² ‘τὸ δ’ ἄχνυμαι φθόνον ἀμειβόμενον τὰ καλά ἔργα’, Pind. Pyth. vii 15, presumably of Megakles' ostracism in 486 BC, though Prof. Willemsen's ostraka are inscribed with better reasons for that event. Alkibiades commissioned one pinax showing Olympia and Pythia crowning him (his Olympic victory was 416), and another showing himself seated in the lap of Nemea; while these pleased some, he was censured by older citizens as tyrannical and lawless: these panels were apparently private, and at least are not said to have been inscribed with his name (Plut. Alc. xvi 5, Athen, ‘xii 534d, Paus. i 22.7). The democratic penchant for dining on fattened prostatai already is visible in Aristoph. Eq. 1125–40 (produced 424), but this presumably refers only to politicians and ostracism. For the canonical lists of benefactors betrayed by the Demos see Plato, Gorg. 515d–517a, with Dodds ad loc.; Philostr. Ep. 39 Hercher; Aristeid. xlvi p.241–243 Dind. (vol. ii) and scholia ad loc. (vol. iii); and generally, Plut, de exil. (Mor. 599–607).

³ Of the pottery of the period of the Persian wars, Tonio Hölscher adds that ‘Charakteristische Einzelszenen, wie sie das Marathongemälde in der Stoa Poikile zeigte, fehlen auf den Vasen. Auch lassen sich nirgends einzelne Personen erkennen, weder durch Namensbeischrift noch durch ihre Stellung. Die Kämpfe werden anonym zwischen Griechen und Persern ausgefochten’. Hölscher, T., Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Würzburg 1976Google Scholar = Beiträge zur Archäologie vi) 45. For other allusions to specific battles see Barrett, A. A. and Vickers, M., ‘The Oxford Brygos cup reconsidered’, JHS xcviii (1978) 21Google Scholar.

⁴ To the bibliography in Brunnsaker, S., The Tyrant-slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes² (Stockholm 1971Google Scholar), and in T. Hölscher (n.3) 85–88, and Schuchhardt, W.-H. and Landwehr, C., ‘Statuenkopien der Tyrannenmörder-Gruppe’, JdI ci (1986) 85–126Google Scholar, add Hudeczek, E., ‘Theseus und die Tyrannenmörder’, JOEAI 1 (1972–1975) 134–49Google Scholar; Chr. Kardara, Καταλύσις τῆς τυραννíδος καὶ ἀφηρισμὸς τῶν τυραννοκτόνων (Athens 1978); and the interpretative essay by Fehr, B., Die Tyrannentöter, oder: kann Man der Demokratie ein Denkmai setzen? (Frankfurt 1984Google Scholar). In 1949 Beazley published the inscriptions [ΑΡΜ]ΟΔΙΟΣ, ΙΠΠ[Α]ΡΧΟΣ and (probably from the reverse) ΠΑΝΤ|ΘΕΟΣ or fragments of a skyphos in Gela, , ‘Death of Hipparchos’, JHS lxviii (1948) 26–28Google Scholar.

⁵ Louvre G197, ARV² 238.1, Add.² 201; Hölscher (n.3) 233 n.63 suggests that because the Rape of Antiope is shown on side B, the amphora dates to c.499, the period of the Ionian revoll and Athenian landing in Ionia; this dating generally is followed (e.g., Shapiro, H.A., AJA xcii [1988] 379Google Scholar), to which one may add the suggestion that the Athenian burning of Sardes in 499 is behind the image of Kroisos' pyre on A. Devambez once ventured a date of 476/5, on grounds that the amphora is archaising and reflects the historical occasion on which the Persian governor of Eion immolated himself, his family and servants when his town fell to Kimon (Hdt. vii. 107): ‘Sui l'amphore de Crésus, au Louvre’, BABesch. xxix (1954) 16–19. For dating Eion's destruction to Spring, 476, see Delorme, J., ‘Sur la date du siège d'Éion par Cimon’, Mélanges offerts à Michet Labrousse (Toulouse 1986) 1–9Google Scholar.

⁶ Hamburg 1981.173, Circle of the Triptolemos Painter (Schauenburg), bibliography in Pinney, G. Ferrari, ‘For the heroes are at hand’, JHS civ (1984) 181–3Google Scholar. One may at least mention here four other ‘historical’ representations on vases, all problematical: the bf. neck-amphora Munich 1517, with a charioteer named [Α]ΛΚΜ[Ε]ΟΝ, ‘that is, Alkmeon the son of Megakles, the first Athenian to win the chariot-race at Olympia, 592 B.C.’ according to Beazley, ABV 401.6 and AE 1953/54 vol. i. 204; ARV² 1039.6, fr. rf. bell-kr. Erlangen 707 by the Peleus Painter, a dancing dwarf named [ΗΙΠΠΟ]ΚΛΕ|ΔΕΣ, Hölscher (n.3) 256 n.418; ARV² 1032.61, Add.² 318, rf. hydria Naples 3232 by Polygnotos, with ‘Spartan’ dancers and auliste ΕΛΠ|ΝΙΚΗ, showing an incident (surely unlikely) in Kimon's house, according to Hölscher (n.3) 250 n.331. On connecting the invasion of Lemnos to the inscription ΜΙΛΤΙΑΔΕΣ ΚΑΛΟΣ on Paseas' rf. plate Oxford 310 (ARV² 163.8, Para. 337, Add.² 182) see Pemberton, E., ‘An early red-figured calyx-krater from ancient Corinth’, Hesp. lvii (1988) 232–234Google Scholar. I omit mythological vase depictions that cannot show an historical moment except by ‘reflection’, e.g.² 1029.21, Para. 442, Add. ² 317, a rf. bell-kr. Ferrara T.411 by Polygnotos, with the names ‘Dolope’, ‘Peisianassa’. Presumably in this class is a pointed amphora by the Copenhagen Painter in a private collection, personifying ‘Strymon’ among other geographical deities (e.g., Okeanos, Nilos), perhaps referring to Kimon's victories in the region: Cahn, H., ‘Okeanos, Strymon und Atlas auf einer rotfigurigen Spitzamphora’, Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on ancient Greek and related pottery, Copenhagen 1987 (Copenhagen 1988) 107–16Google Scholar, to be published further by Erika Simon. I also omit here discussion of vases falling under the rubric ‘propaganda’: e.g., the Herakles-Peisistratos equation: Shapiro, H. A., Art and cult under the tyrants in Athens (Mainz 1989) 15, 157–163Google Scholar (contra); Boardman, J., ‘Herakles, Peisistratos, and the unconvinced’, JHS cix (1989) 158–9Google Scholar (pro). One also must mention Boardman's theory that the cavalcade on the Parthenon frieze depicts the heroized dead of Marathon: ‘The Parthenon frieze—another view’, in Höckmann, U., Krug, A., Festschrift für Frank Brommer (Mainz 1982) 39–49Google Scholar, ‘The Parthenon frieze’, in Berger, E., Parthenon-Kongress (Basel 1984) 210–15Google Scholar, 412–13 (notes).

⁷ The Harmodios skolion, PMC 894; Kroisos' Hyperboreans, Bacchylides iii 59, an epinician of 468 BC.

⁸ The Tyrannicide-oinochoe from Dexileos' private burial seems an exceptional use of an historical moment of 514 to characterize the patriotism of another ‘heroic’ death in 394, but if the Tyrannicides were considered apotheosized heroes rather than men the symbolism would be no different from that of grave offerings displaying other heroes like Theseus or Heraktes. Rf. oinochoe frr., Boston MFA 98.936: Vermeille, E., ‘Five vases from the grave precinct of Dexileos’, DAIJ lxxxv (1970) 94–111Google Scholar.

⁹ E.g., Louvre G138, a rf. cup by the Triptolemos Painter naming eighteen males (originally more) in procession with marshal and spectators: initiation of ephebes into a phratry? (ARV² 365.61, 1580, 1596, 1606, 1648, Add.² 182); or Paris Bibl. Nat. 523, rf. cup ‘akin to early Onesimos’ naming at least nineteen athletes, ARV² 316.4, 1561, 1564, 1604, 1645, Para. 358, Add.² 214, La cité des Images (Lausanne 1984) 36 (1). It also is noteworthy that the persons shown on white-ground funerary lekythoi are anonymous, as Bazant, J. notes. Les citoyens sur les vases athéniens (Prague 1985) 67Google Scholar, citing E. Pottier, Étude sur les lécythes blancs attiques à représentations funéraires (Paris 1883) 114–116.

¹⁰ ‘Wie ein Ephebe’, Hauser. The Penelope Painter seems not to use ‘infibulation’ elsewhere, and binding the prepuce appears a practice alien also to depictions of gods and Giants in Gigantomachies. Rather than seeing in this practice a ‘sign of submission’ (the painter's satyr carrying the Basilinna's [?] parasol is not ‘infibulated’, skyphos Berlin 2589), it simply may be what men wore occasionally when doing navvy work: an ‘infibulated’ male is shown drawing water on side B of a skyphos by the Zephyros Painter c.460–450 (hard work, whether the figures are slaves or athletes preparing their own palaistra): Lezzi-Hafter, A., in Bloesch, H., Greek vases from the Hirschmann collection (Zürich 1982) 80–81Google Scholar #39 (A,B); La cité des images (Mont-sur-Lausanne 1984) 88–89 (A,B); Bonfante, L., ‘Nudity as a costume in classical art’, AJA xciii (1989) 555Google Scholar. 557 fig. 4 (A); also Herakles wielding an axe on Louvre G210, ARV² 647.18, Add.² 275, and two stag-hunters on the neck of amphora Louvre G343, Niobid Painter ARV² 600.17, Add.² 266.

¹¹ Cf. the similar dividing-line, clearly a spear, on a Vatican skyphos by the Lewis Painter, thought to be the Penelope Painter's teacher, ARV² 974.28, 1676.

¹² ‘… measuring his gaze level, as when the staff of the architect moving along his line is set erect …’ fr. 474 Kannicht: TGrF iv (Göttingen 1977) 384. Other translations are possible, but cannot ignore the specialized meaning of ἴσον as ‘level’: (e.g.) ‘measuring a glance to equal my own, as a carpenter's rule is kept straight while he moves along the line’, Ellis (quoted by Kannicht); see further A. Orlandos, J. Travlos, λεξικόν ἀρχιτεκτονικῶν ὁρῶν (Athens 1986) s.v. ‘στάθμη’, ‘κσνών’, ‘τέκτων’. On the line carried, cf. CVA France 15 Petit Palais #318, pl. 18.7 (ARV² 1068.20, Barclay Painter): a woman ties her himation using a red cord with three balls at each end, clearly holding its threads from unravelling.

¹³ Jacoby, FGrH 330 Amelesagoras F 1, Comm. 601.

¹⁴ Jacoby FGrH 330 F 1, Comm. 602. Kallimachos (fr. 260. 17 Pf.) is the source of the ‘Achaian’ reference, presumably from ‘Amelesagoras’; Jacoby allows that Attic Pallene may be meant, which opens the door to the ‘Pallantidai’. Sophokles (fr. 24 Kannicht [n.12]) seems alone in calling the sons of Attic Pallas Giants, but the tale of these fifty Pallantidai, killed by Theseus, depends upon their never reaching Athens or the Akropolis, and carries specific geographic aitia for other parts of Attika; cf. Jacoby on 328 Philochoros F 108 Comm. n.11.

¹⁵ Jacoby, FCrH 1 Hekataios F 127.

¹⁶ So Jacoby, FGrH 328 Philochoros F 99–100; cf. 323 Kleidemos F 16, Comm. 73.

¹⁷ FGrH 323 F 16; 328 F 99–101; 477 F 7.

¹⁸ Allowing that the Pelasgoi were equated with the Tyrrhenians specifically in the Akropolis wall tradition, as by Kallimachos: Τυρσηνῶν τείχισμα πελασγικὸν εἶχέ με γαῖα (Kaliím, fr. 97 Pf.). The willingness of Athenians to equate the two is much discussed, e.g. Jacoby at FGrH 328 Philochoros F 99–100, Comm. 410, but Tyrsenoi were not confused with Giants.

¹⁹ As if from ἀργός; ‘Argolas’ is attested, meaning merely ‘from the city of ᾌργος’, Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (Paris 1983 [1968]Google Scholar) s.v. ‘ἀργóς’.

²⁰ Cf. Beazley's description of Louvre G372 at ARV² 1300.4, ‘Building of the wall of the Akropolis: A, Athena, and a Giant (GIGAS) as λιθαγωγός; B, the ἐπίσκοπος Philyas (ΦΙΛΥΑΣ) and the architect’, a bolder description than those drafted earlier in Attische Vasenmaler des rotfigurigen Stils (Tübingen 1925) and ARV¹ (Oxford 1942).

²¹ See also Schefold, K., ‘Texte et image à l'époque archaique grecque’, Texte et image: actes du colloque international de Chantilly (Paris 1984) 41–52Google Scholar.

²² See Haskell, F., ‘The Baron d'Hancarville’, in Oxford, China and Italy, writings in honor of Sir Harold Acton on his eightieth birthday (Florence 1984) 177–91Google Scholar.

²³ For a description of scene-placement of east-frieze sculpture, see Tölle-Kastenbein, R., ‘Parthenon-Ostfries: Komposition-Entwurf-Planung’, Parthenon-Kongress Basel (Basel 1984) 249Google Scholar; on the peplos, see Schäfer, T., ‘Diphroi und Peplos auf dem Ostfries des Parthenon’, MDAI cii (1987) 185–212Google Scholar. See also Pinney, G. Ferrari, ‘Pallas and Panathenaea’, Proceedings of the third symposium on ancient Greek and related pottery (Copenhagen 1988) 405–77Google Scholar.

²⁴ Athena's pyrrhic was imitated by later Athenians in her honor (other inventors are named in non-Attic traditions): Aristoph., Nub. 989 & schol.; Plato, Leg. 796B where the subject is mimesis. Asterios: Aristotle or Theophrastos in the curious miscellany æPeplos' fr. 637 Rose. Her normal opponent is ‘Enkelados’ from c.550 BC at least: cup, Copenhagen 13966: Beazley, Para. 48, Add.² 33, Carpenter, T., Dionysian imagery in archaic Greek art (Oxford 1986) 61Google Scholar. But earlier she had opponent Giants of other names, like the three named on the dinos Malibu 81.AE.211 (second quarter of the 6th c), Moore, M. B., ‘Giants at the Getty’, Greek vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum ii (Malibu 1985Google Scholar = Occasional papers on antiquities iii) 21–40.

²⁵ The single exception: Gigas, son of Hermes and Hiereia and father of Ischenos, named in Tzetzes' schol, to Lye, Alex. 42; not an Athenian in any case, and Tzetzes often relied on memory when without his books.

²⁶ Cf. especially two amphoras by the Swing Painter: Copenhagen 3672 (imitation Panath.), ABV 307.58, Add.² 82, and Taranto inv. 20.272, ABV 306.36, Add.² 81, Böhr, E., Die Schaukelmakr (Mainz 1982) pls. 5Google Scholar, 7; also the bf. amphora Würzburg 180, Vian, Rép. (n.1) pl. 33 #316; rf. kalyx-krater, unattrib., Florence 4226, Marzi, M. G. in Studi di antichitα in onore di Guglielmo Maetzke iii (Rome 1984) 641Google Scholar, pl. 1; rf. hydria (kalpis), Bastis coll., Syleus P. ARV² 43, Para. 350, Buitron-Oliver, D. in Antiquities from the collection of Christos G. Bastis (New York 1987) 280–1Google Scholar; rf. cup, Paris, Bibl. Nat. 573, ARV² 417.1, Add.² 234; rf. cup Berlin 2293, ARV² 429.21, Add.² 236; rf. column-krater Vienna 688, ARV 2 255.2, Add.² 203.

²⁷ Side B therefore does not illustrate Phlegeians or Giants in ‘Frohndienst’ staring in wonder at the first plumbline, Athena about to teach them ‘die Werke des Friedens’: Rossbach (n.1) 392, Buschor (n.1) 300. Compare the ‘wild gaze’ and hair of the dancer looking down at his feet on the skyphos London E149; of the male at the boy on Athens 17498; of Electra's servant at Agamemnon's tomb on Copenhagen inv. 597; of the balding male on the fragment in Adria B559. On Chiusi 1831 (A) beardless Telemachos waits with Penelope, (B) Odysseus returns as a disheveled beggar and Telemachos is bearded as Homer requires; on Berlin 2588 Odysseus, now neatly tonsured, exterminates similar suitors.

²⁸ The form is unknown to Landfester, E., Das griechische Nomen φίλος und seine Ableitungen (Meisenheim 1966Google Scholar) and Pierre Chantraine (n.19), s.v. ‘φίλος’.

²⁹ Bechtel, F., Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (Halle 1917) 52Google Scholar.

³⁰ Bechtel, F., Die attischen Frauennamen (Göttingen 1902) 4Google Scholar n.3.

³¹ Kirchner, J., Prosopographia Attica (Berlin 1902Google Scholar) nos.14229–14248; Sundwall, J., Nachträge zur Prosopographia Attica (Helsingfors 1910) 162–163Google Scholar. One may note that the solution ‘Phileas’ above relies on an auditory mistaking of the word upsilon for epsilon. Otherwise it may be noted that erroneous substitution of Y for E is very rare, if extant at all: Teodorsson, S.-T., The phonemic system of the Attic dialect 400–340 BC (Lund 1974) 107Google Scholar finds only a single instance in writings of all types from earliest times to the third century inclusive, ΥΠΕΡΓΥΡΩΜΕΝΟΣ (IG II² 1652.14, 333/2 BC); but L. Threatte notes that if this is not a conflation of ἐπαργ- and ὑπαργ-, it may be the modern copyist's mistake (Fourmont): Threatte, L., The grammar of Attic inscriptions i (Berlin 1980) 163Google Scholar.

³² Threatte notes that after 480 confusion of upsilon with iota seems confined to cases of assimilation or metathesis, and in inscriptions shows a low standard of orthography, Threatte (n. 31) 261; on this painter's iota for upsilon, ib. 484, omega for omicron 47. The painter may be relieved of a charge of ‘low standards’ by noting that ‘Odysseus’ is in any case a name showing extraordinary orthographic variation.

³³ Digamma was kept in the Attic alphabet ‘well into the second half of the fifth century’, but Attic dialect did not have the sound: Immerwahr, H. R., Attic script, a survey (Oxford 1990) 140–1Google Scholar. For further orthographic troubles see also Copenhagen inv. 597, ARV² 1301.5 (side A), Para. 475, Add.² 360: on the tombstone the name ‘Agamemnon’ is begun in broad letters, then crammed into and under the space remaining (imitating boustrophedon?). One of several inscriptions on the skyphos in Matera (n.1) seems a jumble (unpublished except in photographs): side A, in white, ALE[‥3‥]A. Berlin 2589, ARV² 1301.7, Para. 475, Add.² 360, has two inscriptions illegible out of four, but they perhaps were not so originally. The most frequent inscription is the usual ‘καλός’. On a skyphos-fragment in Gela (ARV² 1689.22 bis) the inscription reported (NSc. 1960, 237 left) as ΟΜ]ḤΡΟΣ is a graffito not certainly by the Penelope Painter.

³⁴ A particular exception is the tree of the Athens/Samos decree of 405, the present copy erected 403/2, showing Hera and Athena clasping hands with, to far right, probably Athena's tree but with ‘pollarded’ limbs perhaps symbolizing the state of her Empire in 402. The horticultural practice of pollarding prunes older, unproductive branches severely to force from their stumps young, vigorous growth and better yield, old trees being thus renewed. The stele: Boardman, J., Greek sculpture, the classical period (London 1985Google Scholar) fig. 177.

³⁵ On general representation of trees in Greek art, Ridgway, B. Sismondo, Fifth century styles in Creek sculpture (Princeton 1981) 134Google Scholar n.14. As for dead trees: Erysichthon's poplar is sometimes dead, presumably because he has just killed it: LIMC ‘Erysichthon I’.1, bell-krater, Stockholm Nat. Mus. 6 (c.450/40); ‘Erysichthon I’.3, bell-krater, Matera Mus. Nat. 9975; generally, Shapiro, H. A., ‘The iconography of Erysichthon. Kallimachos and his sources’, Akten des XIII. int. Kongr. für klass. Arch., Berlin 1988Google Scholar (Berlin 1990) 529–30, pl. 83. Nor would a dead tree be misplaced in an Anodos of Kore: Trendall, LCS 14.1. Pompeii's Alexander mosaic shows a leafless tree amid the battle (id. n.14); add the leafless tree in the hunting scene over ‘Philip's Tomb’ at Vergina: see (e.g) Elvira, M. A., ‘Anotaciones sobre la caceria pintada en la tumba de Filipo’, AEA lviii (1985) 19–40Google Scholar, figs. 1–2.

³⁶ Some representations of the tree in the Pandroseion (dates are approximate, references are to Uta Kron, Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen [Berlin 1976 = DAIA Mitt. Beih., v]):

550 ‘Olive Tree Pediment’, Akrop. sculpt. 52: Boardman, J., Greek sculpture, the archaic period (London 1978Google Scholar) fig. 198; 520–510 rf amphora, unattributed, LIMC Athena #617, M&M 1980 #84: (?); 500 Akr. 433, wg./rf. cup frr., Kron 254, pi.8.3 (see n.40); 480 Louvre G233, rf. pelike Syleus P. ARV² 251.26 (see no.50); 480 Frankfurt STV7, rf. cup, ARV¹ 386, 1689, Add.² 229, Manner Brygos P., Kron 252, pl.6; 470 Copenhagen 7603, bf. Ionian (?) kantharos, Kron 251, pl.3.6; 460 Agora P8959, rf. pelike frr., ARV² 486.34, 1655, Para. 379.34 Hermonax, Kron 257; 450 Akrop. 396, rf. cup frr., Penthesilea P. (?), Kron 254, pl. 8.1; 440–430 Louvre G372, rf. skyphos ARV² 1300.4, Penelope P. (n.1).

438 Athens, W. Pediment of the Parthenon, contest Athena/Poseidon; 430 Harvard 60.345, rf- bell-kr., ARV² 1115.30, Add. 2 331 Hephaistos P., Kron 261, pl. 12; 420/10 Cleveland CM A 82.142, rf. sq. lek, Meidias, P., BCMA lxx (1983Google Scholar) figs. 8, 13–15; Burn, L., The Meidias Painter (Oxford 1987) pls. 11Google Scholar, 12; all Moriai? 410 Athens, pyxis, Meidias, P. or Manner, , BCH cix (1985) 762Google Scholar fig.9; AR 1985, 9; AD 31 (1976) B’, 30, pl.35; L. Burn, Meidias P. 100, M 30; 410 Palermo, rf. calyx-kr. ARV² 1339.3, Add.² 367 near Talos P., Kron 250, pl.4.1; 409/8 Louvre Ma 831, Treasurer relief, Kron 209, pl.29; 403/2 Acropolis 1333, Athens/Samos decree (n.34).

400 Akrop. 594 pyxis-cover frr., ARV² 1341.1 Mikion P., Kron 261; 400 Adolfseck 77, calyx-kr., ARV² 1346.1, Add.² 368, Kekrops P., Kron 250, pl.5.1; 380 Malibu 77.AE.93, Apulian calyx-kr., Black Fury Group., Mayo, M., ed., Art of South Italy (Richmond, Va. 1982) 88Google Scholar; 355 Madrid 11095, Campanian bell-kr., LIMC iii Dionysos no. 494; 350 St Petersburg KAB 6a, hydria (Kerch), Schefold, Göttersage (n.1) fig.153; A.D.150 Ostia 148, Berlin (Perg. Mus.) SK 912, architectural frieze, Schefold, Göttersage (n.1) figs. 56, 159–60; Roman imp., Paris, Cab. Med. sardonyx cameo, contest Athena/Poseidon, Richter, G.M., Engraved gems of the Greeks and Romans ii (New York/London 1971Google Scholar) no. 65 from which scene it becomes the tree of Eden: Guiliano, A., ‘… principes gentium sum creati’, Prospettiva liii/lvi (1988/1989) 80–82Google Scholar.

³⁷ For an attempt to estimate the tree's true size from architectural remains see Bundgaard, J.A., Parthenon and the Mycenaean city on the heights (Copenhagen 1976) 85–102Google Scholar.

³⁸ On the position of the tree, FCrH 328 Philochoros (= D.H. Din. 3); Apollod, iii 178. In inscriptions always ‘Aglauros’, in literature ‘Agraulos’: LIMC i ‘Aglauros’ p. 283 (1981, U. Kron).

³⁹ Detienne, M., ‘L'olivier: un mythe politico-religieux’, RHR clxxviii (1970) 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Palermo, near the Talos P. (n.36); Adolfseck 77, Kekrops P. (n.36); Acr. 433, attributed to the Brygos, P. by Williams, D., ‘An oinochoe in the British Museum and the Brygos Painter's work on 3 white ground’, JBerlMus. xxiv (1982) 32Google Scholar fig. 14; cf. ARV¹ 216.10, ‘Manner of the Panaitios Painter’; Meidias Painter's lekthos. Neils, J., ‘A Greek nativity by the Meidias Painter’, BCMA LXX (1981) 274–302Google Scholar (n.36).

⁴¹ The Moriai were originally suckers from the Akropolis tree (Suda, s.v. Μορίαι) and were protected by a commission appointed by the Areopagus (Lys. vii 25). See further, Jordan, B., Perlin, J., ‘On the protection of sacred groves’, Studies presented to Sterling Dow (Durham, N.C. 1984) 153–159Google Scholar; Jacoby on Istros, FCrH 334 F 30; Plato, Menex. 238a implies that the Akropolis tree was the Ur-olive, parent to all others, not the usual story.

⁴² Schol., Soph. O.C. 702: ‘τὸ μὲν. τὸ φυτὸν τῆς ἐλαίας’. φυτὸν is not in Sophokles' text but may refer to ‘sucker’, ‘sprout’ as well as ‘tree’.

⁴³ See Papanikolaou, A., ‘Νεότερες παρατηρήσεις γιὰ τὸ ἀμυντικό σύστημα τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως κατὰ τὴ περίοδο τῶν ἑλλενοπερσικών πολέμων’, AD xxxiv (1979 [1986]) 217–227Google Scholar, pl. 84–9: fortifications of the 480's were built along the north wall, across from the NW corner of the old temple of Athena's sekos with its tree (the remains of these fortification walls previously were thought to be either Pelasgian, or medieval or later). Also see Dontas, G., ‘The true Aglaurion’, Hesp. lii (1983) 48–63Google Scholar, pl. 13–15.

⁴⁴ Stevens, G. P., Caskey, L. D. et al., The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 125Google Scholar, 448 n.5; for a general attempt to describe the ‘Cimonian’ restoration see Holland, L. B., ‘Erechtheum papers’, AJA xxviii (1924) 402–425Google Scholar, cited with qualified approval by Caskey et al. (424 n.1). Fifth-century pottery was found next to deposits of undisturbed Helladic, no other pottery intervening: the blocks of these post-480 additions were laid directly on a ‘Helladic’ wall, and before the building of the Erechtheum walls proper, the foundations of the Pandroseion never were deep (ib., 125–127).

⁴⁵ Stevens, G. P., Paton, J. M., The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass. 1972) 455Google Scholar; Dörpfeld, W., ‘Der ursprüngliche Plan des Erechtheions’, AM xxix (1904) 101–7Google Scholar; Michaelis, A., ‘Die Zeit des Neubaus des Poliastempels in Athen’, AM xiv (1889) 362–3Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ The battle of Eurymedon is dated variously to 470/69, 466, and 461, Bayer, E., Heideking, J., Die Chronologie des perikleischen Zeilalters (Darmstadt 1975) 118–120Google Scholar. J. A. Bundgaard (n.37) 75–7 exceptionally dates the south wall after 447, and a part to 438. For ‘Kimonid’ work, e.g. perhaps a cella under the present temple of Athena Nike, see Bundgaard, J. A., ‘Le subjet de IG i² 24’, Mélanges helléniques offerts à Georges Daux (Paris 1974) 43–49Google Scholar, and Delvoye, Ch., ‘Art et politique à Athènes à l'époque de Cimon’, in Bingen, J., Le monde grec. Hommages à Claire Préaux (Brussels 1975) 802Google Scholar. But aside from problems of vasechronology, the olive shown on Louvre G372 excludes buildings other than the Pandroseion.

⁴⁷ Boersma, J., Athenian building policy from 561/0 to 405/4 BC (Groningen 1970Google Scholar = Scripta archaeologica groningana 4) 162.

⁴⁸ See Boersma (n.47) 177.

⁴⁹ Since the Moriai were left unharmed by Archidamos in 431 (FGrH 324 Androtion F 39, 328 Philochoros F 39) it seems unlikely that the skyphos was a piece bespoke by e.g. the commission overseeing the Moriai during the opening invasion of Attika in 431, or under King Pleistoanax in 445 who scarcely entered Attika (Thuc. ii 21).

⁵⁰ Cf. the pelike Louvre G233 (n.36, ARV² 251.26, Kristian Jeppesen, The theory of the alternative Erechtheion [Aarhus 1987 = Acta Jutlandica lxiii: 1, Humanities series 60] 46, fig. 14.), by the Syleus Painter who is conventionally dated 480 or slightly later. Side A shows Athena apparently carrying her olive tree in hand (leaves once painted in white): Athena rescuing her own tree in 479? Side B depicts a balding male with curved staff, similar to the figures on side B of the Penelope Painter's skyphos. Cf. also the Gigantomachy with Poseidon, rock, and Giant on a kalpis by the Syleus P. in the Bastis collection (n.26); on the Syleus Painter's ceramic sequence, Berge, L. in Moon, W., Berge, L., Greek vase-painting in Midwestern collections (Chicago 1979) 157Google Scholar, citing earlier bibliography.

⁵¹ Cf. Webster, T. B. L., Potter and patron in classical Athens (London 1972) 3Google Scholar.

⁵² Agraphoi nomoi, Thuc. ii 37.3, Dem. xxiv 5; the term refers not to vague moral belief but to the validity of ancient customs sanctified by habitual practice, Hirzel, R., Agraplos nomos (Leipzig 1903) 21Google Scholar. The relationship of ‘great men’ to initiating, and, in a sense, to using public monuments politically (e.g. the Stoa Poikile), and wider problems of modern historiography to which this question leads, are outside the purpose of this study.