Notes
1. For Lycourgos' times, family, and for many other aspects of his political and religious activity, see Tracy, 1995; Faraguna 1992; Merker 1986; Humphreys 1985; Schwenk 1985; Mitchel 1970; MacKendrick 1969, 22-24; Durrbach 1931. [BACK]
2. On the political aspects of the speech, see Tracy 1995, 14–16. [BACK]
3. On these liturgies, see Davies 1967 and APF, xvii–xxxi. See also below, chapter 2, pp. 54–56. [BACK]
4. On the “sacred stone” and the Stoa Basileios in front of which it sat, see Camp 1992, 53–57, 100–105. [BACK]
5. On the jurors’ oath, see A. Harrison 1968–71, 2:48. [BACK]
6. The hieromnēmōn was Athens’ delegate to the Amphictionic Council that administered Delphi in this period. [BACK]
7. For text and commentary, see Tod 1948, #204. See also Siewert 1977. [BACK]
8. Tod 1948, #204, for text and commentary. [BACK]
9. On this decree and oath, see MacDowell 1962, 134–36. [BACK]
10. Mikalson 1983, 7–8. [BACK]
11. That Leocrates’ jury was exactly divided on its vote and that Leocrates was thus acquitted (Aeschines 3.252) need not make us question the audience’s acceptance of Lycourgos’ religious arguments. There may have been points of law or fact which Lycourgos avoided or concealed but which influenced the jury. [BACK]
12. Pausanias (1.29.16) in his description of Lycourgos’ activities virtually summarizes this decree. A fragmentary copy of the decree survives on stone (IG II2 457). For IG II2 513 as a fragment of another copy of the decree, see M. Osborne 1981, 172–74. On the variations among these texts, see Oikonomides 1986; Cuvigny 1981, 87–89 (and notes). [BACK]
13. On the Eteobutadai, see Bourriot 1976, 1304–47. [BACK]
14. On the sons of Lycourgos and especially on Habron, see Merker 1986. On the priesthood of Poseidon-Erechtheus, see Aleshire 1994, 327–35. [BACK]
15. [Plut.] X Orat. 841A–B, 842F–843A, 843E–F. [BACK]
16. [Plut.] X Orat. 842E; Paus. 1.29.15. For the discovery and epitaphs of the tombs of Lycourgos’ family, see SEG 37.160–62. [BACK]
17. On Democles and this incident, see Merker 1986, 46. [BACK]
18. For the nature of these contests, see Hamilton 1992, 38–42; Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 15–16. Hamilton (42) describes Lycourgos’ reforms: “A plausible reconstruction is that when Lykourgos rebuilt the Theater of Dionysos he revived the Chytrine contests, shifted their venue from the Limnaian precinct to his new theater, and made them much more elaborate.” [BACK]
19. For the nature of this contest, see Pickard-Cambridge 1962, 4, 57. Oddly, Poseidon’s cult is poorly attested for Piraeus. There is only one mention, of a “plaque of Poseidon” (SEG 26.72.42, 46–47 of 375/4). See Stroud 1974, 183. [BACK]
20. For an example of such behavior, see Dem. 21.158. [BACK]
21. Cf. Plut. Mor. 541F, Comp. Nic. Crass. 1.3; Aelian VH 13.24. [BACK]
22. On Schwenk #21, see Faraguna 1992, 368–69, 371–79. [BACK]
23. Pausanias (1.21.1–2) discusses statues of the three tragedians in the theater of Dionysos. For the argument that these were the Lycourgan statues and for later copies, see Richter 1962, 24–29. [BACK]
24. For a discussion of these speeches, see Durrbach 1932, xxxvi–l. Citations of the fragments are from Conomis 1970. [BACK]
25. On Oropos and its importance to Athens in this period, see below, p. 33. [BACK]
26. Cf. Leoc. 53 and Harp. s.v. “ Αὐτόλυκος. ” [BACK]
27. The Vita claims 250 talents ([Plut.] X Orat. 841D); Stratocles’ decree, 650 talents (852B). If both refer to the same fund, Stratocles’ decree is probably correct. [BACK]
28. For the date of IG II2 1673, see Clinton 1972, 83–113. For more on IG II2 1672 and 1673 and their possible relationship to a Lycourgan reestablishment of the ἀπαρχαί, see Faraguna 1992, 357–58. [BACK]
29. More generally, see Lewis 1985b, 71–81. See also Linders 1987. [BACK]
30. Dated inventories for these years survive from the Acropolis, IG II2 1462 of 329/8 (on which see Nagy 1984) and 1497 of 329/8–327/6 and 1472 of 326/5–321/0; from Eleusis, IG II2 1544 of 333/2; and from the Asclepieion on the south slope of the Acropolis, Aleshire, Inv. III, ending in 329/8. A series of inventories of silver phialai dates ca. 330 (IG II2 1553–78; on these and similar new texts, see Lewis 1959a, 1968). Many of the surviving fragments of similar inventories probably date also to these years. On Lycourgan inventories of the treasurers of Athena, see Lewis 1988, 297–98. [BACK]
31. On such dedications being part of the glory of the city, see Linders 1987. [BACK]
32. IG II2 1498–501a appear to be an Lycourgan age inventory of a large number of bronze statues and plaques from the Acropolis, many damaged and all perhaps in a “scrap heap,” which were to be melted down, presumably to be remade into new dedications. See Harris 1992. [BACK]
33. Harp. s.v. “ δερματικόν.” The fund was being used by 335/4 and was considered “the money of the gods” (Schwenk #21.CEF 23). IG II2 1496 records revenues from the fund from 334/3–331/0, on which see below, pp. 36–39. [BACK]
34. Schwenk, #17A and B, on which see now Rosivach 1991. On the identity of the land called Nea, see below, note 51. [BACK]
35. On the nature of Eudemos’ contribution, probably valued at 4,000 drachmas, see Clinton 1972, 105. [BACK]
36. On the development of this new manner of providing funds for state religious activities in the Lycourgan period, see Faraguna 1992, 381–96. [BACK]
37. Cf. Paus. 1.29.16. [BACK]
38. Schwenk 1985, 125–26; Mitchel 1962, 215 n. 8, 226. [BACK]
39. IG II2 1424A.378, 1425.382. On these statues of Nike, see Faraguna 1992, 377–79; Linders 1987, 119–20; Mitchel 1962; D. B. Thompson 1944. On Thompson’s suggestion that Alexander offered to restore these Nikai, see Mitchel 1970, 6. [BACK]
40. On IG II2 1493–95, see Mitchel 1962, 213–19. [BACK]
41. Theater of Dionysos: [Plut.] X Orat. 841D, 852C; IG II2 457; Paus. 1.29.16. Panathenaic Stadium: [Plut.] X Orat. 841D; IG II2 457. On the theater, see Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 134–74. For the throne of Dionysos in the theater being Lycourgan, see Maass 1972, 76. [BACK]
42. Temple of Apollo Patroös: Camp 1992, 159–61; Lambert 1993, 209–12, 357; Hedrick 1988; H. Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 136–39. Monument of eponymous heroes: Camp 1992, 97–100; Rotroff 1978, 208–9; H. Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 38–41; Shear 1970. Temple just north of that of Apollo Patroös, sometimes assigned to Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria: Lambert 1993, 209, 357; H. Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 139–40. Portico of Philon: Mylonas 1961, 133–35. Cf. IG II2 1673 of 333/2. Plutonion and Eleusinion in Agora: IG II2 1672.162–68, 182–83, 193 ff. (of 329/8); Clinton 1992, 18–21. Repairs at Amphiaraion and building of spring house of Ammon: Schwenk #28 of 333/2. Cf. Schwenk #41.16–17 of 332/1 and below, pp. 33 and 37. On secular as well as sacred elements of the Lycourgan building program, see Faraguna 1992, 257–69. [BACK]
43. The intermingling of military and religious resources is suggested also in an anecdote related by Plutarch (Mor. 818E–F): Demades, probably as treasurer of the military fund, in 331 dissuaded the Athenians from aiding those revolting from Alexander by saying he would use for this expedition the fund from which he had intended to distribute fifty drachmas to each citizen at the Choes festival. On this incident see Faraguna 1992, 256. [BACK]
44. On this embassy, see Tritle 1988, 117–18. [BACK]
45. On this debate in the Ekklesia and on Alexander’s very short-lived cult in Athens, see chap. 2, pp. 46–49. On Demosthenes’ quip, see Worthington 1992, 264; Nock 1972, 135. [BACK]
46. On this new quadrennial festival, see Tracy 1995, 92; Knoepfler 1993. Tracy (7) disagrees with Knoepfler and accepts the traditional view that Philip in 338, not Alexander in 335, returned Oropos to Athens. [BACK]
47. On the Piraeic cults of Isis and Aphrodite Ourania at this time, see Simms 1989; Schwenk 1985, 141–46; Vidman 1970, 11–12. The Piraeic Aphrodite Ourania is distinct from the Aphrodite Ourania who had long had a sanctuary and altar in the Agora, west of the Stoa Poikile. On the latter, see Shear 1984, 24–40; Edwards 1984; Foster 1984. On this and on all cults of Aphrodite in Athens, see Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 15–79, esp. 16–25. [BACK]
48. On the foundation of Bendis’ cult in Athens, see Simms, 1988. [BACK]
49. Many of Lycourgos’ statements about religion, both in general and in particular, can be paralleled from orators who lived in his period, from his purported teachers Isocrates and Plato, and from [Dem.] 59, a speech from the late fourth century. Examples include the following: That the goodwill of the gods is the reward of piety (Leoc. 82, 127; Dem. 3.26, 19.239–40, [11.2, 16]; Isoc. 6.59, 7.29–30, 8.33–34, 15.281–82). That the gods become hostile as the result of impiety (Leoc. 93, 129; [Dem.] 59.74–77; Isoc. 8.120; Pl. Leg. 9.871A–B). That the gods may be allies in war (Leoc. 82; Dem. 18.153, [11.2]) and may help Athens through divination (Leoc. 93; Dem. 19.297–299; Aeschines 3.130; Din. 1.98). That piety involves observing traditional sacrifices (Leoc. 97; [Dem.] 59.74–77; Pl. Leg. 5.738B–C) and respect for the dead (Leoc. 94, 97; [Dem.] 43.65; Aeschines 1.13–14). That gods punish perjurers (Leoc. 79; Dem. 19.239–240, [59.126]) but feel goodwill toward those who keep their oaths (Leoc. 127; Dem. 3.26). That perjury may adversely affect one’s children (Leoc. 79; Dem. 54.40–41, 19.292, 23.67, 29.26, 33, 54 [59.10]; Aeschines 3.111), and, for the state, general prosperity (Leoc. 127; Dem. 3.26), divine help in war (Leoc. 82; [Dem.] 11.2), and hopes for the future (Leoc. 79; Dem. 19.239–40; Aeschines 2.87; Isoc. 18.3). That the ephebic oath is important (Leoc. 76–79; Dem. 19.303) and that treason is a violation of it and hence impiety (Leoc. 76–79; Dem. 8.8, 18.240, 323, 19.156). That the gods help in prosecution of such impieties (Leoc. 1–2, 91–92; Din. 1.98, 3.14) and direct their attention (Leoc. 146; Dem. 19.239–40; [59.109, 126]) and assign guilt (Leoc. 146; [Dem.] 59.109; Aeschines 3.120–21) to jurors who do not convict the impious.
These parallels indicate that Lycourgos’ claims were common and familiar to Athenian audiences. For general discussion of these and similar beliefs, see Mikalson 1983. [BACK]
50. These two groups of individuals have been admirably analyzed by Lewis 1955, 27–36. See also Faraguna 1992, 215–43; Humphreys 1985, 210–12; Schwenk 1985, 244–48. [BACK]
51. For the date, see Knoepfler 1993. For the division of the land of Oropos among the Athenian tribes and for the troubled question of whether the land called Nea, the rental of which provided funds for victims for the annual Panathenaia, was in Oropos, see Rosivach 1991, 436–39; Langdon 1987. On all aspects of the cult of Amphiaraos at Oropos, see Petrakos 1968. [BACK]
52. On Pytheas and his office, see Habicht 1989 1994, 328–32. [BACK]
53. For the possibility that the very fragmentary SEG 32.86 may be part of this legislation, see M. Walbank, 1982. But Humphreys (1985, 227–28 n. 33) prefers the Epitaphia. [BACK]
54. Such theōriai to Delphi were sent irregularly and infrequently in the fifth and fourth centuries, on a signal of lightening sent by Zeus to Athens. For the Pythaïdes in the fifth and fourth centuries, see Daux 1936, 528–31. [BACK]
55. For references and further details on the careers of these and other individuals discussed here, see APF and Lewis 1955, 27–36. [BACK]
56. On Demades’ role in the restoration of the Nikai in and after 334/3, see Mitchel 1962, 213–22. [BACK]
57. Nāopoioi were representatives from various states who oversaw capital improvement projects at Delphi. See Roux 1979, 96 ff. [BACK]
58. On Neoptolemos, see Faraguna 1992, 220–21. [BACK]
59. On the origins, history, and (now excavated) sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule, see Garland 1992, 73–78. [BACK]
60. Edwards 1985, #15, 419–38; Shear 1973, 168–70. [BACK]
61. On Xenocles’ career, see Faraguna 1992, 228–29; Habicht 1988a 1994, 323–27. [BACK]
62. IG II2 1191, 2840, 2841, and Anth. Pal. 9.147; on which see Habicht 1988a, 325 1994, 325. [BACK]
63. On the replacement of the several chorēgoi by one elected agōnothetēs, see chapter 2. [BACK]
64. On curse tablets, see Habicht 1993 1994, 14–18; Gager 1992. The specific tablets cited are Ziebarth 1934, 1023 #1, 1027 #2; Kerameikos 14 (1990): 148–49; Gager 1992, #42, 58. [BACK]
65. Cf. Humphreys 1985, 212. [BACK]
66. Mikalson 1982. [BACK]
67. Cf. Plut. Cim. 8.5–6 and Paus. 3.3.7. On the recovery of Theseus’ bones and the foundation of his cult, see Garland 1992, 82–98. [BACK]
68. On which see Clinton 1994; Aleshire 1989, 7–15; Garland 1992, 116–35. [BACK]
69. For the introduction of Bendis, see Simms 1988. [BACK]
70. Lycourgos, frag. 5.6 Conomis. On a possible sacrifice to Agathe Tyche in 304/3 and on her cult in Athens, see Woodhead 1981, 361–62. See now also Tracy 1994. For fourth-century sculptured representations of the goddess, see Palagia 1982, 109; 1994 [BACK]
71. For the increasing importance of Tyche in religious thought in the fourth century, see Mikalson 1983, 59–62. [BACK]
72. Hesp. 63 (1994): 233–39; SEG 30.69. [BACK]
73. Cf. SEG 21.562. On these inventories and in general on Ammon in Athens in this period, see Woodward 1962. [BACK]
74. Woodward 1962, 6–7. [BACK]
75. Woodward 1962, 7. [BACK]
76. For arguments for the identification of this statue with a late-fourth-century torso (S 2370) found in the excavations of the Agora, see Palagia 1982. Later (1994) Palagia followed Shear in assigning the torso to Agathe Tyche. [BACK]
77. On the cult of Demokratia in Athens, see Raubitschek 1962. [BACK]
78. Deubner 1932, 37–38; Jacoby, FGrHist 3B, suppl. 1:523–26. For a possible festival of Eirene, see Robert 1977. [BACK]
79. On cult of Zeus Soter see Rosivach 1987; Garland 1987, 137–38. Garland (137, 239) associates the provisions of IG I[3] 130a (of ca. 432) with Zeus Soter, but there is nothing in the text to warrant this. Since there are two Zeuses given the epithet Soter in Athens, one Zeus Eleutherios of the Stoa of Zeus in the Agora and the other in Piraeus, care must be taken in assigning references to Zeus Soter. It is not sufficient to assume all references “in political contexts” are to Zeus Eleutherios/Soter, as Rosivach (263) does. The Piraeic Soter may well have picked up political associations (see chapter 4). Of the references of importance in this chapter, Lycourgos Leoc. 17, 136–37; IG II2 1669; Plut. Mor. 846D, Dem. 27.6–8 certainly belong to the Soter of Piraeus. Most likely Schwenk #21.CEF 13 and IG II2 410 do also. Given the late and Piraeic nature of most of the other sacrifices in IG II2 1496, I take the reference to Zeus Soter there to be to the Zeus of Piraeus (against Rosivach, 280 n. 49). [BACK]
80. Lycourgos too imagines that Leocrates in his defense will appeal to Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira (Leoc. 17). [BACK]
81. Cf. Humphreys 1985, 229 n. 40. A statue of Leocrates’ father, dead by 330, had been dedicated in the sanctuary of Zeus Soter (Leoc. 136–37). If the Leochares of IG II2 1669 is in fact our Leocrates’ father, the construction described in IG II2 1669 must antedate 338. [BACK]
82. Plut. Mor. 846D; Dem. 27.6–8. It is commonly but mistakenly thought that Demosthenes spent either thirty (Mor. 846D) or fifty (Dem. 27.8) talents on this “adornment.” This large sum was, in fact, part of the contrivance (ἐσοφίσαντο) the Athenians used to make it possible for Demosthenes to pay his outstanding fine (χρηματικῆς ζημίας) for involvement in the Harpalos affair. The Athenians every year paid a contractor to prepare and adorn the altar of Zeus Soter for his annual sacrifice, and this year they awarded the contract, at the highly inflated sum of, probably, fifty talents to Demosthenes. Demosthenes certainly need not and did not spent the fifty talents on the altar. They would go to pay his fine. Demosthenes would be responsible only for having the altar duly prepared, and the cost for that was probably modest, no doubt less than 100 drachmas. The altar of Zeus Soter was probably chosen both for its symbolic value and for the sacrifice’s proximity of place and perhaps time to Demosthenes’ return. Cf. Androtion FGrHist 324 F 8; Jacoby ad loc.; and Goldstein 1968, 42–44. [BACK]
83. The name “Diisoteria” is not attested until 140/39 (IG II2 971.41–45). [BACK]
84. Mikalson 1975a. [BACK]
85. The quadrennial Hephaistia reported in [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.7 to have been introduced in 329/8 is chimerical, a mistake for the quadrennial Amphiaraia discussed above. See Knoepfler 1993; Rhodes 1993, 610. [BACK]
86. E.g., for Asclepios: dedications and inventories of dedications, Aleshire, Inv. III and SEG 30.163; others, Schwenk #54, SEG 35.74, and IG II2 4392. For Eleusis: financial accounts, IG II2 1670–73; dedications and inventory of dedications, IG II2 1544, 2839–41; other, IG II2 1933–34; for the Lycourgan building program at Eleusis, see Mitchel 1970, 45. For Artemis of Brauron, dedications and inventories of dedications, IG II2 1522–24, 4594. [BACK]
87. For Asclepios, Aleshire 1989, 1991; Edelstein and Edelstein 1945. For Eleusis, Clinton 1992, 1988, 1974; Mylonas 1962. For Artemis of Brauron, see summary and bibliography in Rhodes 1993, 607–8. [BACK]
88. On the ephēbeia and on changes to it in this period, see Rhodes 1993, 494–95, 502–10; Faraguna 1992, 274–80; Siewert 1977; Reinmuth 1971; Pélékidis 1962. [BACK]
89. See Rhodes 1993, 505; Lewis 1973, 255. On the date of Reinmuth #15, see Tracy 1995, 25–26. [BACK]
90. On the possible festivals and on the hero Mounichos as the eponymous hero of this year’s class of ephebes, see Habicht 1961, 145–46 1994, 42–44. [BACK]
91. On this text, see Palagia and Lewis, 1989. [BACK]
92. See Humphreys 1985, 206–8 for speculation from admittedly “rather tenuous” indications on what other religious rituals Lycourgan ephebes may have performed. [BACK]
93. The epithet “Pelagios” serves to distinguish this Poseidon from Poseidon Erechtheus, Hippios, Soter of Sunium, and the various other Poseidons of Attica. He may well be the Poseidon for whom Lycourgos established the cyclical choruses in Piraeus. [BACK]
94. The terminus ante quem for IG II2 410 is the death of Himeraios at the hands of Antipater’s agents in 322/1. On this see below, chapter 2, pp. 49–50. [BACK]
95. On boards of hieropoioi established for making such mantic sacrifices, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.6; Rhodes 1972, 129. [BACK]
96. For other, later examples of such sacrifices commissioned by the Boule, see Rhodes 1972, 43 n. 6. [BACK]
97. Mikalson 1983, 16–24, 42, 45–48, 53, 55–56, 67–68, 71, 89. [BACK]
98. See, e.g., Garland 1992, 132–35. [BACK]
99. The only prior attestation of the phrase “for health and safety” in state documents is IG II2 223 B.5 of 343/2, a decree which Phanodemos proposed. On this text see below, chapter 4, p. 132. [BACK]
100. In the comical situation of Ar. Plut. 1171–90, the cult of Zeus Soter becomes unnecessary when Ploutos (“Wealth”) recovers his powers. One might infer that the greater the dangers to the state, whether they be economic or military, the greater the need for Zeus Soter. Ehrenberg (1962, 271 n. 2) suggests, correctly I think, that Zeus Soter appears only in the later plays of Aristophanes “because of the general deterioration of the political and economic conditions.” [BACK]