Fifth- and fourth-century Athenians’ views of «Pericles’ building program»

INCIDENZA dell’antico dialoghi di storia greca anno 18, 2020 Incidenza dell’Antico dialoghi di storia greca anno 18, 2020 Pubblicazione annuale La Rivista è indicizzata in Scopus (Elsevier). Classificazione ANVUR: A Registrazione del Tribunale di Napoli n. 5337 del 14.10.2002 ISSN: 1971-2995 Abbreviazione assegnata da l’Année Philologique: IncidAntico www.incidenzadellantico.it Direzione Alfonso Mele (direttore responsabile), Maurizio Giangiulio Comitato scientifico Corinne Bonnet, Luisa Breglia, Mirko Canevaro, Renata Cantilena, Riccardo Di Donato, Michele Faraguna, Michel Humm, Mario Lombardo, Christian Mann, Mauro Moggi, Massimo Osanna, Nicola F. Parise, Pascal Payen, Gabriella Pironti, Domingo Plácido, Angela Pontrandolfo, Paolo Scarpi, Marek Węcowski Comitato editoriale Maurizio Bugno, Eduardo Federico, Marcello Lupi, Vittorio Saldutti, Amedeo Visconti Segreteria di redazione Sara Adamo, Serena Cuoppolo, Massimiliano Lanzillo Tutti i saggi e le note proposti per la pubblicazione su Incidenza dell’Antico sono soggetti a peer review obbligatoria. Per ogni contributo, almeno uno dei referees è esterno al comitato scientifico della rivista. Il referaggio è a doppio anonimato e i referees sono individuati, in stretta relazione agli specifici àmbiti di studio, fra studiosi e cultori di riconosciuta competenza. Incidenza dell’Antico pubblicherà ogni due anni, anche sul proprio sito internet, una lista dei referees intervenuti, senza che sia esplicitato l’abbinamento con i contributi esaminati. Per ogni informazione e comunicazione, nonché per l’invio di dattiloscritti e libri, si prega di far riferimento al seguente indirizzo: Incidenza dell’Antico, via Carlo Poerio 110, 80121 Napoli; email: incidenzadellantico@gmail.com. Abbonamento 2020: Privati: volume singolo volume singolo Enti: Estero: volume singolo € 50,00 € 50,00 € 55,00 Sommario 5 9 29 51 79 107 125 145 203 211 229 232 Abstracts Saggi Gennaro Celato, I metodi dell’antiquario nella Dissertatio isagogica de Herculaneo atque eius vicinia di Alessio Simmaco Mazzocchi (1684-1771) Flaminia Beneventano della Corte, Persuasion, demonstration, and performance. Apophainein between forensic oratory and Herodotus’ Histories Marcella Farioli, Les liaisons dangereuses. Postmodernismo e femminismo mainstream in alcune tendenze attuali della storia antica Elisabetta Dimauro, Euripide e l’ideologia del πόνος Cristina Carusi, Fifth- and fourth-century Athenians’ views of «Pericles’ building program» Giulio A. Lucchetta, «Come un dio tra gli umani» (Pol. 1284a10). Aristotele sulle forme di governo perfettibile Mario Cesarano, Nola: suggestioni culturali dal ginnasio di Atene Note Luca Cerchiai, Cuma e la distruzione di Parthenope: a proposito del frammento di Lutazio Dafnide (Histor. fr. 7 Peter) Carmelo Di Nicuolo, Phialai balaneiomphaloi e bagni κυκλοειδῆ ταῖς κατασκευαῖς: su un sottile gioco di parole nell’Atene del periodo classico Recensioni Alain Duplouy, Construire la cité. Essai de sociologie historique sur les communautés de l’archaïsme grec (Marcello Lupi) Hegemonic Finances. Funding Athenian Domination in the 5th and 4th Centuries BC, ed. by Thomas J. Figueira, Sean J. Jensen (Vittorio Saldutti) 4 237 242 SOMMARIO Chiara Lasagni, Le realtà locali nel mondo greco. Ricerche su poleis ed ethne della Grecia Occidentale (Rita Cioffi) Antichistica italiana e leggi razziali (Atti del Convegno in occasione dell’ottantesimo anniversario del Regio Decreto Legge n. 1779. Università di Parma, 28 novembre 2018), a cura di Alessandro Pagliara (Amedeo Visconti) Abstracts Gennaro Celato, The antiquarian’s method in the Dissertatio isagogica de Herculaneo atque eius vicinia of Alessio Simmaco Mazzocchi (1684-1771) [9-27] The paper focuses on some philological aspects of Antiquarianism, as described by Arnaldo Momigliano as well as by the following studies of Ingo Herklotz and other scholars. The example of antiquarian work analyzed in the paper is the Dissertatio isagogica de Herculaneo atque eius vicina of the Neapolitan antiquarian Alessio Simmaco Mazzocchi (1684-1771). Mazzocchi’s Dissertatio was reused and improved by Carlo Maria Rosini (1748-1836) for his Dissertatio isagogica ad Herculanensium Voluminum explanationem, a preliminary work composed for the first edition of a Herculaneum papyri (PHerc. 1497). Arnaldo Momigliano – antiquarianism – Alessio Simmaco Mazzocchi – Herculaneum – papyrology Flaminia Beneventano della Corte, Persuasion, demonstration, and performance. Ἀποφαίνειν between forensic oratory and Herodotus’ Histories [29-49] This paper addresses the use of the verb apophainō in judicial oratory and in Herodotus’ Histories, along with the pertaining argumentative strategy and rhetorical technique. The aim is to fully understand and discuss the effectiveness of a verb which, although crucial in demonstrations, is not sufficient, per se, to create evidence and persuasion. The point of view of pragmatic linguistics is adopted and the importance of those elements which reinforce the persuasive potential of apophainō are stressed (namely context, audience, authority and 6 ABSTRACTS agency of the speakers). In Herodotus’ work, the use of apophainō seems to anticipate the technical specificity the verb has in fourth century oratory, as it often appears in juridical contexts and accompanied by other terms which recall the semantic field of law, courts and trials. Herodotus – authority – demonstration – speech acts – pragmatic Marcella Farioli, Les liaisons dangereuses. Postmodernism and mainstream feminism in some recent trends of classical history [5178] After a brief survey of the development of women’s history and gender studies in the field of classical studies, this article focuses on some of the recent trends in the past twenty years. A number of researches have been devoted to examining the sources in order to uncover traces of female activities and roles, so far undervalued: if, on the one hand, this has enabled us to revise the traditional vision of Greek women confined to the oikos, on the other hand it has induced scholars to overestimate the agency and the forms of participation of women as citizens in the polis, thus underestimating their oppression. This approach, connected to a vision of history characterised by the neglect for the material conditions of power relations and by the psychologization of conflict, is grounded on a two-fold basis, theoretical and political: postmodernism and the empowerment politics of mainstream feminism. gender studies – classical Athens – female citizenship – postmodernism – empowerment Elisabetta Dimauro, Euripides and the ideology of πόνος [79-106] The concept of toil/work has particular relevance in 5th Athens ideological struggle. The occurrence of ponos in Euripides’ tragedies reflects the differentiated ideological tendencies of the audience. ponos – democratic thinking – ideological struggle – Euripides – audience Cristina Carusi, Fifth- and fourth-century Athenians’ views of «Pericles’ building program» [107-123] «Pericles’ building program», i.e., those monuments whose construction ancient sources attribute to Pericles’ initiative (Parthenon, Propylaea, Odeion, etc.), was mostly a source of pride and glory for fourth-century Athenians. The few critical voices were limited to some philosophical circles, e.g., Plato, who censored that building frenzy as one of the means through which politicians ABSTRACTS 7 had corrupted their fellow citizens. Even stories and anecdotes that accused Pericles of having plunged the Athenians into the Peloponnesian War to defend himself from accusations of embezzlement linked to those works were not enough to overshadow their popularity. On the other hand, it is very likely that – as Plutarch related and possibly Ephorus as well – in Pericles’ time, his opponents attacked the program as a way to undermine his political primacy. However, the ensuing ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, and the swift completion of the program demonstrate that, despite the disapproval of conservative groups, the majority of the Athenians were utterly in favor of it and committed to its realization. Pericles – chryselephantine statue – Propylaea – Delian League – Peloponnesian War Giulio A. Lucchetta, «As God between humans» (Pol. 1284a10). Aristotle on the kinds of perfectible government [125-144] Behind the distinction between spoudaios polites and agathos aner it is possible to find the question of the telos of the polis: for Aristotle, the goal of living in a community is to reach autarcheias not only for the community but also for every member of it. So, the behaviour of the inhabitants in assembly must be not indulge conformism: to bend himself also to the best man’s will is the same as to lose freedom. Aristotle – citizenship – plethos – hosper theos – therion Mario Cesarano, Nola: cultural suggestions from the gymnasium of Athens [145-202] A lot of Attic figured vases comes from Nola because of the close and profound political and cultural exchanges existing between Nola and Athens in the V and IV centuries B.C. This paper is based on two postulates: 1) the tomb is a closed context and has a semantic value; 2) Attic pottery is an instrument for spreading the ethical and political values of the democratic Athens of the V and IV century. In any tombs of Nola the funerary equipment seems to be the result of a selection inspired by the values on which the education of citizen in the Athenian gymnasium is based. They show how Greek-style athleticism is spreading among the cultures of the Italian peninsula and that it becomes a tool of self-representation for local élites. Nola – Athenian gymnasium – Greek athleticism – Attic pottery in South Italy 8 ABSTRACTS Luca Cerchiai, Cumae and the destruction of Parthenope: about the Lutatius Daphnis fragment (Histor. fr. 7 Peter) [203-209] The paper is dedicated to the Lutatius Daphnis fragment relating to the foundation and destruction of Parthenope by Cumae. The textual analysis allows us to recognize traces of opposite versions of Parhenope’s story, which can date back to the founding of Neapolis, recording the echoes of the contrasts between the city and the motherland Cumae. Lutatius Daphnis – Cumae – Parthenope – Neapolis – fragmentary historiography Carmelo Di Nicuolo, Phialai balaneiomphaloi and baths κυκλοειδῆ ταῖς κατασκευαῖς: on a subtle wordplay in Classical Athens [211228] A re-examination of the note included by Athenaeus in the eleventh book of the Deipnosophistai, regarding the not otherwise documented phialai balaneiomphaloi (Ath. XI 501d-f) allows us to learn about a centuries-old debate, which from the Hellenistic Period to the Imperial Age engaged the Alexandrian scholars. In complete agreement with the interpretations by Eratosthenes of Cyrene, Asclepiades of Myrlea and Timarchus, the term, only documented in a fragment of Cratinus’ Drapetides, seems to owe its origin to an intentional allusion to the roofing systems of the most ancient baths in the Greek world (balaneia). In this paper, in addition to an excursus on the most recent discoveries about the so called ‘Greek Style Baths’ of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, allowing a better understanding of the observations made by the Hellenistic philologists, it is believed that the origin of this reference lies perfectly in the period when the Drapetides were performed, as the revolutionary lifestyle of bathing with hot water in public buildings became a common theme in the repertoires of the poets of Old Comedy. Greek-style baths – balaneion – phialai mesomphaloi – tholos – Cratinus Fifth- and fourth-century Athenians’ views of «Pericles’ building program» * Cristina Carusi Università degli Studi di Parma cristina.carusi@unipr.it In a famous excursus of his Life of Pericles (12-14), Plutarch relates the fierce debate that allegedly took place in Athens regarding the construction of the monuments (ἡ τῶν ἀναθημάτων κατασκευή) that Pericles proposed to and got approved by the Athenian people, i.e., what modern scholarship refers to as «Pericles’ building program». This program, which Plutarch also labels as Pericles’ erga (τὰ Περικλέους ἔργα), included the Parthenon, the Propylaea, and the chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, the Odeion, the Middle Long Wall, and the Eleusinian Telesterion (13.1-16). It is debatable whether other monuments that were completed in Athens and Attica around the same time should be considered part of the same program despite the silence of the sources 1. According to Plutarch, the accusations that Pericles’ political opponents, the circle of Thucydides, son of Melesias, leveled against the program were twofold. First, they argued that using the common funds of the allies for purposes that were patently different from the war against the barbarians was gaining the Athenians a bad reputation by making the allies feel insulted and tyrannized. In fact, by spending the common funds on embellishing the city with costly temples and statues rather * I am grateful to the anonymous referees of my paper manuscript for providing valuable comments and bibliographical references that helped me to improve the clarity and accuracy of the final version of the article. 1 See Boersma 1970, 65-81, and Beschi 1979, 568-570, for a restrictive interpretation of the Periclean program. For an inclusive one, see Shear 2016, who adds to the list the sanctuary of Athena Nike on the Acropolis, the temple of Hephaestus on the agora, the Ionic temple on the Ilisos river, and, in Attica, the temples of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion, Athena at Pallene, and Nemesis at Rhamnous. Incidenza dell’Antico, 18, 2020, 107-123 108 CRISTINA CARUSI than for military purposes, they were clearly disavowing their previous assertion, i.e., that they had moved the treasury of the alliance from Delos to Athens’ Acropolis for fear of the barbarians (12.1-2). Second, Thucydides and his associates insisted that Pericles was squandering public money and wasting the city’s revenues (14.1). For his part, Pericles counteracted these accusations by replying that, since the Athenians were fighting the barbarians on behalf of the allies, they could spend the common funds as they wished. Furthermore, by using the money to carry out grand building works, they were procuring for the city both eternal glory and immediate prosperity (12.3-4). Even his provocative offer to pay for the buildings himself and dedicate them in his own name – in case the Athenians believed he had spent too much public money on them – turned out to be a success, for the people begged him not to do so, and to spend freely from the public purse. As a result of this rivalry, his main opponent, Thucydides, son of Melesias, was ostracized (14.2). This section of the Life of Pericles is the only explicit evidence we have for the existence of a coeval opposition to the so-called Periclean building program and for the objections that were possibly raised against it. For this reason, scholarly opinions differ widely regarding Plutarch’s historical reliability on this point. Some scholars see no compelling reasons for rejecting the main core of Plutarch’s narrative and believe that it was based on now-lost but dependable sources 2. By contrast, others feel that his account is full of inaccuracies, and heavily influenced by considerations that are more in keeping with later periods, particularly the idea that building programs could generate economic prosperity. Thus, they believe that Plutarch either depended on post-classical, unreliable sources or fabricated the narrative himself, driven by his personal beliefs and goals 3. I do not intend to engage here in any discussion of Plutarch’s account, which I propose to tackle in a further, more extensive study. Rather, this article aims to provide a brief survey of how extant, classical-age sources speak of Pericles’ building program, and to find out whether and to 2 See, e.g., Musti 1981, 104-106; Powell 1995; Fantasia 2003, 276-277; Kallet 2005, 56-57, and Samons 2016, 94-101. Musti has in mind some local historians, while Samons revives the hypothesis of Stesimbrotus of Thasos, the fifth-century author of a pamphlet titled On Themistocles, Thucydides, and Pericles. 3 See, e.g., Bodei Giglioni 1973, 42-47; Andrewes 1978; Ameling 1985, and Mossé 2005, 153. Stadter 1989 takes a sort of middle course, on the one hand believing that Plutarch was freely reconstructing the debate on the basis of little hints from later sources (p. 146), and on the other, recognizing that Pericles’ arguments fit the fifth century as well as a later context (p. 153). ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 109 what extent fifth- and fourth-century Athenians were critical of or felt somehow uneasy about it 4. References to the building program are relatively scant in the fifth-century literary sources. Among them, we must count Thucydides’ words. In 431, when Pericles was urging the Athenians to stand up to the Spartans’ ultimatum and go to war, Thucydides makes him assess the city’s financial resources and claim, among other things, that «there were still 6,000 talents of coined silver on the Acropolis (for the maximum amount had once been 10,000 minus 300, from which money had been spent for the Propylaea of the Acropolis and the other buildings as well as for Potidaea)» (2.13.3) 5. Significantly, Thucydides singles out the Propylaea as the main representative of the building works completed in the two previous decades. The Parthenon was probably the most expensive monument of the lot and an incredibly ambitious project: at the time, it was destined to be the largest Doric temple in Greece, and the only one entirely built of marble or with such extensive sculptural decoration. Nonetheless, as a votive offering to and treasury of Athena, the patron deity of the city, its magnificence was not unexpected. On the other hand, the Propylaea, the size of which, as a simple entrance gate to the sanctuary, was unparalleled in the Greek world, must have struck everyone for its grandeur, considering its mundane function 6. It is not possible to say whether Pericles’ explicit mention of 4 Here, I would simply like to point out that the apparent inaccuracies uttered by Pericles and his opponents – e.g., that the temples cost 1,000 talents or that the allies did not contribute any horses, ships, or hoplites to the war effort – belong to the well-known genre of misleading assertions, or ‘alternative facts’, that characterize any heightened political debate shaped by brazen propaganda – in fifth-century Athens no less than today. Thus, they should not be used either to confirm or to reject the historicity of the debate. For the scholarly difference of opinion on the actual role that the Delian League’s funds played in paying for Pericles’ building program, see Kallet-Marx 1989; Giovannini 1990, and Samons 2000. 5 Thuc. 2.13.3: ὑπαρχόντων δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει ἔτι τότε ἀργυρίου ἐπισήμου ἑξακισχιλίων ταλάντων (τὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα τριακοσίων ἀποδέοντα μύρια ἐγένετο, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔς τε τὰ προπύλαια τῆς ἀκροπόλεως καὶ τἆλλα οἰκοδομήματα καὶ ἐς Ποτείδαιαν ἀπανηλώθη). A scholium to Aristophanes’ Ploutos (l. 1193) reports a different version of Thucydides’ text, according to which «there had always been (αἰεί ποτε) 6,000 talents of coined silver on the Acropolis, the greater part of which, minus 300 talents, was still there (τὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα τριακοσίων ἀποδέοντα περιεγένετο), and from this extra disbursements had been made for, etc.». The figures from Thucydides’ transmitted text are confirmed by Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F 196), through Diodorus (12.40.2), who speaks of 10,000 talents of which 4,000 had been spent «for the construction of the Propylaea and the siege of Potidaea». See Gomme 1956, 26-33, for the rejection of the scholium’s text. 6 For detailed comment on Thuc. 2.13.3, see Fantasia 2003, 269-279, with references to previous scholarship. Here, I leave aside the crucial importance of this passage’s interpretation for Athens’ financial history. 110 CRISTINA CARUSI it was prompted by some contemporary criticism of its extravagance, which would appear in later sources 7. Similarly, it is impossible to say whether Pericles’ explanation of how much money was spent from the Acropolis reserve, and for what reasons, concealed an indirect response to those who may have attacked the excessive spending of the previous decades. Pericles’ goal was to make the Athenians confident about their resources for the war and encourage them ahead of the upcoming clash with the Spartans. Thus, his words should be considered a reassuring, matter-of-fact appraisal of Athens’ financial capacity. Other references, preserved through Plutarch’s narrative, come from the comic poets. Speaking of the Middle Long Wall, Plutarch relates that Cratinus made fun of the work’s slow progress, saying that: «In word Pericles has been carrying it forward for a long time, while in deed he cannot budge it» (fr. 326 K.-A.) 8. That Pericles pushed through this ergon personally is confirmed by Socrates’ testimony, also quoted by Plutarch (13.8). Obviously, this testimony comes from Plato, who, in the Gorgias, makes Socrates say that he was present when Pericles was advising the Athenians about the Middle Wall 9. As for the Odeion, the same Cratinus, hinting at Pericles’ notoriously elongated cranium, teases him by portraying him as «wearing the Odeion on his head like a cap» (fr. 73 K.-A.) 10. These lines confirm that both projects were strictly linked to Pericles, so much so that they could be used to mock him in a way that was clearly understandable for all the Athenians. However, the erga do not seem to be objects of criticism per se, although we can imagine that targeting Pericles’ pretentiousness may have caused the buildings he sponsored to be seen in the same light. The situation is different for a famous passage from Aristophanes, where Hermes explains to the chorus why Peace was lost to the Athenians. Here, the start of the city’s misfortunes is identified with the moment that 7 According to Gomme 1956, 20, Thucydides chose to mention the Propylaea because they were the most recent work, probably still under construction, and the most significant example of the magnificence of the city’s building endeavors. 8 Plut. Per. 13.8: κωμῳδεῖ δὲ τὸ ἔργον Κρατῖνος ὡς βραδέως περαινόμενον· πάλαι γὰρ αὐτό, φησί, λόγοισι προάγει Περικλέης, ἔργοισι δ’ οὐδὲ κινεῖ («Cratinus pokes fun at this work for its slow progress by saying: ‘In word Pericles has been carrying it forward for a long time, while in deed he cannot budge it’»). 9 Pl. Grg. 455e: Περικλέους δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἤκουον ὅτε συνεβούλευεν ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ διὰ μέσου τείχους («As to Pericles, I heard him myself when he was advising us about the Μiddle Wall»). 10 Plut. Per. 13.10: ὁ σχινοκέφαλος Ζεὺς ὅδε προσέρχεται τᾠδεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ κρανίου ἔχων, ἐπειδὴ τοὔστρακον παροίχεται («The squill-head Zeus! Here he comes, wearing the Odeion on his head like a cap, now that for good and all the ostracism is over»). ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 111 Phidias got into trouble: «Then, Pericles feared he might share his fate and mistrusted your ferocious nature, so, before he suffered something terrible himself, he set the city aflame. By throwing out the small spark of the Megarian decree, he blew up such a big war that the smoke drew tears from all Greeks both here and over there» (Pax 606-611) 11. Scholia to Aristophanes’ text explain this reference by quoting a passage from the Athenian Philochorus, who wrote a local history of Attica between the end of the fourth century and the first half of the third century. Here, Philochorus relates that Phidias was the creator of the chryselephantine statue of Athena, set up in the Parthenon in 438/7, whose overseer (ἐπιστάτης) was Pericles. Since Phidias was indicted because it was thought he had falsified the accounts of the ivory plates for the statue (παραλογίζεσθαι τὸν ἐλέφαντα τὸν εἰς τὰς φολίδας) or, according to another version of the story, for stealing the gold for the statue, he fled or was exiled to Elis. There, he died at the hands of the Eleians, after completing the statue of Zeus at Olympia (Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 121 = Schol. Ar. Pax 605α-β). According to certain others (λέγουσι δέ τινες), after Phidias was found guilty and fled, Pericles feared an accusation of complicity in the theft owing to his role as epistates of the statue. So, in order not to render his accounts (μὴ δῷ τὰς εὐθύνας), he proposed the decree against Megara (432/1), leading to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. However, the scholiast considers this version of the story implausible, since Phidias’ troubles occurred seven years before the war broke out (Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 121 = Schol. Ar. Pax 606a.α-β) 12. The version of the story related by «certain others», from which the scholiast distances himself, is similar to the one found in a long section of Diodorus’ narrative devoted to the causes of the Peloponnesian War that he derived from the fourth-century historian Ephorus (FGrHist 70 F 196 = Diod. 12.38-41.1) 13. In this version, Pericles’ enemies persuaded some of Phidias’ assistants to claim that the sculptor had taken a large amount of sacred money with the connivance and assistance of Pericles, who was overseer (ἐπιμελητής) of the statue. Phidias was arrested, while 11 εἷτα Περικλέης φοβηθεὶς μὴ μετάσχοι τῆς τύχης, τὰς φύσεις ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς καὶ τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον, πρὶν παθεῖν τι δεινὸν αὐτός, ἐξέφλεξε τὴν πόλιν. ἐμβαλὼν σπινθῆρα μικρὸν Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος, ἐξεφύσησεν τοσοῦτον πόλεμον ὥστε τῷ καπνῷ πάντας Ἕλληνας δακρῦσαι, τούς τ᾽ ἐκεῖ τούς τ᾽ ἐνθάδε. 12 By deleting the δέ from the phrase λέγουσι δέ τινες, Holwerda 1982, 95-97, publishes the continuous text of the manuscript tradition as two scholia referring respectively to Ar. Pax 605 and 606a. Jacoby in FGrHist 328 F 121 considers the whole as a quotation from Philochorus’ work. See also Philoch., BNJ 328 F 121 (N.F. Jones). 13 I shall come back to this long section of Ephorus’ and Diodorus’ narrative below. 112 CRISTINA CARUSI Pericles was charged with theft of sacred property and then implicated in the accusations of impiety brought against the sophist Anaxagoras. In dire straits, Pericles decided to plunge his city into a major war so that the Athenians, needing his leadership, would forget about the charges and would not care about closely scrutinizing his accounts (τὸν περὶ τῶν χρημάτων λόγον) (Diod. 12.39.1-3). Finally, in Plutarch’s narrative, which mixes Ephorus’ version of the story with different material that he found in other sources, the whole matter is linked to Pericles’ refusal to repeal the decree against Megara, which caused the outbreak of the war (Per. 31.1). According to this version, Phidias, being the creator of the statue and a great friend of Pericles, was the object of much jealousy on the part of some citizens, while others wanted to test the people’s feeling towards Pericles by attacking one of his associates. However, the charge of theft brought against him by Menon, one of Phidias’ assistants, was not proven, because, following Pericles’ advice, the artist had cast the statue’s gold in a way that it could be taken off and weighed. Nonetheless, Phidias was convicted because he had carved a portrait of Pericles and himself on the statue’s shield, and ended up dying in prison (Per. 31.2-5). According to Plutarch, Phidias’ trial was part of a series of charges that Pericles’ enemies brought against him and his closest associates, including Aspasia and Anaxagoras (Per. 32.1-2). As part of these charges, a decree proposed by a certain Dracontides ordered Pericles to deposit his accounts (οἱ λόγοι τῶν χρημάτων) with the prytaneis and arranged for the judges to try his case with ballots that had lain upon the altar on the Acropolis (Per. 32.3-4). Even though a subsequent amendment by Hagnon dictated that the case would be tried in front of 1,500 jurors in the ordinary way, and the charges against Aspasia and Anaxagoras were somewhat defused, Pericles feared the bad mood of the people after he had clashed with them in Phidias’ trial. Therefore, he decided to trigger the war, knowing that his fellow citizens would place their trust in him alone, forgetting about their jealousy and the charges brought against him. However – Plutarch concludes – it was not clear whether these were the actual reasons why Pericles did not want the Athenians to yield to the Spartans’ ultimatum and repeal the decree (Per. 32.5-6) 14. Was the story of Pericles and Phidias’ relationship and its connection to the outbreak of the war current in fifth- and fourth-century Athens? On the one hand, Aristophanes’ allusion does not allow us to understand what, in the author’s opinion, had caused Phidias’ troubles nor why Pericles was 14 See Stadter 1989, 284-305, for a detailed commentary on Plut. Per. 31-32. ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 113 afraid of suffering the same fate. In 421, when the Peace was staged, these lines referred cryptically to events dating to more than a decade before. The reactions of Trygaeus and the chorus, who are surprised by Hermes’ account and deny knowing anything of the matter, suggest to some scholars that whatever the story was, it was not particularly popular at the time, while others believe that the comic effect laid precisely in Trygaeus and the chorus’ alleged disbelief at the news 15. In any case, hinting at Pericles’ fear of the Athenians and his ensuing responsibility for the outbreak of the war suited the tone of Hermes’ speech, which blamed the cycle of aggression and retaliation going on in Greece on the ferocious temperament of the Athenians and the unprincipled and self-serving behavior of politicians 16. On the other hand, Philochorus’ testimony, which scholars consider generally reliable, confirms that Phidias was involved in some charge of theft and that Pericles was overseer of the statue. Incidentally, only Philochorus employs the correct term for such a role, i.e., epistates (and not epimeletes). Plutarch, who mixes different sources, does not mention Pericles’ role as overseer of the statue. Still, the reference he makes to Dracontides’ decree and Hagnon’s rider lends credibility to the idea that, at some point, Pericles’ accounts had to undergo some special scrutiny 17. However, all versions of the story implicating Pericles in the embezzlement of the statue’s funds appear to neglect the fact that in Athenian administrative practice each project was overseen by a board of epistatai, usually, though not necessarily, in charge for a one-year term. Thus, Pericles would have been only one member of a larger board, perhaps in office for only one out of the almost ten years that were necessary for 15 Ar. Pax 615-618: «Trygaeus: ‘That, by Apollo, I never learned from anyone! Nor did I ever hear of any connection between Phidias and Peace’. Leader of the chorus: ‘Nor I, until now. This is why she has such a lovely appearance because she is related to him! There are so many things that escape us’». See, e.g., Olson 1998, 196-197, and Prandi 1977, 12 n. 7, for the two opposite views. 16 For Hermes’ speech pointing the finger at Athens’ political system, while, at the same time, excusing the Athenian people for being manipulated by their politicians, see Cassio 1982. Elsewhere Aristophanes (parodying Herodotus) attributes the passing of Megara’s decree and the start of the war to a quarrel over prostitutes and to Pericles’ anger over the kidnapping of two courtesans from Aspasia’s house (Ach. 515-540). 17 Stadter 1989, 301-303, following Frost 1964, 71-72, believes that Dracontides’ motion, with its religious connotations, points to Pericles’ alleged misuse of sacred money rather than to his accounts as strategos. By contrast, Banfi 1999, 42, believes Plutarch was mistaken, and Dracontides’ decree was linked to the indictment Pericles had to face in 430/29. It is possible, though unprovable that Plutarch derived his knowledge of the documentary sources quoted in this section of the Life – which are otherwise unknown – from Craterus’ collection of decrees (for Plutarch’s use of Craterus, see Erdas 2002, 29-31, 303-304). 114 CRISTINA CARUSI completing the statue 18. If the events unfolded as Ephorus’ and Plutarch’s story relates, it is not clear whether or how Pericles was singled out as the one solely responsible for the mismanagement of the sacred funds, nor if other epistatai were involved in the affair, whose names the literary tradition did not deem worth mentioning 19. Besides, even though Pericles ended up being indicted, it seems that he was not convicted, if we follow Plato’s statement that he never had to face any sentence until the end of his life (Grg. 515e-516a); nor was his reputation for honesty and incorruptibility tarnished, if we believe Thucydides’ claim that Pericles was renowned for his integrity (2.65.8) 20. Overall, it seems that Pericles’ personal responsibility for precipitating the events that led to the war was a much talked-about issue among his contemporaries and beyond, notwithstanding Thucydides’ reticence on the matter 21. However, it remains controversial to what extent Phidias’ trial was widely recognized as one of the triggering factors of Pericles’ conduct, as our sources themselves acknowledge. More importantly for the subject at stake, the story of Pericles’ involvement in the theft of the statue’s money and its alleged connection to the outbreak of the war do not appear to have affected the almost unanimous admiration that the building program and its creator enjoyed among the Athenians of the following century. Isocrates – in a passage of the Antidosis where he is bent on demonstrating that the most renowned orators were responsible 18 Unfortunately, the accounts for the statue (IG I³ 453, 455-458, 460), which cover the period from 446/5 to 438/7, do not mention the names of the epistatai nor their number, but only the names of the secretaries, who changed from year to year. On the fifth-century epistatai of the Acropolis works, see Marginesu 2010, 57-65. 19 In my discussion, I intentionally put aside all issues related to the date, content, and authenticity of Phidias’ trial, which are the object of much scholarly debate. Among the main contributions, see Frost 1964; Prandi 1977; Mansfeld 1980, and Banfi 1999, 31-39. For the reception of Phidias’ trial in later sources, in particular literature of the Roman period, see Falaschi 2012. 20 Pl. Grg. 515e-516a: «I know for sure, and so you do, that Pericles was popular at first, and the Athenians passed no degrading sentence upon him so long as they were ‘worse’; but as soon as they had been made ‘upright and honorable’ by him, at the end of Pericles’ life (430/29) they convicted him of embezzlement, and all but condemned him to death, clearly because they thought him a rogue». Thuc. 2.65.8: «Pericles, powerful for reputation and intelligence, and clearly incorruptible, was enabled to exercise independent control over the multitude». However, for Prandi 1977, 25-26, Pericles’ famous reference to the statue’s gold in Thucydides (2.13.5) would be an indirect answer to the accusations he had to face because of Dracontides’ decree. 21 See Schepens 2007, 79-96, and Parmeggiani 2014, for the importance of Ephorus’ version integrating and correcting Thucydides’ account of the causes of the Peloponnesian War. See also the historian Aristodemus (FGrHist 104 F1.16-19) as a guide to the content of Ephorus’ narrative (Schepens 2007, 88-89). ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 115 for the greatest goods in Athens – declares: «Pericles, a fine popular leader and the best orator, so embellished the city with temples, monuments, and every other adornment that even now visitors think Athens deserves to rule not only the Greeks but everyone else too» (15.234) 22. In the same way, Lycurgus, while prosecuting Cephisodotus for proposing an illegal honorific decree for Demades, probably in the course of contrasting Demades’ actions with Pericles’ achievements, says that «Pericles, who captured Samos and Euboea and Aegina, who built the Propylaea, the Odeion, and the Hekatompedon […] was crowned with an olive wreath» (Lycurg. fr. 9.2 Conomis) 23. Laudatory tones are employed by Demosthenes as well, although he does not name Pericles, but lumps together all monuments that the ancestors of the Athenians – those who lived between the Persian and the Peloponnesian Wars – erected thanks to the spoils of their military achievements 24. In his orations, he often points to the exceptionality of the public buildings left behind by that generation and stresses the unsurpassed scale, quality, and beauty of those monuments, and the great wealth that the Athenians of the past invested in them, as well as in other achievements, as a sign of their love of honor 25. Demosthenes’ goal was not to chastise them for their extravagance. On the contrary, he uses the monuments as examples of the undying legacy that the past generations had left to the Athenians of his days, and as a means of unfavorably comparing the shortcomings of his fellow citizens to the outstanding achievements of their ancestors. In one case, he specifically targets the shabbiness of the public works carried out in his own time as compared to the extravagance of the houses and estates belonging to private citizens, in order to mark the difference with the previous century, when the magnificence of public buildings by far obscured the modesty of private dwellings 26. 22 Περικλῆς καὶ δημαγωγὸς ὣν ἀγαθὸς καὶ ῥήτωρ ἄριστος οὕτως ἐκόσμησε τὴν πόλιν καὶ τοῖς ἱεροῖς καὶ τοῖς ἀναθήμασι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν, ὥστ᾽ ἔτι καὶ νῦν τοὺς εἰσαφικνουμένους εἰς αὐτὴν νομίζειν μὴ μόνον ἄρχειν ἀξίαν εἶναι τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων. 23 Περικλῆς δὲ ὁ Σάμον καὶ Εὔβοιαν καὶ Αἰγίναν ἑλών, καὶ τὰ προπύλαια καὶ τὸ ᾠδεῖον καὶ τὸ Ἑκατόμπεδον οἰκοδομήσας […] θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ ἐστεφανώθη. 24 For the building works carried out between the end of the Persian Wars and Pericles’ ascendency, see Camp 2001, 59-72. See Di Cesare 2015 for «Cimon’s building program». 25 See Dem. 3.24-25; 13.26-28; 22.76; 23.207-208. 26 See Dem. 23.207-208: «Here is the proof: the house of Themistocles, that of Miltiades, and those belonging to famous men at that time, if any of you knows what they were like, he sees that there is nothing more arrogant than the average about them, but the buildings of the city and the adornments were so great and of such a type that 116 CRISTINA CARUSI In his praise for the monuments of the past, Demosthenes mentions not only temples (ἱερά), but also harbors (λιμένεις), porticoes (στοαί), shipsheds (νεώσοικοι), and all edifices (οἰκοδομήματα) and dedications (ἀναθήματα) that embellished the city in general. Exactly as Thucydides’ Pericles had done, he often singles out the Propylaea as the most representative example of the greatness of those building endeavors 27. There is no hint in Demosthenes that the Athenian public harbored any bad feelings nor did they feel any kind of embarrassment at the extravagance of the entrance gate to the Acropolis. However, open disapproval of the building frenzy that characterized Athens in the decades that Demosthenes was celebrating was not entirely unknown, though it was likely limited to certain intellectual circles. Plato’s Socrates, while discussing with Callicles whether such statesmen as Pericles, Cimon, Miltiades, and Themistocles had made their citizens better or worse, argues that they were more competent than the present-day politicians in procuring for the Athenians what they desired most – ships, walls, arsenals – instead of diverting their citizens’ desires towards what was really useful to them, making them better people. The corollary to this bitter conclusion is that those statesmen have not made the city better but, on the contrary, have corrupted it, «for, with no regard for temperance and justice, they have stuffed the city with harbors and arsenals and walls and tribute and suchlike trash» (Grg. 519a) 28. Another criticism was voiced by Demetrius of Phaleron, who, according to Cicero, criticized Pericles for spending too much money no possibility was left for succeeding generations to surpass them, the Propylaea, the shipsheds, the stoas, the Piraeus, and all other buildings that adorn the city (τὰ δὲ τῆς πόλεως οἰκοδομήματα καὶ κατασκευάσματα τηλικαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦθ᾽ ὥστε μηδενὶ τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων ὑπερβολὴν λελεῖφθαι, προπύλαια ταῦτα, νεώσοικοι, στοαί, Πειραιεύς, τἄλλ᾽ οἷς κατεσκευασμένην ὁρᾶτε τὴν πόλιν). Now, however, in private life there is such an excessive amount of private wealth belonging to men who conduct public business that they have constructed private houses more impressive than many public buildings, and some have bought up more land than all of you in the court possess. The public buildings that you construct and plaster, it is a shame to say how small and shabby they are (δημοσίᾳ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἃ μὲν οἰκοδομεῖτε καὶ κονιᾶτε, ὡς μικρὰ καὶ γλίσχρα, αἰσχύνη λέγειν)» (trans. by E.M. Harris). 27 In addition to Dem. 13.28, 22.76, and 23.207, see also 22.13. The Parthenon is mentioned explicitly with the Propylaea only at 22.76 and 22.13. Aeschines, in defending his actions at the time when the Athenians were deliberating on the peace with Philip, mocks the behavior of those orators that instead of making proposals for the city’s rescue urged the people to look at the Propylaea and remember the glory of the past (2.74). 28 ἄνευ γὰρ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης λιμένων καὶ νεωρίων καὶ τειχῶν καὶ φόρων καὶ τοιούτων φλυαριῶν ἐμπεπλήκασι τὴν πόλιν. ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 117 (tantam pecuniam) on «those famous Propylaea» (Demetr. 110 SOD) 29. It is unfortunate that we do not know the context in which this judgment was expressed. We know, however, that in 317-307, when Demetrius became ruler of Athens, in a completely altered domestic and international landscape, his policies were aimed at reducing state expenditures, including not only construction works but also honorific statues, public inscriptions, and military spending 30. Therefore, his criticism may have been uttered in connection with his philosophical convictions as well as with his experience as a statesman. In both cases, condemnation of the obnoxious effects of excessive and pointless building activities and their extravagance appears to stem from Plato’s and Demetrius’ own personal viewpoints rather than to attest to widespread disapproval of Pericles’ building works. Interestingly, both Plato and Demosthenes include in their arguments not just Pericles and the buildings that were completed in his time, but the achievements of an entire generation of Athenian politicians, no doubt because such a broad perspective, for opposing reasons, served their rhetorical and philosophical goals. As for the Propylaea, we can assume that Demetrius chose to target them precisely because, in his time, they were commonly regarded as the epitome of the Athenians’ building grandness. Therefore, it is necessary to debunk the idea that Demetrius’ criticism stemmed from a tradition according to which Pericles had to defend himself from attacks against the excessive cost of the entrance gate to the Acropolis, as its consonance with a later anecdote by Valerius Maximus would seem to suggest. In this story, the young Alcibiades, finding Pericles distressed because he did not know how to render his accounts after he had spent a vast sum on the Propylaea, advised him to find a way to avoid doing it, thus driving Pericles to involve the Athenians in a war (3.1 ext. 1) 31. Yet, it would be 29 Demetr. 110 SOD (= Cic. Off. 2.17.60): «Theatres, galleries, and new temples I hesitate to find fault with because of Pompey, but very learned men do not approve of them, for instance both Panaetius here himself […] and Demetrius of Phaleron who takes to task Pericles, the leader of Greece, for spending so much money on those famous Propylaea (Periclem principem Graeciae vituperat, quod tantam pecuniam in praeclara illa propylaea coniecerit)» (trans. by W.W. Fortenbaugh and E. Schütrumpf). 30 See O’Sullivan 2009, 189-195, for Demetrius’ financial concerns. Building activities did not cease completely, though: it seems that at least the Portico of the Eleusinian Telesterion was completed under Demetrius’ administration (Vitr. 7, praef. 17). 31 «The famous Alcibiades […] was still a boy when he came one day to his uncle Pericles and saw him sitting in solitary gloom. He asked why he looked so troubled. Pericles told him that as commissioned by the state he had built the Propylaea of Minerva (that is, the doorway to the citadel) and that having spent a vast sum on the work he 118 CRISTINA CARUSI a mistake to consider this anecdote as independent evidence that Pericles incurred any trouble concerning the Propylaea. More probably, in fact, Valerius was just conflating two pieces of information present in Diodorus’ account of the causes of the Peloponnesian War. In this account, Diodorus condensed – probably with some omissions – the long narrative that Ephorus devoted to the outbreak of the war (FGrHist 70 F 196 = Diod. 12.38-41.1). Pericles, in charge of guarding (φυλάττειν) the funds of the Delian League after they were moved from Delos to Athens, had spent a considerable portion of that money for his own purposes (ἀνηλωκὼς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἰδίᾳ πλῆθος ἱκανὸν χρημάτων). Unable to produce a statement (τὸν ἀπολογισμόν) of the funds and offer a defense of his use of the money (τὴν περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἀπολογίαν), Pericles followed the young Alcibiades’ advice that he should figure out not how to render his accounts, but how not to. Therefore, he kept trying to drag the Athenians into a major war in order to distract them from this matter (12.38.2-4). At this point, Pericles, still looking for a way to pursue that course of action, was involved by his enemies in the trial against Phidias that we discussed above (12.39.1-3). Thus, seizing the opportunity offered by the Megarian decree and the Spartan ultimatum, he pushed the Athenians to war, arguing that yielding to the Spartans’ demands was the beginning of slavery (12.39.4-5). This section of the narrative is clearly inspired by Pericles’ first speech in Thucydides (Thuc. 1.140-144), and so is the following one (12.40.1-5), where Ephorus seemingly summarized Pericles’ speech about Athens’ preparedness for war (Thuc. 2.13.3). Rounding up Thucydides’ figures, here Ephorus made Pericles say that, out of the 10,000 talents in the state reserve, originally consisting of the League’s funds transferred from Delos to Athens, 4,000 talents had been spent for the Propylaea and the siege of Potidaea (Diod. 12.40.2). Finally, after reporting Aristophanes’ passage from the Peace (606-611) and other comedy quotations that highlighted Pericles’ rhetorical strength (12.40.6), Diodorus concludes that «these were the causes of the Peloponnesian War as Ephorus described them» (12.41.1). It seems plausible that Valerius did not read somewhere else that Pericles had been worried about the Propylaea’s accounts, but that he could not think how to render an account of his stewardship (consumptaque in id opus ingenti pecunia non invenire quo pacto ministerii rationem redderet); hence his distress. ‘Well then,’ said his nephew, ‘look instead for a way not to render an account.’ And so the great and sagacious Pericles, unable to advise himself, took the advice of a boy: he so managed that the Athenians became involved in a war close to home and had no time to demand accounts» (trans. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey). ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 119 just mixed together the two episodes found in Diodorus – or in an intermediate source. On the one hand, he registered the anecdote about Alcibiades’ advising Pericles in his distress over the League’s accounts (12.38.2-4); on the other, he identified the reason of Pericles’ distress as the vast sum he had spent on the Propylaea – the item of expenditure that, as far as Valerius could tell, had contributed most to the depletion of the League’s funds (12.40.2). Besides, the Alcibiades anecdote was a very famous piece – one that each author could adapt to his purposes. Plutarch knew it as well, and quotes it in his Life of Alcibiades, where it contributes to his portrait of the impudent young man (Alc. 7.2). In this simpler version, Alcibiades, calling on Pericles, was told that his guardian could not see him because he was considering how to present his accounts to the Athenians (ἀποδώσει λόγον Ἀθηναίοις). To this, Alcibiades replied that it would be better for him if he considered how to avoid presenting his accounts at all. Here, no specific accounts are mentioned, and there is no indication that Pericles followed the advice, nor that he thereby plunged the Athenians into a war. As for Ephorus, Diodorus’ account reveals that his narrative of the causes of the Peloponnesian War emphasized Pericles’ misuse of the League’s money and his subsequent embarrassment at having to defend his actions as one of the triggering factors of the war 32. Although Diodorus’ wording at 12.38 seems to imply some sort of embezzlement, it is important to stress that Pericles never held any office relating to the administration of the League’s treasury and could never have found himself in the position of rendering accounts for it 33. Instead, we must not forget that, according to Plutarch (Per. 12.1-2), Pericles’ enemies attacked him in the assembly for using the League’s money to pay for the building program, which he had sponsored and was linked to him personally. Therefore, it is possible that Diodorus, while compressing and selecting the information he found in Ephorus regarding the opposition to Pericles’ policy, mistakenly inferred that Pericles was attacked for spending the League’s funds on the building program, i.e., «for his own purposes», because he had played some role in administering them. These accusations – one might conclude – would have resulted in that distress at having to render accounts that is described in the Alcibiades anecdote. 32 See Parmeggiani 2011, 422-428, for the section of Ephorus’ work that Diodorus summarized at 12.38 and for its emphasis on Pericles’ spending policy. 33 The verb φυλάττειν – which Diodorus uses to describe Pericles’ role in regard to the League’s funds – does not correspond to any office’s task or function in Athenian administrative and political practice. 120 CRISTINA CARUSI In short, while Demetrius’ judgement stemmed from his personal beliefs and not from his knowledge of any hostile campaign targeting specifically the cost of the Propylaea, I am inclined to believe that Ephorus’ narrative, as far as we can reconstruct it from Diodorus, bore traces of the political attacks launched against the extravagance of Pericles’s building program in its own time 34. At the end of this brief survey, I am left with the impression that, in the Athenian public opinion of the fourth century, the building program of the previous century was mostly cause for pride and amazement, regardless of whether Pericles was considered its inspirer or the buildings were seen as the common achievement of the citizens of the past. With the Acropolis monuments being magnificent dedications to the gods as well as symbols of the power and glory of Athens, it is not difficult to fathom why the program, including the Propylaea, was so popular among the Athenians. It is worth noting that not even the self-criticism that in the mid-fourth century targeted Athenian imperialist policies of the previous generations had any serious negative impact on how the program was perceived 35. The few critical voices were probably limited to certain intellectual circles, and the stories and anecdotes that may have been circulating about Pericles’ implication in Phidias’ shady dealings and his possible embarrassment about the cost of the works were not enough to overshadow them. It is more challenging to judge the extent to which, in Pericles’ time, the program drew widespread criticism beyond the comic poets’ mocking remarks, which, besides, appear to target Pericles ad hominem rather than the works themselves. As for political opposition, it should be noted that, although Pericles had probably proposed or supported the erection of the monuments and, at times, had served as epistates for some of them, in the complex and multilayered mechanism of the democratic regime, the program could not have been carried out without a significant degree of consensus among the Athenian citizens 36. The large size of the assembly, 34 Among Ephorus’ possible sources of information, Schepens 2007, 88, points not only to what he found in previous historiographical literature, but also to what inscriptions, speeches, political pamphlets, and works of comedy writers could contribute, in terms of contemporary evidence, to his reconstruction. 35 See Chambers 1975 for the fourth-century Athenians’ views of their fifth-century empire. 36 Pericles’ name does not appear in any official capacity in the epigraphic evidence, either as proponent or as epistates of any building project. This could be owing, on the one hand, to the fragmentary nature of the evidence and, on the other, to the fact that some of his associates might have acted in his place. The literary evidence attests, as seen ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 121 with its possibly temperamental behavior, the annually changing composition of the council and boards of overseers, and the frequent turnover of supervising architects would have made it impossible for a single individual and his group of associates to steer all decisions in the desired direction, were there not a broad popular support for and an ample commitment to realizing the projects. Despite this, it must not surprise us that, given the harshness of the political conflict, Pericles’ enemies sought to attack him in any possible way and use all sorts of arguments, specious as they may be, to stop him and his measures – nor that Pericles retaliated with equal ruthlessness 37. Yet, the ensuing ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, makes it clear what political course the Athenians ended up favoring, and how little they had been swayed by possible criticism of the program 38. Behind the scenes of the open political struggle, though, we may have an opportunity to get a glimpse into the ideological opposition that Pericles’ building program encountered in conservative circles. We owe this opportunity to one of the most resolute opponents of the Athenian democracy as well as one of its most acute observers, the author of the anonymous pamphlet called the Constitution of the Athenians, also known as the Old Oligarch. In an often overlooked passage, he claims: «As for sacrifices and sanctuaries and feasts and sacred precincts, the demos, knowing that it is not possible for each poor Athenian to provide sacrifices and feasts and set up sanctuaries and live in a city beautiful and great, has found a way by which these things may be brought about. In fact, the city sacrifices many victims at public expense, while the demos enjoys the feasts and obtains a share of the victims» (2.9) 39. When our author mentions temples and precincts, he is certainly referring to the Acropolis monuments, and arguing that the city as a whole above, that he was probably the proponent of the Middle Long Wall (Pl. Grg. 455e) and the epistates of the chryselephantine statue (Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 121) as well as, maybe, of the Lyceum (Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 37). More doubtful are later claims that Pericles was the epistates of the Parthenon and the Eleusinian Telesterion (Strab. 9.1.12, C 395) and the Odeion (Plut. Per. 13.9). On this, see also Marginesu 2010, 82-83. 37 Samons 2016, 99-100, sympathizes with the awkward position of Pericles’ opponents, for whom it must have been challenging to find good arguments to antagonize such a popular measure as the building program. 38 Cratinus’ simultaneous reference to the Odeion and the ostracism (fr. 73 K.-A. = Plut. Per. 13.10) may lend credibility to the tradition according to which the issue of the building program took center stage in connection with the vote on the ostracism. 39 θυσίας δὲ καὶ ἱερὰ καὶ ἑορτὰς καὶ τεμένη – γνοὺς ὁ δῆμος ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τέ ἐστιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν πενήτων θύειν καὶ εὐωχεῖσθαι καὶ ἵστασθαι ἱερὰ καὶ πόλιν οἰκεῖν καλὴν καὶ μεγάλην, ἐξηῦρεν ὅτῳ τρόπῳ ἔσται ταῦτα. θύουσιν οὖν δημοσίᾳ μὲν ἡ πόλις ἱερεῖα πολλά· ἔστι δὲ ὁ δῆμος ὁ εὐωχούμενος καὶ διαλαγχάνων τὰ ἱερεῖα. 122 CRISTINA CARUSI paid for them, while the demos, which he understands in the restricted sense of the popular masses, enjoyed them. In his opinion, since the individual members of the demos were too poor to erect such buildings at their own expense, the democratic regime, which he believed intended to promote exclusively the interest of the popular masses, gave them the advantage of enjoying those monuments without having to pay for them 40. Regardless of whether the city paid for the monuments with the League’s tribute, or by means of domestic taxes and revenues, from the Old Oligarch’s viewpoint such buildings appeared as just another sign of the oppressive rule of the poor and worthless citizens over the wealthy and well-born among the Athenians and the allies, whom he depicted as bearing the financial weight of a demos living beyond its means. Furthermore, knowing how he despised those citizens who were not part of the demos and yet had chosen to have a political career in a democratic city 41, it is not difficult to understand why our author, and certain quarters of the Athenian citizenry with him, felt so outraged by Pericles and his building program. Bibliography Ameling W. (1985), Plutarch, Perikles 12-14, «Historia» 34, 47-63. Andrewes A. (1978), The opposition to Pericles, «JHS» 98, 1-8. Banfi A. (1999), I processi contro Anassagora, Pericle, Fidia ed Aspasia e la questione del «circolo di Pericle»: note di cronologia e di storia, «AIIS» 16, 3-85. Beschi L. (1979), L’Atene periclea, in Storia e civiltà dei Greci, dir. R. Bianchi Bandinelli, IV. La Grecia nell’età di Pericle. Le arti figurative, Milano, 557-630. Bodei Giglioni G. (1973), Lavori pubblici e occupazione nell’antichità classica, Bologna. Boersma J.S. (1970), Athenian building policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningen. Camp J.M. (2001), The archaeology of Athens, New Haven - London. Cassio A.C. (1982), Arte compositiva e politica in Aristofane: il discorso di Ermete nella Pace (603-648), «RFIC» 110, 22-44. 40 See Marr, Rhodes 2008, 112-115. See Serra 2018, 127 and 131, for the juxtaposition of the term τεμένη with the phrase πόλιν οἰκεῖν καλὴν καὶ μεγάλην evoking the magnificent Periclean buildings. The much-debated issue of the pamphlet’s date is not immediately relevant here, since the date of composition and the dramatic date may differ sensibly from each other. 41 [Xen.] Ath. Resp. 2.20: «Now I forgive the demos themselves for their democracy. For one has to forgive anyone for looking after himself. But whoever is not a member of the demos, and yet has chosen to have a political life in a democratic city rather than an oligarchic one, has deliberately set himself to act unjustly, and has realized that it is easier for a man who is wicked to escape notice in a democratically governed city than it is in an oligarchic one». ATHENIANS’ VIEWS OF «PERICLES’ BUILDING PROGRAM» 123 Chambers J.T. (1975), The fourth-century Athenians’ view of their fifth-century empire, «PP» 30, 177-191. Di Cesare R. (2015), La città di Cecrope. Ricerche sulla politica edilizia cimoniana ad Atene, Atene - Paestum. Erdas D. (2002), Cratero il Macedone. Testimonianze e frammenti, Tivoli. Falaschi E. (2012), L’artista alla sbarra: il processo a Fidia. Distorsioni storiche, invenzioni letterarie, in Arte-Potere: forme artistiche, istituzioni, paradigmi interpretativi, a cura di M. Castiglione e A. Poggio, Milano, 207-225. Fantasia U. (2003), Tucidide. La guerra del Peloponneso, Pisa. Frost F.J. (1964), Pericles and Dracontides, «JHS» 84, 69-72. Giovannini A. (1990), Le Parthénon, le trésor d’Athéna et le tribut des alliés, «Historia» 39, 129-148. Gomme A.W. (1956), A historical commentary on Thucydides, II, Oxford. Holwerda D. (1982), Scholia in Aristophanem, II 2. Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Pacem, Groningen. Kallet-Marx L. (1989), Did tribute fund the Parthenon?, «ClAnt» 8, 252-266. Kallet L. (2005), Wealth, power, and prestige: Athens at home and abroad, in The Parthenon: from antiquity to the present, ed. by J. Neils, Cambridge, 35-65. Mansfeld J. (1980), The chronology of Anaxagoras’ Athenian period and the date of his trial, II. The plot against Pericles and his associates, «Mnemosyne» 33, 17-95. Marginesu G. (2010), Gli epistati dell’Acropoli: edilizia sacra nella città di Pericle, 447/6-433/2 a.C., Atene - Paestum. Marr J.L., Rhodes P.J. (2008), The ‘Old Oligarch’. The Constitution of the Athenians attributed to Xenophon, Oxford. Mossé C. (2005), Périclès. L’inventeur de la démocratie, Paris. Musti D. (1981), L’economia in Grecia, Roma - Bari. Olson S.D. (1998), Aristophanes. Peace, Oxford. O’Sullivan L. (2009), The regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317-307 BCE. A philosopher in politics, Leiden. Parmeggiani G. (2011), Eforo di Cuma. Studi di storiografia greca, Bologna. – (2014), The causes of the Peloponnesian War: Ephorus, Thucydides and their critics, in Between Thucydides and Polybius: the golden age of Greek historiography, ed. by G. Parmeggiani, Washington, 117-130. Powell A. (1995), Athens’ pretty face: anti-feminine rhetoric and fifth-century controversy over the Parthenon, in The Greek world, ed. by A. Powell, London - New York, 245-270. Prandi L. (1977), I processi contro Fidia, Aspasia, Anassagora e l’opposizione a Pericle, «Aevum» 51, 10-26. Samons L.J., II (2000), Empire of the Owl. Athenian imperial finances, Stuttgart. – (2016), Pericles and the conquest of history: a political biography, Cambridge. Schepens G. (2007), Tucidide ‘in controluce’. La guerra del Peloponneso nella storiografia greca del quarto secolo a.C., in Il dopoguerra nel mondo greco. Politica, propaganda, storiografia, a cura di L. Santi Amantini, Roma, 57-99. Serra G. (2018), Pseudo-Senofonte. Costituzione degli Ateniesi, con un saggio di L. Canfora, Milano. Shear T.L. Jr. (2016), Trophies of victory. Public building in Periklean Athens, Princeton. Stadter P.A. (1989), A commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles, Chapel Hill - London.