Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. 2014. "Zeus at Olympia and Political Ideals in Ancient Greece," Maia 66:...

Maia 66 (3/2014) 478-499

ZEUS AT OLYMPIA AND POLITICAL IDEALS IN ANCIENT GREECE

Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides

1. Introduction

The basic contention of this article is that Zeus’ ascent to power, narrated by Aeschylus in Prometheus Bound 1 and depicted on the sculptures of the god’s tem-ple at Olympia, never ceased to project aristocratic aspirations that lingered firmly in an increasingly democratized world2. These aspirations partly due to their Ho-meric overtones3 and partly due to the decisive contribution of the aristocracy to the development of the Greek polis 4, were actively fostered by Hellenistic rulers who sought thus to sanction their monarchical visions.

The agonistic spirit that shaped the Greek culture in its formative stages ensured the proliferation of excellence in every aspect of ancient life, particularly politics and athletics, which became inseparably intertwined from an early period5, The Greek elites of the archaic period channelled their verve to the political and athletic arenas of their time and sought fervently to secure victory in civic competition and athletic events alike; thus, they infused the agon with aristocratic values, typically

1 Hereafter mentioned as PV. 2 W.B. Tyrrell, The Smell of Sweat. Greek Athletics, Olympics and Culture, Wauconda IL 2004,

pp. 37-38. 3 J.M. Bryant, Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece. A Sociology of Greek Ethics

from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics, Albany 1996, pp. 80-82. For the formation of Greek aristoc-racy and its relation to Homeric leaders, see C.G. Starr, The Aristocratic Temper of Greek Civilization, Oxford 1992, esp. pp. 8-12.

4 J.M. Bryant, Moral Codes and Social Structure, pp. 98-100; W. Donlan, The Aristocratic Ideal and Selected Papers, Wauconda IL 1999, pp. 295-298; G. Anderson, The Athenian Experiment. Build-ing an Imagined Political Community in Ancient Attica, 508-490 NCE, Ann Arbor 2003, pp. 57-76.

5 P.W. Rose, Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth. Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece, Ithaca NY 1992, pp. 96-98, 147-148, 162-163; D.G. Kyle, Athletics in Ancient Athens, Leiden 1993, pp. 155-168; cfr. S. Instone, Origins of the Olympics, in S. Hornblower - C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals. From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford 2006, pp. 71-82 at pp. 73-76. The majority of Olympic and other Panhellenic victors throughout the Archaic and Clas-sical periods comprised the very aristocrats that vied for political pre-eminence; see D. Pritchard, Athletics, Education and Participation in Classical Athens, in D.J. Phillips - D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival in the Ancient Greek World, Swansea 2003, pp. 293-349 at pp. 300-332; J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus at Olympia, Heroes, and Athletes, «Hesperia» 74/2 (2005), pp. 221-241 at p. 221 esp. note 28; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants. Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek His-tory, «Class. Ant.» 24/2 (2005), pp. 173-222 at p. 185.

Zeus at Olympia and Political Ideals in Ancient Greece 479

enveloped in an aura of bygone grandeur, which subsequent regimes would always employ in their political programmes6. In sport, victory at the Olympic Games, established in honour of Zeus in 776 BCE, bestowed on the noble champions aigla diosdotos («Zeus-given radiance»)7 and a taste of immortality through everlasting kleos («renown»)8. In politics, the ever-agonal aristocrats faced the challenge of maintaining their power9: dithering between the need to exercise violence in order to establish their rule and the need to maintain it by non-violent means, they re-sorted to investing their authority with elements of moral superiority (cfr. Xen. Cyr. I 5, 2-3; VII 5, 78; VII 1, 37; Ag. 1, 1; 3, 1; 11, 1; Ath. pol. I 5-7; mem. IV 2, 11)10.

The notion of the ideal benefactor was created at an early stage to encapsulate and ameliorate the inherent ambivalence that characterized monarchic rule which was, nevertheless, advocated as the preferred way of rule (Hdt. III 82)11. The same ambivalence characterized Zeus, whom local elites typically recognized as their pa-tron12 and whose gradual maturation from a harsh monarch to a benevolent states-man was represented at Olympia13. However, notwithstanding the contradictions

6 J.F. McGlew, Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece, Ithaca NY 1993, pp. 52-86, 183-212; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi were Tyrants, cit., pp. 190-192; R. Thomas, Fame, Memorial and Choral Poetry. The Origins of Epinician Poetry – An Historical Study, in S. Hornblower - C. Morgan (eds.), Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals. From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford 2006, pp. 141-166 at pp. 142-148.

7 Pind. Pyth. VIII 96; P. Toohey, Shades of Meaning in Pindar, Pythian 8, 95-7, «Quaderni Urb. Cult. Class.» n.s. 26/2 (1987), pp. 73-87 at p. 74; cfr. A. Stewart, Pindaric Dike and the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, «Class. Ant. 2 (1983), pp. 133-144 at p. 142 quoting H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus, Berkeley, Los Angeles-London 1971, p. 51.

8 Pind. Ol. VI 9-11; L. Kurke, The Economy of Kudos, in C. Dougherty - L. Kurke (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece. Cult, Performance, Politics, Cambridge-New York 1993, pp. 131-168, pas-sim; cfr. Id., Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy, Ithaca NY 1991, pp. 35-61 arguing that aristocratic families viewed victory as their hereditary right; P.W. Rose, Sons of the Gods, cit., pp. 160-163; N.J. Nicholson, Aristocracy and Athletics in Archaic and Classical Greece, Cam-bridge 2005, pp. 3-4; J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 237-238.

9 I. Morris, Archaeology as Cultural History. Words and Things in Iron Age Greece, Oxford 2000, pp. 171-185.

10 P.A.L. Greenhalgh, Aristocracy and its Advocates in Archaic Greece, «Greece and Rome» ser. II, 19 (1972), pp. 190-207 at pp. 203-204; T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought, «Class. Quart.» 42/2 (1992), pp. 421-436 at p. 423; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., p. 183; cfr. J.J. Farber, The Cyropaedia and Hellenistic Kingship, «Am. Journ. Philol.» 100/4 (1979), pp. 497-514 on the influence of the Cyropaedia on Hellenistic rulers who posed as benefactors of their people on account of their exceptional qualities (such as arēte, justice, philotimia, philanthropia, soteria).

11 J.K. Davies, Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens, Salem 1984, pp. 88-114; P.A. Vander Waerdt, Kingship and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Best Regime, «Phronesis» 30 (1985), pp. 249-273 at pp. 251-268; L. Kurke, Traffic in Praise. Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy, Ithaca NY 1991, p. 108; I. Morris, Archaeology as Cultural History, cit., pp. 187-190.

12 D.G. Kyle, Athletics, cit., pp. 5, 113-123, 149, note 153; J. Salmon, Lopping off the Heads? Tyrants, Politics and the Polis, in L. Mitchell - P. Rhodes (eds.), The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, London 1997, pp. 60-73 at pp. 34-35; B. Brown, Homer, Funeral Contests and the Origins of the Greek City, in D.J. Phillips - D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival, cit., pp. 123-162 at pp. 125-133.

13 T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor, cit., pp. 432-433.

480 Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides

of supreme power, Zeus from his temple at Olympia consented to the idealisation of gifted rulers which, harking back to Homer14, was never completely eradicated from the Greek social fabric.

The article comprises three sections: section one explores the transformation of Zeus from a tyrannical god associated with the Peisistratids15 to the protector of the Athenian demos. His makeover is debated in Aeschylus’ PV vis-à-vis the socio-political tensions that gave rise to the democratic polity16. In democratic Athens, the aristocratic shadow of excellence –reinvested with egalitarian principles– contin-ued to follow gifted politicians17. Therefore, success at the Olympic Games where Zeus’ agon and subsequent victory over Cronos was commemorated (Paus. V 7; cfr. VIII 2, 2; VII 24, 4)18 came to highlight every citizen’s right to arēte. Section two argues that the temple of Zeus at Olympia reflected, alongside athletic ideals, the political model of the righteous king, a meaning that never lost its visibility for the ancient visitor19. Therefore, I examine the sculptures of the temple as an artistic unit emphasising three characteristic stages in the evolution of the gifted ruler: a first stage of divine favour exemplified by Pelops, a second stage of overcoming challenge and achieving apotheosis epitomized by Heracles, and a third stage of at-taining divine justice represented by Zeus himself 20. Section three examines the ap-

14 Ibi, p. 424; W. Donlan, The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece. Attitudes to Superiority from Homer to the End of the Fifth Century BCE, Lawrence KS 1980, pp. 22-24.

15 B.M. Lavelle, Fame, Money and Power. The Rise of Peisistratos and “Democratic” Tyranny at Athens, Ann Arbor 2005, p. 2; J. Boardman, Herakles, Peisistratos and Sons, «Rev. Archeol.», pp. 57-72 argues that the artistic works commissioned by the Peisistratids are related to their political agenda. K. Cavalier, Did not Potters Portray Peisistratos Post-humously as Heracles?, «Electronic Antiquity» 2/5 (1995) http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V2N5/cavalier.html agrees; R. Han-nah, Peisistratos, the Peisistratids and the Introduction of Heracles to Olympos. An Alternative Sce-nario, «Electronic Antiquity» 3/2(1995) http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ElAnt/V3N2/hannah.html is critical of Cavalier, but accepts the political significance of Peisistratic art.

16 S.G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, New Haven 2006, pp. 216-235; I. Morris, Equality and the Origins of Greek Democracy, in E.W. Robinson (ed.), Ancient Greek Democracy. Readings and Sources, Oxford 2004, pp. 45-75 at p. 46; E.W. Robinson, Democracy and Syracuse, 466-412 BCE, in E.W. Robinson (ed.), Ancient Greek Democracy. Readings and Sources, Oxford 2004, pp. 140-151 at pp. 140-145; cfr. G. Anderson, The Athenian Experiment, cit., pp. 31-86.

17 Id., Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., p. 182, esp. note 22 discussing de facto leadership in classical Athens; cfr. J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power of the People, Princeton 1991, pp. 123-125 and pp. 229-233 where he discusses the profile of benefac-tors under the democracy; R.J. Bonner, Aspects of Athenian Democracy, Berkeley 1933, pp. 53-54.

18 J.A.K. Thomson, The Religious Background of the Prometheus Vinctus, «Har. St. in Class. Phil.» 31 (1020), pp. 1-37, at p. 14; D. Hawhee, Bodily Arts. Rhetoric and Athletics in Ancient Greece, Aus-tin 2004, pp. 15-17; M.H. Munn, The Mother of the Gods, Athens and the Tyranny of Asia. A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion, Berkeley 2006, p. 23.

19 J.S. McClelland, A History of Western Political Thought, London-New York 1996, p. 73; N.B. Crowther, Elis and Olympia. City, Sanctuary and Politics, in D.J. Phillips - D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival, cit., pp. 63-66; R.T. Neer, Delphi, Olympia and the Art of Politics, in H.A. Shapiro (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, Cambridge 2007, pp. 225-252 at pp. 234-239.

20 N.D. Tersini, Unifying Themes in the Sculpture of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, «Class. Ant.» 6 (1987), pp. 139-159 at pp. 152-156; more recently see, H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Herakles, Theseus. Zur Interpretation der Skulpturen des Zeustempels von Olympia, «Jahrb. des Deutschen Archaeol.


propriation of Zeus by Hellenistic rulers, and their efforts to engender correlations between themselves and the cult of Zeus at Olympia. Although Hellenistic kingship emerged as a political development of the fourth century BCE21, Alexander and his Diadochoi were eager to exploit the glorious past all Greeks recognized as part of their education in order to establish their authority; the image of the righteous ruler that partakes of godlike benevolence was recognizable by both their Greek and ori-ental subjects and it consolidated their power without resorting to war22,

2. Olympian Zeus and democracy

Any analysis of the portrayal of Zeus in PV is inevitably linked to the crucial questions regarding the authorship and date of the play; although the production of the play, firmly dated to the late 430s23, is ascribed to Aeschylus’ son Euphorion, it is increasingly accepted that Aeschylus composed PV much earlier24, probably during the last year of his life in 457/6 BCE25. Furthermore, although we accept that

Inst.» 127-128 (2012-2013), pp. 51-124 at p. 51 refers to the importance of the Olympia sculptures for the «collective self-consciousness of the contracting community».

21 H.S. Lund, Lysimachus. A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship, London and New York 1992, pp. 154-155; R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden 1994, pp. 57-70; J. Ma, Kings, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2003, pp. 177-195 at pp. 191-194; A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2005, pp. 57-77.

22 T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor, cit., p. 435; D. Pritchard, Athletics, cit., pp. 302-306; Z. Newby, Greek Athletics in the Roman World. Victory and Virtue, Oxford 2005, pp. 205-228, drawing on J. Elsner, Structuring “Greece”. Pausanias’ Periegesis as a Literary Construct, in S.E. Alcock - J.F. Cherry - J. Elsner (eds.), Pausanias. Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, New York 2001, pp. 3-20, passim; cfr. P. Wilson, The Politics of Dance. Dithyrambic Contest and Social Order in Ancient Greece, in D.J. Phillips - D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival, cit., pp. 163-196 at pp. 180-184.

23 M.L. West, Studies in Aeschylus, Stuttgart 1990, p. 65 based his dating on Cratinus’ allusions to Prometheus Lyomenos in his comedy Ploutoi, produced in 429 BCE; cfr. R. Bees, Zur Datierung des Prometheus Desmotes, Stuttgart 1993, pp. 250-251 and A.H. Sommerstein (ed.), Aeschylean Tragedy, London 20102, pp. 325-327.

24 M.L. West, Studies, cit., p. 68 suggested that Euphorion competed with this play under his father’s name in the Dionysia of 431 BCE against Euripides. On the authenticity of PV, see C.J. Her-rington, The Author of the Prometheus Bound, Austin 1970, pp. 20, 236-243 and M. Griffith (ed.), The Authenticity of Prometheus Bound, Cambridge 1977, pp. 8-13; cfr. J. Ferguson, A Companion to Greek Tragedy, Austin 1972, p. 111; H. Lloyd-Jones, Ancient Greek Religion and Modern Ethics, «St. It. Fil. Class.» ser. III, 20 (2002), pp. 7-23 at p. 19; A.J. Podlecki, Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, Oxford 2005, p. 200. E. Flintoff, Aristophanes and the Prometheus Bound, «Class. Quart.» 33 (1983), pp. 1-5 drew attention to the fact that Aristophanes regarded the play as authentic (cfr. M. Griffith, Authen-ticity, cit., p. 8 on the ancient scholiasts); R. Bees, Zu Aristophanes, «Vogel» 1197 f. = fr. adesp. 47, «Würzb. Jahrb.» 18 (1992), pp. 125-132 rejected the idea of Aeschylus as the author.

25 J. Ferguson, A Companion to Greek Tragedy, cit., p. 111; D.F. Sutton, The Date of Prometheus Bound, «Greek, Rom. and Byz. St.» 24 (1983), pp. 289-294, passim; A. Podlecki, Aeschylus, cit., p. 200; M. Griffith, Authenticity, cit., pp. 80-81, 111-112, 164-165; Id., Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, Cambridge 1983, pp. 197-198 and E. Flintoff, The Date of the Prometheus Bound, «Mnemosyne» 39 (1986), pp. 82-91 at p. 89 noted the similarities between PV and the Persae, produced in 472 BCE; cfr. C.J. Herrington, The Author of the Prometheus Bound, cit., pp. 70-71. It has also being suggested that the PV was a monodrama; see T.G. Rosenmeyer, The Masks of Tragedy. Essays on Six Greek Drama,


the play was most likely produced as part of a trilogy26 also comprising Prometheus Pyrphoros and Prometheus Lyomenos, Griffith suggested that Lyomenos may have been written by another author clearly indebted to Aeschylus, pointing among oth-ers to Euphorion27. This suggestion is very appealing, especially as it would allow for the possibility that Euphorion was inspired by the statue of Zeus at Olympia which Pheidias was commissioned to make between 435 to 430 BCE, yet it must remain a hypothesis in light of the limited number of fragments that we have from the other plays of the trilogy. Nonetheless, the depiction of Zeus in PV is clearly meant to contribute to the Athenian debate on power that arose in the second half of the fifth century BCE.

In the play, Zeus is repeatedly referred to as a relentless tyrant, the harsh new monarch of the gods (PV 222, 305, 310, 324, 357, 736, 756, 942, 956, 996)28. The wealth he possesses is employed in metaphors denoting the unbearable bonds of his oppressive rule (PV 5, 19, 64, 133, 148, 426) in line with the notorious eager-ness of tyrants to amass riches widely attested in ancient sources (i.e. Plut. Sol. 11; Alc. fr. 360 Lobel-Page; Thgn. 363-364; Arist. rhet. 1418b28-29; Arist. eth. Nic. XI 23b)29. This portrayal of the god has been understood to reflect the bitter experi-ence of the Athenian people under the tyrannical rule of the Peisistratids30. Hence,

Austin 1963, pp. 51-102; M. Griffith, Authenticity, cit., pp. 245-255 (also, cfr. my note 26 below). On this matter, O. Taplin, The Stagecraft of Aeschylus, Oxford 1977, pp. 431-433 noted that religious sen-timent probably forbad bringing Zeus on stage, but according to the Life of Aeschylus (D. Page, Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias, Oxford 1973, p. 334, also in M. Griffith, Aeschylus, cit., p. 285) all of the stage characters of the Prometheus plays were divine and indeed some of the most venerable gods.

26 M. Griffith, Authenticity, cit., pp. 13-15 and Id., Aeschylus, cit., pp. 281-305; M.L. West, The Pro-metheus Trilogy, «Journ. Hell. St.» 99 (1979), pp. 130-148, passim; D.J. Conacher, Prometheus Bound. A Literary Commentary, Toronto 1980, pp. 98-119; R.P. Winnington-Ingram, Studies in Aeschylus, Cambridge 1983, pp. 188-197. In my view, even if PV was not a monodrama (especially given it was probably produced as a trilogy), Prometheus’ eventual reinstatement was anticipated satisfactorily in lin. 755-775 where the hero predicts the end of Zeus’ tyranny and his own release from suffering. Fur-thermore, judging from Lyomenos’ fragments (discussed in M. Griffith, Authenticity, cit., pp. 286-305), which relate the visits of Heracles (frr. 321a, 326a, 327, 329-330, 332-333 Mette) and Thetis (Schol. Prom. 167; 321b Mette) [possibly reflecting the visits of Hermes and Io in PV], the play seems to focus on cementing the relationship of Zeus with mortals and his harsh but purposeful sense of justice.

27 M. Griffith, Authenticity, cit., pp. 246-248, 254. 28 Throughout the play, Aeschylus denied Zeus the title Basileus which characterized Cronus in

ancient literature. Only in line 202 we come across the verb anassō in a structure that undermines Zeus’ attempt to rival Cronus (cfr. PV 930, 958); M. Griffith, Aeschylus, cit., p. 126. Cfr. Callimachus (iamb. frr. 1 and 192) relating the unjust acts of just Zeus at the start of his reign and the end of the Golden (Cronian) Age.

29 M. Trundle, Money and the Great Man in the Fourth Century BCE. Military Power, Aristocratic Connections and Mercenary Service, in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh 2006, pp. 65-76 at pp. 67-68; L. Kallet, Demos Tyrannos. Wealth, Power and Economic Patronage, in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny. Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, Austin 2003, pp. 117-153 at pp. 122-123; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., pp. 178-179; cfr. N. Nicholson, Aristocracy and Athletics, cit., p. 16.

30 T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor, cit., pp. 432-433; cfr. R. Seaford, Tragic Tyranny, in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny, cit., pp. 95-117 at pp. 95-99; K.A. Raaflaub, Stick and Glue. The Function of Tyranny in Fifth Century Athenian Democracy, ibi, pp. 59-94 at pp. 71-76.


following Hesiod (th. 383-403; cfr. PV 1; Plat. Prot. 321D), Aeschylus attributed to Zeus the proprietary right to command Bia (violence) and Kratos (power), abstract manifestations of the privileges earthly tyrants typically employed and/or strove to achieve31. The Athenians were acutely aware of Zeus’ affinity with tyrants and suc-cessful athletes because, shortly after the fall of the Peisistratids, they abandoned the construction of the temple of Olympian Zeus32 and remained suspicious of Olympic victors as potential tyrants (cfr. Pind. Isthm. V 14; Ol. V 24; also, Pyth. III 61-62)33.

Still, the tyrants had contributed significantly to the establishment of the polis34 and had often secured public support by appearing as upholders of social justice against the exclusionary aristocrats35, a conviction that did not fade from public consciousness despite the democratic attempt to cast tyrants as «malevolent, im-moral figures»36. Hence, in his analysis of Peisistratus, Aristotle (Alexander’s fa-mous teacher) stressed the personal qualities of the tyrant that included modera-tion, mildness, generosity, and a readiness to forgive offence (Arist. Ath. pol. 16; cfr. Thuc. III 37, 2; cfr. VI 85, 1; II 63, 2)37. Peisitratus’ tyranny was presented as a

31 E. Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society, Coral Gables FL 1973, pp. 357-367; J.D. Mikalson, Ancient Greek Religion, Oxford 2005, pp. 121-122 claims that the statues of tyrants and kings dedicated at Olympia symbolised their affinity with the victory and power of kingship that Zeus represented; cfr. S.E. Harrell, King or Private Citizen. Fifth Century Sicilian Tyrants at Olympia and Delphi, «Mnemosyne» 55/4 (2002), cit., pp. 450-458.

32 G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., pp. 191 (with note 47) and 194. Vitruvius (arch. 7 praef. 15) argues that the temple was abandoned because a republican regime intervened (propter interpellationem rei publicae incepta reliquerunt); also, see Arist. pol. 1313b where the temple is listed as a monument to tyranny alongside the Pyramids of Egypt, the dedications of the Cypselids and the works of Polycrates of Samos.

33 R. Thomas, Fame, Memorial and Choral Poetry, cit., pp. 148-149; cfr. J.F. McGlew, The Comic Pericles, in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh 2006, pp. 164-177 at p. 263 discussing G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Procession of an Epic Past, Baltimore 1990, pp. 152-198. See L. Him-melhock, Athena’s Entrance at Eumenides 405 and Hippotrophic Imagery in Aeschylus’ Oresteia, «Arethusa» 38/3 (2005), pp. 263-302 at p. 282 discussing Thuc. VI 16, 1-4 and Alcibiades’ suspicious entrance to the chariot race at Olympia.

34 I. Starr, Economic and Social Conditions in the Greek World, in J. Boardman - N.G.L. Ham-mond (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. III/3. The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries BCE, Cambridge 20003, pp. 417-441 at p. 418; N.L.G. Hammond, The Peloponnese, in J. Boardman - N.G.L. Hammond (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, cit., pp. 321-359 at p. 340; G. An-derson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., pp. 189 and 192-193, esp. note 57.

35 J. Salmon, Lopping Off the Heads?, passim; K.A. Raaflaub, Stick and Glue, cit., p. 61; J. Hen-derson, Demos, Demagogue, Tyrant in Attic Old Comedy, in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny, cit., pp. 155-180 at pp. 155-157; B.M. Lavelle, Fame, Money and Power, cit., pp. 90-92, 154.

36 J.F. McGlew, Tyranny and Political Culture, cit., pp. 124-156, 183-212; V. Wohl, Love Among the Ruins. The Erotics of Democracy in Classical Athens, Princeton 2002, pp. 219-220; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., pp. 174-175, also cfr. his note 4.

37 I. Starr, Economic and Social Conditions, cit., p. 416; L. Kallet, Demos Tyrannos, cit., pp. 119-120. M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia. A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Re-ligion, cit., p. 19, esp. note 14 argues that during the Peloponnesian war the Athenians were as divided toward their view of democracy as modern scholars appear to be; cfr. his p. 312, note 42 citing K.A. Raaflaub, Stick and Glue, cit., pp. 80-81 and J. Ober, Political Dissent in Democratic Athens. Intellec-tual Critics of Popular Rule, Princeton 1998; cfr. B.M. Lavelle, Fame, Money and Power, cit., p. 67.


golden age compared to that of his sons38. The Athenians were ready to proclaim their general hatred to tyranny (Ar. vesp. 488; Thuc. VI 60, 1), but when specifying it only the name of Hippias was mentioned (Ar. vesp. 502; Lys. 619), additionally fuelled in all probability by his cooperation with the Persians39. Crucially, their experience under the tyrants did not deter the Athenians from admiring exceptional leadership and recognizing its value in politics40.

The exploration of the tension between tyranny and justice in PV was very time-ly since in the aftermath of the Persian wars maintaining the rhetorical difference between democracy and tyranny became a challenge. The hegemonic penchant of the Athenians, especially as leaders of the Delian League (478/7 BCE), did not go amiss by Herodotus (V 91-93)41 or Thucydides who presented Pericles and Cleon as dubbing their rule a tyranny (Thuc. II 63, 3; III 37, 2)42. In contemporary com-edy Pericles – who, according to Plutarch, was concerned during his early years in politics by his physical resemblance to Peisistratus (Plut. Per. 7, 1) – was often portrayed as one of the Peisistratids (Plut. Per. 16, 1). He was also represented as a Zeus-like tyrant (Telecleides 47 K-A; Cratinus 73 K-A; cfr. Plut. Per. 13, 10 and 8, 1 where Pericles in nicknamed the Olympian)43, always interested in augmenting his personal authority (Telecleides 45 K-A; Plut. Per. 15, 1).

38 The same phrase in the possibly Platonic Hipparchus (299C) extends the happy period as far as the murder of Hipparchus in 514 BCE; cfr. V. Wohl, Love Among the Ruins, cit., pp. 215-216. Cfr. Thuc. VI 59, 2; Hdt. V 55 and 62, 2; also see Simonides PMG 607 who compares Peisistratus to a Siren, presumably because of his dangerous charm. C. Zatta, Making History Mythical. The Golden Age of Peisistratus, «Arethusa» 43/1 (2010), pp. 21-62 explores further Aristotle’s connection of the Golden Age with Peisistratus’ tyranny.

39 Hippias’ cooperation with the Persians facilitated the democrats in their attempt to compare his rule to Persian despotism; see Thuc. VI 59, 3; Arist. Ath. pol. 18; cfr. Hdt. VI 197-198, 1. Also, see Thucydides (VI 53, 3) who explains the constant suspicion of the Athenians against possible tyrants as the result of their bad memories under Peisistratus. Although his view probably reflects contemporary democratic rhetoric, it also highlights the increased juxtaposition of tyranny and democracy in the second half of the fifth century BCE; on this, see J.F. McGlew, The Comic Pericles, cit., p. 175.

40 V. Wohl, Love Among the Ruins, cit., p. 223; G. Anderson, Before Turannoi Were Tyrants, cit., p. 182. Despite losing their economic and political pre-eminence under democracy, local elites retained their leading social position; see I. Starr, Economic and Social Conditions, cit., pp. 418, 440; N.L.G. Hammond, The Peloponnese, cit., p. 340.

41 Although Socles’ speech in defence of the Athenian democracy is often understood as an attack against all forms of tyranny, scholars have increasingly noted the lack of a uniform condemnation of tyranny in Herodotus. See V. Gray, Herodotus and Images of Tyranny. The Tyrants of Corinth, «American Journal of Philology» 117/3 (1996), pp. 361-389 at pp. 363-365. On Herodotus’ use of irony through which the unjust treatment of the Corinthians by the Athenians in the lead-up to the Peloponnesian War would be stressed, see R. Buxton, Instructive Irony in Herodotus. The Socles Scene, «Greek, Rom. and Byz. Studies» 52 (2012), pp. 559-586 at pp. 563-570.

42 V. Gray, Herodotus, cit., p. 386 analyses the dream of Pericles’ mother that she gave birth to a lion (Hdt. VI 131, 2) in light of the association of lions with tyrants such as Cypselus and Hipparchus.

43 See J.F. McGlew, The Comic Pericles, cit., pp. 165-166 discusses fr. 259 K-A where Hera is identified with Aspasia, Pericles’ consort, in Cratinus’ Cheirones. On Cratinus and Pericles, see Id., Citizens on Stage. Comedy and Political Culture in the Athenian Democracy, Ann Arbor 2002, pp. 25-56; on tyranny and Aristophanes, see L. Kallet, Demos Tyrannos, cit. and J. Henderson, Demos, Demagogue, Tyrant, cit.


In tragedy, the so-called suppliant plays (including Aeschylus’ Eumenides and the Suppliants, Euripides’ Suppliant Women, Medea, and Children of Heracles) highlighted the role of Athens as a benevolent hegemon, although they left no doubt about the tensions marring its relationship with its allies44. In Euripides’ Suppliant Women (produced in 423 BCE) the motif of a harsh ruler (here Theseus) who is eventually appeased and adopts a more humane stance (suppl. 301-338) seems to echo Prometheus’ declaration (PV 379-380) that a tyrant’s vigorous thumos can be soothed at an opportune time (en kairō) with words rather than violence. Hence, tyrants and democrats alike employ violence to firm their power45, but they are eventually moved to change upon witnessing the suffering of the weak (i.e. Io or the women of Argos)46. As prophesized in PV, Zeus was gradually transformed from a violent, unjust oppressor into the divine patron of democratic deliberative bodies (Antiphon 6, On the Choreutes 45; Paus. I 3, 5)47. Consequently, his associa-tion with values such as justice, order, prudence and respect, established already in the works of Hesiod48, was increasingly accommodated in the Athenian democratic context49; although these values were not exclusively linked with the Athenian de-mocracy, they were promoted as its indispensable features (cfr. Plat. Prot. 322C-D; 323D-328D)50. This process was probably under way in PV (cfr. Aesch. suppl. 590-

44 A. Tzanetou, Supplication and Empire in Athenian Tragedy, in D.M. Carter (ed.), Why Athens. A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, Oxford 2009, pp. 305-329 at p. 308.

45 See J.F. McGlew, The Comic Pericles, cit., p. 168 discussing 38, 44-48 K-A relating how Peri-cles is ridiculed in Cratinus’ comedy Dionysalexandros for having brought the war on the Athenians. In the play Pericles is cast as another Paris having to choose between three offers made by Hera, Athena and Aphrodite; he chooses Hera’s irresistible offer of aniketos tyrannis (invincible tyranny).

46 D. Cohen, The Theodicy of Aeschylus. Justice and Tyranny in the Oresteia, «Greece and Rome» ser. II, 33 (1986), pp. 129-141 at pp. 130-131 points out the indiscriminate suffering imposed by Zeus in the Oresteia. S. White, Io’s World. Intimations of Theodicy in Prometheus Bound, «Jour. Hell. St.» 121 (2003), pp. 107-140 at pp. 110, 115-116 and 123-128 argues that Zeus’ eventual change and his higher sense of justice is foreshadowed in the many references in PV to the god’s plan (619; cfr. 170, 762), his regulation (551; cfr. 526) and his devising (906). Also, see his pages 131-132 for Zeus as the only legitimate source of authority in PV despite his harshness.

47 R. Unterberger, Der Gefesselte Prometheus des Aischylos. Eine Interpretation, Stuttgart 1968, p. 138; I. Starr, Economic and Social Conditions, cit., pp. 438-439; H. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus, Prometheus, and Greek Ethics, «Harv. St. Class. Phil.» 101 (2003), pp. 49-72 at p. 68; cfr. Plat. Prot. 322B9-C3 where Zeus dispenses dike and aidōs to humans; B. Linke, Zeus als Gott der Ordnung, in K. Freitag - P. Funke - M. Haake (eds.), Kult-Politik-Ethnos, Überregionale Heiligtümer im Spannungsfeld von Kult und Politik, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 89-120 at pp. 90-94 discusses the inherent contradiction the Athenians felt and sought to address in elevating Zeus, a divine monarch, to the patron of their democratic polis.

48 H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus, cit., pp. 86-90; J.P. Vernant, Myth and Thought among the Greeks, London 1983, pp. 51-52; cfr. K.A. Raaflaub - R.W. Wallace, People’s Power and Egalitarian Trends in Archaic Greece, in K.A. Raaflaub - J. Ober - R.W. Wallace (eds.), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, Berkeley 2007, pp. 22-48 at pp. 28-32.

49 M. Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginnings of Athenian Democracy, Oxford 1969, p. 63; H. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus, Prometheus, and Greek Ethics, cit., p. 49.

50 E. Voegelin, Order and History. II. The World of the Polis, Columbia 2000, pp. 202, 254-274, 317-336. Zeus was increasingly cast as the just upholder of cosmic order (Ar. Av. 1631-1632) which is later reflected in his representation at Olympia by the Athenian Pheidias; cfr. F.M. Cornford, The Ori-gin of the Olympic Games, in J.E. Harrison, Themis. The Social Origins of Greek Religion, Cleveland-


595)51 and hence, in Aristophanes’ Birds (1605, 1643, 1706-1765) Zeus was shown as handing over the power to a new god, in accordance with the prophecy revealed in PV (764-771, 909-910, 947-948)52.

To further foster their careful overhaul of the model of leadership they advocated, a model canvassed by the archaic elites and championed by the tyrants, the Athe-nians re-invested leadership with Homeric kudos that Solon had already attributed to Zeus (Plut. Sol. 3, 4)53. Gradually a sharp distinction emerged between Homeric basileia blessed by Zeus and the tyrannical despotism abhorred by the Athenians (Arist. pol. 1285b20-30; eth. Nic. VIII 9, 1; cfr. Plat. resp. 576D; Grg. 466B-471A)54. It is obvious that the democrats valued the affinity of athletic prowess and warlike/kingly superiority, celebrated in Homeric poetry (Arist. eth. Nic. VIII 10, 4) and displayed at Olympia55, as a central part of their identity and inter polis agonism that ought to be re-sowed in the new democratic soil of Athens56. Nike (victory) and Zelos (competition), the siblings of the formidable entities commanded by Zeus, continued to favour prominent athletes whose victories now reinforced the valour of democracy57. In addition, the Olympic ideal of leadership that the Athenians promoted was enriched with the notion of egalitarianism which had aristocratic origins but was now extended to all the demos for defending the common good and the polis from tyrannical arrogance58. As the power of their democratic polity rose

New York 1962, pp. 212-259 at pp. 222-229 and M. Cuypers, Prince and Principle. The Philosophy of Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus, in A. Harder - R.F. Regtuit - G.C. Wakker (eds.), Callimachus II, Leuven 2004, pp. 95-117 at pp. 101-107. Also, see N. Yamagata, Homeric Morality, Leiden 1994, pp. 61-93 for dike and themis in Homer and Hesiod.

51 H. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus in Aeschylus, «Journal of Hellenic Studies» 76 (1956), pp. 55-67 at pp. 58-61; P. Vellacott (trans.), Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound, London 1961, p. 9.

52 Also, see Aesch. Or. 1044-1046, discussed by A. Laycock, Poetry and Polity. Tragic Perspec-tives on the Nature of Political Association, «Animus» 13 (2009), pp. 22-49 at p. 28, where Zeus and the Moira endorse in concert the peace treaty between reason and national necessity; on this matter, D. Cohen, The Theodicy of Aeschylus, cit., p. 139 concluded that Zeus’ justice, as presented by Aeschy-lus, remains arbitrary despite the fact that it has prevailed.

53 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., pp. 25-26, esp. notes 40 and 42; cfr. G. Anderson, The Athe-nian Experiment, cit., p. 62, for Solon’s aristocratic principles.

54 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 19, notes 15-16.55 B. Brown, Homer, cit., pp. 129-133, 139-147; R. Seaford, Money and the Early Greek Mind.

Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy, Cambridge 2004, pp. 23-47; cfr. M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., pp. 22-23, esp. notes 26-29; J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 227-228; cfr. H.S. Lund, Lysi-machus, cit., pp. 174-175 for the right of kings and Olympic victors to found colonies, a policy which Hellenistic kings promptly adopted.

56 Despite the establishment of the Panathenaia in emulation of the Olympic Games, the Athenians continued to compete and win victories at Olympia (see note 68 below); cfr. D.G. Kyle, Athletics, cit., p. 177.

57 Ibi, pp. 155-158; M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 25, citing L. Kurke, Traffic in Praise, cit., pp. 257-262 and J.F. McGlew, Tyranny and Political Culture, cit., pp. 35-51; B.M. Lavelle, Fame, Money and Power, cit., pp. 36-44; cfr. B. Brown, ibi, p. 156, note 54; D.J. Phillips, Athenian Political History. A Panathenaic Perspective, in Id. - D. Pritchard (eds.), Sport and Festival, cit., pp. 197-232 at pp. 197-204; S.G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, cit., p. 5.

58 K.A. Raaflaub, The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, Chicago 2004, pp. 92-102; M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 19, esp. note 14; also, see D. Launderville, Piety and Politics. The


to prominence59, the Athenians employed the assimilation of contest to conquest that was central to the political ideology of Olympia (Paus. V 10, 4-5; V 6,19) in their struggle against the Persians and, subsequently, against Sparta for the leader-ship of the Greeks60. Hence, after the battle of Plataea the Athenians joined the oth-er Greeks in dedicating a colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia (Hdt. IX 81). Following the Persian wars, tyranny was associated with oriental, “barbaric” regimes61 and Zeus, now resurfacing as Eleutherios, was set to oppose fiercely hubristic forms of tyranny62. Furthermore, Athena, who received her authority directly from Zeus (cfr. Aesch. sept. 130), was increasingly associated with Nike (rather than Zeus as in Paus. I 1, 3) so to make democratic victories as visible as possible63.

It has been often argued that the fall of tyranny was an expression of love of free-dom and competitive athletics less for the glory of individuals and more on behalf of family and state64. Yet, under the democracy, the demos never ceased fantasizing about the superlative power of tyrants65 and the rhetoric about the ideal ruler prolif-erated66. The notion of an exceptional leader who would uphold social justice and

Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia, Grand Rapids 2003, p. 72, for the Homeric basileus as primus inter pares.

59 K.A. Raaflaub, The Discovery of Freedom, cit., pp. 118-202, esp. 166. R.F. Kennedy, Justice, Geography and Empire in Aeschylus «Eumenides», «Class. Ant.» 25/1 (2006), pp. 35-72 reads in Aeschylus’ Eumenides an early trend of promoting Athenian cultural pre-eminence.

60 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 22, esp. notes 26-29; also see J.D. Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, Chapel Hill 2003, p. 35 on Athenian dedications at Olympia com-memorating their victories against the Persians; cfr. K.A. Raaflaub, The Discovery of Freedom, cit., pp. 166-202; R. Osborne, Archaeology and the Athenian Empire, «Transact. Am. Philol. Ass.» 129 (1999), pp. 319-332 at p. 323.

61 B.S. Tinsley, Reconstructing Western Civilization. Irreverent Essays on Antiquity, Cranbury NJ 2006, p. 122.

62 K.A. Raaflaub, The Discovery of Freedom, cit., pp. 86-91; cfr. his pp. 113-117 for the cults of Athena Soteira and Zeus Soter at Athens.

63 It has been suggested that Athena was linked with Nike in order to deflect the tyrannical asso-ciations of Zeus-given supremacy; see A. Laycock, Poetry and Polity, cit., p. 26; cfr. M.H. Jameson, The Ritual of Athena Nike Parapet, in S. Hornblower - R. Osborne (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics, Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, Oxford 1994, pp. 307-324 at p. 318 cit-ing A.F. Stewart, History, Myth, and Allegory in the Program of the Temple of Athena Nike, in H.L. Kessler - M. Shreve Simpson (eds), Athens in Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Washington, 1985, p. 70. M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., pp. 291-292, refers to Athena as proma-chos (defender of her city), although this designation does not appear until the late fourth century CE; cfr. J.A.K. Thomson, The Religious Background, cit., pp. 11-13, and for Athena as the Nike of Zeus M. Griffith, Brilliant Dynasts. Power and Politics in the Oresteia, «Class. Ant.» 14 (1995), pp. 62-129 at p. 82 on the portrayal of Athena in Aeschylus’ Oresteia «as the sanctified, benevolent, all-wise resolver of difficulties [...] representing on earth (or at least in Athens) the will of Zeus the Father, the stern, but idealized eye, word, hand and heart of social order and patriarchal assurance».

64 W. Donlan, The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece, p. 40; C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles. The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C., Cambridge 1990, pp. 210-212; N.L.G. Hammond, The Peloponnese, cit., pp. 348-350; K.A. Raaflaub, The Discovery of Freedom, cit., p. 104.

65 See Aristophanes’ reference to demos tyrannos in eq. 852-854; cfr. 445-449 and 1044; also, vesp. 712; cfr. L. Kallet, Demos Tyrannos, cit., pp. 140-144; J. Ober, Athenian Legacies. Essays on the Politics of Going On Together, Princeton 2005, p. 231, esp. note 32.

66 T. Stevenson, The Ideal Benefactor, cit., ibi, pp. 434-435.


protect the demos in emulation of Zeus continued to monopolize the political and in-tellectual scene at Athens (cfr. Cratinus fr. 73 K-A; Plut. Per. 13, 10; Ar. Ach. 530)67.

3. Zeus at Olympia

The Greek admiration for gifted leaders sanctioned by Zeus was predictably and predominantly displayed at his temple at Olympia. The interest of the Athenians in Olympia and its political ideology is indicated by the fact that the Great Panathenaia had been conceived as the Athenian response to the Panhellenic Olympic Games68. In addition, Pheidias, the close friend of Pericles (Plut. Per. 31-32), who had unique-ly embossed the victory of his fellow-citizens against the Persians at the Acropolis, had been summoned by the Eleians, by then the new allies of Athens, to sculpt the statue of Olympian Zeus (Philoch. FGrH 121)69. Pheidias chose to represent a seated, mature, serene and benign Zeus rather than the youthful, aggressive, violent, and thunderbolt-throwing god sketched in PV 70. His choice seems to confirm Ae-schylus’ prediction that Zeus would eventually attain wisdom and corresponds to the contemporary Athenian political program. Indeed, throughout the PV Hephaestus and Hermes refer to Zeus as «father» (PV 17, 947, 969, 984, 1018) anticipating his true essence as defender of order and justice. In addition, Zeus’ tyrannical overtones gradually give way to his portrayal as a harsh but fair commander-in-chief 71.

Early interpretations of the pediments and metopes of the temple of Zeus spoke of a story of succession in agreement with Pausanias’ account of Zeus’ wrestling with Cronus at Olympia72. The author of PV, who depicted Zeus as invincible (sept. 514)

67 Cfr. T. Cole, Pindar’s Feasts or the Music of Power, Rome 1992, pp. 35-39 who argues that the reference to Zeus as Soter in the beginning of Pind. Is. VI 1-7 should be understood in relation to the victory against the Persians.

68 D.J. Phillips, Athenian Political History, cit., p. 202; J. Hurwit, The Parthenon and the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, in J. Barringer - J. Hurwit - J.J. Pollitt (eds.), Periklean Athens and its Legacy. Prob-lems and Perspectives, Austin 2005, pp. 135-146, passim; cfr. F.M. Cornford, The Origin of the Olympic Games, cit., pp. 229, 237, 253 and also, note 56 above. For the ideas in this part of the article, see E. Anagnostou-Laoutides, Some Political Thought Relevant to the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, in J. McWil-liam - S. Puttock - T. Stevenson - R. Taraporewella (eds.), The Statue of Zeus at Olympia. New Ap-proaches, Cambridge 2011, pp. 23-31 at pp. 28-31; L. Hyde, Trickster Makes this World, cit., pp. 28-31.

69 Th. Figueira, Excursions in Epichoric History. Aiginetan Essays, Lanham MD 1993, pp. 224-225; D.G. Kyle, Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Malden MA 2007, p. 192.

70 S. White, Io’s World, cit., p. 130 argues that through Io’s destiny Zeus becomes the embodiment of «kingly leadership» (PV 869) and legitimate authority (see note 46 above). Although he employs force, he governs from his «paternal throne» (PV 228) and enjoys reverence among the other gods to whom he has distributed powers (PV 228-231). His establishment of kingship and justice echoes He-siod’s views (th. 80-96). Zeus at Olympia was generally accepted to embody the Homeric rendering of the god as a caring paternal figure (i.e. Il. I 528-530); for more on this, see C. Hocker - L. Schneider, Phidias, Hamburg 1993, pp. 83-98; cfr. H. Kyrieleis, Olympia. Archäologie eines Heiligtums, Darm-stadt 2011, pp. 46-52 on the construction of the statue.

71 S. White, Io’s World, cit., pp. 131-133 also comments on the fact that revenge is an inextricable part of justice. On pp. 134-139 White discusses the violence involved in consummating a marriage, another indication of the need of force in achieving progress.

72 J.A.K. Thomson, The Religious Background, cit., pp. 14; F.M. Cornford, The Origin of the


and as an Olympic champion (Ag. 174, Zēna de tis epinikia klazōn), appears to consent to this perspective. Pausanias also recorded another tradition according to which the earliest games at Olympia were held by Endymion, who set his sons to run a race for the kingdom (VI 20, 9; cfr. V 1, 5). Pausanias specified that Endymion enjoyed the favour of Zeus73, just like Pelops whose race against Oenomaos for the hand of Hippodameia may be another version of the succession story underlying the establishment of the Olympic Games (Paus. V 10, 6-7; cfr. Pind. Ol. I and Paus. V 17, 7)74. It is obvious that alongside athletic spirit, Olympia echoed the dynamics of political dominance and succession, a message to which the anonymous sculptor of the pediments was receptive.

On the east pediment Zeus is portrayed as holding his typical thunderbolt. He stands between Oinomaos (on his right) and Pelops (on his left). Sterope, Oinoma-os’ wife, stands behind him and Hippodameia, their daughter, stands behind Pelops. Two servants crouch at the feet of the women in front of two four-horse chariots. On the viewer’s right an old man holding his face in agony has been understood to be a prophet. The figures of the rivers Kladeos and of Alpheios running to the west and south of Olympia respectively are seen in the far corners of the representation.

The identification of Pelops with Zeus (as well as of Hera with Hippodameia) has been also argued on the basis of their cultic associations at Olympia75. I am in-clined further to understand Pelops, depicted in the east pediment of the temple, as a mortal counterpart of young Zeus representing a first stage in the assumption of kingship during which deceit and force (biē) may be used against an unreasonable tyrant. The episode has been also interpreted in relation to marriage practices and the violation of xenia, a paramount Greek cultural value, although in my view, the marriage of Pelops and Hippodameia is the pretext to discussing succession both in athletic and political terms76. Oenomaos, the son of Ares (schol. Pind. Nem. II 16),

Olympic Games, cit., pp. 212-215; cfr. A. von Hendy, The Modern Construction of Myth, Blooming-ton 2002, pp. 108-109.

73 J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 217-225 argues against an impressive amount of scholarship (cfr. her note 22) that Pelops’ representation at Olympia alludes to a tale of divine favour, not cheating as per Pherecydes’ version (FGrH 3F 37); cfr. A. Stewart, Pindaric Dike, cit., p. 134; however, the early Greeks perceived deception simply as a means of securing victory; see J. Hesk, Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens, Cambridge 2000, p. 10; L.H. Pratt, Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar. Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics, Ann Arbor 1993, pp. 59-60.

74 J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 221-226.75 J.L. Larson, Greek Heroine Cults, Madison 1995, pp. 82-83 sees a division of cult between

Zeus/Pelops and Hera/Hippodameia; the Olympic festival distinguished gender roles in the family in order to stress their importance and complementary functions. J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 228-230 draws attention to pederastic similarities of Pelops, the eromenos of Poseidon, and Zeus, the erastes of Ganymedes. Yet, she still appreciates the nuptial connotations of Pelops’ chariot race. H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 53-54 draws attention to the importance of the Pelopeion in the Olympia complex arguing that the east pediment showcased the «calm before the storm» motif that was popular in classical art (p. 63).

76 H. Westervelt, Herakles. The Sculptural Program of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, in P. Schultz - R. von den Hoff (eds.), Structure, Image, Ornament. Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World, Oxford 2009, pp. 433-502 at pp. 435-437; H. Kyrieleis, Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia. Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion 1987-1996, Berlin 2006, pp. 79-83 explains the promotion


who brutally obstructed the marriage of his daughter (Paus. VI 19-26; Apollod. epit. 2, 4), offers a major paradigm of troublesome succession, placed at a definitive time in the formation of Greek culture which parallels the time of Zeus’ ascent to power in the divine plain. To overcome Oenomaos, Pelops employed unorthodox means, not unlike Zeus who assumed power dolōi (by deceit; Aesch. PV 213)77; still Pelops became a righteous ruler and the ancestor of Heracles, Theseus and, of course, the Homeric kings, Agamemon and Menelaus. Yet, as Kyrieleis pointed out, the anonymous artist does not pass moral judgement on Oenomaus opting in-stead to stress Pelops’ combination of readiness for action and self-control, the qualities which will soon bestow victory upon him under the auspices of his divine patron, Zeus78. The affinity of Zeus with young Pelops is also stressed by Pausanias (V 13, 1) who compares Pelops as the hero most honoured at Olympia with Zeus being the most revered of the gods79. Hence, it seems that the Greeks acknowledged the necessity of violence in the early stages of the struggle for political power (Isoc. Nic. 17-26, esp. 21) – especially since Zeus espoused it80.

Pelops’ representation at Olympia in hoplite armour (although he entered a chariot race) draws on the connection between politics and athletics that dominates Olympia stressing the political substance of the young usurper 81. The hoplites, syn-onymous with the citizen body – in Sparta, at least – encapsulated in the classical period the spirit of the aristocratic hetairoi, esteemed even at Athens. Gradually, the hoplites came to epitomize the sophrosyne that characterizes the Greeks, especially the Athenians82, in their clash with the despotic Persians, a virtue only recently written in the heroic ethos and now attainable by all citizens (cfr. Arist. pol. 1297b16-24)83.

of the cult of Pelops in the sixth century BCE in connection with Elean expansionist politics; cfr. Id., The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 52-53 and 64-70 where he emphasizes the aesthetic value of the repre-sentation which reflects the calm before the action of the battle.

77 J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 224-225 argues that Pherecydes’ version (440 BCE) was a later invention.

78 H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 70-78; also, H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., p. 442 with H. Kyrieleis, Zeus and Pelops in the East Pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, Washington 1997, pp. 12-27 at p. 20.

79 The point is made by H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., p. 449.80 Ibi, p. 446. Isocrates approves Athens of the Persian wars and early Delian League, but con-

fronted with political corruption in the fourth century BCE democracy, he urges the Athenians to look further back into their past for models of behaviour and praises the Spartan constitution (On the Peace 41-94, 132-144).

81 Cfr. J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 226-228. G. Ekroth, Pelops Joins the Party in J.R. Brandt - J.W. Iddeng (eds.), Greek and Roman Festivals. Content, Meaning, and Practice, Oxford 2012, pp. 96-138 at pp. 101-114 draws attention to the fact that the cult of Pelops is a later addition to that of Zeus at Olympia.

82 J.P. Vernant, The Origins of Greek Thought, Ithaca NY 1982, p. 63; V.D. Hanson, Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London-New York 1993, p. 143. A. Rademaker, Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint. Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term, Leiden 2005, pp. 75-98 discusses the aristocratic overtones of sophrosyne in archaic poetry.

83 H. North, Sophrosyne. Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature, Ithaca NY 1966, pp. 2-3; A. Andrewes, Greek Society, Middlesex 1975, pp. 161-162; J. Salmon, Political Hoplites, «Journ.


Furthermore, Pelops’ portrayal as a political leader in the east pediment also alludes to Zeus’ civic profile. Hence, the west pediment (possibly featuring Theseus, the “national hero” of Athens) encapsulates an episode of heroic sophrosyne84.

The west pediment, where the episode of the Centaurs and the Lapiths is de-picted, seems to support the political reading of the temple sculptures at Olympia85 Here we can see the figure of Apollo and on his right under his extended arm86, Pei-rithous about to smite a Centaur who is trying to carry off Deidameia. On Apollo’s left Theseus is portrayed carrying an axe. Fighting Lapiths and Centaurs comple-ment the scene on both sides while in each corner of the pediment a reclining fe-male watches the episode in terror.

In my view, this episode is analogous to the Gigantomachy, especially in light of the political meaning both myths acquired after the Persian wars87. The conflation

Hell. St.» 97 (1977), pp. 84-101 at pp. 93-101; P. Cartledge, Hoplites and Heroes. Sparta’s Contribu-tion to the Technique of Ancient Warfare, «Journ. Hell. St.», pp. 97, 11-27 at p. 27.

84 V. Hanson, Hoplites, p. 41; G.I.C. Robertson, Evaluating the Citizen in Archaic Greek Lyric, El-egy and Inscribed Epigram, in L. Mitchell - P. Rhodes (eds.), The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece, London-New York 1997, pp. 82-87 at pp. 85-86; cfr. H. Lloyd-Jones, Zeus in Aeschylus, cit., p. 63. For Athens as restorer of order and tradition in post-Persian wars Greece, see H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 82-84. For the portrayal of Heracles instead of Theseus on the west pediment, see H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., passim; cfr. E.T. Tulunay, Pelops statt Apollon? Ein neuer Deutungvorschlag für die mittlere Figur im Westgiebel des Zeustempels in Olympia, «Istanbu-ler Mitteilungen» 48 (1998), pp. 453-460 argues that the central figure in the west pediment may after all be Pelops again. However, H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 79-81 and 94-119 has no doubt about the identity of Apollo in the west pediment which he associates with his role as patron of Olympic seers who were highly reputable, especially when regarding matters of warfare.

85 J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., pp. 233-234. Also, note that the west pediment of the temple at Delphi featured the Gigantomachy. Also, see H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 104-107 for the political profile of Theseus on the pediment; cfr. J. Heiden, Thessalischen Lapi-then in Elis. Zur Deutung des Westgiebels von Olympia, «Archäologischer Anzeiger» 1 (2003), pp. 183-190 and W.J. Raschke, Images of Victory. Some New Considerations of Athletic Monuments, in Id. (ed.), The Archaeology of the Olympics. The Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity, Madison 1988, pp. 34-54 explains the sculptures on the west pediment in connection to the democratization of Elis. Still, recently H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., pp. 448-449 and 457-485 suggested that figure K in the west pediment should be identified with Heracles contra to Pausanias’ identification of the figure as the Lapith hero Kaeneus; furthermore, drawing on a suggestion by Wilamowitz, she argues that this is an episode from the Centauromachy (not the battle of the Centaurs against the Lapiths) inspired by the Elean tradition according to which Heracles intervened to help the daughter of the Elean king Dexamenos against Centaur Eurytion. In my view, the artist probably relies on the conflation of the two episodes in art already since the sixth century to hint both at local traditions and the replacement of Heracles with his latest replica, the Athenian Theseus. As H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., p. 467 with Plut. Thes. 29, 3 noted, the Athenians recognized Theseus as “another Heracles”, and the approxima-tion of the two heroes at Olympia probably reflects the alliance of the Eleans with democratic Athens.

86 H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 94-107 recognizes the importance of Apollo both in the Thessalian Centauromachy and the local Elean tradition, but argues that his prominence on the pediment stresses the role of the Eleans in stopping the internal strife of Greek cities; in my view, his argument that Theseus, as a heroic leader of Athens, corresponds to Heracles (pp. 100-104) is more convincing (also, see my note 85); cfr. H. Westervelt, Herakles, cit., pp. 448 and 479 and N.D. Tersini, Unifying Themes in the Sculpture of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, cit., pp. 151-152.

87 D.M. Johnson, Persians as Centaurs in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, «Transact. Am. Philol. Ass.»


of the Centaurs with lawless, oriental tyrants who deserve punishment (for example, Soph. Tr. 1095-1096) creates a stark opposition with Pelops, Zeus’ protégé, and offers the artist the opportunity to include Theseus, a descendant of Pelops and an Athenian, in the scene88. At this time in history, divine justice is dispensed by the Greeks and, in particular, the Athenians: Nike and Dike go hand in hand89. It would be rather odd for Olympia not to reflect in its art the distinction between wise kings and tyrants which dominated contemporary political and philosophical debate. Thus, when Lysias addressed the Greeks at Olympia in 388/4 BCE, his objective was to prompt them to fight against «tyrants» (Lys. Olymp. 33, 2 and 6; Dion. Hal. Lys. 33).

The metopes of the temple feature the twelve labours of Heracles who some-times poses as the founder of the Games (Pind. Ol. VI 67-69; Ol. X 24-25, 57-59; Paus. V 7, 6-10). However, apart from being an accomplished athlete, Heracles was also invested with political significance in the debate between aristocracy and de-mocracy90. As a son of Zeus and a king who won immortality through his suffering in the name of the civilized world, Heracles exercised considerable appeal to the Athenian tyrant Peisistratus91 and later Hellenistic rulers92. During his labours he often encountered unjust rulers whom he proceeded to punish; yet he often strug-gled with himself in a bid to control his temper and use of physical strength93. Un-

135 (2005), pp. 177-207 at pp. 177-178; cfr. N.D. Tersini, Unifying Themes in the Sculpture of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, cit., pp. 141-145.

88 D. Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality. Official Art in Fifth-Century BCE Athens, Madison 1992, pp. 36-38.

89 J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., p. 235. S.D. Bundrick, Music and Image in Classical Athens, Cambridge 2005, pp. 146-147, stresses the central role of Apollo, who appears in the west pediment, in dispensing justice in fifth century BCE Athens; also, see my note 86 above.

90 R. Mitchell-Boyask, Plague and the Athenian Imagination. Drama, History, and the Cult of Asclepius, Cambridge 2008, pp. 150-151. Note that under the democracy focus at Athens shifts from Heracles to Theseus who in Euripides Heracles is shown as accepting Heracles to Athens as a suppli-ant. That Theseus was the Athenian response to Heracles is further stressed by Plutarch (Thes. 29, 3) who calls the Athenian hero “another Heracles”.

91 J. Boardman, Heracles, Peisistratos and Sons, passim; I. Starr, Economic and Social Condi-tions, cit., p. 413; cfr. N.D. Tersini, Unifying Themes in the Sculpture of the Temple of Zeus at Olym-pia, cit., pp. 140-142, on Heracles’ arēte. Herodotus (I 60, 4-5) and Aristotle (Ath. pol. XIV 4) relate a story according to which Peisistratus staged one of his returns to Athens thus: he dressed up a mortal woman as Athena and instructed her to drive a chariot to Athens and urge the citizens to accept him as their tyrant since he enjoyed divine support. Peisistratus’ device was, according to tradition, success-ful. Boardman suggested that this scene was meant to evoke a comparison with the episode in which Athena escorts Heracles to Olympus. Peisistratus who also celebrated his wedding on that day may have intended for a comparison to be drawn between his own wedding and that of Heracles and Hebe; see M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., pp. 39-42 who argues that this episode may be alluded to in Aristophanes’ Birds where the protagonist Peisetaerus (a reference to Peisistratus) replaces Zeus and celebrates a wedding with Hera.

92 H.S. Lund, Lysimachus, cit., p. 159; cfr. O. Palagia, Imitation of Herakles in Ruler Portraiture. A Survey from Alexander to Maximinus Daza, «Boreas» 9 (1986), pp. 137-151, passim.

93 Ch. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization. An Interpretation of Sophocles, Norman 1999, p. 106; P. Kyriakou, The Violence of Nomos in Pindar fr. 169a, «Mat. Disc.» 48 (2002), pp. 195-206, passim; cfr. H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 92-94 is right in arguing that the order of Hera-cles’ labours on the pediment is changed so to highlight his local adventures.


surprinsingly, Heracles sees through his darkest moments with the aid of Athena, who also appears in the metopes (Paus. IX 11, 21)94. Heracles’ Panhellenic appeal, his openness to admit his failures, and his relentless devotion to his missions render him the ideal mythical interlocutor for debating the assumption and exercise of political power. At Olympia he represents the second phase of assuming leadership during which the agents of political power are called to establish order. In addition, through his mortal aspect and his endless toiling Heracles is able to empathize with humans and their much-suffering champion95; hence, at Olympia, Heracles exhibits the mercifulness that Zeus lacks in PV since he is depicted as approaching Prometheus in order to set him free96. Heracles who eventually wins an apotheosis for his civilizing efforts exemplifies the notion that through athletic and military (political essentially) valour one can become Zeus incarnate97.

Zeus, of course, represents the final stage of political perfection reserved for gods and godly kings. He is the epitome of a divine ruler in harmony with the cos-mic order which his impressive statue at Olympia brought to life (Dio or. XII 51). As I argued, the idea was ingrained in ancient Greek minds from the early times and was invested with democratic values during the fifth century. Furthermore, its cultural force did not escape the attention of Hellenistic rulers whose emulation of Zeus offers an additional paradigm for the ongoing appeal of one-man rule in Greek antiquity. Far from an attempt to analyze Greek history through a single, linear, and deterministic approach I here seek to tease out the cultural properties that a number of successive elites employed in order to create an impression of historical and political continuity.

4. Olympian Zeus and Hellenistic kingship

It could be argued that the appropriation of Olympian Zeus and his divine sym-bols by Hellenistic kings originates with Philip II, many times an Olympic victor in the chariot race, who dedicated in the Altis the Philipeion monument contain-ing images of his royal family (Plut. Alex. 3-4; Paus. V 20, 9-10)98. It is obvious

94 Note that Athena strikes Heracles with a stone called sophronister to stop his manic attitude; H. Kyrieleis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 86-101 mentions the role of Athena is helping young heroes, a motif established already in Homer, but does not expand on the goddess’s political aspects.

95 U. Wilamowitz-Mӧllendorff, Euripides. Heracles, vol. 1, Berlin 18952, p. 38, also cited in W. Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, Berkeley 1979, p. 79.

96 Hes. th. 525-535; Aesch. PV 772-774; cfr. J.A.K. Thomson, The Religious Background, cit., passim who argued that Heracles would eventually replace Zeus in accordance with Prometheus’ prophecy, albeit in the context of sons replacing their fathers. At this point, I disagree with H. Kyrie-leis, Pelops, Heracles, Theseus, cit., pp. 104-105 who sees Theseus as a more ethical hero compared to Heracles. As explained above, the sculptures of Olympia, exemplify, in my view, various stages in the process of claiming power and becoming a protégé of Zeus.

97 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 22.98 Philip dedicated the Philippeion in 338 BCE to commemorate his victory at Chaeroneia: see S.

Morris, Imaginary Kings. Alternatives to Monarchy in Early Greece, in K.A. Morgan (ed.), Popular Tyranny, cit., pp. 1-24, at pp. 15-16; cfr. F.M. Cornford, The Origin of the Olympic Games, cit., p. 259.


that Philip, a monarch with ambitious plans to extend his power over the decaying Greek city-states, appreciated the appeal of his Olympic victories in the process of legitimizing his claims and thus, he «took particular care to increase his influence in Elis, the city that administered the sanctuary of Olympia and the Olympic Games» (Dem. Phil. III 27; Paus. IV 28, 4)99.

Of course, ancient writers were infatuated with Alexander’s attempt to suggest that he was the son of Zeus, a new Heracles, during the Siwah episode100. However, even before this famous incident, Alexander duly promoted his familial connec-tions with Heracles and Zeus (Callisthenes FGrH 124F 14a = Strabo XVII 1, 43; Arr. anab. III 3, 1-2)101. Furthermore, the Macedonian king promised to build a temple of Olympian Zeus at the site of the Lydian palace in Sardis and to sacrifice at the temple of Zeus Basileus at the site of Midas’ palace at Gordium (Arr. anab. I 17, 5-6, II 3, 1-8)102. Although Alexander’s participation in the Olympic Games is largely questioned (Hdt. V 22; Plut. mor. 331B; cfr. Plut. mor. 179D and Alex. 4, 11)103, he certainly minted coins that featured an enthroned Zeus holding an eagle and sceptre, probably alluding to Pheidias’ distinctive representation of Zeus at Olympia (Paus. V 11, 1-10)104. The reverse of these coins featured Heracles, the first Olympic victor addressed as king in the Kallinikos Hymn (Arch. fr. 119; cfr. Pind. Ol. X 5, 26-85; 2, 3-4; 6, 67-70; Lys. Olymp. 33, 1-2) further encouraging

99 O. Palagia, Philip’s Eurydice in the Philippeum at Olympia, in E. Carney - D. Ogden (eds.), Philip II and Alexander the Great. Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives, Oxford 2010, pp. 33-42 at p. 33.

100 E.A. Fredericksmeyer, Alexander, Zeus Ammon and the Conquest of Asia, «Transact. Am. Philol. Ass.» 121 (1991), p. 199, notes 1-2 cites the ancient sources on the episode; he argues that one of Alexander’s motives for visiting the oracle of Zeus Ammon at Siwah was «to obtain confirmation of the promise of Zeus Basileus at Gordium for his conquest of Asia» (p. 213); cfr. C. Mossé, Alexan-der. Destiny and Myth, transl. by J. Lloyd, Baltimore 2004, pp. 26-27.

101 A. Chaniotis, The Divinity of the Hellenistic Rulers, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2003, pp. 431-446 at pp. 434-435; C. Mossé, Alexander, cit., pp. 73-83; A.B. Bosworth, Alexander and Ammon, in K.H. Kinzl (ed.), Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory, Berlin-New York 1977, pp. 51-75 at pp. 69-75; H.S. Lund, Lysi-machus, cit., pp. 161-162; cfr. J.M. O’Brien, Alexander the Great. The Invisible Enemy, London-New York 1992, pp. 43-99 on the accession of Alexander in the likeness of Homeric kings.

102 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., p. 22, note 25 and pp. 69-93; J. Ma, Kings, cit., p. 189. Upon receiving the divine oracle at Siwah, Alexander sacrificed to Zeus Basileus with «a parade of his troops under arms and athletic and musical contests», Arr. III 5, 2; cfr. E.A. Fredericksmeyer, Alex-ander, cit., pp. 199-214 at pp. 204-206 (esp. his notes 30 and 32 for the conflation of the cult of Zeus Basileus with the Egyptian Amun-Ra) and Id. Alexander, Midas and the Oracle at Gordium, «Class. Philol.» 56 (1961), pp. 160-168 at p. 165.

103 E.N. Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus. The Emergence of Macedon, Princeton 1990, pp. 111-113; W.L. Adams, Other Peoples Games. The Olympics, Macedonia and Greek Athletics, «Journ. of Sports and Hist.» 30/2 (2003), pp. 205-206; cfr. S.G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics, cit., esp. pp. 197-198.

104 J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge 1986, p. 26 esp. notes 17, 49 (on Lysippos’ statues of Zeus and Heracles); cfr. C.M. Kraay - M. Hirmer, Greek Coins, New York 1966, p. 349. See Ch. Seltman, Greek Coins, London 1933, pp. 97, 106-107, 185, 208-209, on the association of a seated Zeus with the mints of Olympia, even before the construction of the temple, and on Alexan-der’s syncretism of this Zeus with Baal (rather than the opposite).


the associations with Olympia that Alexander wished to evoke105. Moreover, to-ward the end of his life, Alexander coined decadrachms on which he posed as Zeus Keraunophoros, just as in the image of Apelles that he dedicated to the temple of the Ephesian Artemis (Plin. nat. VII 125)106. Apart from this bold and unambiguous claim to Zeus’ patronage and divine kingship107, Alexander was often represented as spear-bearing (cfr. Plut. 334 F [mor. IV 433]) in a pose which has been associated by some scholars with the sculptures on the east pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia108. Similar coins were issued by Agathocles and Antimachus in honour and remembrance of Alexander, but, also, as a way of assuming his Jovian connec-tions109. Indicative of the successors’ preoccupation with Olympian Zeus is also the fact that in the third century BCE Antiochos IV resumed the works at the temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens; as mentioned (p. 5), its construction had begun under the Peisistratids in the sixth century BCE, but was duly abandoned as soon as they fell from power (Arist. pol. 1313b23; Thuc. II 15, 4; VI 54, 5)110. Pausanias (V 12, 4) adds that Antiochus made some notable dedications to the statue of Zeus at Olym-pia111. Eumenes II of Pergamon, who assisted Antiochus IV in his military plans, also favoured the cult of Zeus and both kings were said to have embraced a cult

105 Alexander also posed as Heracles in coins minted by Celtic tribes: J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hel-lenistic Age, cit., pp. 25-26; W. Heckel - J.C. Yardley, Alexander the Great. Historical Sources in Translation, Malden MA 2003, p. 208; J.M. Barringer, The Temple of Zeus, cit., p. 14.

106 A. Stewart, Faces of Power. Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics, Berkeley 1993, p. 199, esp. note 27. The temples of Ephesian Artemis, of Zeus at Olympia and the Parthenon have similar architecture that reflects the competition between the communities that commissioned them; cfr. R. Osborne, Greece in the Making 1200-479 BC, London-New York 20092, pp. 256-257.

107 J.R. Fears, The Cult of Jupiter and the Roman Imperial Ideology, «Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt» II 17, 1 (1981), pp. 3-141 at p. 68, esp. note 328; N.L.G. Hammond, The King-dom of Asia and the Persian Throne, «Antichthon» 20 (1986), pp. 73-85 at pp. 74-77 and Id., The King and the Land in the Macedonian kingdom, «Class. Quart.» 38 (1988), pp. 382-391 at pp. 389-391; E.A. Fredericksmeyer, Alexander, cit., p. 213, esp. notes 48-49.

108 For Alexander’s representation with spear, see Plut. De Is. et Os. 24. J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hel-lenistic Age, cit., p. 22; A. Stewart, Faces of Power, cit., pp. 161-167, esp. note 36 (for images of a spear-bearing Alexander modelled on the Pelops and Oinomaos episode from the east pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia), 194-195, 215, 339 (for the dedication of an Alexander-Zeus statue at Olympia recorded in Paus. V 25, 1). N. Papalexandrou, The Visual Poetics of Power. Warriors, Youths, and Tripods in Early Greece, Lanham 2005, pp. 101-103, 167-168, 218) argues that spear-holding warrior-type representations of Zeus at Olympia, do not depict the god, but express the aristocratic status of their commissioners. In addition to the image of Alexander already erected at the Philip-peion, Pliny (nat. XXXV 78) and Lucian (Her. 4-6) report that the painter Aëtion also dedicated at Olympia a painting of Alexander’s marriage to Roxane.

109 F.L. Holt, Thundering Zeus. The Making of Hellenistic Bactria, Berkeley-Los Angeles 1999, pp. 68-70. Agathocles also minted coins where the seated Zeus extended one hand to receive a perched eagle either in honour of Diodotus I or Antiochus II, both of whom had employed the image of a thun-dering Zeus in their coins.

110 L. Kallet, Demos Tyrannos, cit., p. 124. 111 The dedication is dated in 167 BCE. M. Price, The Statue of Zeus at Olympia, in P. Clayton -

M. Price (eds.), The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, London 1990, pp. 59-77 at p. 76 refers to Antiochus’ conquest of the temple of Solomon which he wished to rename as a temple of Olympian Zeus. The dedication described by Pausanias was possibly part of the temple’s spoils.


of Zeus Olympios112. Hence, it is obvious that Alexander as much as his successors sought to invest their authority with a model of divine kingship that Zeus epito-mized, especially in his manifestation at Olympia. In doing so, they acknowledged the continuous appeal that Zeus exercised on their subjects.

Accordingly, Zeus’ rule was once more associated with Homeric kingship; this model of leadership, previously employed by the Athenians, assisted Hellenistic kings in their effort to disassociate their regimes from the Persian/ oriental model(s) of kingship113. In addition, the Homeric tradition allowed Hellenistic monarchs to pose as father figures willing to subject their energies to the service of their peoples (Arist. eth. Nic. VIII 10, 4, 3-6; cfr. eth. Nic. VIII 11, 1, 6–2, 1)114; their rule was now «portrayed by philosophers and royal propagandists alike as something quintessen-tially Greek, socially and intellectually respectable and readily reconcilable with the Greek civic tradition of rule by law» (cfr. Pind. Pyth. I 10; IX 46)115 .

In literature, the divine election of kings was celebrated in Homer (in compli-ance with Near Eastern ideology)116, but was, also, adumbrated in Pindar, Aeschy-lus, Sophocles, and during the Hellenistic period in Theocritus and Callimachus117. Despite (or precisely because of) the associations of Hellenistic kingship with ori-ental regimes, contemporary poets strove to link their royal patrons with Homer and his Jovian example of divine kingship. For example, Callimachus’ association of Ptolemy II with Zeus in his hymn to the god is interspersed with evocative refer-ences to Homeric kingship118. Callimachus (hymn I 79) states, in agreement with Hesiod (th. 94-96), that «kings come from Zeus», just as in the Iliad (II 196-197) Odysseus asserts that «great is the anger of kings nourished by Zeus: their honours

112 J.J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age, cit., p. 283.113 R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, cit., pp. 64-66. Aristotle (pol. 1285a19-22, 1327b27-29) dis-

tinguished between Greek monarchy in which the subjects willingly offered their support to the “best of the citizens”, and oriental regimes in which the citizens lacked free will; K. Bringmann, The King as Benefactor. Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism, in A.W. Bulloch - E.S. Gruen - A.A. Long - A. Stewart (eds.), Images and Ideologies. Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, Berke-ley 1993, pp. 7-24 at p. 8.

114 According to Aristotle (pol. 1284b25-34), the difference between a king of outstanding virtue and his subjects is comparable to that of gods or heroes and human beings; although such a regime is likely to acquire a tyrannical character, it is best for the citizens to accept it ad infinitum (pol. 1288a15-29; 1325b10-14, 1332b16-27; 1259b10-17; 1261a38-39); see P. Vander Waerdt, Kingship and Philosophy, cit., p. 249; cfr. H. Kelsen, The Philosophy of Aristotle and the Hellenic-Macedonian Policy, «Intern. Journ. Ethics» 48/1 (1937), pp. 1-64 at p. 23.

115 R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, cit., p. 67.116 D. Launderville, Piety and Politics, cit., pp. 40-41, 72-84, 145. 117 J. Fears, The Cult of Jupiter, cit., p. 68, esp. note 327; S. Hornblower, Pindar and Kingship

Theory in Ancient Tyranny, in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh 2006, pp. 151-163 at p. 154; Ch. Segal, Tragedy and Civilization, cit., pp. 43-59.

118 See M. Depew, Gender, Power and Poetics in Callimachus’ Book of Hymns, in A. Harder - R.F. Regtuit - G.C. Wakker (eds.), Callimachus II, cit., pp. 117-138 at pp. 118-121; N. Hopkinson, Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus, «Class. Quart.» 34/1 (1984), pp. 139-148 at p. 145. The Athenian tyrant Peisistratus had set the example by writing himself in Homer’s Odyssey: D. Sansone, Ancient Greek Civilization, Oxford 2004, p. 73; cfr. S.E. Harrell, King or Private Citizen, cit., pp. 439-464 at pp. 440-450, for Hieron’s appropriation of Homeric kingship.


come from Zeus, and Zeus the Counsellor loves them»119. The Homeric connection between Zeus, sceptron, and kings «who hand out justice» (for example, Il. I 234, II 205, XVI 386, IX 98; cfr. Hes. th. 84-86; 901-902) was probably looming large in the mind of Aristotle as well when he urged for a renewed appreciation of the Spar-tan constitution (Arist. pol. 1285b20-30; cfr. Arist. pol. 1289a26-b8). Given the Homeric investment of Spartan kingship and its close ties with Zeus, Heracles, and the precinct of Olympia (Hdt. V 49, 7)120, Aristotle evidently appreciated the need of Hellenistic kings to invest their rule with a model that promoted their excellence, rather than their selfish thirst for power121.

Of course, Aristotle was not unaided in his admiration for “kingly men” who had been openly embraced by Plato (plt. 301E). Plato’s ideas were widely diffused during the Hellenistic period and sustained the understanding of the king as nomos empsychos (leg. 13B)122. Zeus, who in Plato was depicted as teaching king Minos the art of lawgiving (Hp. Mai. 319A, 320B)123, presented an ideal model for Hellen-istic kings who showed a renewed interest in passing legislation124 as an alternative means of pacifying their kingdoms125. Hence, Callimachus, in the lines discussed above, writes that Zeus «sets them (= the kings) up as the guardians of towns», a statement alluding to Plato (resp. 413C) where men of gold, born to rule, are men-

119 J. Griffin, Homer on Life and Death, Oxford 1980, p. 86; for the influence of Stoicism in Zeus’ Hellenistic profile, see Th. Bénatouïl, How Industrious Can Zeus Be? The Extent and Objects of Divine Activity in Stoicism, in R. Salles (ed.), God and Cosmos in Stoicism, Oxford 2009, pp. 23-45 at pp. 40-41.

120 M. Munn, Mother of the Gods, cit., pp. 27-29 with notes; P. Cartledge, Sparta and Laconia. A Regional History 1300-362 BCE, London 2002, pp. 88-89, 119, 132; P. Carlier, La Royaute en Grèce avant Alexandre, Strasbourg 1984, pp. 41-42.

121 P. Vander Waerdt, Kingship and Philosophy, cit., p. 253; cfr. Arist. pol. 1289a40 where kingship is characterized as prôte kai theiotate [the first and most divine (regime)]; cfr. Plat. plt. 303B and leg. 875C.

122 I. Ramelli, Il Basileus come nomos empsychos tra diritto naturale e diritto divino. Spunti pla-tonici del concetto e sviluppi di età imperiale e tardo-anticua, Napoli 2006, pp. 34-45. Cfr. T. Steven-son, The Ideal Benefactor, cit., p. 435 citing O. Murray, Review of F. Dvornik. 1966. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Centre for Byzantine Studies, «Journ. Theol. St.» 19 (1968), pp. 673-678 at p. 677; the latter argues that the notion of the king as nomos empsychos in the Hellenistic period is rather minor. However, R.A. Billows, Kings and Colonists, cit., pp. 59-60 disagrees.

123 Cfr. Plat. Prt. 322C-D; J.P. Vernant, Myth and Thought, cit., p. 243.124 A.H.M. Jones, The Hellenistic Age, «Past and Present» 27 (1964), pp. 3-22 at pp. 9, 13, 18; P.

Baker, Warfare, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford 2005, pp. 373-388 at p. 386; R.K. Balot, Greek Political Thought, Oxford 2006, pp. 277-278; E.M. Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society, vol. 2, New York-London 2005, pp. 178-179; see M. Fantuzzi - R.L. Hunter, Muse e modelli. La poesia ellenistica da Alessandro Magno ad Augusto, Roma-Bari 2004, pp. 238-242; C. Fakas, Der hellenistische Hesiod. Arats Phainomena und die Tra-dition der antike Lehrepik, Wiesbaden 2001, pp. 5-66, passim for justice in Hesiod and Aratus; cfr. C. Ulf, The World of Homer and Hesiod, in K.A. Raaflaub - H. Van Wees (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Greece, Oxford 2009, pp. 81-99 at pp. 91-98.

125 Plat. resp. IV 441-444; cfr. W.E. Brown, Some Hellenistic Utopias, «The Class. Weekly» 48/5 (1955), pp. 57-62 at pp. 58-60 citing Hdt. III 38 and his conclusion of novmo~ pavntwn basileuv~ (the king is the law of everything); cfr. P. Kyriakou, The Violence of Nomos, cit., pp. 197-199.


tioned as guardians, phulakes126. Although Plato refers to the military function of the gold phulakes, the links between the shining quality of gold and royal status as well as the guardians and royal military excellence cannot be overlooked127. Hesiod had already cast the people of gold as royal basileis, an association alluding to the reign of Cronus and allowing for kings to be seen as remnants of his golden race (th. 96; cfr. hymn. Hom. Ap. 4; Hom. Il. II 100-109, 203-206). This notion is con-sistent with the tradition of the Basilai, a college of priests that sacrificed annually to Cronus Basileus on the summit of Mount Cronos to the north-east of Olympia (Paus. VI 20, 1; Pind. Ol. I 111)128. Following Cronus’ defeat, kings retained their gold quality and vied for the approval of the victorious usurper Zeus (cfr. Hipponax fr. 38 O. Masson = frr. 34-35 Diehl), to whom Olympia was dedicated129.

It seems, therefore, that from its establishment in the archaic period to the Hel-lenistic era, the sanctuary of Olympia continued to promote a model of rule, deeply admired by all Greeks: the authoritative figure of the heavy-handed, but fair-mind-ed patriarch whose exceptional qualities benefitted his people. This model, invested with Homeric appeal, was applicable to individuals as well as like-minded groups (i.e. the demos) and transcended political agendas.

5. Conclusion

The temple of Zeus at Olympia exemplifies uniquely the agonistic character of the Greeks throughout their history. Fostered by aristocratic elites in the archaic pe-riod and appropriated by tyrannical and democratic regimes alike, the Greek agon legitimized ambition and perpetuated the idea that victory is reserved for the very best, the aristoi. In politics, victory was typically marked by the use of violence which was obviously incompatible with the claims of new regimes to establish or restore social justice. The PV reflected this problematic in the context of the newly-established Athenian democracy in which personal charisma was still recognized as an important factor in the handling of the demos. In appropriating the aristocratic model of a leader who is like a father to his people, the democrats increasingly in-vested their civic Zeus with Homeric kudos and wisdom which the Athenian Phei-dias also highlighted in his famous statue of the god at Olympia.

In my view, the much-discussed pediments and metopes relate three phases in the accomplishment of righteous kingship. The first two phases account for the use of force by monarchs and their claims to apotheosis while offering a warning to

126 B. Jowett, Symposium and Phaedrus, Mineola NY 1994, p. 63 discusses the righteous king in Plato; cfr. G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer, cit., p. 49 note 2 citing Hom. Od. XIX 109-114 and Hes. Op. 225-237 on the anticipation of material security under a righteous king.

127 J.P. Vernant, Myth and Thought, pp. 27-28; L. Kurke, Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold. The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece, Princeton 1999, pp. 51-64, 168.

128 See F.M. Cornford, The Origin of the Olympic Games, cit., pp. 252-256. 129 W. Burkert, Greek Religion, Boston 1985, p. 130; J.H. Oliver, Demokratia, the Gods, and the

Free World, Baltimore 1960, p. 37; H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus, pp. 6-7; J.P. Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece, transl. by J. Lloyd, New York 1988, pp. 105-109.


impious aggressors. The third phase is embodied by Zeus who poses as the divine dispenser of justice. This interpretation, promoted in light of the Athenian domi-nance in post-Persian wars Greece and the democratic aspirations of Elis under the auspices of the Athenians, is in keeping with «the allegorical thinking of the Periklean Age»130.

The predilection of Hellenistic rulers for the temple of Zeus at Olympia indi-cates that they also recognized its associations with god-sanctioned kingship that could substantiate their claims to power and adulation, especially in the eyes of their Greek subjects (Arist. pol. 1285a25-29; cfr. 1286b27-33). Treatises about the ideal ruler proliferated in the Hellenistic period and rulers typically addressed au-diences drenched in nostalgia for the kings of olden times who had competed and won at Olympia with Zeus’ unwavering support.

Abstract: The article explores the profile of Zeus as the contending king of gods in Aeschy-lus’ Prometheus Bound and the sculptures decorating his famous temple at Olympia. I argue that both sources portray violence as an indispensable stage of political struggle which will eventually give way to a phase of political benevolence. Thus, one can appreciate Zeus’ transformation from a tyrant to the divine upholder of justice in the new-fangled Athenian democracy, but, also, his continuous appeal as the epitome of the ideal ruler, especially as the Athenians claimed the leadership of Greece in the aftermath of the Persian Wars. In the Hellenistic period, the Macedonian kings also employed Zeus’ royal status, as celebrated at Olympia, to legitimize their own claims to power.

Keywords: Olympia, Zeus, Kingship, Ancient Greek political ideals.

130 R.R. Holloway, Panhellenism in the Sculptures of the Zeus Temple at Olympia, «Greece, Rom., and Byz. St.» 8/2 (1967), pp. 93-101 at p. 101.

Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. 2014. "Zeus at Olympia and Political Ideals in Ancient Greece," Maia 66:...

Documents

Transcript of Anagnostou-Laoutides, E. 2014. "Zeus at Olympia and Political Ideals in Ancient Greece," Maia 66:...