[A version of this article was published in 1991 by Franz Steiner Verlag in Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 40, pp. 288–306, and it has been made available via JSTOR. This version has been made available by permission of the author.]
Introduction
In the more than 600 year history of the organization known as the Athenian Ephebeia, the period from 166 B.C. to 88 B.C. may rightly be characterized as the halcyon days of the institution. The general prosperity in Athens, brought on, no doubt, by the acquisition of Delos in 166 B.C., made it possible for more Athenian families than ever to enroll their sons in the corps of the Ephebeia—by then, a private institution for the wealthy—and to subsidize their many activities.[1] One sure sign of a thriving Ephebeia during this era, but especially in the last third of the second century, is the attestation of numerous and lengthy Epheboi inscriptions. On stelai as large as 1.75 m. x 0.9 m., multiple decrees of the Athenian state proclaim the accomplishments of the Epheboi and their various officers. These, in turn, are followed by extensive catologues of names, the longest of which, in IG II (2nd ed.) 1011 from 106/5 B.C., contains the names of 140 Epheboi.
Besides supplying us with a surfeit of formulary language, the Epheboi decrees also leave behind much information concerning the Ephebic year. This is particularly true, for example, when it comes to the paramilitary exploits of the youths, the exact cost of their various activities and contributions, the time and place of their public performances, and the names of the various officers of the Ephebeia.
When the subject of the decrees turns to the participation of the Epheboi in the festivals of Athenian state religion, we are—once again—usually treated to a wealth of details about the festivals themselves and the extent to which the Epheboi were involved. Sometimes, however, the information concerning this type of activity appears to have been written in a kind of “shorthand”, where pertinent facts are seemingly omitted or left implied. Consequently, our knowledge concerning the role of the Epheboi in certain aspects of Athenian state cult is incomplete, and in these situations experts can only resort to hypotheses.
Such has been the case with the so-called “Procession to Phaleron”. According to the decrees of three separate inscriptions from near the end of the second century B.C., the Epheboi are said to have carried “Pallas” to Phaleron, and then brought her back to the city, “with torchlight and with outstanding decorum.”[2] Almost the same words are used in all three inscriptions, except that in IG II (2nd ed.) 1011 from 106/5, the phrase μετὰ γεννητῶν accompanies the verb συνεξήγαγον, and Phaleron is not specified as the destination (lines 10–11). Nothing else is said about these events—explicitly, at least—in the other Epheboi inscriptions from this period, or, for that matter, from any period.
Predictably, scholarly opinion concerning the Procession to Phaleron has been divided. From the 18th century to the present, most experts have concluded or merely assumed that the “Pallas” of the inscriptions was the xoanon, the ancient wooden idol of Athena from the Acropolis, which the Epheboi brought to the seashore at Phaleron for a ritual cleansing. These same experts have also identified the occasion for this purification rite as the Plynteria, an annual “washing” festival which Athenians celebrated in mid-summer, i.e. towards the end of the religious/civic year.[3]
But there has also been a smaller group of scholars who have insisted that the Procession to Phaleron had nothing to do with the old wooden statue from the Acropolis. They have proposed instead that the Pallas of the inscriptions was actually the “Palladion”, a statue which was popularly believed to have been brought to Attica from Troy, and which came to be associated with, and gave its name to, a law court called the “Court at the Palladion” (ἐπὶ τῷ Παλλαδίῳ). Furthermore, since the Palladion statue supposedly stood in this law court, where trials for various types of homicide were historically held (Arist. Ath. Pol. 57.3), these same scholars have theorized that the statue underwent ritual cleansings, and that these were performed with the help of the Epheboi, who annually brought the Palladion, or “Pallas”, to the strand at Phaleron.[4]
One of recent proponents of this minority view is Walter Burkert. In his Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart, 1977), Burkert takes up the matter of the Procession to Phaleron, but only very briefly. On page 79 of the English translation, published under the title of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1985), Burkert states: “Not to be confused with this [the Athenian Plynteria] is the annual procession in which the ἔφηβοι carry another image of Athena, the Palladion, to the sea where it is purified in order to be set up once more on the ancient site of an important law court, where crimes such as homicide are tried.”
No arguments are presented in this magisterial study, and readers are instead referred to the 1970 (vol. 10) issue of Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte. There, in an article entitled “Buzyge und Palladion: Gewalt und Gericht in altgriechischen Ritual” (pp. 356–368), Burkert presents an analysis of the interaction between the myths and rituals involving the Athenian Palladion. Burkert argues that the Procession to Phaleron was one of the components in a complex ritual whereby the Palladion statue was purified and the law court annually renewed. And insofar as the Procession to Phaleron allegedly mirrors the stories involving Demophon and the arrival of the Palladion statue in Attica, Burkert states that the connection between the Phaleron Procession and the Palladion can thereby be considered assured (p. 364).
Leaving aside the merits of Burkert’s analysis of the Palladion myths and their possible connection with either existing or hypothetical rituals, we need to look at certain key premises to his argument. In order to devise his interpretation of the Procession to Phaleron, Burkert had to proceed from the following premises: 1) that the Procession took place at the time in the Athenian year when the Court at the Palladion was annually reopened; and 2) that the Pallas which was escorted to Phaleron was in fact the Palladion statue. While these premises are presented in the briefest of fashions—only half a page of text is devoted to both—they are pivotal to the article, since both have to be correct in order for Burkert’s analysis to be valid.
One purpose of the present paper is to challenge these premises and to show that the meaning of the Procession to Phaleron has not been settled and remains an open question. The other is to suggest a new interpretation which best utilizes the available evidence.
The Timing of the Procession to Phaleron
According to Burkert, the Epheboi Procession to Phaleron could not have occurred at or even near to the time of the Plynteria, a feast which he places at 29 Thargelion.[5] The evidence for this, according to Burkert, can be found in the decrees themselves, where there exists a clear chronological order to the way in which the activities of the Epheboi are mentioned (p. 359, note 14). Given this principle of chronology in the structuring of the narratives, Burkert attempts to fix the timetable of the Phaleron Procession on the basis of where it is mentioned in IG II (2nd ed.) 1006, an Epheboi inscription from 122/1 B.C. It so happens that, in this particular inscription, the Procession to Phaleron (line 11) is mentioned just after the festival of the Proerosia (line 10), and just before the Rural Dionysia (line 13). Accordingly, Burkert places the Phaleron Procession in Maimakterion (month V), in between Pyanopsion (month IV), the month of the Proeresia, and Posideon (month VI), the month of the Rural Dionysia. In so doing, Burkert makes the Procession to Phaleron coincide with the opening of the Court at the Palladion during Maimakterion. But is this reckoning correct?
To begin, it might be noted that there is a priori a problem with the notion of a festival that is celebrated in the wintertime. As far as H. W. Parke was able to determine, there were no popular festivals at all during the month of Maimakterion. Parke explains that Maimakterion offered “little occasion to go out in the open air,” since any gathering ran the risk “of being spoiled by rain.”[6] It would be surprising, therefore, if a parade in which the Epheboi escorted a statue to Phaleron had indeed taken place at a time when outdoor activities were restricted and when the use of torches during wintry conditions would have been impractical.
More importantly, the assumption that the Epheboi decrees were chronologically arranged needs to be challenged. There can be no doubt that that some consideration was given to a true chronology in the ordering of the narratives of the Epheboi inscriptions, especially at the beginning of the decrees. We can see, for example, that the first celebration to be mentioned is almost always an initiation ceremony which began the Epheboi year, early in Boedromion (month III). Typically, the next festival to be listed is in honor of Artemis Agrotera, and this too falls in Boedromion, a few days after the initiation. The festival listed third is usually that of the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were celebrated, again in Boedromion, from the 15th to the 22nd.
But beyond this group of festivals from the early part of the Epheboi year, a chronological sequence does not appear to have been followed in the narratives of the inscriptions. In IG II (2nd ed.) 1006, from 122/1 B.C., for example, Epheboi activities, which had been supervised by the Cosmetes, are listed in the following order:
line 77: the Theseia (Pyanopsion, month IV)
line 78: the Diisoteria (Skirophorion, month XII)
line 79: the Proerosia (Pyanopsion, month IV).
We see a similar disregard for chronology in IG II (2nd ed.) 1011 from 106/5 B.C., where the Epitaphia, a feast that in most cases is mentioned after the Procession to Phaleron, is here mentioned in the lines immediately preceding it (lines 10–11). And again, in IG II (2nd ed.) 1029 from 94/3 B.C., we see in line 16 that the Epheboi made a sacrifice at the Proerosia (Pyanopsion, month IV), and in line 18 that they offered a φιάλη at the earlier celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Boedromion, month III). Even the departure ceremony at the end of the Epheboi year, the Exiteteria, is not always listed last, but is sometimes given first, e.g. in line 5 of IG II (2nd ed.) 1039, from 83–73 B.C. Clearly, there had been no premium placed on chronological order in the Epheboi decrees.
Even in those instances where some festivals appear at first glance to have been listed in conformity with the true sequence of events, a closer look will show that there may have been another reason for the particular order. One of the most commonly recurring clusters of festivals in the decrees is that of the City Dionysia, the Panathenaia, and the Eleusinia.[7] In an order that never varies, these three festivals are mentioned as occasions for the “proclamations” of the crowns won by the Epheboi. And surely, from the point of view of an Epheboi year, which began in Boedromion (month III) and ended in Metageitnion (month II), these three festivals seem to have been listed in a sequence that corresponds to the order in which the Epheboi participated in them. In other words, from a chronological point of view, we would expect to see first the City Dionysia from Elaphebolion or month IX, followed by the Panathenaia from Hekatombaion or month I, and then the Eleusinia from Metageitnion or month II. But was chronology within the Epheboi year the overriding consideration in this arrangement?
In at least one Epheboi inscription from the late second and early first centuries, a fourth festival is mentioned as the occasion for the proclamation of the Epheboi crowns. IG II (2nd ed.) 1028, from 100/99 B.C., lists the Ptolemaia, after the City Dionysia, Panathenaia, and Eleusinia.[8] Although we have no information in our sources concerning the actual date for the celebration of the Ptolemaia, following Burkert’s claim that chronology was the operative principle in the ordering of the festivals, we would have to assume that the Ptolemaia were celebrated some time after the Eleusinia and before the City Dionysia.
Another group of inscriptions from earlier in the second century B.C., however, would seem to indicate otherwise. In decrees honoring the Agonothetai of the Theseia, we see that once again victory crowns were to be proclaimed at the Great Dionysia, the Panathenaia, the Eleusinia, and the Ptolemaia.[9] Clearly, the authors of these decrees were not bound by the parameters of an Ephebic year; and yet all four festivals are listed in the same order in which they appear in the Ephebic inscriptions. From the point of view of the civic year, which went from Hekatombaion to Skirophorion, the ordering of the first three festivals in these inscriptions the Panathenaia should have been listed first, to have been followed by the Eleusinia, and then by the City Dionysia. It would seem likely, therefore, that the determining factor here was not the sequence of the festivals where the crowns had been proclaimed. Instead, in a kind of protocol, the four festivals appear to be listed in an order of descending importance. The City Dionysia were apparently the premier event, probably because the proclamations were to be made at the “new tragedies,” whereas the similar proclamations at the Panathenaia and the Eleusinia were to coincide with “athletic contests.” The tragedies, it would appear, simply took precedence over the games. As for the Ptolemaia, its last-place appearance is to be expected: this was, after all, a festival that never managed to gain much popularity in Athens and would naturally be ranked below the other three festivals with which it was grouped.
And perhaps, we see the same kind of “hierarchy” of festivals in the Epheboi inscriptions, not only in the context of the festivals where the crowns had been proclaimed, but in the references to the Procession to Phaleron. In all three inscriptions that mention the Epheboi participation in the Procession, their involvement in the Rural Dionysia is mentioned next. The obvious reason why the two events appear together is because both involve the carrying of a statue, one of Pallas to Phaleron and the other of Dionysus into the theater.[10] Moreover, it would appear that the reason why the Procession to Phaleron is listed before the procession into the theatre is not because of the particular order in which the two events occurred, but because a ceremony involving a statue of Athena, the patroness of the city, took precedence over one involving a statue of Dionysus.
There is reason to believe, therefore, that the ordering of the festivals in the Epheboi decrees may have been determined not only by considerations of chronology, but also by the relative importance or popularity of the festivals. In most instances, however, there does not appear to have been any opera- tional principle at all, and the ordering of the events seems to have been purely arbitrary. As a result, it would be impossible to reconstruct an accurate timetable for the festivals that appear in the Epheboi decrees by imposing a strict chronology where one does not exist.[11]
Merely on the basis of its position within the narrative of the Epheboi inscriptions, therefore, the Procession to Phaleron cannot be located in any particular month of the Athenian year, and Burkert’s placement of the procession in Maimakterion is unwarranted. Furthermore, a chronological argument alone cannot be considered decisive in determining whether or not the Procession to Phaleron had been part of the Plynteria.
The Nomenclature of Athena’s Statues
Another major premise to Burkert’s interpretation of the Procession to Phaleron can be broken down into two parts. One is the claim that the epithet “Pallas”, as it is used in the Epheboi inscriptions, could not have referred to the xoanon from the Acropolis: “Die Göttin im Erechtheion, der der Panathenäenpeplos dargebracht wird, heißt oftiziell Athena Polias” (p. 359). The other is that “Pallas” was especially associated with “ein anderes hoch-heiliges Holzbild der Göttin” (p. 360): the Palladion of Athens. Burkert does not argue the first, but refers the reader to a dissertation by O. Jahn, de antiquissimis Minervae simulacris (1866), and to page 261 (in vol. I) of Farnell’s Cults of the Greek States (1896). To support the second, he lists some source material—with only brief commentaries—in a footnote.[12]
In any discussion concerning the statues of Athena in ancient Athens, an important distinction has to be made between testimonia which concern a particular statue of Athena and testimonia which are about the goddess herself. As it turns out, our sources seldom have anything to say directly or even indirectly about the statues, so that our information on this subject is limited. But as C. J. Herington has shown, modern writers often misconstrue testimonia about Athena as information about the statues, and, as a result, erroneous theories are inevitably advanced.[13]
A good example of how this type of misunderstanding can occur is afforded by the well-known passage in Aristophanes, Birds (lines 826ff.), where the decision has been reached by the characters in the play to keep “Athena Polias” as the patroness of their new city. Since the “Athena Polias” of this passage is described as “standing in her panoply,” the reference has been applied to the ancient xoanon from the Acropolis and has been interpreted to mean that the statue was erect (and not seated). Herington, in arguing against this interpretation, shows convincingly that “Athena Polias” refers to the goddess herself, and not to any of her statues on the Acropolis. He adds: “Are we to suppose that every writer who describes Athena is describing a statue of her, any more than we take every representation of Athena in Attic vase-paintings to be based on a statue? Were the Athenians of the fifth century really so naive in their religion and unimaginative, as that?”[14]
When we examine in our literary sources the few passages that do make explicit references to the statues of Athena, a rather astonishing fact emerges: no ancient author earlier than Pausanias uses the epithet “Polias” for the xoanon from the Acropolis.[15] Moreover, in those few instances when an epithet is mentioned (by authors earlier than Pausanias) in the context of the xoanon, we will find that the epithet applies to Athena herself, and not to the statue. For example, in a passage from Euripides’ Electra (1254), where Orestes is told to go to Athens and to embrace the “holy statue of Pallas” (obviously, the xoanon from the Acropolis), the genitive form, Pallados, does not mean that “Pallas” was the name of the statue, but that the statue was “of Pallas,” or that it “belonged to Pallas.” To the extent that our sources allow us to determine, the xoanon appears to have been nameless (that is, until Pausanias), and the authors who refer to it use nondescript nouns such as ἕδος, ἄγαλμα, or βρέτας.[16]
The seeming reluctance in our ancient sources to give a name to this statue (which modems readily label as “Athena Polias”) extends to epigraphical documents. In IG I (3rd ed.) 7 (med. s. V. a.), for example, where the ritual dressing of the xoanon with a Peplos is described, the statue is referred to simply as “the goddess” (lines 11–12). Similarly, in IG II (2nd ed.) 1424 a (369/8 B.C.), an inventory of the ornaments which were worn by the xoanon, the statue is again called “the goddess” (lines 362, 363). In all other inventory lists from the Acropolis, whenever the phrase “Athena Polias” appears, the expression always refers to Athena as the patronness of the City, and not to one of her statues. For example, in IG II (2nd ed.) 1492 (ad fin. s. IV a.), where Roxane, the “wife of the King,” is said to have contributed certain gifts to “Athena Polias” (lines 46–7, 57), we are to understand that these offerings (silver chalices, bowls, etc.) were now the property of Athena, qua Polias. Moreover, although such precious gifts were stored in the Parthenon, the presence of the chryselephantine Athena in that temple was quite irrelevant in the designation of “Athena Polias” as the recipient of the gifts. Clearly, the treasures were thought to belong not to a statue, but to the goddess.
In sum, it would appear that our ancient sources took little note of the xoanon from the Acropolis and were disinclined to give it a name.[17] Moreover, even in those later periods when “Polias” seems to have become a common designation for the xoanon, the nomenclature was still sufficiently variable, so that Tertullian will refer to the xoanon as “Pallas”, and Zosimus will call it “Promakhos”.[18] Burkert’s claim, therefore, that “Polias” was the “official” title of the xoanon on the Acropolis is an assumption that is not supported by the evidence.
We next have to consider the other half of Burkert’s claim concerning the nomenclature of Athena’s statues: namely, that the epithet “Pallas” was applied in antiquity to another ancient, wooden statue— the Athenian Palladion. Most of what we hear about this Athenian Palladion comes from the local “histories” of the Atthidographers. As cited in later works and lexica, they tell us about the arrival of the Palladion in Attica, the struggle over its ownership, and the ensuing establishment of the Court at the Palladion.[19] None of the accounts, however, has anything to say about the actual statue. We hear nothing about its appearance, its history since its arrival in Athens, or its role in Athenian cult. All that we know for certain is that there was a Court at the Palladion, and that there was a shrine within the Court where the Priest of Zeus (of the Bouzygai family) held office. On the basis of an argument by inference, we should be able to assume that there existed also a Palladion statue, which came to be associated early on with the Court and its priesthood, and from which the Court and the priesthood derived their names. But beyond this assumption, we are in the dark concerning the Palladion statue.
Although much later than the tales of the Atthidographers, the account in Pausanias (1.28.8) concerning the origins of the Court at the Palladion is striking for what it does not say. Pausanias describes in some detail how the Court had to be established in order that Demophon, the thief of the Palladion, could go on trial for the deaths he had caused. But at no time in his narrative does Pausanias even suggest that he himself had seen the actual statue, or that there was a statue to be seen. Perhaps the reason for this silence can be found later on, in Book 2 (23.5), where Pausanias writes about the claim of the Argives, that they were the ones who had the true Palladion. He expresses serious doubt concerning this claim and says (by my translation), in what seems to be a tone of slight indignation: “The Palladion is obviously in Italy, where Aeneas had taken it.” Regrettably, therefore, Pausanias, an avowed antiquarian with a special interest in ancient idols, adds little to our knowledge about the Palladion statue.
And so, it is primarily on the the basis of epigraphical documents that Burkert can hope to support his claim concerning the name of the Palladion of Athens.[20] His most important primary evidence—it is listed first in the footnote where the testimonia are cited—for “ein primitives Holzbild der gewappneten Pallas” in Athens is IG II (2nd ed.) 3177, an inscription from the Augustan age. According to this inscription, a certain Polyainos, “priest of Zeus at the Palladion, and Bouzyges,” is said to have purchased “another statue of Pallas” (ἕτερον ἕδος τῆς Παλλάδος) at his own expense. For Burkert, this fragment constituted proof that there was a primitive statue in the Court, and that its official title was “Pallas.”
But the story of this statue may not be all that simple. Although every commentator on the inscription, including Burkert, has assumed that the ἕδος Παλλάδος was in fact the Palladion statue, surprisingly no one has considered an obvious consequence of this interpretation. If the ἕδος Παλλάδος were indeed the Palladion, then it would follow that we have an inscription from the age of Augustus which announces that a new Palladion had just replaced an older one. And surely, from all that we know about the Palladion tradition, such a scenario is inconceivable.[21] The very essence of a Palladion was its hoary antiquity, which made it sacred and conferred on it its efficacy as a talisman. Indeed, in most versions of the Palladion myth, the statue is said to be as old as the city that it protects, so that its replacement would have been unthinkable. Burkert apparently overlooked this fact in his interpretation of the Polyainos inscription; nor does he try to explain how it is that Athenians from the age of Augustus could have been so unconcerned with maintaining even the pretense of antiquity for their Palladion that they would have commissioned an inscription which makes public the purchase of a new statue.
The statue mentioned in IG II (2nd ed.) 3177, therefore, may not have been the Athenian Palladion after all. Instead, we may speculate that the ἕδος Παλλάδος of Polyainos was merely a small votive statue—it was purchased from his own funds—which had been dedicated in the Court as a replacement for another similar statue. As for the expression “statue of Pallas”, this is precisely what we would expect to see in the context of a votive offering, where a gift—a statue in this case—had been dedicated to the goddess.[22]
The second item in Burkert’s list of epigraphical testimonia for the Palladion is IG II (2nd ed.) 5055, a theater seat reserved for “Bouzyges, the Priest of Zeus at the Palladion.” This inscription, however, has no direct bearing on the subject at hand: it merely corroborates what we already know—that there was a shrine within the Palladion and that it was under the control of the genos of the Bouzygai. It contains no new information concerning a Palladion statue and the name which this statue may have had.
The third (and last) epigraphical document which Burkert cites as evidence for the Athenian Palladion is again more pertinent to a place called “Palladion,” and not to the statue. In IG I (2nd ed.) 324, a fifth-century account of the monies which had been borrowed during the Peloponnesian War from various sacred treasuries, we see a reference (line 95) to the money of Ἀθηναίας ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ, “Athena at the Palladion” (cf. also line 78). Apparently, therefore, the shrine within the Court at the Palladion also served as a treasury during the War. That the money belonged to Athena is, of course, no surprise, since that is the fiction maintained in all state accounts, no matter where the funds were stored. Even so, it is noteworthy that “Athena”, and not “Pallas”, is used here in reference to the goddess, despite the fact that the context for the inscription is the shrine inside the Palladion. If, on the basis of some official protocol pertaining to the Court of the Palladion, “Pallas” had been the correct way to refer to the goddess Athena—even if not to her statue—then surely we would have seen its use in this inscription.[23]
The point of this discussion has not been to disprove the existence of the Athenian Palladion, but to show how little it is that we actually know about this statue.[24] Given our poor state of knowledge, the claim that “Pallas” was the official name for such a hopelessly obscure statue becomes—naturally—rather weak. Moreover, as has been mentioned already, since even the most important of Athena’s statues went without a name, the possibility that a lesser-known statue like the Palladion would have had a name or even a nickname is small.
In conclusion, there are serious problems with two key premises to Burkert’s analysis of the Procession to Phaleron. His claim that the Epheboi decrees were chronologically arranged cannot be confirmed; and his assertion that “Pallas” could not refer to the xoanon from the Acropolis because it was the epithet of the Athenian Palladion is not supported by the evidence. These problems, of course, have a bearing on Burkert’s explanation of the Epheboi march to Phaleron. In other words, if it cannot be proved that the Procession occurred in the winter month of Maimakterion, and if it cannot be shown that “Pallas” meant exclusively or even primarily the Palladion statue, then Burkert’s overall explanation of the Procession is placed in jeopardy, and the long disputed question of what the Epheboi were doing when they escorted “Pallas” to the sea can once again be open to debate.
A New Interpretation
Since it can be shown that even the best known statues of Athena were essentially nameless until well into Imperial times, we may safely assume that the “Pallas” of the Epheboi inscriptions was itself not the name of any statue, but was instead a reference to the goddess herself. It still remains to be seen, however, whether “Pallas”, as an epithet of Athena, had any special applications. In other words, if it can be shown that “Pallas” was a particularly appropriate way of referring to Athena in the context of her worship on the Acropolis or as the protecting deity of the city, then it might be possible to argue that the use of “Pallas” in the Epheboi inscriptions could have been at least an indirect reference or a secondary allusion to the statue which, more than any other statue of Athena, was the object of this worship.
A survey of the literary evidence reveals that “Pallas” was used as a near synonym for “Athena” in countless situations; nor do there seem to have been any limits to its use.[25] Even so, our sources do indicate that “Pallas” was an especially fitting name for the goddess in her aspect as “patroness of the city.” A good example of this is a passage from Aristophanes’ Knights (lines 581ff.) where the chorus sings the praises of “Pallas” as the “guardian of the country.” Clearly, “Pallas” is not so much used here as an epithet—it is actually modified by one, πολιοῦχος—but counts as a synonym for “Athena” in her role as the protecting deity of Athens. Similarly, in the Thesmophoriazusai (lines 1136ff.), when the chorus calls upon “Pallas … who holds our city,” we see that Athena, under the name of Pallas, is again invoked as the tutelary goddess of Athens.
Epigraphical evidence also indicates that “Pallas” was considered an appropriate name for Athena, specifically in the context of her worship as the goddess of the Acropolis. For example, in IG I (2nd ed.) 472, an inscription which dates perhaps from the time of Peisistratos, we see the commemoration of a victory from the “panegyris of Pallas” (line 5). Since this “panegyris” was an event from the Panathenaia, a festival where “all Athens” went to the Acropolis to celebrate Athena, we can see that “Pallas” meant “Athena” in the context of the goddess’ most important ceremony from the Acropolis.[26] In later periods as well, “Pallas” remains the epithet of choice. In IG II (2nd ed.) 3474, for example, a dedication from the second century B.C., we read that a statue was dedicated to “Pallas” (line 1), and—in a clear reference to the Erechtheum—that it had been set up “by her temple” (line 1).[27]
Given that “Pallas” seems to have been a perfectly acceptable way of referring to Athena in her role as the tutelary goddess of the Acropolis, there can be no a priori objection to an interpretation of the Procession to Phaleron, where the “Pallas” of the inscriptions is understood as a reference to Athena in her capacity as the chief divinity of the Acropolis. And since the xoanon from the Acropolis symbolized— more than any other statue—this Athena, there can be no immediate objection either to a hypothesis whereby the word “Pallas” of the Epheboi inscriptions is interpreted as a secondary allusion or an indirect reference to the xoanon. In that case, at least, it would follow that the Athenian Epheboi are described in their inscriptions as having carried the xoanon of Athena to and from Phaleron as one of their activities.
This last assertion has been, of course, the claim of most experts, who view the Procession to Phaleron as an event where the Epheboi brought the xoanon to Phaleron for a ritual washing during the feast of the Plynteria. As we have seen, arguments concerning the nomenclature of Athena’s statues and the specific time in the year when the Procession took place do not invalidate this view. Nevertheless, it is an explanation which cannot be reconciled with what we know about the very nature of the Plynteria.
Our most revealing testimony concerning the Plynteria comes to us indirectly, through an incident from the late fifth century, which spelled failure for the Athenian side in the Peloponnesian War. Both Xenophon (Hell. 1.4.12) and Plutarch (Alc. 34) describe how the return of Alcibiades (in 408) went awry. That most wily of Athenians mistimed his return, it seems, and came home from exile on the very day when the Plynteria were being held. Xenophon, who may have been an eyewitness to the event, remarks that some Athenians felt certain that Alcibiades had been doomed as a result of this intrusion upon “unspeakable things” (ἀπόρρητα).
Thanks in large part to this story of Alcibiades’ return, the conclusion can be safely drawn that the Plynteria were considered a kind of dies nefastus, when, according to the same passage in Xenophon, “no Athenian would dare to undertake any serious activity.” Apparently, the washing of Athena’s statue and/or the robe (Peplos) of the statue was thought to release a certain pollution, so that temples had to be roped off to secure them from contamination and Athenians had to stay in their homes.[28] Above all, therefore, the Plynteria was an ill-omened occasion.
Since one of the major purposes of the Ephebeia was for the Epheboi to demonstrate their newly acquired talents in front of an approving populace and their own parents, it follows that many of these activities had to be performed in full public view. Examples of this are numerous: the Epheboi show off their tactical skills in mock battles; they are introduced in the Boule, where they display to the Bouleutai their discipline and good behavior; they escort visting Romans around town, making sure that their guests are impressed with their civility and hospitality; they participate in races of all kinds—and in particular, in torch races—where their athletic prowess can be put to the test.[29] Moreover, in yet another activity that is mentioned in several of the inscriptions, the Epheboi are said to have brought Dionysus “from the outskirts of town into the Theatre” in a procession of the Rural Dionysia. Participation for the Epheboi in this very public event must have meant that they could be seen by many thousands of Athenians.[30]
In contrast to these activities, but especially to the Rural Dionysia, the Plynteria were secretive and ill-omened. As H. W. Parke has observed, the Plynteria were not a great popular feast (like the Panathenaia), but were instead a ritual which was conducted by only a few cult offlicials, who alone could witness the aporrhēta.[31] The Epheboi inscriptions, on the other hand, indicate that close to 150 Epheboi made the journey to Phaleron, and that the return trip was conducted by torchlight—a sure way of provoking more attention to a parade. Moreover, things must have been rather crowded at these processions, since we are told that the parents of the Epheboi accompanied the young men on at least one of the occasions.[32] Clearly, the journey to Phaleron was a grand affair that must have generated much publicity. It is most unlikely, therefore, that the Procession had anything to do with the dour and secretive ceremonies of the Plynteria. In retrospect, Burkert had been right in arguing against a link between the Plynteria and the Procession … but for the wrong reasons. Surely, we too must look beyond the Plynteria for an explanation.
Ernst Pfuhl, author of the still useful de Atheniensium pompis sacris (1900), subscribed to the notion of a connection between the Procession to Phaleron and the Plynteria. According to Pfuhl, “neque alia sollemnia, quibus deae simulacrum ad mare duci potuerit, novimus” (p. 90). This statement, however, is only partly correct. Granted, we do not hear of any other ritual—besides the Plynteria—where a statue of Athena was brought to the sea. But we do know of an event from Athenian history where Athena’s statue—specifically, the xoanon from the Acropolis—was once taken to the seashore. In his Life of Themistocles (chapter 10), Plutarch tells about the evacuation of Athens to the safety of the “wooden walls” prior to the Persian assault in 480. Citing the Atthis of Clei(to)demus, Plutarch also relates the story of how the gorgoneion of the ancient statue became lost or stolen during the evacuation of the city, until Themistocles finally devised a way of recovering it at the seashore.[33]
It is apparent from this story, therefore, that the xoanon from the Acropolis made the journey across the Saronic Gulf along with most of the population of Athens. While Plutarch suggests that the Piraeus was the point of embarkation, he does not mention where it was that the Athenians brought their statue for safe-keeping, nor does he say when the statue was returned. We may assume, however, that, after the battles of Salamis and Plataea and the Persian retreat, the statue was brought back to the Acropolis, probably with some fanfare, and then re-installed in its shrine on the Acropolis, with appropriate ceremonies.
While Herodotus does not mention this episode with the statue, the stories in his version of the evacuation in no way contradict it, and may actually be seen to be complementary. For example, Herodotus reports that when the honey-cake for the sacred serpent of Athena’s shrine was left untouched, everyone concluded that the goddess herself had abandoned the Acropolis (8.41). Similarly, when describing the destruction of the Acropolis, Herodotus says nothing about the statue, so that we can infer from his silence that “Athena” had been evacuated before the Persian onslaught (8.53–55).
Surely, the evacuation and restoration of the xoanon must have been one of the more significant events of the wars against the Persians. After all, to those familiar with the Trojan saga, the evacuation of the statue of a city’s tutelary divinity usually meant the imminent destruction of the city. And yet the Athenians, in a near miraculous fashion, escaped this fate, and their goddess, after a brief exile, could be returned to her old haunts. The evacuation and reinstallation of Athena, therefore, were likely to have been commemorated through various kinds of ceremonies by the Athenians of that generation and beyond. The rescue and return of their most sacred icon would have provided good material for dramatic re-enactments, and there would have been also the added appeal of a two-way procession. And perhaps most importantly, by replaying these events from the early fifth century, Athenians of subsequent generations would have been reminded of their past struggles against foreign domination.
In actual terms, we know that such memorializations of the Greco-Persian Wars played an important part in the training of the Epheboi. Our inscriptions tell us that the very first festival in their year of service was just such a Persian War memorial. During the feast of Artemis Agrotera, a celebration that had its origins in a vow made at the Battle of Marathon, Epheboi marched in full armor to Agrai, competed there in games, and consecrated their trophies to Artemis.[34] We also see that the Epheboi went at some point in the year to Marathon, visited the collective tomb of the Athenian dead, and sacrificed on behalf of the warriors who had died “for the sake of freedom” (IG II [2nd ed.] 1006.27–28). On still another occasion, the Epheboi journeyed once again, this time to Salamis, in order to view the victory memorial erected by the Greeks after the battle. While there, the Epheboi participated in the Aianteia in honor of the local hero who was thought to have helped the Greeks at the Battle of Salamis. It is significant to note that, as part of the Aianteia, the young men carried a statue of Aias, dressed like a hoplite, in a torchlight procession (IG II [2nd ed.] 1006.28–29, 72–73). And finally, we know that the Epheboi went to Plataea, where they took part in a διάλογος during which the youths gave panegyrics and speeches about the battle that had been fought there (IG II [2nd ed.] 2086.33–34).
In reviewing the documents for the Athenian Ephebeia of the late second century, we can observe that one of the primary purposes of the organization was the civic instruction of the young men.[35] It was largely for this reason that the Epheboi received military training, attended public discussions, play-acted roles in the government, listened to the lectures of the philosophers, participated in the religious life of the city, and learned about events from the past. As we have seen, their “lessons” in history consisted mostly of activities which recalled the defeat of Persia centuries earlier and which could be expected to inculcate a sense of patriotism. And perhaps the Procession to Phaleron was itself a reenactment or memorialization of an event from the wars against Persia—namely, the evacuation of Athena’s statue prior to the Battle of Salamis.
Several circumstances point towards this conclusion. In the first place, we have the fact that there were actually two, distinct processions: one to Phaleron, presumably by daylight, and the other to Athens, by torchlight. More typically, we hear only of the destinations of ancient processions, while the return trip is of no consequence and is merely implied. For example, our sources for the great Panathenaic procession are not at all interested in telling us what happened once the parade broke up, but only in the events along the way to the Acropolis. Similarly, in the many allusions to the march to Eleusis, we are never told what happens once the Great Mysteries were over and the celebrants were returning to Athens. But in the Epheboi inscriptions, more attention is paid to the trip back to Athens than the march to Phaleron: indeed, the second procession seems to have been the more spectacular of the two, involving as it did the use of torches. The fact that there were these two separate processions, each with its own characteristic, strengthens, therefore, the hypothesis that the Epheboi march to Phaleron and back was a reenactment of two journeys with differing characteristics, i.e. the evacuation of the statue, and its brilliant return to the Acropolis.
Another circumstance may also be pertinent. In at least one of the Epheboi inscriptions, the reference to the Procession to Phaleron is immediately preceded by an allusion to the Epitaphia (IG II [2nd ed.] 1011.9–10). The latter was a ceremony in honor of the war dead that was annually held in the Kerameikos. The Epheboi participated in this memorial service through various competitions and races, including one in which the current Epheboi were pitted against the Epheboi from the previous year.[36] The listing of the Procession immediately after the Epitaphia supports the notion that the journey to the sea was itself a memorial service of past wars, since, as we have seen, the activities of the Epheboi were sometimes grouped together in the decrees on the basis of a shared aspect.
It may be objected that, since the evacuation of Athena’s statue is said (in Plutarch) to have taken place at the Piraeus, it is for that reason irrelevant to the Procession to Phaleron. As a matter of fact, however, this apparent discrepancy may actually help to corroborate the present hypothesis. In the first place, Plutarch (or his source) places no particular emphasis on the place of embarkation, and seems merely to assume that it was the Piraeus. But on the premise that Plutarch is correct here, we can still see why the destination of our hypothetical reenactment may have been Phaleron, and not the Piraeus.
According to our sources for the late fourth century B.C., Demetrius of Phaleron established during his rule (317–07) a committee of seven Nomophylakes, whose duties were to “guard the laws” of the city and to supervise certain religious activities.[37] More specifically, we know from a gloss in the Suda, s.v. nomophylakes (= FGrHist 328 F 64 b), that the Nomophylakes were officials who “prepared the procession for Pallas, when the xoanon was brought to the sea” ([οἱ νομοφύλακες] καὶ τῇ Παλλάδι τὴν πομπῆν ἐκόσμουν, ὅτε κομίζοιτο τὸ ξόανον ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν). Since there can be no doubt that this testimony is a reference to the same activity that we see the Epheboi performing in inscriptions in their honor, it follows that the journey to Phaleron had a history that went at least as far back as the late fourth century, or around the time when the office of the Nomophylakes was instituted. And insofar as the Nomophylakes were established by Demetrius of Phaleron, it would stand to reason that Demetrius, because of a wish to promote his place of birth, may have chosen Phaleron—and not the Piraeus—as the specific destination for a procession which, hypothetically at least, celebrated the evacuation (and return) of Pallas. Such a change in venue might have been possible by the late fourth century, since by then the collective memory concerning the events of the early fifth century would have become sufficiently blurred. And in any case, the essential features to a reenactment of the rescue of Athena’s statue would have been the procession to the sea and the glorious return, and not the specific place where the ships had been boarded.
We do not hear of the Nomophylakes beyond the fourth century, and the assumption is that these officials did not long outlast their founder. From the evidence of the Epheboi inscriptions, however, it would seem that the practice of bringing the xoanon to the sea and back had been passed on to the Epheboi, or perhaps had been revived by them. Like the Nomophylakes, the Epheboi too were charged with preserving the past, and in the case of the Procession to Phaleron, with safeguarding a religious/civic memorial of the wars against Persia.
Conclusion
Much of what we know or can surmise about the history of the Ephebeia of the late second century B.C. indicates that a major purpose of the organization was to keep alive traditions from the past. For how else can we explain the mock sea battles that the Epheboi staged, in an era when Athenians had to be courteous to visiting dignitaries from Rome and when no one could seriously expect that Athens would ever again become a sea power? Moreover, we have seen that some of the most frequently mentioned activities in the inscriptions from this period are those which in one way or another served as reminders to the Epheboi of specific events from the wars against Persia. As might be expected, such activities were both civic and religious in nature, so that lessons in history were often learned through participation in a festival.
Another prime characteristic of the Ephebeia of the late second century B.C. was that it was public, both in the sense that the Epheboi were meant to be seen by the public, and also in the sense that their activities had popular appeal. The year of enrollment was for the Epheboi, after all, a time to demonstrate to their officers, parents, and fellow citizens that they had learned τὰ πάτρια of their ancestors and that they were worthy heirs of the city. A ritual like the Plynteria, therefore, which was never a great popular celebration, but a “back-room” event that could even be tainted with bad luck, would not have been an appropriate activity for the Epheboi. Nor is it likely that the Epheboi would have ever served as escorts for the Palladion in a march to the sea, especially since we do not know of any ceremony involving this most obscure statue.
If, on the other hand, we view the Processions to (and from) Phaleron as a re-enactment of the evacuation (and return) of the xoanon, then we can see how this journey to the sea had all the characteristics of a typical Epheboi activity: it recalled for the Epheboi one of the most stirring events from the fifth century; it allowed them to participate in a religious rite; and it placed the Epheboi in the public eye as they observed τὰ πάτρια of their city. The evidence which has been presented here, while admittedly circumstantial, does nevertheless point towards this interpretation and may bring us closer to a resolution of a question that has never really been settled.
Notes
[ back ] 1. The most complete study of the Ephebeia from this era is C. Pélékidis, Histoire de l’Éphébie Attique (Paris, 1962). Chapter 9 (“Athens and Delos”) and chapter 10 (“Athens between Rome and Pontus”) of W. S. Ferguson’s Hellenistic Athens (New York, 1911: reprinted in 1969) are still indispensable reading for this period of Athenian history.
[ back ] 2. IG II (2nd ed.) 1006, lines 11f., 75f. (122/1 B.C.); IG II (2nd ed.) 1008, lines 9f. (118/7 B.C.); and IG II (2nd ed.) 1011, lines 10f. (116/5 B.C.).
[ back ] 3. Scholars who have identified the Procession to Phaleron with the Plynteria include A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 7–11, 499–504; L. Deubner, Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932), pp. 18f.; L. Ziehen, RE XXI, s.v. Plynteria, cols. 1060–62; M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion I, 3rd ed. (München, 1967), p. 102.
[ back ] 4. Cf. O. Jahn, De antiquissimis Minervae simulacris Atticis (Hamburg, 1866); and L. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States I (Cambridge, 1896), pp. 261–62. For a survey of the evidence concerning the Court at the Palladion, see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), pp. 642–44.
[ back ] 5. Burkert does this in spite of the fact that, as J. Mikalson, The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year (Princeton, 1975), pp. 163–64, has shown, the Athenian Assembly is known to have met on 29 Thargelion.
[ back ] 6. H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London, 1977), pp. 94–96. On the sacred calendar for the Attic deme of Erkhia, Maimakterion is the only month of the year for which no sacrifices are listed: cf. Mikalson (cit. n. 5), p. 86.
[ back ] 7. Cf. IG II (2nd ed.) 1006, lines 42–43, 93–94; IG II (2nd ed.) 1008, lines 35–36, 69–70.
[ back ] 8. All four are mentioned in lines 48–9. On the Ptolemaia, see Ferguson (cit. n. 1), pp. 290–91, 369, 435.
[ back ] 9. For example, IG II (2nd ed.) 956.34–5, from 161/0 B.C.
[ back ] 10. The Procession to Phaleron also seems to be thematically linked with activities that are listed just before it; cf. infra.
[ back ] 11. Mommsen (cit. n. 3), p. 496, and Pélékidis (cit. n. 1), p. 215, have disputed the notion that the Epheboi decrees are chronologically arranged.
[ back ] 12. Jahn merely asserts that “Polias” could only mean the ancient xoanon, and does not present a sustained argument. Burkert’s “proof” regarding a Palladion called “Pallas” is in note 18 on page 360.
[ back ] 13. The present discussion on statue-names owes much to C. J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias (Manchester, 1955), pp. 7–27.
[ back ] 14. Herington (cit. n. 13), p. 25. In another example, the phrase “Athena Pylaimakhos” in Aristophanes, Knights 1172, is sometimes thought to be a reference to the bronze Athena Promakhos of the Acropolis. It makes better sense, however, to interpret the epithet “Πυλαιμάχος” as an allusion to the recent Athenian success at Pylos, a victory which the poet attributes to the goddess herself, and not to one of her statues.
[ back ] 15. Pausanias 1.26.6; cf. Herington (cit. n. 13), pp. 8–11. Apparently, the statue we call “Athena Parthenos” was not called that way until–again—Pausanias (5.11.10). In the various inscriptions which refer to the chryselephantine Athena, we see merely the word ἄγαλμα, or a phrase like τὸ χρυσοῦν ἄγαλμα. Nowhere can we detect even the suggestion of an official name or epithet. Similarly, “Athena Promakhos” is not attested in reference to the bronze Athena on the Acropolis earlier than a scholium to Demosthenes’ Against Androtion.
[ back ] 16. Perhaps what we see in this seeming aversion to assigning official names to the ancient xoanon of Athena is a manifestation of a “psychology of idolatry.” In other words, by refusing to personalize even their most important cult statue with a title or name, Athenians may have been subconsciously emphasizing that their worship was not directed to any statue but to the goddess herself. It should be noted here that the Epheboi decrees never so much as give a hint that the young men carried a statue of Dionysus into the theatre; instead, the Epheboi are always said to have brought “Dionysus” or “the god” into the theatre.
[ back ] 17. When Orestes is told, in Euripides, Electra 1254, to go to Athens and “embrace the holy statue of Pallas” (—the xoanon from the Acropolis), the poet is—not suggesting that “Pallas” was the name of that statue, but that it was “of Pallas” or that it “belonged to Pallas.” Strangely, Ziehen (RE, s.v. Plynteria, col. 1061) cites this very passage as evidence that the “Kultname der alten Burggöttin” was Polias.
[ back ] 18. Testimonia for the xoanon are collected in O. Jahn & A. Michaelis, Arx Athenarum (Bonn, 1901), reprinted as The Acropolis of Athens (Chicago, 1977), pp. 68–9.
[ back ] 19. For an analysis of the various (and often contradictory) stories of the Atthidographers, see L. Ziehen, RE XVIII 3, s.v. Palladion, cols. 171–89.
[ back ] 20. On the assumption that “Pallas” has to refer to the Palladion, Burkert also cites (in note 7 on p. 358) a gloss from the Suda as evidence for the Palladion. For a discussion of this particular testimonium, cf. infra, p. 305.
[ back ] 21. Burkert acknowledges that a Palladion statue had to be old, when he refers to the Athenian statue as “ein primitives Holzbild” (p. 360). Even so, he seems to have overlooked this fact in his interpretation of the Polyainos inscription. The sacrosanct Roman Palladium was enshrined in the Temple of Vesta in a room that could not even be entered except by the Vestals and other select ministers of cult (cf. K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte [München, 1960] pp. 108 and 292). An inscription advertising its replacement would also have been unthinkable.
[ back ] 22. Perhaps the ἔδος of this inscription might have been a “palladion-style” statue of Athena, of the kind which Nicias dedicated on the Acropolis (Plut. Nic. 3) or which we see depicted in many vase paintings. Given the historically attested “Court at the Palladion,” we might expect that one or two such statues would have been kept on hand there, if for no other reason than to justify the particular place-name. But palladia like these would not have been regarded as sacred talismans on which the city’s security depended. The only notice such statues received was for their value as votive offerings; otherwise, no one paid much attention.
[ back ] 23. The testimony of this inscription, a state treasury account, ought to take precedence over the testimony of IG II (2nd ed.) 3177, a mere dedication.
[ back ] 24. According to Nilsson (cit. n. 3), pp. 435–37, although there must be some basis in reality behind the many myths concerning the Palladion, its existence cannot be authenticated.
[ back ] 25. Farnell’s brief survey (cit. n. 4, p. 394) is helpful in showing how “Polias” and “Pallas” are practically interchangeable in fifth-century sources. Cf. also Herington (cit. n. 13), p. 12; R Luyster, “Symbolic Elements in the Cult of Athena,” History of Religions 5 (1965), pp. 133–63; Burkert, Greek Religion, p. 139.
[ back ] 26. Cf. also IG I (2nd ed.) 394, 499, 585.
[ back ] 27. For similar dedications, cf. IG II (2nd ed.) 3464, 4323, 4347.
[ back ] 28. On the Plynteria as an unlucky ceremony, see Deubner (cit. n. 3), pp. 17–22; Ziehen, RE XXXI, s.v. Plynteria, cols. 1060–62; Parke (cit. n. 6), pp. 152–55; E. Simon, Festivals of Attica (Madison, 1983), pp. 46–48. Similarly in Rome, on the days when the refuse from Vesta’s Temple was secretly brought to the Tiber by the Vestals, normal activities were suspended (cf. Plut. Numa 14.1).
[ back ] 29.The best survey of the public life of the Epheboi is still A. Dumont, L’Éphébie Attique (Paris, 1876), pp. 125ff., 206ff., and 249ff.
[ back ] 30. IG II (2nd ed.) 1006.11, 76; 1008.15; 1011.11.
[ back ] 31. Parke (cit. n. 6), p. 186.
[ back ] 32. This is the clear implication of the phrase μετὰ τῶν γεννητῶν in IG II (2nd ed.) 1011.11.
[ back ] 33. For the other references to this incident, see Jahn & Michaelis (cit. n. 18), p. 69.
[ back ] 34. Pélékidis (cit.n. 1), pp. 219–20.
[ back ] 35. Dumont (cit. n. 29), pp. 125–65; 0. Reinmuth, “The Ephebate and Citizenship in Attica.” TAPA 77 (1948), pp. 211–31; Pélékidis (cit. n. 1), pp. 257–74.
[ back ] 36. Regarding the Epheboi and the Epitaphia, see Pélékidis (cit. n. 1), pp. 235–236.
[ back ] 37. For the Nomphylakes, see Ferguson (cit. n. 1), pp. 44, 99; Rhodes (cit. n. 4), pp. 315–17. For Demetrius of Phaleron, cf. Ferguson (cit. n. 1), pp. 38–64.