• 2  Herodotus 3.80; Euripides, Supplices 405–461; Isocrates, Areopagiticus 22; Aristotle, Politica 4.9 (...)
• 3  Malkin, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 10–13.
• 4  Demont (2001), p. 77.
• 5  Women priests are the exception; see Valdés (2020). On the ritual activity of the metics, see Wijm (...)
• 6  Demont (2001), p. 67–71. On age, Hansen (1991), p. 89, 91, 97. On prokrisis, Blok, in Malkin – Blo (...)
• 7  Taylor (2007), p. 329–340.

1As this quote from Plato shows, choosing magistrates by lot was characteristic of Athenian democracy, as also attested by his contemporaries.2 A recent book by I. Malkin and J. Blok underlines that the recourse to the lottery reflects an “egalitarian mindset” established in Greek thought since Homer and evident in a number of contexts.3 However, the cited testimonies should be questioned because their authors often criticise democracy and tend to hide key aspects of the democratic process which would allow for a fuller understanding.4 First of all, women, foreigners and slaves were not eligible for the draw, being excluded from exercising the magistracy.5 Adult male citizens also participated under limitations as to age, the pre-selection (prokrisis) of those eligible to be drawn, and the obligation to present oneself as a candidate.6 The magistrates drawn by lot were more socially diverse than those elected, confirming the views of those Athenian authors who describe this procedure as genuinely democratic.7 Two further points on the relationship between the draw and the vote need to be considered.

• 8  Blok, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 334–338.
• 9  Ar. Ath. Pol. 22.5; Rhodes (2017), p. 253–254; Blok, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 297, 325–326, 343 (...)
• 10  Blok, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 353–363.
• 11  Ar. Ath. Pol. 22.1; Forsdyke (2005), p. 165–177; Pébarthe (2022), p. 76–77, 160–167.
• 12  Ar. Ath. Pol. 22.2; Fornara (1971), p. 1–27; Rhodes (2017), p. 250. Other magistrates with militar (...)
• 13  Hdt. 5.78.
• 14  The urban transformation of Athens was also taking place, with decisions voted by the assembly. Pa (...)
• 15  Spivey (1994), p. 40.
• 16  Aesch. Supp. 370–375, 600–624, 739–740, 942–949; Eum. 597, 625–630, 674–710, 734– 743, 748–753. Fo (...)

2The first is that the importance of the offices chosen by lot in Athens was the result of a complex institutional history. J. Blok explains that both oligarchies and democracies used the lottery. The political regime was not defined by the procedure, but by the fact that the participants in the lottery recognised each other as equals for the purposes of the decision, with the defining variable being the larger or smaller number of those eligible to be drawn.8 She also shows that, in Athens, the lottery evolved gradually. Its beginnings were in 487, drawing the archons from a pre-selected panel, perhaps by voting.9 The reforms of 462 attributed to Ephialtes marked an important step, after which the use of the lottery was gradually generalised as a means of selecting an increasing number of magistrates.10 This analysis allows us to identify a period of hegemony for voting, stretching from the reforms attributed to Clisthenes (508/7) to those attributed to Ephialtes (462). Ostracism is particularly noticeable in the 480s.11 It is also worth noting, in this period, the election by vote of strategoi, one per tribe.12 These institutional aspects were overshadowed by the political and military successes of democracy. From its beginnings, celebrated by Herodotus,13 until the triumph over the Persians and the first two decades of Athenian hegemony, a deliberative assembly took successful decisions.14 The exercise of the vote transcended other aspects of Athenian life. Spivey dates to the early fifth century depictions of Homeric heroes voting on the destiny of Achilles’ weapons and highlights the paradox of seeing heroes voting rather than fighting.15 Towards the end of the period, Aeschylus exalts the vow in Suppliants (463) and Eumenides (458).16

• 17  Rhodes (1985), p. 6–8, on sortition; p. 38–39, 20 n. 4 etc., on vote.
• 18  Boegehold (1995); Hansen (1991), p. 181–189, 197–199; Lopez-Rabatel (2019).
• 19  Hansen (1991), p. 130–131; Moretti (2019), p. 133–140. In the fourth century, this number was requ (...)
• 20  Canevaro (2019); Pébarthe (2022), p. 55–60.
• 21  Jones (1969), p. 41–72; Loraux (1993a), p. 179–229; Ober (2008). Mosconi (2021) and Pébarthe (2022 (...)

3The second point is that voting retained its importance even when the lottery predominated. The members of the Boulē were chosen by lot but voted in the performance of their duties.17 As for the courts, the six thousand members of the Heliaia were chosen by lot annually, and the panels of judges for each trial were drawn in the same way,18 but they passed their sentences by vote. The ordinary form of voting in the assemblies was by show of hands (cheirotonia), requiring a quorum of six thousand participants.19 In the context of the assemblies Canevaro has shown a tendency to seek a unanimous vote resulting from discussions that could extend over several assembly sessions, in contrast with the vote at the courts where decision was taken by simple majority.20 However, the discrimination between drawing lots and voting is blurred in academic discussions on Athenian democracy, and scholars note the absence of an ideological democratic discourse in ancient Athens that could justify arguments for the more democratic nature of one procedure over the other.21

• 22  Homer, Iliad 15.185–210; see Macé (2014), p. 666–669; Malkin, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 23–24, 4 (...)
• 23  Pindar, Olympian 7.54–71, with the commentary by Malkin, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 54–56.
• 24  Demont (2000); Malkin, in Malkin – Blok (2024), p. 41–91.
• 25  Hom. Il. 1.533–537, 8.2–9. Hera presides (Hom. Il. 15.78–156) following the indications of Zeus.
• 26  Hom. Il. 8.5–27, 20.4–41, Zeus gives orders to the gods gathered in assembly; on the obligation to (...)
• 27  Infra, n. 34, 56, 84.

4This quick examination of the relative weight of the lottery and the vote leaves out a fundamental difference, one central to the present study: the lottery has a divine and heroic pedigree which voting seems to have lacked. In the Iliad, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades share out the cosmos by drawing lots,22 and the establishment of Helios as the patron god of Rhodes also shows how the lottery among the gods operates.23 Heroes, too, cast lots to manage their relations without there being any hint of “democracy”.24 In the Iliad the gods meet under the aegis of Zeus,25 who transmits orders that are binding on the rest of the gods.26 When we see the Twelve gods voting in later works,27 it is only marginally, and in contexts reflecting the Athenian practice in the classical period. Therefore, while the practice of the lottery among gods and heroes provides an inspiring background for its use at the city, the ordinary exercise of the vote by Athenian citizens apparently lacked mythical endorsement.

• 28  On the theories of myth, see Segal (1999), (2021).

6It is necessary to contextualise the place of this study in the panorama of theories on myth.28 The definition of myth by C. Lévi-Strauss was problematic even at the time of its first formulation:

• 30  Applications of Lévi-Strauss’ structuralism to the study of Greek myth include Vernant (1985), p.  (...)
• 31  Among the works on myth by C. Calame, I select Calame (2011), 19–89, and (2015), 23–116 (on theore (...)
• 32  Detienne (1981); Brisson (1994, first edition 1982).
• 33  Loraux (1984); Parker (1988); Darthou (2020).

7This methodological approach was followed by students of Greek myths from the sixties of the past century and afterwards.30 But an early challenge to these studies emerged from authors deeply concerned with the linguistic and literary forms that transmit the stories, while denying the oral principle stressed by Lévi-Strauss.31 In the course of the progress of scholarship following the structuralist and post-structuralist program, there were also disagreements about some crucial questions.32 In this, certainly simplified, overview Athenian mythology has tended to receive special treatment. Although it is generally accepted that myths are not linked to historical processes, some Athenian cultural specificities challenge that premise. Among the reasons for this are the huge literary production of Athens in comparison with any other classical city, and Athenian political theatre in particular, and our comparatively more detailed knowledge of the historical process of the city.33

• 35  Huys (1997), p. 343; also, Huys – Colomo (2004).
• 36  Carrière – Massonie (1991), p. 10–11, lean toward a range between the years 180–230; p. 12–16, on (...)

10Concerning this quotation, I agree with Huys’ statement that “often the version of a legend as told by Apollodorus is taken as the vulgate and as a starting point for further discussion”.35 It is difficult to identify “Apollodorus” but he is commonly dated from the imperial period, and his predilection for the use of archaic genealogical models and of classical mythological prose are also accepted.36

• 37  Parker (1988), p. 200.
• 38  Parker (1988), p. 198–200.
• 39  Parker (1988), p. 199–200.

11Turning to the dispute between Athena and Poseidon, Parker has highlighted the difficulty arising from the fact that the myth “had never been put into order in a continuous poetic narrative but existed in fragments associated with particular monuments and cults”.37 This author also highlights three basic goals of the myth: to explain the primacy of Athena in the pantheon of the city; to introduce “drama” into the monuments of the Acropolis that were built in the second half of the fifth century, updating the myth among the Athenians; to explain the origin of the olive tree as a religious symbol of Attica.38 I still follow Parker when he raises questions about the idea of dating the myth of the eris around the 470s.39 However, as has been stated, the motif of the voting will have been first invented at some moment, and I shall return to the question of dating at this paper’s conclusion.

• 40  Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales 9.6.741a: Ποσειδῶνος (…) ἡττώμενον πολλάκις. In Athens by Athena, (...)
• 41  In Athens, Plutarch (Quaest. conv. 9.6.741a) states that Poseidon and Athena shared a temple. In D (...)
• 42  In Argos, the rivers Inachus, Kephissos and Asterion judge (δικάζω, Paus. 2.15.5) the conflict. In (...)
• 43  Supra, n. 22, 23.
• 44  Plato, Menexenus, 237c–d (commented by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes 28). The eris is pa (...)

12This conflict is just one of many disputes between the gods over territories. As Plutarch writes, Poseidon is often defeated.40 Nevertheless, where Plutarch presents Poseidon’s defeats, other sources refer to agreements or deals.41 Apollodorus describes a relatively banal dispute between gods, the resolution of which Zeus entrusts to the Twelve gods.42 However, Greek narratives offered other possibilities, such as the use of the lottery.43 Plato follows this approach when, despite revealing that he is aware of the eris between Athena and Poseidon by including it in Menexenus,44 he indignantly denies its existence in Critias:

• 46  Pl. Crit. 109c; Darthou (2000), p. 185–186.
• 47  Pl. Res. 2.380a insists that the notion of disputes among the gods must be eradicated from the ide (...)
• 48  Supra, n. 1.
• 49  See Demont (2014); Macé (2019).
• 50  Brisson (1994a), p. 32–40; Ruben (2016), p. 301–305. Brisson (1994b), p. 519, defines Critias as “(...)

13This was the way in which Athena and Hephaestus obtained Attica (τήνδε τὴν χώραν εἰλήχατον).46 Plato uses verbs relating to the lottery four times (διαλαγχάνω, λαγχάνω twice, κληρουχέω) to erase the idea of a dispute; since it does not exist, it does not need to be resolved.47 In any case, there is no contradiction between Menexenus and Critias. For Plato, the problem is not in the drawing of lots but in its purpose. In democracy it served to select magistrates;48 in Critias and Laws it serves to distribute regions of the world or plots of land among equals, whether gods or men.49 Furthermore, while Menexenus presents a parody of the Funeral Oration, Critias is a narration presented in all seriousness.50 We can thus infer that Plato’s position seems to be the one expressed in Critias.

• 51  These are secondary characters arising from the proliferation of mythical genealogies typical of H (...)

14This excerpt from Plato allows us to ask the questions raised by the passage of Apollodorus: Who are the protagonists in the resolution of the dispute? How do they act? For what reasons? Apollodorus considers that it was Zeus together with the other gods constituted as a tribunal, discarding the versions that pointed to Kekrops, Kranaus, or Erysichthon.51 We therefore know that different versions of the episode circulated in his time, which have come down to us in a scant, fragmentary state. I propose to examine them in a roughly chronological order.

• 52  Hdt. 8.55.1.
• 53  Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.5.10, commented below. Other testimonies are even more elusive: Euripides, (...)
• 54  Supra, n. 20.

15In the fifth century, Herodotus provides the earliest reference: the Athenian exiles who accompany Xerxes go to the Acropolis to make a sacrifice. They find at the temple dedicated to Erechtheus “an olive tree and a sea, which, according to an Athenian story, were left by Poseidon and Athena as a testimony of their dispute over the territory”.52 However, Herodotus leaves the resolution procedure of the dispute unexplained, just as Plato does in Menexenus. Xenophon offers another mention of the myth as the first event in the history of Athens and states that “those around Kekrops” act as judges.53 This precision on the judicial issue places the vote of the Kekropides in the context of its history in democratic Athens as different of the tendentially unitary or consensual vote of assemblies.54

• 55  Hollis (2009), p. 3–10.
• 56  Callim. fr. 260.25–26 Pfeiffer; Hollis (2009), p. 96, 224–237, 412. See infra, n. 83.
• 57  Callim. fr. 194.67–68 Pfeiffer; Iambics 4.67–8; Kerkhecker (1999), p. 100–104.

16In the third century, Callimachus records both versions. In Hecalē, a poem composed around 270 BCE, he displays his knowledge of Attic matters in two passages about Erichthonius and the daughters of Kekrops, which are difficult to understand due to the poor condition of the text.55 Erichthonius is the first fully human king of Athens and, by mentioning Athena’s intervention in his upbringing, the poem indicates that the goddess had recently taken possession of the territory with “the vote of Zeus [ψήφῳ τε Διός] and twelve other gods and the testimony [μαρτυρία] of the serpent-man [= Kekrops]”.56 The other version appears in Iambus 4, where Callimachus merely points out that Kekrops was the judge of the dispute.57

• 58  Dion. Hal. Dem. 28; Paus. 1.26.5, 27.2; Proclus, In Platonis Timaeum commentarii, 173.10– 30; Mena (...)
• 59  Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.1; Ovid, Metamorphoses 6.70–72; Hyginus, Fabulae, 164.

18The authors of the Roman Imperial period follow these models, but they also offer new developments. Some, along the lines established by Herodotus, allude to the eris without indicating how it is resolved.58 Others, along the lines of Callimachus (Hecalē), confer the leading role on the gods and Zeus in particular. We have already seen how Apollodorus dismisses the versions that leave the judgement to humans and states that Zeus appointed the Twelve gods as judges with Kekrops relegated to the role of witness.59

• 60  Oliver (1968), p. 34.
• 61  Aristides (Orationes, 1.354 Lenz-Behr) refers to the period of Kekrops and Ericthonius as μυθώδη. (...)
• 62  Ἐπιτρέψαντες δικασταῖς καὶ κριταῖς αὐτοῖς τοῖς τότε τὴν χώραν ἔχουσι, Aristid. Or. 1.41 Lenz-Behr, (...)
• 63  Aristid. Or. 1.43 Lenz-Behr; with the commentary of Oliver (1968), p. 103–104.
• 64  Aristid. Or. 1.45 Lenz-Behr; Oliver (1968), p. 105.
• 65  Infra, n. 83.

19In the second century BCE, Aelius Aristides carries out a “Romanisation of the Athenian past” in his Panathenaicus, possibly composed around the year 167,60 where the mythic era of Athens is situated on the margins of the logos that is the object of the text.61 There we read versions of the two ways of resolving the conflict of the gods. Firstly, he follows the tradition from Xenophon and Callimachus (Iambus 4), indicating that the gods “trusting none other than the then inhabitants of the country to be their jurors and judges”.62 The allusion to Kekrops and his family seems evident. Further on, Aristides introduces an important new development when he points out that the trial was settled by voting, as “on winning the vote, the goddess gave her name to the city” (λαβοῦσα δὲ τὰς ψήφους ἡ θεὸς τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν τῇ πόλει δίδωσιν).63 Later still, Aristides follows the version previously stated by Callimachus (Hecalē) when he alludes to the gods as judges,64 for the intention of the whole passage is to underline the privileged relationship of the Athenians with the justice of the gods.65

• 67  Loraux (1984), p. 121–122; Gourmelen (2004), 181–182, 186–187, among others.
• 68  Donald (1996), p. 192.

21Many authors have commented on this testimony. Some French scholars limit themselves to stating that the passage defines the beginning of the social order in force in historical Athens, with the exclusion of women from public life and the foundation of a patriarchal system.67 Donald discredits, surprisingly, any role for women in resolving the eris, arguing that “Varro is the only author who specifically says that the winner of the contest was determined by a vote.”68 In contrast to this assertion, I will try to show that other testimonies of proven antiquity knew of the existence of this primordial vow of women.

• 69  Philochorus FGrHist 328 F 95. Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.2 is clear “people were called metaphorically peo (...)
• 70  Mauduit (2019), p. 75–78; Spivey (1994), p. 50–51.
• 71  Hdt. 3.142.3, 4.161.3, 7.164.1, etc. See Vernant (1985), 217–227; Detienne (1967), p. 81–103.

22A fragment of Philochorus (active in the first half of the third century) provides the first allusion to a primitive vote. Kekrops, anxious to increase the number of Athenians, ordered them to collect stones (λίθοι) and bring them “to the centre” (εἰς τὸ μέσον). When 20,000 stones were counted, it was established that from this fact the crowd was given the name λαός. Philochorus here is making a play on words on two levels. Phonetically, he plays with the homophony between λαός (crowd), and λᾶας (stone, genitive λᾶος), suggesting a kind of semantic derivation between λίθος and λαός.69 Moreover, the use of stones to count people evokes the ψῆφοι (polished stones, pebbles) used to count votes in some procedures of Athenian democracy.70 As for the specific meaning of the fragment, it points to the existence of democratic forms from the very moment of the formation of the Athenian people. More specifically, to bring stones “to the centre” reproduces a turn of phrase well attested in the work of Herodotus to explain the return of power to the people after tyrannical periods in the second half of the sixth century.71

• 72  Supra, the context of n. 53. Dorion (2003), p. ccxli, accepts the year 370 as terminus post quem f (...)

23We can now turn back to the mention by Xenophon of the judgement of the gods.72 Socrates and Pericles, the son of Pericles, talk about the value of remembering the most ancient and excellent ancestors:

• 74  On οἱ περὶ + person’s noun in accusative, see Mawet (1984); Gorman (2001), (2003).
• 75  Synthesis in Harding (2008), 27–30, 199–202. Details in Brulé (1987), p. 28–41, 43–45; Kearns (198 (...)
• 76  Supra, n. 40–41 on the disputes between gods. Another case is the judgement (κρῑνειν) of the mount (...)
• 77  See below for details.
• 78  Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.6, the story of birth and upbringing. On the confusion between the two charact (...)
• 79  Brulé (1987), p. 63–64; Sourvinou-Inwood (2011), p. 36–48.
• 80  Apollod. Bibl. 3.15.4–5; Harding (2008), p. 214–215; Sourvinou-Inwood (2011), p. 57–59.
• 81  Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 105.

24The passage alludes to three episodes of the mythic foundational period of Athens. In the first one, the key is to identify the people behind οἱ περὶ Κέκροπα. There are three possibilities: that the person cited is included in the group, that he/she is excluded, or that this is a periphrastic way of designating the person referred to.74 The simplest interpretation is that Xenophon is referring to Kekrops and his daughters, Aglauros, Pandrosos and Hersē, outstanding personalities of the Athenian pantheon.75 Three arguments can be considered. First, the scene recalls other disputes between gods, settled in this case by the trial (κρίσιν… ἔκριναν) of a group.76 Secondly, οἱ περὶ Κέκροπα are noted for their aretē, so the action of the selected judges precludes the evocation of a referendum, as in the Varro/ Augustine passage, or of a census, as in the Philochorus fragment just examined. Thirdly, although the composition of the family of Kekrops varies in different versions, women, and particularly his daughters, always predominate, and other more explicit texts state their role in the resolution of the eris of the gods.77 The second episode cites Erechtheus but the mention of his birth and upbringing (τροφὴν καὶ γένεσιν), evokes the importance of these episodes in relation to Erichthonius, frequently confused with Erechtheus,78 and it is inevitable to recall the role of the daughters of Kekrops as his wet nurses.79 Finally, the third episode alludes to the war between Athens, ruled by Erechtheus, and Eleusis, ruled by Eumolpus. According to some versions the cause of this war was Poseidon’s desire to take revenge for his defeat in the dispute with Athena,80 and Philochorus states that Aglauros threw herself from the city wall to ensure the victory of the Athenians.81

• 82  Schaps (1977); Kapparis (2022), p. 45–47, 65, 94 n. 54, 165; the women mentioned by name were pros (...)

25Thus, the first two episodes point directly to a simultaneously evident but unspoken leading role for the daughters of Kekrops; in the third episode they are only important in some versions. Xenophon’s passage suggests that, for an Athenian audience of the fourth century, the daughters of Kekrops could be evoked with an inclusive masculine plural (οἱ). A likely explanation for why Xenophon avoids the names of these decisive women may be found in the established etiquette for mentioning women from good families. In Athenian forensic oratory, it was not correct to call women by their first names except in very specific cases and when they were hetairai.82 Xenophon’s avoidance of citing the daughters of Kekrops by name would thus be an expression of this social bias.

• 83  Supra, n. 56. Other testimonies present the Twelve gods acting as a tribunal in Athens. In a fragm (...)
• 84  Georgoudi (1996), p. 43–47, 73–75.
• 85  Georgoudi (1996), p. 48–72, on the absence of a stable canon; also Georgoudi (1998); Rutherford (2 (...)
• 86  Supra, n. 56.

26Now, although Xenophon does not indicate the judicial procedure followed by “those around Kekrops”, the existence of a female vote in this primitive stage of Athenian history is reinforced if we consider the resolution of the eris by a tribunal of gods. In the quoted text of Apollodorus, the Twelve gods are mentioned with the masculine plural accusative θεούς. Callimachus in Hecalē refers to the Twelve gods with the plural genitive ἀθανάτων, which can be masculine, feminine, or neuter.83 These authors probably refer to a tradition related to the importance of the altar of the Twelve gods on the agora of Athens.84 But the question now is that the group of the Twelve gods always includes goddesses85 who vote and whose vote is presented, at least, as equal to that of Zeus, whose vote simply serves as a tiebreaker in the Hecalē of Callimachus.86

• 88  Aristid. Or. 1.41, cited supra, n. 62.
• 89  Like Athena’s vote at the trial of Orestes, Aesch. Eum. 734–754; see Gagarin (1975), or the vote o (...)

28In view of this scholium, we might wonder whether Aristides himself, in mentioning the granting of the right to judge to Kekrops and his family, was at the same time alluding to and concealing the numerical predominance of women with the expression “the settlers of the territory” (τοῖς τότε τὴν χώραν ἔχουσι), who vote to resolve the conflict.88 If this is true, the author of the scholium brings to light the allusion made by Aristides with a turn similar to the one detected in Xenophon. In any case, the scholium corroborates Varro’s testimony of a block vote of men and women and sheds light on the elusive texts. The precision of the count in both passages is striking (one more woman in Varro, three to one in Kekrops’ family in the scholiast). However, three differences suggest that our authors were relying on different sources. Firstly, according to the scholiast, Zeus, as the guarantor of the electoral process, is the protagonist of the story, whereas Zeus does not appear in Varro. Next, the scholiast presents the primordial Athenian society with the royal house having a casting vote,89 whereas Varro presents a plebiscitary vote. Finally, the scholiast says nothing about the punishment of women, a fundamental question in Varro’s text.

• 90  Divisive, and contrary to the consensual vote sought in political activity; see Canevaro (2019). P (...)

29In short, there is a continuity in the presentation of women as main characters in the resolution of the dispute between Poseidon and Athena through the vote. This continuity spans Xenophon, Varro and the sources of the scholiast of Aristides. Although the constituency changes (gods and goddesses, or women and men, form a restricted or massive constituency), the accounts are always situated in the sphere of the judicial vote.90

• 91  Cratinus, PCG 4, fr. 7 Kassel-Austin (p. 126) in Photius δ 659 = Suda, δ 1213, s.v. Διὸς ψῆφος, se (...)

30To complete the analysis, it is necessary to examine two other late testimonies. The Suda and Hesychius explain a verse from the comedy Hoi Archilochoi by Cratinus, performed in 448 BCE. Both lexicons relate the verse to the dispute between Athena and Poseidon, offering different explanations of the place mentioned by Cratinus. According to the lemma read at Photius/Suda, Διὸς ψῆφος is the name of the place where the trial was held, although the expression could well mean “the vote of Zeus.”91 Hesychius presents a different scenario:

• 93  Or, at the most, exercising a casting vote, like Athena in Aesch. Eum., supra, n. 89.
• 94  Supra, n. 25–26.
• 95  Sissa – Detienne (1989), 158–172, chapter “Quand les Olympiens prennent l’habit du citoyen”. We ca (...)

31This text explains the support given to Athena by Zeus and relates the epithet Polieus to the voting to resolve the quarrel between gods in some kind of referendum (ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἀθηναίων διαψηφίσει).93 It is intriguing that Zeus, tirelessly depicted by Homer and Hesiod as an autocrat,94 appears as an ordinary citizen voting on a par with everyone else. Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to speak of the Athenian citizenship of Zeus, but this is what the texts suggest when he acts as one more among the voting Athenians, thus showing himself the divine reference for voting.95 Moreover, both lexicons follow the two lines we have examined by referring to a court (τόπος, ἐν ᾧ ἐκρίθησαν), attested from Xenophon, but without mentioning the judges (Photius/Suda) or the vote of all Athenians (Hesychius). This point deserves further attention, as Hesychius does not identify the voters. The plural genitive Ἀθηναίων does not distinguish the gender of the constituency, but the scene described conveys the uncertainty about the scrutiny that we already know. In this situation, Athena asks Zeus to vote for her (ὑπέρ αὑτῆς τήν ψῆφον ἐνεγκεῖν) offering him a sacrifice as compensation. It is an open question if Zeus figures among the Ἀθηναίων, and Athena just “buys” his vote, or if the vote of Zeus is unexpected and Athena acts to get it in a situation like that in the scholium of Aristides, where Zeus looks for the additional vote of the Kekropidai. In either case Zeus decides the outcome of the dispute, either directly by his vote, as we are seeing, or indirectly by acting as the electoral arbiter who counts the votes of Kekrops and his daughters (scholium on Aristides).

• 96  Robert (1882).
• 97  Boegehold (1995), p. 212–214.

32To complete the argument, the only known representation of the mytheme of the vote inserted in the conflict between Poseidon and Athena deserves attention. It is a greyish-white marble relief measuring 83 cm high, 70 cm wide and 10 cm thick (Fig. 1). It was found in the collection of the Protestant school of Smyrna, although it originated at Aphrodisias in Caria and is dated to the third century BCE.96 The relief shows three main figures around a table. On the left, Poseidon appears naked in front of a tree, holding his trident in his right hand and raising his left foot to place it on a small pedestal, which looks like the stump of a tree that has been cut down. On the right is Athena, fully armed; behind her is also a tree on whose top perches the goddess’s owl, acting almost as a witness to the scene. The third main figure is between the two figures behind the table, a winged Nike with her right hand in a jar placed on the table, evoking the vessels used for casting votes in Athenian court proceedings.97 Her gesture indicates the extraction of the psephoi to count the vote. Around the right front leg of the table is coiled a serpent with its head pointing towards Athena; this is Kekrops, the serpent king who has taken part in the vote and who by his posture seems to attribute victory to Athena. It is likely that the tree behind the goddess, on whose branches the owl perches, is the olive tree offered to the Athenians, while the sea offered by Poseidon is alluded to by a small dolphin around an anchor in front of and below the table. The interpretation of this relief is evident; the question which arises is why this scene was depicted in a place and at a date where the motif would indicate little more than the mythological erudition of the person commissioning it. I take it that the frieze’s subject-matter reflects the popularity of the motif of the vote in an oral tradition autonomous of the written sources examined in this paper.

• 98  Porphyry, De abstinentia 2.28.4–31.1.

33We have seen in our survey of versions of the story of the eris and its resolution an evolution in the figure of Zeus from his generic form into the particularly Athenian Zeus Polieus. Hesychius explains that Athena sacrifices in honour of Zeus Polieus in appreciation of his favourable vote in the eris with Poseidon. The god had a cult place on the Acropolis summit and his feast, the Dipolieia, was celebrated in Athens on the 14th of the month Skirophorion. Our main witness to this feast is the Neoplatonist Porphyry (ca. 234–ca. 305 CE), who offers a detailed account of the sacrifice of the ox at the Bouphonia, the best-known rite of the Dipolieia.98 In this section I will propose an interpretation of the rites celebrated on 3 Skirophorion in the deme of Erchia, emphasising the democratic, participatory, and androcentric dimension of the myth read in Porphyry.

• 99  I follow the text and translations of Carbon et al. CGRN 52. Editio princeps Daux (1963). Also, AI (...)
• 100  On the conjectured restoration: Jameson (1965), p. 157; followed by Dow (1965), p. 204; Mikalson ( (...)

34The Erchia deme calendar, dated ca. 375–350 BCE, lists the sacrifices celebrated throughout the year.99 We are interested in the sacrifices of 3 Skirophorion, the last month of the Attic calendar (June/July) and the last date of the inscription with substantial information, the final column preserving only the name of the month. On this day, Kourotrophos, Athena Polias, Aglauros, Zeus Polieus, and Poseidon receive sacrifices. M.H. Jameson suggested restoring the name of Pandrosos, the sister of Aglauros. He further proposed that the Arrhephoria was celebrated on this day, considering the presence of Aglauros and the date.100 Later, after the publication of Thorikos’ calendar, Robertson suggested identifying the feast with the Plynteria, since Athena and Aglauros receive sacrifices in the month of Skirophorion. Both proposals raise difficulties.

• 101  Etymologicum Magnum, 135.14; Donnay (1997), p. 184.
• 102  CGRN 32.52–53. Editio prínceps, Daux (1983).
• 103  Plutarch, Alcibiades, 34.1. According to Photius κ 124 the Plynteria were held on 29 Thargelion, b (...)
• 104  Anecdota Graeca 1.240.29–30 Bekker; as mentioned by Mikalson (1977), p. 228, and argued by Roberts (...)
• 105  As highlighted by Kearns (1989), p. 26; Parker (2007), p. 68; Lebreton (2015), p. 9–10.
• 106  Kearns (1989), p. 24; Donnay (1997), p. 181; Parker (2007), p. 219–223. The baseline studies do no (...)
• 107  Hesch. π 2632 s.v. Plynteria, Hansen; Xen. Hell. 1.4.12. Brulé (1987), p. 105–113; Parker (2007), (...)
• 108  Kearns (1989), p. 26.

35As for the date, there are three considerations to be made. First of all, the only available testimony on the date of the Arrhephoria indicates that they were held in the month of Skirophorion, without specifying the day.101 The Thorikos calendar (ca. 440–430 BCE, or ca. 380–375 BCE) dates the Plynteria to the month of Skirophorion,102 although its celebration in Athens was on the 25th of Thargelion (May/June).103 Another, late testimony states that the dates of the festivals can differ between Athens and the demes.104 The conclusion is that it seems risky to establish the Arrhephoria on the 3rd of Skirophorion on the basis of the Erchia calendar. As far as the pantheon is concerned, the starting point is that the gods and goddesses celebrated on 3 Skirophorion at Erchia are the gods and goddesses of the Acropolis of Athens.105 That said, it seems forced to equate the divinities involved in the Arrhephoria or the Plynteria with those mentioned in Erchia. At the Arrhephoria, Athena is the protagonist and Pandrosos has a secondary role,106 while at the Plynteria, Athena and Aglauros are the stars of the show.107 Therefore, the question raised by E. Kearns is pertinent: “What are we to make of the presence in the Erchia calendar of Zeus Polieus and Poseidon, who seem very unlikely to have had a place in either Arrhephoria or Plynteria?”108

• 109  Paus. 1.26.5; Eur. Erechtheus, fr. 65.90–94 Austin; Apollod. Bibl. 3.15.1.
• 110  Even if Pandrosos had to be dispensed with and the name of another divinity or an oath had to be r (...)
• 111  Daux (1963), p. 631; Pirenne-Delforge (2004), both underlining the autonomy of the goddess. The sa (...)

36To answer, I suggest that the gods who receive the sacrifice on the 3rd of Skirophorion make up the pantheon involved in the divine eris. Poseidon and Athena are at the centre of the dispute that ends with the triumph of Athena as Polias and the establishment of the cult of Poseidon-Erechtheus.109 Zeus Polieus plays a leading role in the resolution of the dispute as arbiter or voter. Finally, Aglauros and possibly Pandrosos110 are the women whose vote gives Athena the victory. To complete the analysis, Kourotrophos in the first column then has the function of introducing the sacrifice, as in the case of the other five mentions of the goddess in the calendar.111

• 112  This is the name of the Acropolis of Erchia, like the Acropolis of Athens: Daux (1963), p. 623–624 (...)
• 113  CGRN 56 (ca. 375–350 BCE) estates the prices of around 75 animals showing near the same amount for (...)

37A final issue is to define which feast is referred to. If we adhere to the traditional hierarchy of the gods we could think of the Dipolieia because Zeus appears as Διὶ Πολιε⟨ῖ⟩ and the rite is celebrated ἐμ πόλει.112 However, the price of slaughtered animals establishes another hierarchy as the Kourotrophos receives a piglet worth three drachmas, Zeus Polieus and Poseidon a sheep of twelve drachmas each, and Athena Polias and Aglauros an ewe of ten drachmas each. But the ewe for Athena is ἀντίβους, a substitute for a cow whose price could be 80 or 90 drachmas,113 indicating her superior rank. Considering the preceding analyses, the apparently greater importance of Athena in Erchia seems to be a matter of local accent. What should be emphasised is that the regular celebration of this rite points to the widespread dissemination in the first half of the fourth century of versions of the eris of the gods with the decisive vote of female characters. The presence of the daughters of Kekrops in the constellation of the cult of Zeus Polieus celebrated at Erchia can easily be understood by their role as judges or voters.

• 114  Schorn (2022), p. 99–113, with the previous references.
• 115  Schorn (2022), p. 102 n. 91, announces a study on the historiography of ritual and a new interpret (...)
• 116  Aristophanes, Nubes, 984, qualifies the sacrifice as ἀρχαῖος; according to Porph. Abst. 2.10.2, th (...)

38The version of the myth and rite of Zeus Polieus that we read in Porphyry has been examined primarily from two points of view. On the one hand, source criticism has established that Porphyry makes extensive use of Theophrastus’ (371–287 BCE) book On piety.114 On the other hand, studies have focused on the details of the sacrifice115 which the Athenians saw as “old-fashioned”.116

• 117  Porph. Abst. 2.28.4–31.1. For the myth I follow Durand (1986), 43–66; for the translations G. Clar (...)

39The plot begins in an indefinite ancient time (τὸ γὰρ παλαιόν) when “people sacrificed crops to the gods, but not animals” to end in the present time when “there are still families of those who perform the rite”. From the spatial point of view the story begins in an undetermined Attica and ends in “every Diipoleia at Athens, on the acropolis”.117 Durand explains how the text produces the whole transformation from both temporal and spatial conditions. The hero of this transformation has several attested names, but Porphyry chooses Sopatros, “who did not belong to the country by descent but farmed land in Attica” (τῷ γένει οὐκ ἐγχώριον, γεωργοῦντα δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀττικήν). Sopatros is then a metic working the land on behalf of some citizen, he kills an ox and, terrified by his misdeed, goes into exile, taking refuge in Crete. A series of crop failures in Attica ensues, until the Pythia orders the Athenians to seek out Sopatros to fix the situation. A delegation of Athenians meets Sopatros, there is a negotiation, and Sopatros agrees to return to Athens on condition that they all share his impurity by acting like him (εἰ κοινῇ τοῦτο πράξειαν πάντες); he agrees also to kill the ox if, in return, they make him a citizen (εἰ πολίτην αὐτὸν ποιησάμενοι). Following these agreements, now back in Athens, the death of the ox is shared (κοινωνήσουσι τοῦ φόνου), the intervention of different people is organised, and they all eat the ox (ἐγεύσαντο τοῦ βοὸς πάντες).

• 118  Kapparis (2018), p. 94–95.
• 119  Schorn (2022), p. 108–109, 112.

40The granting of citizenship to Sopatros evokes a well-regulated procedure in Athenian law. When Theophrastus was writing in the fourth century it involved two votes. The first was required to approve the decree granting citizenship and the second, secret vote was a vote of confirmation requiring a quorum of 6000 participants.118 This context reinforces the hypothesis of Schorn that the testimony of Theophrastus is the result of a remodelling of the Dipolieia at the beginning of the 330s BCE, to which, as a metic in Athens, he would have been sensitive.119

• 120  Lebreton 2015, p. 9–10.
• 121  Paus. 1.28.10.

41In contrast to the indefinite ancient time of Sopatros, we have seen how Hesychius dates the sacrifice dedicated to Zeus Polieus to the time of the eris of the gods.120 But Pausanias dates the first sacrifice in the reign of Erechtheus, without mentioning the eris.121 More interesting is another mention by Pausanias of this sacrifice. He presents outstanding works for the taste of “those who prefer artistic workmanship to mere antiquity” and writes:

• 123  Brulé (1995), p. 210–230, on the repetition of themes in the traditions about Athenian kingship, a (...)
• 124  Bouffartigue (1979), p. 53.
• 125  Bouffartigue (1979), p. 58; Durand (1986), 46.
• 126  Porph. Abst. 2.29.5. Aelianus, Varia Historia 8.3, uses ἀποψηφίζομαι to refer the absolution of th (...)
• 127  See CGRN 19.4–10, the equivalence between citizens (and metics in this case) and portions of meat (...)

43Pausanias thus succinctly presents a traditional scheme of the establishment of a rite at a founding moment of the city.123 However, the version by Theophrastus “représente une tradition tout à fait isolée”,124 which presents the aition of the rite at an unidentifiable time.125 In any case, the vote is present in both accounts, directly in Hesychius’ version when the Athenians and Zeus vote, and indirectly in Theophrastus’ version when the vote to grant the citizenship to Sopatros is alluded to, and voting is secondarily needed to absolve the participants in the trial for the death of the ox.126 Theophrastus furthermore points to the shared assumption of the initial fault and the communal killing of the ox, which is then eaten by all.127 Therefore, without any apparent direct relationship between the testimonies of Hesychius and Theophrastus/Porphyry, both underline the collective participation of the Athenians in the myths and rites of Zeus Polieus.

• 128  Hdt. 8.55.1; Plato (Menex. 237c–d), Eur. Erechtheus, fr. 50.46–9 Austin; Isoc. Panath. 193; Dion. (...)
• 129  Callim. Hecale; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.1; Aristid. Or. 1.45.
• 130  Netz (2020) explains the canonical consideration of the authors of Athenian democratic period thro (...)
• 131  Xen. Mem. 3.5.10 (if Kekrops is the only alluded); Callim. Ia. 4; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.1, read in h (...)
• 132  Xen. Mem. 3.5.10 (if Kekrops acts with his daughters); Aristid. Or. 1.41.
• 133  Aristid. Or. 1.43; Plut. Them. 19.4; Himer 21.2; Hesychius.

45The versions of the resolution of the eris of the gods can be divided into two groups, one consisting of unambiguous testimonies, the other of sources that require some degree of interpretation. Among the former, there is a wealth of testimonies dispensing with the procedure of resolution,128 and there are clear accounts of the Twelve gods, with the decisive vote of Zeus.129 Only Augustine, following Varro, and a scholium to Aelius Aristides, two testimonies far removed from the classical canon,130 mention women’s suffrage. The equivocal testimonies of the second group have blurred boundaries. The figure of Kekrops can be used to differentiate two subgroups, one in which he acts alone,131 and another in which he is probably part of a court with his daughters.132 But most of the sources mention a vote without giving details.133

• 134  Hdt. 8.55.1.
• 135  Havelock (1967), passim.
• 136  See supra, n. 42, 76.

47Herodotus offers the clearest evocation of this popular culture when he refers to a story (λόγος).134 Moreover, Xenophon’s allusions only make sense if his readers know the story. Finally, Plato’s denial of the eris is consistent with his diatribe against oral mythology, which culminated in the expulsion of the poets from Callipolis.135 The Smyrna relief also shows the vitality of the mytheme’s oral versions. It seems that these older testimonies are a series of autonomous echoes of narratives that circulated in Athens, unlike the later sources elaborated by scholars. This observation points to the renewal and vitality of the Athenian mythical tradition in the context of democracy and it is for that reason that the definition of myth by Lévi-Strauss as “l’histoire qui est racontée” deserves attention in this case. In fact, most of the variants are better-attested versions of known ways of settling disputes between the gods in other cities. In Athens, neither the judgement of the gods nor the participation of the goddesses was different,136 the radical novelty instead consisting in the narrative variant recounting the vote of the women, whether the daughters of Kekrops or the Athenian women voting en bloc.

• 137  Godelier (1996a), p. 243–251 on the myth of the first woman and her relation to social practice; G(...)
• 138  Pausanias (9.30.3) chooses not to write about another controversial subject: in this case the date (...)
• 139  Loraux (1993b), p. 219, who emphasises (p. 216) the literary device used by Aristophanes consistin (...)

48My analysis raises the suspicion of a deliberate silencing of the scandal that the decisive vote of women at the founding moment of their city would mean for the Athenians. This suspicion has a comparative basis in Godelier’s analysis of the secrecy surrounding the decisive role of women in the ethnogenesis of the Baruya of New Guinea, a socially egalitarian but radically patriarchal and androcentric society.137 However, Pausanias is the only support for this idea,138 and it would be abusive to attribute a particular rhetorical strategy to such a minimal testimony. That said, two contrasts should be noted. On the one hand, certain authors on the resolution of the eris (Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Pausanias himself, and Aristides) stand out for their prolix descriptions of many other subjects. On the other hand, the often-oblique mention of women’s suffrage in the texts examined contrasts with Aristophanes’ presentation of women’s suffrage to the Athenians in his “feminist” comedies as a “féminin incongru”.139

• 140  Parker, cited supra, n. 39.
• 141  Sourvinou-Inwood (2008), p. 130; Marx – Gisler (2011), without defining how they act.

49In our sources early Athens is conceived from the present of democratic Athens. Therefore, it is not necessary to ascribe to the functionalist theory of myth to claim that mythical voting only makes sense when voting is important in real life. In the introduction I have argued for the hegemony of the vote in Athens between 508 and 462, when the Athenians were unaware that their democracy would evolve towards the predominance of the lottery. Therefore, taking scepticism about the possibility of fixing any date of the Athenian myths as a point of departure,140 it seems legitimate to hypothesise that it was during that period that the motif of the vote was introduced into the myth of the eris in its simple or more complex versions. The former include the leading role of the gods, with the decisive vote of Zeus, or the leading role of the Kekropidai, linked to the conflict of the gods since the sixth century.141 The complex version would be the one that articulates the resolution of the eris with the Dipolieia and its accumulation of democratic practices, including Zeus as the first voter or, perhaps better, the first voter whose vote is decisive in some versions of the feast myth.

• 142  Loraux (2023), p. 587–597; see also Pirenne-Delforge – Pironti (2009).
• 143  She certainly presides over the vote of the heroes studied by Spivey (1994), p. 40, 42–47, 50. Whe (...)

50Finally, it is worth considering how the myths studied also bring to the fore the gender of the goddesses, considering the work of Loraux on the difficulties inherent in defining Greek goddesses.142 In the version whose dissemination and relative antiquity has been established above, the victory of Athena as Polias derives from a block vote of women in her favour. But this mythical episode is counterfactual to the Athenian institutional practice and to the Athenian patriarchy. Athena, despite being the beneficiary of the women’s vote, does not represent a non-existent reality of a women’s vote, nor does she preside over the ordinary vote of the Athenians male citizens.143 What occurs is a paradoxical situation, because the very vote that enthrones Athena in Athens leaves her outside the patronage of the vote. Athena is, without doubt, a goddess with cults and ramifications that encompassed much of life of the city, yet the exercise of the vote remains under the aegis of Zeus Polieus: the Zeus who votes.