We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In De myst. 1.11–18 (see also 1.25), Andokides reports a series of four judicial denunciations (μην⋯σεις), made before the Athenians on four separate occasions in 415 B.c., concerning profanations of the Eleusinian Mysteries. After statements from the slave Andromachos and the metic Teukros, ‘a third denunciation followed. The wife of Alkmaionides, who had also been the wife of Damon, a woman named Agariste, made a denunciation that in the house of Charmides beside the Olympieion, Alkibiades, Axiochos and Adeimantos celebrated mysteries. And at this denunciation all these men fled’ (1.16). A fourth denunciation was made by the slave Lydos.
1 Τρ⋯τη μ⋯νυσις ⋯γ⋯νετο. ⋯ γυν⋯ Ἀλκμεων⋯δον, γενομ⋯νη δ⋯ κα⋯ Δ⋯μωνος – Ἀγαρ⋯στη ὂνομα αὐτῇ – αὓτη ⋯μ⋯νυσεν ⋯ν τῇ οἰκ⋯ᾳ τῇ Χαρμ⋯δου τῇ παρ⋯ τ⋯ Ὀλυμπιεῖον μυστ⋯ρια ποιεῖν Ἀλκιβι⋯δην κα⋯ Ἀξ⋯οχον κα⋯ Ἀδε⋯μαντον· κα⋯ ἒϕυγον οὗτοι π⋯ντες ⋯π⋯ τα⋯τῃ τῇ μην⋯σει. Unambiguous parallels at 1.13, 18, 25 and 52 make clear that ϕε⋯γειν here must mean ‘to flee’, and not ‘to be prosecuted’. This also follows from the continued survival of all those mentioned in 1.16, in the light of 1.25. Andokides' expression is a little misleading since at the time of Agariste's denunciation Alkibiades was in Sicily; he fled only after being recalled. Accordingly, Dover (p. 280) suggested that this might be true of others on the lists. Yet given the atmosphere of hysteria and the Athenians' hasty and ill-judged executions of many of those accused (Thuc. 6.53, 60), to remain in Athens after being denounced would have been rash.
On the basis of De myst. 1.15 (the Council of Five Hundred, as autokrator, guaranteed the metic Teukros immunity in exchange for his testimony), Hansen, M. H., Eisangelia (Odense, 1975), pp. 77Google Scholar with n. 10 and 79 n. 13, plausibly argues that Agariste made her denunciation to the Council, not to the Ekklesia. (Cf. also Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1971), pp. (186–7.)Google Scholar For other activity by the Council in this affair, see De myst. 1.17 (the fourth denunciation), 27–8, and 61.
2 In ‘The Affair of the Mysteries: Democracy and the Drinking Group’, Sympotica, ed. Murray, O. (Oxford, 1991), pp. 155–8Google Scholar, Murray argues that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever that the Mysteries were parodied: all our evidence shows that they were performed, that the ritual was followed accurately’ (p. 155). According to Murray, Thucydides' remark that the mysteries were performed ⋯ϕ' ὕβρει (6.28.1) implies that the performers intended ‘to show contempt for the gods and for the ordinary conventions of society’ (p. 158). However, both circumstantial evidence and other arguments support the standard view that the mysteries were parodied. Murray admits (p. 157) that sacrilege ‘found a small place in certain types of symposion’, as with the club named ‘Kakodaimonistai’, and also from evidence in Demosthenes 54 (for example, according to 54.39, as a young man Konon and his club-mates ‘used to devour the food set out for Hekate, and on each occasion collected up for their dinners together the pig testicles which the Athenians used for purification on the occasion of assemblies’). For an equally striking contemporary parallel (not mentioned by Murray), Eupolis' Baptai (416–415) satirized Alkibiades as having led dancing imitations of the female worshippers of the Thracian ecstatic goddess Kotytos (see Testim. i–vi K.–A. V, pp. 331–3). Would Murray argue that this was not an insinuation of parody? Two fourth- or early third-century sources (also not mentioned by Murray) state explicitly that at Athens ‘following the capture of Melos’ Diagoras of Melos ‘disparaged’ the mysteries (εὐτελ⋯ζειν: Melanthios, FGrHist 326 F 3) or ‘scoffed at’ and ‘made light of’ them (διαχλευ⋯ζειν, μικρ⋯ ποιεῖν. Krateros, FGrHist 342 F 16), and was therefore forced to flee the city. In connection with the scandal of 415, as Murray acutely observed, the sources do state, simply, that various people ‘performed the mysteries’, and also that noninitiates could later describe different aspects of the cult celebration. However, neither point excludes the view that the mysteries were parodied. Even on Murray's assumption, it is difficult to imagine that those who wished to ‘show contempt’ for these rites were nonetheless careful to perform them correctly.
3 Raubitschek, A. E., ‘Damon’, Cl&M 16 (1955), 79Google Scholar; Davies, p. 383 (citing ‘numerous chronological and other problems’ against identification with the music philosopher); MacDowell, p. 75 (‘this may be the musician’).
4 Scholars adopting this identification without qualification include Hatzfeld, J., Alcibiade (Paris, 1951), p. 174Google Scholar and Davies, p. 30. Others but expressing some uncertainty include Busolt, Griech. Gesch. 3.2, pp. 1310–11 n. 5, Kirchner, PA 15510 (‘videtur’), Sartori, F., Le Eterie nella vita politico ateniese del VI e V secolo a.C. (Rome, 1957), p. 94Google Scholar (‘forse’), and MacDowell, p. 76 (‘presumably the son of Aristoteles…but Charmides son of Glaukon… is also possible’). In addition, Judeich, RE 3.2 (1899), col. 2174 S.v. ‘Charmides’ (the son of Glaukon), omits any reference to this incident. (In RE the son of Aristoteles gets no entry.)
5 Droysen, J., RhM 3 (1835), 195 and n. 41Google Scholar; Aurenche, O., Les groupes d'Alcibiade, de Leogoras et de Teucros. Remarques sur la vie politique athénienne en 415 avant J.C. (Paris, 1974), pp. 46 and 106.Google Scholar
6 On marriages within hereditary demes, see Osborne, R., Demos: the Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 131–5Google Scholar; on owning property within hereditary demes, see ibid. pp. 52–63. On marriages outside the hereditary deme (but patterns of family marriages in the same outside deme), see Cox, C. A., ‘Sisters, Daughters and the Deme of Marriage: a Note’, JHS 108 (1988), 185–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see in particular 187–8, that Plato's sister married a man who owned land contiguous to his). On the location of Kollytos, see Traill, J. S., The Political Organization of Attica, Hesperia Suppl. 14, 1975, p. 40Google Scholar and map. In Plutarch's day at least, Kollytos was a fashionable address (De exil. 601b).
7 Dover, pp. 281 n. 8, 283, 287; Ostwald, pp. 539, 541, 545.
8 See, e.g., MacDowell, pp. 182–5; Marr, p. 328.
9 In Plutarch's version of this incident (Alc. 21), the appeal to Andokides in prison is made by a friend named Timaios. However, this probably reflects someone's attempt to provide a name for Thucydides' τιν⋯ς (6.60.2), in ignorance of Andokides' account (see Marr, p. 330).
10 For the friendship of Sokrates and Charmides the son of Glaukon, see Pl. Smp. 222 and Charmides, According to Xen. Smp. 3.7, Sokrates persuaded Charmides to enter politics; according to 4.32, Charmides' association with Sokrates is said to have damaged his (Charmides') reputation. For the Academy inscription see Payne, H. G. G., JHS 54 (1934), 188–9Google Scholar = SEG 13 (1956), 28.Google Scholar
11 ν⋯ν δ᾽ ⋯πειδ⋯ τ⋯ν ὑπερορ⋯ων στ⋯ρομαι κα⋯ τ⋯ ἒγγεια οὐ καρπο⋯μαι κα⋯ τ⋯ ⋯κ τ⋯ς οἰκ⋯ας π⋯πραται, ⋯δ⋯ως μ⋯ν καθε⋯δω ⋯κτεταμ⋯νος… I hope elsewhere to explore the implications of this passage for the confiscation of property of those implicated in the profanations of 415.
12 See Ollier, F., Xénophon Banquet (Budé, Paris, 1961), p. 115 (in reference to p. 57 line 21).Google Scholar
13 See De myst. 1.51 (the guilty were executed and their properties confiscated), Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 134, Plu. Alc. 22, Poll. 10.97, and (for the Attic Stelai) Pritchett, W. K., Hesperia 22 (1953), 225–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= SEG 13.12–22), with minor corrections and supplements, Hesperia 30 (1961), 23–9Google Scholar (= SEG 19.23), now = IG i3.421–30. Unfortunately, extant fragments of the Stelai mention Alkibiades, Axiochos and Adeimantos, but no Charmides.
14 On the date of the Axiochos (which echoes Stoic, Cynic and Epicurean views as well as Plato), see Chevalier, J., Etude critique du dialogue pseudo-platonicien l'Axiochos, (Paris, 1915)Google Scholar, passim; Souilhé, J., ed., Platon vol. 13.3 (Budé: Paris, 1930), pp. 132–6Google Scholar, accepted by Ostwald, p. 542); Tarrant, D., CQ 32 (1938), 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar (= Der historischer Sokrates, ed. Patzer, A., ‘Wege der Forsch.’ 585, Darmstadt, 1987, p. 265)Google Scholar; Isnardi Parente, M., ‘Un discorso consolatorio del ‘Corpus platonicum’, Riv. crit. di stor. d. filos. 16 (1965), 33–47Google Scholar; Hershbell, J. P., Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus (Scholars Press, Chico, CA, 1981), pp. 10–21.Google Scholar
15 On the locations of Kallirhoe and the Olympieion, see (conveniently) Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New York, 1971), pp. 204, 402.Google Scholar
16 Ostwald, p. 538 rightly challenges Aurenche's suggestion (above, n. 5, p. 46 and n. 2) that Agariste herself participated in the sacrilege. That Agariste was Alkmaionid has been accepted since Thirlwall (3.388). See more recently Davies, pp. 382–3.
17 Thus for example, if Axiochos' mother was in fact Aspasia's sister (see, persuasively, Bicknell, P. J., ‘Axiochos Alkibiadou, Aspasia and Aspasios’, AC 51 (1982), 240–50)Google Scholar, Agariste and Axiochos' family would share an Alkmaionid connection through Perikles' sons by Aspasia, since Perikles was Alkmaionid on his mother's side.
18 For Damon's activites in the later 420s, see Pl. Lch., with a dramatic date between 424 and 418 (see e.g. Taylor, A. E., Plato: the Man and his Work (New York, 1927), p. 58)Google Scholar where he is represented as the teacher of Nikias (197d, 199e–200b) and Nikeratos (180c–d), as a ‘good friend’ of Sokrates (197d, cf. 180c–d), and ‘frequent associate of Prodikos’ (197d). In addition, in 423, in Clouds 649–51, Aristophanes appears to allude to Damon's metrical teachings, as Wilamowitz, (Griechische Verskunst (Berlin, 1921), p. 59)Google Scholar and many others have argued. On the dramatic date of the Republic see Dover, K. J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), pp. 29–32, 42.Google Scholar
19 Women were forbidden to testify except in cases of treason, sacrilege, the theft of public funds, and by the procedure of menusis: see Harrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens, i: The Family and Property (Oxford, 1968), p. 171Google Scholar, Lipsius, J. H., Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, i (Leipzig, 1905), pp. 208–11Google Scholar. It is possible that other offences could also be the subject of menusis: our information is derived only from individual cases.
20 For sources, see Dover (above, n. 18), p. 32. The date of Charmides' return is uncertain.
21 See Hatzfeld (above, n. 4), pp. 193–4, Marr, p. 328 (who also stresses that Agariste's was an Alkmaionid attack: Diokleides had denounced Kallias the son of Alkmaion, De myst. 1.47), cf. Dover, pp. 286–8 (wisely cautious about the dangers of prosopographical approaches to Athenian politics).
22 Agariste's marriage to a kinsman, Alkmaionides, of course, need reflect nothing more than standard Attic provisions in the case of unmarried women. If for example Damon died without leaving a son or heir, or without (on his deathbed) giving his widow to a new husband, Agariste would return to her own oikos, where her kurios could marry her to anyone he wished, including various relatives. For a different example, if Agariste's father died leaving no legitimate heir and Agariste had no son, she could have been forced to divorce Damon and, as epikleros, be claimed in marriage by one of her male relatives, in a predetermined order based on relations to her deceased father. For details see Harrison (above, n. 19), pp. 21–4, and MacDowell, D. M., The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca, N.Y., and London, 1978), pp. 95–6Google Scholar. It may be pertinent to add that in Athens both divorce and remarriage were common: see Thompson, W., CSCA 5 (1972), 211–25Google Scholar, esp. 218–19 (our example from Andokides is on p. 212).
