Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T14:56:24.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The parasol: an oriental status-symbol in late archaic and classical Athens*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

M. C. Miller
M. C. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The parasol, whatever the conditions of use, ultimately functions as a social symbol as it satisfies no utilitarian need. The operative mechanism of that symbol varies from culture to culture but the parasol is polysemous even at its least complicated, when held by the person to be protected without allusion to foreign social systems and in the context of single-sex usage. For example, as an implement of fashionable feminine attire of over a century ago, the parasol signified the maintenance of a standard of beauty that precluded extended activities out of doors and the delicate constitution of the lady thus protected, both with further implications of ‘good breeding’ and economic inutility; and the wasteful employment of items that must be changed with the costume and discarded before unserviceable to suit the dictates of fashion. Both facets—termed ‘conspicuous leisure’ and ‘conspicuous consumption’ by Veblen—conjointly served to advertise the wealth of the individual man on the basis of whose property such extravagance and non-productive practice could be sustained.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 112 , November 1992 , pp. 91 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The theoretical function of the parasol outlined here is based on the socio-economic model of Veblen, T., The theory of the leisure class (New York 1908).Google Scholar

The following abbreviations are used:

Boardman = Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., ‘Booners’, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum iii (1986) 35–70.Google Scholar

Caruso = Caruso, Christiane, ‘Travestissements dionysiaques’, Images et société en Grèce ancienne: l'iconographie comme méthode d'analyse (Lausanne 1987).Google Scholar

Deubner = Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Berlin 1932)Google Scholar.

Frontisi-Ducroux and Lissarrague = Frontisi, F.-Ducroux, and Lissarrague, F., ‘De l'ambiguité à l'ambivalence. Un parcours dionysiaque’, AION v (1983) 11–32Google Scholar; now more accessibly reprinted in Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I., edd., Before sexuality (Princeton 1990) 211–256Google Scholar, in English translation.

Kenner = Kenner, H., Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Bonn 1970).Google Scholar

Kossatz-Deissmann = Kossatz-Deissmann, A., ‘Zur Herkunft des Perizoma im Satyrspiel’, Jdl xcvii (1982) 75–90.Google Scholar

Parke = Parke, H.W., Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977).Google Scholar

Price = Price, S.D., ‘Anacreontic vases reconsidered’, GRBS xxxi (1990) 133–175.Google Scholar

Simon = Simon, E., Festivals of Attica: an archaeological commentary (Madison 1983).Google Scholar

Slater = Slater, W. J., ‘Artemon and Anakreon’, Phoenix xxxii (1978) 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 G. Nicole, DarSag v (1919) s.v. ‘Umbella’ 583–4 and Hug, RE ii A 1 (1921) s.v. ‘Schirm’ 433–5, collect the basic references. Crawford, T. S., A history of the umbrella (Newton Abbot 1970)Google Scholar is absolutely unreliable for Greek material (ch.1). He adduces almost no ancient evidence to support his discussion of the Greek world and admits that he was unable to track down his predecessors' citations.

3 For a discussion of Birds 1549–1551, and its importance as evidence for the use of parasols in the Panathenaic procession, see below p. 103.

4 The translation is Gulick's (Loeb edition of Athenaios, e.g. xii 551c). Only fr.61 implies an excess of coolness, as noted by Kaibel.

5 Perfume-shops were afflicted by a double standard: despite lack of regard for male perfumers owing to their ‘effeminate’ profession (cf. Athen, xii 552f = Herakleides of Pontos), perfume-shops, like barbers' shops, were favourite lounging-places for exchange of gossip by men: Dem. xxv 52, xxxiv 13; Theophr., Char. 11.8. This can lead to a bad reputation: in Plut. Tim. 14.3, wasting time at a perfume-shop symbolises fall in status and power.

6 See also below for the skiron. Pollux vii 174: θολία δ᾿ ἐκαλεῖτο πλέγμα τι θολοειδές, ᾦ ἀντὶ σκιαδίου ὲχρῶντο αί γυναῖκες. καὶ τὸ σκιάδιον δ᾿στὶν ὲν χρήσει, καὶ σκιαδοφόροι καὶ ἐσκιαδοφόρει, καὶ σκιάς, ύφ᾿ ᾗ ό Διόνυσος κάθηται, καὶ σκίρα έορτή. We might compare the statues of Dionysos and Nysa each shaded by a decorated σκιάς in the festival procession of Ptolemy (Athen, v 198d-f). For Dionysos'character as a rural god whose natural home is a grotto, see Lavagne, H., Operosa antra (Rome 1988) 47–55Google Scholar, 91–116, with references.

7 Stele II, line 144. Text published by Pritchett, W. K., Hesperia xxii (1953) 250–254Google Scholar and discussed, id., Hesperia xxv (1956) 209–210.

8 The evidence is collected by Crouwel, J., BSA lxviii (1973) 343–347Google Scholar, supplemented in BSA lxxi (1976) 55–56.

9 London, British Museum C 339, amphoroid krater fragment, LH III A 1 late. See Vermeule, E. and Karageorghis, V., Mycenaean pictorial vase painting (Cambridge Mass. 1982)Google Scholar Cat. III.21 and p. 21–22, with bibliography.

10 Both dated LH III B/C transitional (ca. 1230–1200/1190). Mycenae, krater fragments: Crouwel (n. 8, 1973) 343–347. Tiryns krater fragments: id., (n. 8, 1976) 55–56. Discussion, dating and bibliographies in Vermeule and Karageorghis (n. 9) Cat. X.l (Tiryns) and Cat. X.4 (Mycenae).

11 Crouwel (n. 8[1973]) 347, sensibly leaves open the question of foreign influence.

12 Unger, E., Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte xii (1928)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Sonnenschirm’. Susa relief: see id., Sumerische und Akkadische Kunst (Breslau 1926) fig. 33, and Strommenger, E. and Hirmer, M., Cinq millénaires d'art mésopotamien (Paris 1964) pl. 115.Google Scholar Elamite seal: Foroughi collection; cf. Porada, E., Expedition xiii (1971) 28–34Google Scholar: 33, fig. 9, and Bittner, S., Tracht und Bewaffnung des persischen Heeres zur Zeit der Achaimeniden (Munich 1985)Google Scholar fig. 1 (line-drawing). M. C. Root kindly reminds me that the gap in Near Eastern parasol iconography may be fortuitious owing to the fact that Akkad has not been excavated, but suggests that the iconographic evidence may reflect the truth: that history-conscious Assyrian kings deliberately picked up on the old Akkadian image.

13 Fischer, H. G., Lexikon der Ägyptologie v.7 (Wiesbaden 1984)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Sonnenschirm’, differentiates between the rounded parasol and the sunshade (rectangular portable awning which is sometimes even held by the user). For the latter, which ends in Egyptian art ca. 2000 BC: id., Metropolitan Museum Journal vi (1972) 151–156. See also Needler, W., Annual of the Royal Ontario Museum (1959) 32–39Google Scholar, with references; she comments on the development of the parasol into ‘a highly stylized symbol of kingship associated with ritual inscriptions behind the figure of the king…’ (35–36). Kadesh: Wreszinski, W., Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte ii (Leipzig 1925), pl. 18Google Scholar (Abydos), 81–2 (Luxor), 176 (Abu Simbel). Tutankhamun: Edwards, J. E. S., Tutankhamun: his tomb and its treasures (New York 1977) 76–77.Google Scholar

14 London, British Museum 124533, Room B, Panel 20. The Neo-Assyrian material is collected and summarized with references by Hrouda, B., Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (Bonn 1965) 106, 186Google Scholar (catalogue); pl.41.1. Cf. Klimowsky, E. W., ‘Sonnenschirm und Baldachin’, Schweizer Münzblätter xiii/xiv (1964)Google Scholar Heft 55, 121–134 (a more summary discussion, with reference to ancient Indian use).

15 London, British Museum 118908, ca. 745–727 Bc.

16 Louvre AO'19904, illustrated by Hrouda (n. 14) pl. 48.1.

17 Villa Giulia 61565, Boston MFA 27.170 and Leiden Rijksmuseum B 1943/ 9.1. See Markoe, G., Phoenician bronze and silver bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (Berkeley 1985)Google Scholar: E2, E11, E13.

18 Colion, D., First impressions: cylinder seals in the ancient Near East (London 1987)Google Scholar#556, from Bastam, Iran.

19 So Root, M. C., The king and kingship in Achaemenid art (Leiden 1979) 285Google Scholar, who dates the reliefs to Cyrus' reign.

20 See Root op. cit., 287–299; 288 (quote). A summary of the reliefs (285–6) is based on Schmidt, E. F., Persepolis i, OIP lxviii (Chicago 1953) pls. 75, 79, 138–139, 178–181, 193–4.Google Scholar

21 Gabelmann, H., Antike Audienz- und Tribunalszenen (Darmstadt 1984) 35–62Google Scholar discusses the evidence, with references.

22 Kızılbel: Mellink, M. J., ‘Excavations in Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı’, AJA lxxv (1971) 245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar: pl. 52, fig. 14–15. Nereid Monument: London, British Museum frieze II, block 879, early fourth century. Gölbaşı-Trysa Heroon: Vienna (parasol painted on), ca. 385/375. Illustrated by Childs, W. A. P., The city-reliefs of Lycia (Princeton 1978) pl. 15.Google Scholar Gabelmann (n. 21) 43–50: 47 and pl. 6.1 (Nereid Monument); 50–53 (Gölbaşl-Trysa Heroon) for discussion with bibliographies.

23 Gabelmann allocated the inclusion of the female figure under the parasol on the Gölbaşı-Trysa relief to the typology of a ruling couple: Gabelmann (n. 21) 51.

24 H. Kyrieleis public lecture, Toronto, October 1987; cf. AR 1984–85, 56.1 am indebted to U. Kron for assistance regarding this important piece.

25 Naples MN H 2729 (Inv. 81138), BF eye cup, unattributed, 530–520. CVA Italy 20, Napldes 1, pl. 27 (Adriani 1950).

26 Beazley in CB ii (1954)#99, 55–61: 57, n.1.

27 Boston 00.346: bell krater, ca. 440 (ARV 1045.7).

28 Brommer, F., ‘Kopfüber Kopf’, Antike und Abendland iv (1954) 42–44.Google Scholar

29 Both are illustrated by Brommer op. cit. Rome, Museo artistico industriale, BF mastoid, ca. 530 (Pickard-Cambridge, A., Dithyramb, tragedy and comedy 2 [Oxford 1962] 303Google Scholar,#18, pl.5b). Adolphseck, Landgraf Phillip von Hessen: trefoil oinochoe, ca. 500 (CVA Germany 11, Schloss Fasanerie, Adolphseck 1, pl. 14.1, 4; 16.3–4 [Brommer, 1956]). Webster, T. B. L., Greek theatre production (London 1956) 33Google Scholar, misinterpreted the cup in ignorance of the oinochoe.

30 Brommer suggested a cultic explanation, which Boardman 64 tentatively accepts. Kenner 133.

31 It will be apparent that for much of the following, I am indebted to Slater; for the traditional interpretation of the passage see, e.g., Campbell, D. A., Greek lyric poetry (London 1967) 323–325.Google Scholar

32 Boardman 47–50 catalogues forty-six examples. Price 159–162 adds two more, a fragmentary RF column krater attributed by Cahn to the Pig Painter (Basel, Cahn Collection HC 776); and a RF cup (B) in a private collection attributed by Sommer to the Oedipus Ptr.: Hombostel, W., Aus der Glanzzeil Athens: Meisterwerke Griechischer Vasenkunst in Privatbesitz (Hamburg 1986)#53, 111–14.Google Scholar In Boardman's schema, these are describable as H:man:H:man. Price's addition of four other pieces involves an expansion of criteria for inclusion; none have the parasol and so are not considered here.

33 Copenhagen 13365 ( ARV 185.32). Boardman #5.

34 Bologna 234: column krater (A), Orchard Painter, ca. 470 ( ARV 524.20). Boardman #41.

35 Immerwahr, H. R., ‘Inscriptions on the Anacreon krater in Copenhagen’, AJA lxix (1965) 152–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Beazley, , in CB ii (1954) #99, 55–61Google Scholar, with the first comprehensive list; p.56, Beazley said with regard to the chiton/sakkos/parasol: ‘While none of the three articles singly amount to a real disguise (of a man as a woman), the joint use of them must surely do so.’

37 Buschor, E., ‘Das Schirmfest’, Jdl xxxviii/xxxix (1923/1924) 128–132.Google Scholar

38 Robert, F., Thymélè (Paris 1939) 119–137Google Scholar; Deubner 40–50.

39 Lysimachides apud Harpokration s.v. ‘σκίρον’: τὸ σκίρον σκιάδειόν ὲστι μέγα, ὑφ´ ᾦ φερομένῳ ὲξ ὰκροπόλεως εἴς τινα τόπον καλούμενον Σκίρον πορεύονται ἥ τε τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἱέρεια καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ίερεὺς καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἠλίου. κομίζουσι δὲ τοῦτο Ἐτεοβουτάδαι.

40 Deubner 49–50; in this he was followed by Simon 22–24 and Parke 157.

41 Deubner 132–133. For the Lenaia see below, p. 101.

42 See: Gallini, C., ‘II travestismo rituale di Penteo’, Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni xxxiv (1963) 211–228Google Scholar, Kenner 102–163, and Slater 190–191. Both of the latter raised the question in the context of the ‘Booners’. Cf. Frontisi-Ducroux and Lissarrague 28–29. For reliance on mythic structures: Burkert, W., Structure and history in Greek mythology and ritual (London 1979).Google Scholar For aetia: Graf, F., ZPE lv (1984) 245–254.Google Scholar

43 Kenner 112 has references and discussion. See also: Henrichs, A., ‘Changing Dionysiac identities’, Jewish and Christian self-definition III (London 1982) 137–160Google Scholar, esp. 158–159 on Dionysiac role reversal.

44 Caruso 103–109. See also Bérard, C. and Bron, C., ‘Le jeu du satyre’, in La cité des images, éd. Vernant, J. P. and Bérard, C. (Lausanne/Paris 1984) 127–145Google Scholar, esp. 141, and Kossatz-Deissmann 84–90, who concludes that these images do not depict cultic transvestism.

45 Corinth CP 885: Q Painter (ARV 1519.13). Kossatz-Deissmann 86 argues against the interpretation as a personification. Miletos, Archaeological Museum: krater fragments, ca. 380, attributed to the Pronomos Painter by Kleiner, G. and Müller-Wiener, W., 1stMitt xxii (1972) 45–92Google Scholar: 79, #11, Taf. 23.1. Illustrated by Kossatz-Deissmann fig. 24; Caruso fig. 6.

46 Parke 77–80: 78–79; Simon 89–92: 90–91. Cf. Deubner 142–147: 142–143.

47 Illustrated by Deubner pl. 33.2, after which Brijder, H. A. G., ‘A pre-dramatic performance of a satyr chorus by the Heidelberg Painter’, Enthousiasmes (Amsterdam 1986)Google Scholar fig. 4, and Kenner fig. 37, after which Caruso fig.15.

48 op.cit. 75 and fig. 4.

49 Athens, Agora P 169: Talcott, L.et al., Small objects from the Pnyx ii, Hesperia Suppl. x (Princeton 1956) 23Google Scholar, #249; after which Caruso fig. 17. See Kossatz-Deissmann n.76. The second satyr dressed in female garb, a plastic vase (Vienna IV 829), is also illustrated by Caruso fig. 16.

50 Slater 185–194; I am most grateful to him for his permission to read a manuscript with further discussion on the matter.

51 Frontisi-Ducroux and Lissarrague 11–32; Boardman 35–70, anticipated in some respects by suggestions that the ‘Booners’ depict East Greek or Lydian dress; Karouzou, S., ‘Anacréon à Athènes’, BCH lxvi (1942) 248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar (East Greek); DeVries, K., ‘East meets West at dinner’, Expedition xv (1973) 32–39Google Scholar (Lydian, possibly East Greek), followed by Shapiro, H. A., AJA lxxxv (1981) 133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar: 139–140.

52 Boardman 64–5.

53 J.Paul Getty Museum 86.AE.293: cup (A, B) (Para 372.8 bis). Boardman #20.

54 Price 142.

55 It is immaterial for this study whether the vases can be associated with one specific festival and, if so, which one. Many scholars now accept the identification as Lenaia by A. Frickenhaus, Lenäenvasen: 72 BWPr (1912), e.g. Deubner 123–134, and Gasparri, C., LIMC iii, s.v. ‘Dionysos’, 420–514Google Scholar: 426, 504–505. Others follow Nilsson, M.P., Jdl xxxi (1916) 309–339: 327–332Google Scholar, who associated them with the Anthesteria. See Philippaki, B., The Attic stamnos (Oxford 1967) xix–xxiGoogle Scholar, with bibliography p. xix n.5; Henrichs, A., ‘Greek maenadism’, HSCP lxxxii (1978) 121–160: 153–155Google Scholar; and the iconographic study of Durand, J.-L. and Frontisi-Ducroux, F., ‘Idoles, figures, images: autour de Dionysos’, RA 1982, 81–108.Google Scholar

56 Boston 90.155 (ARV 621.34), Florence 4005 (ARV 621.37), Louvre G 408 (ARV 621.39), and Detroit 63.12 (ARV 621.42; maenads without image of Dionysos on Side A). Collected by Schöne, A., Der Thiasos (Göteborg 1987) 178Google Scholar; #581, #584, #586, and #588, who reassociates the Skira festival with parasols and on the basis of the four stamnoi identifies the ‘Lenaia’ vases with the Skira. Buschor (n. 37) 132 knew of three and suggested that they represented a separate women's parasol-festival which could not be the Lenaia.

57 Graef, B. and Langlotz, E., Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I (Berlin 1925) #682, pl. 46.Google Scholar The fragment is from a large vessel.

58 op. cit. #681 (d-f), pl. 46.

59 Paestum, Museo Archeologico. ARV 384.212. Sestieri, P.C., ‘Tomba Greca scoperta in Contrada “Pila” presso Paestum’, AA lxix (1954) 99–102Google Scholar; cf. his n.l for the earrings.

60 Veblen (n. 1), chapter 3.

61 The only instance I know when a parasol-bearer may be meant to be a eunuch in vase-painting is the figure labled ‘Phryx’ on an Apulian red-figured situla: Villa Giulia 18003: ca. 350, Ptr. of Athens 1714 (Trendall, A.D. and Cambitoglou, A., The red-figured vases of Apulia [Oxford 1978] 212, #149.Google ScholarLIMC ii, s.v. ‘Aphrodite’ #1277). ‘Phryx’ stands behind Pelops in the presence of Oinomaos, effectively identifying his master. It is hardly necessary to draw attention to the large number of parasols and parasol-bearers in South Italian red figure, except to comment that with the exception of this example, to my knowledge all parasol-bearers and all those shaded by parasols are women.

62 Cf. the fifth-century adoption of fan-bearers, and adaptations of items of dress such as the kandys, sleeved garments and the ependytes: Miller, M. C., ‘Peacocks and Tryphe in Classical Athens’, Arch News xv (1989) 4–8Google Scholar, with references, to be discussed in greater detail in a forthcoming book; ead., ‘The Ependytes in Classical Athens’, Hesperia lviii (1989) 313–329.

63 Berlin F 2589 (ARV 1301.7). Deubner 118–120. LIMC iii, s.v. ‘Chorillos’ #2.

64 Simon, E., ‘Ein Anthesteria-Skyphos des Polygnotos’, AntK vi (1963) 18–19.Google Scholar

65 East vi.40+41. Brommer, F., Der Parthenonfries (Mainz 1977) 117–121, 262–263Google Scholar, pl. l79. LIMC ii, s.v. ‘Aphrodite’ #1404.

66 One might compare the later development of Eros as fan-bearer: Leyden I 1950.64: pyxis, Group of the Athenian Head-Pyxides (ARV 1224,3); London E228: kalpis, Helena Ptr. (LIMC ii, s.v. ‘Aphrodite’ #1364).

67 Eg: Robertson, M., The Parthenon frieze (London 1975)Google Scholar; Brommer (n. 65), 263. Pemberton, E., AJA lxxx (1976) 123Google Scholar, suggests an allusion to the parasol of the Great King.

68 Scholion to 1551: ταῖς γὰρ κανοφόροις σκιάδειον καὶ δίφρον ἀκολουθεῖ τις ἔχουσα. Hesychius s.v. ‘διφροφ όροι:’ αἵ ταῖς κανηόροις εἵποντο, δίφρους ὲπιφερόμεναι. Harpokraation, s.v. ‘σκαφηφ όροι:’ …Δημήτριος γοῦν ὲν γ´ Νομοθεσίας φησὶν ὅτι προσέταττεν ὁ νόμος τοῖς μετοίκοις ὲν ταῖς πομπαῖς αὐτοὺς μὲν σκάφας φέρειν, τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας αὐτῶν ύδρεῖα καὶ σκιάδια. διείλεκται περὶ τούτων καὶ Θεόφραστος ὲν ι Νόμων. See Deubner 31–32, n. 14. Is Prometheus then meant to be disguised as an Athenian with her metic? Such a hero would have been too big to be mistaken by Zeus as just the metic.

69 Rotroff, S., ‘The Parthenon frieze and the sacrifice to Athena’, AJA lxxi (1977) 379–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar, accepted by Simon 65. Ziehen thought that it meant that the parasols were held over the Kanephoroi not during the procession but on the Acropolis during the long sacrificial ritual: RE xviii.3 (1949) s.v. ‘Panathenaia’ 457–489 at 465; he includes a good discussion of the sources. Nicole (n. 2) 583–584 noted the presence of a metic holding a parasol for an Athenian on East III, but I cannot find it; it is questionable whether one of the women depicted at the head of the procession would be a metic.

70 Berlin F 1686, BF amphora (name vase) ABV 296.4.

71 Private collection. Illustrated by Simon pl. 16.2, 17.2; drawing: C. Bérard in La cité des images (n. 44), fig. 152.

72 Parke 44.

73 Deubner 11–13, on the selection of the Arrhephoroi and their role at the Chalkeia. Burkert, W., ‘Kekropidensage und Arrephoria’, Hermes xciv (1966) 1–25: 3–4Google Scholar for the number. For parasol-bearing in the Panathenaia, see below.

74 Ferrara Spina T 57c, volute krater, Kleophon Painter, ca. 440–430 (ARV 1143.1). Cf. Hesperia lviii (1989) 313–329.

75 Parke 43–44. See also the brief discussion in Whitehead, D., The ideology of the Athenian metic (Cambridge 1977) 86–88Google Scholar, who does stress the extremely limited extent to which metics, as non-citizens, could have any part in the cults of Athens; participation was otherwise restricted to occasional rights to partake of a portion of the sacrifice. They were apparently not even able to do this at the Panathenaia. Whitehead treats skiadephoria as one of the liturgies of metics.

76 Inferred from Kleinias Decree, dated ?447: IG i3 34.41–43; ML2 #46. For a discussion and the now orthodox dating to the earlier 440s, see Meiggs, R., The Athenian empire (Oxford 1972) 166–167, 599–600.Google Scholar The tributary status itself was later emphasized at the Dionysia, Panathenaia, and the Eleusinia.

77 Arist. Ath.Pol. 26.4; Plut. Per. 37.3. Interpretations of the intent of the decree vary widely, from restriction of intermarriage between lower-class Athenians and metic tradespeople in Athens, and between cleruchs and local women, to restriction of aristocratic marriages outside the state. Cf. Hignett, C., A history of the Athenian constitution (Oxford 1952) 343–47Google Scholar; Harrison, A. R. W., The law of Athens (Oxford 1968) I 25–26Google Scholar; Whitehead (n. 75) 149–51; Humphreys, S., The family, women and death (London 1983) 24–25Google Scholar; Loraux, N., The invention of Athens, tr. Sheridan, A. (Cambridge MA 1986) 150.Google ScholarPatterson, C. thoroughly discusses the issues in Pericles’ citizenship law of 451–50 BC (New York 1981) 95–107Google Scholar and concludes ‘the law is only one piece of a larger development, the emergence of a public status of being an Athenian…’ and, we may add, definition by exclusion. Cf. Badian, , JHS cvii (1982) 12.Google Scholar

78 Presumably the stools were carried on their backs during the procession; the parallelism with the image on the Apadana Eastern Stair reliefs at Persepolis is striking, but is probably coincidental (Schmidt [n. 20] pl. 51; west face of north wing).

79 Ober, J., Mass and elite in democratic Athens (Princeton 1989) 261.Google ScholarCf. M. I. Finley's comments on the required payment of the metoikion as a poll-tax, ‘the degrading mark of the outsider’ in The ancient economy (London 1973) 163–64.