The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens

The Temple and Cult of Apollo Patroosin Athens CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR. In memoriamHarryJ. Carroll,Jr.* Abstract

Apollo Patroosto Pythios and Alexikakosis examined.It is likely that the god in all three manifestationsoriginally found his home in the Pythion, on the banksof the Ilissos river. The cult was transplantedfrom this shrine to the Agora. Finally, the chronologicaldevelopmentof the cult of Patroos,from its probablebeginningsunderthe Peisistratidsthroughthe fourth-centuryreformsof Lykourgos, is outlined.

Apollo Patroos, the ancestral Apollo, was unique in the Classical period to Athens, where the god was worshipped by kinship groups and by the state. Synthesisof the substantial archaeological,artistic, epigraphical and literarydocumentationfor the cult permitsreconstruction of its developmentand place in Athenian history. An examinationof the remainsof the Temple of Apollo Patroos in the Athenian Agora and of the objects(inscriptions,statues, etc.) which have been associatedwith it leads to a questioning of the reconstructionof an Archaic temple on the site and the identificationof the Temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios. The relationship of

When Pausanias passed along the west side of the Athenian Agora in the second century A.C., he paused at the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios to admire Euphranor's

* I dedicatethis &rrapX'to the memoryof Harry J. Carroll, Jr., late Professor of Classics at Pomona College, a small return for his teaching. Xa^ipe,4L/A, Ko'01 0b e ya'ia KaV'JTTOL.

Kalt

J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford 1971). L. Deubner,AttischeFeste (Berlin Deubner, AF 1932). F. Jacoby, "FENEIIA. A ForgotJacoby, FENEIIA ten Festival of the Dead," CQ 38 (1944) 65-75. L.H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Jeffery, LSAG ArchaicGreece(Oxford 1961). Lewis, "Cleisthenes" D.M. Lewis, "Cleisthenesand Attica,"Historia 12 (1963) 22-40. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacries des LSCG cites grecques, suppldment (Paris 1962). ML R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of GreekHistoricalInscriptions to the End of the Fifth CenturyB.C. (Oxford 1975). M.P. Nilsson, GeschichtedergrieNilsson, GGR2 chischen Religion (Munich 1955-1961). Palagia, Euphranor O. Palagia, Euphranor (Monumenta Graeca et Romana 3, Leiden 1980). Rhodes, CAAP P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia (Oxford 1981). H.A. Thompson, "Buildings on Thompson 1937 the West Side of the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 6 (1937) 1-222. H.A. Thompson, "The Apollo PaThompson 1961 troos of Euphranor,"ArchEph 1953/1954, Pt. 3 (1961) 30-44. Traill, POA J. Traill, The Political Organization of Attica. A Study of the Demes, Trittyesand Phylai, and Their Representation in the Athenian Council (Hesperia Suppl. 14, Princeton 1975). Davies, APF

iv 'Atbov-

A shorter version of this paper was presentedat the December 1983 AIA General Meeting (AJA 88 [1984] 24748). I would like to single out a few of those whose admonishmentsand encouragementhave contributedto the formulation of my ideas about the cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens:J. Binder, F. Cooper, and S. Miller, at the American Schoolof Classical Studiesat Athens;M. Ostwald and I. Romano, at the University of Pennsylvania;and J. Peradotto, at SUNY Buffalo. E.B. Harrison and A. Stewart have enlightenedme on particularpoints of Greek sculpture,and S. Rotroffhas lent her expertiseon Greek pottery.A.J. Graham's remarks have improved the paper in many places. The paper has also benefited from John Camp's kindness and expertise. I have particularlyvaluedthe carefulreading of E.L. Smithson. To all of these (and others) I extend my thanks. Finally, I must acknowledgethe kindness of Prof. Homer Thompson, who has on several occasions listened patiently to my ideas about the Temple of Apollo in the Agora. This paper has been substantiallyimprovedby the informationand criticismwhich he has so generouslyshared with me. A Research DevelopmentFund grant from SUNY Buffalo has facilitated my research on this topic. I am responsible for all translations,unless otherwise noted. The following abbreviationsare used: R.E. Wycherley, Literary and Agora III Epigraphical Testimonia (Agora III, Princeton 1957). H.A. Thompson and R.E. WychAgora XIV erley, The Agora of Athens (AgoraXIV, Princeton 1972). Barron 1964 J. Barron, "ReligiousPropaganda of the Delian League,"JHS 84 (1964) 35-48. W. Burkert, GriechischeReligion Burkert, GR der archaischenund klassischen Epoche (Stuttgart 1977). AmericanJournal of Archaeology92 (1988)

185

186

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

[AJA 92

Fig. 1. Remains of the shrine of Apollo Patroos.General view from east. (CourtesyAgora Excavations,Athens) painting of the battle of Mantinea. "This same [Euphranor]," he remarks, "also executed the Apollo surnamed Patroos in the nearby temple. In front of the temple one Apollo was made by Leochares; the other, which they call Alexikakos, by Kalamis. They say this epithet was given to the god because by an oracle from Delphi he stayed the plague which oppressed the Athenians at the time of the Peloponnesian War."' The itinerant then proceeded to the Metroon. Homer Thompson, in his seminal study of the west side of the Agora,2 identified the site of the Temple of Apollo Patroos (figs. 1-3). Although Pausanias alludes only vaguely to the position of the temple on his itinerary (trX7rlov), it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the temple lay between the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios and the Metroon. Behind it to the west the Kolonos Agoraios rises steeply; before it the terrain slopes

Ka T 7 (a TWv WryXolovE7TOL7r-EPEv

'A7wdXwova

aTO O1iaP8 7Tp 8f%TOVPE TO /LPAAeWXaP??, Tp~oP E7TLKMO-LV' T 8E Tb KaXov O-L'AXeLKaKovKtKAalXpa EWOlr'10e. volAaTW

X Oew AyoV arL, T7Paot/Lcb aTlo'tPVOov yevEo-OaL OTb'rL o ^OTXWroVVOOPrlPT 7 K'Co n WP7TOXO7TLEOvra .LVa% V-

vK la E7ravo-e Aif)d4w v (Paus. 1.3.4). 2 Thompson 1937. For the terrain of the area, Thompson 1937, 1-4.

gently south and west to the level field of the Agora square.3 Two buildings occupied the site from the mid-fourth century until the time of Pausanias: a small temple immediately to the south of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, and a larger, L-shaped building, which flanks the smaller temple to the south and west. The area was first explored by W. Dorpfeld and the German Archaeological Institute in 1895 and 1896, who uncovered only the L-shaped building.4 In 1907/1908 the Greek Archaeological Service continued excavations.5 Finally the American School completed excavation of the area, chiefly in the years 1931-1935, uncovering the smaller building and further details of the L-shaped structure. Thompson published the results of these excavations in 1937, and his conclusions have not been questioned in print.6 A critical reexamination of the evidence from

4 W. Dijrpfeld,"Funde,"AM 21 (1896) 107-109; "Funde,"AM 22 (1897) 225. Prakt s P. Kavvadias, ""EKOCo-tl rT&v7rerpayL•ewov," 1907, 54-57. 6 T.L. Shear, "The Campaign of 1934," Hesperia 4 (1935) 352-54; Thompson 1937, 77-111. For further bibliographyand resumesof the historyof the excavationof the buildings, consult H.A. Thompson et. al., The Athenian

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

a fresh perspective seems warranted now, particularly in view of additional information which has accumulated in the intervening years. Thompson divided the history of the shrine of Apollo Patroos into three phases: 1) He reconstructed the earliest remains on the site as an apsidal building of the late sixth century B.C. (Temple I), which he iden-

187

tified as an Archaic temple of Apollo.7 2) From the destructionof the Archaicbuilding until the construction of the fourth-centurytemples, no remainswhich can be associatedwith a temple or shrine of Apollo have survived on the site. Thompson suggested that during this hiatus the shrine of Apollo was given over to an open temenos.83) In the mid-fourthcentury,the

Fig. 2. Remains of the shrine of Apollo Patroos.Generalview from west. (CourtesyAgora Excavations,Athens)

Agora, Guide3(Athens 1976) 74-79; AgoraXIV, 136-40. 7 On all aspects of the Archaic building, see Thompson 1937, 79-84. 8 Thompson 1937, 109; Agora XIV, 137. Thompson's more recentviews on this temenoswere expressedin a letter of 19 June 1985. With his permission,I quote: "More can be said of this area than I reportedin 1937. The area was probablylevelled and boundedby walls to west and southat the same time as the retaining wall was erectedbehind the Stoa, i.e., at some time in the first half of the fourthcentury. The east front facing on the Agora was presumably also closedat this time by a wall piercedby an entranceway;this would have been demolished by the front foundationsof Temple III. The area thus enclosedmeasuredca. 11.50 x 17 m. "From the period of use of this temenos there are two remains.The first is part of a beddingblockfor a large stele that was truncatedby the buildersof the north foundations of the pronaos of Temple III [Thompson 1937, 97 n. 1; pl. III]. "The secondmonumentis a circular,stone-linedpit built aboutthe middleof the fourthcenturynear the middleof the north side of the temenos [Thompson 1937, 86-88, fig. 45, pl. III]. In 1937 I was inclinedto think of this as an hydrau-

lic installation. In the light of our increasedknowledge of Athenian hydraulicsI would now rule out that interpretation. There can be little doubt,I now believe,that we haveto do ratherwith a bothrosfor the depositionof liquid or perishableofferingsin a sanctuaryof a type well representedin the Sanctuaryof Demeter at Priene [T. Wiegand and H. Schrader,Priene (Berlin 1904) 154-55; M. Schede,Priene (Berlin 1964) 95]. The excavatorsof Priene,like thoseof the Agora, found nothing characteristicin their bothros, but they did find many non-perishablevotivessuch as terracotta figurinesand miniaturevases nearby.Our bothros,like the one at Priene, was set at the very edge of the temenos. "Fromthe presenceof the carefully constructedbothros our area may confidentlybe regardedas a sacredtemenos. To whom was it sacred? Despite the precise alignment of the west wall of the temenoswith the retainingwall behind the Stoa,the abruptchangein the masonryof the wall exactly oppositethe southwestcornerof the Stoa may be taken to indicatea change of authorityat this point. In any case the area is not likely to have been relevantto the Stoawhich very definitelyfacedeastward. "The best hope for the identificationof the cult lies in the relationship between the temenos and the structuresthat precededand succeededit on the site. The factthat the teme-

188

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

[AJA 92

Fig. 3. Plan of the shrine of Apollo Patroos.(CourtesyAgora Excavations,Athens) smaller temple was erected close by the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios and, in the third quarter of the fourth century, the larger, L-shaped building was constructed. Because of considerations of size Thompson identified the latter as the Temple of Apollo Patroos. The smaller, earlier building he ascribed to Zeus and Athena

during this hiatus. To the contrary, there are infringements on the integrity of the area of the later, fourth-

Phratrios.9 The interpretation of the hiatus between 480 and the mid-fourth century is crucial, for it must be bridged in order to establish continuity of Apollo's cult in the Agora from the sixth century. There is no evidence for the observance of a cult of Apollo on the site

century temple. Four rows of benches are built into the east face of the Kolonos Agoraios, running from the Stoa of Zeus on the north to the old Bouleuterion on the south. As Thompson noted, the benches must antedate "the Hellenistic Metroon, the fourth-century temple of Apollo, and the Stoa of Zeus, for these buildings both disturbed the benches and obscured the view from them."1to Pottery from the undisturbed fill behind the benches

nos actually overlaid in part the ruins of Temple I leaves little doubt of a cultic succession.In the courseof the building program in the third quarter of the fourth century the old open-air sanctuarymade way for two templeswhich between them almost completelyoverlaidboth the old temenos and that part of Temple I which had lain outside the temenos. The south side of Temple III so closely aligns with the south side of Temple I as to suggest that this line had been

formallymarked,probablyby horoi. Here again, in accordance with Greek practice in such matters, we may safely assume continuityof cult." I Thompson 1937, 84-104. 10Thompson 1937, 220. Cf. AgoraXIV, 71. For some interesting speculation on the possible function of these benches, see A. Boegehold,"Philokleon'sCourt,"Hesperia 36 (1967) 111-20.

1988]

THE TEMPLEAND CULT OF APOLLOPATROOSIN ATHENS

dates them securely to the mid-fifthcentury.Their location, however, is difficultto understandif there is a preexistingshrine directlybeforethem. While an open temenos would not necessarilyblockthe view fromthe benches, it would impede access to them; the benches would draw traffic through the shrine. The position and orientationof the bencheswould seem to imply an open space beforethem. Immediatelynorth of the two fourth-centurytemples stood the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, which was constructedtoward the end of the third quarter of the fifth centuryB.C.11When the foundationsfor the Stoa were dug, an extended area to the south, including a large section of the conjecturedopen temenosof Apollo, was also cut down to bedrock.12The area cleared includedthe site of the abandonedapsidal building. Finally, in the secondquarter of the fourth century B.C., a retaining wall for the Stoa of Zeus was built. At some point soon after, a second wall was added at the southern end of this retaining wall: it extends ca. 11 m. beyondthe southernend of the stoa, turns at 90' to the east, and cuts through the center of the conjectured temenosof Apollo, neatly dissectingthe ruins of the Archaic apsidal building. When the fourth-century L-shaped building was constructed,much of the retaining wall disappearedunder its foundations.'3 Thompson explained these infringementsof the temenos area with reference to the smaller and more northerly of the two fourth-centurybuildings, which he identifies as a temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios. He argued that the connectionsof this pair with both Apollo Patroos and Zeus Eleutherios mitigate the otherwise intolerable incursions caused by the constructionof the neighboringstoa to the latter divinity.'4 This explanationis attractivebecauseit economically explains the remainson the site and permitsthe connection of the sixth-century building (Temple I) " The dateof the buildingis securedby boththe pottery and the style of the architecture.See Thompson1937, 40-45, 47-53. 12 Thompson 1937, 104-105.

'3 R. Stillwell, "ArchitecturalStudies,"Hesperia 2 (1933) 115; Thompson 1937, 55-56, 69. 4 Thompson 1937, 105. iS Thompson 1937, 86-88. 16 I must

Again, acknowledgeProf. Thompson'srecentarguments on this point: "I see no reasonto be disturbedabout

an apparentbreakin the historyof our sanctuaryafterthe Persiandestruction. Eventhesiteof theParthenonlaydeso-

late for a generation. Some of the lesser sanctuaries of Athens had to wait still longer for their architecturalrehabilitation. This was true, for instance, of the Sanctuaryof the 12 Gods and of the Tritopatreionoutsidethe west side of the Agora. The same may be said of the Sanctuaryof Zeus (Eleutherios)on the west side of the Agora:the tiny Archaic

189

with the fourth-centuryTemple of Apollo (III). I remain uneasy with his reconstructionof a fifth-century temenos, however,becauseof the repeatedintrusions. The path of the retaining wall is most disturbing. The site of the old building (I) should be the most sacred part of the temenos. Yet, the wall encloses less than half of the ruins, though there is no apparent impediment to its extension along their full width. Even if we acceptthe wall as part of a temenosenclosure, its center and focus would not coincidewith the site of the Temple of Apollo (III). It would lie further to the north, on the site of the smaller of the fourthcentury temples (II). In fact, a bothros of the early fourth century was discoveredin the foundations of that building.15 It is true that after the Persiansack, some buildings had to wait generationsfor rehabilitation,16but during the years interveningbetween destructionand rebuilding, the integrity of the ruinous sanctuarieswas maintained.17If there were a temenosof Apollo in this area, we should expect similar inviolability. Becauseof the coincidencein locationof sixth- and fourth-centurybuildings,there is a strongprimafacie inclination to regard the latter as the successorof the former. If we insist on continuity,Thompson'sreconstructionof a temenos in the hiatus seems reasonable. If we believe, however, that the intrusionsof the fifth and fourth centuriesare intolerableaffrontsto the integrity of a shrine, then the implicationsof a possible discontinuitymust be elaboratedand tested. ALTERNATIVE

INTERPRETATION:

THE SIXTH-CENTURY

BUILDING

(I)

In reconstructingthe early history of the site, two general and mutually contradictory considerations must each be given due weight: the sixth-centuryremains and the fifth/fourth-centuryintrusions. If the shrine destroyedby the Persianswas eventually,but only in the late fifth century,replacedby a splendidbuilding that is obviously a hybrid creation partakingof the nature of both temple and stoa. In all these cases,and others,the sanctityof the place persistedeven though it has left little or no tracein either the literary or the archaeologicalrecord."The phenomenonwhich Prof. Thompson describeshere would be of course a manifestation of the notorious "oath of Plataea." See, e.g., R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 506, 597; P. Siewert, Der Eid von Plataia (Vestigia 16, Munich 1972). 17 In the case of the Altar of the 12 Gods in the Agora, trafficencroachedon the area of the shrine during the years

in whichit lay in ruins,as wearon the sill of the Archaic sanctuaryshows.See,e.g.,AgoraXIV, 133.The casualintrusionof pedestrians, though,is a farcryfromtheconstruc-

tion of a wall through the centerof a sanctuary.

190

CHARLESW. HEDRICK,JR.

early remains are used to reconstructan Archaictemple of Apollo, then the later intrusionsmust somehow be explained. If the intrusions are taken to show discontinuityon the site, then the Archaicremainsshould be disassociatedfrom the history of the cult. In my opinion the evidence for the sixth-centurybuilding is less compellingthan the evidencefor discontinuity. Most of the remains of the sixth-century building have been destroyedby later constructionson the site. Two pieces of evidencefor its plan have survived:1) a section of a foundation trench, cut into bedrockand describingan arc of a circleabout 8.50 m. in diameter; 2) within that arc, a block of gray poros. This block has no evident connection with the fourth-century temple of Apollo, and is crucial for the reconstruction of the sixth-century building. While it is not at the centerof the arc of the foundationtrench,it does lie on the east/west diameterof the reconstructedcircle.The block, then, seems to be the only surviving architectural memberof the building:an interiorbase on axis. If so, its position permits the reconstructionof the building as apsidal, not circular, and determines an eastern orientation.The building in turn is identified as an Archaictemple of Apollo by virtue of its apsidal plan, eastern orientation, and position beneath the fourth-centurytemple.'8 It must be emphasizedthat the plan and orientation of the building are almost completelyrestored.In view of the paucity of the remains, some reservations should be maintained. Neither the plan nor even the existence of the building is certain. For example, it is possible that the block belongs to some other objector structure which occupied the area between 480 and 350. The area was certainlyoccupiedin this period. Even granting the reconstructionof the plan of the building, its identificationas a temple of Apollo is debatable. The eastern orientationof the Archaicbuilding is not compelling,for the locationof the site on the eastern slope of the KolonosAgoraiosdictatesan east18 Thompson 1937, 104.

19For the Bouleuterionat Olympia, see, e.g., A. Mallwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich 1972) 235-40. 20 Thompson 1937, 82-83; C. Mattusch, "Bronze and IronworkingTechniques from the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 46 (1977) 343-47; Mattusch, "Molds for an Archaic Bronze Statue from the Athenian Agora,"Archaeology30 (1977) 326-32; Mattusch, Bronzeworkersin the Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk20, Princeton 1982) 11-16; AgoraXIV, 137; I. Romano, Early Greek Cult Images (Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1980) 309-15; LIMC II (1984) 189-90, s.v. Apollo (W. Lambrinudakis). 21 Agora XIV, 189. 22 Thompson 1937, 83; Agora XIV, 137. 23 Thompson 1937, 83. Note, however, that fragmentsfor at least two separate heads were found.

[AJA92

ern orientation for any building, sacred or profane. Not even the apsidal plan is sufficient to prove the identificationof the building as a temple. True, early temples are commonly apsidal, but civic buildings, such as the Bouleuterionat Olympia, may also have such a plan.'" Fragmentsof molds for an Archaic bronze kouros, about two-thirdslife size, were foundin a castingpit a small distance south of the sixth-century building (figs. 4-5).20 Cult statues were often cast very near to the building for which they were intended,21 and for this reason Thompson suggests that the statue was in fact an Apollo, a cult statue intended for the sixthcentury building.22 Noting that the pit was apparently used to cast only one statue,23 he rejects the possibility that it might be associated with the shop of a sculptor or metalworker, though others are known in this

quarterof the Agora.24 Thompson's argument from the proximity of the casting pit is inconclusive. It is not unlikely that the pit should be associated with the local metalworking industry. Furthermore, there is nothing in the iconography of the statue to identify it as Apollo. I. Romano has recently remarked that the pose of the kouros, with arms hanging at its sides and hands tightly clenched against the body, would be unusual in an Archaic cult statue. She points out that, if it is a statue of Apollo, the god should bear some attribute.25 If the kouros is not a cult statue, then it is probably a votive offering. It might perhaps have been intended for some neighboring sanctuary, or even for the Acropolis.26 In sum, it is at least possible that the statue may be a simple kouros, and not an Apollo.27 In any event, there is no compelling reason to assign it to the sixthcentury building as a cult statue. Some inevitably will find my objections to Thompson's reconstruction of the early history of the site overly skeptical. I certainly do not mean to deprecate the cumulative strength of the evidence for an Archaic 24 For metalworking establishmentsin the Agora, supra n. 20, esp. Mattusch 1982. Metalworking establishments have been found close by the site of the Temple of Apollo Patroos,beneath the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios.See Thompson 1937, 13-21. 25 Romano (supra n. 20) 309-15, concludesthat "thestatue may be a cult image, but if so it is unusual." 26 Some statues were cast in the workshops of individual sculptors;surely there would be little troubletransportinga bronze statue of this size-ca. 1 m. in height-even for a considerable distance. Some of the larger statues for the Acropolis were evidently cast on the south slope, near the Sanctuaryof Asklepios.See, e.g., Agora XIV, 189 n. 89. 27 So, for example, Mattusch refersto this statue as "either a nude, youthfulApollo or a kouros"(Mattusch 1982 [supra n. 20] 12).

1988]

THE TEMPLEAND CULTOF APOLLOPATROOSIN ATHENS

191

close to the Stoa of Zeus, with an interval of barely 4 m. separatingthe two. It is situateddirectlyover a watertight bothros, which was constructeda few years earlier, aboutthe middleof the fourth century.29 The larger, L-shaped building (III) neighborsthe smaller temple on the south and west. In plan it consists of a porch,cella, and an adjacentroomwhich lies on the west end of the northside, so occupyingthe area behind the smaller temple. The L-shaped building also has been placedas farto the northof the site as the preexistingbuildingswould allow. Sincethe structure was first excavatedat the end of the 19th century,almost no direct evidencefor the date was available to the Americanexcavatorsof the 1930s.30 It may nonetheless be affirmedthat the L-shapedbuilding is later than its smaller northernneighbor:so much is shown by the managementof the rise in groundlevel fromthe northernbuildingto the southern.31 One of the two buildingsbetween the Stoa of Zeus

Fig. 4. Fragmentsof a moldforan Archaicbronzekouros. Athens) (CourtesyAgoraExcavations, temple of Apollo. I do, however, maintain that there are graveproblemswith the standardinterpretationof the remains, and that neither the plan nor even the existenceof a sixth-centuryTemple of Apollo Patroos has been proven beyond doubt. I cannot confidently use the "Archaictemple"to reconstructthe early history of the cult of Apollo Patroos. ALTERNATIVE

INTERPRETATION:

THE FOURTH CENTURY

The small building (II) immediatelyto the south of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios is securely dated by ceramic evidenceto the secondhalf of the fourthcentury B.C.28The simple plan of the structure allows only for a cella and a porch.The temple was crowdedvery 28 Thompson1937,88-90. S. Rotroffconfirmsin a letter of 22 October1984 that Thompson'sdatefor the pottery needsno revision.

of an Archaicstatue.(CourtesyAgoFig. 5. Reconstruction ra Excavations, Athens)

29

30

31

Thompson 1937, 86-88.

Thompson1937,79, 102. Thompson1937,95.

192

Eleutheriosand the Metroon must be identifiedas the temple in which Pausanias saw Euphranor'sstatue of Apollo Patroos. There is no conclusiveevidencesupportingone over the other, but Thompson has reasonably pointedout that the largerof the two is morelikely to be Pausanias's temple: otherwise "we shall be hard put to explain Pausanias's failure to mention a building that occupieda very prominentposition adjoining his route and that was obviously a temple, probablythe largest to face on the marketsquare."32 Grantedthat the L-shaped building is the "Temple of Apollo Patroos,"33we may turn to the question of the identityof the smaller temple (II). There is no explicit evidencefor its name. In 1937 Thompson suggestedthat the building be identified as the Temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios. Noting the proximity of the two temples and maintaining that the entire area had traditionally been consecratedto Apollo, he arguedthat the smaller temple should belong to a divinity associated with Apollo Patroos.As furtherevidencefor the connection between the small temple and the Temple of Apollo Patroos, he notes that "it bridges part of the chronological gap between the First and Third temples."34 He also noted that a furtherconnectionis providedby the location of the temple close to the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios: "the fact that the small building was crowdedclose to the very north edge of the area suggests that the Third temple was already in prospect when the Second was built."35In other words, the L-shaped building and its northern neighbor were planned as a unit. For these reasonsThompson identifiedthe building as a temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios,who with Apollo Patroos were numbered among the ancestral divinitiesof the Athenians.At the time he notedthat if the small temple were identifiedas belongingto Zeus, it might help to explain some of the disturbancesin the temenos of Apollo subsequent to the ruin of the apsidal building: "if we grant that Zeus has a claim also to the area in which the Secondtemple was subsequently built, the incursion [i.e., the retaining wall and the excavation of the northern part of the area] made by the architectof the stoa of Zeus will not seem so intolerable."36 Finally, Thompson arguedthat his identificationof the building is corroboratedby an altar found in front 32Thompson1937,114. that Pausaniasonly says that a statueof 33 I emphasize temple. ApolloPatroosstoodin a neighboring 34Thompson1937,104. 35Thompson1937,102, 104. 36 Thompson 1937, 105.

[AJA92

CHARLESW. HEDRICK,JR.

of the northern part of the stoa of Attalos (fig. 6).37 The altar, a solid block of gray marble, bears the inscription: AZbSQparplov KaL'AOpivasc1paTrpla

The block measures 0.75 m. in width. The original thicknessof the altar is nowherepreserved.Thompson noted,however,that "asinkingin the top [of the altar], intended to secure the metal fire pan, was centred transverselyas it was longitudinally,"and so deduced the original thickness of the block at approximately 0.60 m.38 On the axis of the smallertemple to the east lies a foundationblockof poros.Becauseof its position Thompson explains it as the bedding block for the altar of the smaller temple.39On the top of the block, approximatelycentered,is a round cutting. The pattern of wear aroundthe edgesof the blocksuggeststhat it borea smallerblock,40The workingand wear on the top of the block indicate two periods of use: "in the first, the superimposed[altar] was 0.91 m. long and fastenedby a dowel set in the roundsinkingthat is centered in relation to the earlier arrangement.In the second period, the preserved stone carried another block with a length of ca. 0.78 m. and a width of ca. 0.65 m.," approximatelythe same dimensionsas the altar. So Thompson associatedthe altar of Zeus and Athena Phratrioswith the poros block. He accounted for the slightly greater dimensions indicated by the pattern of wear on the poros block by assuming a plinth beneath the altar. The cuttingon the top of the poros block finds no equivalentcutting on the bottom

Fig.6. Altarof ZeusPhratriosandAthenaPhratria.(CourAthens) tesyAgoraExcavations, 3706.The 37 Thompson1937, 106, with fig. 55, AgoraI altaris nowdisplayedin frontof thesmallertemple. 38 Thompson 1937, 106.

39Thompson1937,86.

40

Thompson 1937, 78, fig. 41.

1988]

THE TEMPLEAND CULT OF APOLLOPATROOSIN ATHENS

of the altar of Zeus and Athena Phratrios,but this may be explained by arguing that the cuttingwas only used to securethe first of the two altars which occupiedthe poros base. Finally, Thompson noted that working chips of gray marble identical with that of the altar were found in the packingunder the poros block.41 Several of the above argumentshinge on the identification of the smaller building as a temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios, and must be abandonedif it is agreed that Apollo was not associated with this area until the erection of the fourth-centurytemple. If the plot was not traditionally sacred to Apollo, then the erection of the smaller temple does not presupposea cult connectionwith Apollo Patroos. Furthermore,if an Archaic temple never existed, there is no longer a chronologicalgap between First and Third temples. The elegant argument for joining altar to poros block is also inconclusive.The altar, as Thompson reconstructedit, is of approximatelythe right size to fit the traceson the porosbase. The attribution,however, must depend on the hypothetical plinth. Without it the connectioncannot be proved. There is no indication that the altar ever sat on a plinth. In addition,it is possible that the altar belongedto one of the numerous phratry shrines which were scatteredthroughoutthe Agora.42The altar was found in frontof the north end of the Stoa of Attalos. A boundarystone from a phratry sanctuaryis also known to have come from the vicinity of the Stoa:43 tLpa ALto cDparpto

at 'AOq7va[q] The proximity of the findspotsof the two stones may of course be mere chance. Still it is possible that altar and boundarystone belong to the same sanctuary.44I conclude, therefore, that the identification of the smaller building as a temple of Zeus and Athena Phratrios,while not disproven,is at least debatable. The history of the site in the fourth centuryadmits an interpretationwhich confirms and accordswith a 41 42

Thompson 1937, 106-107. I have discussedoneof theseshrinesrecently,"Oldand

New on theAtticPhratryof theTherrikleidai," Hesperia52

(1983) 299-302. I have dealt with the other phratryshrines of the Agora in my thesis, The Attic Phratry (Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1984) 137-38. I discuss some further shrines in "The Thymaitian Phratry," forthcoming in Hesperia, and in "PhratryShrines in the Athenian Agora,"currently in preparation. 43IG II2, 4975.

Cf. Hedrick1983(supran. 42) 324-27. For the Romanstairwaywhich was later built here, Thompson1937, 121. For earlierascentsof the Kolonos Agoraios,AgoraXIV, 149.Prof.Thompsondoesnotaccept 44

45

193

fourth-centurydate for the introductionof the cult of Apollo Patroos.It is not necessaryto concludefromthe relative positions of the two fourth-centurybuildings that the Temple of Apollo Patroos was in prospect when its smaller neighborwas built, nor that there is any associationbetween the two. It might as well be arguedthat their proximityis not significant,that both temples were crowdedto the north as far as possible, not becausethey were associatedor there was no room furthersouth,but in orderto leavea passageproviding access to the area behind them: to the Kolonos Agoraios, the benches,and the Hephaisteion.45Had the Lshaped building never been conceived, the smaller temple would still have been crowdedto the north. To the contrary,there is some evidencethat when the smallerbuildingwas planned,the L-shapedbuilding was not in prospect. Sometime soon after the retaining wall for the Stoa of Zeus was built, another wall was addedto it, which extendedca. 11 m. beyond the southern edge of the Stoa and returnedat a right angle to the east. Clearlythe extensionwas intendedto encompassthe site of the smallertemple. However, no space was cleared for the Temple of Apollo at this time: it had evidentlynot been plannedwhen the wall was constructed.Furthermore,the positionof the wall supportsthe conclusionthat the smaller temple is not only earlier, but also more importantthan its larger neighbor. For these reasons I would argue that there are no cult connectionsbetweenthe Temple of Apollo and the smaller temple, and hence no primafacie reason to assign the temple to Zeus and Athena Phratrios. Beforeleaving the Agora temples,a literarycitation demands attention. Pausanias is the only ancient author to mention a "Temple of Apollo Patroos"in the Athenian Agora (and even he does not specifically name it). Some have argued that a passage from Demosthenes'speechAgainst Euboulidesmay well refer to the Agora shrine:"whenI was a child they [i.e., my relatives]brought me [or introducedme] to the phraters, they brought me to the Sanctuaryof Apollo Pamy argument:"Renewedstudy of the problemtends to confirm my original impressionthat the two buildings [II and III] were planned as parts of one programand on the same drawing board. The architect was evidently concernedto make the fullest possible use of the limited space available; he wanted to avoidthe appearanceof crowdingand any suggestion of competitionbetween the Ionic facade of Temple

III andtheDoricfrontof theStoa,andhe feltobligedtogive

the tiny Temple II breathing space between its two much larger neighbors;it was probably to avoid a jumble of columnar frontsthat Temple II was given no porch.The neat solution arrivedat did not happen by chance, it was clearly the result of careful planning."

194

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

troos and to the other sanctuaries."46 Later in the same speech, however, the "relatives" are introduced as the gennetai of Apollo Patroos and Zeus Herkeios.47 Surely the sanctuary mentioned in Demosthenes' speech was a private shrine belonging to these "relatives," not the public monument in the Agora.

[AJA 92

may not with certainty be associated with the Temple of Apollo. The same may be true of a small boundary stone, which has been associated with the sanctuary, although it was found to the southeast of the Agora

square:51

[b'pos] FINDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE

[')Ar]Td,

A number of inscriptions and other objects have been associated with the Agora temple. Apollo Patroos was worshipped not only by the Athenian state, but also by diverse kinship groups within the state, such as phratries and gene.48 Some of these groups maintained sanctuaries within the confines of the Agora. The simple mention of the deity in an inscription does not prove an attribution to the sanctuary; these objects may have originally belonged to other, private shrines. A large slab of white marble, originally part of an altar, bears the inscription:

'ArAA'owvo

flarpwov.49

Although the inscription was found at some distance to the north of the Agora near the Varvakeion, Thompson argued that it served as the altar of the Temple of Apollo in the Agora. He suggested that it may even be that altar which was gilded in the time of Lykourgos by Neoptolemos.50 Although a possibility, it seems more prudent to withhold judgment: the altar XX TzLaLOV 7 Es OvTa ' 'OV rov prEparg, ,vo••s7o a 'AXdAXwvog HaTrp ov 1.' 'yov, 'ld rTAAt' rpai (Dem. Against Euboulides 57.54). Cf. Agora III, 51 no. 109; 46

d

Thompson 1937, 105. 47 Dem. Against Euboulides57.67. For the speech and the procedure described in it see Hedrick 1983 (supra n. 42) 369-80. 48 See infra ns. 144-48. 49 IG 112, 4984. Cf. Thompson1937,111 and figs.57-58. 50 [Plut.] X orat. 843-44. Thompson 1937, 110. Cf. Agora III, 52 no. 113. 1' B.D. Meritt, "GreekInscriptions,"Hesperia 26 (1957) 91 no. 38. 52Thompson 1937, 112, 173 fig. 101. Cf. most recently S.I. Rotroff, "Three Cistern Systems on the Kolonos Agoraios,"Hesperia 52 (1983) 270. 53Cf. Palagia, Euphranor 14 n. 60. 54 G. Welter, AA 1938, 507-508. Cf. Agora XIV, 138 n. 111; H.-V. Hermann, Omphalos(Aschendorff1959) 92. Again, Prof. Thompson's recent thoughts on these objects merit close consideration:"Four of these rare objects have been found in the Agora, all in the northwest area; two to the south of the Apollo sanctuary, two to the north. Those found to the south came out of a late Roman level ca. 10 m. from Temple III. To reject the associationof these objects with the Sanctuaryof Apollo on which their find places focus would be to fly in the face of all probability.They are indeed redolentof Delphi, but they may also have other associations,and I am now inclinedto give more weight than I previouslydid to the parallel with the omphaloi on Aegina which servedas coversfor bothroion phratryshrines. In the

[A]wOvo

9 HIarp

This may well be the boundary stone of some small private shrine at the edge of the Agora. Two omphaloi found near the southwest corner of the Metroon were identified by Thompson as dedications to Apollo.52 However, these marble "navel stones" have one curious feature: into their crowns have been carved "Lewis cuttings," which would have been used to lift the omphaloi. Similar omphaloi have been found in other parts of the Agora.53 The most instructive parallels, however, come from Aegina. There omphaloi with handles or "Lewis cuttings" have been found. Some are set on plinths. One of these omphaloi was found in situ, used as the cover for a sacrificial pit.54 Handles and "Lewis cuttings" would have been used to remove and replace pit covers. The Agora as on Aegina we have to do with a combinationof omphaloi and masses of miniaturevases. Whereas on Aegina the little votiveswere foundin pits coveredby the omphaloi, in the Agora they had been dumped into a disused cistern on the hillside ca. 20 m. to the northwestof our Apollo sanctuary.This circumstanceneed not stand in the way of their association:in the case of the Eleusinion in Athens the majordepositsof kernoi were found well outside and uphill of the sanctuaryproper[J.J. Pollitt, "Kernoifromthe Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 48 (1979) 205-33]. Moreover, the thoroughexplorationof the northeastslopes of the Kolonos has revealed no trace of a likely alternativesource for the votives. Nor need the fact that no miniature vases were found by the excavatorseither in the bothrosbeneath Temple II or in the immediatevicinity of Temples II and III. In the Sanctuaryof Demeter at Priene [cf. n. 8] the bothroswas found empty, and the votive cups were found at a little distance (though within the sanctuary). In the Agora, in any event, associationbetween the votive cups found in the cistern and the bothros beneath Temple II is ruled out by a disparityin date, the cups being of the later fourthand early third centuries while the bothros went out of use not long after the middleof the fourth century.Conceivablyafter the constructionof Temples II and III the one largebothroswas replacedby several smaller pits coveredwith omphaloi,and the practiceof dedicatorysmall vases began. It must be admitted, however, that no trace of such pits has been recognized in the area of the sanctuary.The associationof omphaloi and miniature vases with the sanctuarymust therefore remain for the presentonly a tantalizing possibility."

THE TEMPLEAND CULT OF APOLLOPATROOSIN ATHENS

1988]

omphaloi of Aegina have no evident connectionwith the cult of Apollo. The connection between the omphaloi and the cult of Apollo Patroos is thus more complicatedthan it may immediatelyappear. THE THREE

STATUES

Pausanias says that three statues of Apollo were associated with the Temple of Apollo Patroos. Within the temple stood Euphranor's statue of Apollo Patroos. Before the temple Pausanias saw Kalamis's statue of Apollo Alexikakos and Leochares'statue of Apollo.~5 Pliny gives the floruit of Euphranor as Olympiad 104, that is, 364-361/360,56 probably because Euphranor executed his renowned paintings in the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios at about this time.57The latest work of Euphranor that may be dated with certainty is his bronzegroup of Philip and Alexanderin a quadriga.58The group probably dates after the heroics of Alexander at Chaeroneain 338, and beforethe death of Philip in 336."9 As has been seen, the L-shaped building-henceforth referred to as the Temple of Apollo Patroosmust postdatethe constructionof its smaller northern neighbor. Although archaeologyprovidesno evidence for the lower limit of the constructionof the building, we may suppose that the temple would not be later than Euphranor'sstatue. Euphranor'sdate thus provides the terminus ante quem for the constructionof the temple. Thompson argued that "inorderto secure so important a commission as the decoration of the Stoa of Zeus, Euphranor must already have been an artist of established reputation ca. 360 B.C.," and so establishes a lower limit of about 325 B.C. for Euphranor's active career. Thus, the statues of Philip and Alexander would be among the last works of the 5Supra n. 1. Pliny, HN 34.50; 35.128-29. For bibliographyand in-

56

formationon Euphranor,consult Palagia, Euphranor.

More recently,cf. G. Dontas, "Lagrande Artemisdu Piree: une oeuvre d'Euphranor,"AntK 25 (1982) 15-34. 57 Paus. 1.3.3-4. Cf. Palagia, Euphranor 50. 58 Pliny, HN 34.77-78. 1 J. Ellis, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism (London 1976) 198 n. 72; Palagia, Euphranor45. 60

61 62

Thompson1937,103. Pliny, HN 34.50.

361A. EAA 4:1 (1961) 565-66, s.v. Leochares (P.

Arias).For the Platonicletters,cf. J. Souillheed., Platon.

Oeuvres completes 13, Pt. 1: Lettres (Paris 1960) v-xxxi (general) and lxx-lxxv (date and authenticityof letter 13). 63 Plut. De Alex. fort. 40; Pliny, HN 34.64. For the remains of the dedicationsee P. Perdrizet, "VenatioAlexandri,"JHS 19 (1899) 273-79, pl. 11; H. Willrich, "Krateros und der Grabherr des Alexandersarkophagsvon Sidon,"

195

artist. Finally, observingthat the clamps and dowels employedin the Temple of Apollo find "excellentparallels in the periodjust after 338 B.C.,"60 he dates the constructionof the temple late in the third quarter of the fourthcentury.Even the most skepticalcriticmust accept Thompson's wider limits for the date of the building:between ca. 350 and ca. 325. Accordingto Pliny, the acme of Leochares fell in Olympiad 102, that is, 372-368/367.61 However, in the 13th Platonic letter, dated to 365/364, Leochares is describedas a "youngman."62Leocharesis known to have worked as late as ca. 320, when he collaboratedwith Lysipposon a group representing"Alexander's hunt,"commissionedby Krateros.63 He and Euphranorthen were approximatecontemporaries. Thompson has suggestedthat the statue by Leochares "antedatesthe Third temple and Euphranor'sstatue,"64 associating it with his earlier open temenos of Apollo. If, however, we maintain that there was no cult of Apollo on the site beforethe constructionof the fourth-centurytemple, then it is less likely that the statue by Leocharesantedatesthe building. While there is no compellingevidencethat Leochares' statue antedatesthe building, there is some reason to think that it is contemporarywith it. Thompsonhas determined from the cross foundation for the front wall of the cella and the peculiar thickening of the cella wall at its base that benches of ca. 0.69 m. in width stood on either side of the entry to the cella.65 The bencheswere evidentlylast-minutemodifications to the temple plan, for the foundationsfor the porchof the buildinghave been extendedto the east by approximately the width of the benches.66Thompson argued persuasively that the benches were meant to carry sculptureand that the statues by Leocharesand Kalamis, which Pausanias saw "beforethe temple,"stood

Hermes 34 (1899) 231-50; F. Courby,La terassedu temple

(FdD II.1, 1920-1927)237-42.

64 Thompson 1937, 109: "We have no certain clue as to where in Leochares' career the Athenian work falls. The probability,however,is that Leochares'statue antedatesthe Third temple and Euphranor'sApollo. Both statues were presumablydedicationsmadeat the expense of the state and it is difficult to conceiveof an occasion for orderinga new and expensive statue at a time necessarilyvery shortlyafter the completionof the Third temple and the dedicationof the cult statue proper."

65 Thompson 1937, 97-99. 66 Thompson 1937, 99: "Duringthe constructiona change

of plan was made that involved drawing forwardthe porch by the width of one courseof foundationslabs, i.e., ca. 0.65 m.... The 0.65 m. by which the colonnadewould seem to have been drawn eastward closely approximatesthe width of the statue bases restoredat the front wall of the cella. . .. "

196

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

here.67 If he is correct,then, since the bench for it was

a last-minute addition to the architecturalplan of the temple, the statue should have been made, or even better, should have been in prospect, at about the same time or a little after the building was planned. Accordingto Pausanias, a statue of Apollo Alexikakos by Kalamis also stoodbeforethe Temple of Apollo Patroos. There is little evidence for the date of Kalamis, although he was a famous and influential sculptor.68To commemoratethe Olympic victoriesof Hieron, tyrant of Syracuse, he collaboratedon a statue group with Onatas of Aegina. Onatas sculpteda chariot, and on either side of it stoodthe works of Kalamis: two horses with boys mountedupon them. The statue group must date after 467.69 Pausanias further notes that Kalamis was commissionedby the poet Pindar (ca. 522-442) to make a statue of Zeus Ammon at Thebes.70 Pausanias testifies that Apollo receivedthe epithet Alexikakos because by an oracle from Delphi he stayed the plague at Athens of 430-427.71 If this evidence is accepted, the terminus post quem for the statue of Apollo Alexikakos should be 427. Most students of Kalamis have found such a date improbably late.72Some would resolvethe chronologicaldifficulty by supposing that Kalamis made the statue in the middle part of the fifth century,but that it did not receive the epithet Alexikakos until the god stayed the plague in 427.73Most now subscribeto the arguments of Thompson.74Reconstructinga shrine of Apollo on the site from at least the sixth century,he would reject the testimony of Pausanias altogether: "Pausanias's informant may have been in error and the title may

67 Thompson 1937, 99, 109 n. 6. It is also possiblethat the two statues which Pausanias saw did stand literally "before the temple,"i.e., in the open air. 68 For Kalamis see the study of J. D6rig, "Kalamisstudien,"JdI 80 (1965) 138-265, who cites earlier bibliography. More recently, cf. W.M. Calder, III, "KalamisAtheniensis,"GRBS 15 (1974) 271-77. 69 Paus. 6.12.1; 8.42.9. For Hieron's victory, see Bacchyl. 3; Schol. Pind. 01. 1, hypoth.Cf. H. Berve,Die Tyrannisbei den Griechen2 (Munich 1967) 605-606. 70 Paus. 9.16.1. For the dates of Pindar, see M. Bowra, Pindar (Oxford 1964) App. II, "Pindaric Chronology," 406-13. 71 Paus. 1.3.4, quoted and translatedin n. 1. 72 Cf. F. Studniczka, Kalamis (AbhLeip 1907, no. 4) 64-67; G.M.A. Richter, The Sculptureand Sculptorsof the Greeks4(New Haven 1970) 158. 73E.g., Studniczka(supra n. 72). 74 E.g., Richter (supra n. 72).

[AJA 92

really have originated with the repulse of the Persians. If this is so then we may suppose that the youthful Kalamis was commissioned to do a new cult statue for the pillaged sanctuary and that Apollo had for long to be satisfied with this statue before the city could afford to rebuild his temple."75 If the modifications to the history of the site proposed here are accepted, then the chronological problem is complicated by a topographical difficulty: where did the statue by Kalamis stand in the years before the Sanctuary of Apollo was established? The more complicated the hypothesized wanderings and permutations of Kalamis's statue, the more they should be suspect. At the beginning of the century, Reisch suggested that the Apollo Alexikakos was not carved by the famous Kalamis, but was the work of an homonymous sculptor of the mid-fourth century, "Kalamis, the teacher of Praxias."76 Although his interpretation would place three contemporary statues in a contemporary temple, it has never found any support. Thompson dismissed it: "Reisch's attribution of the statue to the younger Kalamis, the beginning of whose active career he fixed ca. 385 B.C., is invalidated by the long interval between the occasion and the expression of gratitude."77 Pausanias's explanation of the origins of the epithet of Alexikakos deserves careful consideration.78 A case may be made for the historicity of the account. The god's role as a protector against disease is beyond doubt. Pausanias twice mentions that Apollo Alexikakos defends men against disease: once in connection with Apollo Akesios of Elis,79 and again in explaining the epithet of Apollo Epikourios of Bassae.80 Most

109. Cf. his n. 3. E. Reisch, "Kalamis,"OJh 9 (1906) 199-268. See esp. 232-35. 77Thompson 1937, 109 n. 4. 78 Thompson (1937, 109) suggests that the epithet may have "originatedwith the repulse of the Persians."He allows no role to any plague in the attributionof the epithetto the god. 7"Paus. 6.24.6. 80Paus. 8.41.8. F. Cooper, "Two Inscriptionsfrom Bassai," Hesperia 44 (1975) 225, suggests that there is no connection between Apollo Epikouriosat Bassai and a plague of the late fifth century:Kourionotesdates IG V, 2, line 429 "priorto the supposed renaming of Apollo in 421 B.C., a date which accordedwith the fallacioustheoryof a plague at this time." For o'ol see RE 6:1 (1907) 132, s.v. f7TLKO•PtOL, A. Wilhelm, "OEOI EFIIKOYEpikourios (J. Jessen); PIOI," Hermes 36 (1901) 448-50; Nilsson, GGR2 1, 540; Burkert, GR 231, 401. The essay of O.C.A. zur Nedden, 75 Thompson 1937,

76

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

197

important is the independent testimony of Macrobius, who says that the Athenians called Apollo "Alexikakos" because he warded off disease.81 It certainly may be argued that Pausanias's source has confused the great plague of 430-427 with some earlier epidemic,82 but it is unlikely that the god received the epithet for services rendered during the Persian invasion. The burden of proof must finally rest with those who dispute Pausanias's accuracy. Even if the evidence of Pausanias is ignored and the statue by Kalamis dated to the middle of the fifth century B.C., problems persist. If the statue by Kalamis marked an open temenos for over a century and was hallowed by age and custom, should it not have received pride of place in the new temple? Why is the building not a "Temple of Apollo Alexikakos"? If on the other hand it is agreed that Apollo did not occupy the site before ca. 350 B.C., then where did the statue by Kalamis stand in the years preceding the construction of the temple? How does a fifth-century statue come to stand in the porch of a fourth-century temple, in the company of two fourth-century statues? Such problems seem to me to be insuperable. I suggest that it is more profitable to reevaluate the attribution of the statue to the fifth-century Kalamis. Other evidence supports the existence of a "younger Kalamis," a sculptor of the fourth century.83 Pausanias mentions a certain Athenian, Praxias, "a student of Kalamis," who worked on the figures for the pediment of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (reconstructed ca. 360-330) before his work was halted by death.84 We do not know how old he was when he died. As Praxias was active at the latest in 330, some

suppose that his teacher cannot have been the famous Kalamis: it is more probable that his teacher was a "younger Kalamis," active in the early part of the fourth century. Those who believe only in the fifthcentury Kalamis point out that if each sculptor was a nonagenarian, the gap between the fifth and fourth centuries is easily bridged."8 Another citation seems to allude to a collaboration between Kalamis and Skopas of Paros (ca. 420-351). The pair made a group of three Erinyes at Athens "of which Skopas made the two flanking figures of Parian marble, and Kalamis made the central one."86 If one accepts that a collaborative effort took place, then the date is far too late for the famous Kalamis. Finally, Pliny tells how Praxiteles (fl. Olympiad 104,364-360/359) made a statue of a charioteer which was set up alongside statues of a chariot and horses made by Kalamis.87 Again, it may be argued that Praxiteles repaired a fifth-century group by Kalamis and that there is no question of a joint commission.88 Some scholars have adduced these three citations as evidence for a younger Kalamis, but few today would accept the existence of a younger, fourth-century sculptor named Kalamis. Probably most scholars would hold that the witness of these passages has been sufficiently refuted or reconciled with the tradition of the fifth-century sculptor.89 In my opinion, however, the citations provide adequate grounds to admit the possibility of the existence of a younger Kalamis. If my interpretation of the Temple of Apollo Patroos is correct, if there was no temple or temenos on the site before the mid-fourth century, then it is likely that the statue of Apollo Alexikakos is contemporary

"Apollo Epikourios," Aachener Kunstblatter 41 (1971) 18-20, seems to me rather unsatisfactory. 81 Macrob. Sat. 1.17.15. For the sources of Macrobius see E. TUirk,Macrobiusund die Quellenseiner Saturnalia(Berlin 1962). For further discussionof Apollo Alexikakos and his cult in Athens, see infra pp. 208-209. 82 Cf., e.g., J.G. Frazer, Pausanias's Descriptionof Greece (London 1913), commentaryto 4.33.2. It is interesting to note, however, that in the OT, 164, Sophocleshas a chorus invoke Athena, Artemis, and Apollo to ward off a plague from Thebes, describingthem by the striking and rare (only citationin LSJ) epithet, &Aet'lopot.The meaningand scansion of the word are identicalto those of aAceKaxoKL. 83 The most judicious review of the evidence for the "youngerKalamis"which I have encounteredis by J. Marcad&,Recueil des signaturesdes sculpturesgrecques 1 (Paris 1953) 43 and bibliography; see also Dorig (supra n. 68) 140-41. I exclude from considerationhere the referencesto Kalamis the caelator:Pliny, HN 36.36, 33.156, 34.47. Cf. Marcade (supra).

84 Paus. 10.19.4. For the dates of the reconstructionof the temple, see G. Roux, "Lescomptesdu IVe siecle et la reconstruction du temple d'Apollon A Delphes," RA 1966, 245-96. 85 Cf. Calder (supra n. 68) 275. 86v ras!z4pevi o iK pwTOEv KO O hiptos! 7Tas6 ?7rob7orev CK roi Schol. hvXvIrov AlOov,rqvv e•~etyv KahAai/Ct. Aeschin. In Tim. 188; cf. Clem. Al. Protr. 4.47.3, and the remarksof Marcade (supra n. 83) 199-206. Note that the scholium to Aeschines names Kalamis, while Clement has the corruptKalos. 87Pliny, HN 34.50. For Praxiteles, see, e.g., Richter (supra n. 72) 199-206. 88 It is also conceivablethat Pliny confuseshere the story of the collaborationof Kalamis (the elder) and Onatas. Cf. Paus. 6.12.1, summarizedabove,p. 196 and n. 69. 89 Prof. E.B. Harrison has kindly communicatedto me arguments against the identificationof a "youngerKalamis." My own discussionhas been temperedby her notes.

198

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

with the fourth-centurybuilding with which it was associated. As benches were planned in the porch of the temple, provision must have been made at about the same time for sculpture to occupy them. The attribution of the statue to a sculptor of the fourth century

obviatesany conflictwith the archaeologicalevidence or the testimonyof Pausanias.9oIf, on the other hand,

[AJA 92

Since its discovery the statue has been universally conceded to be the work of Euphranor. Thompson's arguments for the identification of the statue have been uncontested.97 The statue almost certainly comes from the Temple of Apollo Patroos; the composition of

the statue is dated to the fifth century, then the testimony of Pausanias is contradictory, the presence of

the statue in the Temple of Apollo anomalous;both must be explained. THE STATUE BY EUPHRANOR

Joining fragments of a large marble statue were found ca. 20 m. to the south of the Temple of Apollo, in what is now known to be the northernmost room of the Metroon

(fig. 7).91 Since the fragments

of the

statue were found together,it may be assumedthat it was broken on the spot. Reassembled, the statue's preserved height (without plinth) is 2.54 m.92 The figure

representsApollo holding a kithara, Apollo kitharoidos. The god stands with his weight on the left foot,

and the right foot thrust forward. Evidently he was also clad in a long-sleeved chiton, of which no trace has survived.93 The head of the statue was not recovered, but it may be reconstructed with some confidence from later copies and from the traces of hair which have been preserved on the shoulders of the statue: the

god was representedwith an old-fashionedcoiffure, "classicizing horizontal tresses parted in the middle and waved over the ears, with long locks falling on the back and shoulders."94 As Thompson noted, it is likely that the statue of Apollo stood in the north room of the Metroon for some little time in the late Roman period; it was cer-

tainly not, however, originally intended to ornament the Metroon, but must have been moved to that building.95 Given the size and height of the statue, it is unlikely to have been carried far. It very probably came

from the Temple of Apollo.96

90 Thompson'sobjection(1937, 109 n. 4) that the attribution of the statue to the younger Kalamis "is invalidatedby the long intervalbetween the occasionand the expressionof gratitude,"cannot be accepted.Pausanias does not say that the statue was dedicatedbecause he stayed the plague, but only that Apollo receivedthe epithet because he stayed the plague in 427. A dedicationcould be made to the god at any time thereafter. 91Kavvadias (supra n. 5) 55-57; Thompson 1937, 107; Thompson 1961; Palagia, Euphranor13 n. 59, cites further bibliography. 92 For the dimensionsof the statue, see Palagia, Euphranor 14. 93 Palagia, Euphranor 15: "The third garment of the ki-

Fig. 7. Fourth-century statue of Apollo by Euphranor. (CourtesyAgora Excavations,Athens)

tharoidos,the chiton,attestedby its right sleeveon all copies, has disappeared from the Patroos torso." Cf. Thompson 1961,40. 94 Palagia, Euphranor 15.

95Thompson 1937, 107 with n. 3. 96 Thompson 1937, 107. The scale of the statue to some extent bears out the identificationof the L-shaped building as the Temple of Apollo. Such a statue would dwarf the smallerbuilding. 97Thompson 1937, 107; Thompson 1961, 43. Cf., e.g., Palagia, Euphranor 14: "The date and identity of the Patroos torso have never been contestedin print, and it is reasonably safe to assume that Euphranor's work has been recovered."

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

the drapery of the statue may be dated on stylistic grounds to approximately the third quarter of the fourth century."9 So by the criteria of provenience and period, the statue may be the work of Euphranor. In addition, the unweathered surface of the statue indicates that it stood under cover: the statue by Euphranor stood inside the temple. Finally, the size of the statue would be appropriate for a room the size of the cella of the Temple of Apollo.99 Thompson believed that the Apollo Alexikakos by Kalamis was a work of the fifth century B.C., and that the statue by Leochares antedated by some years the construction of the Temple of Apollo. I have argued, however, that Apollo Alexikakos may have been a work of the "younger Kalamis," and, consequently, that all three statues may have been approximately contemporary. If my arguments have merit, then the statue may not be attributed to Euphranor on the grounds of findspot or date: it might as well be the work by Leochares or the "younger Kalamis." Thompson himself is aware that his argument from the weathering of the statue is inconclusive for his identification;100 as he has noted, it is possible that the statues by Kalamis and Leochares were also sheltered from the elements in the porch of the temple, flanking the door to the cella. Thompson's final argument, from the size of the statue, is also inconclusive. There is no doubt that the statue from the Metroon would have fit in the porch of the temple,101 and in fact it appears that at least one other large statue was associated with the Temple of Apollo Patroos. Thompson records that "in clearing the ruinous front steps of the Third temple we found a basketful of slivers of Pentelic marble from the drapery of a large statue. The workmanship is excellent, the finish somewhat smoother than the statue found in the Metroon. Repeated efforts have failed to establish any join between the slivers and that statue. The fragments, then, must come from another large statue of the classical period which may very well have stood in the porch of the temple."1'02

98 Thompson 1961, 40-42; Palagia, Euphranor 15.

9"Thompson 1937, 107; Thompson 1961, 43. 100Cf. Thompson 1961, 43.

101The ground plan of the temple indicates dimensionsof 11.87 x 16.76 m. The interior of the pronaos measured 9.01 m. across. Assuming that the statue stood a maximum of 3 m. in height, one may argue that it would not have seemed out of place in the porch of a building of such size. For the dimensions of the building, see Thompson 1937, 95-97 and pl. V. Very little of the superstructureof the building is certainly known to have survived. Cf. L. Shoe, Profiles of Greek Moldings (Cambridge, Mass. 1936) 37;

H.A. Thompson, "Excavations in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 21 (1952) 83-113.

199

In addition, the fragments of a kithara, carved from "coarse grained island marble," were found scattered along the northern side of the Temple of Apollo.103 The kithara cannot be associated with the statue from the Metroon. Thompson notes that statue and kithara are carved from different marbles, and the scale of the musical instrument "would seem rather small to permit association with the statue [from the Metroon]."104 There is no primafacie reason, then, to identify the statue with Euphranor's Apollo Patroos. One avenue of argument for the identification of the statue, however, has hitherto been neglected: the iconography of the statue. So far as I know, there is only one labeled representation of a Oeb Harp o9, an 'ArdAAwv AVKELOS HarpWos9from Cilician Tarsus.105 In the Imperial period, Tarsus, striving to establish its antecedents as a proper Hellenic state, adopted Perseus and / his home city, Argos, as its and rpdO8b5Harpo^A 7TroAs. Supposedly Perseus brought with him the Apollo Lykeios of Argos whom the people of Tarsus henceforth considered their O8bcHarp ov. The Apollo Lykeios Patroos is represented on many coin issues from Tarsus: "Le dieu est une statue archaique, nue, les jambes soudees ensemble; sa tate a la longue chevelure est couronn&ede laurier; il est debout de face, sur un omphalos plus ou moins marque. 11 tient ordinairement de chaque main un loup dresse sur ses pattes de derriere; plus rarement la main droite tient un loup, la main gauche un arc."106 More recently J. and L. Robert have provided strong arguments for the identification of another OEb4 Harp-pTo on the Imperial coinage of Side in Pamphylia: "Chauss&ede bottes, le dieu peut tenir le sceptre, a I'occasion avec une touffe de laurier, et dans la droite le laurier, ou une phiale, souvent avec la grenade de Side."'107 Although both of these examples belong to a selfconscious and classicizing period, they may help to illuminate the practices of the Classical age. In each case the 60b~ Harp^o9 is identified by an insignia or

102 Thompson 1937, 109-10 n. 6; cf. Thompson 1961, 43 n. 2. 103 Thompson 1961, 37-38 with ns. 3-4; 43 n. 2. 104

Thompson 1961, 38.

Identifiedand discussed,with very full bibliographyand illustrationsby L. Robert, "Documentsd'Asie mineure, IV. Deux inscriptionsde Tarse et d'Argos,"BCH 101 (1977) 88-132. Of the bibliographycited by Robert,see in particular F. Imhoof-Blumer, "Coin Types of Some Cilician Cities,"JHS 18 (1898) 171-78, with pl. 13. 106 Robert (supra n. 105) 97. For furtherdiscussionof the statue and illustrations,see pp. 96-110 and figs. 17 and 19. See also Imhoof-Blumer(supra n. 105). '05

107

Bulletin epigraphique 1982, 422 no. 450.

200

CHARLESW. HEDRICK,JR.

attribute as the ancestor of a particular people. We should inquire what attributemight be used to distinguish the Apollo Patroosof Athens. As we have seen, the statue from the Agora may be reconstructedwith some certainty from the examples of later copies. The god holds a kithara, and is clad in peplos, himation, and chiton. He was represented with long hair, the locks falling on the back and shoulders.108There is no suggestion of any particularly Athenian element in his costume.As we shall see, the god was intended to be the ancestor of not only the Athenians, but of the whole Ionian race. I would suggest, with all reservations,that if the statue fromthe Agora is to be identifiedwith the Apollo Patroos of Euphranor, the case may be made that his costume,haircut, and kithara were intendedto recall a traditionalIonian costume,and the musical contests held on the island of Delos. In a famous passage, Thucydides distinguishesbetween the traditional garb of the Athenians and Ionians and that of the Lacedaimonians:"The Athenians were the first to lay down their weapons and, because of their unrestrainedway of life, changed to greaterluxury. Indeed,it is not long since amongthem the older men of the upper classes, on accountof their luxurious lifestyle, gave up wearing linen robes and fastening their hair up on their heads in a bun, with a pin of golden grasshoppers;for this reasonthe fashion has prevailed for a long time among the older men of the Ionian people, who are their kindred."109 Note in his of the hair and chitons. particular description Later, when Thucydides describesthe fifth-century purificationof the island of Delos by the Athenians,he sees fit to quote verses from the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, justifying their reestablishmentof quinquennial games: "A contest was held there, both athletic and poetic, and the cities brought choruses. Homer

gives the best evidencethat these things were so in the following verses, taken from a Hymn to Apollo: 'At other times, Phoebus,your heart delights most in Delos, where the Ionians in their draggingrobes assemble with their childrenand wives in your street,where they delight you with boxing, dance, and song, and call your name wheneverthey decreethe contests'."1 10 Note again the emphasis on chitons, and the importance of musical contestsat the games institutedby the Athenians. The chiton,hair style, and musicalcontestsare specifically linked with Apollo Patroos by a scholium to Aristophanes: "The ancient Athenians wore grasshoppers in their hair, because, being musical, they were sacredto Apollo, who was Patroosto the city."''1 The scholium goes on to quote Thucydides' description of the traditionalAttic/Ionian garb and coiffure. I would tentativelysuggest then that these passages may be used to explain the iconographyof the monumental statue of Apollo from the Agora. They connect the kithara and the garb of the god with Apollo Patroos and the festival instituted by the Athenians on Delos to honor the god. Nothing in the costumeof the statue distinguishesApollo Patroosfrom the usual kitharhodetype. The costumeof the kitharhodeis suitable for Apollo Patroosbecauseof the musicalcontests held at the Delia; other associationswhich it may have do not detractfrom the argument. THE CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

It is well known from a variety of literary and epigraphical sourcesthat the Atheniansconsideredtheir Apollo Patroosto be the equivalentof Apollo Pythios. The connectionis clearlystatedby Demosthenes,who calls upon Apollo Pythios,0 Harp^or air- rj 7 7Act, "who is Patroos to the city."112Plutarch confirmsthe identification, saying that Apollo Pythios in Athens Ka'

Harpo•, "08Supra ns. 91-92.

iv TroL

Tavro

OPOpVVTErS

KTl X

-

TTTryLOWV

EVEPOEL KKPWO8VXOV

A' OvKaL 'Iovowv rTPLXWy"V' aV7J 7) KaaT rb evyycvE4 Et 7r•pEfOVTrpovS KE(aX)

•rTE

ATl ra' Tro

yf'vovs

apx•yds.113

'AnrdXXwvors

TE

r 7TpoWTo

'AO7rvaroL T0v do'&qpov KaTEOcvTro Ka Vf n b 7rpv(Acp'rTcpov LvCt r•. bra'r• iav. T wV ?cTicrT'ra •: L KaLoL 7Wv 7TrpEoJVTEpOL aTb 3TpoavTro• ?•aaLLdvov TE )LVOV^S LaLTOVOVi?7TOXVS ETravXpOVOS f7TfLl XLrWvasa 109

[AJA92

E~7AX(, YEOvpjvE' haXXOT' ErTpPOrl7,S' 4Doifl8,/.aXLo-Tra 'vOaTot XKXLTWVfS' IaovcsT olv is7Tv (O'L"OLV TEKEEoGT-L yvvalr' 7jypEOovraL ayvtav" KaLaOL8f. ivOaoe 7rvy/LaXl? KaL rTE oraV OPXrl'rTVL KaOEO-WO-LV TEpW7TOVO, a'y&va(Thuc. .LV)a•G.Lf rVOL See Gomme

3.104.4). (supra n. 109) commentary.Cf. also the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, 146-50. 7TroXV TWV oLapxaLOTaTOL KaTrO-Xcv(Thuc. 1.6.3). See A.W. Gomme, A Hisiv rrTELyas'AOqlvalwrov TKf•v•l Xpvoo-s TW torical on OL9 EXOV,8•LOTLr Commentary Thucydides (Oxford 1945-1981) OVTES, 7rT.XTylaotLv LOVo(KOL ataKELVTaL L Tv Harpw^osr 7TroAL(Schol.Ar. Nub. 984). commentary;cf. Ar. Eq. 1321-34. 'ArrdAAoXXW, l aVTOOL L. K11 seeNilsson,GGR21, 213,535. ForApolloandgrasshoppers t KaLtOUVLKOS, T.OL.TO aayov Kaa 78XO 112Dem. De Cor. 18.141. YVaLVLKOS' 68'/dloTra "Op/LpooTrL Xopovs~ av7)yovaLr7TO6~L. EK7TpOOL/.LLOV113 Plut. Demetr. 40.8. G. Daux, "Athenes et Delphes," rotaTra 7yvEVroL E7'TOL 'r roLo, o irv hvabov'I.EvoL7v iT

TOV

v

r4PT

1988]

201

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

Further corroboration is provided by inscriptions from both Athens and Delphi.114 Some evidencelinks Apollo Patrooswith the oracularfunctionof the god of Delphi: Aelius Aristides defines the 76Yr/7r9IHiarpcoo of Athens as Apollo Pythios.115Apollo was the ancestral god of Athens by virtue of his son, Ion, the eponymousancestorof the Ionian people."16 Apollo Alexikakosalso has connectionswith Apollo Pythios. As Pausanias explains, Apollo received the epithet Alexikakos because he stayed the plague in Athens by an oracle from Delphi.117 Thus two of the three statues fromthe temple in the Agora seem to be associatedwith Apollo Pythios. Pausanias providesno epithet for the statue by Leochares, but we may justifiably suspect that, like its rovvvaoL OEol, it too may have had some connection with the Pythian Apollo. Thucydides assertsthat the most ancientpart of the city of Athens lay to the southeastof the Acropolis,in the vicinity of the Ilissos river. As evidence for his statement, he notes that most cult places of Athens were located in this quarter:"Beforethis the city was comprisedof the present acropolis,and of that region beneath it which is turned particularly toward the south. And the proof:the sanctuaries(of Athena) and of the other gods are on the acropolisitself, and those outside of it tend to be situated in this quarter of the

city, as is that of Olympian Zeus and the Pythion, and that of Earth, and that of Dionysos in the marshes ... ""8 An inscription of the second century B.C. which apparently stood in the old sanctuary of Apollo on the Ilissos, the Pythion,119 elucidates the connections among the three statues in the Agora temple, and ties them to the cult offered to Apollo in the Pythion. The inscription alludes to oracles of Apollo, enjoining the Athenians to worship him after the fashion of their fathers, in the traditional ancestral way: "And the Pythian Apollo who is Patroos to the Athenians and expounder of blessings, equally by common consent the savior of all Greeks, son of Zeus and Leto, and since through his oracles he enjoins them to pray to the god called Patroos, and make the traditional sacrifices on behalf of the Athenian people at the correct times of the year to Apollo, sacrificing as is traditional for the people... "120 The inscription goes on to specify three distinct sacrifices offered to Apollo during the Thargelia at the Pythion: one to Apollo Alexikakos, another to Apollo Patroos, the third and last to Apollo Pythios: "Let the priest of Apollo Pythios have charge of the due sacrifice in the gardens at the Pythion, offering a perfect sow for Apollo Alexikakos and for Patroos a cow, and for Apollo a cow, taking the same portions as before."121 The inscription shows a connection between three

HSCP Suppl. 1 (1941) 51, argues that raTrpwos-in the citations from Plutarchand Demosthenesis simply a descriptive adjective,not an epithet. He founds his argumenton the (in my opinion) mistakenassumptionthat in Athens the cult of Apollo Pythios was distinct from the cult of Apollo Patroos, and that "ApollonPatroos ne saurait &treassimil iaApollo HaTpwos and Pythien." Cf. further Harp. s.v. 'A7rrdoXXv LSCG, no. 14, quoted and discussedinfra pp. 201-202. 114 See in particularFdD 111.2, 161, where the Amphiktyons allow for honorific statues to be set up "in Delphi in front of the Temple of Apollo, and in Athens by Apollo Patroos."I owe this referenceto John Camp. The best discussion of the epigraphical documentationfrom Athens and Delphi which I have encounteredremains that of G. Colin, Le culte d'Apollon Pythien a Athenes (BEFAR 93, Paris 1905) 8-10. 115 13.112.196. Cf. J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley 1978) 151, 163, 294-95. 116 See esp. Eur. Ion, passim. Also, infra pp. 203-204. 117 Paus. 1.3.4. te 7 VVV . 18 7TP0 'tKp'7TOXL Ka1 ovo-andT L, LTb n voTov aTcTpa.Le.Lt cvovC.TEK.7jtOV" riaL v7rarlv 7rVpo TflhKpo7TrdOt Ta yap rpa EV LXXv ovOcv [.. .] Kat OTTL KL 'coavTfa T7J^ TLkPOS 7rpOS' b 7rO)f(AS'• ' 4aXXov TOTO Tar TO TETV ALO TOV L'pvat, Td OXv•"dvTov KaltTobIIvOLovKalt Tb T7j Fij Kalt Tb iv At4.vatLAtovviov ... (Thuc. 2.15.3-4). For the text, see Gomme (supra n. 109). 119 LSCG, no. 14, originally published by W. Peek, "Atti-

schen Urkunden,"AM 66 (1941) 181-95, no. 2. The provenience of the inscriptionis unknown:it is deducedfrom the text that it must have originally stood in the Pythion. In the following quotationsI follow the text presentedby Sokolowski in LSCG. ' 120 7PXct 8f KaLo 'A7roXXwovH1Itos W Ka'l47)7T7 TrwOv HIarpWLOS ayaiov, v ro7i 'AO7)PaloLt 7TaTwP A7ro0rw riv 'EX 0WT7)P KaLKOLP7)L

wnv0 T7)

Ka\L

ro^

At',, 8tc& i rTov Xp7ov" [viLO,TOVT]O[V]

AL]Tav[E~] -TOLS TP [oj]a[t

7rpoo-[Tr]c[TraX]drosab-

KaL rbv] Ob66v EfrTKaA\OvlLPvov Ia7TpWLov rTaS 7TroLov/.vovS1 [7rarpl]ov[s.Ovrl]as i7pTrov 87~ov roV 'AO7lvaLov TroS TOVE•LavTov

TWL TW 'A7r]o'[X]XWlL, [O]%ovuras?orw [KaLpots 7rrpaLov rTL LSCG, no. 14, lines 8-14. 1211 [7- KaO?7K]Ov'•ETrL~/LsX'5-OW oS 'A7rdoXXovo 7or 1vOt'ov 7)s-Ovorlasiv [K r'r]otS TE fLT OV H IvO'ov T(C')fLav Oiv (7rapao-Tr-as-)KatT7WL KaLTWL 7 L 'A]Xf6LKaK(oL, 'A[7TrdXXovL Fla7rpWoLWL (/3oiv, XaMt)[pc /3oVv,Kalt vPov rPTs] a•ras, rwot'A7TTdoXwvt KaOa pLt~pS~a Kalt7rpOTEpov. LSCG, no. 14, lines 52-55.

202

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

aspects of Apollo: Pythios, Patroos, and Alexikakos.

Note that the epithet of Pythios is not specified. The god received distinct sacrifices in a single sanctuary in

each of these guises. The oracular functionsof Apolv are also tied by the inlo, •y779r77

aya8•"v,122 I• to the Pythion and the three epithetsof scription We have seen that thereis indepenApollo. already dent evidencefor the associationof these aspectsof Apolloat Athens. Just as threeaspectsof Apolloare associatedwith the Pythion,so thereare threestatuesin the Agora temple.The ApolloAlexikakosby Kalamisand the to twoof the ApolloPatroosof Euphranorcorrespond threeguisesin whichApollowas worshippedat the Pythion.The thirdstatueof Apolloby Leochares,for whichPausaniassuppliesno epithet,in all likelihood shouldbe identifiedas ApolloPythios,who also receivesno epithetin the inscriptionfromthe Pythion. This conjecture, whichis basedon the attestedcorrebetween the statuesin the Agoraandthe spondences under which epithets Apollowas worshippedin the would make absolute the parallelof cultbePythion, tweenthe two shrines. The inscriptionfromthePythiondealswiththeancestralcult of Apollo.At leastduringthe secondcentury B.C. then, the three epithetsof Apollo were linkedin the mindsof the Athenianswith the tradi-

tional cult of the Pythion.123 If that Athenian percep-

tion was correct,then the originalseat of the cult of ApolloPatrooswas evidentlythe Pythion.It would followthatthe templein the Agoraandits threestatues are a laterfoundation,intendedas a reflectionof the Ilissosshrine. At this pointit will be profitableto turnto the historyof the cultof ApolloPatroosin Athens.In lightof 122 Cf. supra n. 119. 123 The secondcentury B.C. was a periodof renaissancefor

the national cults of Greece. See LSCG 39, no. 14, with bibliography. 124 125

Thuc. 2.15.1. Paus. 1.19.1.

126 Notably the altar "dedicatedby the younger Peisistratus in the Pythion,"IG 12, 761 = ML 11. Cf. Thuc. 6.54.6. See furtherthe choregicdedicationsassociatedwith the Thargelia and the Pythion, cited in Travlos 100, with fig. 130, a map on which the findspotsof the inscriptionare plotted. 127 Summarized by R.E. Wycherley, "Two Athenian Shrines,"AJA 63 (1959) 72. 128 129

Philostr. 2.1.7.

Cf. Wycherley (supra n. 127) 72; R.E. Wycherley,"The Pythion at Athens, Thucydides2.15.4; Philostratus,Lives of the Sophists, 2.1.7," AJA 67 (1963) 75-79. There was certainly a cult of "Apolloof the Long Rocks"on the northslope of the Acropolis:see Travlos 91. Euripides places Apollo's seductionof Creousa and the conceptionof Ion in a cave on

[AJA 92

the evident connectionsbetween the cults of Apollo Pythios and Patroos, a few preliminarywords about the introductionof the cult of the Delphic god into Athens are necessary. The oldest cult center of Apollo in Athens, the Pythion, is securelyfixed to the south of the Acropolison the banks of the Ilissos by the testimonyof Thucydides,124Pausanias,125 and by the findspotsof numerous inscriptions.126The attempts to locate the shrine on the northwestslope of the Acropolis127 rely on the soliof Philostratos Philostratos.128 tary testimony may himselfbe mistaken,his text corruptor wronglyinterin any eventthe locationof the Pythioncanpreted;129 not be adjustedto accommodatehis statement.As we have noted, the cults of Apollo Pythios, Patroos, and Alexikakos, as well as the old Ionian festival of the Thargelia, were observedat this shrine. The Pythion was named for the god of Delphi, and it would be unreasonableto suppose that the cult arrived in Athens before the emergenceof Delphi as a Panhellenic sanctuary.An archaeologicalsilence has been taken to signify that Apollo did not arrive in Delphi much before the middle of the eighth century.130Evidence suggests, however, that some other cults survived at Delphi from Mycenaean times through the Classicalperiod.131 Delphi owed its early political importanceto the role of the oracleof Apollo in colonization.132From the eighth century, Apollo was regularly consultedby the prospectiveoikist,133 and by the time of the Lelantine war, the prestige of the shrine among the leading Greek powers had been securelyestablished.134 The influence of Delphi is detectableat Athens as early as the "firstclearly attested event in Athenian

the north slope of the Acropolis. He also says that Creousa exposed her illegitimate baby in the same grotto where the god had seduced her: see Ion 8-24 and esp. 936-41; cf. FGrHist 334 (s.v. Istros) F. 6. Philostratos'scitation, however, should not be confusedwith Euripides'story. 130 The archaeological evidence is conveniently summarized by G. Roux, Delphes, son oracle et ses dieux (Paris 1976) 35-36. Generallyfor the antiquityof the cult of Apollo in Greece, see Burkert,GR 96, 226. Roux (supra n. 130). W.G. Forrest in CAH3 II111.3, 131 305-306, sees no evidencefor any continuityof cult at Delphi between ca. 1200 and ca. 750. 132 For the early history of Delphi see the general discussion of Fontenrose (supra n. 115) 1-4 with bibliography. For Delphi and Archaic colonization, see W.G. Forrest, "Colonizationand the Rise of Delphi," Historia 6 (1957) 160-75; A.J. Graham, Colonyand Mother City2 (Chicago 1983) 100; Graham in CAH3 111.3,144-46. 133 See Graham, CAH3 (supra n. 132). 134 Cf., e.g., Forrest (supra n. 131) 308-309.

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

the abortivecoupof Cylonin the mid-sevhistory,"'35 enthcentury.136Accordingto Thucydides,137 the Deloracle had to the phic encouraged Cylon occupy Acroof the sixthcentury,theAthethe polis.By beginning niansareattestedas membersof the DelphicAmphictyony,takingpartin thesacredwaragainstCirrha.138 These are the two earliestattestationsof a connection betweenAthensand Delphi.BecauseAthensdid not participatein the colonizationmovementof the eighthand seventhcenturiesthereis no evidenceof Athenswas, however,a major any earliercontact.139 force from the ninth centuryon,140 and it trading would be astonishingif her links with Delphi were laterthanthoseof otherimportantGreek significantly states.Thereis fortunatelysomeevidencewhichpermitsthe inferencethatAthenswas familiarwith Delphi long before Cylon.141 In historicaltimes the MarathonianTetrapolissent its own independent embassyto Delphi.Whilethe embassywas en route, sacrificeswere offeredin the shrineof the Pythian Apollo at Oinoe, one of the "four cities."142 The cult

135The quote is from A. Andrewes in CAH3 111.3,368. 136 For Cylon and his dates, see Rhodes, CAAP 79-84.

I am aware of no good up-to-datehistoryof the relationsbetween Athens and Delphi. For all their undeniablemerits, the essays of Colin (supra n. 114) and Daux (supra n. 113) 37-69 now need revision. 137

Thuc.1.26.

Cf., e.g., Forrest (supra n. 131) 312-16, with bibliography and discussion of the Sacred War and the date of the earliest Athenian participationin the Amphictyony. 139 The first Athenian colony was founded at Sigeum ca. 600. Cf., e.g., Graham, CAH3 (supra n. 132) 121, and his list of colonies, 160-62. 140 See N. Coldstream,GeometricGreece(New York 1977) 102-104, 132-37, who argues that, although Athenian trade remained vigorous, there was a marked decline after 730 (p. 134). For some documentationof Athenian trade after ca. 730, see A.W. Johnston and R.E. Jones, "The 'SOS' Amphora,"BSA 73 (1978) 103-41. 141 Jacoby maintainedthat the state of Athens only took up relations with Delphi and began to worship the Pythian Apollo some years after the usurpationof Cylon, at the time of Solon, probablythroughthe mediationof the Alcmeonids. At the same time, Jacoby submits, Solon created Apollo Patroos, whom he equated with Apollo Pythios as a symbol of Athenian unity, much like the later eponyms of the 10 tribes. Earlier evidencefor the cult of Apollo Pythiosin Attica is disallowed by Jacoby, who maintains that it shows a connectionbetween Delphi and particulargene, not Delphi and the Attic state. See F. Jacoby, Atthis (Oxford 1949) 39-41; Jacoby, FENEEIA 72-73. I am not certain that Jacoby's distinctionbetween cult of gene and cult of state is valid at such an early period, nor do I see that the argument is relevant to the cult of Apollo in the Tetrapolis. See infra n. 146. 142 For the theoriai sent by the Tetrapolis to Delphi and Delos, see Jacoby, comm. to FGrHist 328 (s.v. Philochoros) 138

203

on the eastern seaboardof Attica then evidentlyantedates the unificationof Attica.143 THE ORIGINS OF THE CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS

Originally Apollo Patroos was not a god of the state, but was worshipped by individual families.'44 In the Classical period, some discretekinship groups, such as the phratry'45 and genos,146 continued to maintain their exclusive cults of the ancestralApollo. A statue of the god may have stoodoutsidethe meeting hall or dwelling place of the group or family.'47 The question put to the archonat his dokimasia,"whether he has an Apollo Patroos and Zeus Herkeios," EL EO'rr avTcr'A7rd0owvHarpWoFKaLZEVS'EpKJioS, referredto the ancient gods of the family. The question was intendedto establisha man's membershipin a phratryor genos, and hence (at an early period) his qualificationsfor office.148 The earliest witness for the public cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens is Euripides' play, the Ion, which was probably produced in the late fifth century

F. 75. The shrinesof the Delianand PythianApollowere maintained in separatevillages:ApolloPythiosreceivedsacrificeat Oinoe,ApolloDeliosat Marathon.Forlocalsanctuaries of the two gods, see Nilsson, GGR2 1, 552-53. Lists

(representative thoughout of date)of the knownshrinesof the pair may be foundin RE 2:1 (1895) 49, 66-68, s.v. Apollo(K. Wernicke).I do not knowwhatdocumentation substantiates theassertionof Burkert,GR 226,thatsanctuariesof the Delianand PythianApollo"findensich.. . oft nebeneinander." 143 See Jacoby,comm.to FGrHist328 (s.v. Philochoros) F. 75:"Inviewof theageandimportance of thecultof Apollo in that region[sc., the easterncoastof Attica],we may confidentlyassumethat they [the two embassiesof the Tetrapolis]reachbackto the time beforethe unificationof Attica;evenin latertimesthey contrivedto exist independentlybesidethe twoAtheniantheoriai."Somewoulddate the synoecismof Atticaas earlyas the ninthcentury,e.g., Andrewes(supran. 135)362-63. The antiquityof the cult of Apolloin the Marathonian Tetrapolishasnot,to thebest of myknowledge, beenconsidered withreference to thearrivalof Apolloat Delphi,northequestionof Mycenaean religioussurvivalsat the Panhellenicshrine. 144 SeeJ. T6pffer,Attische (Berlin1889)6-7. Genealogie betweenApollo Patroosand the 145 For the connection phratrysee Hedrick1984(supran. 42) 178. 146 W.S.Ferguson hascollectedtheevidencefortheconnectionbetweenApolloPatroosandtheAtticgene:"TheSalaminioi of Heptaphyleand Sounion,"Hesperia7 (1938) 31-33. Cf. alsoT6pffer(supran. 144).I havenotbeenable to examinethe remarksof F. Bourriot,Recherchessur la naturedugenos(Lille 1976). 147 See Nilsson,GGR2 1, 557. 148 For the oath of the archonsand their dokimasia,see Rhodes, CAAP 100-101; Hedrick 1984 (supra n. 42) 222-23.

204

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

B.C.149 As Euripides tells the tale, Ion was the illegitimate child of Apollo and Creousa. Exposed by his mother, he is raised as a slave in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. In the meantime at Athens, Creousa has married a noble immigrant, Xuthus, but in spite of their best efforts their union has remained childless. The pair comes to Delphi to seek Apollo's advice and help, and there are united with Ion. Xuthus is given to understand that the child is his own, the fruit of an indiscretion during an earlier visit to Delphi, but Creousa learns the truth of the boy's parentage. Here for the first time Apollo is identified as the father of Ion, and, consequently, as ancestral god of the Athenians and Ionians.150 The equation of Apollo Pythios and Apollo Patroos, which is implicit in Euripides' account, occurs in no earlier source.'51 Although the role of Apollo is new, other elements of the story can be traced to an earlier time. APOLLO PATROOS AND IONIA

The Athenian claim to be the mother city of the Ionian Dodecapolis may be traced in the literary tradition to Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Herodotus, and thus was current in both Athens and Ionia by ca. 500 B.C. at the latest.152 In Athens Solon was familiar

149 The legend may have been mentionedearlier in Sophocles' Creousa.For judicious discussion of date, legend, and bibliographyof the Ion, see L. Parmentierand H. Gregoire, Euripide 3 (Paris 1965) 155-56.

150In particular, consult Eur. Ion, 1575-88. 151 Note that Apollo Pythios is never explicitly called Patroos by Euripides. 152

See FGrHist 323a (s.v. Hellanicus) F. 11; J.P. Barron,

"Milesian Politics and Athenian Propaganda,"JHS 82 (1962) 6, n. 40. 153

In fr. 4 he calls Attica swpEo-vrdarT7vyaav

. . . 'Iao-

vtas. Cf. Barron (supra n. 152); Barron (1964) 46. 154 See in particular G. Huxley, The Early lonians (London 1966) 30-35. Huxley also gives one of the best accounts (25-30) of the literary tradition for the Ionian migration. Cf. further C.J. Emlyn-Jones, The lonians and Hellenism

(London 1980) 13. 155 Notably, ceramic similarities between Ionia and Attica during the Submycenaeanand Protogeometricperiods. See Emlyn-Jones (supra n. 154); J.M. Cook in CAH3 11.2, 784-86. 156 Hdt. 8.44; 7.94. 157 Fr. 7. Cf. Parmentier and Gregoire (supra n. 149) 155-56. 158 The original name of the race was 'Ia'ovrs, which developed into "IwvEv. The name of the eponym evidences no similar development.Cf. H. Frisk, Griechischesetymologi-

sches Wbrterbuch (Heidelberg 1960-1972) s.v. "IwvEr;Par-

mentier and Gregoire (supra n. 149) 155. 159Strab. 8.383. Ion had associationswith other places on the east coast of Attica as well. His tomb was at Potamoi, near Thorikos (Paus. 1.31.3; 7.1.2; cf. Traill, POA 44-45)

[AJA 92

with the story 100 years earlier.153 The Ionian migration, however, may be more than a literary tradition. The social, religious, and linguistic parallels between Attica and Ionia are well known.154 Furthermore, in recent years mounting archaeological evidence has convinced many that the tradition is likely to be based in historical fact, and that Athens is probably the embarkment point for the Ionian migration.55' Herodotus identifies Ion as the eponymous ancestor of the Ionian race by way of Athens;156 even earlier, Hesiod mentions him.157 The name of the eponym must be a later coinage than the name of the race: his story cannot be much earlier than Hesiod.158 Before Apollo was inserted into the story, Ion was the son of Xuthus, an immigrant to Athens who was the reputed founder of the Marathonian Tetrapolis.159 The Thargelia was an Ionian festival of great antiquity, dating back at least to the Dark Age, and probably earlier.160 In historic times at least, the festival was sacred to Apollo.161 In Athens the festival was celebrated over two days, the sixth and seventh of Thargelion. The seventh day was Apollo's birthday,162 the sixth that of his twin sister Artemis.163 The first day of the festival was devoted to the purification of the city. Two ugly paupers were first paraded through the

and a deme named after him, Ionidai, probablylies a little inland from the east coast (cf. Traill, POA 41). 160 For the antiquity of the festival see Burkert, GR 346: "Auffillig ist, wie die ionisch-attischen Monatsbezeichnungen sich abheben von denen der anderen Griechen;sie kniipfen in der Form auf -on an Festbezeichnungendes Typs an, wie er auch mykenischbezeugt ist; offenbar liegt eine nachmykenischeWeiterentwicklungvor, die aber ilter sein mut als die Wanderungder Ionier nach Kleinasien zu Anfang des Jahrtausends weil nur so die Identitditdes Grundstocks mit dem attischen zu erklaren ist; dieser Schlut gilt zugleich fUr die wichtiges gemeinsamen Feste wie Apaturia, Anthesteria, Thargelia..." H.W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977) 147-48, argues

that Apollo is a newcomerin Athens, bringingthe Pyanepsia and Thargelia with him via Delos "inthe eighth century or so." For the festival in states other than Athens, see M.P.

Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religiase Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen (Leipzig 1906) 105-15; RE 5, A, 2

(1934) 1287-1304, s.v. Thargelia (V. Gebhard). For the month Thargelion, see now A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (HdA 1.7, Munich 1972) Index, 296

s.vv. Targelion, Thargelion. 161 Cf., e.g., Deubner, AF 193-94. 162 For the Thargelia at Athens, Deubner, AF 179-98; A. Mommsen, Feste der Stadt Athen (Leipzig 1898) 468-86.

The account in Parke (supra n. 160), though necessarily brief, is a good introduction.For the birthdayof Apollo see, e.g., M.P. Nilsson, Die Entstehung und religiase Bedeutung des griechischen Kalendars2 (Lund 1918) 39, 48. 163 For the connection,see Deubner, AF 179.

1988]

THE TEMPLEAND CULT OF APOLLOPATROOSIN ATHENS

town while residentswhipped them with fig branches and squills, then ejectedfrom the city. This cathartic ritual was intended to ward off, among other ills, plague and famine from the populace.164 Apollo's ability to send plague is well known fromthe Iliad.165 On the second day, an offering called the thargela (whence the name of the festival) was offeredto Apollo. The etymologyof the word has neverbeen satisfactorily explained,'66but it was doubtlessa kind of "first fruits"gift.167 Such an agricultural aspect to the cult of Apollo is remarkable;some see it as a trait of the Asiatic/Ionian cult of the god, and remarkonce more the eastern origins of the festival.'68 It is noteworthy that an essentially Ionian festival like the Thargelia should be celebrated in the sanctuary of the Pythian Apollo. It would more naturally be associatedwith some Panionian cult, for example that of the Delian Apollo. Furthermore,in Athens, "themothercity of the Ionian race,"the festivalshould be very old; at any rate older than the cult of the Pythian Apollo. Which cult then enjoyedprecedence in the Ilissos shrine? On the criterion of age, one might suppose the Thargelia; the name of the sanctuary, however, suggests that the Pythian Apollo was originally the sole occupant. APOLLO PYTHIOS

AND PATROOS

It is odd that Apollo Patroos is identifiedwith the Pythian Apollo and worshippedin the Pythion.Apollo Patroos is the ancestralgod of the Ionian race, and has no apparent connection with Delphi. The god, like the festival of the Thargelia, would more naturally be linked with some Panionian cult.169How did Apollo Patroos come to be equated with Apollo Pythios?

In his article on the relationship between Athens and Delphi, Daux maintained that in the Classical period the cult of Apollo Pythios was distinct from that of Apollo Patroos,and that the two coalescedonly 164 See in particularDeubner, AF 184 with n. 5. Cf. Tzetz. Chil. 5.726-30, which derives, among others, from Hipponax: b TapOaKo KaOap/LaTrotoov iTv T- 7rdaXat rb av -crv/qOph KarEXha/3E jrdhwvOEopjqvia ALO'S EL'ThoL/OSEL'TE Kalp&aposl6o1 oVv Tr' 7TpOs 77OVCOS' TWV7TaV7WV alUOp4oTEpOV Ovwraav aKOv a'pt KaOapuObv TOWrdEs ELS' Kalt r7j^svo'0oV'07s. Cf. furtherFGrHist 334 (Istros) F. 50. 165 II. 1.314. Cf. Nilsson, GGR2 1, 538-44; Burkert, GR

228-29.

Cf., e.g., Deubner, AF 189; Frisk (supra n. 158) s.v. Thargelia. 167 So the ancient lexica. Cf. Deubner, AF 189 n. 1. 168 Generally for Apollo's connectionwith Vegetationskult, Nilsson, GGR2 1, 529-35. Cf. also Parke (supra n. 160) 147-48. 166

205

very late.170 Daux would distinguish between the epiklesis, HarpOoq, and the simple adjective. He does not

deny that a cult of Apollo Patroosflourishedin Athens during the fifth century. He would, however, maintain that Apollo Pythios was only associatedwith the epithet Patroosby ajeu de mots:"au IVeme siecle il y a beau temps que, grace A la philosophie religieuse, un

Apollon commun s'est degag6 de toutes les appellations particulieres,mais quant au culte, Apollon Patr6os ne saurait &treassimil' AApollon Pythien."171 Daux's case rests largely on his perceptionof the evidence for a physical division between the cults of Apollo Patroos and Pythios: "il y avait AAthenes un temple et un clerged'ApollonPythiosdistinctsde ceux d'Apollon Harp4^oso,consid&re comme ,

rov TpX?,lybo

."172

In light of the new evidence for the cult of Apollo

Patroos in the Pythion, and the consequent connections among the three statues from the temple in the Agora, Daux's thesis cannot stand. From the inception of his cult in Athens, Apollo Patrooswas evidently associated with Apollo Pythios. Certainly by the fourth century, when the Agora temple was established, Apollo Pythios and Patroos were closely linked. Furthermore, in the Pythion the cult of Pa-

troos was subordinateto that of Pythios. Note that at least in the second century B.C. the priest of Apollo Pythios was chargedwith sacrificeto Patroos.173 It is evident, though, that the cult connectionsbetween Pythios and Patroosare artificial.Jacoby submitted that Apollo Patrooswas createdas a symbolof Athenian unity by Solon, much as the later eponyms of the 10 tribes were by Kleisthenes.Apollo Patroos was thus originally intendedto be the ancestorof the Athenian people only, not of the entire Ionian race. Jacoby further maintained that "Solon also supported

his [sc., Apollo Patroos's]cult by the authorityof Delphi, into whose sphere he has introducedAthens."'74 In my view the origins of Apollo Patroos and his 1'6 One naturallythinks of the Delian Apollo. The only explicit evidence I have encounteredwhich links Apollo Patroos to Delos is the scholiastto Ar. Nub. 984, quotedsupra n. 111. 170Daux (supran. 113) 52: "La fusion entreles deux cultes se fera tardivement'i la faveur de l'6quivalencecre6 par le mot patrooset de l'amitie atheno-delphique." 1'71Daux (supra n. 113) 51.

Daux (supra n. 113) 51. Note that Daux wrote his article before the publication of the second-centuryB.C. inscription from the Pythion by W. Peek: "Attische Urkunden,"AM 66 (1941) 181-95, no. 2. 173LSCG, no. 14, line 52. 174 Jacoby, FENEIIA 73. Cf. Jacoby (supra n. 141) 40 and 272 n. 226. 172

206

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

connectionswith Apollo Pythios cannot be separated from the history of the shrine of the Pythion. The origins of the god are bound up with the origins of the shrine. APOLLO AND THE PEISISTRATIDS

A tradition connects the foundation and development of the sanctuaryof Apollo Pythios with the Peisistratids.Photius claims that Peisistratosfoundedthe sanctuary.175Another citation credits Peisistratos with the constructionof the temple in the Pythion.176 Both passages have been regardedwith suspicion,177 but there can be no doubtof Peisistratidinterestin the sanctuaryand in Apollo. The homonymousgrandson of the tyrant dedicatedan extant altar in the Pythion "as a memorial of his magistracy."178Hipparchos made a dedication to Apollo at the Ptoion in Boeotia.179The elder Peisistratos showed his devotion to the god of Delos by purifyingthe vicinity of the temple of profanegraves.1800 It used to be taken for granted that the Delphic oracle and the Peisistratids were perpetually hostile toward one another.'"1The discovery that the AlcmeonidKleistheneswas archonin Athens in 525/524, however, has necessitateda reevaluationof the situation.182 As we have seen, there is ample evidence for Peisistratid devotion to Apollo in the mid-sixth century. The first indications of enmity between Delphi and the tyrants of Athens come after the second exile of the Alcmeonids, probably in 514.183 There now 175 Phot. s.v. Pythion: FIVL6tov 0epby'A rdAAUovo 'AOjvy0rtv vTro -lrEtfrpaTrovyeyovof.

176 Hsch. s.v. &ivIvOLW X'orat.For furtherconsiderationof the Peisistratiddevelopmentof the Pythion, see J.P. Lynch, "Hipparchos' Wall in the Academy at Athens: A Closer

Lookat the Tradition," in K. Rigsbyed.,StudiesPresented

to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday (GRBM 10, 1984) 173-79. 177 See R.E. Wycherley, "Pausaniasat Athens II," GRBS 4 (1963) 166-67. 178Supra n. 126. 179 Cf. Jeffery, LSAG 75, 78 no. 38. 180 Hdt. 1.64.2; Thuc. 3.104. 181 Cf., e.g., H.W. Parke and D.E.W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle (Oxford 1956) 144-48; Jacoby, comm. to FGrHist 328 (s.v. Philochoros)F. 115. 182 See ML 6c and Andrewes (supra n. 135) 413. 183See Andrewes (supra n. 135). For the comings and goings of the Alcmeonidsduring the reign of the Peisistratids see, e.g., FGrHist 328 (s.v. Philochoros)F. 115. 184 That is, the Apollo of Delos. See, e.g., Thuc. 3.104 and Hymn. Hornm. Ap. 146-50, quoted supra n. 110. 185 Particularly Hephaistos or Poseidon. The curious legend regardingthe parentageof Apollo Patroosillustratesthe contrived nature of Apollo's role as ancestor of the Ionian

race. Accordingto Aristotle(quotedby Clem.Al. Protr.

[AJA 92

seems to be little doubtthat Peisistratidrelationswith Delphi in the mid-sixth century were amicable, and that the dynasty was willing and even eager to worship Apollo at both Delphi and Delos. From the first it is likely that the state cult of Apollo Patroos was meant to promotethe god as ancestorof the Ionian race, not of the Athenians alone. Apollo is the Ionian god par excellence.184 Other deities would be more suitable choices to serve as ancestors of the Athenians.'18Although Apollo Patrooswas touted as ancestor of all Ionians, his cult is attested only in Athens.186The creationof the cult seems then to have been promptedby political considerations:187 Athens used the god to press her claim to be the mothercity of the Ionian race. The activitiesof the Peisistratidsprovidea suitable context for the creation of such a cult. Under the tyrants, Athens followed an aggressive policy in the easternAegean. Naxos was subjugated,and a sympathetic tyrant, Lygdamis, brought to power.'88Athenian enclaves in the Chersoneseand at Sigeum were secured.189We have already noted that the story of Athenian primacy among the Ionians was current by the time of Solon,190and the purificationof Delos is a clear statementof the pretensionsof Peisistratos.'19 If Peisistratos is responsible for the creation of Apollo Patroos,then the ancestralgod must have been identified with the Delphic god when the tyrant founded the Pythion. The combination of the two would be largely due to an anachronisticassociationof 2.28.8. Cf. Cic. Nat.D. 3.55.7; Lydus, Mens. 4.86), Apollo Patroos was the offspring of Athena and Hephaistos. This attempt to explain the divine ancestryof the Athenian people bearsobviousresemblancesto the accountof the birth of Erichthonios.For discussionof the legend of Erichthonios, see J. Peradotto,"Oedipusand Erichthonios:Some Observations on Paradigmaticand SyntagmaticOrder,"Arethusa 10 (1977) 85-101, esp. 92-95. Cf. Nilsson, GGR2 1, 442-43. 186 Nilsson, GGR2 1, 556-57; RE 18:4 (1949) 2255-56, s.v. Patroioitheoi (W. Aly). Aly cites some late exceptionsto my generalizationin col. 2259. The locus classicus for the

of Apollo Patroosis Pl. Euthydemos Ioniancharacter 302D: '

0 ZeVs~ Harpqo); -o^ 'AO-tvaa'otL obK o(TTLv yw,

7) 7

arvT7r 6 T79 7TOdhECO' a

vvla

'IvOv

K orfTL,

7v ~'

V` roLT7)Ef K oi'O' obVoVL, v, 'A7rdAAcov oO"' tl • hAAQ

KtWOKTL•YOLL ILtL• 1t) Farpcor roLv ro) "Iovo yCVE(TLV. 187 Cf. Jacoby, FENEMIA73. 188 See Hdt. 1.61, 64. Cf. Forrest (supra n. 131) 258-59. '89For Peisistratos,the Chersoneseand Sigeum, see, e.g., Graham, CAH (supra n. 132) 121-22; Andrewes (supra

n. 135)403-405.Whenthetyrannywas overthrown, Hippias took refuge at Sigeum:Hdt. 5.65, 91, 94; Thuc. 6.59. Supra n. 153. 90o 191 Hdt. 1.64.2; Thuc. 3.104.

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

the Pythian Apollo with the Ionian colonization,192 partly to a traditional connection between the cults of Apollo Pythios and the Panionian Delian Apollo. There is a tradition that Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, refounded the festival of Apollo on Delos and was uncertain whether to call it the Pythia or Delia.'93 Apollo Pythios and Delios also had old cult connections in Attica. We have already remarked that Apollo Pythios was worshipped in the Marathonian Tetrapolis from very early times; the same is true of the Delian Apollo.194 In reconstructing the connection between the cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens with that of the Delian Apollo in the Tetrapolis, it is important to observe also that the cult of Ion, who plays an essential part in the legend of Apollo Patroos, was linked with the east coast of Attica in general, and with the Tetrapolis in particular.'" The cult connections of the Pythion with the Marathonian Tetrapolis point to the conclusion that the cults of Apollo Pythios and Patroos were brought from the east coast of Attica to Athens by the Peisistratids. Such an importation finds numerous parallels in the other known religious activities of the family.'96 A chief concern of the Peisistratids seems to have been the consolidation of the Athenian state. One index of this policy is their transportation of cults from the Attic countryside to Athens. In one instance the cult of Artemis was brought from Brauron, near the home town of the family, and installed on the Acropolis."'97There is reason to believe that the city Eleusinion was established under the tyrants.'98 They may also be responsible for the importation of the cult of 192 A connectionof the Delphic Apollo with the Ionian colonization follows necessarily if the god is identified with Apollo Patroos.As noted (supra n. 132), the Delphic Apollo did not become involved with colonization until the eighth century.

193Suidas s.v. HviOla Kal AZXALa. Cf., however, Parke and

Wormell (supra n. 181) 122; Fontenrose(supra n. 115) 307 Q116. 194 The shrine of the Delian Apollo was at Marathon (supra n. 142). 195Supra n. 159. 196 For the religious activities of the Peisistratids see Davies, APF 454-55; Andrewes (supra n. 135) 410-15; T.L. Shear, Jr., "Tyrants and Buildings in Archaic Athens," in Athens Comes of Age: From Solon to Salamis (Princeton 1978) 1-19; F. Kolb, "Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden,"JdI 92 (1977) 99-138. 197 For the shrine of Artemis Brauron,see Travlos 124-26. For the connection of the tyrants with the cult, see e.g., Rhodes, CAAP 607; Andrewes (supra n. 135) 414. 198J. Boardman,"Herakles,Peisistratosand Eleusis,"JHS 95 (1975) 1-12, has recentlydealt with the connectionof the Peisistratidsand Eleusis. Cf. also Andrewes (supra n. 135) 412-13; Shear (supra n. 196) 9-10. For the city Eleusinion, Agora XIV, 150-55.

207

Dionysos from Eleutherai in connection with the great city Dionysia.199 The Peisistratid family came from near Brauron on the east coast of Attica, and their political influence extended north to the Marathonian Tetrapolis.200 Peisistratid devotion to Herakles is attested from contemporary vase painting,201 and it is probably no coincidence that Marathon boasted the most ancient cult of Herakles.202 When Peisistratos returned from exile in 546, he and his forces first established a base at Marathon.203 Some years later during the invasion of Darius, the Persians, guided by the exiled tyrant Hippias, landed at Marathon.204 Kleisthenes perhaps tried to destroy the influence of the family in the Tetrapolis. In his reorganization of Attica he separated Probalinthos from the trittys containing the remainder of the Tetrapolis, and took care not to assign it to the trittys which contained Brauron.205 APOLLO PATROOS AND THE DELIAN LEAGUE

From the time of the Peisistratids until the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War there is no evidence of change or development in the cult of the Pythion. Certainly political exploitation of "colonization propaganda,"206 that is, of the status of Athens as mother city of the Ionian race, becomes more readily discernible in the mid-fifth century, after the foundation of the Delian League. At about the time when the League treasury was moved from Delos to Athens, the Athenians began to treat their subject cities as colonies, requiring them to send cow and panoply to Athens for the celebration of the Panathenaia.207 Al199See Kolb (supra n. 196) 133; A. Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford 1968) 57-58. Cf. Rhodes, CAAP 627. 200 For the extent of that region, see Lewis, "Cleisthenes" 23-25; J. Traill, "Diakria, the Inland Trittys of Leontis," Hesperia 47 (1978) 94-96. Cf. Davies, APF 452-54; Rhodes, CAAP 184-88; Andrewes (supra n. 135) 395-97. The partisansof Peisistratoswere called Diakrioi. 201 See J. Boardman, "Herakles, Peisistratos and Sons," RA 1972, 57-72; Boardman(supra n. 198) 1-12. 202 Paus. 1.15.3. Cf. Lewis, "Cleisthenes"24. 203 Hdt. 1.61. For the chronologyof the tyranny of Peisistratos, see, e.g., Rhodes, CAAP 191-99. 204 So says Hdt. 6.102. 205 See Lewis, "Cleisthenes"30-31. 206 1 take the phrase from Barron 1964, 47. 207 B.D. Meritt and H.T. Wade-Gery, "The Dating of Documents to the Mid-Fifth Century B.C.-I," JHS 82 (1962) 69-71. Cf. Barron 1964, 46-47. The only evidence for the practicein the mid-fifth century is the Kleinias Decree (IG 12, 66 = 13, 34 = ML 46, lines 41-43), the date of

which is debatable.See ML 120-21 for a reviewof the arguments and a verdictfavoringan earlierdate. I am inclinedto favor a date in the 420s as most likely for the inscription.

208

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

though the cults of Athena and Ion play important parts, neither Apollo Patroos nor the Athenian Pythion are connected with this development.208 APOLLO PYTHIOS, THE PLAGUE

PATROOS

AND ALEXIKAKOS:

At the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, after the halt of the plague which had wasted the Athenian population from 430 to 426/425, the Athenians "reemphasized" their "colonizationpropaganda."209 In 425/424, on the motion of Thoudippos, all tributary allies of Athens were required to bring cow and panoply to the great Panathenaia.210 At the same time, in gratitude to Apollo for staying the plague, the Athenians were developing the god's sanctuary on DeThucydides tells that in the winter of 426/425, "in accordance with some oracle,"212 the Athenians completed the purification of Delos which had been begun by the Peisistratids. All tombs were removed; henceforth neither birth nor death might profane the island. Thucydides does not specify why the Athenians requested the oracle; Diodoros, however, claims that the purification was done to halt the plague.213 Also in 426/425 the Athenians refounded the Panionian festival of the Delia.214 At approximately the same time they began to reconstruct a temple to Apollo on the island.215 Some would see the reawakened interest in Delos as simple gratitude to the god for the cessation of the plague;216 others as "an attempt to make the Apollo cult which they [sc., Athens] controlled into a worthy rival, on the international level, to the pro-Lacedaimonian Delphic cult";217 still others as a reemphasis of the old "colonization propaganda."218 In fact, all three interpretations find some justification in the cult associations of Apollo Alexikakos in Athens. los.211

208

Cf., however, the remarks of J.P. Barron, "The Fifth Century Horoi of Aegina,"JHS 103 (1983) 1-12, who explains a temenos of Apollo and Poseidon from Aegina in terms of "colonizationpropaganda."I am unconvincedby his arguments. In particular, his interpretationand date of the letter forms of the horoi seem to go further than is prudent. 209 So Barron 1964, 47. 210 IG 12, 63 = I3, 71 = ML 69, lines 54-58. For the practice in the 420s see Graham 1983 (supra n. 132) 62-63. 211 See now J. Mikalson, "Religion and the Plague in Athens, 431-423 B.C.," in K. Rigsby ed. (supra n. 176) 217-25, with bibliography. 212

Thuc. 3.104.1.

Diod. 12.58. Thuc. 3.104; Diod. 12.58. 215 See, e.g., I. Shear, "Kallikrates,"Hesperia 32 (1963) 407. 213

214

216As does Diodoros (supra n. 213).

[AJA 92

Accordingto Pausanias,Apollo receivedthe epithet Alexikakos in Athens "because by an oracle from Delphi he stayed the plague which oppressedAthens at the time of the PeloponnesianWar."219If my interpretation of the archaeologicalevidence and the cult associationsof the Agora temple is correct,then Apollo Alexikakos was originally worshipped in the Pythion, and should be examined in the context of his connection with the preexisting festival and gods of that shrine:the Thargelia, Apollo Pythios,and Apollo Patroos. It is likely that Thucydides, Diodoros, and Pausanias refer to the same oracle in their accounts.If so, a composite picture emerges:the Athenians sought an oracle from Delphi to put an end to the plague; the oracle respondedthat the Athenians must purify the island of Delos; the advicewas effective,and in gratitude for it the Athenians institutedthe cult of Apollo Alexikakos, "whowards off ill." Accordingto Thucydides,220when the plague brokeout the Atheniansrememberedthe oracleby which Apollohad promisedto aid Sparta, and feared that the deadly visitation was the fulfillmentof that promise.Since they saw Apollo as the cause of the plague it is natural that they should appeal to Delphi for a means of propitiating the god.221As Daux has pointedout,222 relationsbetween Athens and Delphi were not so bad at this time as is sometimes supposed, and the oracle may not have been averse to helping the Athenians. In Athens, the catharticritualpar excellencelinked to the name of Apollo was the Thargelia. In the verses preserved by Tzetzes it is recounted that the 4apiaK69,or scapegoat at the Thargelia, would ward off the wrath of the gods, including such manifestations as the plague, XotLdsg,and famine, XtLds.223 In the minds of the Athenians, the purification of their city from the

217 So Mikalson (supra n. 211) 222, n. 19. Cf. F. Schachrmeyr, Religionspolitikund Religiositiit bei Perikles (Stuttgart 1971) 21-22.

218See Barron 1964, 47. Supra n. 1.

219

Thuc. 2.54.4. Mikalson (supra n. 211) 222 maintainsthat "Delphi, of which one usually thinks in such a context, is unlikely because many Athenians, at least at the beginning of the plague, stronglysuspectedthat PythianApollo was supporting the Lacedaimonians."I would rather argue that, since the Athenianssuspectedthe Pythian Apollo of hostility,they particularlydesiredto appease him. 222 Daux (supra n. 113) 46-48. 223 Supra n. 164. For Apollo as a god of healing and purification see Nilsson, GGR2 1, 538-44; Burkert,GR 131-32, and 135-37, 228-29, 231-32. The juxtaposition of •A•ds be reAos~.4 shows the punning intent of the verse. It will called that according to Thucydides (2.54.3), when the 220

221

1988]

THE TEMPLE AND CULT OF APOLLO PATROOS IN ATHENS

evils of the plague was due to Apollo, and they would naturally think of the god of the Thargelia. In accordance with the oracle from Delphi, the Athenians purified Delos in order to propitiate the anger of Apollo. The purification of the island also served to advance the Athenian claim to be mother city of the Ionian race. Having once displayed their devotion to the god of Delos, they continued to develop the shrine by constructing a temple to Apollo. I have distinguished between certain aspects in the cult of Apollo which are reflected in the activities of the Athenians in the years during and immediately after the great plague. The Athenians themselves perhaps would not have seen these aspects so categorically: the oracular, Delphic god, the cleansing sponsor of the Thargelia, and the ancestor of the Ionian race. At Athens, and perhaps only at Athens, all three aspects of Apollo were united in one shrine. The Pythion was the seat of the Thargelia and the home of Apollo Pythios and Patroos. It is hardly surprising that when the Athenians instituted the cult of Apollo Alexikakos in thanks for the cessation of the plague, they lodged him in the Pythion. THE AGORA TEMPLE AND THE HISTORY OF THE CULT

Finally, we may pursue the implications of the Agora temple for the history of the cult. If Thompson is correct in arguing for an Archaic predecessor of the

plague broke out, old men recalled an ancient verse: •e'•el AWpLaKOS 4ip'airco. Some, however, '7TroXE40S' Ka't XOLIWbS Is it possiblethat preferredto readAhr~din place of XoI•Up'. the "ancientverse"was in some way tied in with the Thargelia and the Pythion? For a similar pun, cf. Hes. Op. 243. 224 Prof. Thompson has providedme with a summaryof his conclusions in a letter of 12 June 1987: " .. . It is now abun-

dantly clear that the Agora, and notably its northwestpart, developed greatly in the course of the sixth century as an important center of commerce,cultural manifestationsand even of religious life. One of the milestonesin this development was undoubtedly the reorganizationof the Panathenaia in 566 B.C. The great processionwas marshalledat the northwest corner of the Agora, and in its progress toward the Acropolisit was seen by the citizens to best advantagein the Agora. The Panathenaiamust soon have eclipsed in the popular mind the festivals of all the venerable cults in the area of the Ilissos. There is now good reason to believe that the "Orchestrain the Agora"is also to be recognizedin the northwestcornerof the square. In additionto servingas the marshalling place of the Panathenaicprocessionit was the scene of the earliest dramaticperformancesin the city. "The increasing prominence of the northwest corner of the Agora is clearly attested by the decision of the younger Peisistratos to memorialize his archonship not only in the sanctuaryof Apollo by the Ilissos but also in the northwest cornerof the Agora, and this he did with a shrine that soon

209

fourth-century temple, then the Agora shrine is almost certainly a Peisistratid foundation.224 The date of the apsidal building (I) conforms, and as we have seen, Peisistratid interest in the cult of Apollo Patroos is indubitable. In this case we must suppose that, by design, cult developments in the Pythion are paralleled by the evolution of cult in the Agora shrine. The cult of the Delphic Apollo in the Pythion must antedate the Peisistratids and the foundation of the Agora shrine by many years. The tyrants then introduced the cult of Apollo Patroos into the Pythion. At the same time they created the Agora shrine, and, after the pattern of the Pythion, they dedicated it to both Apollo Pythios and Patroos. Later in the mid-fifth century, when Apollo received the epithet Alexikakos, this new aspect of the god was introduced into both the Pythion and Agora shrine. If the interpretation of the Agora shrine which I have proposed is preferred, then the cult of Apollo was not established in the Agora until the fourth century. Theretofore the history of the cult of Apollo Patroos must be traced in the history of the Pythion. No matter which interpretation is followed, some explanation should be attempted for the sudden monumental elaboration of the shrine in the mid-fourth century, between ca. 350 and ca. 325. F. Mitchel has explained the Agora temple, in my view correctly, as a part of the "Lycurgan building program."225It is impossible to be more specific: I cannot document nor

came to be regarded as the central point in the lower city.... The three earliest stoas in the Agora face on this same area: Zeus Eleutherios, Basileios and Poikile, the Altar of the 12 Gods being the focal point. "In the light of the above developments it would be strange indeed if shrines of individual divinities had not been establishedas early as the Archaic period on the borders of the Agora toward its northwest corner. This did in fact happen. The latest and the most splendid of these shrines is now known from the marble altar found recently on the north side and identifiedby the excavatorsas that of AphroditeOurania [T.L. Shear,Jr., "The AthenianAgora, Excavationsof 1980-1982," Hesperia 53 (1984) 24-40]. On the west side of the square we have the less imposing but to my mind indubitableremains of two other sanctuariesperhaps a half centuryearlierthan that of Aphroditeand a generation older than even the 12 Gods. I mean of course the shrines beneath the Stoa of Zeus and Temple III of Apollo. "Onthe assumptionthat my identificationof the two earliest shrinesis correct,I ventureto suggestthat we have here a reflectionof the shift in the centre of gravity in the lower city fromthe Ilissos to the Agora in both of which areasZeus and Apollo were worshippedin close proximity." 225

F. Mitchel, Lycourgar Athens: 338-322

1970) 34-35, 44.

(Cincinnati

210

CHARLES W. HEDRICK, JR.

will I distinguish a link between a single event and the dedication of the Agora temple of Apollo Patroos; neither can I substantiate any conjecture(s) as to the function(s) of the building. It is, however, possible to speak of a Zeitgeist in fourth-century Athens, and relate it to the construction of the temple. As is well known, in fourth-century Athens there was an idealization of and a nostalgia for "the glory that was Greece." The longing for the great days of Athenian history is evidenced by the sudden efflorescence of Atthidographers226 and by the fantastic "historical myths" then current in the accounts of the historians and digressions of the orators.227 Lykourgos

and his policies propagated this antiquarianism.228 The Temple of Apollo Patroos in the Agora may be seen, I think, as a physical manifestation of this phenomenon. The Temple of Apollo Patroos, ancestor of the Athenians and of the entire Ionian race, was a monument to the traditions of the city. The traditional character of the temple is emphasized by its cult connections, which link the establishment in the newer part of the city with the venerable cult center of Apollo in the most ancient part of town, by the Ilissos river.

226 For the Atthidographersand increasedinterest in Athenian antiquities, see Jacoby (supra n. 141) 71-78. 227 C. Habicht has given a splendid accountof the phenomenon: "FalscheUrkunden zur GeschichteAthens in Zeitalter der Perserkrieg,"Hermes 89 (1961) 1-35.

228 Mitchel (supra n. 225) passim, and esp. p. 44: "His [Apollo's]worship was reemphasizedby Lycourgosnot only becausehe was an ancestor,but becausehis help was needed in religious reform."

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14260