The philosopher's path?

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative interpretation of the circular route, a feature long neglected by archaeology and which, thanks to Wolfram Hoepfner, has been returned to the centre of academic interest. In fact, his book is the first and only treatise on the Peripatos at all. The pathway is rarely treated by scholars, and if it is, the pathway is mentioned only parenthetically. But as it is – at least since the time of Lykourgos – the ‘sole means of access’ to the sanctuaries above the road, as Travlos (Reference Travlos1971, 54) remarks in passing, it should receive closer attention.Footnote ⁵ The construction of the Peripatos is, in my opinion, a most important project in the context of Lykourgos’ building programme. Even if this path was used by Aristotle and his colleagues and successors after it was set up (e.g. Theophrastus, whose teaching methods were similar), it would have been too by many other Athenians, perhaps for less philosophical and more trivial strolls. Importantly, the Peripatos was not in the first place designed for philosophers.

It may be argued that Lykourgos had a fundamentally positive attitude towards philosophers. He had been a pupil of Plato and had listened to the lectures of Isocrates ([Plutarch] Moralia 841b; Diogenes Laertius 3.46); that there was a ‘mental proximity between Lykourgos and Plato’ was moreover quite recognisable (Engels Reference Engels2008, 18: ‘gedankliche Nähe zwischen Lykurg und Platon’). Accordingly, Hoepfner suggests that the Athenian politician had supported Aristotle on his return in 335 and had acted as his patron to enable the metic to use a plot of land in the Lykeion for his school, writing: ‘the leader of the state, Lykourgos, who attached importance to a comprehensive education of the young, had to have the greatest interest in keeping a famous philosopher like Aristotle in Athens’.Footnote ⁶ But the property in question would have not been the famous gymnasium-complex in the Lykeion, but a certain ‘Garden of the Muses’, according to Hoepfner. This garden would also be situated in the area of the Lykeion, and it would have contained the famous eponymous Peripatos, that Aristotle ‘chose in the Lykeion’ (Diogenes Laertius 5.2; cf. Hoepfner Reference Hoepfner2018, 60–3). Most scholars, however, identify the Peripatos with the walkway covered with colonnades in the gymnasium of the Lykeion in which the ‘Peripatetics’ taught.Footnote ⁷ The location of the Lykeion district with its famous gymnasium and palaestra had been, according to the literary sources, outside the city walls, to the east (Strabo 9.1.24; Cleidemus, BNJ 323 F 18; Pausanias 1.19.3 – the latter without any geographical indication, mentioning it together with the Kynosarges gymnasium). The gymnasium must have been situated relatively close to the walls, as Xenophon reports that in 404 the pro-Spartan party gathered, coming from the Piraeus, in the Lykeion and installed catapults on the dromos of the gymnasium in order to crack the city walls (Xenophon Hellenika 2.4.27). This suggests that the dromos could not have been farther than 400 m away from the walls as even most powerful catapults would not be effective over a larger distance (Hoepfner Reference Hoepfner2018, 62). Strabo gives further details, as he mentions an ancient well in front of the gate of Diochares, ‘close to the Lykeion’ (“πλησίον τοῦ Λυκείου”, Strabo 9.1.19). After recent excavations, which uncovered a palaestra, the Lykeion is located near modern Rigillis Street (Knell Reference Knell2000, 182; Lygouri-Tolia Reference Lygouri-Tolia, Stamatopoulou and Yeroulanou2002, esp. 211). The ancient literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence indicates that the district of the Lykeion probably covered a large area to the east of the ancient city wall but was not immediately adjacent to the wall. But it is precisely this gymnasium that Lykourgos had rebuilt with a new palaestra in the park-like Lykeion district (Pausanias 1.29.16; [Plutarch] Moralia 841c–d). And this, and not the pathway at the slopes, is where Aristotle's Peripatos is to be located.

Moreover, the Peripatos in the Lykeion was not intended to serve the needs of the famous philosopher in the first place: it was first and foremost connected with the reorganisation (or perhaps the introduction) of the Ephebeia, which was the core of Lykourgos’ political programme. He had introduced a two-year civic service for all young men who had reached the age of eighteen to familiarise them with the political and religious life of the city and to prepare them for their role as citizens. He probably drew on a rather scanty ‘proto-Ephebeia’, which lacked regularity and clear rules, but most scholars agree, that the Ephebeia was introduced in the Lykourgan Age.Footnote ⁸ The new facility therefore served to train the ephebes, who exercised there during their ‘military service’. ‘Parallel to this development of the Lykeion, there was also the development of the domicile of Aristotle's School of Philosophy’ (Hintzen-Bohlen Reference Hintzen-Bohlen1997, 127), which could use the new infrastructure for its own purposes and thus at least benefit from the renovation, even if Lykourgos had not primarily thought of Aristotle and his school during the planning. The aim of this reform was to integrate the lower classes as recruits and hoplites into a new and more effective system of defence, as Lykourgos was preparing from the beginning for an – inevitable – confrontation with the Macedonians (Habicht Reference Habicht1995, 28–9). In addition, the new institution was intended to foster traditional religious ties to the gods and heroes of Athens (Henderson Reference Henderson2020, 140–68).

Philosophers, however, were generally not very popular in Athens. They had often been outsiders, mostly foreigners, and from the late fifth century onwards they were regularly brought to court on a charge of ‘asebeia’.Footnote ⁹ In 307/6 a law was brought before the people's assembly that provided for the expulsion of philosophers and the closure of their schools.Footnote ¹⁰ Since the time of the Sophists and Socrates they had been regarded as unreliable people, hostile to democracy, despised as ‘spin-doctors’ of oligarchic activities. As Dreßler insinuated in the title of his book, they were ‘word twisters, eccentrics, godless’ and as such always suspect to the people. So it should be asked from the outset whether the ‘building permit’ and financing for a ‘philosophical path’, which was primarily to serve the purpose of promoting philosophical instruction, would have met with approval in the people's assembly that was dominated by the lower classes, regardless of whether Lykourgos, acting as patron of the Stagirian, or even at the behest of Antipater, had planned the circular path for Aristotle.

Just as Aristotle in all probability had only incidentally become a beneficiary of the new building in the Lykeion, which had in fact been built for the training of the ephebes, so he, his successors and philosopher colleagues, as all other citizens of Athens, also benefitted incidentally from the Peripatos on the slope of the Akropolis, which, due to its shady walkway, was ideal for the purpose of ambulatory teaching (Hoepfner Reference Hoepfner2018, 71), but also attractive for promenaders of all kinds.

The Peripatos as cult road

It remains therefore to ask whether the construction of the Peripatos had a different objective. In what follows I would like to suggest that the Peripatos was built as a cult road intended to make the smaller sanctuaries and the shrines in the grottos on the northern slope easily accessible, so that this building measure can be coherently placed in the context of the politics of Lykourgos’ religious innovation programme. With his building programme the Athenian leader gave expression to a ‘religiously founded, militant patriotism’.Footnote ¹¹ The comparatively modest construction of the path on the slope of the Akropolis is not one of the building measures of Lykourgos documented in the sources, but the Peripatos can be conclusively dated to the time of Lykourgos by employing Hoepfner's arguments, namely the Peripatos inscription and the integration of the circular path into the new construction of the auditorium of the Theatre of Dionysos, a structure that had been demonstrably initiated by Lykourgos.

The Peripatos connects a number of places of worship, especially along its northern course, access to which had been much more difficult prior to its establishment (see Fig. 1). The possibility that there might be a connection between these important places of worship – some of them of a certain antiquity – and the Peripatos within the framework of the conservative renewal policy of Lykourgos was neglected by Hoepfner, but it might perhaps be useful in determining the purpose of the Peripatos. On the south side, the Peripatos leads past the shrine of Themis (Pausanias 1.22.1) and the sanctuary of Asklepios, founded after 420 and which was redesigned and extended in the fourth century.Footnote ¹² Then it uses the older slope road and continues through the spectator stands of the Theatre of Dionysos in the east. These southern sanctuaries were already quite accessible before the construction of the circular route. The large terrace on the north-western slope, where the Peripatos branches off from the Panathenaic Way, housed several sanctuaries from ancient times, and before the construction of the circuit they were only accessible from within the Akropolis precinct by means of a walkway that led down from the House of the Arrhephoroi. On this plateau there are to be found (from west to east) the cave sanctuaries of Apollo Hypoakraios (Apollo beneath the long rocks), from which Pausanias tells us that the god had intercourse with Kreusa precisely in that cave (B) on the northern slope, Zeus Olympios (probably) and Pan (Pausanias 1.28.4; Fig. 2). The assignments of the deities to the individual grottos (A–D) are largely attested by consecrated reliefs and inscriptions.Footnote ¹³ Altars in front of the caves are also evidence of intensive cult practice on this terrace. It was only with the construction of the Peripatos that access was facilitated to all of these ancient cult sites. This gave a special advantage to the cult of Pan, which had been established in Athens in 490 after the battle of Marathon (Herodotus 6.105.3; Pausanias 1.28.4). The traditional torchlight procession on the occasion of the annual festival for the shepherd god, that in all likelihood had the sanctuary as its destination (Parke Reference Parke1987, 263), could now use the Peripatos as the route for the procession. Further to the east, near the site of the Peripatos inscription, and near the access to the Peripatos from the old Agora, there is another terrace which, once O. Broneer found an inscription associating the relevant deities with this terrace (IG I³ 1382), was identified as the site of the sanctuary of Aphrodite ‘in the gardens’ and of her ‘mate’ Eros.Footnote ¹⁴ With this discovery, an enigmatic passage in Pausanias made sense for the first time. This reports that the Arrhephoroi descended, while carrying two unspecified objects, by a natural secret passage from the Akropolis plateau on the occasion of a mysterious ritual, to the sanctuary of ‘Aphrodite in the Gardens’ (1.27.2–3), which, according to the periegetes, was nearby. The passage from the Akropolis leading down east of the Erechtheion had already been discovered in 1897 by P. Kavvadias, and identified with the ‘descent’ mentioned in Pausanias (Fig. 3).Footnote ¹⁵ The location of the sanctuary of Aphrodite had, however, been controversial. It was at first located in the distant Ilissos valley, contrary to the statements of Pausanias. It was only the discovery of the inscription IG I³ 1382 and votive offerings on the terrace during the American excavations in the 1930s that made it possible to identify the sanctuary mentioned in Pausanias without any doubt (cf. Morgan Reference Morgan1935). Judging by the letter forms, the inscription belongs to the middle of the fifth century, and thus distinguishes the cult as old and rich in tradition. For this important sanctuary, which was associated with the Arrhephoroi, who played an important role in the cult of Athena, it was only the Peripatos that provided comfortable access. However, the only access to these minor sanctuaries was via the staircase of the Arrhephoroi towards the sanctuary of Aphrodite and Eros, and via the staircase leading from the terrace with the caves of Apollo and Pan to a fortified gate in the Akropolis wall. Since traces of an earlier access way to the slopes had been found only at the southern part of the Akropolis (limiting the koilon of the ancient wooden Theatre of Dionysos; cf. Dörpfeld and Reisch Reference Dörpfeld and Reisch1896, 41; Papastamati-von Moock Reference Papastamati-von Moock, Frederiksen, Gebhard and Sokolicek2015), the assumption that there could have been a ‘pre-Peripatos’ also along the northern slope remains speculative. Until the construction of the Peripatos, these sanctuaries could be accessed only from the Akropolis.Footnote ¹⁶

Fig. 2.

The terrace with sanctuaries on the north-eastern slope of the Akropolis (drawing by H. Hoepfner).

Fig. 3.

The sanctuaries of Eros and Aphrodite with the descent of the Arrhephoroi on the northern slope of the Akropolis (drawing by H. Hoepfner after J. Travlos).

The Aglaureion and the ephebes

Decisive for the argument, however, is the importance of the Aglaureion on the eastern slope, also made accessible by the Peripatos (Pausanias 1.18.2; see Fig. 1).Footnote ¹⁷ In the grotto sanctuary of Aglauros, the daughter of Kekrops, the ephebes solemnly swore their annual oath (Demosthenes 19.303; Pollux 8.105–6). If we now consider the importance that the Ephebeia had in Lykourgos’ renewal programme, it becomes clear that comfortable and safe access – especially of processions on holidays – to the hillside shrines, and especially the facilitation of the procession of ephebes to the place where they swore their oath, must have been the reason for the construction of the Peripatos. Before the construction of the Peripatos, the Aglaureion could be reached only by a path leading down from the Akropolis. This steep connection between the Aglaureion and the Akropolis – at that time only an abrupt path – was used by the Persian invaders to enter the Akropolis during the night (Pausanias 1.18.2; Herodotus 8.53.1). But it seems that there had been also another, easier access: Peisistratos’ men, gathered for his coup d’état, advanced – presumably – from the ‘Old Agora’ at the still unidentified sanctuary of the Dioskouroi (the Anakaion), where they secretly took the arms of the citizens and then headed to the Aglaureion to hide the arms there.Footnote ¹⁸

The introduction of a military civilian service, the Ephebeia, was at the heart of the policy of renewal that Lykourgos pursued after 338.Footnote ¹⁹ As the highest financial administrator, Lykourgos had succeeded in pooling enormous resources and generating an additional income of 1200 talents per year, so that between 14,000 and nearly 19,000 talents flowed through his hands during his terms of office ([Plutarch] Moralia 841b). The surpluses, which were also generated by involving private individuals in public financing plans, could be incorporated into a programme of measures which, in addition to extensive construction work, including monuments, also included the strengthening of democratic institutions and the reorganisation of religious festivals. These might include the financing and reorganisation of the Lesser Panathenaia (IG II³ 1, 447), as well as the introduction of the institutionalised Ephebeia. Even when inflation is taken into account, Lykourgos may have had more funds at his disposal than had Perikles, whom he emulated in his construction programme (Hurwit Reference Hurwit1999, 253). His politics can be understood as a planned interlocking of conservative renewal measures. They appear to be ‘a programme which, taken as a whole, was well thought out and consistently implemented, and which, in a return to the Athens of the Pentecontaetia, should ensure greater participation by citizens in public life’ (Will Reference Will1983, 94–5).

The Ephebeia played a central role especially in the context of a policy of citizen participation and the reactivation of a patriotic public spirit. During their two-year service, the young Athenians had to complete an educational programme consisting of military exercises and historical-political instruction, as well as practice in the cult festivals of the polis. The introduction to public cult practice was of great importance: ‘In their role as initiates who were introduced to the social and religious life of the polis, practicing fundamental social activities, and learning ritualised modes of behaviour, the ephebes took part in a broad spectrum of cult festivals, holding processions or torchlight processions, making sacrifices, organizing competitions, and performing weapon dances …’ (Beck Reference Beck, Beck and Wiemer2009, 55–6).

A particularly important moment was the taking of the oath, which after Lykourgos’ reform all young men had to swear solemnly every year on the eastern slope of the Akropolis, in the sanctuary of Aglauros (Demosthenes 19.303; Pollux 8.105–6). The Athenaion Politeia mentions a tour of several sanctuaries at the beginning of ephebic service, immediately after the candidates had been registered in the citizen lists.Footnote ²⁰ At the Aglaureion, possibly the first station of this tour,Footnote ²¹ all newly registered citizens had to swear an oath of allegiance under arms (Pausanias 1.18.2; Demosthenes 19.303 [with scholion]; Lykourgos 1.76). Aglauros is also the first deity in a whole series who were to be invoked as guarantors of the oath (SEG XXI 519). This cult of the daughter of Kekrops, who threw herself from the Akropolis into the depths and sought self-sacrificial death to save the Polis (Philochoros BNJ 328 F 105), corresponded symbolically with the demands on the ephebes, who in turn were enrolled every year to save the city and defend it (Rhodes and Osborne Reference Rhodes and Osborne2003, 446). Accordingly, the oath was taken every year in the sanctuary of Aglauros, and the myth of the rescue of Athens through the supreme sacrifice was celebrated with this act as an ideal bridge between the ephebes and the cult of Aglauros.Footnote ²² Thus Aglauros became the ‘chief divine patroness of the ephebes’ (Parker Reference Parker2005, 434), the ‘special goddess of the ephebes’ (Merkelbach Reference Merkelbach1972, 279: ‘Sondergöttin der Epheben’) and the mythological exemplar of the male youth: ‘Aglauros, then, who as a heroine continued to have a special interest in victory, had given her life for the city; the ephebes, young and unmarried like her, had to be prepared to do the same’ (Kearns Reference Kearns, Murray and Price1990, 330).

Lykourgos himself regarded the oath of the ephebes as the basis and guarantor of democracy (Lykourgos 1.79). The Ephebeia as the central institution for education and training was the core of his political programme, as can be seen from the fact that at the end of his political career he had an account exhibited on a stele in front of the palaestra in the Lykeion, where the ephebes trained ([Plutarch] Moralia 843f; Mitchel Reference Mitchel1970, 38–9; Will Reference Will1983, 87; Hintzen-Bohlen Reference Hintzen-Bohlen1997, 127). In order to make the Aglaureion a fit venue for this solemn oath for a complete annual cohort of ephebes, which must have included several hundred young men,Footnote ²³ the construction of the new Peripatos was, so to speak, a pre-condition. Their march together after their entry into the citizen lists in the company of their elected leaders to the Aglaureion could only take place using the new Peripatos ([Aristotle] Athenaion Politeia 42). This makes the new cult road essential for a core feature of Lykourgos’ new, ‘patriotic’ renewal policy, which began right at the start of the Lykourgan Age in 336 with the introduction of the Ephebeia. The Ephebeia was created as a system of paideia for new citizens, which they acquired through military training and service. Besides the genuine military aspect and the anti-Macedonian stance of the new institution, this system of a complex system of training fits into the overall project of civic renewal that characterised the Lykourgan Age (Henderson Reference Henderson2020, 56). At the same time, by making access easier or even possible at all, the construction of the road allowed the older cults on the slope of the Akropolis to achieve new prominence, as an increase in consecrations in the sanctuary of Aphrodite and Eros is particularly noticeable for the third century (Broneer Reference Broneer1933; Reference Broneer1935; cf. Morgan Reference Morgan1935). This measure was also decisive for the choreography of the processions associated with the cults, which naturally had to use roads and paths. The circular route, which in the western part led to the famous (and wider) Panathenaic Way, had become an important cult route from which the sanctuaries on the slope were served. The torchlight procession to the Pan Sanctuary no longer had to go in single file along the steep and narrow stairs from the Akropolis plateau, and could be arranged into a coherent formation. With the concept of a ring-road which facilitated access to very ancient sanctuaries and cults, Lykourgos also managed to implement another important aspect of his renewal policy: the revival of traditional cults and state religion.