme Boutadai, for his virtue and justice, and for the Demos to erect a bronze statue of him in the Agora, unless somehow the law forbids it, and to give the privilege of dining in the Pyrtaneion for all time to the eldest of his descendants. And all the state decrees Lycourgos proposed are to be in force, and the secretary of the Demos is to erect (copies of) them on stone plaques and to stand them on the Acropolis near the dedications. And for the engraving of the plaques the treasurer of the Demos is to give fifty drachmas from the Demos’ fund for decrees. ([Plut.] X Orat. 852A–E)^[12]

This decree records Lycourgos’ accomplishments in the areas of law, finance, politics, military preparedness, public works, and religion as they were viewed, retrospectively, by the next generation. I present the text in toto because this, better than any summation, puts Lycourgos’ religious activities into the context of his whole career. It gives, for us, a much-needed perspective. As we concentrate our attention henceforth on the religious activities of Lycourgos, which were major, we must keep in mind that they were only one part, and probably not the most significant part, of his public career.

Stratocles’ decree takes up issues of Lycourgos’ family, financial management, “adornment” (kosmos) of the goddess and the city, the building program, and, finally, personal character. We now take up the religious aspects of these in the same order.

Lycourgos was of the genos of the Eteobutadai, the aristocratic kinship group that traced its ancestry to Erechtheus, the earth-born king of Athens and foster child of Athena, the same Erechtheus whose story Lycourgos tells in Leocrates 98–101.^[13] To a member of the Eteobutadai was allotted the priesthood of Poseidon-Erechtheus, whose cult was centered in the Erechtheum, the heart of Athenian state religion. One of Lycourgos’ sons, Habron, was allotted this priesthood and he ceded it to his brother Lycophron.^[14] Habron dedicated in the Erechtheum a plaque depicting himself handing over the trident to his brother. Lycourgos and his sons were also represented by wooden statues in the Erechtheum, and all this suggests that Lycourgos too held the priesthood during his lifetime.^[15] And thus not only was Lycourgos born into a pro-democratic and patriotic family as Stratocles’ decree declares, but he was also, by birth, aristocratic and closely tied, as closely as an Athenian male could be, to the major state cult of Athena Polias and Poseidon in the Erechtheum.

Lycourgos, like his father and grandfather, was given a burial at public expense, and he and his descendants were buried very near the Academy, just opposite the sanctuary of Athena Paionia.^[16] Lycourgos had, reportedly, been a student of Plato, the founder of the Academy, and had studied also with the rhetorician Isocrates ([Plut.] X Orat. 841B). He once hired sophists to teach his sons and, when challenged on this, replied that if someone promised to make his sons better, he would give him not just 1,000 drachmas but half his fortune (842C–D). Lycourgos also roughed up and had thrown into prison a tax collector who was harassing Xenocrates, then head of the Academy (842B–C; Plut. Flam. 12.7). Lycourgos had ties also with the Lyceum, for there he built a gymnasion and had it planted with trees ([Plut.] X Orat. 841C–D); and, after his death, Democles, a student of Theophrastos, spoke in defense of Lycourgos’ sons (842D–E).^[17] We note these close associations Lycourgos had with philosophers of his time because the relationship of philosophy, statesmen, and popular religion will be important to understanding religion in the late fourth century and throughout the Hellenistic period.

Lycourgos, the decree of Stratocles states, “made many good laws for the fatherland,” and several of these concerned religious matters:

1. To reestablish a lapsed contest of comic actors in the theater at the Chytroi festival, and to enroll the victor in the City Dionysia ([Plut.] X Orat. 841F).^[18]
2. To have a contest of dithyrambic choruses for Poseidon in Piraeus, with 1,000 drachmas to the winners, 800 drachmas to second place, and 600 to third (842A).^[19]
3. To forbid women from riding on wagons in the procession to Eleusis for the Mysteries. The purpose, according to the Vita, was that ordinary women not be made inferior to the rich.^[20] The fine was 6,000 drachmas. Lycourgos’ own wife then apparently violated the law, and Lycourgos paid the 6,000 drachmas to buy off sycophants ready to prosecute him (842A–B).^[21]
4. To establish new provisions for handling sacred funds and dedications to the gods. The fragmentary text of Schwenk #21 of 335/4 records two laws: the one certainly proposed by Lycourgos gives detailed instructions for the making, storage, inventorying, and repair of objects dedicated to several deities. For some actions the approval of Apollo at Delphi was required.^[22]
5. To set up bronze statues of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, to copy and protect in a public building the texts of their plays, and to specify that the secretary of the city read these to the actors. The actors then were to follow them exactly (841F).^[23] This law might not necessarily be termed “religious,” but it does affect the performances at various state and deme drama festivals. It also suits well the man who in court quoted a long passage of Euripides and spoke with approval of the poetry of Tyrtaeus. Two other of his laws also concerned “literary” matters, the comedy competitions of the Chytroi and the dithyrambic competition in Piraeus.

All five laws have in common that they created kosmos in both its meanings, “order” and “adornment,” in religious affairs. The dithyrambic competition and the renewed comedy competition were new ornaments, as all such public festivals were kosmoi of the city. The law on preservation of the tragedies regularized their texts, as the wagon law would the procession to Eleusis. And, finally, Schwenk #21.CEF 10–32 persistently refers to the dedications to be made and remade as kosmos. The provisions established there would bring kosmos (as both “beauty” and “order”) to these dedications. We shall find such kosmos to be a persistent theme in Lycourgos’ personal involvement in religious affairs.

In the implementation of law, apparently most often on the side of the prosecution, Lycourgos spoke “many times about sacred matters” ([Plut.] X Orat. 843D). We know from titles and surviving fragments that he spoke^[24]

1. About the Priestess of Athena. The priesthood of Athena Polias was also hereditary to one branch of the genos of the Eteobutadai, and in this speech Lycourgos detailed many of her activities as well as those of the priestesses of Athena Nike, Hygieia, and Skiras (frags. 6.1–22).
2. About Priestly Perquisites.
3. About Oracles.
4. Against Menesaichmos, an individual who had violated a rule of sacrifice on a theoria (religious embassy) to Delos. Here Lycourgos described Athenian, Delian, and Delphic rites and myths related to Apollo (frags. 14.1–11).
5. Against Euxenippos of Lamptrai (APF 5866), who, it was alleged, had falsely reported a dream he had received in the sanctuary of Amphiaraos concerning the division of territory in Oropos.^[25] Hyperides’ speech (4) in Euxenippos’ defense survives.

The scanty surviving fragments of these speeches suggest that Lycourgos discussed in some detail matters of ritual and regularly offered the jury lessons in Athenian cult and myth history. Two fragments from other speeches recall also the hortatory nature of the Leocrates: “It is not holy to leave unpunished one who transgresses the written laws by which the democracy is preserved” (10.2) and “One ought to help one’s friends and family, short of committing perjury” (15.2). We note finally Lycourgos’ speech Against Autolykos, an Athenian who fought at Chaeroneia but had removed his family from Athens immediately before the battle and, as a result of Lycourgos’ prosecution, was put to death for it.^[26] In this speech, as in the Leocrates, Lycourgos mentioned family tombs (3.3). Clearly the tone and substance of Lycourgos’ attack on Leocrates were consistent with this and his other legal activities concerning religion and the state.

Lycourgos’ base of political power was as treasurer of the general revenues, and he is praised for multiplying more than twentyfold the revenues of the state ([Plut.] X Orat. 842F). From Stratocles’ decree we know that, in his twelve years, he spent 18,600 talents: that is, 1,550 talents per year. He also raised 650 talents as loans from individuals.^[27] Much of this money must have been used for defense, for the rebuilding of the walls and the navy. But religious sanctuaries clearly also benefited from Lycourgos’ financial wizardry, particularly with new buildings, new equipment, and some new festivals. And Lycourgos’ involvement was not just at the policy level; in 329/8 he personally ordered a payment to an architect at Eleusis (IG II² 1672.11) and in 333/2 a teamster was paid for his work at Eleusis on the basis of a decree that Lycourgos had personally proposed (IG II² 1673.64–65).^[28]

Some measures taken by Lycourgos appear intended to bring order (kosmos) to what may well have been confused, lax, and perhaps failing financial programs of the dozens of largely independent sanctuaries and cult organizations, many of which owned land and possessed precious dedications of gold and silver. Careful records and inventories of dedications made to the major state deities and stored in sanctuaries had begun already in the 430s, then probably because Pericles viewed these dedications as part of the city’s reserve capital, reserves that in an emergency could be and later were “loaned” at interest to the state. D. M. Lewis sees these early inventories as the result of “putting Athens’ financial machinery in order to face the coming Peloponnesian War” (1985b, 72).^[29] The disaster at Chaeroneia may have generated a similar concern, and such inventories were kept throughout the Lycourgan period.^[30] But these precious dedications were also part of the adornment (kosmos) of the state,^[31] and the second law partially preserved in Schwenk #21, proposed by Lycourgos, has this as its focus. It provides for, conditional on the approval of the oracle of Apollo, the making of new dedications and the repair of old gold and silver ones—all as kosmos for such important deities as Zeus Soter, Zeus Olympios, Dionysos, Athena Itonia, Agathe Tyche, Amphiaraos, Asclepios, Artemis Brauronia, and Demeter and Kore. Clearly this was to be done under a (perhaps new) degree of state supervision.^[32]

By 335/4 Lycourgos had also established the “dermatikon” fund, which accrued from the sale of the skins (δέρματα) of animals sacrificed at several major state festivals and sacrifices.^[33] These skins were valuable, and now the state, which presumably had paid for the animals, could recoup some of its expenses. This revenue, nearly 6,000 drachmas for the second half of 334/3 (IG II² 1496.68–92), previously may well have been an undeserved bonus to the various cult establishments and their officials. At about the same time, perhaps in the same year, the state also revised certain elements of the annual Panathenaia, using new revenues from the leasing of “Nea” either to finance existing sacrifices and banquets or to introduce new ones.^[34]

Lycourgos himself was wealthy, and the 650 talents he raised as loans from individuals to the state, perhaps beginning immediately after Chaeroneia, indicate that he was not averse to soliciting financial favors from the wealthy on behalf of the state. In the Leocrates we saw that Lycourgos in 330 preferred individuals contribute for rebuilding the walls and manning the triremes rather than for drama competitions and other such festival activities. We do find, however, private wealth coming to the support of some of Lycourgos’ building projects, and him encouraging or being grateful for it. Deinias of Erchia (APF 3163), at Lycourgos’ request, donated land so that the remodeling of the Panathenaic Stadium could be completed ([Plut.] X Orat. 841D). Eudemos of Plataea, a foreigner, was honored, on Lycourgos’ proposal, by the state in 330/29 for supplying teams of oxen to help with this same project (Schwenk #48).^[35] And, finally, Lycourgos himself proposed a crown for Neoptolemos of Melite (APF 10652) because he promised he would gild an altar of Apollo in the Agora in accordance with Apollo’s oracle (X. Orat. 843F). Liturgies for ephemeral religious activities may have been falling into disfavor and would soon be eliminated, but clearly private contributions for construction of sacred buildings and their kosmos were welcomed by Lycourgos. We see here the beginnings of a planned and systematic new manner of the use of the resources of the rich for the benefit of the community in religious affairs.^[36]

From Stratocles’ decree we learn that Lycourgos had “adornment” (kosmos) made for “the goddess,” surely Athena Polias. This kosmos included golden statues of Nike, gold and silver processional vessels, and gold jewelry (kosmos) for one hundred basket carriers (kanēphoroi).^[37] The context of the discussion of this in the Vita (841D) suggests that Lycourgos financed it, at least in part, with the 650 talents he obtained on loan from private individuals. The amount seems enormous, but is understandable if, like Pericles, Lycourgos viewed such hardware as capital reserves of the state, available as an emergency fund. Lycourgos would then be restoring, in similar form, the reserves depleted by the Peloponnesian War and never replenished.^[38] It would also be an act of piety, repaying a long outstanding debt to the patroness of the city. The choice of statues of Nikai seems to confirm this. By the late fifth century at least eight such statues had been dedicated, probably to commemorate military victories. But then all the Nike statues except one were melted down for coinage in 407/6, in the worst financial times of the Peloponnesian War. That left a debt of at least seven, and the “supports” for seven Nikai are recorded in inventories of 371/0 and 369/8.^[39] Thus, quite likely, Lycourgos had remade seven of the fifth-century Nikai, the gold of each weighing about two talents (ca. 120 lbs.). IG II² 1493–95 indicate that by 334/3, the gold for the Nikai and the processional vessels was being collected and officials to oversee the project had been appointed.^[40] The whole project was probably among the now lost provisions of the law of 335/4 concerning dedications (Schwenk #21).

Apart from serving as financial reserves, the processional vessels and the jewelry of the kanēphoroi also contributed to the kosmos of the Panathenaia, as did the remodeling of the Panathenaic Stadium and the sacrifices provided for in Schwenk #17A and B. Here Lycourgos’ familial connection to the cult of Athena Polias and the decision to provide kosmos for the city no doubt coincided. The “ kanēphoric kosmos ” is explicitly mentioned in Schwenk #21.CEF 10, and, if the accepted dating of these various documents is correct, Lycourgos must have turned to these religious matters very early in his administration.

The Athenians wished to honor Lycourgos also for his building program: he completed the ship sheds and armory in Piraeus, the theater of Dionysos, and the Panathenaic Stadium. He built also a gymnasion at the Lyceum and “adorned” (ἐκόσμησε) the city with many other buildings. The sources indicate that he simply completed the sacred buildings, the theater of Dionysos and the Panathenaic Stadium.^[41] We do not know to what extent Lycourgos was responsible, except for holding the purse strings, for other construction in sanctuaries also occurring during his administration. This included the temple of Apollo Patroös, the monument of the eponymous heroes of the ten tribes, the small temple to the north of that of Apollo Patroös, all in the Agora; the portico of Philon at Eleusis; the sanctuary of Plouton and repairs to the City Eleusinion in Athens; and repairs to the Amphiaraion and the building of a spring house of Ammon.^[42]

Athens was obviously buzzing with construction, both sacred and secular, in the time of Lycourgos’ administration, rivaling perhaps that under Pericles. As F. W. Mitchel puts its, “Only if we stop to consider that Athens had completed no significant building since the Erechtheion and the temple of Athena Nike, can we duly appreciate the Lycourgan building program” (1970, 48). Here we note that in Stratocles’ decree the sacred buildings are lumped together with military (ship sheds and armory) and educational (gymnasion) structures.^[43] All are, again, part of Lycourgos’ “adornment” (kosmos) of the city.

After Alexander had defeated and destroyed Thebes in 335, he demanded from Athens those who had encouraged and aided the rebellious Thebans, including Demosthenes and Lycourgos. An Athenian embassy, headed by Phocion, dissuaded Alexander and saved all but the general Charidemos.^[44] It is this incident that Stratocles’ decree makes into a tribute to Lycourgos. Neither Demosthenes nor Lycourgos was won over by Alexander’s clemency. When, eleven years later, Athenians debated granting divine honors to Alexander, Demosthenes quipped, “If he wishes, let him be the son of Zeus, or the son of Poseidon” (Hyperides 5.31).^[45] For his bitterly witty response Lycourgos characteristically turned to religious ritual ([Plut.] X Orat. 842D): “What kind of god would he be, when (worshippers) will have to purify themselves on leaving his sanctuary?” Deities avoided pollution, and Athenians normally purified themselves before approaching them. The “god” Alexander would, uniquely, pollute his worshippers.

Lycourgos was not, however, averse to all innovation in religion in Athens. However much he was devoted to completing, building, and repairing the sanctuaries of the traditional deities and to reestablishing for them the kosmos of Periclean times, he was open to new ideas. In 329/8 he was one of the ten epimelētai (“overseers”) who administered the new quadrennial festival for Amphiaraos, the healing deity whose cult center in Oropos Athens received from Alexander in 335 (Schwenk #50).^[46] Lycourgos also established a new festival contest, but on very traditional lines, for Poseidon in Piraeus ([Plut.] X Orat. 842A). Piraeus was clearly a focus of his attention as he rebuilt the navy and completed the ship sheds and armory. There too, on Lycourgos’ proposal, the Citians of Cyprus were granted permission, in 333/2, to purchase land for a sanctuary of their native deity, Aphrodite Ourania, as the Egyptians had been before for their Isis (Schwenk #27). Both these cults should be imagined, at this time, as very small, practiced only in Piraeus and only by Citian and Egyptian nationals.^[47] Neither cult survived long, and in chapter 5 we shall see what became of them. They were probably introduced at this time to accommodate the needs of foreign traders living in Piraeus, as had been the cult of Bendis for Thracians almost a century earlier.^[48]

Stratocles’ decree concludes with praises of Lycourgos’ character. He was never convicted of a crime and did not take bribes; that is, he was honest (cf. X Orat. 842F, 843F). He demonstrated his goodwill (εὔνοια) toward democracy and freedom. He possessed virtue (ἀρετέ) and justice (δικαιοσύνη) (cf. 841F, 842F). In addition the Vita credits him with being of good repute (841F), a hard worker (841C–D, 842C), and outspoken (842D).

Such a man Leocrates encountered in 330, eight years after he had slunk out of Athens in fear of Philip, had taken with him his money, mistress, and household gods, and had sold his very house in Athens for a new life in Megara. The substance and tone of Lycourgos’ attacks on Leocrates are in perfect accord with what else we know of Lycourgos’ character and career. Lycourgos was engaged in a fundamental renewal of the state of Athens: financially, militarily, educationally, and religiously. As we shall soon see, he did not do and could not have done this alone, nor did he initiate all the individual measures. He was working within a tradition, but the defeat at Chaeroneia in 338 must have provided significant impetus for the movement.

Stratocles’ decree, read as a whole, suggests that the religious aspects of this national revival, our concern, were no more and no less important than financial policy and national defense in the eyes of Athenians nearly twenty years after Lycourgos’ death. We should take it as a sign of the health and vigor of popular religion in the time that it was thought necessary for it to have such a prominent role in the national revival. On the public side of religion Lycourgos brought fiscal order and kosmos to state cults. Both, apparently, went together, and fiscal responsibility was not a cover for parsimony. Inventorying and melting down of old dedications made possible new, more beautiful ones. Recouping some expenses meant more money for both old and new festivals. Careful financial management and fund-raising meant the building, remodeling, and repair of sacred buildings. Coins were made into statues of the gods. And all of this contributed to the kosmos of the city.

The Leocrates affords us a precious look at some elements of the private side of the religious attitude we see expressed in contemporary public documents. The oaths by ephebes, jurors, and archons, the sanctity of which Lycourgos emphasizes, give support to the moral and patriotic duties of young and old alike. For the gods the Athenians were remodeling, repairing, and adorning the temples, sanctuaries, statues, and dedications that Leocrates had betrayed. On the Acropolis, which Leocrates abandoned, was the cult of Athena Polias, who now had back her Nikai and had for her festival a new stadium, new processional vessels, and gold jewelry for one hundred kanēphoroi. Given such correspondences between the Leocrates and the public religious activities in Athens, we may assume, without evidence to the contrary, a similar correspondence between it and the private religious attitudes and beliefs of the Athenians in 330 B.C. We may take what Lycourgos says about the gods, about oracles and oaths, and about piety and impiety as what was still acceptable to say in a public forum about religion: hence the value of the Leocrates for understanding religion in late-fourth-century Athens.^[49]

In assessing the religious tenor of the times it is important to recognize that Lycourgos was not alone in promoting these various religious projects. As we have seen, Deinias of Erchia (APF 3163), who in 367/6 had been a member of the board of pōlētai (administrators of state contracts) and over the years had performed numerous liturgies (Dem. 20.151), contributed land for the completion of the Panathenaic Stadium ([Plut.] X Orat. 841D). Eudemos of Plataea was, at Lycourgos’ proposal, honored for contributing teams of oxen for work on the stadium (Schwenk #48). As in previous decades, the boards of overseers of Eleusis and the treasurers of Athena, along with other such committees, continued to exercise their traditional functions. In the membership of ad hoc committees made up to deal with two new religious projects, the reorganization of the sanctuary of Amphiaraos and the sending of the sacred delegation (Pythaïs) to Delphi, we can identify individuals involved in religious innovations and activities in which Lycourgos personally participated.^[50]

In 335 Athens had received from Alexander the neighboring territory of Oropos and the sanctuary of Amphiaraos there.^[51] In 333/2 Pytheas of Alopeke (PA 12346), epimelētēs of the waterworks, was honored for repairing and remodeling Amphiaraos’ sacred spring house (Schwenk #28).^[52] In 331/0 the antiquarian and Atthidographer Phanodemos of Thymaitadai (PA 14033) was honored for the legislation that he drafted concerning sacrifices and a new quadrennial festival of Amphiaraos,^[53] as well as for providing funds for the festival and repair of the Amphiaraion (Schwenk #41). In 329/8 the state crowned the same Phanodemos along with Lycourgos, Demades of Paiania (APF 3263), Niceratos of Kydathenaion (APF 10742), Sophilos of Phyle (PA 13422), Thrasyleon of Acharnai (PA 7329), Epiteles of Pergase (PA 4963), Epichares of Paiania (PA 4999), Thymochares of Sphettos (APF 13964), and Cephisophon of Cholargos (PA 8419) for overseeing, as elected epimelētai, the first Athenian celebration of the quadrennial Amphiaraia (Schwenk #50). Similarly honored, in 328/7, were Euthycrates of Aphidna (PA 5601), Philostratos of Acharnai (APF 14726), and Chairestatros of Rhamnous (PA 15172) for overseeing, for the Boule, a dedication in the Amphiaraion. Twenty-four members of the Boule as well as ten others, including Phanodemos, Demades, and Cephisophon, contributed money for this dedication (Schwenk #56).

In 326/5 the Athenians sent a sacred delegation (Pythaïs) to Delphi to deliver the first-fruits to Apollo Pythios,^[54] the first such delegation since 355 (Isaeus 7.27), and the ten men elected as hieropoioi (“sacrificers”) to make the sacrifices and supervise the theōria were the now familiar Phanodemos, Demades, Niceratos, and Lycourgos, and with them Hippocrates (son of Aristocrates), Boethos (son of Nausinikos), Glaucetes of Oion (APF 2921), Clearchos (son of Nausicles), Neoptolemos of Melite (APF 10652), and Cleochares of Kephisia (APF 8647) (SIG³ 296).

The men who were participating with Lycourgos in these religious projects were, as D. M. Lewis (1955, 27–36) has shown, generally older, experienced, and wealthy. At least five—Cephisophon, Deinias, Demades, Glaucetes, and Niceratos—were sixty or more years of age in 330/29. Eight (Cleochares, Deinias, Demades, Glaucetes, Neoptolemos, Niceratos, Philostratos, and Thymochares) because of their wealth are numbered in J. K. Davies’ Athenian Propertied Families (1971) among the 206 attested members of the upper financial class in the period 333/2–301/0.^[55] Demades and Niceratos both served terms as treasurer of the military fund, Sophilos as “general over the land.” Thymochares was later to serve as a general under Demetrios of Phaleron. In the Leocrates Lycourgos recommends, over festival liturgies, support for ships of the navy, and Cleochares, Deinias, Demades, and Niceratos had each provided this service, some several times. Demades and Glaucetes followed up the Pythaïs with continued service to Delphi as proxenoi (“representatives in Athens of foreign [here Delphic] interests”).^[56] Epiteles served Delphi as both nāopoios (“temple builder”)^[57] and proxenos, and in 323/2 he proposed a decree on Athenian participation in the Nemean games (Schwenk #79).

Neoptolemos of Melite (APF 10652) and Xenocles of Sphettos (APF 11234) may be representative of the prosperous Athenians who provided financial and personal support to the Lycourgan religious revival. Neoptolemos’ participation in the Pythaïs was but a small part of his civic activities.^[58] A very rich man (Dem. 21.215), he was honored by the state “for the many projects to which he, as epistatēs (‘supervisor’), contributed his own funds” (Dem. 18.114). He made a dedication on the Acropolis (IG II² 4901) and, when honored by the state with a crown, gave it to Athena (IG II² 1496.43–46). In his home deme of Melite he was responsible for work in the sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule (“Of the Best Council”), which his fellow demesman Themistocles had privately built to commemorate his victory at Salamis but which at this time was being administered by the deme (SEG 22.116).^[59] When Apollo requested it, Neoptolemos paid for the gilding of the new altar of Apollo and received for this a crown and statue from the state, on Lycourgos’ motion ([Plut.] X Orat. 843F–844A). And, finally, this same Neoptolemos dedicated a beautiful and quite well preserved relief sculpture representing Dionysos being delivered to the Nymphs, and among the figures are Artemis and Apollo, for both of whom Neoptolemos had provided other services.^[60]

Xenocles of Sphettos, who was one of the richest men of his time, active in public life for forty years, a staunch democrat, and a close friend of Lycourgos, served as Lycourgos’ stand-in as financial administrator for one four-year term.^[61] Xenocles’ religious interests were directed neither to the Amphiaraion nor to Delphi, but to Eleusis. As epimelētēs of the Mysteries, in 321/0 or 318/7, he dedicated statues of Demeter and Kore; that same year he built a stone bridge over the Cephisos on the processional route to Eleusis, at his own expense.^[62] The bridge, constructed in part for the convenience of the initiates, recalls Lycourgos’ legislation concerning the procession. Xenocles, unlike Neoptolemos, is known for festival liturgies, having served as chorēgos and having won as gymnasiarch of his tribe in the Panathenaia of 346/5 (IG II² 749, 3019). Years later, in 307/6, after the abolition of such liturgies, he is the first known agōnothetēs (“contest producer”), responsible for all the year’s dramatic and choral competitions in the city’s festivals (IG II² 3073, 3077).^[63]

Despite his services, Xenocles was not beloved by each and every Athenian. He is one of several of the prominent Athenians we have encountered thus far to be the object of a curse tablet. On one such lead tablet some individual intended “to bind, to bury, and to make disappear from men” Xenocles, Demeas the son of Demades, and one hundred other men and women. On similar curse tablets of the period are targeted Lycourgos (twice), Demosthenes (twice), Hyperides, Phocion, and the Callistratos condemned by Lycourgos (Leoc. 93). These specific tablets seem all to have been motivated by political and legal disputes.^[64]

We thus see a number of prosperous, prominent, and often elderly Athenians supporting religious activities, but not necessarily in a uniform, orchestrated way.^[65] Some, like Xenocles, contributed to festivals; others, like Neoptolemos, may have shared Lycourgos’ reservations about such liturgies. Xenocles favored Eleusis; Demades and Glaucetes, Delphi; Phanodemos and several others, Amphiaraos; and Neoptolemos assisted a local sanctuary. This variety suggests that personal motives weighed equally with civic ones in the support these men brought to religion, as was probably also true for Lycourgos in his devotion to the cult of Athena Polias.

As a final step in establishing the status of Athenian religion at the very beginning of the Hellenistic period we turn to the festivals and sacrifices of the state cult in the age of Lycourgos. Precious for this purpose is IG II² 1496, the four-year record (334/3–331/0) of revenues the state received from the sale of the skins (dermata) of victims at state-supported festivals and sacrifices. The document distinguishes between the nine festivals, which are listed by name, and the six sacrifices (θύ;σιαι), which are listed by recipient. The distinction is meaningful,^[66] because the festivals are all of long standing while most of the sacrifices seem innovations of the fourth century. The festivals are the Asclepieia, Bendideia, City Dionysia, Dionysia in Piraeus, Eleusinia, Lenaia, Olympieia, Panathenaia, and Theseia. The drama festivals of the City Dionysia, Lenaia, and Dionysia in Piraeus, as well as the Eleusinia, Olympieia, and Panathenaia, are very old, each going back at least to the sixth century B.C. The Theseia, held on Pyanopsion 8, was probably founded in 476/5 with the recovery of Theseus’ bones from Scyros. The Athenians received Theseus “as if he were coming home,” with processions and sacrifices, and he was henceforth honored annually with sacrifices (Plut. Thes. 36).^[67] The Asclepieia was probably introduced with the arrival of Asclepios in 420/19.^[68] The Bendideia of Bendis, on Thargelion 19, was also introduced late in the fifth century.^[69]

The sacrifices of IG II² 1496 are to Agathe Tyche, Ammon, Demokratia, Eirene, Hermes Hegemonios, and Zeus Soter. All the sacrifices, except that to Ammon, occur in more than one year and hence are already an established part of the state program. By 335/4 Agathe Tyche (“Good Fortune”) already had a temple^[70] and treasury and was to receive additional kosmos from the provisions initiated by Lycourgos (Schwenk #21.CEF 19–20).^[71]SEG 26.121.44, from the first century B.C., indicates a sanctuary in Piraeus. Four private dedications to her are assigned to the fourth century: IG II² 4610, 4644 (found in the City Asclepieion), and 4564 (to Twelve Gods and Agathe Tyche). In the fourth, IG II² 4627, she is presented as the wife of Zeus Epiteleios Philios, and the deities and sculpture suggest that the Agathe Tyche of this dedication contributed to the success of marriage and family. Two slightly later texts, however, seem to associate her with military victories,^[72] and that may be why she is so little in evidence after Athens’ defeat in the Lamian War in 323/2.

Ammon, the oracular god of Egypt, was known to Athenians in the fifth century and was consulted in Egypt by both Cimon (Plut. Cim. 18.6–7) and Alcibiades (Plut. Nic. 13.1). A phialē dedicated to Ammon is recorded in the Athenian inventories as early as 375, and SEG 21.241 of 363/2 lists a number of dedications made to him and other deities by the Athenian state.^[73] Pytheas of Alopeke, again in his role as epimelētēs of the waterworks, built a new spring house near the sanctuary of Ammon in 333/2 (Schwenk #28.13–15), and the sanctuary itself may date as early as 363/2.^[74] Around 330 Pausiades of Phaleron is honored for services as priest of Ammon along with the priests of Dionysos, Poseidon Pelagios, and Zeus Soter (IG II² 410). His deme and the associated cults suggest the Ammoneion was in Piraeus. That the sacrifice for Ammon in IG II² 1496.96–97 was made in only one of the four years (333/2) may indicate that it was for a special occasion, perhaps the dedication of Pytheas’ spring house.^[75]

The sacrifices to Demokratia in 332/1 and 331/0 (IG II² 1496.131–32, 140–41) should probably be associated with the dedication of a statue to her by the Boule in 333/2 (SEG 32.238).^[76] The cult may have been founded in 403 after the restoration of the democracy,^[77] but these quite large sacrifices and the dedication may reveal a renewed interest. The cult of Eirene had been established in 375/4 to celebrate Timotheus’ victories over the Lacedaimonians, which led to peace (Isoc. 15.109–10).^[78] The cult of Hermes Hegemonios (“Leader”), according to the scholiast to Aristophanes Ploutos 1159, was founded on the basis of an oracle, and this Hermes was apparently known by the time of the Ploutos (388 B.C.). In the first century B.C. a Hermes Hegemonios in Piraeus received a dedication from three generals (IG II² 2873).

The dermatikon revenues from the sacrifices to Zeus Soter (“Savior”) are the largest preserved of those from all the festivals and sacrifices. The cult is first certainly attested in Aristophanes’ Ploutos (1173–90).^[79] There the god is associated with “saving” merchant sailors and defendants in law cases.^[80] Pausanias’ description of the statuary and dedications in the sanctuary in Piraeus suggests also a tie with military victories (1.1.3). In the second half of the fourth century, major construction was underway in Soter’s Piraeic sanctuary (IG II² 1669). One epistatēs of this construction was Leochares of Pallene (APF 9175), son of Leocrates, perhaps the father of the very Leocrates who Lycourgos claimed disregarded this deity in his flight from Piraeus in 338 (Leoc. 17).^[81] In 323, as part of his restoration after the Harpalos affair, Demosthenes was contracted “to adorn the altar of Zeus Soter.” ^[82] The sacrifices to Zeus Soter in IG II² 1496 were no doubt part of a festival later to become known as the Diisoteria.^[83]

Given the large number of festivals, sacrifices, and rituals performed in Athens each year,^[84] the list in IG II² 1496 is comparatively short; but, I think, it quite likely records all the state-supported sacrifices and festivals that required a substantial number of victims. Other rites and rituals such as the Plynteria, Thargelia, Thesmophoria, and so forth did not utilize this type of victim. Nor did the Eleusinian Mysteries. The first celebration of the quadrennial Amphiaraia in 329/8 would postdate IG II² 1496.^[85] It is to these festivals and sacrifices listed in IG II² 1496 and later additions of the same type that I shall direct attention as we proceed through the Hellenistic period. We shall be seeing the continuation, development, and changes each experienced. Apart from these, three cults were also prosperous in the age of Lycourgos: that of Asclepios in Piraeus and on the south slope of the Acropolis, that of Demeter and Kore and associated deities in Eleusis and its branches in Athens, and that of Artemis of Brauron. Extensive and precisely dated Lycourgan accounts and inventories survive for each, as do dedications and other epigraphical records.^[86] We know, for example, that in 335, after Alexander destroyed Thebes, the Athenians “in grief” canceled the celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Plut. Alex. 13.1). After that the Mysteries were surely held each year and are attested for 333/2 (IG II² 1673.44, 62) and 331/0 (1672.244–45). Excellent modern studies are available for the cults of Asclepios, the Eleusinian deities, and Artemis of Brauron,^[87] and in this study we shall note only significant changes reflective of the period. And, finally, we shall attempt to establish the continuity of numerous ancient rites and rituals which were, no doubt, celebrated annually but which, by chance, have left only rare attestations. For example, we know that the Choes was still celebrated ca. 331 (Plut. Mor. 818E–F) and in 329/8 (IG II² 1672.204). The Haloa is attested for 329/8 (IG II² 1672.124, 144), and in 325/4 the Thargelia was being expected (IG II² 1629.196–99). Here the attestations are infrequent, but each will demonstrate survival and provide a terminus ante quem for the ritual or festival.

The evidence, though even more sparse, indicates that the Athenians of the Lycourgan period were regularly participating, as a state, in international religious affairs, particularly by sending religious embassies (theōriai) to international games or cult centers. The Pythia, the agonistic festival at Delphi, was being held quadrennially, and an Athenian archetheōros for it is attested for 331/0 (Hesp. 37 [1968]: 375–76, line 26). Around 330 the Athenians sent a theōria to Dodona “to adorn,” as ordered by the oracle there, the statue of Dione (Hyperides 4.24–26). Lycourgos himself, as we have seen, was one of the ten hieropoioi of the Pythaïs to Delphi in 326/5. Demosthenes headed the Athenian theōria to the Olympic Games of 324 (Din. 1.81–82), and in 323/2 the Athenians were making provisions for their theōria to the Nemean Games (Schwenk #79). And, finally, we have seen that Lycourgos prosecuted Menesaichmos for ritual error on a theōria to Delos (frag. 14.1–11 Conomis). From these scattered references we may conclude that the Athenians were at this time regularly sharing in the traditional international religious life of the Greeks, in marked contrast, as we shall see, to the later periods when they were under Macedonian domination.

Among the attempts to bring kosmos to Athenian life after 338 was also the restructuring, probably ca. 336/5, of the ephēbeia, a two-year period of formal training and acculturation of about five hundred Athenian young men aged eighteen to twenty (ephebes), all administered by an annually elected official termed the kosmētēs.^[88] We have already encountered the oath of the ephebes in Lycourgos’ Leocrates (76), and the Constitution of the Athenians of ca. 325/4 gives the fullest description of the institution (42.2–5):

After (the citizenship of) the ephebes has been examined (and approved), their fathers, gathering together by tribes, after swearing an oath, choose from their fellow tribesmen three men over forty years of age, men whom they consider best and most suitable to oversee the ephebes. From these the Demos elects one of each tribe to be sōphronistēs. And they elect from the other Athenians one to be kosmētēs over them all. These gather together the ephebes, first make a tour of the sanctuaries, and then travel to Piraeus. (The ephebes) serve as a garrison force, some for Mounichia and the others for Akte. (The Demos) elects also for them two paidotribai (“trainers”), and also instructors who teach the ephebes to fight in armor, archery, javelin throwing, and to work the catapult. The Demos gives for support one drachma (per day) for each sōphronistēs and four obols for each ephebe. A sōphronistēs receives the payments of his fellow tribesmen and buys the supplies in common for all, because they dine together by tribes, and he takes care of all other things. This is the way they spend the first year.

In the second year, when an Ekklesia is held in the theater, the ephebes make a display of military maneuvers for the Demos and, after receiving a shield and spear from the city, patrol the land and spend time in the forts. They serve on garrison duty for two years, wearing cloaks, and they are free from all taxes. They do not initiate or respond to lawsuits so that they may have no excuse for being absent, except for trials involving inheritances and guardianships or if a priesthood comes to one by family connection. And, after the two years have passed, the ephebes join the other Athenians.

This institution was, in this period, primarily and fundamentally military, not religious, and this is not the place to treat the complex questions of its origin and various activities. But even at this stage in its development the ephēbeia made young Athenian males familiar with the sanctuaries and religious traditions of their homeland. We shall see later that the ephebes come to play a very large role in state religion, but even now, just after 336/5, they are clearly participating. They received a formal tour of the sanctuaries of Attica and may have participated in the new quadrennial Amphiaraia (Reinmuth #15).^[89] Other records of their religious activity for this period are not numerous, consisting solely of three separate dedications in different places by ephebes of different tribes, all from 333/2. The ephebes of Aiantis made a dedication to the hero Mounichos for a victory in a torch race, a competition by tribes that was surely part of a religious festival (Reinmuth #6).^[90] Similarly the ephebes of Erechtheis made a dedication for a torch race victory at Rhamnous (IG II² 3105 + SEG 31.162).^[91] And, finally, the sōphronistēs and forty-four ephebes of the tribe Leontis made a dedication to their tribal hero Leos after they had received crowns from the Demos and their tribe “because of their virtue (ἀρετῆς) and their self-control (σωφροσύνης)” (Reinmuth #9). These are the earliest indications of what will become a very large program of ephebic religious activity in the Hellenistic period.^[92]

I conclude this chapter with a brief discussion of IG II² 410, a decree of ca. 330 which honored with gold crowns Meixigenes of Cholleidai, the priest of Dionysos(APF 9754); Himeraios of Phaleron, the priest of Poseidon Pelagios (APF 7578);^[93] Nicocles of Hagnous, the priest of Zeus Soter (PA 10897); and Pausiades of Phaleron, the priest of Ammon (PA 11727).^[94] They along with ten hieropoioi were selected by the Boule to sacrifice to Dionysos and the other gods (surely those represented by the individual priests). They have reported “good things” about these sacrifices—no doubt that the omens were good.^[95] Their sacrifices, at the Boule’s request, were “for the health and safety of the Boule and Demos of the Athenians and of their children, wives, and other possessions.”

We have thus far examined, through Lycourgos’ Leocrates, continuity in religious belief and both continuity and innovation in deities and cults from the fifth century through the Lycourgan era. Thus far continuity heavily outweighs innovation. In the sacrifices of IG II² 410, commissioned by the Boule^[96] for the “health and safety of the Boule and the Demos and their wives, children, and property” and made to Dionysos, Poseidon Pelagios, Zeus Soter, and Ammon, all from Piraeus, we see, I think, signs of the beginning of a new orientation, in both thought and place, of Athenian practiced religion. The place has shifted from the Acropolis cults of Athena Polias and Poseidon-Erechtheus to Piraeus, and two relative newcomers, Zeus Soter and Ammon, are among the deities honored. The Piraeus setting is not surprising, given the importance placed on the development, religious and secular, of the harbor in the Lycourgan era. We shall later investigate how political circumstances influenced the religious development of Piraeus and dictated, or rather interrupted, its religious relationship with the city of Athens. In the phrase “for the health and safety” I see a sign of a changed religious outlook, one whose concern is now becoming defensive, perhaps even pessimistic in contrast to the higher expectations and optimism of the fifth century. Athens no longer is militarily and economically preeminent, threatening others. Under the power of Macedon she is now the one threatened and will remain threatened throughout the Hellenistic period. Athens’ needs are now different from what they were in the fifth century, and we should not be surprised to see state cult accommodating itself to these new needs. “Health and safety” had always been gifts of the gods,^[97] but so had many others. But in the turbulent times of the last half of the fourth century and in the following centuries, the obtaining of health and safety plays an increasingly large role in state cult. “For health and safety” soon becomes formulaic in state decrees treating sacrifices and other religious matters, and various types of gods promising these come to the fore.

Asclepios’ cult was very strong in the fourth century and remained so throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In 332/1 the newly enfranchised Amphiaraos himself, the proprietor of a healing sanctuary and obvious favorite of the Lycourgan age, is given a gold crown worth 1,000 drachmas, because “he takes good care of the Athenians and the others who come to his sanctuary for the health and safety of all those in the land” (Schwenk #40). That the healing gods provide health and safety is understandable, but their greater prominence, vis-à-vis the fifth century, is also revealing.^[98] What IG II² 410 indicates is the extension of such concerns among the official documents of state cult to deities not fundamentally concerned with healing.^[99] Later we shall see how other “saving gods” of various pedigrees come forth to promise safety in the political arena, amid these changes IG II² 410 of ca. 330 B.C. serving both as a marker and a harbinger of developments in religious thought in Hellenistic Athens.

In the fourteen years between the battle of Chaeroneia and the death of Alexander, the Athenians, under the leadership of Lycourgos, as part of a general civic, military, educational, and economic revival, devoted considerable attention and money to the kosmos of long-established cults, including building and remodeling sanctuaries, erecting and refurbishing dedications, and reorganizing the finances of many festivals and cult centers. It is noteworthy that the rebuilding of the religious infrastructure was considered no less important than rebuilding the walls, the ships, and the national economy. State religion was still vital to Athenian society.

This effort on the religious side should not be put down to mere nostalgia any more than were the efforts on the military and economic side. The cults enhanced had been practiced throughout the fourth century, but may, like much else in Athens, have become somewhat shabby from the economic and military tribulations of the century. I am speaking not of the restoration of lapsed practices and cults but of the refurbishing of existing ones. If I am correct in my assessment of Lycourgos’ Leocrates, religious beliefs and attitudes remained very much what they had been in the late fifth century and throughout the fourth century. Participation in this religious effort was, as we have seen, widely based. Lycourgos’ contributions were certainly great, but in his religious projects he was aided by many prominent Athenian citizens and was supported by the majority votes of the body politic. In addition, Lycourgos was often continuing or completing projects, such as the theater of Dionysus and the Panathenaic Stadium, that had been begun in the generation before Chaeroneia.

The religious environment of the 320s would have been familiar, natural, and comfortable to an Athenian of the 420s. There were innovations, but they were limited and in accord with the classical traditions. The Athenians of the fourth century introduced the cult of Ammon for their own use, but the new cults of Isis and Aphrodite Ourania were for foreign nationals dwelling in Piraeus, just as in the fifth century Bendis had been for Thracians. Piraeus had been, was, and would continue to be the natural home for new cults of foreign residents. With new emphasis on economic growth and the navy, Piraeus was also the natural site for developments of all types, including the religious ones of the festival of Poseidon and the sanctuary of Zeus Soter.

The one significant hint of change I see in religious attitudes is a rising concern for “the health and safety of the Demos of the Athenians, their children, wives, and other property”: hence the prominence of Asclepios and Amphiaraos. Developments in this regard in the political arena will soon be coming, but we can note already the large sacrifices to Eirene and Zeus Soter.^[100] Hand in hand with this concern is, I believe, the inauguration and quick growth of the cult of Agathe Tyche. If events in political and personal life were thought to depend on Tyche, the state and its citizens may have been more inclined to think of their gods as “saviors” than as “givers.” But such changes are, in the age of Lycourgos, in their very beginnings: what at the beginning of the Hellenistic period is most striking is the continuity of Athenian religion with its classical past.

Notes