William S. BUBELIS The
Hero Klaïkophoros: Responses to Democratic
Accountability in the Hellenistic Peloponnese
A damaged Hellenistic inscription from Messene
(IG V (1) 1447) has long presented an interpretive
obstacle to the study of Greek religious sanctuaries,
their administration, and role in political life. The
problem centers on how to construe the particular
recipient of a sacrifice: teleon to(i)
klaïkophoro(i) (l. 11), who is named at
the end of a sacrificial calendar. What follows appears
to be a set of instructions which mandate that priestly
officers present their accounts publicly. Whether a
magistrate's title or the name of a Peloponnesian hero,
the figure Klaïkophoros has been generally neglected
(e.g. Edelstein and Edelstein (1945) 1998; Zunino 1997;
Themelis 2000). What is at stake, however, is
significant: if the figure is indeed a hero, why should
he be mentioned at this juncture in the inscription, and
how does his cult (and that of the other divinities)
relate to public finance of one sort or another?
This paper argues that the Messenian Klaïkophoros
is the same as the Hero of that name in the Argolid,
attested first in the 4th C. BC, although his
origins and prior development are obscure. Given its
special prestige and financial sophistication, the shrine
of Asklapios at Epidauros likely served as an influential
model for other Asklepieia, especially that of Messene.
Moreover, the Hero Klaïkophoros enjoyed prominent
cult-status at Epidauros. Whether or not his cult was
first promoted by sacred treasurers (tamiai) as
their protector is unknown, but such officials typically
faced the most severe penalties for real or alleged
temple-robbery. Furthermore, his name ('Key-bearer')
suggests a tangible connection with their own
responsibilities, especially their tight control over
access to the shrine's treasures. Whatever the character
of his cult there, his presence at Messene lies in the
special nature and history of Messenian institutions,
where public accountability was certainly prominent
(Fröhlich 1999), as perhaps at Epidauros itself. To
the extent that their new polis lacked any deep
political traditions and experience of its own, the
Messenians were eager to acquire the substance of an
already developed state. This was especially true in
religious matters, as the numerous other Messenian
heroe-cults testify, particularly those centered around
historical Messenians.
Hellenistic Messene also stands out as one
Pelponnesian polis that maintained constitutional
procedures of at least a partially democratic character,
requiring financial officers of religious cults to
present their accounts to the Boule or similar body.
Messenian juries, moreover, were instructed not to lessen
the heavy fines levied upon guilty magistrates (IG
V (1) 1390, ll. 48-52). Although the political
histories of Messene and Epidauros are not well known,
the experience of Athenian tamiai under the
democracy offers a meaningful comparison, as the
Athenians also possessed large juries and demanded public
accountability. Moreover, defendants in Athens at least
might face readier conviction or heavier sentences in
proportion to their high status and wealth, such as was
typically required of tamiai. In contrast, there
is no clear evidence that Athenian tamiai
developed any cultic response similar to that of Messene
and perhaps Epidauros, although fully subject to the same
(and worse) pressures of democratic accountability.
Abstracts
Index