Ritual, Religion and Release: How the Panathenaic Festival and the City Dionysia Helped to Maintain Religious and Social Tensions

PAUL MARC

Attica of the 5th century was going through a seismic shift. The birth of democracy and the rise of the Delian League had empowered and enriched the demos (people). The influence of new-thinking sophists and philosophers were straining the traditional ideas of piety and religion. All these galvanising influences were making the social fabric of the polis (city) unstable. This essay will explore how the major festivals of the Panathenaea and the City Dionysia were used to stabilise the new organisation of the polis. The Panathenaea can be seen as a proud assertion of the values and organization of the polis while the City Dionysia allowed the polis to examine these complex topics critically within the ‘play-space’ of religious theatre.

The aetiology of the Panathenaic festival, which we shall now explore, casts it as a symbol for an autochthonous and united Athens under the patronage of the gods. Thus as both the democratic and aristocratic elements of the polis’ social setup were represented at the festival, the new organization was made sacrosanct and respectable by association. There are three muthoi (myth, often presented as history) that seek to explain the genesis of the festival. The first aition (creation myth) states that Erichthonios, the legendary King of Athens, was the first to celebrate the festival (Marmor Parium FGrH 239 A 10). He had invented the chariot, a symbol of civilisation and progress, and had a corider memorialized in the apobatai (Demosthenes 61.23-24), a special race at the games for the festival where a rider dismounted from a moving chariot and ran. As Erichthonios was born of Gaia, on the very land of Athens, this myth showcases the belief of the autochthony of Athens and the sacred permanence of the festival. This, as stated above, would have made the new politics of the city seem less frightening and revolutionary.

The second aition found in Atthidography (Hellanikos FGrH 323a F2 and Androtion FGrH 324 F2) argues that the festival was founded by Theseus when he unified Athens. This story was made compatible with the first by attesting to a change of names: from the Anathenaea to the Panathenaea. The third tale is that it was founded in order to celebrate Athena’s killing of the giant Aster.1 The Suda Dictionary (on Aristid. Panath.) links the two together by having it set up by Erichthonius for the death of Asterios. It has been remarked that it is peculiar that the giant Aster should be chosen rather than the more obvious Enceladus (the giant Athena fights in Eurpides’ Ion and in most iconography).2 However this makes sense if we notice that Aster-names were associated with primordial time and autochthony. Indeed Asteria was the former name of Delos in myth and a scholia on Aristides tells us that Erechthonios instituted the festival to celebrate the death of Aster.3 So this myth too links the festival to a time immemorial anchoring its legitimacy, and by extension the legitimacy of the social structures it puts forward. The third reading also celebrates Athena and thus Athens as a defender of order over chaos. For Classical Greeks believed that the giants rose up and tried to wrest control from the Olympians after Zeus had established his rule. So Athena, who helped vanquish that insurrection, and her polis are represented as guardians of order. This has particular resonance in the context of the Persian Wars, as defending Greece from the barbaroi was the pretext for the maintenance of the Delian League. This is not all however, for this aition also ties the fate of the divine to that of mankind and so acts as a powerful reminder of man’s power in the divine world. Greek muthoi make clear that the gods needed help to defeat the Giants (Apollodoros 1.6.1 + Pindar Nemean 7.90). Furthermore, as the savage Giants (Hesiod Theogony 183-5) and the civilising King of Athens, Erichthonios, were sons of Gaia Athens can lay claim to be the natural reverse of chaos. We find the Gigantomachy represented on the Old Parthenon (Travlos), the east metopes of the Parthenon, the shield of Athena Parthenon and the peplos (a dress like garment),4 showcasing how important this myth was to Athens. It gave the polis confidence both in its own social institutions and in its leadership of the Delian league. As a group the three muthoi link the stories of an autochthonous king, the unifier of Athens and Athena victorious over the forces of chaos. They link Athens’ current political and social make up to religious authority.

1 Parker 2005 (p. 254).

2 Sourvinou-Inwood 2011 (p. 271).

As stated above there was representation of both the Athenian democracy and aristocracy at the Panathenaic festival. It appears that the festival sought to manage the tension between the democratic system and the continued pre-eminence of the rich in the polis by representing both and linking them to a mythological past. When Cleisthenes came to power and instituted the first democratic reforms of Athens the building blocks of these reforms were the demes, small communities within Attica, and the tribes (Hdt. 6.131 and Aristotle Ath. Pol. 20). These had control over their own cults, taxes on metics (resident foreigners) and were equipped with their own agora and elected leaders called demarchs as the inscription IG I^3 244.C.2-10 shows for the deme Skambonidai. Thus, ideally the ordinary Athenian had power and experience of politics. This was a revolutionary reform and we find it represented in the Greater Panathenaic festival in the form of games performed by deme such as the torch races, the euandria, the boat racing, the cavalry procession and maybe the cyclic choruses.5 It is also important to note that within these deme-based competitions we find both that which celebrates the lower classes in the rowing competition, for the poorer rowed (IG II^2211.78-80), and that which elevates the rich in the cavalry display, for only the rich could afford horses (Xenophon Cavalry Commander 3.1-4). In the text just sourced Xenophon stresses that the displays of equine ability and wealth pleased both gods and man. He recommends that the riders go from the herms to all the shrines and temples of the agora to honour the gods and then race, tribe by tribe to the Eleusinion. In the classical period the aristocracy remained powerful by funding the navy, the dramatic festivals and being elected generals. However, the lower classes of Athens were honoured when the focus was turned to how they served the polis, as rowers. Hence the inclusion of the ship race and the ship that carried the giant peplos to the Parthenon. Indeed, it was argued by ancient authors (Plut. Them. 19 and Aristotle Ath. Pol. 27) that since the poorer citizens manned the triremes that gave Athens its power, they gained influence. Hence representations of naval power could but honour the common man.

3 Sourvinou-Inwood 2011 (p. 272).

4 Sourvinou-Inwood 2011 (p. 273).

5 Wilson 2000 (p.36-40).

We now turn to the social stratification of the Panathenaic procession and the culminating sacrifices which highlight the role of both the democratic rulers and the old elite. Again, we will see how the Panathenaic festival aimed to bring together the stratified society of Athens. The formal places of honour at the front of the procession were reserved for democratic officials, the prytaneis chief (the head of the council of 500 who prepared the agenda for the assembly) amongst them, and it was organised by democratic magistrates who in practice could come from any class (Ath Pol 7.4.).6 However, the elite was still disproportionately represented in the procession and it was a matter of great prestige for aristocratic families for their young girls to be chosen as basket-bearers (Thuc. 6.56, Ath. Pol. 18). Furthermore, the metics of Athens, who were second class citizens in many ways, had to fulfil the servile function of parasol and stool bearers for the basket-bearers; this is mainly attested in comedy and highlights that this role was looked down upon (Ar. Eccl 730-45. Birds 1549-52). Some have taken the pre-eminence of young girls from aristocratic families and the older riders from the same class to argue that the Panathenaic festival was used to make the continued domination of the rich socially acceptable.7 As the games and procession showcased both democratic and aristocratic elements, this last argument goes too far: but it is true that the old social imbalances remained and that the festival tried to integrate them into society, not banish them.

The sacrifices that concluded the Panathenaic procession too reflect both the democracy and the old elite. A Lycurgan decree (LSCG 33 B 25-7) on the Lesser Panathenaea tells us that the meat from the festival was divided up by deme based on the number of people in the procession. We also know that from the flesh of sacrifices to Athena Hygieia portions were reserved for eight categories amongst which were found the prytaneis, the generals and the basket-bearers. So here too we see honour being given to members of both democratic officials and aristocrats.

There is one more element of the festival that warrants our attention: the presentation of the peplos to Athena which was, with the sacrifices, the culmination of the festival. The ritual is represented on the eastern frieze of the Parthenon, above the entrance and framed by columns giving it pride of place. While all details of the creation of the peplos are uncertain it did evoke the ideals of Attic life. For women it was tranquil sowing and for the men it represented Athena slaying a giant and so victory in battle. So the peplos also reminded Athens of its role as the guardian of civilisation and justified the empire. For all it was a contract between the city and the polyadic deity (the patron and protective deity) that assured the continued good fortune of the polis. This final point is reinforced by a number of things. Firstly, it was woven by arrephoroi (young girls), ergastinai (of marriageable age) and at least one priestess of Athena who was a mature and married woman: representing the three stages of a woman’s life and so symbolically bringing the entire demos into the contract with the goddess, for men are born of women. Finally on the frieze a man and a child are depicted as folding up the old peplos after the new one has been draped over the statue. It has been argued that this represents the continuous cycle of offerings and thus highlights the permanence of the relationship.8 However, as with all aspects of this festival there are elements of both popular and elitist power. Hence while the peplos represented the whole polis, the priests, who dedicated it in the sanctuary, came from the elite Eteoboutadai (whose name means ‘real Boutadai’; it was changed after a deme was named Boutadai, thus rejecting the association with lower classes).9 They claimed descent from Boutes, the son of Erechthion who inherited the priesthoods after his father’s death (Apollodoros 3.14-15).

Having looked at the Panathenaic festival and how it served as a proud self-assertion of Athens’ social and religious setup by honouring democratic officials and aristocrats, we now turn to the Greater Dionysia which served as a chance to question that setup in the safe space of a religious festival. We shall focus on the tragedies as well as the organization of the plays.

We begin with tragedy; there are a great many schools of thought surrounding this vast and complex topic. The first we shall look at is Aristotle’s Poetics which is the only text written about tragedy by a near contemporary. His focus was on the genre’s universal aspect. Indeed, Aristotle claims that poetry is superior to history because it “gives general truths while history gives particular facts” (1451b). For him, tragedy highlights the moral and physical uncertainty of life, given that it focalises a character whose hamartia (intellectual or moral flaw 1453a) causes him to undergo a fall for which he is not morally responsible. The audience exposed to such random cruelty feels pity and sadness and undergoes catharsis (1453b) and leaves the theatre purified and with a greater understanding of the human condition. So, Aristotle’s interest is fate and man’s uncertain place within it.

The second strand of thinking we shall explore is that of Nietzsche who focuses more on humanity and in The Birth of Tragedy argues that the genre seeks to ground the existence of man as a being divided by his sense of self and his belonging to an undefined collective. Nietzsche saw in theatre Dionysian elements, a disordered and un-delineated reality portrayed by the choral odes which had no set rhythmic structure and featured wild dancing. These are opposed by Apollonian elements, reality defined and confined by forms expressed by the rhythmically ritualised stichomythia (a sequence of alternating lines) of the dialogues. It is in this dichotomy of form and emotion within the same play that Nietzsche sees the reflection of the human condition.

Aristotle and Nietzsche are largely right in their assessment of the tragic genre; however, a wider analysis needs to appreciate the historical context of the play’s creation as the motive behind the exploration of fate and man. The ‘historical moment’10 of tragedy described in Vernant’s Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece is crucial here. It espouses the idea that tragedy arises with democracy as the polis grapples with self-definition both politically and ideologically. The people’s ‘collective memory’ recalls a time before democracy and the ‘tensions and ambiguities’ of the city are played out on stage. The citizenry is starting to trust in its ability and freedom to decide its own future yet cannot completely forsake the idea of fate. Aristotle’s and Nietzsche’s theories may help us to understand Vernant’s. Aristotle’s concept of fate and agency tie into Vernant’s idea of the discovery of free will and the birth of democracy. Then Nietzsche’s notion of fate leads us to Vernant’s idea of collective memory of the past and the need to separate from the memories of aristocratic rule so that the new system may prosper. Tragedy, as argued by Zeitlin’s “Thebes: Theatre of self and society in Athenian Drama,” seeks to represent the political, moral and religious tensions of the city in the safe place of theatre so these can be examined without fracturing the fragile ideological balance. For if an issue is raised in the play ‘pretend space’ of a festival held in the honour of Dionysus, the god of illusions, then it can be observed and thought about without being admitted into the ‘real world’ of the polis. Indeed, it has been argued that the theatre, in allowing for the possibility of free will, is symbiotic with the rise of democracy.

8 Nagy 1978 (p. 138).

9 Osborne 2009 (p. 281).

10 Vernant 1972 (p. 13).

It is worth looking again at how the tensions between the old aristocratic societal system and the new democratic one are represented in tragedy. The former emphasised personal dike (justice) and time (honour) while the latter championed nomoi (laws) and a rule based system to dissipate tensions. We see this reflected in many plays such as Aeschylus’ Eumenides. In this we see tensions between the old order portrayed by the Furies (476, 511,539,564...) and the new symbolised by Apollo (615). In order to resolve this struggle which threatens to tear the city apart Athena (once again a force of order) creates the Areopagus, a body that was recast into a law court for murder (and religious offences) by the democratic reforms. So we are made to see that democracy is the way forward past the brutal bluntness of the older morality. However, the play also admits that the ambiguities are not vanquished, the Eumenides are not defeated (794) and the jury of men had been unable to reach a verdict without Athena (754). There are many other plays which highlight similar tensions. Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes showcases the necessity of sophrosyne (moderation) when Eteocles goes from embodying the values of the city to reverting to a hero of a past age when his brother is mentioned to him and ate (madness) overtakes him. We find this theme in Sophocles’ Ajax too where the grubbiness of politics is on display but which nonetheless demonstrates the importance of compromise, a characteristic of democracy. All these characters who won’t compromise their own values are deinos, terrible but great, and they inspire awe in a way no contemporary did. Yet, as the audience witnessed their destructive power they would have reflected on the necessity of their own system of ostracism to contain such people.

Indeed, it has been brilliantly argued that tragedy is partly the cause of the rise of the democratic mindset in which the demos felt able to control its own fate. A play would thus be seen as the polis putting itself on show with the chorus (made up of citizens probably not wearing masks) representing the demos interacting with the masked tragic hero which belonged to another time and mode of thought.11 This seems to problematise Nietzsche’s view that the actors typify order and the chorus disorder. Perhaps, if we take his idea and build on it, we can see that it is the very interaction between the morality of the old order represented by the characters and that of new represented by the chorus that allows tragedy to help the polis resolve its political tension. The polis via the theatre could thus control and create the questions that arose and train itself to deal with the ambiguity of its own social setup. The theatre represented the old and the new and highlighted the superiority of the new system thus enticing the audience to accept it. Any work of art must be created by a member of society but it must also shape the society into which it is delivered, creating an audience that is receptive to its subtleties and that is ready to learn from it.12 Hence we feel justified in arguing for a relatively unpopular origin of the term tragedy. It comes from the Greek ‘trag-oida’ often taken to mean the song of a goat. We would postulate that it could also be linked to another meaning of ‘trag’, the voice of puberty, which is in the process of maturing. For tragedy was part of the process that led to the creation of the democratic mindset.

Tragedy also problematises the relationship between man and the divine and, in doing so, begins to allow for the concept of free will, a prerequisite for the democratic mindset. In the official parlance of the city the gods are always good and always protect Athens and the fault lies only with the people who annoy the divine but the theatre allows an extension of what can be believed and thought, if only for a moment.13 Hence the gods can be portrayed as cold and vindictive in the Ajax, the Bacchae, the Hippolytus and men are portrayed as unwise but not necessarily morally wrong to stand against them. However, for this stance always costs the community greatly, the polis watching the play is made to realise the importance of sophrosyne and proper worship. As with the tragic heroes who cost their community with their intransigence, those who do not bow to the gods highlight the necessity of good citizenship and the importance of putting the polis first. The tragedies would therefore serve to justify the democratic institutions which limit great men by demonstrating the havoc that unchecked ambition and power could cause. The demos might then be free to embrace their own democracy and agency more fully. Indeed, all these plays were framed in a religious festival which mirrored the democratic polis. The ten generals poured libations, tribute from the allies was shown off and the voting system to determine the victorious playwright was done by lot, as were the selection of the Boule and jurors. Therefore, Athens can claim that its system brings order to the questions raised by the plays; it is able to cope with the tensions that exist within the polis and tame them with democracy. Within the plays themselves the characters of Medea, Orestes and Oedipus are all tamed by their arrival in Athens. This wonderful piece of metatheatre is the crowning glory of the festival. Athens’ system is vindicated.

To conclude, the festivals of the Panathenaea and the Greater Dionysia maintained both social and religious order. The former by enshrining in faith the structure of the polis and the latter by showing that it was the best system by exposing and dealing with its ambiguities within the ‘safe-space’ of a festival for the god of illusions.

12 Marx 1963 (p. 235-66)

13 Parker 2005 (p. 146).

Bibliography

• Marx K. 1963, Introduction générale a la critique de l’économie politique in Œuvres- I, Paris.

• Nagy B. 1987, The Ritual Slab V-East on the Parthenon Frieze, CP73.

• Osborne R. 2009, Greece in the Making 1200-479BC, Oxford.

• Parker R. 2005, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.

• Sourvinou-Inwood C. 2011, Athenian Myths and Festivals, Oxford.

• Vernant J-P. and Vidal-Naquet P. 1972, Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne- I, Paris.

• Vernant J-P. and Vidal-Naquet P. 1986, Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne- II, Paris.

• Wilson P. 200, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia, Cambridge.