or other forms of conspicuous presence in them (such as group or individual statues, kouroi or korai, as well as commemorative or votive inscriptions on public display) may be different in each particular case, but they all will have to somehow interact with corresponding practices executed in supra-local, or even pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, where aristocratic families from all over the Greek world competed on an equal footing.
Although theoretically all these activities may sporadically by executed by non-aristocrats (see below), what a priori is aristocratic about them is not so much the scale of expenditure required (as already mentioned, all is relative here) but the programmed or pre-meditated activity amounting to a systematic recourse to gift-exchange, luxurious ostentation, and marriages by a given family.
As a result of all this, countless interconnected networks were born, covering the “small Greek world,” as Irad Malkin calls it (Malkin 2011), in its entirety. Private or aristocratic ties lend an additional “systemic” dimension to this network dynamics. This clearly results not only from a handful of traditions to this effect preserved in our ancient sources, but even more so thanks to much more numerous stories of high political importance regarding political, historical, ethical, and religious ties between entire communities.12 It seems likely that the bonds of friendship (philia, xenia) or even (mythical) kinship between the communities across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea were modeled on private, or better individual relations between those who thought of themselves as aristocrats and intensely interacted with one another on a supra-local scale. (Not inappropriately, such “international” ties between political communities were often thought of in terms of syngeneia, or kinship.)
In a more general vein, a good amount of the inter-communal relations in archaic and classical Greece was based on individual, or better interpersonal, ties, such as the institution of proxeny, or honorary consulate of a citizen looking after the interests of another city and its citizens in his own polis (cf. recently Mack 2015). But I aim here to focus not on such institutional or more private ties between individuals and/or political communities, but rather on local and supra-local mechanisms of elite recognition, on establishing one’s elevated status to be acknowledged as such by one’s community and others across the Hellenic world. For the very essence of Greek aristocracy will be, I submit, a certain level of group solidarity, or perhaps better of self-recognizability. And here the cultural aspect of this phenomenon ultimately comes to the fore.
The Symposium
At this juncture, two remarkably Greek social practices stand out, both marked by a highest degree of competition among equals, and both requiring a set of otherwise highly symbolic skills, sometimes impractical in real-life’s terms, namely athletics (see Nicholson (Chapter 4) in this volume) and the symposium (see Węcowski 2014).
Symposia were held at night.13 They were culture-oriented and highly ceremonial elite gatherings over wine (only light snacks were served in the process) with more or less sophisticated pastimes involving both dexterity games and intellectual, mostly poetical entertainment. Almost all sympotic pastimes had competitive character and were organized as a series of tournaments that were supposed to determine the winner of each particular contest. Usually, individual performances accompanied the movement of the common cup of wine, consecutively refilled, and changing hands from one diner to another from left to right (epidexia, endexia). Whenever the circulating cup reached a participant of the banquet, he was supposed to perform. This order assured both a rigorous equality of the performers and naturally stimulated competition. At the very beginning of the symposium, the diners appointed one particularly experienced colleague, called “the leader” of the drinking occasion (symposiarchos, archōn), or simply “the king” (basileus), to supervise the gathering, decide on the volume of wine to be consumed and its strength (as wine was always diluted with water), organize the pastimes, and to suggest suitable subjects for competitive performances.14
The participants of the symposium can be categorized into several groups. First come the full-members of a given sympotic circle, the self-proclaimed “friends” (philoi) or “companions” (hetairoi), adult men of aristocratic status providing for the (relatively) luxurious banquet. They could either organize symposia in their houses taking turns or contribute together to a shared banquet in a rented room in a sanctuary or in a public space. Specialized public buildings for elite drinking are alluded to in Homer and archaeologically discernible as early as the Late Geometric period in the late 8th century. In classical times, they would usually gather in a specialized room, called andrōn (“men’s room”), a square chamber with an off-center entrance to accommodate along its walls seven or more couches, each for one or two reclining revellers (before the end of the seventh century BC, one sat at symposia). The cozy space assuring intimacy among the “friends” was particularly important for sympotic entertainment. The diners would most probably be summoned there by the host or organizer of a given party.
Next, their young sons or other male relatives to be inculcated with aristocratic values and practical skills would be in a subordinate seated position with no right to drink wine or speak unasked. Besides the hetairoi, who belonged together and regularly attended the same social circles, there were the so-called “shadows” (skiai), occasionally invited by one of the full-members and probably tested by the company before being admitted on a more regular basis.
The group of attendants was a mixed bunch, starting with those in-between the aristocratic participants and their non-aristocratic servants and slaves. The group of the so-called “uninvited ones” (aklētoi) encompassed both free-born, regular parasites of lowly origin, on the one hand, and impoverished aristocrats on their way down the social scale, on the other. Recently deprived of their economic solvency, they could no longer participate on an equal footing as they were unable to invite their former “friends” back to their houses for symposia. But they still possessed the requisite “cultural capital” (see below) and the cherished sympotic competences to be admitted as attractive wine-companions, albeit no longer peers. Just as the regular parasites, in return for the invitation to eat and to drink, they would perform amusing tricks, participate to some extent in sympotic games and performances, but most importantly, when doing so they would be exposed to diverse self-humiliating activities in their function of buffoons.15
The unfree or low-born servants included young male and female attendants (paides), mostly slaves, presumably often selected for their physical beauty. Besides distributing sweetmeats, preparing, mixing, and serving wines, their important function was to fuel the eroticism of the gathering and the erotic discourse among the diners. Both visual arts and literary sources regularly concentrate on the courtesans, the “female-companions” (hetairai), as they were called to emphasize their ambiguous status. They participated in some of the sympotic pastimes, both cultural and dexterity ones (see below), but were subordinate and exploited nonetheless. They would be open to more or less brutal courtship by the diners and perform erotically-laden activities, including dancing, but it would be wrong to envision full-blown sexual orgies during well-ordered symposia. The courtesans were perhaps a socially variegated group, including compromised free women, metics, and slaves.16
They had to possess some cultural education and sympotic skills. Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between the courtesans and female musicians brought to the symposium, the “flute-players” (pl. auletrides).
In fr. 146 PCG, the comic playwright Epicharmus says that “† A sacrifice (θυσία) leads to a feast, | and a feast leads to drinking (πόσις). | […] But drinking leads to wandering the streets drunk (kōmos), and a kōmos leads to swinish behavior (ὑανία), | and acting swinishly leads to a lawsuit, <and a lawsuit leads to being found guilty>, | and being found guilty leads to shackles, stocks, and a fine” (tr. S. D. Olson, adapted). This time frame is actually one of the most important characteristics
