¹ Thucydides 6. 16. 12, trans. Crawley.

² Id. 6. 12. 2.

³ Id. 2. 41.

⁴ Plutarch, Perikles 14.

⁵ Ibid. 9. 2.

⁶ For a summary of the evidence for buildings of the Peloponnesian War period, see Boersma, J., Athenian Building Policy (1970), chap. 7, 82–96.Google Scholar

⁷ Plutarch, Nikias 3.

⁸ Kleon may have wanted to dedicate a victory monument on the Akropolis in honour of the knights' defeat of the Corinthians in 425/4; see Boersma, op. cit. 85, citing Aristophanes, Knights, 266–8. The Athenian dedication of a Nike on Sphakteria may be linked with Kleon and Demosthenes: Pausanias 4. 36. 6.

⁹ For the changes in the political system, see Connor, R., The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (1971).Google Scholar

¹⁰ There are monuments recorded in Pausanias, book 1: a painting with a portrait of Themistokles, dedicated in the Parthenon by his children (1. 3), who also dedicated a statue of Artemis Leukophryne (26. 4); a statue of Kallias (8. 2), and the Aphrodite by Kalamis dedicated by Kallias (23. 2); the portrait of Alkibiades in the Propylaia (22. 6–7); the statue of Diitrephes (23. 3); probably a statue of Phormio (23. 10); a portrait of Perikles (25. 1, 28. 2); a group of Tolmides and his seer Theainetos (27. 5). For the Kalamis Aphrodite see Delivorrias, A., ‘Der Original der sitzenden Aphrodite-Olympias’, AM xciii (1978) 1–23.Google Scholar For the Perikles: Hölscher, T., ‘Die Aufstellung des Perikles-Bildnisses’, Würzb. Jb. NF i (1975) 187–99.Google Scholar The group of Tolmides and his seer suggests that the Lysander dedication at Delphi (Pausanias 10. 9. 7) which included seer and helmsman, as well as gods and admirals, may have been the Spartans' response not only to the multi-figured Marathon dedication at Delphi, but also to the general who harassed them in the middle of the century.

¹¹ Waywell, G., ‘A Four-Horse Chariot Relief’, BSA lxii (1967) 19–26.Google Scholar Also Neumann, G., Griechische Weihreliefs (1979) 49, pl. 27b.Google Scholar I am very grateful to Waywell for the photograph, Plate 54a, and for his criticisms of this section.

¹² Waywell 25, noting however the likelihood of influence the other way.

¹³ Webster, T. B. L., Potter and Patron in Classical Athens (1972) 156–7.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Respectively Uppsala, ARV ² 1118, 23; Agora P9486, ARV ² 1040, 18. The latter commemorates a specific victory, as Nike flies with a Panathenaic amphora.

¹⁵ NM 19404, ARV ² 1110, 43 bis, so identified by Beazley. See also Webster, op. cit. 193. The figure wears a nebris, not a cloak. Nike is not present.

¹⁶ Column-krater in Bologna 215, ARV ² 547, 27, by the Painter of London E489.

¹⁷ On a column-krater in New York, 41.162.69, ARV ² 1108, 23, by the Nausicaa Painter, she walks.

¹⁸ Neumann op. cit., chap. 3.

¹⁹ Ibid. 64–5.

²⁰ Ibid. 34 and 49; NM 1783.

²¹ Arias, P. and Hirmer, M., History of Greek Vase-Painting (1962) especially the London hydria, pl. 215 and the Florence hydria, pl. 217.Google Scholar See also the Aphrodite or Selene on the four-horse chariot relief in Kansas City: Stephanidou-Tiveriou, T., Neoattika (1979) 149, pl. 48b.Google Scholar

²² I am grateful to Dr. H. W. Catling, Director of the British School at Athens, and A. Spawforth, Assistant Director, for permission to examine the relief.

²³ Green, R., ‘A New Oinochoe Series’, Hesperia xxxi (1962) 82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially no. 3, pl. 28. Green suggests that these representations of Athena mounting a chariot show Athena Hippia.

²⁴ EM 6598; see Mitropoulou, E., Corpus of Attic Votive Reliefs (1977) fig. 159Google Scholar and F. Eckstein, ‘Das Hekateion in der British School zu Athen’, Ant. Pl. iv fig. 7. The open peplos also appears on the Chios decree relief, EM 6928, 406/5 (Mitropoulou fig. 175) and on NM 1479, a treasury decree, 398/7.

Athena's right hand does not appear to hold the skirt, although the arm is not vertical. The folds framing the right leg continue above the right hand; the surface has weathered badly, but ridges can be felt. See a similar drapery arrangement on a woman on a Kerameikos grave stele: Schlörb-Vierneisel, B., ‘Drei neue Grabreliefs’, AM lxxxiii (1968) 89–101Google Scholar, no. 1, pl. 34. There may also have been folds encircling the breasts; remains of a small hole, apparently regular, could be the attachment hole for a gorgoneion. But the torso preserves no original surface at all.

²⁵ For a discussion of this stance see Harrison, E., ‘Alkamenes’ Sculptures for the Hephaisteion, iii’, AJA lxxxi (1977) 417.Google Scholar

²⁶ Waywell op. cit. 25–6. The relief is of much higher quality than any photograph can indicate, difficult to discern because of its very poor state of preservation.

²⁷ Gomme, , Andrewes, , Dover, , Commentary on Thucydides, iv (1970) 246–7.Google Scholar See also Bowra, M., ‘Euripides' Epinician for Alcibiades’, Historia ix (1960) 68–79.Google Scholar

²⁸ For the Panathenaia see Aurenche, O., Les Groupes d'Alcibiade (1974) 127Google Scholar, based on Amyx. For the Nemean, Bowra op. cit. 72.

²⁹ Pliny N.H. 34. 80.

³⁰ Stewart, A., Attika (1979) chap, 1, especially 7–8Google Scholar; he suggests that the work was a collaboration of Nikeratos and Phyromachos.

³¹ IG I² 374, line 162; Pollitt, J.J., Art of Greece (1965) 121.Google Scholar Ian McPhee reminded me of this Phyromachos.

³² See Davies, J., Athenian Propertied Families (1971) 19.Google Scholar

³³ Quoted above, p. 309.

³⁴ von Blanckenhagen, P., ‘The Shield of Alkibiades’, Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann (1964) 38–42Google Scholar; Arrowsmith, W., ‘Aristophanes' Birds’, Arion NS i (1973) 119–67, especially 134–5.Google Scholar I owe the latter reference to N. Slater. The depiction of Alkibiades in the Symposium, appearing suddenly as if a drunken Dionysos, is also relevant, as the date of the banquet is 416/15. See Rosen, S., Plato's Symposium (1968) chap. 8, especially 283–9.Google Scholar

³⁵ Littman, R., ‘The Loves of Alcibiades’, TAPA ci (1970) especially 267–8.Google Scholar

³⁶ Plutarch, Alkibiades 16 in particular.

³⁷ Aurenche, op. cit. 125 n. 9, based on Pritchett.

³⁸ Waywell, op. cit. 21 n. 25.

³⁹ NM 2756; Neumann, op. cit. 49, pl. 27a.

⁴⁰ The Eleusinian relief is discussed in part II. For NM 3572, see Mitropoulou op. cit. fig. 139 (misnumbered).

⁴¹ The side moulding of the Elgin relief is discussed by Waywell, 22 and by Neumann, 49. Waywell believes that the form of the frame indicates its early date: flat outer surface with chamfered inner margin. Neumann cites a votive to Asklepios and Hygeia as similar. See also the Akropolis statue base relief 4078, which appears to be similar, most recently discussed by Dörig, J., ‘Une Nouvelle Base’, Festschrift für Bloesch, Ant. K. Beiheft ix (1973) 14–19Google Scholar, especially 17, pl. 6–2.

⁴² Thucydides 8. 53. 2; Plutarch, Alkibiades 33. 3. See Bloedow, E., Alcibiades Reexamined, Historia Einzelschriften xxi (1973) 68–9.Google Scholar Bloedow suggests that Peisander was able to overcome the hostility of the Eleusinians with the vote by the Demos for the return, thereby revoking the psephisma against Alkibiades.

⁴³ Davies, op. cit. 254–63 for the stemma of the family.

⁴⁴ See McGregor, M., ‘The Genius of Alkibiades’, Phoenix xix (1965) especially 34–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Bloedow, op. cit. 69 n. 404. After the Four Hundred were overthrown, the Demos voted the recall (Plutarch 27), but Alkibiades may have thought it wise to postpone his return until he could demonstrate major military accomplishments. He knew the fickleness of the Demos and the hostility against him in some circles. That the hostility continued among the Eleusinians is shown in Plutarch 33. 3.

⁴⁶ Dohrn, T., Attische Plastik (1957) 47–8.Google Scholar The review by Fuchs, W., Gnomon xxxiii (1961) 239–40Google Scholar argues against the proposal. For the lief, see Schneider, L., ‘Das grosse Eleusinische Relief’, Ant. Pl. xii (1973) 103–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 107 and Schlörb, B., Untersuchungen zur Bildhauergeneration nach Phidias (1964) 27 and n. 4, 59–60.Google Scholar Both propose that the relief is the work of a Boeotian sculptor working in the Phidias circle. Neumann, op. cit., suggests similarities with island grave reliefs, noting the flatness of the surfaces and the manner in which the figures stand out from the ground.

⁴⁸ The use of paint for the missing details has been proposed: Schneider, op. cit. 105.

⁴⁹ Ibid. 104 n. 9.

⁵⁰ Waywell, op. cit. 19.

⁵¹ Brommer, F., The Sculptures of the Parthenon (1979) pl. 109.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. pls. 140, 141.

⁵³ Samian decree: Akropolis 1333, Charbonneaux, J., Classical Greek Art (1972) fig. 187.Google Scholar Dexileos: ibid. fig. 227.

⁵⁴ Blümel, C., Der Fries des Tempels der Athene Nike (1923).Google Scholar The date is still open to argument; I am now inclined to put the frieze in the decade 420–410.

⁵⁵ Echelos: NM 1783, Mitropoulou, op. cit. fig. 185. Apobates: NM 1391, ibid. fig. 192.

⁵⁶ NM 2756, Charbonneaux, op. cit. fig. 195. See Linfert, A., ‘Die Deutung des Xenokrateiareliefs’, AM lxxxii (1967) 149–57.Google Scholar

There is one keyhole fold on the stele of Aristylla, NM 766, on the mother's skirt: Diepolder, H., Die attischen Grabreliefs (1931) pl. 1–2.Google Scholar Although it is said to be among the earliest of gravestones, because of its crude carving and (superficial) similarities to Boeotian work, the poor quality makes it impossible to date this stele with surety.

⁵⁷ I use the term ‘archaizing’ in a very loose and perhaps erroneous sense. In this context, it signifies the use of an older, out-of-date style, not necessarily archaic in the stylistic sense. The alternative ‘classicizing’ is even more confusing since the Eleusinian relief is itself Classical. No other more accurate term comes to mind.

⁵⁸ Peschlow-Bindokat, A., ‘Demeter und Kore in der attischen Kunst’, JdI lxxxvii (1972), especially 110–17.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The use of free-standing sculpture as prototypes for the representations of the gods in the votive reliefs of the late fifth century on is an important idea in Neumann's study. He too notes (op. cit. 57) that the images of Demeter and Kore show clear differentiation in dress beginning in the last two decades of the century.

⁶⁰ Dugas, C., ‘La Mission de Triptolème’, Recueil Charles Dugas (1960) 123–39Google Scholar; Schneider, op. cit. 106–7.

⁶¹ Group of Polygnotos, Harvard 1959. 187, ARV ² 1059, 126; Peschlow-Bindokat, op. cit. figs. 26–8.

⁶² The fingers and palm of Triptolemos' elevated right hand are so damaged that even an attachment hole for bronze wheat could be totally missing. Although Persephone's jewellery was added in metal, it seems more likely that the wheat was painted; the vegetable quality would be more naturalistically rendered. The activity of Persephone's right hand escapes me. She seems to have held something round and fairly thick over Triptolemos' head. She is not pouring a libation over him, nor did she hold a wreath. Reconstruction of a second torch of necessity rendered in paint, disappearing behind Triptolemos, would be irreconcilable with the marble torch in her left arm. Would a very thick stalk of wheat be possible? One may also note that Demeter's left forefinger is angled, not in line with the rest of the fingers grasping the sceptre. The same gesture may be seen in the so-called Mourning Athena (Akropolis 695; Charbonneaux, op. cit. fig. 118). If the gesture has any significance, it is unknown to me.

⁶³ Schneider, op. cit. 107, fig. 23. Lullies, R., ‘Zum boiotischen rotfigurisen Vasenmalerei’, AM lxv (1940) 1–27Google Scholar, especially 13, pl. 10: 2.

⁶⁴ Bloedow, op. cit. 64, who downgrades Alkibiades' achievements. See also Connor, op cit. 129 n. 73, on the anxiety over the food supply, as expressed in Aristophanes, Knights.

⁶⁵ Xenophon, Hellenika 1. 2. 13. But see also Andrewes, A., ‘The Generals in the Hellespont, 410–407’, JHS lxxiii (1953) 2–9, especially 4 n. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ There is no reason to place it indoors; it had no cult significance. The story of Triptolemos' mission was too popular in Attic vase-painting to have been in any way integral to the Mysteries.

⁶⁷ In the Eleusinian inventory of 408/7, IG i² 313, in the section that lists items at Eleusis itself, appears the following, line 123: χσύλα ἐκ το̑ν Ἀλκιβιάδο: Δ The most plausible interpretation is to assume that the wood came from confiscated properties of Alkibiades: χσύλα καύ̣σιμα (v 7) and χσύ]λα τετράγονο (vi 39) both appear in the confiscation stelai: Pritchett, J., ‘The Attic Stelai, Part I’, Hesperia xxii (1953) 265 and 271Google Scholar, ‘Part II’, Hesperia xxv (1956) 296–7. That Eleusis held or had bought his forested property would be support for the continuing hostility against Alkibiades: even his timber was noted in this singular fashion. But there is another, albeit more remote possibility. We are told that the property was returned to Alkibiades on his return: J. Davies, op. cit. 21, citing Isokrates, Diodoros, and Plutarch. How credible or even possible such a recompensation was is difficult to assess. But if some of the property had been returned, might it not have been conceivable that Alkibiades donated wood for work at Eleusis, even for the Pompe? The words preceding the reference to the timbers consist mostly of various implements and other materials, suggestive that all might have been on hand for some sort of construction. Kevin Clinton reminded me of this inscription.

H. Plommer has suggested that the first Pompeion ‘…should be numbered among the projects of ostentatious piety of the restored and contrite Alcibiades…’ possibly for the Great Panathenaia of 406: review of Hoepfner, , Das Pompeion, in Gnomon i (1978) 664, 667.Google Scholar I owe this reference to Fred Cooper.

⁶⁸ Harrison, E. B., Agora xi: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (1965) 64.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Some of the characteristics that Harrison sees in the Agora high-relief figures, associated by her with the workshop of Alkamenes, may be applied to the Eleusinian relief. In particular, the vertical folds contrasting with the smooth area of the himation, in Agora S 2099, compare with the similar opposition of Persephone's chiton and himation. See Harrison, E., ‘Alkamenes' Sculptures for the Hephaisteion, I’, AJA lxxxi (1977), especially 166, fig. 21.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Pausanias 9. 11. 6. Some manuscripts have κολοσσοῦ; the use of ἐπὶ makes it clear that the dedication was a relief.

⁷¹ Raubitschek, A., ‘The Heroes of Phyle’, Hesperia x (1941) 284–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In his speech against Ktesiphon, Aischines lists the great heroes and battles. These are, 181, Themistokles, Miltiades, the Phyle group, Aristides. At 183, battles are cited: the Strymon river (the herms' epigrams are given), Marathon (as portrayed in the Stoa Poikile), and the Phyle heroes (whose reward is exhibited in the Metroon). The passage shows inflation, yet clearly Aischines associated the Phyle band with the earlier fighters against Eastern tyranny. The Phyle epigram is at 190.

⁷² Brommer, F., Vasenlisten (1973) 28–9.Google Scholar

⁷³ Corbett, P., ‘Attic Pottery of the Later Fifth Century’, Hesperia xviii (1949) 298–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the bell-krater, P 10673, is no. 3, pls. 75–6.

⁷⁴ I am grateful to Ian McPhee for discussion of the vase and the feasibility of lowering its date.

⁷⁵ Harrison, E., ‘The Iconography of the Eponymous Heroes’, Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (1979) 71–86Google Scholar; Kron, U., Die zehn attische Phylenheroen, AM v (1976).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ARV ² 1153, 17; Harrison pl. 6: 3, Kron pl. 13: 2.

⁷⁷ Such scenes are of course characteristic of many late fifth-century vases. Nos. 2, 7, 16 in the appendix, from different periods, have Dionysiac or related scenes on the reverses.

⁷⁸ The honours stele itself did not have a relief, for a small portion of the top surface is preserved on one fragment (Raubitschek, op. cit. fragment c, p. 292). The heroes received a crown of olives and about ten drachmas each for offering and sacrifice. Note that the two heroes on the Agora vase wear such crowns. That is not unique to these representations; on the Dinos Painter's krater, cited above, Oineus appears to have a myrtle wreath, Akamas has olive. But some heroes are without crowns; see the hydria of the Meidias Painter (Kron, op. cit. pl. 25–2 and 3).

⁷⁹ Harrison 77, Kron 188, who discounts the connection. For the demes and tribes, see J. Traili, Political Organization of Attica, Hesperia suppl. xiv (1975).

⁸⁰ Harrison 78, Kron 190–3. The Kynosarges shrine was in the deme of Deiomeia, tribe of Aigeus. Kron noted the anomaly and suggested that ‘… das Phylenheiligtum also exterritorial lag…’ 192.

⁸¹ The most important clue to the interpretation of the Palermo scene is perhaps not the crowning motif, but the bow held so prominently in Herakles' left hand. In the late fifth century, Sophokles in his Philoktetes stressed the bow of Herakles, the symbol of his arete (Galinsky, K., The Herakles Theme [1972] 52–3Google Scholar). Euripides' lost play on the same subject, produced in 431, apparently did not emphasize the bow, nor did Herakles appear in it (Webster, T. B. L., Philoctetes [1970] 3Google Scholar). But in his Herakles Furens, the bow does have an important role. The date of that play is conjectural, usually placed during the Peloponnesian War (Arrowsmith, W. in Grene, and Lattimore, , Euripides ii [1956] 57–8Google Scholar). The vase in Palermo may have been made in celebration of games in honour of Herakles or for the rebuilding of one of his many shrines. The libation motif, associated iconographically with battle, as in scenes of departing or returning warriors, was less appropriate than the crowning theme, suggestive of the athletic competitions which must have been regular activities in the gymnasia often attached to his sanctuaries. Games in his honour were held in the Herakleion at Marathon. It is tempting to associate the bow with the epithet alexikakos from his shrine in Melite. For a summary of Herakles cults, see Woodford, S., ‘Cults of Herakles in Attica’, Studies Presented to G. M. A. Hanfmann (1971) 211–55.Google Scholar

⁸² NM 3491 and NM 2723, here Plate 55c, d. See also the relief in Venice: Frickenhaus, A., ‘Das Herakleion von Melite’, AM xxxvi (1911) 113–44.Google Scholar See also NM 2810, from the theatre of Dionysos (?). The male figure has the same pose, but without the lionskin around his left arm. The missing left figure is probably Athena; her shield remains. The right hands of both seem to overlap, without the libation or the dexiosis motif. At the right break there are remains of what might be a lionskin. If the figure is Herakles, not Theseus, the piece may be an echo of the Theban work. See Schöne, R., Griechische Reliefs (1872) no. 113Google Scholar; Svoronos, I., Ethnikon Mouseion (1903) pl. 218.Google Scholar The relief is fourth century. My thanks to Carol Lawton for help with all the votive reliefs.

⁸³ Bloedow, op. cit. 37–8, 64 n. 390. In the Hellenika 2. 3. 42 Theramenes links Thrasyboulos, Amytos, and Alkibiades. Presumably this is our Thrasyboulos, the son of Lykos, not the anti-Alkibiades Thrasyboulos the son of Thrason. Also discussed in Andrewes, op. cit. 2–9, especially 3.

⁸⁴ So also the statues of the Tyrannicides were popular representations on vases at the end of the century: S. Brunnsaker, The Tyrant-Slayers (1971) no. 6, pls. 23: 7 and 24. The date of the original Tyrannicide group cannot be discussed here, but I am convinced that it was made after Marathon.

⁸⁵ Beazley, J. D., ‘An Amphora by the Berlin Painter’, Ant. K. iv (1961) 49–67.Google ScholarBrommer, F., Vasenlisten (1973) 28–9.Google ScholarSimon, E., Opfernde Götter (1953) 11Google Scholar suggests that there is usually no cult aspect in the scene.

⁸⁶ Three fragmentary vases noted by Beazley 58 also show the libation, but the exact format is unclear:

Unattributed, Oxford G 138.47, cup. Nike holds the oinochoe, standing between Athena and Herakles.

Achilles Painter, Palermo lekythos, ARV ² 993, 83, with Herakles and the right hand of another figure holding an oinochoe, presumably Athena (B9).

Amphitrite Painter, Adria B 561, cup, ARV ² 831, 21, preserving only Herakles, facing left.

Beazley also cites a neck-amphora once on the Roman market (II-5) and a small amphora once Nola (III-2), both apparently with the typical libation. The unattributed Akropolis 351 cup (II-2) is very close to the work by Makron (no. 6 of the appendix).

The plate in Salonika, B11, is Chalkidic, not Attic, according to Ian McPhee.

⁸⁷ The Berlin Painter also decorated a lekythos in Corinth with Athena extending her helmet to Herakles, who stands in the composition of the Type A libation. New fragments, discovered in 1978, preserve part of Herakles. The Athena fragment is published by Boulter, C., ‘The Berlin Painter at Corinth’, Hesperia xxxv (1966) 310–19, no. 6, pl. 76a–eCrossRefGoogle Scholar; ARV ² 211, 191; Para. 343. The new fragments are published by Boulter, C. and Bentz, J. L., Hesperia xxxix (1980) 307 pl. 90.Google Scholar