Elias Kapetanopoulos, Ph

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Elias Kapetanopoulos

Professor Dr. (Greece-Rome)

Department of History

Central Connecticut State University

New Britain, CT 06050-4010 (USA)

Telephone:

(860) 832-2820 (office)

(860) 832-2804 (fax)

(860) 229-9960 (home)

E-mail: Kapetanopoulos@ccsu.edu

Web Site: http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/elias.htm

Areas of Research: Attic epigraphy-Athenian institutions of the Roman period (200 B.C.-3rd c. A.D.), and early Makedon(ia): Makedones as Hellenes.

=====================================================================

CENTER FOR ATHENIAN-MAKEDONIAN STUDIES:

PANAYHNAIS ST' > PANATHENAIS VI

9 May 1989=11 January 2000 = 18 ÉIanouar€ou 2006 > 18 January 2006 = 28 Febrouar€ou 2007 > 28 February 2007

THE EPHEBIC DIALOGOS AT PLATAIAI

THESIS: The ephebic diãlogow at Plataiai signifies an amalgamation of the ceremonies, commemorating the victory of 479 B.C., with those of the imperial cult in a symbolic act of the unity of the Greek and Roman world.

Four ephebic texts preserve a reference to the diãlogow at Plataiai, namely, IG II² 2086, lines 33-38, of A.D. 163/4 [cf. RFIC 112 (1982) 183, under 178/9], 2089, lines 14-20, of 166/7-167/8, 2113, lines 142-151, of 187/8 (if I 7390 is an archon list=Epigr. 43 [1981] 123-124, under No. 7; last line top of 126), and 2130, lines 37-47, of 192/3 in Epigr. 43 (1981) 121, under Line 50 [or of 191/2 if the diãlogow, as it appears, was a pentaeteric event, first celebrated in A.D. 163/4 (below)]:

2086, lines 33-38: §k t«n sebastoforik«n §dÒyh §n Plataia›w t“ di/alÒgƒ dianomØ to›w §fÆboiw ka‹ to›w per‹ tØn §pim°/leian aÈt«n tetagm°noiw ka‹ eﬁw yus€aw Íp¢r t∞w n€/khw t«n aÈtokratÒrvn ka‹ Íge€aw t«n érxier°vn ka‹/ eﬁw tÚn §ndeÆsanta xrÒnon §j aÈt«n §gumnasiarxÆy[h]/ ka‹ Ídr€a énet°yh to›w ée‹ §som°noiw §fÆboiw.

2089, lines 14-20: t«n §k P[anellhn€ou ka‹ sebas]toforik«n xv/r‹w t«n p[eriss«n nom«n? Kar?]pe€mh ¶dvken/ tå par' •au[t∞w eﬁw tØn §n Plataia›]w t“ dialÒ/gƒ dianom[Øn to›w §fÆboiw ka‹ to›w p]er‹ tØn §/pim°leian [aÈt«n tetagm°noiw ka‹ eﬁw spondåw]/ Íp¢r t«n a[ÈtokratÒrvn Íge€aw ka‹ n€khw]/ ka‹ eﬁw yus€a[w Íp¢r Íge€aw t«n érxier°vn?] (from a photograph). The name [Kar?]pe€mh may stand for Demeter, that is, the goddess making a contribution to defray the expenses of the diãlogow [enough remains of the p to read it as such rather than as t, as before]. Cf. IG II² 2221 (below) and 2105, lines 24-25=S. Follet, Athènes (1976) 395, No. 6, lines 34-35: ka‹ §k Pane[l]/lhn€ou oÈy°n, for the restoration §k P[anellhn€ou].

2113, lines 142-151: §k t«n sebastoforik«n/ §dÒyh §n Plataia›w t«i/ dialÒgvi dianomØ to›w/ §fÆboiw ka‹ to›w per‹ tØn/ §pim°leian aÈt«n teta/gm°noiw ka‹ eﬁw yus€a[w]/ Íp¢r toË aÈtokrãto[row]/ t∞w Íge€aw ka‹ eﬁw spondåw/ §dÒyh tå [per€]loipa to›w/ per‹ t[Ú D]iog°neion.

2130, lines 37-47: §k tvn sebastoforik[vn]/ §dÒyh to›w §fÆboiw pç[si §n]/ Plataia›w t«i dialÒ[gvi]/ •kãstvi v * g' ka‹ Íp¢[r] t∞w/ Íge€aw toË aÈtokrãtorow/ eﬁw yus€aw to›w per‹ t[Ø]n/ §pim°leian aÈt«n te[t]a/gm°noiw •kãstvi vac. * e'/ ka‹ §k t«n periss«n/ §petel°syh ı ég∆n t(«)[n]/ ~ ÉAyhna€vn ~ (lines 85-86: ÉAyÆnaia/ [§]k t«n sebastoforik«n), from a photograph [the denarius sign x has a dot on either side of its center].

Noel Robertson has discussed the diãlogow in Hesperia 55 (1986), pp. 88-102 and has associated it with the propompe€a, "contest" between the Athenians and Spartans (e.g., IG II² 2788 [cf. IG II²2291a, an ephebic protreptikÚw lÒgow (also in 2119) and possibly 2291b]). As previously, Robertson dated the diãlogow at the end of the Attic year, that is, in the month of Metageitnion, with a reference to the §jitÆria of IG II² 2221, lines 20-22=S. Follet, Athènes (1976) 345, No. (2), lines 31-32: [me]t[å tå]w sebastoforikåw nomåw pãsaw tåw diå Panellhn€vn §p' ‡shw o· te ¶fhboi ka‹ oﬂ pe/[r‹ tÚ Di]og°neion yÊsantew ka‹ spe€santew §n t“ Diogene€ƒ tå §jitÆria eÈvxÆyhsan:/ oÈ[de]n‹ d êllƒ sunet°lesan oﬂ ¶fhboi katå tÚ énanka›on t“ kacar€ƒ mÒnƒ SS (hedera), of A.D. 216/7 or 220/1 (cf. S. Follet, Athènes [1976] 236), according to the Panhellenia first inaugurated in A.D. 137, Attic year of 136/7 [S. Follet, Athènes (1976) 115, note 3: month of Metageitnion; L. Moretti, Iscr. agonistiche (1953) 196, No. 70: P. A‡liow ÉArtemçw LaodikeoÊ[w, nikÆ]/saw ÉOlumpiãdi sky' ÉOlÊ(m)pia kÆru[kaw] …… ka‹ tå pr≈tvw Pa/nellÆnia éxy°nta §n ÉAyÆnaiw pr«tow khrÊkvn; and Panel/lhniãdi st', lines 11-12=SEG 42 (1992='95), No. 1191: AÈtokrãtori Ka€sar[i]/ T. Aﬁl€vi ÑAdrian«i ÉAn/tvne€nvi Sebast«i/ EÈsebe› ka‹ Ye«i ÑAdri/an«i Panellhn€vi/ ka‹ yea›w ÉEleusein€/aiw ka‹ ÉAyhnçi Poliã/di ka‹ Poseid«ni ka‹ ÉAmfitre€thi ~ EÈru/kl∞w ~ §p‹ ~ t∞w ~ sldÉ ~ ÉO/lumpiãdow ~ Panel/lhniãdi ~ wÉ; BE 1993, No. 551; ibid. 1994, No. 314]. However, IG II² 2221 does not mention the diãlogow, although it could be inferred that the ceremonies at Plataiai would have taken place at the end of the Attic year, month of Metageitnion, rather than at its beginning, which was the month of Boedromion (below). For the PanellÆnion and the sun°drion §n Plataia›w, see Christopher P. Jones, "The Panhellenion," Chiron 26 (1996) 45-46; and cf. Syll.³ 835: AÈtokrãtori ÑAdrian“ svt∞ri,/ =usam°nƒ ka‹ yr°canti tØn/ •autoË ÑEllãda, oﬂ ﬁw Platai/åw suniÒntew ÜEllhnew xari/stÆrion én°yhkan=FD III(4), 1976, 152, note 6 (A.D. 125).

The diãlogow has been recognized as a pentaeteric ceremony occurring midway the celebration of the Eleutheria at Plataiai [Robertson above], and this is possible, if IG II² 2089 and 2130 date from 167/8 and 191/2 [or even from 195/6] respectively. S. Follet has attributed 2130 to A.D. 195/6 (Athènes (1976) 230-231 and 341), but this writer has supported a date of A.D. 192/3 (Epigr. 52 [1990] 32, Appendix, under I). If the diãlogow took place in the month of Metageitnion (above), then its occurrence within that month must be established. Plutarch wrote that the battle at Plataiai was fought on the 4th (inclusive) [or on the 3rd (non-inclusive)] of the Attic month Boedromion, which corresponded to the 26th [or 27th non-inclusive] (tetrãdi fy€nontow) of the Boiotian month Panemos [Aristides 19.7: TaÊthn tØn mãxhn §max°santo tª tetrãdi toË Bohdromi«now ﬂstam°nou kat' ÉAyhna€ouw (=Camillus 19.3: toËto dÉ aÔ pãlin P°rsai mhnÚw Bohdromi«now ßkt˙ m¢n §n Maray«ni, tr€t˙ d' §n Plataia›w ëma ka‹ per‹ Mukãlhn ≤ttÆyhsan ÍpÚ t«n ÑEllÆnvn, p°mpt˙ d¢ fy€nontow §n ÉArbÆloiw; Moralia 349F: tr€t˙ d' ﬂstam°nou tØn §n Plataia›w mãxhn §n€kvn), katå d¢ BoivtoÁw tetrãdi toË Pan°mou fy€nontow, √ ka‹ nËn ¶ti tÚ ÑEllhnikÚn §n Plataia›w éyro€zetai sun°drion ka‹ yÊousi t“ §leuyer€ƒ Di‹ Plataie›w Íp¢r t∞w n€khw. tØn d¢ t«n ≤mer«n énvmal€an oÈ yaumast°on, ˜pou ka‹ nËn dihkribvm°nvn t«n §n éstrolog€& mçllon êllhn êlloi mhnÚw érxØn ka‹ teleutØn êgousin]. In another instance Plutarch equated Panemos with Metageitnion, and this is probably due to the two months' close coincidence (Camillus 19.5: énãpalin d' ı Metageitni≈n, ˘n Boivto‹ Pãnemon kaloËsin, to›w ÜEllhsin oÈk eÈmenØw g°gone); cf. further Aristeides 21.(1) ÉEk toÊtou genom°nhw §kklhs€aw koin∞w t«n ÑEllÆnvn ¶gracen ÉAriste€dhw cÆfisma suni°nai m¢n eﬁw Plataiåw kay' ßkaston §niautÚn épÚ t∞w ÑEllãdow proboÊlouw ka‹ yevroÊw, êgesyai d¢ pentaethrikÚn ég«na ÉEleuyer€vn. e‰nai d¢ sÊntajin ÑEllhnikØn mur€aw m¢n ésp€daw, xil€ouw d¢ ·ppouw, naËw dÉ •katÚn §p‹ tÚn prÚw barbãrouw pÒlemon, Plataie›w dÉ ésÊlouw ka‹ ﬂeroÁw éfe›syai t“ ye“ yÊontaw Íp¢r t∞w ÑEllãdow. (2) Kurvy°ntvn d¢ toÊtvn oﬂ Plataie›w Íped°janto to›w pesoËsi ka‹ keim°noiw aÈtÒyi t«n ÑEllÆnvn §nag€zein kay' ßkaston §niautÒn. ka‹ toËto m°xri nËn dr«si tÒnde (toËton) tÚn trÒpon: toË Maimakthri«now mhnÒw, ˜w §sti parå Boivto›w ÉAlalkom°niow, tª ßkt˙ §p‹ d°ka p°mpousi pompÆn, ∏w prohge›tai m¢n ëmÉ ≤m°r& salpigktØw §gkeleuÒmenow tÚ polemikÒn, ßpontai dÉ ëmajai murr€nhw mesta‹ ka‹ stefanvmãtvn ka‹ m°law taËrow ka‹ xoåw o‡nou ka‹ gãlaktow §n émforeËsin §la€ou te ka‹ mÊrou krvssoÁw nean€skoi kom€zontew §leÊyeroi: doÊlƒ går oÈdenÚw ¶jesti t«n per‹ tØn diakon€an §ke€nhn prosãcasyai diå toÁw êndraw époyane›n Íp¢r §leuyer€aw: (4) §p‹ pçsi d¢ t«n Platai°vn ı êrxvn, ⁄ tÚn êllon xrÒnon oÎte sidÆrou yige›n ¶jestin oÎyÉ •t°ran §sy∞ta plØn leuk∞w énalabe›n, tÒte xit«na foinikoËn §ndeduk∆w érãmenÒw te Ídr€an épÚ toË grammatofulak€ou jifÆrhw §p€ toÁw tãfouw proãgei diå m°shw t∞w pÒlevw. (5) e‰ta lab∆n Ïdvr épÚ t∞w krÆnhw aÈtÚw époloÊei te tåw stÆlaw ka‹ mÊrƒ xr€ei, ka‹ tÚn taËron eﬁw tØn purån sfãjaw ka‹ kateujãmenow Di˛ ka‹ ÑErmª xyon€ƒ parakale› toÁw égayoÁw êndraw toÁw Íp¢r t∞w ÑEllãdow époyanÒntaw §p‹ tÚ de›pnon ka‹ tØn aﬂmokour€an. ¶peita krat∞ra kerãsaw o‡nou ka‹ xeãmenow §pil°gei: “Prop€nv to›w éndrãsi to›w Íp¢r t∞w §leuyer€aw t«n ÑEllÆnvn époyanoËsi.”taËta m¢n oÔn ¶ti ka‹ nËn diafulãttousin oﬂ Plataie›w [cf. also Pausanias, Boiotika 2.5-7: (5) Katå d¢ tØn ¶sodon mãlista tØn §w Plãtaian tãfoi t«n prÚw MÆdouw maxesam°nvn eﬁs€: to›w m¢n oÔn loipo›w §stin ÜEllhsi mn∞ma koinÒn: Lakedaimon€vn d¢ ka‹ ÉAyhna€vn to›w pesoËsin ﬁd€& t° eﬁsin oﬂ tãfoi ka‹ §lege›ã §sti Simvn€dou gegramm°na §pÉ aÈto›w. oÈ pÒrrv d¢ épÚ toË koinoË t«n ÑEllÆnvn DiÒw §stin ÉEleuyer€ou bvmÚw *** *** toËton m¢n dØ xalkoË, toË DiÚw d¢ tÒn te bvmÚn ka‹ tÚ êgalma §po€hsen leukoË l€you. (6) êgousi d¢ ka‹ nËn ¶ti ég«na diå ¶touw p°mptou tå ÉEleuy°ria, §n ⁄ m°gista g°ra prÒkeitai drÒmou: y°ousi d¢ …plism°noi prÚ toË bvmoË. trÒpaion d°, ˘ t∞w mãxhw t∞w Plataiçsin én°yesan oﬂ ÜEllhnew, penteka€deka stad€oiw mãlista ßsthken épvt°rv t∞w pÒlevw. (7) ÉEn aÈtª d¢ tª pÒlei proÛoËsin épÚ toË bvmoË ka‹ toË égãlmatow ì t“ Di‹ pepo€htai t“ ÉEleuyer€ƒ, Plata€aw §st‹n ≤r“on: ka€ moi tå §w aÈtØn ≥dh, tå legÒmena ka‹ ıpo›a aÈtÚw e‡kazon, ¶stin eﬁrhm°na. (and Herodotos, VI.111: épÚ taÊthw [gãr] sfi t∞w mãxhw [=at Marathon], ÉAyhna€vn yus€aw énagÒntvn §w tåw panhgÊriaw tåw §n tªsi pentethr€si ginom°naw, kateÊxetai ı k∞ruj ı ÉAyhna›ow ëma te ÉAyhna€oisi l°gvn g€nesyai tå égayå ka‹ PlataieËsi); and Strabon, 9.2.31: Plataia‹ d°, ìw •nik«w e‰pen ı poihtÆw, ÍpÚ t“ Kiyair«n€ eﬁsi. ... e‡rhtai dÉ ˜ti pararre› tåw Plataiåw ı ÉAsvpÒw. §ntaËya MardÒnion [=Mard≈nion] ka‹ tåw triãkonta muriãdaw Pers«n aﬂ t«n ÑEllÆnvn dunãmeiw êrdhn ±fãnisan: ﬂdrÊsantÒ te ÉEleuyer€ou DiÚw ﬂerÚn ka‹ ég«na gumnikÚn stefan€thn ép°deijan, ÉEleuy°ria prosagoreÊsantew: tafÆ te de€knhtai dhmos€a t«n teleuthsãntvn §n tª mãx˙. ¶sti d¢ ka‹ §n tª Sikuvn€& d∞mow Plataia€, ˜yenper ∑n Mnasãlkhw ı poihtÆw: <<Mnasãlkeow tÚ mnçma t« Plataiãda>>.(=Eustathii Comment. ad Homeri Iliadem, ed. M. van der Valk, I [1971] 411: 269, [lines 21-25]: Ka‹ ˜ti Plataia‹ metajÁ Kiyair«now ka‹ Yhb«n §n ıd“ tª eﬁw AyÆnaw ka‹ M°gara. pararre› dÉ aÈtåw ı prorrhye‹w ÉAsvpÒw, ¶nya MardÒnion ka‹ tåw triãkonta muriãdaw Pers«n ÜEllhnew =€cantew | ﬂdrÊsanto ÉEleuyer€ou DiÚw ﬂerÚn ka‹ toÁw §n mãx˙ teleutÆsantaw dhmos€& yãcantew ég«na gumnikÚn stefan€thn ép°deijan tå ÉEleuy°ria). Plutarch observed that Metageitnion was an unlucky month for the Hellenes, while victories had been won in the month of Boedromion (Camillus 19.3-5; cf. also Demosthenes 28.1). But be that as it may, because of the aforementioned Metageitnion may not have been the month for the diãlogow, but the more suitable Boedromion, for the battle at Plataiai was fought on the 3rd or 4th of Boedromion, according to the Athenian calendar [although for the Boiotians the date would have been the 27th/26th of Panemos (above)].

If the diãlogow was a pentaeteric event, then it should have been mentioned in ÉArx. ÉEfhm. 1977 (1979), after p. 16, Text B (=D), which dates from A.D. 175/6, but it does not seem that it was, although the beginning of Column I is missing and an erasure is observed in the heading, at the partially preserved ends of lines 12-16; however, the absence of the diãlogow there cannot be overstressed, because of the document's fragmentary nature. Moreover, it is not clear whether the diãlogow may have been mentioned in IG II² 2119 above o·de §n€khsan toÁw ég«/naw t«n §fÆbvn (lines 126-127) and to the right of lines 68-83, for next to lines 80-83 are preserved the larger letters TEI[-----]/TVK[-----] of some ephebic activity (the letter after the epsilon is probably not a iota; from a photograph; 2119's text needs to be reconstructed). IG II² 2119 appears to date from 190/1, if from a Panathenaic year, as indicated by o·de §naumãx[hsan] of line 223 [these are the old lines of IG II²]. According to Plutarch (above), the victory at Plataiai occurred on the 3rd/4th of the Attic month Boedromion, which in the time of the diãlogow was the first month of the Attic year. This appears to suggest that the diãlogow took place during Boedromion rather than in Metageitnion, the last month of the Attic calendar and which month mostly corresponded with Panemos (above). At any event, for the Athenians the victory in 479 B.C. at Plataiai was won in the month of Boedromion and not in that of Metageitnion.

In IG II² 2086 (above) funds from the Sebastophorika were used to defray expenses for the gymnasiarchy and for the dedication of the ephebic hydria (lines 37-38: … ka‹/ eﬁw tÚn §ndeÆsanta xrÒnon §j aÈt«n §gumnasiarxÆy[h]/ ka‹ Ídr€a énet°yh to›w ée‹ §som°noiw §fÆboiw). The gymnasiarchs are listed in lines 9-27, and eleven months had been served by seven ephebes [one ephebe for four months, line 10], while two ephebes had served days (lines 24-27). The ephebe of lines 26-27 had served for ten days, but the days for the ephebe of lines 24-25 have been lost. Did he also serve ten days and the expenes for the remaining 10 days were met with money from the Sebastophorika, as stated in line 37? However, this should have been repeated after line 27 that the remaining 10 days had been covered by the Sebastophorika, but there is no such indication which leads to the inference that the lost days of line 25 may have been [k'], and probably some other gymnasiarchy is meant. Since the ephebes of lines 24-27 are listed last, they seem to have served in the month of Metageitnion [12th month of the Attic year]. From IG II² 2087, lines 6-8 and 26-28, it is known that the ephebes of lines 13 (ÉEleÊyerow ) Kurte€.) and 15 (AÈrÆ. Dhmosy°nhw SfÆt.) had served in the months of Poseideon [4th] and Thargelion [9th] respectively. This suggests that the gymnasiarchs are not listed according to the monthly sequence [but according to their activities], and consequently the two ephebes who served days may not have done so in the month of Metageitnion (cf. IG II² 2208 of A.D. 212/3, lines 106-107: Metageito[n]i«na §k t«n sebastoforik«n/ ka‹ ég«n[e]w YÆsia ka‹ ÉAyãnea).

As stated above, the diãlogow has been associated with the propompe€a, but the diãlogow, although undoubtedly occurring within the context of the propompe€a between Athens and Sparta, represents a different manifestation at Plataiai. As the evidence indicates the diãlogow was introduced soon after the accession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, when the war against the Parthians was underway, and it endured until the death of Commodus [=IG II² 2130 above; S. Follet attributed 2130 to 195/6, but this writer leaned toward l92/3 (above)]. The war against the Parthians must have stirred up old memories and feelings of the war with the Persians and the Hellenes' victory at Plataiai on the 3rd/4th of Boedromion (above). Moreover, Lucius Verus passed through Athens in A.D. 162 and was initiated in the Eleusinian Mysteries (E. Kapetanopoulos, "Flavius Hierophantes Paianieus and Lucius Verus," REG 83 [1970] 63-69).

The victory at Plataiai, as noted above, was celebrated by the Hellenes under the auspices of Zeus Eleutherios and games had been inaugurated called the Eleutheria. Roman emperors had already been assimilated with Zeus Eleutherios before the attestation of the diãlogow [Tiberius, ANRW II 23.2 (1980) 1026, note 14; Nero, IG VII, No. 2713; Domitian, IG II² 1996 and FD III 2, No. 65; Hadrian, IG II² 3322 (fragmentary); Antoninus Pius apparently, IG II² 3396, and HOROS 8-9 (1990-91) 94, No. 2 [Sparta] (see A. Spawforth, Greek Historiography, ed. S. Hornblower [1994] 235-236)]. During the diãlogow libations and sacrifices were offered for the wellbeing and victory of the emperor(s) and for the érxiere›w (above). These érxiere›w must be the priests of the imperial cult (J. H. Oliver differently in Historia 26 (1977) 89-94, but cf. W. Ameling, Herodes Atticus II (1983) 90, No. 61: tÚ koinÚn sun°drion tvn ÑEllÆnvn eﬁw Plathåw/ suniÒntvn Ti. KlaÊdion ÉAttikÚn Maray≈nion tÚn/ érxier°a t«n Sebast«n diå g°nouw éret∞w ßneken/ [∏w ¶xv]n diatele›). As already stressed in Epigr. 52 (1990) 32, under I [=SEG 40 (1990='93), No. 162], the diãlogow is a manifestation of a fusion of Hellenism and Romanitas.

Oliver and Robertson in Historia 26, 94, and Hesperia 55, 88, respectively (above) have rendered §n Plataia›w tƒ dialÒgƒ as "at Plataea at the dialogue/dialogos". It is not easy to define what is meant by the diãlogow nor to state with certainty what activities took place and what the ephebes' role was in those activities during the diãlogow. One meaning of the diãlogow, besides speech [Hesychios: lÒgow. po€hma; Souda: lÒgow §j §rvtÆsevw ka‹ épokr€sevw sugke€menow, ktl.], is audit or review, as attested in a tax-farmer's letter of 111 B.C. (Tebtunis Papyri I, ed. B. P. Grenfell, et al. [London, 1902], No. 58: 169, lines 21-23: ka‹ §pe‹/ oÈ parag°gonen §p‹ tÚn/ diãl{l}ogon toË e (¶touw), ktl., and 30-32: mÆ pote/ §p‹ toË dialÒgou xeimas/y«men; and 170, lines 59-60: ¶stai ı diãlogow ßvw/ t∞w l toË Pax≈n). Although the audit or review in the papyrus has to do with taxes, it may not be out of order to conclude that some kind of review took place at Plataiai of the mustered there Hellenes, or of the ephebes involved in the diãlogow, especially since a military victory was being commemorated.

The diãlogow, as the word indicates, has a Hellenic origin, but by the time of Augustus it came to be a part of the Romans, too. Suetonius, Augustus 89.3, wrote: Ingenia saeculi sui omnibus modis fovit. Recit antis et benigne et patienter audiit, nec tantum carmina et historias, sed et orationes et dialogos; and in Tiberius 42.2 elaborated: Asellio Sabino sestertia ducenta donavit pro dialogo, in quo boleti et ficedulae et ostreae et turdi certamen induxerat. The last reference to the dialogos may define in part the diãlogow at Plataiai, that is, the diãlogow there contained some sort of a contest (certamen), but the diãlogow should not be equated with the propompe€a between Athens and Sparta (above). The diãlogow, as already stated, is a separate event within the ceremonies at Plataiai, and as it is indicated by the sacrifices and libations offered for the emperors' wellbeing (above), the diãlogow is closely associated with the imperial cult which had been made a participant in the ceremonies of the Hellenes' victory over the Persians in 479 B.C.

NOTE. Plutarch’s Per‹ t∞w ÉAlejãndrou tÊxhw µ éret∞w, lÒgoi bÉ, may have been delivered at such a gathering of the Hellenes as at Plataiai, as the theme of the two lÒgoi may also suggest (it may have been noted earlier in this web site). (18 January 2006)

=========

REFERENCES:

Collas-Heddeland, E., "Le culte impérial dans la compétition des titres sous le haut-empire: une lettre

d'Antonin aux Ephésiens," REG 108 (1995) 425-428.

Etienne, R., Le koinon des Hellènes a Platées et Glaucon, fils d'Etèoclés, La Bèotie Antique, Lyon – Saint

Etienne, 16-20 mai 1983 (Colloques internationaux du CNRS), Paris 1985, 259-263=SEG 36 (1986='89) 129, No. 443=ibid. 27 (1977='80) 17-18, No, 65.

Etienne and Piérart, R. and M., "Un décret du koinon des Hellènes a Platées en l'honneur de Glaucon, fils

d'Etéoclès, d' Athènes," BCH 99 (1975) 63-75.

Geagan, D. J., "Hadrian and the Athenian Dionysiac Technitai," APhA TP 103 (1972) 133-160, Plts. 1-3

(ımÒnoia ÑEllÆnvn).

Herwerden, van H., Lexicon Graecum: suppletorium et dialectum (1902) 205: diãlogow §n Plataia›w.

IG II² 1078, lines 9-33 and 33-36: mey°/jousin d[¢ ka‹ oﬂ ¶fhboi pãntew t«n te êllvn œn ên/

par°x[hi t]o›w EÈmolp€daiw ı êrxvn toË g°nouw, ka‹ t∞[w]/ di[an]om∞w (Eleusinia, ca. A.D. 220).

IG II² 2291a (protreptikÚw lÒgow)-2291b (oratio ephebi?).

IG II² 2788=SEG 36 (1986='89) 71-72, No. 237.

IG II² 3189=SEG 36 (1986='89) 74-75, No. 252.

IG V.2, No. 357, line 22: toÁw d¢ êrxontaw poreËsai diå [su]ggrã[fv]n ka‹ mØ [dia]lÒgƒ

potãgein tåw d€kaw (Stymphalos, Arkadia, ante a. 234 a.).

Isidorus, Etymologiarum VI.8.2: Nam quos Graeci dialogos vocant, nos sermones vocamus.

Jones, C. P., "The Panhellenion," Chiron 26 (1996) 29-56; S. Follet, BE 1997, 520-521, No. 233.

Marotta, V., "Il Senato e il Panhellenion" in Atene romana, OCTPAKA IV.1, Giugno 1995, 157-167.

Nagy, B., "The Procession to Phaleron," Historia 40.3 (1991) 303.

Neubauer, R., Comment. Epigr. (1869) 50-53.

Nigdelis, P., MeletÆmata 21 (Athens, 1996) 134.

Nafissi, M., "Tiberius Claudius Attalos Andragathos e le origini di Synnada: I culti plataici di Zeus

Eleutherios e della Homonoia ton Hellenon ed il Panhellenion" in Atene romana, OCTPAKA IV.1, Giugno 1995, 119-136.

Pausanias, Lakonika xiv.1. ÉEk d¢ t∞w égorçw prÚw ¥lion ﬁÒnti duÒmenon tãfow kenÚw Bras€d& t“ T°llidow pepo€htai: ép°xei d¢ oÈ polÁ toË tãfou tÚ y°atron, l€you leukoË, y°aw êjion. toË yeãtrou d¢ épantikrÁ

Pausan€ou toË Plataiçsin ≤ghsam°nou mn∞mã §sti, tÚ d¢ ßteron Levn€dou—ka‹ lÒgouw katå ¶tow ßkaston §pÉ aÈto›w l°gousi ka‹ tiy°asin ég«na, §n ⁄ plØn Spartiat«n êllƒ ge oÈk ¶stin égvn€zesyai—tå Ùstç toË Levn€dou tessarãkonta ¶tesin Ïsteron énelom°nou §k Yermopul«n toË Pausan€ou. ke›tai d¢ ka‹ stÆlh patrÒyen tå ÙnÒmata ¶xousa o„ prÚw MÆdouw tÚn §n YermopÊlaiw ég«na Íp°meinan. [28-02-2007]

Piérart, R.=Etienne and Piérart, R. and M.

Pritchett, W. Kendrick, "Plataiai,"AJPh 100 (1979) 145-152.

Robertson, Noel, "A Point of Precedence at Plataia: The Dispute between Athens and Sparta over Leading

the Procession," Hesperia 55 (1986) 88-102=SEG 36 (1986='89) 67, No. 224; BE 1987, No. 554.

Rosivach, V. J., "The Cult of Zeus Eleutherios at Athens," Par. Pass. 42 (1987) 262-285=S. Follet, BE

1989, 422, No. 389.

Spawforth, A., Greek Historiography, ed. S. Hornblower [Oxford, 1994] 235-236. The correct

transliteration of the cognomen of T. Kl. NoÊiow §j O‡ou is Nouios, and not Novius as therein [see herein (web site) Panathenais: T. Kl. Nouios ex Oiou under DHMOSIEUSEIS ].

West, W. C., "Hellenic Homonoia and the New Decree from Plataea," GRBS 18 (1977) 307-319.

Elias Kapetanopoulos

Central Connecticut State University

=============================

Elias Kapetanopoulos

Professor Dr. (Greece-Rome)

Department of History

Central Connecticut State University

New Britain, CT 06050-4010 (USA)

Telephone:

(860) 832-2820 (office)

(860) 832-2804 (fax)

(860) 229-9960 (home)

E-mail: Kapetanopoulos@ccsu.edu

Web Site: http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/elias.htm

Areas of Research: Attic epigraphy-Athenian institutions of the Roman period (200 B.C.-3rd c. A.D.), and early Makedon(ia): Makedones as Hellenes.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>