Navigation – Plan du site
Études

Apollo, Ennodia, and fourth-century Thessaly*

C.D. Graninger
p. 109-124

Résumés

Cet article étudie la politique cultuelle du début du ive siècle en Thessalie, une période de stasis prolongée dans la région. Deux études de cas sont proposées. La première aborde l’expédition planifiée par Jason de Phères à Delphes en 370 et son impact potentiel sur l’identité thessalienne. La seconde étude reconstruit le rôle d’Ennodia au sein des tentatives des tyrans pour imposer leur hégémonie à la région.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • *  A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the Classical Ass (...)
  • 1  All dates BCE unless otherwise indicated.

1September 3, 404, the conventional date of Lykophron of Pherai’s successful battle against those opposing his designs on controlling Thessaly, marks in many traditional historiographies the first in a long series of military conflicts for leadership in Thessaly which so dominated the region in the early fourth century and illustrated so joylessly the Thessalian predilection for stasis.1 Xenophon’s abbreviated description of the event can be seen to stand at the beginning of such a historiography.

  • 2  Xenophon, Hellenica II, 3, 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.

Κατὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν περὶ ἡλίου ἔκλειψιν Λυκόφρων ὁ Φεραῖος, βουλόμενος ἄρξαι ὅλης τῆς Θετταλίας, τοὺς ἐναντιουμένους αὐτῷ τῶν Θετταλῶν, Λαρισαίους τε καὶ ἄλλους, μάχῃ ἐνίκησε καὶ πολλοὺς ἀπέκτεινεν.2

During that period at the time of an eclipse of the sun, Lykophron of Pherai, wishing to rule all of Thessaly, conquered in battle those Thessalians opposing him, Larisans and others, and he killed many.

  • 3  On the topic of Greek identity, see especially J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek antiquity, Cambri (...)

2The conflict that he depicts is eminently military in character, and the immediate consequences of this event are again conceived of in purely physical terms – “and he killed many”. But there is another layer of inchoate analysis even in Xenophon to which subsequent historiography has been less sensitive. Xenophon describes Lykophron’s aspira­tions in geographic terms (“wishing to rule all of Thessaly”) and the addition of the adjective ὅλης perhaps suggests that the Pheraian was already master of “some” Thessalian territory beyond his native city. This desire led to confronta­tion with inhabitants of this region (“Thessalians”), whose identity is immedia­tely clarified by an appositive phrase (“Larisans and others”). There is thus in this passage a profound elision of place and people, of city and region, which well captures another, non-military side of this period of Thessalian stasis. Lykophron is never heard from again, but the questions posed by his attempt at winning regional authority would linger. These wars were not simply a matter of who would rule Thessaly and how would he or they do it, but something still more fundamental: What was Thessaly? Perhaps more urgently, what did it mean to be Thessalian? Such questions are rarely so baldly and naively framed and, as history reminds us, do often enough admit of purely military solutions. But given the inherently discursive nature of identity, which is not primordial and static, but elective and evolving, there may be other answers to these questions – social-cultural, political, and, the topic of this paper, religious.3

3This essay explores the relationship between cult and regional identity in fourth-century Thessaly through two case studies. The first, squarely grounded in roughly contemporary literary evidence, concerns the appropriation of a panhellenic figure, Pythian Apollo, by Jason, tyrant of Pherai, tagos of the Thessalians, and his use of this divinity to build a Thessalian identity and therein to cement regional consensus supporting his rule. The second, based now on laconic or lacunose inscriptions, now again on late literary sources, explores an aggressive attempt, most likely by the tyrants of Pherai, to stake out an elect position for their city within this developing regional identity by shaping public discourse about a peculiarly Thessalian goddess, Ennodia. Where panhellenic Pythian Apollo was in some sense made a regional, Thessalian god through Jason’s actions, Ennodia, already a figure of regional prominence in the fourth century, was remade into a Pheraian goddess by the tyrants. While it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions about the relative success of each of these endeavors, the Thessalian nachleben of both figures may be illuminating. Philip II’s use of Pythian Apollo for a purpose similar to Jason’s less than two decades after the tagos’ planned procession to Delphi suggests strongly that this god continued to be a viable figure around which a Thessalian identity could be constructed. Ennodia’s fortunes were to be vastly different. The tyrants’ dis­course was influential, but successful outside of Thessaly alone. In central and southern Greece there is considerable evidence that a narrative of Ennodia’s Pheraian origins was current well into the Roman era. The effect within Thessaly was precisely opposite. While Ennodia’s connection with Pherai was ignored in the language of cult in the region, such an association was not easily forgotten and likely contributed to the goddess’ absence among the patron deities of the Thessalian League at the time of its refounding in the second century.

  1. Jason’s Procession to Delphi

  • 4  Xen., Hell.VI, 4, 29: ἐπιόντων δὲ Πυθίων παρήγγειλε μὲν ταῖς πόλεσι βοῦς καὶ οἶς καὶ αἶγας καὶ ὗς (...)

4By 370, less than thirty five years after Lykophron’s victory, Thessalian politics had stabilized. Following his appointment as tagos of the Thessalians in 375, Jason of Pherai was subsequently able to secure control over tetradic Thessaly and, in the aftermath of Leuctra, to win influence in perioikic Perrhaebia as well as the Spercheios valley. This expansion of power into central Greece was both a reminder of previous Thessalian glory and a potential harbinger of more adventurous policy in the near future. The capstone of this period of prosperity and ambition, symbolic of the broader transformation of regional politics, was to be the Pythian festival of 370. Xenophon describes the Thessalian preparations in some detail:4  

As the Pythian festival was drawing near, Jason ordered the cities to contribute cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs for the festival. And they said that he, despite asking very little from each city, had no less than one thousand cattle, and more than ten thousand of the other animals. He announced that there would even be a victory prize, a gold crown, for whichever city raised the most beautiful bull to be leader [of the procession] for the god.

  • 5  The recent Theban success at Leuctra and their subsequent emergence as a potential rival to Thessa (...)
  • 6  For an insightful reading of the pastoral realities of such a display (and the power which it conv (...)
  • 7  See J.K. Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece, Cambridge, MA, 19932 [1978], p. 240, who well des (...)

5The preparations for the festival reinforced Jason’s attempts to consolidate his recent territorial gains and to shore up his standing within the Thessalian heartland.5 The agonistic context is particularly distinctive. The tagos, perhaps recognizing the varying capacities of Thessalian communities to donate, wisely elected to make quality, not quantity, the decisive factor for the award of the gold crown. The passage nevertheless intimates that cities were informally competing with one another at the level of quantity as well: Jason’s modest demands were wildly and voluntarily exceeded – 1,000 cattle, 10,000 other animals.6 One therein glimpses the displacement of latent Thessalian interstate conflicts from the political and military sphere into the realm of cult. Of equal, if not greater importance, was the collective, Thessalian character of the theoria, and the final outcome of these preparations may have been some form of political or social unity momentarily performed in the language of cult.7

  • 8  Theotonium: IG IX 2, 257, dated to the fifth century; Larisa: IG IX 2, 588, undated. See also B. H (...)
  • 9  See D. Theocharis, “Χρονικά,” AD 16 B (1960), p. 175. A cult of Apollo Tempeitas is also attested (...)
  • 10  Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae, 12 (Mor., 293b-f) is the principal ancient source; cf. Stephanus By (...)
  • 11  A fifth-century dedication to Apollo Leschaios has been recovered from the chora of Larisa: IG IX (...)
  • 12  Sprawski, o.c. (n. 5), p. 123.
  • 13  See, e.g., P. Sánchez, L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes, Stuttgart, 2001, p. 466-471; F. Lef (...)

6The successful projection of this new Thessalian identity depended ultimately on the honorand, Pythian Apollo. The choice was appropriate for several reasons. He was a familiar god, as cults honoring him in a specifically Delphian aspect were prevalent in Thessaly.One notes, among others, a fifth-century cult of Apollo Delphaios at Theotonium and a cult of Apollo Pythios at Larisa.8 Moreover, the close relationship of Delphi and Thessaly was periodically demonstrated through the performance of the Septeria, an enneateric festival which reenacted the flight of Apollo to the Vale of the Tempe in northeastern Thessaly on the border with Pieria. In myth, after murdering the monster Python, who had been terrifying Delphi and environs, the archer god was polluted and in need of purification, which he obtained at the Tempe. In the Septeria of Delphian cult, a youth was pursued from Delphi to the Tempe after leading a group to set fire to a temporary edifice within the temenos of Apollo there. This youth and his group then fled the sanctuary, experienced labors of some sort, and eventually made their way to the Tempe, where a modest sanctuary of Apollo has been discovered.9 There the youth was purified and the attendant group assumed the character of an ersatz theoria by offering rich sacrifices to Apollo. Laurel was culled and conveyed back to Delphi where it would be used for Pythian victor crowns.10 Along the way, the group may have been entertained in the countryside of Larisa, as Apollo had been.11 The topography of this procession thus provided a powerful reminder of the linkage between Thessaly and Delphi in the sacred time of myth. S. Sprawski has made the attractive suggestion that the processional route used for the Septeria would also have been used by Jason’s theoria.12 Finally, Thessaly’s relationship with Pythian Apollo was mediated through the Delphian Amphictyony, an organization ostensibly grounded in ethnē rather than poleis.13 This underlying cultic reality, coupled with the collective, Thessalian character of the theoria, gave Jason an excellent opportunity to create an image of a Thessaly united under a Thessalian, as opposed to a Thessaly enslaved to a dynast from, for example, Pharsalos, Larisa, or Pherai.

  • 14  See G.A. Lehmann, “Thessaliens Hegemonie über Mittelgriechenland im 6. Jh. v. Chr.,” Boreas 6 (198 (...)

7Such a procession may also have had the added benefit of appealing to memories of Thessaly’s ragged, faded glory as a northern Greek power. Sources are fragmentary, but in the sixth century the Thessalians had exercised near hegemony over much of central Greece, including the Spercheios valley, Delphi, perhaps as far as Boiotia to the doorstep of Attica.14 While their stan­ding seems to have slipped somewhat over the course of the fifth century, the Thessalians still appear influential in the Spercheios valley at the time of the Peloponnesian War. The regional stasis of the late fifth and early fourth century had resulted in diminished Thessalian influence to the south. Their elect position within the Delphic Amphictyony, probably a relic of this earlier stage of dominance, was a tangible reminder of this brilliant chapter in their history.

  • 15  See Sprawski, o.c. (n. 5), p. 118-132.
  • 16  Diodorus Siculus, XVI, 35, 4-6.
  • 17  Diod. Sic., XVI, 37, 3; XVI, 38, 1.
  • 18  N.G.L. Hammond, G.T. Griffith and F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, Oxford, 1972-1989, vol. 2, (...)

8Jason never saw the fruit of his preparations. He was assassinated before his procession took place, and his ultimate intention toward Apollo’s sanctuary, southern Greece, and Persia quickly became fodder for conspiracy theorists, Delphic and otherwise.15 His epigones would be wildly divisive figures and regional stasis was renewed as familiar enemies like the Aleuads of Larisa again came to the fore after his death. For a moment, however, the potential of a unified Thessalian ethnos was real. Jason’s attempted redefinition of regional identity was not lost on another successful politician and general of the fourth century, Philip II of Macedon. The northern king, allied with a coalition of Thessalian states, fought a series of battles during the Third Sacred War against Onomarchos of Phokis and his Pheraian allies. Before the ultimate battle at Crocian Field in 352, Philip ordered his army to don crowns of laurel and encouraged them to fight as if avenging Apollo himself for the wrong done him by the Phokians. Victory was Philip’s.16 In the aftermath he negotiated a settlement whereby the last tyrants of Pherai and much of their army withdrew from Thessaly.17 Later that year, Philip likely won election as archon of the Thessalian League.18 While the Third Sacred War continued to be waged for several more years, Crocian Field ensured that Philip would play an ever more active role in central and southern Greek politics. But in sharper regional perspective, this battle was the final episode of Thessalian stasis in the fourth century and it is fitting that Delphian Apollo was again utilized to forge regional unity.

  1. Ennodia between Pherai and Thessaly

  • 19  Polyaenus, Stratagemata VIII, 43.
  • 20  The spelling of the goddess’ name varies between Ἐνοδία and Ἐννοδία. Cf. L. Dubois, “Zeus Tritodio (...)
  • 21  Stathmia: IG IX 2, 577, a Hellenistic dedication from Larisa; Korillos: ed. pr. B.G. Intzesiloglou(...)
  • 22  E.g., U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Der Glaube der Hellenen, Basel, 19562 [1931-1932], vol. 1, p. (...)
  • 23  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 104-133.
  • 24  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 100.
  • 25  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 268.

9According to Polyaenus, Cnopus, of the Codridae genos, was fighting with the Ionians at Erythrai after the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor.19 Cnopus received an oracle “to take as general from the Thessalians, the priestess of Ennodia” (στρατηγὸν παρὰ Θεσσαλῶν λαβεῖν τὴν ἱέρειαν τῆς Ἐνοδίας). The priestess, Chrysame, arrived and, through her mastery of herbs, cleverly poisoned the Erythraians; Cnopus led his army to victory. This curious bit of mythologizing provides an introduction to the topic of this paper’s second case study, a figure less familiar than Apollo – Ennodia. This distinctively Thessalian goddess’ name seems to mean “by the road” or “roadside” and may reflect a habitual location of her cult or perceived area of influence.20 She was worshipped throughout the region in a wide variety aspects, some mysterious (e.g., Stathmia, Korillos), some familiar (e.g., Patroa).21 Modern accounts of the goddess have tended to stress her chthonian features. These are paramount in her iconography, where she is regularly found on horseback, holding torches, and in the presence of dogs. Literary sources like Polyainos associate her with appropriate interests (the dead, witchcraft, etc.). Most strikingly, her early and important cult at Pherai appears to have arisen within a cemetery which had only recently gone out of use.22 The most trenchant recent interpretation of Ennodia in the Greek world has been provided by P. Chrysostomou, who collects all literary, epigraphic, and material evidence for her cult. He argues that while at root she was an awful, fear-inspiring goddess of roadsides and the dead, and with strong connections to ghosts, witchcraft and the occult, En­nodia later evolved over the course of the Classical period into a multidimensional goddess whose perceived spheres of influence were diverse, and included politics, kourotrophy, and earthquakes.23 More significant is the important hypothesis of Chrysostomou concerning the possible diffusion of Ennodia cult from Pherai: “The extension of her cult is chiefly due to migrant Pheraians who had settled for various reasons in other cities of Thessaly, by Thessalians who had settled in passing in Pherai and became acquainted with the goddess or who had private business with Pherai and became acquainted with the goddess, as well as by Thessalians abroad (Pheraians and others) who had settled in Macedonia and elsewhere… It is obvious that the growth of the military and political power of Pherai from the Archaic period and afterwards, but especially in the period of the tyrannies of Lykophron, Jason, Alexander and his successors (end of the fifth century to 344), favorably influenced the spread of her cult.”24 She became, according to Chrysostomou, “the national Thessalian goddess.”25

  • 26  On the diffusion of Ennodia cult, see also L. Robert, “Une déesse à cheval en Macédoine,” Hellenic (...)

10The late fifth and early fourth centuries do emerge as a period of transition for Ennodia in Thessaly, as Chrysostomou suggests, and on this front the goddess admits of comparison with Delphian Apollo; the nature and outcome of that transition remains in question, however. For, while Chrysostomou’s position represents the crystallization of a scholarly consensus that Ennodia cult originated in Pherai and was later diffused from there,26 the evidence for this view is not particularly strong. Such a perspective is based primarily on the early date of her cult in Pherai, which seems to have begun sometime in the eighth century, and the absence of any correspondingly early evidence from elsewhere in Thessaly, the earliest material (and epigraphic) evidence dating to the fifth century. The second point is the weaker of the two, as it rests on the assumption that absence of evidence is indeed in this case evidence of absence – always a risky proposition, especially in an area like Thessaly where excavation has often been more scattershot than systematic. Nevertheless, given the current state of evidence it is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Ennodia cult spread to other locations in Thessaly (and beyond) from Pherai. But historical diffusion of a cult does not necessarily require that there be historical memory of such an act, or that such origins would be advertised in a meaningful way in the performance of cult. Purely local factors more often than not would be decisive in determining how or even whether a cult’s origins would be recollected. One begins to shift at this point from the scientific analysis of physical artifacts to semiotic analysis of textual and iconographic remains, from realien to discourse.

  • 27  Pausanias, II, 10, 7: κομισθῆναι δὲ τὸ ξόανον λέγουσιν ἐκ Φερῶν.
  • 28  Paus., II, 23, 5: τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ οὗτοί φασιν ἐκ Φερῶν τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ κομισθῆναι.
  • 29  Paus., II, 23, 5: σέβουσι γὰρ καὶ Ἀργεῖοι Φεραίαν Ἄρτεμιν κατὰ ταὐτὰ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Σικυωνίοις.
  • 30  Hesychius s.v. Φεραία (ed. Schmidt IV [1965], p. 236): Ἀθήνησι ξενικὴ θεός. Artemis Pheraia is epi (...)

11Irrespective of the material evidence for Ennodia’s origins at Pherai, some such narrative was known already in antiquity. A pair of interesting passages in Pausanias details the transport of cult images of Artemis Pheraia, who must be an extra-Thessalian hypostasis of Ennodia, to two northern Peloponnesian cities. In Sikyon, Pausanias noted that there was a sanctuary of Artemis Pheraia on the road to the gymnasium. Locals in his time asserted that the goddess’ cult image had been brought from Pherai.27 Pausanias observed that there was a cult of Artemis Pheraia at Argos as well and here some Argives could claim that her cult image was transported there from Pherai.28 Just as these two locations shared common local narratives of the origins of their cult images of Artemis Pheraia, so too, according to Pausanias, was the character of her cult parallel in both Sicyon and Argos. The periegete further suggests that the Athenians had a cult of Artemis Pheraia and that this cult too resembled the Sikyonian and Argive versions.29 Pausanias did not discuss such a cult in his section on Attica, and although no such cult is otherwise attested in the region, Hesychius notes that a goddess Pheraia was a “foreign/strange” divinity at Athens who is most likely the Athenian goddess described by Pausanias as Artemis Pheraia.30 Given Hesychius’ testimony, it is probable that the Athenians, like the Sikyonians and Argives, maintained that their cult image had a Pheraian provenance. In sum, by the time of Pausanias’ writings at the very latest, there appears very clear evidence of a dominant Pheraian discourse of origins regarding Ennodia cult.

  • 31  Ed. pr. N. I. Giannopoulos, “Επιγραφαί Θεσσαλίας,” AD 10 (1926), p. 52, no. 4. The text printed ab (...)

12It is possible to follow a thread of this discourse from the second century CE into an earlier period of antiquity. A third-century dedication from Phalanna in Perrhaibia, a perioikic region of northern Thessaly, indicates that the city was home to a cult of Ennodia Pheraia: [Μικ]κίουν Θερσάνδρειος | [Ἐννο]δίᾳ Φεραίᾳ ὀνέθει|[κε] “Mikkioun, son of Thersandros, dedicated to Ennodia Pheraia.”31 Here again, if P. Clement’s restorations are secure, which they appear to be, there is perceived to be a close connection between Ennodia and Pherai, reflected in her epithet, Pheraia, “of/belonging to/associated with Pherai”.

13The trail ends, however, at Phalanna in the third century, and Mikkioun’s dedication remains the earliest evidence from Thessaly (outside of Pherai) attri­bu­ting the goddess’ origins to Pherai. As we proceed still earlier into the fourth and fifth centuries, evidence for Ennodia discourse is less homogeneous and more fragmented. The evidence falls into two basic categories: evidence from Pherai attesting to the goddess’ importance to the polis and evidence from Thes­saly outside of Pherai which makes no explicit association between Ennodia and the putative point of her cult’s diffusion.

  • 32  For the decrees, see ed. pr. Y. Béquignon, “Études thessaliennes, XI,” BCH 88 (1964), p. 400-412, (...)
  • 33  S. Miller, “The Altar of the Six Goddesses in Thessalian Pherai,” CSCA 7 (1974), p. 231-256 (SEG 4 (...)
  • 34  See A. Moustaka, Kulte und Mythen auf thessalischen Münzen, Würzburg, 1983, p. 110-111; Chrysostom (...)
  • 35  For earlier, fifth-century Pheraian coinage, see Head, o.c. (n. 34), p. 307; Gardner, o.c. (n. 34) (...)

14We begin with what can be reconstructed of the Pheraian narrative first, for it is based on a fuller evidentiary record. Three areas are especially significant. First, city awards of proxeny began to be published in Ennodia’s major sanctuary at Pherai in the second half of the fifth century.32 This development continues into the first half of the fourth century. Although she is not an acropolis divinity at Pherai and the sanctuary in question actually lay beyond the Classical fortification circuit, city decrees are nevertheless published there in substantial number. Elsewhere in the Greek world, it is customary to see an especially close relationship between those divinities in whose sanctuaries state decrees were published and the broader interests of the state itself. Second, Ennodia is part of the local dodekatheon in the fourth century.33 While the processes which lie behind this formalization of her status must remain oblique, her presence suggests a central role in state religion at the time. Finally, and most impressively, the coinage of Pherai begins to feature Ennodia prominently beginning in the early fourth century. On some issues portraits of her appear, whether frontal or in profile, typically with a torch in the surrounding field; on others she is on horseback, holding torches. Such coinage can certainly be linked with two tyrants of Pherai – Alexander, who ruled ca 368-357, and Lykophron II, who ruled ca 353-352 – and Chrysostomou has argued that she may be on coinage issued during Jason’s reign as well (ca 379-370).34 The iconography of this coinage marks a strong departure from the city’s earlier tradition and must reflect a transformation of the goddess’ position within the city.35

15Taken together, these three categories of evidence suggest that the late fifth-early fourth century was a turning point for Ennodia in the city of Pherai. She gained at that time a civic orientation and emerged as a focus of communal identity. Previously she had no doubt been a major figure in the Pheraian pantheon. Her sanctuary’s large Doric temple, by far the most impressive architecture yet known for the city, had been standing since the sixth-century, a fact which suggests that some elite cadre within the community had found her cult a worthy vehicle for self-promotion. The durability and magnificence of this sanctuary ensured that it would continue to play a role in later communal self-definition. Yet there is no evidence that the Pheraians at this time claimed that Ennodia was an exclusively Pheraian divinity or that other Ennodia cults in Thessaly diffused from there.

  • 36  IG ΙΧ 2, 575 (CEG Ι, 342; SEG 35, 590b).
  • 37  M.H. Hansen, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, (...)
  • 38  The improved text of P. Chrysostomou, in Ὑπέρεια. Πρακτικά Γ᾿Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Φεραί – Βελεστῖνο (...)

16Turning now to evidence of other Thessalian, non-Pheraian discourse concerning Ennodia, it is conspicuous that Ennodia is first epigraphically attested in a pair of inscriptions from Larisa, not Pherai, and that these dedications in no way advertise the goddess’ putative Pheraian origins. The first, dated ca 450-425, reads: Ἀργεία· μ’ ἀνέθεκε ὑπὲρ πα[ι]δὸς | τόδ’ ἄγαλμα· εὔξατ̣ο· δ’ Ἀγέ[τ]ορ | Ϝαστικᾶι· Ἐνοδίαι, “Argeia dedicated me, this agalma, on behalf of her son. Agetor made a vow. To Enodia Wastika.”36 The peculiar epithet is to be derived from (ϝ)ἄστυ and may draw on any of the rich associations of this word. Perhaps this was simply an urban Ennodia, perhaps even a poliadic Ennodia of the community of Larisa37. Most important for our purposes is the absence of any notion of a relationship with Pherai. If Wastika is a poetic synonym for Polias, then this Ennodia would be an emphatically Larisan goddess. The second dedication from Larisa, dated ca 425-400, reads: Ἐννοδίᾳ : Στρογικᾷ | Παττρόᾳ : ὀνέθεκε | Κ̣ρ̣ατέϝας : Μαλάναιος “Kratewas son of Malanos dedicated to Ennodia Strogika Patroa.”38 As an epithet, Strogika continues to mystify. Patroa, however, is quite familiar, normative even. Again, there is no mention of Pherai.

17From the perspective of realien, these cults of Ennodia in Larisa may in the final analysis have been diffused from Pherai. Her cult is very old there and no comparable evidence for Ennodia cult of an equivalent age has been retrieved from Larisa or anywhere else. But the precise historical relationship between the Ennodia cults of Larisa and those of Pherai is unknowable in the current state of evidence. What is perceptible is that, whatever the ultimate origins of the Larisan Ennodias, these fifth-century dedications betray no awareness of any relationship with Pherai. Striking, rather, is how deeply implicated in Larisa she appears: She is ancestral (Patroa) and belongs to the urban tissue, perhaps even the political consciousness, of the city (Wastika). In sum, these dedications may offer evidence of a local, fifth-century discourse about the goddess which did not necessarily involve the city of Pherai as her primordial home or, at the very least, did not advertise such a relationship in the language of dedication. With the exception of the Phalanna inscription, later mentions of Ennodia in Thessalian epigraphy do not suggest a relationship with the city of Pherai, either. The pattern established by the fifth-century Larisa inscriptions seems to hold.

18When and where might there have arisen a discourse which claimed Ennodia as a specifically Pheraian deity? If the evidence assembled above is at all representative, the late fifth and especially the early fourth centuries at Pherai appear transitional. Given the shift in Ennodia’s status within the community of Pherai at that time and the city’s concomitant aspirations for regional leadership, it is easy to see both how the city may have attempted to rebrand Thessalian manifestations of the cult as Pheraian in origin and how subsequent, “new” foundations of the cult may have carried a strong civic stamp. As I have argued in this paper, broader questions about a collective regional Thessalian identity were part of the contemporary political and military backdrop. Pheraian claims on Ennodia would have helped to redraw the sacred topography of Thessaly and to establish Pherai in an elect position within it. One can glimpse how this move could conceivably have benefited the Pheraians in their quest for regional hegemony. Yet, for all the successes of this narrative in southern Greece and beyond, it was to be a failure in Thessaly. While Ennodia would indeed come to be worshipped throughout the Thessalian ethnos, as very likely she already had been by this time, there is no evidence, as Chrysostomou suggests, that she became a “national goddess”, only that the tyrants of Pherai wished that she be so. Ennodia was a far more contentious figure than Apollo and there was a fundamental difference between regionalizing a panhellenic god and parochializing a regional goddess.

19The irony remains that the further one moves from Archaic and Classical Pherai in chronology and geography, the closer the original association between the city and Ennodia appears, and ultimately it may be the case that these specifically Pheraian resonances rendered her an unsuitable divinity around whom a new Thessalian identity could be constructed when Flamininus refoun­ded the league in 196: Ennodia is conspicuously absent from Thessalian coinage of the post-Flamininan era; decrees of the new League were not published in an Ennodia sanctuary, whether at Pherai or elsewhere in Thessaly; there is no evidence of League investment in any Ennodia sanctuary; no month of the Thessalian calendar in use after 196 appears to recognize the goddess. This negative evidence does not suggest that Ennodia became unpopular, howe­ver, for inscriptions indicate that she loomed as large in the cultic landscape of Hellenistic and Roman Thessaly as she did in the Classical period, if not larger. But the moment when Ennodia might have become truly a goddess of the Thessalians had passed, most likely in the fourth century.

Conclusion

20The preceding case studies have attempted to show that the Thessalian civil wars which began at the end of the fifth century and continued to the middle of fourth were as often concerned with defining and contesting a regional Thessalian identity as with attaining battlefield supremacy. I have suggested that this dimension to these conflicts, which has been understandably downplayed in modern historiography given the state of the sources, found religious expression. The case of Apollo is relatively straightforward. Jason of Pherai, among the more politically astute statesmen of the fourth-century Greek world, planned a high profile Thessalian procession to Delphi. Concern with Jason’s ultimate concerns vis-à-vis Delphi and beyond has undercut the effect of these preparations within Thessaly. By 370 the undisputed and fully sanctioned hegemon of Thessaly, Jason’s intended theoria rekindled the long-standing Thessalian relationship with Delphi and offered Thessaly a signal opportunity to perform their newfound political unity under his leadership in cult. Ennodia posed different challenges for the tyrants of Pherai. It is clear that she assumed a high civic profile in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, and that the tyrants actively encouraged the association of their interests, and those of the polis as a whole, with her cult. Within this milieu there likely arose a discourse which claimed Pherai as the ultimate origin of other Ennodia cults in Thessaly and beyond. While this discourse may have reflected with some accuracy the historical circumstances of Ennodia cult and seems indeed to have become influential in the southern Greek world, it is significant that other Thessalian cults of Ennodia, with one exception, do not reflect it.   

  • 39  See, e.g., B. Smarczyk, Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im D (...)
  • 40  The phrase of J. P. Barron, “Religious propaganda of the Delian League,” JHS 84 (1964), p. 35.

21The most obvious general parallels for the type of activities discussed in this paper are Athenian. Athenian claims to Delos and their patronage of Delian Apollo in the fifth century attempted to foster not simply a pan-Ionian unity, but an especially elect status for Athens within this supra-ethnos; Athenian attempts to raise the status of a particularly “Athenian” Athena throughout the Delian League and to compel participation at the Panathenaia, Greater Dionysia, and Eleusinian Mysteries similarly attempted to redraw the cultic topography of the Delian League in a manner that underscored Athenian imperial dominance.39 While the formal structures and the detailed history of fifth-century Athenian hegemony within the Delian League discourage too precise a comparison with the less well-documented fourth-century Pheraian attempts at leading Thessaly, it is appropriate to speak of the cultic dimensions of power and identity in both cases, if not of “religious propaganda” outright.40

Endnote: Two fourth-century Thessalian proxeny decrees

  • 41  W. Peek, “Griechische Inschriften,” MDAI 59 (1934), p. 56-57, no. 14-15. Also A.S. McDevitt, Inscr (...)
  • 42  The League decree is not mentioned by, e.g., J. Larsen, Greek federal states: their institutions a (...)
  • 43  The honorand is not otherwise known; cf. LGPN 3 B s.v. Λυκίδας 2.
  • 44  The honorand is otherwise unknown; cf. LGPN 1 s.v. Εὐεργέτας 1.
  • 45  For the form Πετθαλοί, see W. Blümel, Die aiolischen Dialekte, Göttingen, 1982, p. 121-124.
  • 46  The identity of the Sorsikidai and Kotilidai is unknown; prostatai are attested only here as offic (...)

22The impetus for this study was furnished by a pair of unprovenanced fourth-century proxeny decrees published by Werner Peekin 1934 and virtually ignored since:41 One was issued by Pherai, the other is the earliest known decree of the Thessalian League.42 As work on this essay progressed, I came to realize that questions about their provenance were simply too severe for them to bear any weight of the argument and have thus relegated them to the present endnote. I reproduce them here in hopes of reintroducing them to a new audience and because they might provide intriguing evidence about Ennodia’s precarious existence between Pherai and Thessaly in the fourth century: [A] Pherai (?), early fourth century (letter forms), bronze tablet: Λυκίδαι καὶ ἀ|δελφεῶι ᾿Οπον|τίοις καὶ οἰκ|ιάταις ἔδωκα|μ Φεραῖοι προ|ξενίαν, ἀσυλ[ί]|αν, ἀτέλειαν. “To Lykidas43 and his brother, Opuntians, and their slaves, the Pheraians gave proxenia, asylia, ateleia”; [B] Unknown provenance, fourth-century (letter forms), bronze tablet: Εὐεργέται Χαλκιδεῖ | Πετθαλοὶ ἐδώκαιεν προ|ξενίαν καὶ ἀσυλίαν καὶ ἀ|[τέ]λειαν καὶ αὐτῶι καὶ γενε| ρ̣οστατευόντων Σορ|ικιδάων [κ]αὶ Κωτιλιδάων. “To Euergetes44 from Chalkis, the Thessalians45 gave proxenia and asylia and ateleia both to him and his family, while the Sorsikidai and the Kotilidai were serving as prostatai.”46

  • 47  Peek, l.c. (n. 41), p. 56, “G. Oikonomos verdanke ich die Erlaubnis zur Publikation der folgenden (...)
  • 48  Ed. pr. Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 405, no. 5 (SEG 23, 419).
  • 49  Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 400-412. Y. Béquignon, Recherches archéologiques à Phères, Paris, 1937 (...)
  • 50  Palaiography unfortunately continues to furnish the best means of dating this series; as such, a f (...)
  • 51  In the post-196 period, league documents are published at the sanctuary of Athena Itonia near Phil (...)

23In his general comments about the two decrees, Peek notes that they were confiscated by Piraeus police some time earlier and that their true provenance could not be ascertained.47 Two facts suggest that [A] was originally published in the city of Pherai: First, the Pheraioi are clearly named as the issuing authority (ἔδωκα|μ Φεραῖοι προ|ξενίαν, ἀσυλ[ί]|αν, ἀτέλεια.“… the Pheraians gave proxenia, asylia, ateleia”); second, [A] compares well with a known series of proxeny decrees published by the Pheraioi, e.g., ᾿Αριστοκλέαι Σκοτ|οσσαίωι Φεραῖοι ἔδ|ωκαν προξενίαν | κα[ὶ ἀ]σ[υλία]ν | κ[αὶ ἀτ]έ[λει]αν | [α]ὐτῶι [καὶ χρή]μασι. “To Aristokles of Skotussa, the Pheraians gave proxenia and asylia and ateleia to him and his possessions.”48Uncovered by A.S. Arvanitopoulos in his 1921 excavations at the large Doric templeof Ennodiain Pherai – though not published until 196449 – these securely provenanced decrees begin ca 450-425 and continue into the fourth century.50 [B] was also recovered by Piraeus police, an apparent product of illicit excavation. Given the absence of any kind of clause specifying where the decree was to be published and the inability to locate any habitual locus of publication for documents of the Thessalian League at this period in its history, one cannot argue with certainty about where the decree was initially published – one assumes a location somewhere in Thessaly, but can go no further.51 But since [A] most probably came from the great Doric temple at Pherai, like similar documents, and since Peek’s description of the circumstances of recovery does not suggest that the two inscriptions were seized at different times by the Piraeus police,it is at least reasonable to assume that they came from the same place.

  • 52  For a similar situation in Oropos, see D. Knoepfler, “Oropos et la Confédération béotienne à la lu (...)

24My reconstruction of [B]’s initial locus of publication is admittedly speculative. If accurate, however, there is a range of possible motivations for publication of a decree of the Thessalian League in a Pheraian sanctuary of Ennodia – some banal (for example, perhaps the honorand Euergetes arranged to have this decree published at Pherai; perhaps the Sorsikidai and the Kotiliadai, the eponymous prostatai of the decree, had a close relationship with Pherai52), some less so (for example, perhaps the Pheraians during their ascendancy usurped the authority of the League in publishing a proxeny decree under their auspices or the Thessalian League in a moment of strength purposefully asserted their authority in a Pheraian sanctuary). Whatever the intent, the result would have been the conjuncture, however momentary, of Thessalian political authority with a Pheraian Ennodia sanctuary, an event of considerable interest given the political and religious environment described by the present essay.

Haut de page

Notes

*  A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South which convened in Gainesville, Florida in April 2006; many thanks to the panelists and audience for useful discussion. This paper has also benefitted from the comments and criticism of K. Clinton, M. Langdon, and D. Tandy, who generously read earlier drafts. I alone am responsible for those errors which remain.

1  All dates BCE unless otherwise indicated.

2  Xenophon, Hellenica II, 3, 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.

3  On the topic of Greek identity, see especially J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek antiquity, Cambridge, 1997, and id., Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture, Chicago, 2002.

4  Xen., Hell.VI, 4, 29: ἐπιόντων δὲ Πυθίων παρήγγειλε μὲν ταῖς πόλεσι βοῦς καὶ οἶς καὶ αἶγας καὶ ὗς παρασκευάζεσθαι ὡς εἰς τὴν θυσίαν· καὶ ἔφασαν πάνυ μετρίως ἑκάστῃ πόλει ἐπαγγελλομένῳ γενέσθαι βοῦς μὲν οὐκ ἐλάττους χιλίων, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα βοσκήματα πλείω ἢ μύρια. ἐκήρυξε δὲ καὶ νικητήριον χρυσοῦν στέφανον ἔσεσθαι, ἥτις τῶν πόλεων βοῦν ἡγεμόνα κάλλιστον τῷ θεῷ θρέψειε.

5  The recent Theban success at Leuctra and their subsequent emergence as a potential rival to Thessaly also may have provided an important external stimulus for such a display in 370. For a recent discussion of Pheraian and Thessalian politics ca 375-370, see S. Sprawski, Jason of Pherae: a study of history of Thessaly in years 431-370 BC, Krakow, 1999, p. 79-114.

6  For an insightful reading of the pastoral realities of such a display (and the power which it conveyed), see T. Howe, Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture, and Society in Ancient Greece, Claremont, CA, 2008, p. 1-6, 118-120.

7  See J.K. Davies, Democracy and Classical Greece, Cambridge, MA, 19932 [1978], p. 240, who well describes Jason’s activities as an “essay in nation-building.”

8  Theotonium: IG IX 2, 257, dated to the fifth century; Larisa: IG IX 2, 588, undated. See also B. Helly, “À Larisa : bouleversements et remise en ordre de sanctuaires,” Mnemosyne n.s.4 23 (1970), p. 250-296, who presents a second-century inscription from Larisa which mentions a Pythion.

9  See D. Theocharis, “Χρονικά,” AD 16 B (1960), p. 175. A cult of Apollo Tempeitas is also attested in two inscriptions from Larisa: A. Tziaphalias, “Ανέκδοτεςθεσσαλικέςεπιγραφές,” ΘΗ 7 (1984), p. 215-216, no. 94 (SEG 35, 607), dated to ca 100, and IG IX 2, 1034, undated.

10  Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae, 12 (Mor., 293b-f) is the principal ancient source; cf. Stephanus Byzantinus, s.v. Δειπνιάς (ed. Meineke [1958], p. 223). For further discussion and problems of interpretation, see M.P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der Attischen, Stuttgart, 1906, p. 150-157; L.R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, Oxford, 1895-1909, vol. 4, p. 293-295.

11  A fifth-century dedication to Apollo Leschaios has been recovered from the chora of Larisa: IG IX 2, 1027a. The findspot has been tentatively associated with the Deipnias of myth (Aelian, Varia Historia III, 1); cf. B. Helly, L’État thessalien. Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les tagoi, Lyon, 1995, p. 293.

12  Sprawski, o.c. (n. 5), p. 123.

13  See, e.g., P. Sánchez, L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes, Stuttgart, 2001, p. 466-471; F. Lefèvre, L’Amphictionie Pyléo-Delphique: Histoire et Institutions, Paris, 1998, p. 1-20.

14  See G.A. Lehmann, “Thessaliens Hegemonie über Mittelgriechenland im 6. Jh. v. Chr.,” Boreas 6 (1983), p. 35-43.

15  See Sprawski, o.c. (n. 5), p. 118-132.

16  Diodorus Siculus, XVI, 35, 4-6.

17  Diod. Sic., XVI, 37, 3; XVI, 38, 1.

18  N.G.L. Hammond, G.T. Griffith and F.W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia, Oxford, 1972-1989, vol. 2, p. 220-230.

19  Polyaenus, Stratagemata VIII, 43.

20  The spelling of the goddess’ name varies between Ἐνοδία and Ἐννοδία. Cf. L. Dubois, “Zeus Tritodios,” REG 100 (1987), p. 461, who notes that “Ἐννοδία s’explique comme *ἐν-hοδία < *ἐν-σοδία exactement comme l’éolien homérique ἔννεπεest issu de *en-sekwe, lat. inseque. La forme sans géminée en Thessalie s’expliquerait alors, soit comme une influence de la koiné, soit comme une réinterprétation secondaire.”

21  Stathmia: IG IX 2, 577, a Hellenistic dedication from Larisa; Korillos: ed. pr. B.G. Intzesiloglou, “Χρονικά,” AD 35 B (1980), p. 272-273 (SEG 38, 450; P. Chrysostomou,Η θεσσαλική θεά Εν(ν)οδία ή φεραία θεά, Athens, 1998, p. 110-111), a Hellenistic dedication from Pherai. Patroa: e.g., IG IX 2, 358, a Classical-Hellenistic dedication from Pagasai.

22  E.g., U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Der Glaube der Hellenen, Basel, 19562 [1931-1932], vol. 1, p. 168-174, regarded her as among the group of “althellenische Götter” and stressed Ennodia’s distinctive combination of wrathful and kourotrophic features. M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, Munich, 1961-19672-3 [1941-1950], vol. 1, p. 723, n. 4, noted that “Ennodia is common in Thessaly, where Hekate is missing” and suggested a connection with magic and ghosts. Cf. L.R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States, Oxford, Clarendon, 1895-1909, vol. 2, p. 475-476; M. Nilsson, Greek folk religion, Philadelphia, 1940, p. 90-91.

23  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 104-133.

24  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 100.

25  Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 268.

26  On the diffusion of Ennodia cult, see also L. Robert, “Une déesse à cheval en Macédoine,” Hellenica ΧΙ-ΧΙΙ (1960), p. 588-595, who emphasized the importance of the goddess in Thessaly and Macedonia and suggested that the goddess spread from Pherai to the north; and C. Morgan, Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, London/New York, 2003, p. 139-140, who noted for the Early Iron Age and Archaic eras that “… so unusual [are the circumstances of the Pheraian cult] … that it does not seem surprising to find no secure material evidence for the worship of Enodia outside Pherai until the fifth century… To a great extent, the expanding political power of Pherai must have lain behind the spread of the cult; the decision to associate with such a distinctive deity must imply a deliberate sharing of values…” E. Mastrokostas, “On the Grave Epigram from Pella, AAA X (1977) 259-263,” AAA 11 (1978), p. 196-197, had previously challenged this now dominant narrative and, drawing on a funerary epigram from Pella dated to ca 400-350 for a priestess of Ennodia, suggested that Ennodia cult was well-established at an early date in Macedon and may in fact have spread from there to the south.

27  Pausanias, II, 10, 7: κομισθῆναι δὲ τὸ ξόανον λέγουσιν ἐκ Φερῶν.

28  Paus., II, 23, 5: τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ οὗτοί φασιν ἐκ Φερῶν τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ κομισθῆναι.

29  Paus., II, 23, 5: σέβουσι γὰρ καὶ Ἀργεῖοι Φεραίαν Ἄρτεμιν κατὰ ταὐτὰ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Σικυωνίοις.

30  Hesychius s.v. Φεραία (ed. Schmidt IV [1965], p. 236): Ἀθήνησι ξενικὴ θεός. Artemis Pheraia is epigraphically attested at Syracuse (late 4th – early 3rd century) and Dalmatian Issa (Hellenistic). See Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 203-207.

31  Ed. pr. N. I. Giannopoulos, “Επιγραφαί Θεσσαλίας,” AD 10 (1926), p. 52, no. 4. The text printed above is based on P. Clement, “A Note on the Thessalian Cult of Enodia,” Hesperia 8 (1939), p. 200. This Mikkioun and Thersandros are otherwise unknown (LGPN 3 B s.v. Μικκίουν 1; Θέρσανδρος 6).

32  For the decrees, see ed. pr. Y. Béquignon, “Études thessaliennes, XI,” BCH 88 (1964), p. 400-412, nos. 1-13 (SEG 23, 415-432); for the identification of this sanctuary as belonging to Ennodia, see Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 25-47.

33  S. Miller, “The Altar of the Six Goddesses in Thessalian Pherai,” CSCA 7 (1974), p. 231-256 (SEG 45, 645).

34  See A. Moustaka, Kulte und Mythen auf thessalischen Münzen, Würzburg, 1983, p. 110-111; Chrysostomou, o.c. (n. 21), p. 141-146; B.V. Head, Historia numorum, a manual of Greek numismatics, Oxford, 1911, p. 307-309; P. Gardner, Catalogue of Greek coins. Thessaly to Aetolia, London, 1883, p. 46-49, pl. x; SNG III Thessaly, no. 239, 242-3, 247.

35  For earlier, fifth-century Pheraian coinage, see Head, o.c. (n. 34), p. 307; Gardner, o.c. (n. 34), p. 46, pl. X; SNG III Thessaly, no. 234-238.

36  IG ΙΧ 2, 575 (CEG Ι, 342; SEG 35, 590b).

37  M.H. Hansen, in M.H. Hansen and T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004, p. 47, has recently observed that “the distinction between asty in the sense of urban center and polis in the sense of political community is not quite as sharp as sometimes believed.”

38  The improved text of P. Chrysostomou, in Ὑπέρεια. Πρακτικά Γ᾿Διεθνοῦς Συνεδρίου Φεραί – Βελεστῖνο – Ρήγας, Athens, 2002, p. 209-213 (non vidi) (SEG 54, 561); ed. pr. A. Tziaphalias, “Χρονικά,AD 51 B (1996), p. 382, no. 1 (SEG 49, 622).

39  See, e.g., B. Smarczyk, Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attisches Seebund, Munich, 1990, passim, and R. Parker, Athenian Religion, a History, Oxford, 1996, p. 142-145.

40  The phrase of J. P. Barron, “Religious propaganda of the Delian League,” JHS 84 (1964), p. 35.

41  W. Peek, “Griechische Inschriften,” MDAI 59 (1934), p. 56-57, no. 14-15. Also A.S. McDevitt, Inscriptions from Thessaly, an Analytical Handlist and Bibliography, Hildesheim, 1970, p. 32-33, no. 206, and p. 141, no. 1177. Flacelière and the Roberts do not offer significant commentary at BE 1938, no. 189.

42  The League decree is not mentioned by, e.g., J. Larsen, Greek federal states: their institutions and history, Oxford, 1968; Helly, o.c. (n. 11); or T. Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund: Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, Munich, 1999.

43  The honorand is not otherwise known; cf. LGPN 3 B s.v. Λυκίδας 2.

44  The honorand is otherwise unknown; cf. LGPN 1 s.v. Εὐεργέτας 1.

45  For the form Πετθαλοί, see W. Blümel, Die aiolischen Dialekte, Göttingen, 1982, p. 121-124.

46  The identity of the Sorsikidai and Kotilidai is unknown; prostatai are attested only here as officers of the Thessalian League. It is difficult to understand in what capacity these presumably corporate entities (families, tribes, etc.) could have served as prostatai. Peek, l.c. (n. 41), p. 57, was reminded of the role of the tribe in the Athenian system of prytanies. H. Beck, Polis und Koinon: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stuttgart, 1999, p. 131, n. 66, is more cautious.

47  Peek, l.c. (n. 41), p. 56, “G. Oikonomos verdanke ich die Erlaubnis zur Publikation der folgenden Bronzeinschriften, die vor längeren Jahren von der Polizei im Piräus beschlagnahmt worden sind. Über die genaue Herkunft war nichts zu ermitteln.”

48  Ed. pr. Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 405, no. 5 (SEG 23, 419).

49  Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 400-412. Y. Béquignon, Recherches archéologiques à Phères, Paris, 1937, p. 96-97, signaled the 16 years that had elapsed since the initial discovery of the tablets in the vicinity of the temple and their subsequent transport to the National Museum in Athens; he expressed his hopes for their speedy publication.

50  Palaiography unfortunately continues to furnish the best means of dating this series; as such, a firm terminus for the latest members of the series is lacking. C. Habicht, “Städtische Polemarchen in Thessalien,” Hermes 127 (1999), p. 255 (SEG 49, 627), refers to a few lines from a still unpublished Pheraian proxeny decree, on stone, belonging, in his estimation of the inscription’s letter forms, to the second half of the fourth century; proxeny and “die mit ihr für gewöhnlich verbundenen Privilegien” were awarded to Thoas of Aitolia (?), [Θ]όαντι Α[ἰτωλῶι?]. The decree is dated by reference to the polemarchs of Pherai; provenance within Pherai is uncertain. The medium of publication, stone, contrasts with the Béquignon series (bronze), as does the dating formula; while Habicht’s decree is dated by polemarchs, the Béquignon series lacks such a formula in all but one case [ed. pr. Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 410, no. 11 (SEG 23, 425), dated by a local college of tagoi]. If Habicht’s decree reflects a change in the epigraphic habit at Pherai, it may indicate, however slightly, that the latest members of the Béquignon series are no later than the middle of the fourth century. Regarding the earliest members of the series, one notes initially that the transition from epichoric to Ionic script in Thessaly was lengthy and may in many cases have been dictated by the tastes of individual cutters/patrons; the situation in Boiotia was parallel, cf. G. Vottero, “L’alphabet ionien-attique en Béotie,” in P. Carlier (ed.), Le ive siècle av. J.-C. : approches historiographiques, Paris, 1996, p. 157-181. Ed. pr. Béquignon, l.c. (n. 32), p. 400-403, no. 1, 3 (SEG 23, 415-416) suggested an “archaic” date for these early inscriptions on the basis of palaiographical parallels with IG IX 2, 257, a bronze proxeny decree from Theotonium (cf. O. Kern ad IG IX 2, 257, however, where a fifth century date is suggested); M.B. Wallace, “Early Greek Proxenoi,” Phoenix 24 (1970), p. 204, no. 22, agreed with Béquignon’s early dating. L.H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, 19902 [1961], p. 99, no. 10, dated the Theotonion decree to 450-425, however, and SEG 23, 415-416 dated the palaiographically earliest decrees from Pherai accordingly.

51  In the post-196 period, league documents are published at the sanctuary of Athena Itonia near Philia and the sanctuary of Zeus Eleutherios in Larisa.

52  For a similar situation in Oropos, see D. Knoepfler, “Oropos et la Confédération béotienne à la lumière de quelques inscriptions ‘revisitées’,” Chiron 32 (2002), p. 143-150, who explains the publication of a series of Boiotian League proxeny decrees in the Amphiaraion ca 230-200 as an attempt on the part of some Oropians to capitalize at home on their high profile within the league (some served as federal archon, others presided over the federal assembly, others proposed the decree), and not as an indication that the Amphiaraion was a federal sanctuary at that time.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

C.D. Graninger, « Apollo, Ennodia, and fourth-century Thessaly », Kernos, 22 | 2009, 109-124.

Référence électronique

C.D. Graninger, « Apollo, Ennodia, and fourth-century Thessaly », Kernos [En ligne], 22 | 2009, mis en ligne le 26 octobre 2012, consulté le 23 juin 2017. URL : http://kernos.revues.org/1775 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1775

Haut de page

Auteur

C.D. Graninger

American School of Classical Studies at Athens
54, Souidias
GR – 106 76 Athens

cgraning@ascsa.edu.gr

University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Department of Classics
1101 McClung Tower
Knoxville, TN 37996

cgraning@utk.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Kernos

Haut de page
  • Logo Suppléments de Kernos – Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique
  • Logo Université de Liège
  • Revues.org