American Journal of Ancient History 9781463206277, 1463206275

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

1.3

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 1.3 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2016

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2016 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1976 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܛ‬

1

2016

ISBN 978-1-4632-0627-7

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

K. R. Walters: The 'AncestralConstitution' and Fourth-Century

Historiography in Athens .................................

129

David Daube: Martial, Father of Three ...........................

145

A. Kasher: The JewishAttitude to the AlexandrianGymnasium in the First Century A.D ..................................

148

D. R. ShackletonBailey: A Mergingof Licinii Crassi.................

162

A. B. Bosworth: Early RelationsBetweenAetolia and Macedon........

164

RobertA. Moysey:The Dateof the Stratoof SidonDecree(IG II 2 141) 182 RobertJ. Rowland,Jr.: Nero'sConsularColleagues:A Note ..........

190

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

HISTORIOGRAPHY

AND

FOURTH-CENTURY

IN ATHENS*

For Gregory Vlastos

It is a commonly held view that the oligarchsat Athens in 411 and 404 pre-

senteda politicalprogramof return to an 'ancestralconstitution'(patrios politeia), that is, to a more oligarchicconstitutionfrom the Athenianpast which was no longer in effect. But a closeanalysisof the ancientliterature referring to the two oligarchicrevolutionsin thoseyears makesthis view untenable.The conceptof an ancestralconstitutionwaspossibleonly after the codification of the laws at Athens in 403/2. And the crucial term patrios in the pertinentsourcesin fact means'traditionalandstill in use'ratherthan 'ancestraland no longerin use'.Fifth- andearlyfourth-centurywritersspoke of patrioi nomoi as the objectof the frequentcommissions setup between 410 and 403 to revise the laws. These were the traditional

democratic laws.

But the fourth-centuryatthidographerAndrotionmisunderstood the usageof patrioi nomoi and relatedterminologyin his effort to showa theoretical,and hencemore moderate,political stancefor the oligarchTherameneswho had been prominentin both revolutions.As a historianof Attica, Androtionsaw the developme•tof the Athenian constitutionthrougha seriesof discrete politeiai that becameever more democratic.And he picturedTheramenesas eagerto haveAthensreturn to an earlier and more oligarchicstate, the supposedm•cestralconstitution.Androtion'sfaulty interpretationwaspickedup by Aristotle in his Athenai•n Politeia and has been explicitly delineatedby modern scholars.But ironically, the modernshave unwittingly followed the tracesleft by the fourth-cet•turyhistoriansand thought that they had 're-

covered' thisviewof thepast.1

When the papyrusof Aristotle'sAthenaiOnPoliteiawas first publishedin

1891,it caused greatscholarly stir.2 For in its firstparttheAP (asI shall designateit hereafter) traced the historicaldevelopmentof the Athenian constitutionfrom the time of Dracon, through Solon and Cleisthenes,and

downto thefinalcodification of the'radical' democracy in 403/2.3Foreach of the greatlawgivers(nomothetai)a fairly completepoliteiawas described, includinginter alia such information as the number,powers,and tenure of the magistracies, the compositionof the popularassemblies (i.e., who were citizens), and the compositionof the boule. Such material seemeda great discoveryindeed. For althoughthe information thus recordedfor the lawgiverswasnot alwayscompleteor consistent,it appearedthat the successive 129

1976 by E. Badian. All rights reserved.

130

K.R.

WALTERS

structuresof the early Athenian state were at last reasonablywell known. Further, it looked as if certainAtheniansat the end of the fifth centuryhad extensivelyresearched this early history and usedit asthe basisof a political program.

For in its descriptionof the two oligarchicrevolutionsthe AP records that the oligarchsheaded by Theramenessought a return to the patrios politeia. Thus, Cleitophon, an associateof Theramenes,is said by the AP (29.3) to have called in 411 for researchinto 'Cleisthenes'ancestrallaws

(patrioinomoi)whichhe established whenhe institutedthe democracy. '4 Presumablythesewere lawslessdemocraticthan thoseof the presentregime, since the very purposeof the assemblyat which Cleitophonspokewas, as Thucydidessays(8.53), to changethe democraticstructureof the state(md ton auton tropond•mokrateisthai)in orderto win help from the Persianking and to lure back the exiled Alcibiadesas general.And indeed, the AP explicitly statesthat the basisof Cleitophon'smotion '...wasthat the constitution of Cleistheneswas not democraticbut similar to Solon's'(AP 29.3). Thus, both early lawgiversare in one stroke dubbed 'not democratic'.Further, the AP records that two constitutionswere eventually drafted by the oligarchs,copiesof which it presents(30-31). In the constitution'for the present'it is stated that four hundredmen shouldbe chosento run the boule

'in the ancestral manner'(kata ta patria).Scholars assume 5 thisrefersto Solon'sancestralconstitution(whichsupposedly had a bouleof four hundred, as distinct

from Cleisthenes' five hundred

and Dracon's four hundred

and

one). Hence, we can see the oligarchspurposelyresearchingthe ancestral lawsof Athens,investigating old constitutionsthat had passedout of effect, and reconstructingfrom theseconservativeantiquitiesa new and less democratic politeia for Athens. Nor was this an isolatedoccurrence.When someof the sameoligarchs regainedpower in 404, after Sparta had at last subduedAthens,the AP tells

us (34.3) they attemptedagainto restorethe ancestralconstitution.At their head was Theramenes,and Cleitophonwas amongthem. Moreover,Diodorus Siculusat one point records(14.3.2), in agreementwith the AP, that the Spartan generalLysandergrantedpeace to the Athenianson the condition that they restorethe ancestralconstitution.The attemptedrestorationfailed, when sabotagedfrom within by the excesses of reactionaryoligarchsled by Critias.6 In the main, this is the evidencethat modern scholarsfrom Wilamowitz

to M.I. Finley have relied on in their picture of the oligarchsas political

theorists revivingthe pastto rule the present. 7 Thisviewhaspermeated almost universally the works of modern historiansof ancient Greece. It is

virtually takenforgranted. 8 But there is a remarkable anomaly here. It is well known that there is

little or no theoreticalexpositionof the structureof the Atheniandemocracy

by democrats in fifth- or fourth-century Athens. 9 Yet thedemocracy wasat once the most complicatedand the most efficient of the Greek states,a governmentthat displayedenormousvitality andresilience.The oligarchs,on the otherhand,are often describedasapragmones ('do-nothings'),who shrank

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

131

fromcontact withthedemocratic processes. 10Thucydides portrays Antiphon, the mastermindof the take-overin 411, as such an apragmOn:'He had a most powerful intellect and greateloquence,but he nevercameforward to speakin front of the assemblyunlesshe couldhelp it, or competedin any other form of public life' (8.68). Accordingly,we are confrontedwith a picture where the democrats,who are extraordinarilyexperiencedand successful, never theorize about the structure of their constitution, while the

inactiveand frustratedoligarchsprefaceand buttresstheir two greatcoups d' dtat with theoreticaljustification,historicalresearchand analysis,andwith explicit draftsof written constitutions. But theory and practiceare not sodivorced.In fact, I proposethat the entire interpretationof the oligarchicpatrios politeia programin the fifth century is falseand that the oligarchs werelittle more than opportunists.The democratsbegan in 410 an ongoingprocessof review and revisionof the city's laws that eventually resulted in 403/2 in the first fixed lawcode in Athens' history. It was this basicallystatic code that set the necessarypre-

conditions of a historical perspective onpastpoliteiai. 11Indeed, theinterpretation of an ancestralconstitutionasseparate,oligarchic,and out-of-datewas not possibleuntil the mid-fourth century.It wasa historicalhoax, revisionist history, designedneatly to packagethe chaosof fifth-centurypoliticaland constitutionalhistory and, tendentiously,to justify Theramenesand his friendsto the fourth century.

To test the validity of the usualmodernview of the supposed patrios politeia programit is necessary to askwhat the historicalimplicationsof that view are for the fifth century.But oncetheseimplications aredetermined, it will be seenthey cannotbe historicallysupported.Accordingto the rule of the modustollens,then, when the consequentis denied,the initial hypothesis

mustalsofall.12Thatis thecasehere.In myjudgment, theputative patrios politeia program implies the following political attitudes and conditionsin fifth-century Athens. 1. Recordsof specificwritten constitutionswere availablefor studyin the fifth century. 2. Early lawgivers,such as Solon or Cleisthenes,were in the fifth centuryidentified or identifiablewith oligarchicpoliteiai. 3. The Athenian populacewas as a whole in someway aware of the

historyof the development of its government andwashencesusceptible to a politicalprogrambasedon a historicalargument.

But the evidenceshowsthat none of thesethree implicationscan be confirmed.In consequence, the moderninterpretationoutlinedin the preceding pagesmust be denied. We haveextraordinarilylittle evidenceabout Athenianlaw codesbefore

the very end of the fifth century.Thisis especially true for lawsdefiningthe

structure of the state.The onlyepigraphical evidence is IG 12 114,aninscriptiondatableto 410, limiting the powersof the boule.Most likely it is

a reactionof the democrats to the tyrannyof the FourHundredin 411.13

132

K.R.

WALTERS

None of the laws attributed to Solon, furthermore, was a constitutionallaw.

And very many of theselaws are in any caseunquestionably late counter-

feits. 14Moresignificantly, it isverydoubtful thatanagrapheis setupby the democrats between 410 and 403 to review the laws and remove inconsisten-

cieshad much to go on. The Persianinvasionearly in the centurymusthave destroyedmany materials.Thus, Craterus,in his Collectionof Decrees,has two booksof inscriptionsfor all of Attic historydownto 440 and six books

for the nextfortyyears. 15B.D.Meritthashypothesized thatnotuntil462 and Ephialtes'reformswasthe Atheniandemosin firm enoughcontrolof the

stateto requirestonepublication of everyimportantpopulardecree. 16 Finally, the long toiling of the artagraphels between410 and403 showshow scatteredand difficult to sort out the early legislationwas-not nicelysystematized as the outlines of the constitutionsin the AP might seem to imply. Further, a recent study by Alan Boegeholdindicatesthat a state

archivewas not established until after 409, possiblyat the requestof the

democratic anagrapheis. 17In general, at Athens systematization of thelaws andof historical materials wasa latephenomenon. 18Therearestrong reasons for doubtingthat much evidencefor early constitutionalhistorywas available in the late fifth century.The spadework wasjust beginningwith the laborsof the democraticanagrapheis. Moreover, there is no evidencethat the early lawgiversin fact had establisheddiscreteor unique written politeiai-or that fifth-centuryAthenians perceivedthem to have done so. Far more likely is the view that the successivelaws accreted to the generally establishedunwritten politeia. Obsoletelaws were not removed;they simply 'faded away'. It was fourthcentury historianswho clusteredimportant eventsaroundkey namesand

developedthe illusionof quantumjumpsin the development of the constitution, neglectingthe more probablepicture of a continuum,where there are gradual additions and deletions in a traditional body of material that comprisesthe constitution.It is very unlikelythat the oligarchscouldhaveturned up different constitutionsof the earlylawgiversor haveknown whereto look for them. Furthermore,without such historical perspectivethe Athenian demosfailed to perceiveany sharppolitical distinctionbetweenearly times and their own age. Hence, they were immune to any argumentthat the oligarchscouldrestorefor them a pastconservative constitution. None of the early lawgiversis thought of as undemocraticin fifthcentury sources,as, for example,the fourth-centuryAP (29) attemptsto

claimof Solonand Cleisthenes. 19 Theseus,for instance,in Euripides'Suppliants touts the radical democracy to the contentious Theban herald, a remarkableanachronism, but, as we shallsee,very typicalfor an unhistorical

fifth century. 20 In Herodotus, Cleisthenes is thefounderof thedemocracy pure and simple(6.31), andthere is no hint that he is thoughtof asconservative until the fourth century. Likewise, Solon in the fifth century is seenasa democrat:he is, for instance,dubbed'philod•mos'in Aristophanes'Clouds (1187). But the most remarkableevidenceis the customaryusageof the phrases'Solon's law' or 'Dracon'slaw'. In the fifth century thesephrases

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

133

referred to laws that were still in force, indeed to laws which never could have been instituted by either Solon or Dracon, laws which it was well known were establishedvery late. Thus, any law on homicide could be termed Drakontos

homos, anda greatvarietyoflatelawswerecalled SolOnos nornoi. 21Thiswas a thoroughlyingrainedidiom, and it revealsthe unhistoricalcast of the Athenianmind in the fifth and early fourth centuries.The pastis undifferentiated from the present.And thus, if the oligarchshad told the ordinary Athenian,'We want to return to the patriospoliteiaof Draconor Solon,'the democratwould have replied, 'Why? All our laws are already Solonianor Draconian.'

Another weaknessin the acceptedmoderninterpretationof the patrios politeia programis the suppositionthat 'patrios',modifyingeither'nomos'or 'politeia' or in the phrase 'kata ta patria', means'ancestral'in the senseof 'out of date'. An examination of occurrencesin pertinent texts, however, revealsthat this assumptionis unwarranted.The basicmeaningof'patrios' is 'derived or inherited from one'sforefathers'.Moreover,institutions,laws, and customsdescribed aspatrioi quite obviouslyareviewedin mostcasesasstill in effect. In fact, while it is of coursehistoricallypossiblefor what isparrion to have been abrogatedor to have passedout of effect, sucha senseis by no meansinherentin the word. 'Patrios'must be taken to imply current existence of what it describes,unlessit is expresslystated that what is pardon is no

longer in effect. 22 Someexamples follow. 1. Hdt. 3.82.5: Darius urges the Persiansto chooseanother monarch

(andnot democracyor oligarchy),sothat they will not destroytheir patrioi nomoi. The point is that the Persianshave always had a monarchup to the presenttime. 2. Hdt. 3.80.5: Otanescomplainsthat a tyrant is bad becausehe rules lawlessly,that is, does away with the law of the land (ta nomaia patria).

If the phrasesreferredto lawsthat had passedout of effect, thesepassages would be nonsense.

3. The phrase kata ta patria, 'in the-ancestral manner', commonly

occurs in fifth-century treaties, describinghow the contracting partiesshouldact. It doesnot mean that the partiesshouldreturn to an 'ideal' or 'lost' constitution, but rather that they should act in

accordance withthecustomary procedures of theirstates. 23 4. In another instance,Thucydidesdescribesthe tradition of the Attic Funeral Oration (2.34) as a patriosnomos.This wasa well-known ongoingrhetoricalinstitution that had begunno earlierthan 480,

perhapsas late as 457. Lysias(2.81) alsouses'patriosnomos'to describethe FuneralOration tradition.24 5. Thucydides4.86.4: when the SpartangeneralBrasidasbesiegedthe Acanthiaris,he persuadedthem to surrenderby claiming,'I havenot come here to take sidesin your internalaffairs,and I do not think I

134

K.R.

WALTERS

shouldbe givingyou real freedomif I were to take no notice of your own constitution(to patrion) and were to enslaveeither the many to the few or the few to the many' (Warnertranslation).That is, Brasidaswill not disturb the traditional and still existing state structure,be it democracyor oligarchy. o

Thucydides8.76: after the coup of the Four Hundredoligarchs,the democratic

Athenian

sailors stationed

at Samos denounced

the

oligarchictakeover,on the groundsthat the oligarchshad destroyed tous patrious nomous, the ancestrallaws. The complaint is, of course,that the oligarchshad doneawaywith traditionaldemocracy. And fifth-century Greek literature could provide many more examples. 'Patrios', combinedwith 'nomoi' or 'politeia', doesnot refer to an ideal or

lost,conservative or out-of-date constitution. 25 If thisis so,wheredoesthe ostensibleoligarchicprogram of a return to an ancestralconstitution come from?

Until the discoveryof the AP papyrus,no modern scholarhad an inkling that sucha politicalprogramever existedin the late fifth century. One may searchthe pagesof Grote'sHistory of Greecein vainfor any mention of it. For indeed, the modern view is basedalmostsolelyon the AP and later materials.Strikingly, contemporariessuch as Thucydides,Xenophon, Lysias,Aristophanes,or Euripidesnevermention a patriospoliteia program. In fact, 'patriospoliteia', asa phrase,occursonly twice in the extant literature before the AP, once in a fragmentof the sophistThrasymachus, and possibly

as well in Demosthenes, 23.205.26 In both cases,the term needreferto nothingelse than a politeia inheritedfrom the pastand still in effect. More importantly, 'patriospoliteia' most emphaticallywas not a slogan,as has sometimesbeen claimed.27 As regardsthe revolutionof 411, Thucydidesand theAP differ totally on essentials:there is no hint in Thucydidesof any of the very elaboratecon-

stitutionalproceduresand plans outlinedin the AP. He and the AP even disagreeon how the Four Hundred were chosen.Thucydidesseesthe olig-

archsasopportunists; theAP viewsthemasdoctrinaire constitutionalists. 28 Furthermore, Lysiaslambastes Theramenes for hismanydeceits beforeand duringthe regimeof the Four Hundred(AgainstEratosthenes, 62 ff.), but somehowhe missesan excellentchanceto castigatethe oligarchfor a phony

patriospoliteiaprogram.On the otherhand,Xenophon,who grudgingly admires Theramenesfor his stand against the arch-oligarchCritias in 404,

appearsto omit a tellingrebuttalfor Theramenes in the famouscourtroom scenewhere the two oligarchsdebatetheir politicalphilosophies: the patrios politeia programis not mentioned(Hell. 2.3.24-49). Interestingly, the rhe-

toricalhandbookAd Alexandrum, written shortlybefore340,29 which catalogues the typical arguments pro and contra to be usedin speeches, says nothingof the program,eitherwhenit describes the pointsan oligarchshould make on behalf of oligarchy,or those that a democratshoulduse againstit (13-22). The plain fact is that contemporarysourceshandlingthe oligarchic revolutionsfail to say anythingabout a patriospoliteiaprogramin just those

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

135

crucial placeswhere we would most expect somemention. The evidenceadduced above clearly points out, I think, that there in fact existedno such programin the late fifth century.The Ad Alexandrumpushesthe date for its invention down to about 340. Strikingly,E. Ruschenbusch hasdemonstrated that it was not until about this time (ca. 350 and afterwards)that certain of

theearlylawgivers beganto getreputations asundemocratic conservatives. 30

The above argumentshave been used to deny the historical existenceof a patrios politeia program in fifth-century Athens. In what follows I shall attempt to explain how there arosethe claim that sucha programhad existed. The notion of a written and concretepoliteia defining the structureof the state was not possibleuntil the democraticanagraphaiof the laws were com-

pletedin 403/2. And indeed,it was at just thistime that therearosethe first historicalresearches into the developmentof the Athenian constitutionwith the atthidographer Hellanicus(ca. 400). He wasfollowedby Cleidemus(354),

andthenby Androtion(340)fi• It wastheseatthidographers, andespecially Androtion,a wellknownsourcefor Aristotle's AP,32 who formedtheview of Athenianconstitutionaldevelopmentasa seriesof successively more democraticpoliteiaiwhich embodiedexplicitstructuraloutlinesof the organization of thestate.Androtionwasconnectedwith the fifth-centuryoligarchsthrough

his fatherAndton,who had beenan associate of Theramenes. 33 Urged by an intent to vindicateTheramenesasa constitutionalist,and influencedby his teacher Isocrates' novel view that Athens before the advent of the radical

democracy hadbeenconservative andaristocratically run,34 Androtionmisinterpreted oligarchicmisuseof the democraticsyngraphaiand anagraphaiof the city's laws as an attempt to return to a supposedlymuchlessdemocratic ancestral

constitution.

Thus,we can explain the claim (AP 34) that Lysanderinsistedupon a return to the patrios politeia by Athens in 404 as a misinterpretationof the

commonformula'kata ta patria'that no doubtoccurred in the treaty. 35 The same error is traceable in modern scholars' attribution

of a boule of four

hundred to Solon, basedupon a clausein AP 31.1 (the so-called'constitution for the present')that the oligarchicFour Hundredin 411 were to comprisea boule kata ta patfla. What this really meant was that the oligarchshad promisedsimply to function as a boule 'in the traditional manner', i.e., in a

democratic manner,not autocratically.36 ButAndrotionthoughtthisformulation meant 'in a conservative manner',seeinga referenceto a return to the ancestral constitution. And in what ancestral constitution could such a boule have existed? Cleisthenes had instituted a boule of five hundred. The most

'logical' choice then was Solon'spoliteia, which the AP called ou d•motik• (29.3). Thus, Androtion inventedtwo fictions,a Solonianbouleof four hundred, which is duly, if baldly, recordedin AP 8.4, and an oligarchicre-institution of that boule in 411.

In like manner, Androtion misinterpretedCleitophon'srequest to researchCleisthenes'patrioi nomoi. AP 29.2-3 reads:

136

K.R.

WALTERS

The decreeof Pythodorus wasas follows:the peopleshouldchoosein additionto the ten alreadyin office twenty othersoverforty yearsof age,whowouldtakean oathto makewhateversuggestions they thought bestfor the city and who wouldthendraft thosesuggestions for the

city'ssalvation. Andit wouldbepermissible foran3one whowanted to draft a proposal,so that they mightchoosethe bestfromall (hairOntai to ariston).Cleitophonadded the amendmentthat those so selected should also investigatethe patrioi nomoi which Cleisthenesenacted whenhe established the democracy,so that by heedingtheselawstoo they shouldmakethebestsuggestions (bouleusOntai to ariston),on the grounds that Cleisthenes'politeia was not democraticbut similar to

Solon's.

(Fritz-Kapptranslation,modified)

The final clause,'...on the groundsthat Cleisthenes'politeia was not democratic but similar to Solon's',was not part of the originalmotion or amendment. It specifically contradictsCleitophon'samendment by saying that Cleisthenes' Politeiawasnot democratic.Further,in its positionandphraseo-

logy the clausereadslike an interpretativeadditionand doesnot seemto fit the languageof decrees.And finally, the word in the Greek that endsboth the main motion and the amendment

is ariston. The added clause breaks this

symmetry. 37 Therehasbeenconsiderable scholarly debateaboutthesource of thisaddedclause. 38 It doesnotseemto beAristotle's ownopinion, forit contradictshis earlierstatement(AP 22.1) that Cleisthenes' politeia 'became much more democraticthan Solon's'. Androtion appearsthe most likely sourcefor thisinterpretativeclause.Both Pythodorus'decreeandCleitophon's rider are imbeddedin a continuousnarratingsource.The mention of the thirty syngrapheisto draft proposalsagreeswith Androtion (FGrHist 324 F 43) againstThucydides(8.67.1). And the clause,accordingto Jacoby,fits '...with the tendencyof his [scil.Androtion's] Arthis that he minimizedthe

importance of Cleisthenes' definitedemocratization of the constitution'. 39 Androtion added the explanatoryclausebecausehe sawin Cleitophon's amendmentan oligarchicattempt to restorethe supposed patriospoliteia.His false assumptionwas groundedin the referencesto patrioi nomoi and Cleisthenes' constitution.

But the decree and its amendment had in fact been

designedto initiate an investigationto find out whetherthe oligarchs'plan to changecertainfeaturesof the presentconstitutionwouldviolatethe existing democraticlaws.The syngrapheis apparentlythoughtthe plan would, for they did not come up with any draft proposalsafter all, except the suggestion to suspendthe graph• paranomOn(Thucydides8.67.2; AP 29.4), a provision prohibitingthe enactmentof a law contraryin form or contentto an existing law.

In fact, the languageof Cleitophon'srider givesus groundsto think that Pythodorus'originalmotion required the syngrapheisto investigatethe existingdemocraticlaws (idiomaticallycalled the laws of Solonand Dracon) to aid in drafting their proposals.For the rider states,'...thoseso selected shouldalso investigatethe patrioi nomoi which Cleisthenesenacted...so that

by heedingtheselaws too they shouldmake the best suggestions' (prosanaz•t•sai...tous hairethentas...kai tous patrious nomous hous Kleisthen•s

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

137

etheken...hopOs akousanteskai toutOn bouleusOntaito ariston). The use of 'pros' in 'prosanazet•sai' and the 'kai' before 'patriousnomous'and again before 'toutOn' suggeststhat in the main motion there was a referenceto

investigating otherpatrioinomoi,presumably thoseof SolonandDracon. 40 Such an addition would fit with the view that the originaltask of the syngrapheiswas to examine the regular democraticlaws to seewhether the oligarchicplanwould overstepthem or not. In any case, the error in interpretationof the entire motion led to Androtion's claim, reflected in AP 34.3, that Theramenes and his circle, includingCleitophon,wanted to return to the patriospoliteia:

The peace [after Aegospotami]had beenconcludedon the condition that they [the Athenians]would return to the ancestralconstitution. On this basisthe popular party tried to preservethe democracy;those of the notableswho belongedto the political clubsand the exileswho returnedafter the peaceaimedat an oligarchy,while thosewho did not belongto the clubsbut who were otherwiseconsidered asbelongingto the best classessought the ancestralconstitution.To this group belonged...Cleitophon...andmany others. The foremost member was Theramenes. (Fritz-Kapptranslation,modified)

Thiswasan effort to pictureTheramenes asa constitutionalist, opposed to the lawlessregime of the Thirty Tyrants headedby Critias that in fact gainedcontrol over Athens. The Thirty had been selectedto governthe city

until they finishedthe task of revisingthe laws, that is, '...to write up (syngrapsein) the patrioi nomoi by which they would have a government'. (Xenophon,Hell. 2.3.2). This groupis alsocreditedby the AP at 35.2 with 'pretendingto administerthe ancestralconstitution',althoughit is the same groupwhich the AP had shortly before(34.3) distinguished carefullyfrom Theramenes'circle asbent on oligarchy.In fact, Therameneswas a member of the Thirty until he left it in protest over its harshpractices(Xen. Hell. 2.3.2, 15-56). The entire distinctionin AP 34.3 betweenthe democratswho wanted to keep the democracy,radicalswho wanted oligarchy,and Theramenes' circle that sought the ancestral constitution is a fabrication. The thirty syngrapheisthat includedboth Critias and Therameneshad beengiven temporary powers to govern the city while it finishedthe compilationand recensionof the patrioi nomoi that had been goingon since410. Their commissionwas just an extension of the earlier democraticefforts to codify the laws. Significantly, the syngrapheisdid not institute or try to institute an oligarchicpoliteia of any kind. They stalledin their task and ruled the city arbitrarily: to complete the syngraphewould have been to exhaust their mandateand to loseany pretensionto the legalityof their rule.If the patrioi nomoi the Thirty were supposed to write up had compriseda real, or for that matter even a counterfeit,conservative patriospoliteia, it would be hard to understandtheir reluctanceto completethe syngraphe.For presumablythe institution of the so-calledancestralconstitutionwould have legally establishedan oligarchyandallowedthe Thirty to rule throughregularoffices.

138

K.R.

WALTERS III

No doubt one reasonwhy the interpretationof a patriospoliteia programas an oligarchicplan of action in 411 and 404 has appealedgreatlyto modern scholarsis that it must in many ways be reconstructedfrom the sources, basicallyfrom the AP. To piece together such a reconstructiongivesthe illusion of recoveringactualhistory. Yet the need to reconstructis in fact the fault of the AP's desultoryepitome of its main source,Androtion. Connectivesand explanationsof motivesbehindeventshad beenomitted when the source was abbreviated.Thus, what mmay scholarshave so carefully put togetheris Androtion'sfaulty interpretationof the motivesof the oligarchs. Further, many scholarshaveneglectedthe cleardivisionbetweenthe contemporary and the later evidencefor the eventsunderscrutiny.They havefailed to distinguishbetween two distinct psychologicaland historicalattitudesof the Athenianpeople about their past.The first, dominantdown to the late fifth century,is the identificationof the presentwith the past,the feelingthat nothing essentiallyhad changed,that the Athenian democracywas based upon the sameprinciplesand had the samelawsasin earliesttimes.It wasan unhistoricalview. The secondattitude is one we are today much more familiar with, nostalgiafor the past, for the goodold days.The crushingdefeat that Athens sufferedin the Peloponnesianwar and the physicaland mental exhaustion that accompaniedit made the Atheniansfeel that the presentwas indeed now different from the past-and somehowinferior. It is a historical consciousness, a senseof divorcefrom the past, a theme we so often encounter in Isocrates.Thus, while it is true that both the fifth and the fourth century looked with reverenceat their political past, it is crucial to under-

standthat the fifth sawthe pastasthe same,the fourth asdifferent. This changein perspectiveon the past derivedat the sametime from a parallelevent. In 403/2 the Athenian constitutionhad at last beenfixed and codified. It produceda paradigmof an elaborateand basicallyunchanging politeia for the fourth-century historians of early Athenian constitutional history. Using this paradigm they soughtto reconstructsimilar developed politeiai for the major epochsin Attic history. With eachnew constitutional changethey saw a new politeia in full form superseding an older one. This method was basedon the notion and awareness of historicalchange.Ironically, it led to a misunderstanding of history. For certainambiguousterminologyin the debatesat Athensduringthe Deceleianwar madeat leastone of these historians,Androtion, think that the fifth-century oligarchstoo had realizedthe processof developmentof the Athenianpoliteia, from the conservativeto the fully democratic. Such an 'insight' allowed Androtion to justify oligarchicbehaviorin that era as actuallya legalattempt to restorethe

ancestral constitution. 41 But in fact,no suchnotionof a seriesof fixedand elaborated politeiai, advancingfrom oligarchic to democratic, existed in

fifth-centuryAthens.That was not possibleuntil the codificationof 403/2 that producedthe paradigmof sucha politeia, the necessary preconditionfor this historicalview. The contemporarysourcesshowthat the oligarchsdid

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

139

not refer to an ancestralconstitution.They were not constitutionalhistorians or political theorists.That is a talent that later historiansbestowedupon them.

University of California

K.R. Walters

Irvine

NOTES

*This article has been presented orally in different forms at Princeton University, at The University of California at Irvine, and at the Annual Meeting of Ancient Historians at Harvard University (May 4, 1974). It has been revised for this publication. 1. A. Fuks, The ancestral constitution, London 1953, p. v: 'The return to the "ancestral constitution" was in 411-403 B.C. a major issue in Athenian politics... The commonly held view is that each of the three groups in Athenian politics--the oligarchs, the moderates, and the democrats--propounded its own version of the "ancestral constitution". This is not borne out by an examination of the relevant evidence. Such an examination seems

to showthat the launchingof the sloganof n'drptogn'oXtre•a,and the employment of the argument from the constitutional past for political purposes of the day, were particularly connected with the moderate group in Athenian politics.' Fuks gives the most comprehensive treatment of the supposed patrios politeia program. A still more recent recapitulation of the view (together with examples from English and American history) is M.I. Finley, The ancestral constitution, Cambridge 1971, particularly pp. 3-14. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Aristoteles und Athen. Berlin 1893, was a prime mover in this interpretation. A whole school of studies involving the patrios politeia program and oligarchic propaganda during the Deceleian war (413404) grew up under the influence of Wilamowitz's book. For a general view with discussionof secondary literature and a bibliography see C. Hignett, A

history oftheAthenian constitution, Oxford 1953, pp. 268-298 and 356-389. Very important is E. Ruschenbusch's article, IIATPIOE IIOAITEIA, Historia 7 (1958) 398-424. See also S.A. Cecchin, Flckrptoc FloXtre&t,Turin 1969 (reviewed unfavorably by Ruschenbusch, Gnomon 44 (1972) 302-303). All ancient dates in this paper are B.C. 2. The papyrus was first obtained in 1890 by the British Museum from an unknown source. F.C. Kenyon edited the text and published it in January, 1891. See J.E. Sandys, Aristotle's constitution of Athens (2nd ed.), London 1912, for particulars. A useful modern translation in English is K. von Fritz and E. Capp, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, New York 1950, with commentary. A good analysis of the historical portion of the work is J. Day and M. Chambers, Aristotle's history of A thenJandemocracy, Berkeley 1962. The most recent consideration of the original publication date of the treatise

is that of J.J. Keaney, Historia 19 (1970) 326-336, who dates it to 334/3 with later editorial

3.

revisions in the 320s.

Dracon: AP 4; Solon: AP 5-12; Cleisthenes: AP 20-22.1.

For the

radical democracy see AP 42 ff. For a descriptionof procedureduring the codification

see Andocides

1.81-90.

140

K.R.

4.

WALTERS

Theramenes as leader: AP 32.2. The term patrios politeia is not in

fact used by the AP specifically to refer to the oligarchic program in 411. Modern scholars extrapolate its use in 411 from references to the term for the

revolution of 404 (AP 34.3) and from the apparently similar phraseology, patrioi nomoi, used in 411 by Cleitophon (AP 29.3). On the connection between Theramenes and Cleitophon seeAP 34.3 and Aristophanes, Frogs 967. 5. Most recently P.J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, Oxford 1972, 208 ff. Rhodes gives a short bibliography pro and contra, p. 208, n. 2. See especially Hignett (above, n. 1) 92-96 for a critical examination and rejection of the arguments for a Solonian boule. 6. Xenophon, Hellenica 2.3.1-53 and AP 34.3-38.3. Xenophon puts the actions of Critias fully in the spotlight, while the AP fails to mention his role as ringleader of the Thirty Tyrants.

7. Cf. Finley (above, n. 1) 25: '...the appeal to, and the argument from, the ancestral past...is, in short, ideology in its classic form.' Also, Wilamowitz (above, n. 1)vol. 2, p. 123: er [der verfassungsentwurf] ist die arbeit eines theoretikers und trhgt davon die spuren in der eigent•imlichen mischung von reaction und radicalismus, die ziemlich allen verfassungengemeinsam ist, die nur auf papier existirt haben, nicht zum wenigsten, wenn sie von mhnnern herrtihren, die geschichtliche kenntnisse und abstracte speculation reit einem scharfen kritischen blicke ftir die schfiden des politischen lebens verbinden, an dem sie selbst praktisch nicht tell nehmen.' 8. E.g., Hignett (above, n. 1) passim, esp. 273 ff.; R.J. Bonner and G. Smith, The administration of justice from Homer to Aristotle, Chicago 1938, vol. 1, 323 ff.; G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, Munich 1920-1926, vol. 1, 52-58, 69 ff., 911 ff. Rhodes (above, n. 5), 208-217 obviously accepts the premises of this view, even if he does not explicitly state them. 9. A.H.M. Jones, Athenian democracy, Oxford 1969, p. 41: '...in the greatest democracy of Greece there survives no statement of democratic political theory. All the Athenian political philosophers and publicists whose works we possesswere in various degreesoligarchic in sympathy.' 10. On the apragmones see W.R. Connor, The new politicians of fifthcentury Athens, Princeton 1971, pp. 175 ff.; V. Ehrenberg, JHS 67 (1947) 46-67; and W. Nestle, Philologus 81 (1926) 129 ff. Cf. Thucydides 2.40.2 (Pericles' funeral oration) on the democratic view that the apragm6n (in other contexts a word of compliment, as A.W. Gomme, Historical commentary on Thucydides, Oxford 1956, noted ad loc.)is achreios, 'good for nothing'. 11. The anagraphd of the laws seems to have started in 410 shortly after the deposition of the Four Hundred (Thucydides 8.97). Cf. U. Kahrstedt, Klio 13 (1938) 9; K.M.T. Atkinson, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 23 (1939) 143; Hignett (above, n. 2) 300; A.R.W. Harrison, JHS 75 (1955) 26-35; A.L. Boegehold (below, n. 17). For an alternative view cf. R. Stroud, Drakon's law on homicide, Berkeley 1968, pp. 22-24. The board of anagrapheis apparently was interrupted by the syngrapheis of 404 who were oligarchs with ostensibly the same commission: to collate and codify the city's laws (Xen. Hell. 2.3.2; AP 35). The democratic board was reinstituted in 403 after the second ouster of the oligarchs;Andocides, 1.81-89, givesthe details. It appears that in the last decade of the fifth century (and probably later) the commissioners for reviewing, collating, and transcribing the laws went under three different names, anagrapheis, syngraphe•'s,and nomothetai.

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

141

While these names can specify more exact roles in dealing with the laws, it seemsfrom the sourcesfor our period that they are interchangeable. After 403/2 the written code was strictly to be adhered to (cf. Andocides, above). Changes could be made only after lengthy and complicated procedure. Cf. Aeschines 3.38-9 and Demosthenes 20.89-92, 99, and passim. 12. An argument of the form, 'if p, then q; but it is the case that not q; therefore, no p', is deductively valid and is called the modus tollens. Cf. Wesley Salmon, Logic, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963, pp. 24 ff. 13. H.T. Wade-Gery, BSA 33 (1932-33) 113-22 is still essential. For the most recent evaluation see Rhodes (above, n. 5) 194 ff., who incorporates most of D.M. Lewis's new readings for the stone, which will appear in the

forthcoming IG 13 14. E. Ruschenbusch, ZOA•2NOZ NOMOI, Historia, Einzelschrift 9, Wiesbaden 1966, pp. 25-26 (n. 52). On counterfeits see below, p. 12. 15. On Craterus see Pauly-Wissowa, RE, s.'v. Krateros (1) (F. Jacoby) and F. Jacoby, Arthis, Oxford 1949, pp. 208 ff. Jacoby dates Craterus to the second century and considers him a Peripatetic. Chr. Habicht, Hermes 89 (1961) 28-29, denies both assertionsand says there is no evidence C. went to the actual inscriptions or to archives. Cf. B. Keil, Hermes 29 (1894) 71, n. 2, who suggestsC. mined the literary sources. Contra, Jacoby, FGrHist ad 342 (IIIb Kommentar, Noten, p. 67), n. 26. 16. B.D. Meritt, Epigraphica Attica, Cambridge, Mass. 1940, p. 89. 17. A.L. Boegehold,AJA 76 (1972)23-30. 18. See D.W. Bradeen, Hesperia 32 (1963) 187-208. 19. E. Ruschenbusch, IIATPIO• IIOAITEIA, Historia 7 (1958) 422-424.

20. Suppliants 399-510: the demos rules with annual offices chosen by lot (406-8); isonomia is supreme (408, 433-41); the demagogues are a menace (423-25); anyone may give counsel for the city and thus gain prominence (438-41). On Euripides' treatment of the political debate in the Suppliants, see G. Zuntz, The political plays of Euripides, Manchester 1955, pp. 3-25. On the political anachronisms of the play see P.H. Burian's discussion of the scholarship, Suppliant drama: Studies in the form and interpretation of five Greek tragedies, unpublished dissertation, Princeton 1971 (DA 32, no. 7, January 1972, p. 3970-A), pp. 175 ff. 21. J. Schreiner, De corpore iuris A theniensium, Bonn 1913, pp. 49 f. Some examples of Solonian laws that are actually quite late are in Demos-

thenes20.89-90, 43.51; Andocides1.96; Aristophanes,Birds 1600 ff. 22. Fuks (above, n. 1) 40: '...r& rrrkrptct, rr&rpto% rrrkrptopin connection with rroXtreOeoOctt, rroXtreictand the like are attested several times in the sense of the existing constitution or the (historically) normal constitution evidently regarded as deriving its authority from the past.' See the sources cited by Fuks ad loc. Compare Jacoby, Arthis, Oxford 1949, p. 43: 'The

term rrdrpm... is naturally vagueas to what it impliesabout time... But generally, rrdrpto½and •ar& ra, •rrkrptais that which reachesback to the beginnings of the state, which, as it were, was always in existence, and which belongs to the essenceof their own state (as contrasted with other states with imported or dictated institutions).' 23. Cf. Thucydides, 2.2; 4.118; 4.98; 5.18; 5.77; 5.79. See Fuks (above, n. 1) 60 on this interpretation. For more instancescf. Fuks, 49, n. 18; 80, n. 16.

142

K.R.

24.

WALTERS

On the date see A.W. Gomme (above, n. 10) on Thucydides

2.34.1 where he quarrels with F. Jacoby, JHS 64 (1944) 37-66. Part of Gomme's difficulty is his apparent assumption that 'patrios homos' designates a custom dating back to Solon or earlier.

25. Cf. LSJ, s.v. •rdrpto• for further references.Especiallytelling are Euripides, Bacchae 201; AP 21.5; [Lysias] 6.8; Xenophon, Hell. 5.2.14; Aristotle, Politics 1268 b26-28 and 1310 b19. Two interesting cases occur in the Politics where patrios does seem to refer to an earlier and no longer existing constitution. At 1305 a29 Aristotle mentions changesfrom the 'ancestral democracy' to the most modern (i.e., to the most radical)ek tdspatrias d•mokratias eis tdn neOtatdn.' 'for where offices are filled by direct election, that is, where there are no property qualifications and the demos is doing the voting, candidates for office by their demagoguery bring things to the point that the demos is actually above the laws (kyrion ton nombn).' 'Patrios' here seemsto refer to a type of democracy and to one that is by-gone (as opposed to the nebtatO). This passageis related to the famous section (1273 b34 fl.) on Solon's reforms, where Aristotle records that Solon is praised for having established ddmokratian... tdn parrion by compounding the constitution out of three elements: the aristocratic (direct election), the oligarchic (the Areopagus boule), and the democratic (the courts). Later, at 1274 a 15-21, Aristotle says that offices under Solon's constitution were filled by direct election with property qualifications. This description matches the AP's account (7 fl.), except that the AP says that offices were filled by lot from prokritoi chosen by direct election. Here again, the patrios demokratia is a type which was altered to the radical (eis tdn nyn demokratian), 1274 a6-7. This usage of 'patrios' in both Politics passagesderives, I think, from Androtion's Arthis (see below, 18 f.), from which the AP received its view of the patrios politeia program.

26. Thrasymachus,DK B 1. The crucial passagein this fragment of a speech is: 'The patrios politeia presentsthe citizens groundsfor altercation [tarachd], although it is easily understandable and quite the common possession of all citizens.' Usually, tarache is understood as 'mental confusion' and the passageis consequently interpreted as a comment on ideological debate about which ancestral constitution (a more democratic or a more oligarchic version) should replacethe radical democracy. Cf. Fuks (above, n. 1) 102-106. However, tarache may just as well here be understood as 'political disorder', and the passagethen comments on political strife between rival groups to gain power within the democratic structure. The reading in the MSS for the Demosthenes passageis uncertain. In any case, 'patrios politeia' would here refer to the democracy. 27. E.g., Fuks (above, n. 1) 107-113; Hignett (above, n. 1) 273; F. Jacoby (above, n. 22) 154 and passim; G.E.M. de Ste Croix, Historia 5 (1965) 10.

28. Thucydides 8.63.3-8.97; AP 29-33. In the selectionof the Four Hundred, Thucydides saysthat five prohedroi were to be chosen;these were to select 100 men and each of these 100 would co-opt three others (8.67.3). The AP states (31-32) that the Five Thousand (selected by 100 katalogeis) chose 100 anagrapheis to write a constitution. Of the two drafts that were produced, the one 'for the present' (AP 31) stipulated that 40 men be chosen from each tribe (giving a total of 400) for the boule. There have been many scholarly battles to reconcile these accounts or to demonstrate the superiority of one over the other. See esp. M. Lang, AJP 69 (1948) 272. Her efforts are criticized by Hignett (above, n. 1) 362 ff.

THE

'ANCESTRAL

CONSTITUTION'

143

29. In chapter 8 of the Ad Alexandrum is an apparent terminus post quem of 341, with a reference to the Corinthian expedition to Sicily. See G. Kennedy, The art of persuasion in Greece, Princeton 1963, pp. 114-124; and P. Wendland, Anaximenes yon Lampsakos, Berlin 1905, pp. 26-70. 30. Ruschenbusch (above, n. 19). 31. On the atthidographers see Jacoby (above, n. 22) 69-76 and the extensive introduction, commentary, and notes on the fragments of each of the atthidographers in FGrHist ad 323a, 323, and 324. 32. Cf. Day and Chambers (above, n. 2) 6 ff., esp. 7, n. 25 where a select bibliography of scholars claiming reliance in the AP on Androtion is given. 33. On Andron see H.C. Avery, Prosopographical studies in the oligarchy of the Four Hundred, unpublished dissertation, Princeton 1959 (DA 21, no. 10, pp. 3070-3071), pp. 22-28. On his part in the oligarchy of the Four Hundred, see, for example, Harpocration, s.v. 'Andron' and [Plutarch] Vit. X. Or. 833E-F.

34. Praise of Theramenes in the AP is quite plain: e.g. AP 28.5, 'The best statesmen, after those of the early period, seem to have been Nicias, Thucydides, and Theramenes... he [Theramenes] did not, as his detractors say, overthrow all constitutions, but on the contrary, worked for the good of any establishedas long as it did not transgressthe laws... he showed that he was able to serve the state under any kind of political setup, which is what a good citizen should do, but would rather incur enmity and hatred than yield to lawlessness.'

Cf. also AP 32.2

and 33.2.

For Isocrates' harking back to an ideal political setup in Athens' past, see particularly his speechesPanathenaicus and Areopagiticus. Isocrates himself never uses the term 'patrios politeia', and his discussionof the ideal state in earlier Athens is limited almost entirely to ethical and moral qualities. For a collection of loci in Isocrates, see K. Jost, Das Beispiel der Vorfahren, Paderborn 1936, pp. 119 ff. On Androtion as Isocrates' student see FGrHist 324 T 1-2, Jacoby's comments ad loc., and p. 87 of his introduction to the commentary on A.'s fragments. Day and Chambers (above, n. 2) 9, n. 35 is concise. 35. So Fuks (above, n. 1) 57 ff. 36. The oligarchs lied, of course, just as they had when they claimed (Thucydides 8.53) it was necessary to change the democracy to secure Persian gold and Alcibiades' return, or when they insisted again that democracy had to be modified to prosecute the war with Sparta (Thucydides 8.90), only to begin peace negotiations when once in power. 37. Points which Fuks (above, n. 1) discussesmore extensively, pp. 1 ff.

38. Fuks (above, n. 1) summarizes the most important views and giveshis own interpretation, pp. 1 ff. See also Jacoby (above n. 22) 384, n. 30; J.A.R. Munro, CQ 33 (1939) 84 ff.; H.T. Wade-Gery, CQ 27 (1933) 17-29. 39. Jacoby (above, n. 22) 384, n. 30. 40. I suggest that what is missing from Pythodorus' decree fits into our text somewhat as follows (entered in angle brackets): o[?we• 61aboam'e•

(1 laxly(dva•rl•'•oetvrot)• •rarp•ov•v61aov• •'ot)• E6Xcovo•Ka2ApOxowro•,o{• X,OOSlaeUot) ov'Fyp&q•ew .... For similar languagecf. Xen. Hell. 2.3.11 and Andocides, 1.83. For a parallel case of pros compounded with a verb in con-

junction with kai, cf. Andocides, 1.15, Ko2 •'a•0' Op[u•rpooolaoko'ye[•'ax b•ravra. Seethe note ad loc. in D. MacDowell,AndocidesOn the Mysteries, Oxford

1962.

144

K.R.

WALTERS

41. P. Harding, 'The Theramenes myth', Phoenix 28 (1974) 101-111, seeks to show that the judgment on Theramenes' behavior is Aristotle's own and not Androtion's (111 ): 'In view of the internal indications from style and the obvious dependence of this vindication of Theramenes upon Aristotle's political theory, it seems perverse and uneconomical to postulate another source.' Harding also argues that Androtion had no oligarchic slant to his Arthis or in his political career. (For more on these points see also Harding's other article, 'Androtion's view of Solon's Seisachtheia', Phoenix 28 (1974) 282-289.) It should be clear that even if Harding is correct, his claims would not damage my central argument: the patrios politeia interpretation would still be a fourth-century fiction, whether invented by Aristotle himself or by some other source for the AP. But while it is true that the evidence tying Androtion to a tendentious account of Theramenes and the patrios politeia interpretation is indirect and circumstantial, it is not true that it is 'perverse and uneconomical' to postulate Androtion as the source for these views in the AP. Such attribution helps explain where Aristotle gets his information, often documentary, for his disproportionately lengthy excursus on the two revolutions and givesa motive to the Tendenz that is shown throughout the account. Further comment on Harding's claims would be out of place here.

MARTIAL,

FATHER OF THREE

A personalbeneficium like the ius respondendilapsed on the death of the princepswho conferredit. Prior to Titus, the holderhad to seekrenewalfrom the successor, who would usually-but not necessarily-comply.Titus was the first emperordispensing with individualapplicationsand confirmingall such

privileges by oneedict. 1 Domitianfollowedhisexample? WhenNervatook over, it was widely expectedthat distinctionsbestowedby Domitian, now of infamousmemory, were lost, except where a recipient could show that he merited specialconsideration.Nerva, however, generouslydeclaredany petitions superfluous,once againratifying existingbeneficiaen bloc. Indeed, one might almosthave done, he suggested, without a formal announcement:the happy tenor of his reign itself could be read asan edict givingeverybodyfull

security?In a previous article 4 I arguedthat, at the timeof Hadrian's accession,those investedwith personalprivilegesstill had misgivingsas to whether and when a comprehensive measurewouldmaterialize.So a number of lawyers with ius respondendiaskedto have their positionsvalidated.His reply elevatedthe precedentsset by hispredecessors into a norm to be relied on: it was establishedpractice, he explained, to confirm such rights spon-

taneously, andnot in response to privatepetitions. • Thisnoteisintended to call attention to Martial's ius trium liberorum, which throwsfurther light on the development. Twice he boastsof havingacquiredthis distinctionfrom 'both emperors'

or 'eachemperor'. 6 Asnoticed by W.C. A. Ker,• it wasgranted by Titusand, after his demise,re-grantedby Domitian.

Mommsen doesnotseethis. 8 Whichissurprising, considering thatin his exprofesso treatment of beneficia heisontherighttrack. 9 Heoffersa choice. Perhapsthere was a joint benefactionby Vespasianandhis sonand co-regent

Titus. Thissolution ispopular, •ø butit will notdo. (1) Mommsen himselfappears to feel•l thatsuchan actionwouldbe unique for a co-regentof that period.

(2) In one of the passages underdiscussion Martialwrites: 12 'Each Caesarhas praisedme and bestowedon me rewards,and givenme the privilege of a father of three sons.'This proves-what one would assumein any case-that he obtainedit in recognitionof his work. His first major publication celebratedthe openingof the Colosseumby Titus in A.D. 80. Vespasian had died in 79.

(3) Thesecond passage runs: la 'He is bursting with envybecause each Caesargaveme the right of a father of three sons,he is burstingwith envy.' This occursin Book 9 of his Epigrams,which appearedin A.D. 94; by then

Domitianhadruledfor somethirteenyears.L. Friedlaender pointsoutTM that it is incrediblethe poet shouldbring up at this stage,in suchterms,a kindnessshownhim underVespasian,before eventhe principateof Titus. 145

146

DAVID

DAUBE

(4) In two otherepigrams, •5 Martialrecords a request of hisfor the privilege and his thanks for a favourableresponse.Both, we shall see,speak of one princepsonly, Domitian; no hint at an associate. As an alternative,Mommsensuggests that, while it wasTitus who acted,

he did soat theinstance of Domitian. Friedlaender's theory •6 isbasically the same,only he turnsthe two around:while it wasDomitian who acted,he did so becauseTitus had assentedto but not yet executedthe preferment.But it is arbitrary to read an allusionto behind-the-scenes dealingsinto Martial's

words. Theyaretoounambiguous: 'bothCaesars haveaccorded metherightfi? The natural explanationis that he got it from Titus in 80 or 81, for his Colosseumpieces.After Titus's death, he had it renewedby Domitian, around 82. His readers,familiar with the limited duration of sucha privilege, would readily understand.

The two epigramswith requestand thanks fit very well. They stand in Book 2, publishedabout 85, possiblytogetherwith 1. That the requestis directedto Domitianmay be gatheredfrom the tone-'from whosesafetywe

win beliefthat the greatgodsexist48-and the hopeexpressed that the princepsliked the collection:even shouldthis meana collectionpreceding the definitiveone, it couldhardly be more than, say,two yearsolder. Of course,almost certainly, what we have before us is not the original plea. That would have been in proseand more detailed;aboveall, it would haverecalledthe previousfayour from Titus (just as the full originaltext of the ex-praetorsdoubtlessmentionedtheir earlieriusrespondendi).Still, the lines are evidencethat, when Domitian replacedhis brother, it was the done thing for one enjoyinga beneficiumto seeto its revival. The acknowledgement may have had its presentlight form from the outset: seriousargumentationwas not here calledfor. Howeverthismay be, the questionis whether it refersto Domitian'swholesaleapprovalof existing

privileges adverted to above •9 orto a separate rescript. Verylikelythelatter: 'hegavemetherewardof my Muse © doesevincea feelingof beingsingled out. If so, this was a transitionalstagewhen, on the death of a princeps,a generalrestorationof privilegesdid not yet excludethe specialrestorationof some. Unfortunately,we cannotbe quite sure: Martial was so eagerto ingratiatehimselfwith the emperor-it would not be beyondhim to hail asan honour for him individuallywhat was in reality just an en bloc concession. When Pliny receivedthe ius trium liberorum from Trajan, he replied that he would now try to become an actual father with an even better

will;•4 andStatius •'•'dedicates a hymnto a friendwho,in possession of this ius, begot two sonsand a daughter.Martial in his note of thanksbids goodbye for everto matrimony:he will not spoilhis master'sgift, useless if he had childrenin fact. A joke, no doubt. Yet he seemsto havestoodby hisword. It has been held that, after his withdrawalfrom Rome to Spain,he did settle down with a generouslady of that province.Most authoritiesdisbelievethis; they areprobablyright-though Emeriti do strangethings. Universityof California, Berkeley

David Daube

MARTIAL,

FATHER

OF THREE

147

NOTES

1. Suetonius, Titus 8.1; Dio, Roman History 66.19.3. 2. Dio, Roman History 67.2.1. 3. Pliny, Letters 10.58. 4. D. Daube, 'Hadrian's rescript to some ex-praetors', Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Rom. Abt. 67, 1950, 511 ff. 5. Digest 1.2.2.49: 'Pomponius singulari enchiridii.' 6. Epigrams 3.95.5 f., 9.97.5 f.: 'uterque Caesar.'

7. Martial, Epigrams (Loeb ClassicalLibrary) 1, 1919, x; 160 f.; 225. It is conceivable,however, that what looks like the view here advocatedis not intended in this way; and that he really meansto subscribeto Friedlaender's, to be inspected presently. 8. Rismisches Staatsrecht 2, 2, 3rd ed., 1887, 888. 9. Op. cit. 1126 ff.

10. See e.g.R. Helm, art. 'M. Valerius Martialis', Pauly-Wissowa, Realenzyklopiidieder Klassischen A ltertumswissenschaft 8A: 1, 1955, 56. 11.

Op. cit. 1163.

12. Epigrams3.95.5 f. Translationby W.C.A. Ker, op. cit. 225. 13. Epigrams9.97.5 f. TranslationbyW. C.A. Ker, op. cit. 2, 1920, 145. 14. M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri, 1886, 1,281. 15.

2.91

f.

16. Op. cit. 6; 281. 17. 'Caesar uterque dedit, tribuit.' 18. Translation by W.C.A. Ker, op. cit. 1, 161. 19. Dio, Roman History 67.2.1. 20. Translation by W.C.A. Ker, op. cit. 161. 21. Pliny, Letters 10.2. 22.

Silvae 4.8.20

ff.

THE

JEWISH

ATTITUDE

TO THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. •

The discovery,in 1924, of P. Lond 1912, containingClaudius'Letter to the Alexandrians, encouragedmany scholars to question the credibility of Josephus'statementsabout the civicstatusof the AlexandrianJews. Among the most comprehensiveof these studies are those of V. Tcherikover,particularlyin the CorpusPapyrorumJudaicarum.Adoptingthe method of historical analogy, Tcherikover retrojects the Jewish 'War of Emancipation'in the 18th and 19th centuriesinto the Hellenisticand Roman periods,depictingthe Jewsin Alexandriaasa nationalminority struggling for equal civic rights in the Alexandrianpolis, with the Alexandrianskeeping their own ranks closedto preventJewishinfiltration. For Tcherikover,this is

the essence of the 'JewishQuestion'in Alexandria? The faults of sucha methodof retrojectionare evident.The terms'War of Emancipation' and 'The Jewish Question' were coined in a historical context alien to Classicalantiquity and remote from it, and that makesit difficult to draw conclusionsabout Classicalantiquity by means of this modern terminology.Thus, political and municipalorganizationsin ancient times were stronglylinked with local cults.It followed that religiousapostasy was involved in obtaining citizenship,and it is doubtful whether many Jews were willing to make this concession.However, their strugglefor equal political rights, as attested by Josephusand Philo, need not necessarilybe interpretedas a strugglefor citizenshipin the polis. The equality which the Jewsstroveto obtain may be conceivedas an equalitybetweentwo separate

politicalbodies, theJewish politeuma andtheGreekpolis. a Onthisview,the Jewsfought for the right of self-organizationand self-government within the city territory, on an equalfootingwith the Greek citizens,but independentof the polis itself and answerableonly to the centralgovernment;the Greeks,on the other hand, attempted to extend the authority of the polis over all the inhabitants

of Alexandria.

Since this article deals with only one aspectof the problem of the relationsof Greeksand Jewsin Alexandria,it is impossibleto examinethis

interpretation in full detail?Theoneaspect to be dealtwithhereisthatof the Jewishattitude to the Alexandriangymnasiumin the first centuryA.D., as reflected in three papyrus documents:the appeal of Helenos son of Tryphon(BGU 1140), Claudius'Letter to the Alexandrians (P. Lond 1912), and the so-called'BoulePapyrus'(PSI 1160). Relyingon thesethreesources, Tcherikoverclaimedthat the AlexandrianJewsattemptedto gaincitizenship in the Greek polis, and that they naturally did so by trying to infiltrate the

gymnasiumfi Letusnowexamine thethreepieces of evidence. The first documentcontainsthe appealof an AlexandrianJew,Helenos sonof Tryphon,who complainsof havingbeencompelledto pay laographia. It has been generally assumedsince Tcherikover that he intended to claim 148

JEWS AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

149

Alexandrian citizenship,and it has also been accepted that he meant to supporthis claim by pointing out his 'appropriateeducation'(BGU 1140,

lines3-6), a phrasetaken to refer to the Alexandriangymnasium. For that samereasonhe is alsosuspected of pretentiouslycallinghimself'Alexandreus', which is said to mean 'a citizen of Alexandria'.6

Against this, it shouldfirst be noted that the term 'Alexandreus'in itself, without any other specification, doesnot necessarily imply citizenship, but indicatesthe simplefact of beingan Alexandrianresident. 7 Tcherikover supportedhis opinion by drawingattention to Helenos'fear that he had been deprivedof hisparris(BGU 1140, lines6-8) and maintainingthat the appel-

lantwasfightingfor therightto beAlexandreus (a citizenin thepolls), 8 i.e. he took the term 'patris' in close connectionwith 'Alexandreus'.He based this on a statement made by Philo, that Jews in the Greco-Roman world

regarded the citiesin whichthey werelivingastheirpatrides(In Flaccum46). But Tcherikoverwas in fact trying to have it both ways, sinceif (as he admits) Philo himself used the term 'Alexandreus'without any political

implication, 9 howthencouldAlexandria bepolitically a parrisfor thelocal Jews?In fact, it would be more reasonableto see an informal meaningin both theseterms,asusedby Philo.What, then,is the realmeaningof Helenos' fear of losinghis parris?Certainly,what he had in mind wasAlexandriaand nothingelse.If we take into accountTarn'stheory that 'Alexandriawasbut a

collection of politeumata', •ø it is possible to understand that forHelenos, 'a Jew from Alexandria'(i.e. a memberof the Jewishpoliteurea),the city really could be hisparris.

Let us now examinethis possibility.The handwritingof Helenos'plea is clearlythat of a scribeandnot that of the applicanthimself,sinceit canbe traced in another document without any relation to the plea under discus-

sion? In the text of our document,the term 'Alexandreus' is crossed out and replacedby the words'IoudaioutrSnapo Alexandreias' (BGU 1140, line 2). The first impressionis that Tcherikoverwas right and that the correction

corresponds to the officialformulanormallyapplied to Egyptian natives? Indeed, people of such status were describedin official papersby their

domicile, as'thosefrom'a certaincityorvillage?Butweshould notignore the fact that the correction

includes the ethnic

'Jew' as well. And we also

haveto take into accountthe fact that civic statusin Egypt wasdetermined by affiliation to ethnicalgroups,for which purposethe registrationof a

person's ethnicserved asanimportant criterion] 4 Consequently, thecorrection in BGU 1140 clearly indicatesthe membershipof Helenosin a purely

Jewishorganization in Alexandria] 5 Moreover, the formula'ho deinatiSn apo...'(or'ek...')initselfimplies a relation to a distinct communal grouping, a6 and it is appliedassuchto membersof otherJewishcommunities throughout

Egypt]7 In thislight,the correction of Helenos' description madeby the scribe in BGU 1140 was intended to indicate more accuratelyhis belonging

to a particular political group. •8 Sincethe term 'Alexandreus'may be interpretedas a simpleorigo and not as a technicalterm appliedto Alexandriancitizens,it may be concluded that the debate about the civic statusof Helenosis, to a large extent, futile

and simply irrelevant.The abundanceof deletionsand correctionsin the

1 $0

A.

KASHER

document(at leastseventeen)must indicatethat it was a preliminarydraft. It is difficult to imaginethe presentationof such a documentas the final copy, all the moresowhenwe considerthe greatimportanceof the matter to the appellantand the bureaucraticform of administrationin Egypt at the time. Perhapsthe appellant'sname, Helenos,may have suppliedthe scribe with a reasonfor the correction,sincesucha name couldwronglycreatethe

impression that themanwasa Greekandnota Jew? However, thedeletion of the word 'Alexandreus'shouldnot be taken asindicatingthat Helenoswas not entitled to its use, for what was the difference between him and his

father, who is alsocalled 'Alexandreus'(not deleted)in thisvery document? If the father was really an Alexandrian citizen, why, then, was he not listed by tribe and deme as required by law? There is no need to differentiate between him and his son by any speculativesuggestionabout their civic

status, 2ø sinceHelenos'pleadid not concernthe fatherat all. The term 'Alexandreus'in itself was by no means a legal denominationin official papers.Its usewas informal, even in the caseof Alexandriancitizens,and its rarity in official documentsis evident. It is not surprising,therefore, that it appears mainly in epigraphicdocumentsand that it was also applied to Jews?

Once this is understood,the 'appropriateeducation'mentionedin the plea should not lead us astray. It is not self-evidentthat an 'appropriate education'meant enrolmentin the Alexandriangymnasium? sincethe

latterdoesnotagreewith theamended term 'Ioudaiouten apoAlexandreias'? In fact, there is no real proof for sucha presumption. The supposed connection betweenthe 'appropriateeducation'and the gymnasiumis established by a very dubiousreadingin lines 13-14 of the text, where none of the lettersis

clearlylegible? Furthermore, whyshouldtheapplicant convicthimselfby so naively revealingthe surreptitiousway in which he had infiltrated into the ranks of Alexandrian citizens?And how can we seriouslyconsideran appeal pleadingfor the rightsof an Alexandriancitizen as havingbeen basedupon so unconvincinga claim as that containedin the followingwordsof the plea: 'receivingthe appropriateeducation,as far as my father's meansallowed' (lines4-6)? If by that educationhe wasreally answering the demandsof the law for gaining Alexandrian citizenship,why, then, did he describeit so

apologetically? 25At firstglance, it mightseemasif heweretryingto include himselfin the group of 'thosefrom the gymnasium'in order to claim exemption from laographiaon that ground.But when the actualdateof the appeal

(5/4 B.C.) is takeninto account,suchan impression is decisively refuted;for it has been establishedby papyrologicalevidencethat it wasin the 34th year

of Augustus (A.D. 4/5) that epikrisis for sucha purpose wasintroduced? G Helenostherefore could not claim exemption from laographiaby requesting his inclusionamong'those of the gymnasium',sincethat tagmahad not yet won the recognition of the Roman authorities for the purposeof taxexemption.

Furthermore, noting the fact that Helenoswas about sixty years old

whenwritinghis petition, •? we mustconclude thathiseducation wascompletedbeforethe Romanconquest of Egypt.At that time, Hellenisticlaissezfaire still prevailedin the educationalsphere,andit waspossibleto operatea

JEWS AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

151

gymnasium asa privateenterprise?What,then,prevents usfromthinking that Helenos was educated in a private gymnasium?In fact, his apologetic languagemay imply this, and it is not improbablethat he waseveneducated in a Jewishgymnasium-an idea which might find some support in one frag-

mentarysentence of hisactualpetition? In referring to hiseducation, he wasnot advancinga formal claim,becausethat educationpredatedthe Roman conquest.But he could still, of course,recommendhimself as an 'educated' man, so as not to be regardedasan inferior 'native'. An informal argumentof the samekind is presentedto reinforcehis main claim,when he writesof not havingbeen disturbedby the previousPrefects(lines 23-25). Only near the end of his petition doesHelenosplay his trump card and advancehis single formal •laim, that he is over sixty yearsof age.It follows that all the other argumentswere intendedmerely asinformal supportfor this claim. We may sum up by statingthat this specificcaseof Helenos' claim of an 'appropriateeducation'can provenothing about any generalinclinationof the Jews to infiltrate the city gymnasiumin order to achieveAlexandrian citizenship. The most important referenceto Jewishrelationswith the Alexandrian gymnasiumoccursin Claudius'Letter to the Alexandrians(P. Lond 1912). Tcherikover assertedthat this document contains two passagesconcerning the subject,one an indirect reference(lines52 ff.) and the other a directone (lines 88 ff.); and in his opinion, both of them point to Jewishefforts to infiltrate the Alexandriangymnasiumin order to acquire citizenshipin the polls.

The first passagestatesthe Emperor's decisionconcerningthose registered by purposefulmisrepresentationas epheboi, while in fact of inferior political status.This passageclearly recallsone of the central subjectsof the

'BoulePapyrus'(PSI 1160)? Tcherikover consistently claimedthat this latter document reflects the state of affairs in the time of Augustusand is aimed especially againstthe Jews, who were then starting their 'War of

Emancipation'?Againstthisview,it should firstbestatedthatin the'Boule Papyrus' thereis no specific reference to Jewsat all? Secondly, thereisno realbasisfor fixingits datein the reignof Augustus, 33 especially aspaleographical and literary examination of the document in fact indicates a later

date,probablyin the timeof Claudius? 4 Its closeconnection withClaudius' Letter to the Alexandriansis pointedout (convincingly,it seems)by Amusin. Amusin claimed that all the Alexandrian argumentsand requestsfor establishinga City Council(Boule), cited in the 'BoulePapyrus',receivesuitable

answers in Claudius' Letterto theAlexandrians. asTcherikover argued strenuouslyagainstthis conclusion,but wasunableto shakeit. The centralproblem, both in the 'Boule Papyrus'and in the indirect referencein Claudius'Letter to the Alexandrians, is that of the establishmentof a Boule. The infiltration

of 'uncultured and uneducatedpeople' into the lists of the epheboi (PSI 1160, line 6) is only a pretext justifying the Alexandrianattitude, and as such it is connectedwith yet another argument, referring to the expected lossof income to the Emperor (lines 1-4). It is Tcherikoverwho focuseshis interest on the infiltration into the listsof the epheboi,thus presentingit as if it were really the main problem. Furthermore, those two passagesdo not

152

A.

KASHER

contain a singledirect referenceto Jews, and we are not entitled to insert into them any matter that is not dealt with in the text. We shall next try to prove that the Alexandrian Jews, organizedas a self-containedpolitical body, were not at all willing to infiltrate the city gymnasium,but were in fact strongly opposedto that institution and had actually harassedits activities.We shouldof coursebe carefulnot to adopt rigid generalizations,since it seemsquite reasonableto assumethat there were some individual Jews, though perhapsvery few, who showedan inclination to enter the Greek Gymnasiumand to pay the price of apostasy. But the fact is that there is not one singleexampleknown to uswhich would supportthis assumption. The harassmentof the gymnasticgamesby gangsof Jewsorganizedfor

that purposemay be revealedthroughan accurateanalysisof the second passage of Claudius'Letter to the Alexandrians (P. Lond 1912, lines88 ff.), which refers directly to the Jewish-Alexandrianquarrel. According to Tcherikover'sexplanation, Jews are here warned by the Emperor not to intrude into the gamespresidedover by the gymnasiarchoi andthe kosrn•tai

(lines93-94).a6He considers thiswarning anirrefutable proofof theJewish goalof infiltrating the gymnasiumin order to achieveAlexandriancitizenship. But in fact, thisinterpretationis basedon the tracesof a singlewordwhichis

not easilydecipherable. H.I. Bell,the first editorof Claudius' Letter,read 'epispairein' andclaimedhe couldclearlydistinguish the shapeof the letter rh•. a? But at the sametime he raisedsomequestionsconcerningits meaning, sinceuntil the discoveryof this papyrusthe verb wasknown only from one

passage in Plutarch(De Fort. Alex. I 3: Moralia327c),whereit hadgenerally beeninterpretedas 'to palpitate'or 'to be in alarm'.But Bell did not accept this meaningin the papyrus,preferring'to strivein' or 'to take partin', and claimingthat the Emperor'swarningforbadeparticipationby Jewsin the

games organized by thegymnasiarchoi andkosm•tai. a8Thisinterpretation pavedtheway for otherscholars, andE. Schwartz wasthefirstto suggest an alterationin the text: omittingthe letterrh•. Reading'epispaiein', he wanted

to strengthen Bell'sexplanation by meansof textualemendation?His correction has been enthusiasticallyacceptedby many scholars,mainly

because it supports theiropinionthattheAlexandrian Jewsreallywanted'to

intrude'intothegymnastic games. 4ø The first to rejectthis opinionwasM. Radin.Preferringthe original

reading, heclaimed thattheverb'epispairein' means 'tojeer'or 'to scoff'. 4• Unfortunatelyhe did not reinforcehisinterpretationwith philological parallels.M.J. Lagrange alsoattackedthe emendation, claimingthat 'epispaiein' would need the insertionof the letter epsilon to form 'epeispaiein',for which there is no basisin the text. He alsoobjectedto Schwartz'scorrection

from a historicalpoint of view.Takinginto accountthewell-knownfact that Jewsnormallyopposedthe Greekgymnasium, he doubtedthat therewasany Jewishattempt to infiltrate the Alexandrianinstitution.In his opinion, Claudius'Letterwasoriginallywrittenin Latin,andtheverbunderdiscussion

wasa meremistranslation of theLatinverb'trepidare? 2 Unfortunately, his interesting suggestion wasput forwardbriefly, unsupported by philological or historical

evidence.

JEWS

AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

153

Amongthe few voicesthat haveopposedSchwartz'semendationand its

consequences is that of the Jewish-Russian scholar I.D. Amusin. 4aFirsthe claimed that the emendation leads to a syntactical error, since the verb

'epeispaiein'shouldbe followedby the preposition'els' with the accusative case,and there are no examplesof its usewith the dative case,as suggested for Claudius' Letter. Next, he tried to explain the word 'epispairein' (originallyread) and proved that its meaningis 'to opposesomebodyor something',or 'to causeobstructions',or 'to resist'.He did thisby thoroughly examiningits philologicalcognatesin other Indo-Europeanlanguages andby showingthat Herodotus(VIII 5) uses'spairein'in a similar senseof 'to

oppose'. 44 Does this interpretationconveythe meaningof the text? As we have seen,somescholarsconsideredSchwartz'semendationto be a textual proof for the surreptitious penetrationof Jewsinto the gymnasium.But in fact Claudiuschosemore accurateexpressions for describingsuchan intrusion,as

we cangatherfromtheindirectreference in theLetter. 4sThoseexpressions define the penetrationinto the lists of the ephebesasan act of trickery, asis shownby the verb 'hyperchomai'.Suchinfiltrationis typicalof, andpossible for, individuals,not for a massof people,let alone a highly-organizedbody like the AlexandrianJews. Taking into account the official characterof Claudius' Letter, we must note that the direct referenceto the Jewsdoesnot

mention the gymnasiumas a political institution.This fact alone deprives Schwartz'semendationof any real importance,sinceinfiltration into 'games' underthe management of the gymnasiarchoi andkosm•taimayby no means

beequated withinfiltration intothegymnasium asaninstitution. 46 What is more, all the knowledge at our disposalindicates that the Romancentralauthoritiesin Egypt kept a strictcheckon the listsof ephebes,

asduringthatveryperiodthegymnasium ceased to bea private institution] ? It isthereforedifficult to imaginethat Jewscouldat that time reallypenetrate the gymnasiumin Alexandria.Had this happened,there is no doubt that the Alexandrians would have loudly denounced them. Against this historical background,attemptsat infiltration cannotreasonablybe posited,especially in the period precedingthe promulgation of Claudius'Letter, during the turbulent time of Caligulaand in the riots which followedhis assassination. On the contrary,in suchcircumstances we would expect a worseningof the Alexandrian attitude towards the Jews,and this is what actually happened. H. Dessaudiscernedthis difficulty and advancedthe hypothesisthat Claudius' warningto the Jewsforbadetheir becominginvolvedin the electionsof the

gymnasiarchoi andlcosrn•tai. •8 Thissuggestion hasbeenrejected by many scholars: De Sanctis above all contradicted it as far back as 1924, when the

Letterwasfirstpublished. 4• However, thehypotheses of BellandSchwartz have prevailed:that the Jewswere forbidden'to strivein', 'to enter', or 'to take part in' the gamesconductedby the magistrateshere named,because

participation in themwasreserved solelyforAlexandrian citizens. sø Against this explanation,it is worth emphasizingthat Claudius'warning is includedin a sectionof the Letter which refersto the quarrelof the Greek Alexandrianswith the AlexandrianJews,and more preciselyto the 'war', as it is calledin the documentitself (lines73 ff.). In this light, it is logicalto

154

A. KASHER

suggestthat the 'games'referredto wereheldin the presenceof greatcrowds

of spectators, 5• since'war'couldbe saidto breakout onlyin suchcircumstances,and not at gameslimited to an exclusivecircle,suchasthe competitions of the ephebes.De Sanctisat first correctlystatedthis andeventhought that Claudius'warningwas aimedat clashesbetweenrival groupswithin the Circus(stadium).Later, he retreatedsomewhatfrom his interestingoriginal

conclusion andtried to relatehisopinionto Schwartz's emendation?The mention of the kosm•tai, in that context, strengthens the inferenceconcerning well-attended public performances,since we know that the kosm•tai

shared in theexpenses andtheorganization of suchpopularspectacles? Two other scholars,Radin and Amusin, indicatedfull acceptanceof De Sanctis' views. Radin expressed disagreementonly as regards the Circus factions; nevertheless,he did not deny that the 'games'were competitionswhich,

performedbefore a largeand emotionalcrowd, evenproducedsomeblood-

shedfi 4 Amusin, ontheotherhand,fullyconcurred withDeSanctis' suggestion andwidened thediscussion of theproblem?Actually,thedifferences among those three scholarsare very limited; and it seemsthat Radin's view,

evenif setout in lessdetail,is the mostcredible,sinceit recognizes the simple fact that emotionalcrowdsof spectators, underthe influenceof competitions, might easily be incited to bloodshed.

It should next•e notedthatthose competitions mayhavebeenlocated either in the City hippodromeor in the City theatre, both of which were adjacentto the main Jewishquarter (Delta). We are aware of at leastone instance in A.D.

66 when clashes between Jews and Greeks occurred in the

Alexandriantheatre (Jos.B.J. II 490 ff.). Philo,when referringto the riotsof A.D. 38, condemnedthe Alexandrian mob which flocked to the theatre in order to mock King Agrippa and to plan the desecrationof the Jewish synagogues (In Flaccum41 ff.). The insultsthemselves werecomposed in the gymnasium,wherethe leadersof the mob 'took the authorsof farces(mimes) and jests for their instructors'(op. cit. 33-34). Sincewe know from other

literary andpapyrological sources thatmimes werepopular inAlexandria, •6 it is no wonder that King Agrippa was contemptuouslymocked in the City

theatrein a typicalmimeplay(op.cit. 36 ff.)?7Philo's detailed description of the disgracefulscenemay suggestthat someJewishspectatorsmay have witnessedit. If not, an incident like thiswould no doubt be widely discussed

and reported.Another'performance' givenin the theatre(in A.D. 38) wasby no meansa 'play' but an actualevent.The Jewishgeronteswere draggedinto the theatre and whipped in full view of the audience,like native Egyptian criminals(op. cit. 74-75). That incidenttook placeat the time of the popular

celebrations of Caligula's birthday, s8 and (to followPhilo'swords)the 'performance'was organizedin detail and lastedfrom dawn until sunset. Jewswere whipped, hanged,manacledto the torture wheel, and led across the orchestra

to their death. At the conclusion of those exhibitions

there

were displaysby dancersand mime actors,musicalinterludesand other entertainmentssuch as 'stagegames'(op. cit. 85). The use of the term 'ag•nes' in this context is very instructive,particularly sinceit is alsousedin Claudius'Letter to the Alexandrians(P. Lond. 1912, line 93). Thesefacts sufficeto provethat the City theatrein Alexandriawasa centreof anti-Jewish

JEWS AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

155

activities, where public tortures and executionswere performed in a wellorganizedmanner. It appears that such activities were not confined to Alexandria, but

occurredin other citiesin the Greco-Romanworld. In Antioch, for example, at the time of the greatJewishRevolt againstthe Romans,a disgraceful and horrible spectacle-theburningof a numberof Jews-wasenactedin the City theatre(Jos.B.J. VII 47-48). It is worth notingthat, according to Malalas,as early as A.D. 40, after clashesin the theatre at Antioch, a great 'war' broke out between Jews and Greeks, in which synagogues were burnt and many

Jewskilledils In thePalestinian cityof Caesarea, traditionally a placeknown for confrontations between Jews and Greeks, there was a similar situation.

The famousAmora Rabbi Abau (3rd century A.D.) assertedthat Jewish customs were publicly mocked by local citizens sitting in the theatre and

circus? AnotherAmora,ReishLakish,describes the 'mimecontests' in the followingwords:'We shouldbe gratefulto the pagansfor introducingmimes to their theatres and circusesto play with, so that they would not hold

disputations withoneanother andthusbeincited to useless quarrelsfi • This statementshowsthat the gatheringof crowdsin theatresand circusessometimes led to bloodshed. In later generations,theatres and circuseswere

characterizednot only as placesof 'bloodshed',but, to use the wordsof

Psalms (I,1), as'seats of thescorners' (or 'frivolous company'); 6a andthere is no doubt that the term 'seatof the scorners'wasaimedat the mime plays. The negative,apatheticattitude of Jewstowardsthe Greekgymnasium

is evident fromancient timesandisbased onthefearof 'idolatry'?Despite this generalapathy, it shouldnot be concludedthat Jewseverywherekept away from the gymnasiumand the theatre. It is not impossiblethat some Jewish communitieseven establishedsuch institutions for themselves. •4 Furthermore, we know that Jews must have participatedin the gymnasiumat

Cyrene,sinceJewish names areincluded in thelistof ephebes there? The excavationsat Sardishave shownthat the local synagogueadjoined the city

gymnasium? • and it looks as if peacefulcoexistence waspossiblethere.It would appear,therefore,that the Jewishattitude towardsGreekeducational and cultural institutionslargely reflected the mutual relationshipbetween local Jews and Greeks in the various cities. Where relationswere good, the

Jews(or at leastsomeof them) probablydid not avoidtakingan activepart in suchinstitutions.On the other hand, in thoseplaceswhererelationswere bad (like Alexandria,Antioch and CaesareaMaritima), those institutions were the main centres of anti-Jewish activities of the kind previously described.Naturally, they were alsothe first targetsfor Jewishharassment and revenge. Accordingto the interpretationhere proposed,Claudius'warningdoes not refer to Jewishinfiltration into the list of the ephebes,but wasactually meant to deter Jews from 'harassing'('epispairein')the public gamesorgan-

izedby the gymnasiarchoi andkosm•tai,sinceby sodoingtheymighteasily inflametempersand so causeanother'war'. It shouldbe emphasized, in this context, that the Jewish section in Claudius' Letter on the whole dealt with the riots and the turbulent situation in Alexandria. All its clauses, without

exception,reflect the Emperor'sanxietyto re-establish the statusquo ante,

156

A. KASHER

following the well-knownAugustanpolicy of Pax Romana, and not to undertake a judicial examinationof the quarrel. He therefore took an impartial stand,andjust as he warnedthe Alexandriansnot to profaneJewish customsand religion, he correspondingly warned the Jewsnot to attack the

AlexandrianGreeks'publicperformances. The analogyto anotherwarningof Claudiusaddressed to the Jews-that citedby Josephus in Claudius''ecumenical edict'-is worth noting: the Jewsare there commandednot to mock the worshipof other people,but to take care only to observetheir own laws

(Ant. XIX 290).67 It wasClaudius' advice to bothsides to betolerantandto avoidmutual hostilities,otherwisethe situationmight soonbe aggravated to the point of bloodshed. To sum up: Claudius'Letter to the Alexandriansdoes not deal with any surreptitiousinfiltration by Jews into the Alexandrian gymnasiumin order to gain citizenshipin the polls. It simplywarnsthem not to harassthe 'games' given by the gymnasiarchoiand kosm•tai-a warning that may be taken as showingtheir enmity towardsthe Alexandriangymnasiumwhich had humiliated them not long ago (e.g. Philo, In Flacc. 34). The Emperor's warning to the Jews should be taken together with that addressedto their enemies,and both were designedto prevent the resurgenceof bloody encountersin Alexandria. Since in A.D. 41 the Jewsinitiated hostilities(Jos. Ant. XIX 278), it may reasonablybe suggested that they chosethe Alexandrian public performancesas an object for their revenge.The fact that the gymnasium,the theatre and the hippodromewere closeto the main Jewish residentialquartersmay alsohelp to explainboth their choiceof a targetand their successin attackingit. Though the Letter unfortunately doesnot state the namesof the Alexandriangymnasiarchoi at the time, their predecessors' identitymay be deducedfrom othersources: they wereIsidorusand Lampon,

whoweresentenced to deathby Claudius in thespring of A.D. 41.68However,the famousAlexandrianleaderApionwasstill pouringout hisvenomous

anti-Jewish literature,full of slanders andfalseaccusations?It is therefore difficult to acceptthe possibilitythat Jewscouldinfiltratethe gymnasium or penetrate the ephebic competitionsat this time. On the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of such leaders on the Greek side

incited the Jewsto seekrevengeby harassingand attackingperformancesin thoseinstitutionswhichhad filled them with bitternessin the past. Thisinterpretationmay throw new light on the meaningof the disorders between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria. It rejectsthe acceptedtheory claimingthat Jews tried to become Alexandrian citizensby infiltrating the gymnasium.Claudius'Letter to the Alexandriansshowsus the true facts: it showsthe Jews as an organizedbody independentof the polis and fighting for self-determination. Thoughthe Alexandriansopposedthat aim, eitherby profaning Jewishreligion or by attemptingto deprivethe Jews of their autonomy,the Jewsdid not sit idle, but foughtfor their rightsto the point of eveninitiatingactsof revenge. Tel-Aviv University

A. Kasher

JEWS AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

157

NOTES

1. This article is based on a chapter of the author's dissertation, The civic status of the Jews in Egypt and their rights in the Hellenistic and Roman period, written under the supervision of ProfessorsJ. Efron and S.

Applebaum and submitted to the Senate of Tel-Aviv University in October 1972. The article was read and discussed in the seminar of Professor A.D.

Momigliano at the Warburg Institute, London. It is a pleasureto acknowledge my indebtednessto these scholarsfor the many valuablesuggestions offered by them. Finally, I wish to expressmy sincerethanks to ProfessorE. Badian of Harvard University for his contribution to the improvement of both the substance and the form of this article. None of the scholars named should

necessarilybe taken as agreeing with the views expressed.

2. V. Tcherikover, Jewsand Greeksin the Hellenistic period 2 (1963; in Hebrew) 247-249; The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman

periodin the light of papyrology • (1963; in Hebrew) 152, 155; TheJewsin the Greco-Roman world (1961 ;in Hebrew) 291 ff., 364 ff.; Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum I (1957), Prolegomena 60 ff. 3. Cf. the recent researchof S. Applebaum: 'The legal status of the Jewish communities in the diaspora' and 'The organization of the Jewish communities in the diaspora' in Compendia rerum Judaicarum ad Novurn

Testamenturn,Section I: The Jewishpeople in the first century, Vol. I (ed. S. Safrai, M. Stern and others, 1974) 420-463,464-509. I had the honour of readingthe manuscriptof thesearticlesas early as 1972 and I am gratefulto Prof. S. Applebaum for this. 4. Detailed analysis of the whole problem will be found in the author's

dissertation cited Note 5. See Note 2 above.

1.

6. W. Schubart, Archiv V (1909-1913) 38 n. 2, 109, 119; U. Wilcken, Archiv V 431; 'Zum alexandrinischen Antisemitismus', Abh. Kgl. S•tchs.Ges.d. Wiss.,phiL-hist. Kl. XXVII, No. 23 (Leipzig, 1909) 787-788; V. Tcherikover, CPJud II 151, p. 30.

7. E. Schtirer, Gesch. des jt•dischen Volkes III 4 (1909) 718; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain II (1914) 9-10; G. De Sanctis,RFIC

LII (1924) 499. For looserusesof the term 'AXe•avbpebc in varioussources, P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria II (1972) 4 n. 19, 149 n. 203, 167 n. 333, 501 n. 35,508 n. 188,622 ff. n. 445,634 n. 512,656 n. 53,737 n. 140,741 n. 172.

8. See the commentary on CPJud II 151 (lines 6-7). 9. V. Tcherikover, Jews and Greeks, 250. Cf. E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (1961 ) 255. 10.

W. W. Tarn,

in Bactria and India (1951) 18; CAH VI 430. Cf. M. Engers, Mnemosyne N.S. LIV (1926) 161. 11. See BGU 1130;W. Schubart, loc. cit.

12. Viz. 6 be[vc.r&v drr6 'AXe•avbpe•ac.SeeCPJud. II 151, 31. 13. The usual formula was 6 Serra gtrr6... (&• ...); seeE. Bickermann, Archiv VIII (1929) 220, 234 ff.

14. See F. M. Heichelheim,Klio Beiheft XVIII [=N. F. V] (1925), 5; E. Bickermann, op. cit. 217 ff. 15. When comparingthis correction with the phrasementioned above (Note 12), we can seethat not only did the name of 'Helenosson of Tryphon' replaced •Se[ra,but so did the ethnic 'Jew'.

158

LXXXII

A. KASHER

16. E. Bickermann, op. cit. 234 ff.' cf. W. Ruppel, Philologus [=N. F. XXXII], 448 n. 289. 17. See CIJud II 1442, 1443; CPJud I 46; II 423' III 1532A;CIG

5361, 5362; SEG XVII 823' Jos. Ant. XVI 160, 169, 172' XIV 213'BJ II 285; VII 41, 110, 361-363' Vit. 55, 61. The form o• •p and o• are mainly

typicalof the Ptolemaicperiod,whereaso•&n-6is moretypicalof the Roman period from the first century A.D. (seeE. Bickermann,op. cit. 234). 18. V. Tcherikover, CPJud II 151 (31-32). dissertation (cit. N. 1 ) 205 ff. (esp. 224 ff.).

See also the author's

19. I am grateful to Dr. D. Rokeah for his comment on this point, but unfortunately it cannot be proved and there is no other example to compare it with.

20. Cf. V. Tcherikover, loc. cit.; P.M. Fraser, op. cit. 139 n. 144. If Helenos was really an illegitimate sonhe would not have been named after his father. On the other hand, if his father as an Alexandrian citizen had married a native woman, he would have been a law-breaker and thus liable to punishment (cf. P. Hamb 168). There is nothing in the document which can show any legal difference between the father and his son. 21. Cf. Note 7 above. See, e.g., Sefer YerushalayimI (1956) 367;

Sefer ha-Yishuv(1939) 83. It seemsthat in Jaffa there wasa Jewishcommunity of Alexandrian origin, as may be concludedfrom CIJud II 918, in which qSpop•'to•'ilq 'A)te•ctpSp•cop is mentioned.It is worth notingthat in the Jaffa inscriptionsthe form (k•r6'A?te•apbpektg occursaswell, and seemsto be synonymouswith 'A)te•ctpbpebg. See Sefer ha-Yishuvnos. 4, 25; cf. M. Schwabe,SeferJ. Levi 210 referringto an inscriptionfrom Tiberias. 22. This againstTcherikover'sview expressedin his commentary on CPJud II 151 (lines 5-6, 13-14). 23. Cf. Tcherikover's commentary on CPJud II 151 (line 2).

24. SeeBGU 1140: {'¾].u.•.p.d.o.t 9.P(line 13), •'•p &n-6•-• .•.r/.•e.!(a•)

(line 14). Prof. A.D. Momigliano hasdrawnmy atten•fon't3 the simplefact

that the word ')'DtlP•tOtOp (a neuter noun), suggestedby Schubart as having stood in the rasura in line 13, cannot be preceded by the (surviving) definite article

25. The adjective&peo•oOorl•(line 6), usedhere, soundsapologetic: see Liddell and Scott (s.v.).

26. PSI 457; P. Oxy 257, 1266, 1452, 2186; L. Mitteis and U.

Wilcken,GrundzUgeund Chrestomathieder PapyruskundeI 2 (1912) 147. 27.

See lines 22-23.

28. Even native Egyptianscould participate in the activitiesof the

gymnasium:see M. Launey,Recherches sur les armdeshelldnistiques II (1949/50) 865-869; J. Delorme, Gymnasion(Bibliothbquedes •coles fran9aises d'Athbneset de Rome CXCVI) 421 ff.' P.M. Fraser,op. cit. I 77. The last known referenceto a privategymnasiumin Egypt is of A.D. 2 (BGU IV 1201). 29.

See lines 12-13 and the correction above line 13. Compare with Tcherikover's translation (CPJud II 151, p. 31).

30. The so-called 'Boule Papyrus' (first edited in BSAA N.S. VII

(1930) 9-12) has a direct bearingon the very complicated problemof the Alexandrian city council. It containsa fragmentary petition deliveredby an Alexandrian deputation to an unknown emperor,askingfor the establishment of a Boule. Both the character of the document and its date are in

dispute.For detailedbibliography, seeP.M. Fraser,op. cit. I 30, 94-96, l 15,

JEWS AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

159

797-798; II 175-176 nn. 6-12; H. A. Musurillo, The acts of the pagan martyrs (1954) 84-88. The relevant passagesof both documents mentioned above are worth quoting (Tcherikover's translation): 1) P. Lond 1912=CPJud II 153 (lines 53-77): GAboutthe requests which you have made from me, my decision is this. To all those who have been registered as epheboi up to the time of my principate I guarantee and confirm their Alexandrian citizenship with all the privileges and benefits enjoyed by the city, with the exception of any who, though born of slaveparents, have made their way into your ephebate, and it is also my will that all privileges which were granted to you by emperors, kings and prefects before my time shall be confirmed, in the same way that the god Augustus confirmed them .... About the Council, what your custom was under the old kings, I cannot say, but that you did not have one under the emperors before me, you are well aware. Since this is a new matter now laid before me for the first time and it is uncertain whether it will profit the city and my affairs, I have written to Aemilius Rectus to examine the question and report to me whether the Council should be established, and, if it should, what form it should

take.'

2) PSI 1160 (=CPJud II 150)lines 1-6: '... It is necessaryto speak at some length. I submit, then, that the Council will see to it that none of those who are liable to enrolment for the poll-tax diminish the revenue by being listed in the public records along with the epheboi for each year; and it will take care that the pure (?) citizen body of Alexandria is not corrupted by men who

are uncultured

31.

See Note

and uneducated.'

2 above.

32. This fact was not ignored by Tcherikover. However, he tried to surmount the obstacle by using unconvincing arguments in order to support his theory. See op. cit. 27. 33. Tcherikover's suggesteddate; see op. cit. 26-27. 34. For details see: U. Wilcken, Archiv IX (1930) 254-256; W. Schubart, BIFAO XXX (1930) 707 ff.; H. I. Bell, JEA XVII (1931) 126; Aegyptus XII (1932) 173-184; JJP IV (1950) 26; J. H. Oliver, Aegyptus XI

(1930/31) 166-167; H. A. Musurillo, op. cit. 83-84; I. D. Amusin, I/DI (1951)4, pp. 213 ff. 35. I.D. Amusin, op. cit. 214-216;H. A. Musurillo, op. cit. 88. 36. See CPJud II 153 (53); The Jews in Egypt 137-138. 37. See H. I. Bell, Jews and Christiansin Egypt (1924) 37. 38. 39.

Bell, ibid. E. Schwartz, Deutsche Literaturzeitung

f•tr Kritik

der internat.

Wiss.N. F. I (1924) 2093-2101 (esp. 2094). 40. Even Bell himself later acceptedthis reading: seeJEA XII (1925) 95 n. 2; Juden und Griechen im rOmischen Alexandria (1926) 6; Cults and creeds in Greco-Roman Egypt (1953) 43. As for other scholars,see (e.g.) Th. Reinach, REJ LXXIX (1924) 128; H. Stuart Jones, JRS XVI (1926) 129; S. Loesch, Epistula Claudiana (1930) 11; H. Box, Philohis Alexandrini In Flaccum (1939) Introduction xx, xxix-xxx; V. H. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (1940) 66; M.P. Charlesworth, Documents illustrating the reigns of Claudius and Nero (1939) 5; E.G. Turner, JRS XLIV (1954) 58; V. Tcherikover, CPJud II 153 (ad loc.). 41. M. Radin, CP XX (1925) 370. 42. M.J. Lagrange,Rev. Bib. XL (1931)270-276. 43. I.D. Amusin, JJP IX-X (1956) 176 ff.

160

A. KASHER

44. Op. cit. 183-184; cf. H. Frisk, Griech. etym. Wo'rterbuchI (1960) 755-756; J. Pokorny, Idg. etym. Wo'rterbuch(1949-1959) 992 f.; J. B. Hofmann, Etym. WOrterbuchdes Griechischen(1949 [ 1966] ) 325. The verb 4o•atpcogivesthe samemeaning.Accordingto Liddell & Scott (s.v.) the first alpha is euphonic (i.e. a phonetic change for ease of pronounciation); others giveit the preferable designation of a 'prothetic' vowel. See W. Winter, $tudien zum 'prothetischen IZokal' im Griechischen (Diss., Bern 1950) passim; H.

Frisk,op. cit. 166-167;E. Schwyzer,Griech.Grammatik 2 I (1953) 411 f. (esp. 412); P. Chantraine,Dict. dtym. de la languegrecqueI (1968) 126; cf. Liddell & Scott (s.v. 4) 1. Compare with other verbs which derive from the same root, such as •repto•ratpco,o•rap•co, 6•roo•ra•pco;see Liddell & Scott (s.v.) 1386, 1624, 1894; TGL (ed. H. Stephanus) V 8552 b. The same may be said about the verbs o•capt•coand 4o•capt•co,in which the letter •r is replaced by •:; see Liddell & Scott (s.v.) 257, 1605; E. Schwyzer, op. cit. 293-294; cf. P. Kretschmer, Glotta XII (1923) 189-190.

45. P. Lond 1912 line 53' •rao• •'o• •dp-q[•ev•co3oe•; lines 56-57: •'wec b•hOov bl.tdc cbc....&krgk•oa•. 46. I am grateful to Dr. D. Rokeah for drawing my attention to this point.

47.

U. Wilcken, Grundzttge I 142;H. I. Bell, JEA XII (1926) 245 fl.;

R. Taubenschlag, Thelaw of Greco-Roman Egyptin thelightof thepapyri• (1955) 699 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

fl.; M. I. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW II 1060 ff., III 1588 n. 28. H. Dessau, Geschichte der rOmischen Kaiserzeit II (1930)675. G. De Sanctis, RFIC LII [=N.S. II] (1924) 473 ff. (esp. 507). Compare the commentary on CPJud II 153 (lines 92-93) (p. 53). For this meaning, seeLiddell & Scott (s.v. &'),cbv)(p. 18). G. De Sanctis,RFIC LIII [=N.S. III] (1925) 245-246.

53. F. Ocrtel, Die Liturgie: Studien zur ptolemaeischen und kaiserlichen Verwaltung Aegyp tens ( 1917) 329 ff. 54. M. Radin, CP XX (1925) 370. 55. I.D. Amusin, op. tit. 184 ff. 56. See Cicero, Pro Rab. Post. 12, 35; cf. H. A. Musurillo, The acts of the pagan martyrs (1954) 49 ff.; D. L. Page (ed.), Greek literary papyri I (Loeb ed. (1941)) nos. 73-79. General information on this subject will be found in RE XV 1370; H. Reich, Der Mimus.' ein literaturentwicklungsgeschichtlicher Versuch (1930); H. A. Musurillo, op. tit. 247 ff.; E. M. Smallwood, Philohis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (1961) 321; H. Box, Philohis Alexandrini In Flatturn (1939) 91-92.

57. Note especially the expression d2C •p Oeazpocofcl•tl•otc: In Flatturn

72; Legatio 359. 58. In Flatturn 81, 84; compare with In Flatturn 74 (end). See Box's excellent commentary on clause 81 (H. Box, op. tit. 105). 59. See Joannes Malalas, Chronographia (ed. Dindorf) CSHB XXVI (1831 ) 244-245. For further details see C. H. Kraeling, 'The Jewish community at Antioch', JBL LI (1932) 148-149. 60. Eikhah Rabbati XVII (ed. S. Buber) 18. 61.

Bereshit

62.

See I Maccabees i 14-15; II Maccabees iv 9-17; cf. Jos. Ant. XV

Rabba

LXXX

1.

267 ff.

63. Mishnah, Arodah Zarah I vii; Yerushalmi, Arodah Zarah I 40a; Bab.

18b.

JEWS

AND

THE

ALEXANDRIAN

GYMNASIUM

161

64. See S. Applebaum, Proceedings of the fourth world congress on Jewish studies I (1967; in Hebrew) 107-108; Jews and Greeks in ancient Cyrene, (1969; in Hebrew) 141 fl.; J. Gutman, Jewish Hellenistic literature II

(1963; in Hebrew) 68-69. Perhaps the 'Iouba[otpeobrepotmentioned in an inscription from Hypaepa in Lydia were members of a Jewish gymnasium:

seeS. Reinach,REJ X (1885) 74-75; E. Schurer,GJVIII 4 91;J. B. Frey, CIJud II 755; but cf. S. Krauss,SynagogaleAltertitmer (1929) 231,395-396. 65. See S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in ancient Cyrene 304-305. The same may be said about Jews from the CarJan city of Iasos (see L. Robert, Hellenica III (1946) 100) and from Coronea in the Peloponnese (IG V 1, 1398 (lines 91-92); L. Robert, loc. cit.). 66. BASOR CLXX (1963) 38 ff.; CLXXIV (1964) 30 ff.; CLXXVII (1965) 17 ff.; CLXXXII (1966) 34 ff.; CLXXXVI (1967) 17 fl.; CLXXXVII (1967) 9 ff. Cf. S. Applebaum, Compendia 448 ff. 67. A similar policy was followed in the city of Doar (in Palestine): see Jos. Ant.

XIX

305.

68. Both Isidoros and Lampon served as Alexandrian gymnasiarchs during the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula. They were deeply involved in Roman politics and were sentenced to death by Claudius. In later generations when anti-Roman feeling flourished in Alexandria those intriguers became martyrs and were described as such in the semi-literary pamphlets known as

the 'Actsof the Alexandrianmartyrs'. For details,seeH. A. Musurillo,op. cit. 117 ff.; V. Tcherikover, CPJud II pp. 55 fl. The connection of Isidoros and Lampon with the Alexandrian gymnasium is directly referred to in CPJud II 156d col. III (lines 8-10); cf. 156a col. III (lines 2-3; 156b col. II (lines 4243, 46). Isidoros' connection with the gymnasium is also referred to in the writings of Philo (In Flaccum 139). Lampon is also mentioned in that context (op. cit. 130); and it is important to stressPhilo's information about Lampon's

involvement in the •3ot•t/aao/aheld by the Prefect and his assistants(see H. Box, op. cit. 115-117;RE V 1268). This fact indicates his ability to know the civic status of everyone living in Alexandria. In this light it is even more difficult to entertain the thought that Jews could really infiltrate into the citizens'

ranks.

69. Apion was born in Upper Egypt, studied at Alexandria and got his fame as a writer of a History of Egypt (Aegyptiaca) and a work on Homer. Under the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius he taught rhetoric in Rome and was active in political affairs pertaining to Alexandria. He was the

spokesmanof the anti-Jewish embassy sent from Alexandria to Caligula's court in Rome in order to oppose the Jewish deputation headed by Philo. Later, when Josephusbecame aware of Apion's influence on the Greco-Roman intellectual circles of his time, he wrote the polemical book Contra Apionem. For further details, see the recent work of M. Stern, Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. I: From Herodotus to Plutarch (1974) 389416.

A MERGING

OF

LICINII

CRASSI

As commonlysupposed,two Licinii CrassiservedunderMetellusScipioin 46. First: Licinius CrassusDamasippus(RE, Licinius 65). Caesar (BC II.44.3) mentionsLiciniusCrassus Damasippus asone of a numberof senators accompanyingKing Juba on his triumphal entry into Utica after the destruction of Curio in 49. He is obviously the Damasippuswhose children were found in Utica after Thapsusandsparedby Caesar(Bell.Afr. 89.5), andwho took part in Scipio'sflight by sea,perishingalongwith him at Hippo Regius (ibid. 96). An inscription(ILLRP 397) recordsone Nestor as slaveof L. Lic(inius) Crassus Damasippus. Mfinzersuggests that he wasthe senator'sson. Second:P. LiciniusP.f. Junianus(RE, Licinius75), so recordedin an honoraryinscription(BCH 14 (1891), 232) put up by the senateandpeople of Nysa in Caria, where Munzer conjecturesthat he is likely to haveheld a commandfor Pompeyin 49. (Cf. Broughton,MagistratesII.268; Broughton and Crawford give him the unauthorizedagnornen'Dives' in their indices.) On coinsof 47-46 he appearsas 'P. CrassusIun(ianus)',legatuspro praetore (Crawford460), with MetellusScipio'sname on the other side;also,no doubt, in a letter of November 54 from Cicero to his brother (Q.Fr. III.6.4); CrassurnIunianurn, hominem rnihi dediturn, per rne deterruit (Manutius' tyrannical conjecture'Coelium Vinicianum' survivesin Tyrrell and Purser's text). The contextshowshim to havebeena Tribunewith a proposalto make PompeyDictator,whichPompey,throughCicero,discouraged. Plutarch (Cat. Min. 70.5) informs us that a Crassuswas one of Cato's companionsin Utica after Thapsus,the last to leave,which he did by shipjust before Cato's death. He is identified by Mfinzer with Junianus,but he could equally well be Damasippus,for there is nothingto showthat MetellusScipio diedbeforeCato. The Crassus who escapedby seafrom Utica may havejoined his flotilla. As stated above, Damasippus'children were captured in Utica shortly afterwards. But the question,was it Damasippusor Junianus,doesnot have to be asked, becausethe names and the facts make it sufficiently clear that these two are one and the same.P. Licinius P.f. CrassusJunianuswas evidently a Juniuswho had been adoptedby a P. LiciniusCrassus(not identifiablewith any known personof that name). 'Damasippus'occursas a cognomen,or ratheragnornen,in the gensJuniain the personof the Marian L. JuniusBrutus Damasippus,City Praetorin 82. At thisperioda Junius(Brutus)Damasippus adopted by a P. Licinius Crassusmight call himself P. Licinius Crassus Junianusor P. LiciniusCrassusDamasippus(cf. Q. ServiliusCaepioBrutus, et sirn.) or even P. LiciniusCrassusJunianusDamasippus(cf. Q. Caecilius PomponianusAtticus). The Nysa inscription,which giveshim no official title, probably datesfrom before the Civil War. In 45, whenCicerowaslookingfor suburbanproperty(horti) on which to build a 'fane' to his lamentedTullia (seeD.R. ShackletonBailey,Cicero's Lettersto Atticus, vol. V, Appendix III), he thoughtbriefly of one suchestate 162

A MERGING

OF

LICINII

CRASSI

163

belongingto a certainDamasippus (Art. 268 (XII.29).2; 269 (XII.33).1). Atticus was asked to make contact with him; so he cannot have been the man

who died with Scipio, but may have been his son, allowedto retainhis patrimony,or at any rate part of it, by Caesar's clemency. He mayalsohave beenthe bankruptart-connoisseur turnedStoicof Horace'ssatire(II.3), who is called'Junius'by scholiasts andis readilyidentifiablewith the Damasippus mentionedby Cicero in connexionwith a purchaseof sculpturein Faro. VII.23. But Mfinzerwaswrong(followinga paperby F. Marx) to identifythis Damasippus in his entry 'Iunius(72) Damasippus' with the Juniusof s.3 of the letter, and also about its date, which will have been 46-45, not 49. On

this,more will haveto be saidin anotherplace. HarvardUniversity

D.R. ShackletonBailey

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

A major paradox of the history of the fourth centuryB.C., unexplainedand virtually unnoticedin modernscholarship, is the attitude of the Aetoliansto the Macedonian throne. According to all modern historiansthe Aetolians

wereamongthe majorbeneficiaries of Philip'sreign.As earlyas342/1 he had made overturesto them, promisingthem Naupactus,a traditional object of Aetolian ambitions.On the strengthof that promisethey servedas Philip's alliesin the campaignof Chaeronea,and after Philip occupiedNaupactusthe

city wasdulyadjudged to them.• Thusfar, according to conventional dogma, the relationship was sweetnessand light. Neither party had groundsof complaintagainstthe other. After Philip's death there was a dramatic change.At the news of his murder

the Aetolians

voted to restore the exiles who had been driven from

Acarnaniaas a resultof the settlementimposedafter Chaeronea. 2 That wasa completechangeof policy, and nothing preparesus for it. What is more, the Aetolians continued hostile to Alexander. In 335 they were involvedin the wave of insurrectionwhich arosefrom the Theban revolt? and in 324 they were the principalagentsalongwith the Atheniansin resistingthe implemen-

tation of the ExilesDecree.Agis'War of 331/0 is the only movementagainst Macedonin which the Aetoliansare not known to havebeenimplicated;and there is a possibilitythat they shouldbe includedamongthe non-Peloponnesianswho, Diodorussays,participatedin the uprising. 4 The deathof Philip seemsto be a sharp hiatus. In his lifetime the Aetolians were allies and beneficiariesof Macedon, but from the moment of his death they behaved consistentlyin a recalcitrantand seditiousmanner.Our sourcesdo not explain the change,and it hasgenerallyescapedthe noticeof modernscholars?Yet suchsustainedand virulent hostility must havehad a cause,and, giventhat it was first manifestedat Alexander's accession,the hostility must have originated in Philip's reign, more specificallyin the dark and lacunoseyears betweenthe battle of Chaeroneaand Philip'sdeathlate in 336. In my opinion, that causeis statedclearlyin the ancientsources,but it hasbeen obscuredby nearly a centuryof misinterpretationand prejudice. The first clue is provided by Arrian's descriptionof the Aetolian capitulationafter the thunderboltof the destructionof Thebesin September 335: "the Aetolians sent embassiesrepresentingtheir tribes and sued for forgiveness becausethey too had acted seditiouslyupon receivingthe news from Thebes. "6 What preciseform the seditionhad taken is not stated,but there is no hint that the Aetolians sent or even voted assistance for Thebes.

It seemsthat they, like the Eleans,7 took advantageof the generalconfusion to effect some sort of domesticrevolution.What is important for our purposesis that the Aetolianssenta numberof embassies, selectedby tribes,to Alexander.This description,ashasoften beennoted,8 bearsa strongresemblanceto a passage in Thucydidesrecordingan embassysentto Spartaand 164

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

165

Corinth in late summer 426. There were three ambassadors,each selected

from one of the three major Aetolian tribes-the Apodoti, Eurytanesand Ophioneis. 9 The similarityof thesetwo passages was the major reasonfor the old hypothesisthat aslate asAlexander'sreign the Aetolian state retained its archaic tribal structure and had not evolved the federal systembasedon

sympoliteiawhichwasto leadit to fortuneduringthe Hellenisticperiod.•ø The hypothesisreceived a fatal blow in 1939, when E. Schweigert publishedan Atheniandecreedatedpreciselyto autumn367.TMAthenian ambassadorsproclaiming the truce for the Eleusinian Mysteries had been arrestedin the Aetolian communeof Trichoniumdespitethe fact that the Aetolian koinon had acceptedthe truce. The Athenian demos accordingly

authorisedan embassyof complaintto the koinon.This inscriptionis proof positivethat a centralgovernmentof somekind existedin Aetolia asearly as 367, a governmentwhich could and did make decisionsregardedas binding upon the smallercommunesof Aetolia. It is, however,improbablethat this primitivekoinon was basedon formal sympoliteia,with its citizensclassified by their home cities rather than by tribes. The Aetolian tribes in fact continued to exist. In the mid-fourth century Aristotle referred to the tribe of

Eurytanes. •2 What is more, the Aetoliansof the earlyHellenisticperiod,like the Aetolians of Thucydides' day, lived mostly in scattered unfortified

villages. •3 Suchprimitivesettlements canhavehad only the mostrudimentary civic structure, and it would have been perfectly natural for the political organisationof the Aetolians to have concentratedon the wider and stronger unit of the tribe. As late as the second century B.C. Aetolian citizens can be

identifiedby their ethnicname.TMAt that time mostAetoliansbelongedto citiesproper, and they are officially referredto undertheir city name.There were, however, Aetolians still without city affiliations, and they were in no

way debarredfrom full participationin the Aetolianleague.•5Two centuries previously,many more Aetolianswill have had purely tribal affiliations,and it is understandablethat the embassyof 335 was recruited on a tribal basis. There is, however,an important incongruityin Arrian's statement. The Aetoliansin 335 did not senda singleembassywith representatives from each tribe, as had happenedin 426. There were a number of embassiessent to Alexander;and the implication is that eachtribe sentits own delegation.It is clearly difficult to reconcilethis statementwith the existenceof an Aetolian koinon with centralorgansof government,and scholarshavebeenembarrassed by it. Schweigertsuggested that there wasa temporaryschismin the koinon, while Marta Sordi made the economicalsuggestionthat there was a single embassy,in which each tribe sent a number of representatives in order to

make their representations more impressive. •6 UnfortunatelyArrian is quite explicit. He refersto embassies in the plural, and,unlessthe text is arbitrarily emended,there seemsto be no avoidingthe conclusionthat the Aetolians sent a number of different embassies to Alexander. •7

There is, however, another possibility that should be considered. Arrian's statementcomesin a very elliptical context and couldbe inaccurate. In the previoussentencehe refers with excessiveand misleadingbrevity to changesof policy in Arcadia and Elis. We are merely told that the Arcadians

166

A.B.

BOSWORTH

who went on the expedition to Thebes condemnedthe advocatesof intervention. Presumablythe plenary body of 10,000 both suppliedthe fighting forceand after the return formeda high court to hear the capitalcharges. •8 But the backgroundis not filled in, and we are left to make the inferencefor ourselves.Similarly we have no explicit statementhow the Elean dignitaries came to be in exile in 335. The Aetolian embassystandsin equal isolation from its context, and there is a possibilitythat Arrian may havemisunderstoodor misrepresented his source? But he musthavehad somereasonto make his referenceto a plurality of embassies, for the expectedand natural thing would havebeen for the Aetolians,a singlepeople,to havesenta single embassy.The original sourcemust have made it explicit that the Aetolians sent a number of embassies selectedon a tribal basis;and, giventhat there is no contradictoryevidence,we have no option but to acceptArrian's statement as it stands.

The problem now can be clearly stated. In 335 the Aetolianshad been acting provocatively.They had the dreadful example of the destructionof Thebesbefore their eyes and they were approachinga victoriousking as suppliants.Yet the Aetoliansapparentlydid not sendan embassyrepresenting the nation as a whole; eachtribe apparentlymadeits own representations to Alexander.If the koinon existed,it wasan unnecessary duplicationof effort, and a duplication likely to irritate Alexander, approachedas he was by sub-unitsof the Aetolian state, not by its central government.Now it is axiomatic that the Aetoliansselectedthe approachthey consideredmost likely to appeaseAlexander. If they sent separatedelegationsfrom each tribe, we may be confidentthat there wassomevery specificreasonfor their action and that Alexanderfor somereasondid not welcomean approach from a centralAetoliangovernment.2ø We should, I think, examine the possibility that the Aetolian koinon had been dissolvedtowards the end of Philip's reign and divided into its constituent tribes, each with formal autonomy and its own governmental organs.This processof divisionwas a standardway to subduepowerful and intransigent allies. One thinks immediately of the Spartan action against Mantinea, dividing the city into its constituentvillages,each with its own

military leader? • or, more pertinently, the Spartans'dissolutionof the Boeotian and Chalcidian leagues,which involved the autonomy and self-

government of eachmembercity? NaturallyenoughPhilipusedthe weapon of dioecismwhen it suitedhispurposes.In 346 the Phocianstatewassplitup into demilitarised villages? and after Chaeronea Philip destroyedthe predominantpositionof Thebesin the BoeotianLeague.The Leaguemay not have been abolishedaltogether;but Thebeswas certainlyreducedto the samelevel as the other Boeotiancities?4 her influencefurtherweakenedby the restoration of Plataea, Thespiaeand Orchomenus.If the Aetolians had made a nuisanceof themselves, it wasquite possiblefor Philip to destroytheir federal structureand proclaimthe autonomy of eachtribe. Providedthat suchaction precededthe establishmentof the Leagueof Corinth, the divisionwould have been sanctionedby the Common Peacevoted in 337 and renewedat Alexan-

der's accession. All interferencewith existingpolitieswas prohibited. 25 If

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

167

thereforethe Aetolianshad beendividedinto tribes,any attempt to restore the koinonwasipsofacto a breachof the peaceand subjectto sanctionsfrom the other membersof the League of Corinth. Action of this kind would explain the Aetolian restivenessat the time of Alexander's accession.It would obviously have been in the Aetolian interest to reestablishthe central

structure of the koinon if circumstancespermitted, and equally, once Alexander had demonstratedMacedoniansupremacyin central Greece, it was essentialfor them to prove that they had not infringed the Common Peace.The separatetribal embassies sent out in 335 were visibleproof that the Aetolian koinon had not been reestablished.

This theory is clearly radical,and it requirescarefulchecking.We must first examine the validity of the evidencewhich has been adducedto prove

the existenceof an AetoliankoinonduringAlexander'sreign?6 That evidence is epigraphicaland wholly insubstantial.In the first placean Athep;andecree, originally dated to Alexander'sreign, confershonoursupon an Aetolian and

hisfatherin recognition of their services pastandpresent? ? The inscriptionis fragmentaryand its dating dependswholly on restoration.In 1963 Sterling Dow publisheddetailed measurementsof the stoneand demonstratedwith near certainty that the archon'sname occupied11 or 12 spacesand that of the secretary22 spaces.In the whole periodbetween346 and 230 B.C. there was only one known pair of officials whose names correspondedto the spacing:the archonAnaxicratesand the secretaryLysias,sonof Nothippus, of Diomeia. The date of the inscription is therefore 307/6. Meritt has subsequently confirmedthe dating;and he suggests plausiblythat the decree shouldbe associatedwith the embassyof Olympiodoruswhich was sent to Aetolia in 306 (Paus.i 26.3). In that casethe inscriptionbelongsto a period well outsideAlexander'sreign,when the Aetolian koinon is firmly attestedin

existence.But the restorationinvolvesirregularities?and, thoughthe best attempt yet made, it cannot be regardedas conclusive.There is a remote possibilitythat the earlierattributionto the archonshipof Nicocrates(333/2) may be correct. But even if the decreedoesbelongto Alexander'sreign, it is not unambiguousevidencefor the existenceof the Aetolian koinon. All that emergesfrom the fragmentarytext is a possiblereferenceto a koinon of the Aetolians and an unambiguousreadingof the title 'bularch'. Now the bularch is a frequentlyattestedofficial of the Hellenistickoinon;29 and the appearance of the title has been thoughtdecisiveevidencethat the Aetolian koinon existed at the time the decree was issued. That is debatable. The decree refers

explicitly to servicesin the past; and, if the stone should be dated to Alexander's period, one could argue that any servicesas bularch were performed in the past, while the Aetolian koinon still existed.What is more, the bularch of the Hellenisticage was not necessarilya federal magistrate. Towards the end of the third century there is evidencefor the existenceof subordinateregionsin the Aetolian state, in particular the telos Lokrikon, and the telos Stratikon, which seemto have comprisedthe territory annexed from Ozolian Locris and from Acarnaniain the courseof the third century. Both theseareaswere representedby magistratesnamed bularchs,and it has been attractively arguedthat all areasof Aetolia, includingthe old tribes,had

168

A.B.

BOSWORTH

localmagistrates withthe•itle of bularch. aøTheinscription therefore need not refer to a federal bularchy. Even if it were datable with certainty to Alexander'sreignit would be completelyindecisiveevidence. The secondpiece of evidenceis equally unhelpful. A Delphian decree datedto the archonship of Bathyllus(329/8) recordshonoursconferredupon a citizen of Macynia in Aetolia.a• The style of nomenclatureis saidto bear the characteristicformula of sympoliteia;in other wordsthe man had citizenship of his own city and of the koinon.Now it is indisputablethat foreign states in the Hellenisticperiod often did refer to citizens of the Aetolian koinon by this compositenomenclature.Expressions suchas"Aetolian from

Naupactus"occur fairly frequentlyin proxenydecrees? But the same nomenclature

is used to refer to nationals

of states which had no federal

structureandno basisofsympoliteia. One need look no further than Macedon. Individual Macedoniansare often identified by their city or regionwithin

Macedonia? Their nomenclatureis precisely the alleged formula of sympoliteia, yet no one would claim that the Macedonianstate was in any sensea federal organisation.It was a centralisedmonarchy and the individual regionshad no independentpolitical existence.In fact the compositenomenclature is merelythe nomenclatureone would expect to havebeen usedwhen referringto a memberof any peoplewhich extendedovera wide geographical area and was domiciledin a number of settlements. a4 Naming the city of residencegave a more precisefocus to the ethnic. Of coursesuch nomenclature was ideal for referringto developedfederalstates,but the corollary, that only federal statesare denotedby the nomenclature,is totally invalid. All we caninfer from the Delphiandecreeis that in 329/8 the city of Macynia

was under Aetolian control.as It doesnot imply that the Aetolianshad a unified federal state at the time.

If there is no positiveevidencefor the existenceof an Aetoliankoinon in the early yearsof Alexander'sreignthereis someslightcorroborationto be found for the hypothesisthat the statehadbeen dissolved into its constituent tribes. As is well known, the fragmentarystonewhich containsthe oath of the Greeks ratifying the Leagueof Corinth alsocontainsa mutilatedlist of

memberstates? The peopleslistedare derivedexclusively from centraland northern Greece.The Aetolians collectivelyare not mentioned, which is not surprising,given the lacunosenature of the stone. There is, however, an anomaly. One line refers to a multiple contingent.A number of namesare lost, but the line ends with an unambiguousreference to the Dolopians precededby a fragmentaryname concluding. . . rai•n. Wilhelm accordingly identified the defectivename as that of the Agraeans,the neighboursof the Dolopians who lived around the headwatersof the Achelous? It is an

attractivesuggestion and hasbeenuniversallyaccepted? Now the Agraeans were an Aetolian people. In the fifth century they seem to have been

independent with a king of their own? but by the Hellenisticperiodthey were part of the Aetolian state.4ø Straboexplicitly termsthem an Aetolian tribe and lists them alongsidethe classicAetolian tribes, the Eurytanesand Ophioneis, •l and an obscureremarkattributedto PhilipV associates them with the AetolianApodoti.•2 There is no doubt that the Agraeans were an

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

169

Aetolian people,and they appearto havebeenlistedasan independententity in the foundation roll of the Leagueof Corinth. They may have been still independentof the Aetolian federation;but we shouldat least reckon with the possibilitythat the koinon had been dissolvedbefore the CommonPeace of 337 and that its tribeswere listedas separatepartiesin the catalogueof contractingstates.In that casethe divisionof Aetolia wassanctioned by the peace,and any attempt to restorethe old/coinonwould havefallen underits draconianpenal clauses.Whateverthe nature of the Aetolian unrestin 335, they couldonly approachAlexanderthroughseparatetribal delegations. Any other arrangementconstituteda breachof the peace. We must now look back to the reignof Philipand attemptto tracethe originsof the hostility betweenthe Aetoliansand the Macedonianthrone.If the Aetolian koinon was in fact dismantled,it wasa drasticstepand we must try to find correspondingly seriousgroundsfor the action. The only known incident in the history of relationsbetween Philip and the Aetoliansis the allegedsurrenderof Naupactus.Here at leastwe havespecificstatementsin the sources,and it is vital to evaluatethem without anticipatingconclusions. Our first explicit evidence comesfrom Demosthenes'Third Philippic of

342/1. In a list of recentdelictsby Philiphe mentionsa promiseto handover to the Aetolians the Achaeanpossession of Naupactus(Dem. 9.34). The precedingitem on the list is Philip's abortiveinvasionof Ambracia(spring

342),4a andin all probabilitythe promiseto the Aetolianswasan attemptto acquire salient allies in the area. But, as Demosthenesis never tired of observing, Philip'spromiseswere ephemeraland tendedto be forgottenonce his immediate aims were secured.Have we any evidencethat he actually carried out his promise to the Aetolians?If he did, the later tradition is remarkably silent about it. As Walbank has remarked, the possession of Naupactus is not even mentioned in Polybius' famous debate between Chlaeneasof Aetolia and Lyciscusof Acarnania,eventhoughthe benefaction wouldhavebeengristto the mill of the Acarnanian argument.4a There are two relevantpiecesof evidence.Strabomentionsin passing the fact that NaupactuswasAetolianin his own day: 'it now belongsto the Aetolians,Philip havingadjudgedit to them' (Straboix 4.7 (427)). Now this referenceis extremelybrief. Strabomerely statesthat Philip adjudgedthe city to the Aetoliansand doesnot imply that he actuallycapturedthe city

and surrendered it to them.45 The statementneed only refer to Philip's originalpromiseof 342 whenhe certainlysupportedthe Aetolianclaimsto Naupactus. Indeed the information may well be taken directly from Demosthenes himself.Straboknowsandquotesthe ThirdPhilippic.He refers to the famous descriptionof the desolationmade of Olynthus and her neighbouts,and, more strikingly,he citesthe referenceto Philistides'tyranny at Oreos,a passage whichimmediatelyprecedes Philip'spromiseof Naupac-

tus.•6 Thereis, then,a strongprobabilitythat Strabo'sevidence is derivative andsowithout independent value. Solid evidenceis providedby a fragmentof Theopompus whichspeaks unambiguouslyof Philip capturing Naupactus.The fragment is doubly attestedin the 'Suda' and in Zenobius'collectionof proverbs,and although their wordingdiffersslightlythey givevirtually identicalsense.

170

A.B.

BOSWORTH

'Keeping guard in Naupactus: . . .some authorities state that upon capturingNaupactusPhilip killed all its garrisontroopson the resolutionof the Achaeans.Theopompusgivesthe storyin his secondbook.' 'To keep guard in Naupactus:when Philip captured Naupactusthe Achaeansslaughteredthe garrisontroopsand killed Pausanias, the commander of the garrison, asTheopompus states'? What Theopompuswas sayingis clear. Philip captured the city of Naupactusin conjunctionwith the Achaeansand allowed the Achaeansto massacrethe garrisonof the city, or, at their behest,did sohimself.This is in clear contradictionto Philip'spromiseof 342, which was to deprivethe Achaeansof Naupactus,and scholarshaveresortedto the traditionalweapon of emendation to force the text into line with their prejudices.Arnold Sch•ifermade a small deletion in the text of the 'Suda', while in Zenobiushe

alteredcaseswholesaleand convertedthe verbsfrom pluralto singular.Both versions,he implied, originallyhad the samesenseand a compositetext of Theopompusshouldbe restored:'Philip capturedNaupactusand slaughtered the garrisontroopsof the Achaeans. '48 This drasticmedicineproducedthe required statement that Philip upon capturing Naupactusmassacredthe Achaean garrison.But the medicine is not only drastic; it is wholly unpalatable.All Sch•ifer'semendationsare palaeographically implausible.Two wholly otiose words, so we must assume,have intruded themselvesinto the text of the 'Suda', and the text of Zenobiushasbeen wholly reworked--four

out of sevenwords altered. In both casesthis palaeographical alchemyhas transformeda simpletext which makesperfectgrammaticalsenseinto a text with equally perfect but antitheticalsense.That this shouldhavehappened independentlyin the two traditionsstrainsprobability to the uttermost. There is more.The readingis not uniqueto the 'Suda'. Its versionof the proverbrecursin the late Byzantineparoemiographers. Gregoryof Cyprus

andApostolius? 9 Bothderivative authorsretainexactlythewordingfoundin our texts of the 'Suda'. If Sch•ifer'semendationis right,we mustreckonnot with an error in the manuscripttradition but with a misunderstanding on the

part of the compilerof the 'Suda'inheritedby the later paroemiographers. Most seriousof all, we havetwo versions of Theopompus--and in the caseof Zenobiusthe material is derivedfrom an epitome made asearly asHadrian's

reign from collectionsof proverbscompiledby the Alexandrians. so The transmissionof the material clearly followed two different routes, yet the senseproducedis substantiallythe same.It is highly improbablethat precisely the same mistake was made in both traditions producingthe same perversionof Theopompus.Suchan error canonly haveoccurredat the very

outsetof thetradition,at the timeof the Alexandrian paroemiographers. s• It is surelytime to statethe obvious.Theopompus' versionof the captureof Naupactusis doublyattestedandboth sources makeperfectsensegrammatically and logically.If the evidenceconflictswith our preconceived views,we must alter thoseviewsand not perpetuatethe suppression of evidenceby emendation.

The basic fact upon which discussionmust now rest is Theopompus' directassertion that PhilipcapturedNaupactus with the helpof the Achaeans.

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

171

The chronologycan be establishedwithin fairly narrow limits. Accordingto the 'Suda' the incident was recorded in the secondbook of the Philippica. Since the attestedfragmentsof that book deal with Philip'searly Illyrian wars? it is usually assumedthat corruptionset in at an early stageof transmission and the correct attribution is to book lii.5a The corruption, simplehaplography,is easyand frequent.Now Theopompusreferredto the battle of Chaeroneain book liii. It is thereforeassumedthat the captureof Naupactusprecededthe battle and came as the immediatesequelto the captureof Amphissain early338.54 But, if the book numberis to be emended, there is no guaranteethat the simplestemendationis correct.Once we reject the originalmanuscriptreading,our proceduremust be to date the fragment by criteriaotherthan the booknumber.Whenwe havea datewe canattempt

to assignthe fragmentto a book andexplainthe corruption.Whatwe cannot do is make a conjecturalemendationon purely palaeographical groundsand usethat emendationasa basiccriterionfor dating. We may beginwith Philip. There are two possibleperiodsof his reign when he was physicallypresentin SouthernGreecein a positionto intervene at Naupactus:the periodafter the conquestof Phocisin summer346 and the final two yearsof his reign.Now it is a feasiblepossibilitythat the Phocians had occupiedNaupactusat somestageduring the SacredWar, and, if they suppliedthe garrison,Philip may well have moved againstthe city after his

settlementof the mainpart of Phocis.In that casethe massacre is of a piece with the restof Philip'spunitiveactionsagainstthetemplerobbers. 55But the role of Achaeansas alliesof Philip becomesvery problematicin the context of 346. They had been alliesof the Phociansin the past,evenin the yearsof greatestadversity? 6 and there is no suggestion in the sourcesthat they changedsidesin 346. Philip'snatural alliesin a campaigndated to 346 were the Locrians,who had historicclaimsto Naupactusand cooperatedenthusiastically in the reduction of Phocis. What is more, if the Achaeanshad acquiredNaupactusas alliesof Philip, it is most unlikely that Demosthenes would haveforegonethe pleasureof a maliciousreferenceto the peripeteiaof 342. There seemsno placefor Theopompus'story in the eventsof 346. We must look rather to the secondinterventionbelow Thermopylae. The Achaeansare againthe crucialfactor. They were membersof the confederationagainstPhilip and fought againsthim at Chaeronea? 7 The battle accordinglyforms a terminuspost quem.The combinedactionagainst Naupactusmustbe datedto the lasttwo yearsof the reign.Immediatelyafter Chaeronea the Achaeans participatedin the generalsurrender to Philip?8 The terms are not recordedbut they appear to havebeen generous.The Achaean Leaguesurvived.Accordingto Polybiusit was the Macedonianrulersafter

Alexanderwho forcedits dissolution? and Hypereidesin 324 refersexplicitly if obscurely to the Achaeans'common assemblies? ø The Achaeans moreover seem to have been relatively satisfiedwith the settlement. They took no part, it seems,in the agitationof 336 and 335, and they preserved

their neutralityin the LamianWar?• Their soleaberrationwasparticipating in Agis'War (331/30); and the reasonfor their action on that occasionmay have been the possibilityof territorial acquisitionat the expenseof the

172

A.B.

BOSWORTH

ArcadianLeague. 62 Thereis no signof inveteratehostilitytowardsMacedon, but there does seem an interesting contrast with Aetolia. Wheneverthe Aetolianswere active againstMacedonthe Achaeansremainedquiescent. That may be more than a coincidence. The only damagewhich the Achaeanssufferedat Philip's handsis thoughtto havebeenthe lossof Naupactus.But an unprejudicedreadingof Theopompusshowsthat, far from losingit, they regainedit ashisallies.The circumstances of the attack are not known, but somepossibilities virtually

forcethemselves uponus.If the Achaeans hadlost controlof Naupactus they can only have lost it to the Aetolians. The only other contenderswere the Ozolian Locrians, who had recently suffered a full-scale Amphictyonic invasionand were in no conditionto attempt territorialannexations? a Now the Aetolianshad been Philip'sallies.They are not explicitlyattestedto have fought at Chaeronea,but they certainlywere representedin the embassies which supportedPhilip'scauseat Thebesin late 339?4 In all probabilitythey fought in the decisivebattle. The bait offeredthe Aetoliansfor their alliance had beenthe possession of Naupactus,and they hadeveryrightto expectits surrenderto appearin the termsof the peacesettlement.Philip,however,had obtained his crowning victory and the Aetolians'usefulnesswas past. His policy was now to conciliate his past enemies. Thebes was the notable exception, but Athens and her Peloponnesianallieswere treated with comparative leniency-and Athenswas allowed to retain her important cleruchy on Samos? 5 It is possibleand likely that Philip confirmedthe Achaean possession of Naupactusin late 338 and convenientlyforgot his promiseto the Aetolians.They were in any casea half-barbarian people, 88 and Philip mayhavecalculatedthat he couldoverridetheir interestswith impunity. If so, his action formed

the watershed

in relations between Macedon

and Aetolia.

The Aetolianswere transformedovernightinto inveterateenemies. If, aswemust,we acceptTheopompus, the AetoliansoccupiedNaupactus on their own initiative. That action probably took place over the winter of

338/7. Philipwasthen in the southPeloponnese, completing the humiliation of Spartaand dividingher borderlandsamongher allies? Hisattentionwas diverted from the north, and the Achaeans,who are said to have suffered

severelossesat Chaeronea? 8 were in no positionto fight a protracted campaignfor Naupactus.The city wasin any caserelativelyvulnerable.It had already been in and out of the Achaeans'handstwice in the courseof the centuryand the Aetoliansthemselves may have gainedtemporarypossession

of it? I am assuming that the AetolianlevyattackedNaupactus in late 338, overpoweredthe denudedgarrisonand imposeda holdingforce of their own under the command of Pausanias.lø

That was a fatal mistake.Philip may havebeen magnanimous after his victory, but-as his treatmentof Spartaclearlyshowed-he wasin no mood to tolerate recalcitrance or insurrection. The Aetolians had flouted his settlement

and attacked his new allies. They needed a drasticlessonand that lessonwas

givenin the followingspring.The Achaeanscooperatedgladlyand presumably helpedtransportthe Macedonianforcesacrossthe straitsof Rhium?1 The lucklessgarrisonof Naupactusfell into the invaders'handsand they were

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

173

massacredto a man. The two versionsof Theopompusdiffer over the responsibility. Did Philip carry out the massacre on the vote of the Achaeans

('Suda')or did the Achaeans themselves do the killing(Zenobius)? It makes little difference. One recalls the fate of Thebes in 335 which was decided by

an ad hoe councilof Macedonian alliesactuallypresentat the siege? The executionof the sentencewas carriedout by Alexander,and, not surprisingly,

the sources suggest that the councilwasa merefacadeto takethe responsibility for the verdictfrom his shoulders. TMThe samemaywell havehappenedat Naupactus.The city remained in the hands of the Achaeansas an extraterritorial possession. How long they retainedit canonly be guessed. It is not explicitly attestedin Aetolian control until the 280s B.C., when a certain Androbolus, an Aetolian from Naupactus,was honoured by the city of Cassandreia. TMOne can only supposethat it passedinto their handsduring the turmoil of the early yearsof the Successors, maybeat the time of their successful invasionof Thessalyin 321.75 In early 337 the Aetolianswere driven out of Naupactus.Philip will then have settled accounts with the Icoinon. The federal organisationwas dissolvedandthe Aetolianswere dividedup into their componenttribes,each

with its own government.The arrangement wasperpetuatedand sanctioned by the CommonPeaceconcludedlater in the year. The death of Philip saw them not as the proud beneficiariesof Macedonianexpansionbut as a defeatedand dismemberedpeople. There is admittedly no solidevidencefor this reconstructionoutside Theopompus,but, if the test is taken at face value, there seemsno other viable explanationof the events.What is more, the year 337 is one of the emptiestin our knowledgeof Philip's reign. Diodorus, the main narrative source, says nothing about events between Chaeroneaand the establishment of the Leagueof Corinth. There is not a word about the settlementof Thebesor the expeditioninto the Peloponnese. Similarly Justin coversthe entire period between the settlementof Thebes and the establishment of the Leaguewith a singleblanketphrase:cornpositis in Graeciarebus. 76 This is not a significant silence.Thereis ampleroomfor a

campaign againstthe Aetoliansin early337.77 If that date is accepted,the Theopompusfragment is best assignedto book lvi. The extant fragments

from that book (FGrH 115 F 238-246) refer to Philip'scampaigns in the Peloponnese over the winter of 338/7, which in my reconstruction immediatelyprecedetheactionagainst Naupactus. Therehappens alsoto be anexact parallelfor the corruptionof the Theopompan booknumber? The Aetolian unrest after Philip's death is now entirely explicable. They had everyreasonfor dissatisfaction and onewould expectthem to seize upon any and every opportunity to reshapethemselvesinto a strong and unified state. But any move towards the restoration of the Icoinon was a

breachof the MacedonianimposedCommonPeace,and, unlessthey wished to facethe powerof Macedonalone,they couldonly act in a periodof unrest with allies already hostile to Macedon. That immediately explains their restorationof Acarnanianexilesin 336 and their actionsduringthe Theban insurrectionof 335. As longasAlexanderremainedin mainlandGreecethere waslittle prospectof success. But the picture changeddramaticallyoncethe

174

A.B.

BOSWORTH

Macedonianarmy wasdividedfor the campaignin Asia.There remainedonly a homearmy of 12,000 infantryunderAntipater? and mostof Macedon's allies had sent contingentsto the war. After 334 the times were more propitiousfor the Aetoliansto shakeoff the settlementimposedby Philip; and, as Alexander receded further and further into the east, the Aetolians consolidatedtheir power.

The stages of growtharenot recorded.All that is certainis the fact that they had occupiedOeniadaeat the mouth of the Achelous,a city longa bone of contentionbetweenthemselves and the Acarnanians. 8ø The chronology is uncertain,but it seemsthat the annexationhad taken placebeforeAlexander returnedto the west in 325/4.8• By the time the ExilesDecreewasissued

(late 324), the Kinghad alreadythreatened themwith condignpunishmentnot surprisingly, for their actionwasa clearbreachof the spiritandthe letter of the CommonPeace? The Aetoliansmusthaveachievedsomedegreeof central unity for them to have acted so brazenly. We can therefore be sure that the Aetolian koinon was reestablishedsome time before 324, but the

processof reestablishment mustremainobscure. What

was certain

was that

the Aetolians

had committed

themselves

irrevocably.Not only had they altered their own politeia, in defianceof the peace,but they had attackedand occupiedan Acarnaniancity, soinfringing

the autonomyof one of the cont{actingpartiesof the peace? As longas Alexander and his army remainedin Asia there was little danger.The home army was undermannedand the Macedonianviceroy, Antipater, had his own preoccupations. His son-in-law,Alexanderthe Lyncestian,had beenexecuted

for allegedtreasonin 330,84 and by summer324 his own depositionwas public knowledge.His successor wason hisway from Babyloniawith an army

of veterans. 8s In thiscrisisAntipatercouldwell sparean arduouscampaign in Aetolia. What was more, the Aetoliansmight prove useful alliesin an emergency, committed as they were againstthe Macedonianthrone and situated in a convenientlyinaccessible part of Greece.It comesasno surpriseto find a tradition that he made overturesto them and exchangedguarantees. 86 Antipater was probablysecuringa refugewhere he could retire with relative safetyand rebuilt his position.One recallsthat, whenPolyperchon wasleft isolatedafter the deathof Olympias,he retired into Aetolia, 'consideringthat

there was the safestplaceto await a changeof fortune.'87 But in 324 the Exiles Decree was issued and the Aetolians were faced with

a direct and

explicit threat. There was now no chance of appeasingAlexanderby renouncingOeniadaeand oncemore dissolvingthe koinon. Alexanderwasnot issuingan ultimatum; he was promisingpunishment,and the sourcesare

explicit that the Aetolianswere expectingpunitive action. 88 Under the circumstances they could only look aroundfor alliesto fend off the coming storm; and we hear that they negotiated with Leosthenes,the Athenian

commander of the greatmercenary baseat Taenarum. 8s Alexander's death removed the imminent fear of invasion. The Aetolians

immediately joinedAthensin allianceagainst Macedon. søThe themesongof Athenianpropaganda was the autonomyof Greek statesandliberationfrom Macedoniandespotism. s• That inevitablymeant the end of the Leagueof

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

175

Corinth and the terms of the CommonPeaceupon which that despotismhad been founded. For the Aetolians the movement, if successful,meant the end

of the settlementwhich had insistedon their divisioninto separatetribes. From 337 onwardstheir positionwas necessarilyone of inveteratehostility to Macedon

and the Macedonian

settlement

of Greece. Their record was such

that in 321 Antipater and Craterusallegedlyplanned to outdo even Philip and deport the entirepeopleto the remotestdesertof Asia.92 But in the eyes of the Aetolians they were the injured party. Philip had defaultedon his promiseof Naupactusand they weremerelyseizingwhat wasrightfullytheirs. Whateverthe problemsof its historicalcontext,the speechwhichJustinputs

in their mouth on the occasionof a visit by a Romanembassy 93 appearsto hit the mark: solosdenique essequi Macedonasimperio terrarumfiorentes sempercontempserint, qui Philippureregemnon timuerint.•4 A. B. Bosworth

University of WesternAustralia NOTES

1. The fundamental work is still A. Schafer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit (2nd ed.: Leipzig, 1886). The evidence for the period is there exhaustively examined and Schhfer's views on Macedonian-Aetolian

relations have

become canonical: usually restated without comment. Cf. G. Klaffenbach, 'Fasti Aetolici', IG ix2 1.1.xii ff.; F.R. WUst,Philipp II yon Makedonienund Griechenland (Munich, 1938) 164; L. Lerat, Les Locriens de l'Ouest (Paris, 1952) ii 54 f.; N.G.L. Hammond, A history of Greece (Oxford, 1967) 561; 567.

2.

Diod. xvii 3.3 For Philip's settlement with Acarnania see Schhfer

iii•' 50-51; M.N. Tod, Greek historicalinscriptionsii 231-34, no. 178; C. Roebuck, CPh xliii (1948) 76-77. 3.

Arr. Anab. i7.4;10.2.

4. Diod. xvii 62.7: cf. Schaferiii• 202; so H. Berve,DasAlexanderreich (Munich, 1926) i 237. 5. Schafer at least noticed the change in the Aetolians' attitude

(iii• 91), but he did not speculateon the possiblemotivesfor the transformation.

6. A•rcoXo•86 •rpeofie•a•o½&p •ar& •Opr• •rdl•Oapre••o77pcblar• rvxe•p •b•opro, b'rt •a[ aOro[ •rpbc r& •rapr[ r&p ©r•l•aicop •pecor•ptoap (Ahab. i 10.2). 7.

According to Arrian (i 10.1), the people of Elis restored their

exiles in late 335

because of the exiles'

close relations

with

Alexander.

It is a

reasonableassumption that they had expelled the Macedonian partisansin the city when news came of the Theban insurrection (so Schhferiii2 115 n.2). But Arrian saysnothing about any positive responseto the Theban appeal for help (cf. Diod. xvii 8.5). The Peloponnesianforce sent to the Isthmus seems to have comprised Arcadians only (Deinarchus 1.18 ff.; Arr. i 10.1 ). 8. See particularly M. Sordi, 'Le origini del koinon etolico', Acme vi (1953) 41 9-45 (esp. 432-35). Although I disagreewith it in many points of detail, I consider this article to be the most valuable contribution yet made to the early history of the Aetolian koinon. In future I refer to it by the author's name

alone.

176

A.B.

9.

BOSWORTH

Thuc. iii 100.1. For other references to the tribes see ii 94.5;

96.3.

10. The most succinct and influential statements of this early view are to be found in Busolt-Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde ii (Munich,

1924) 1509; Klaffenbach, IG ix2 1.1.xiii, lines 8-20. See the excellent bibliographical raise au point compiled by Sordi 419 n.2. 11. E. Schweigert, 'Greek inscriptions', Hesperia viii (1939) 5-12. Cf. Tod, GHI ii no. 137; Sordi 419-23 (conclusive arguments against Schweigert's assumption that the koinon was established by Epaminondas). 12. Schol vet. ad Lycophron, Alex. 799 = F 508 (Rose). A somewhat problematic passage of Polybius refers to the Apodoti as an Aetolian tribe (Polyb. xviii 5.8; cf. n.42 below). Strabo also attests the continued existence of the Aetolian tribes (x 1.10 (448); 2.5 (451); 3.6 (465)). 13. Diod. xviii 24.2-25.1; xix 74.6; cf. Thuc. iii 94.4-5; Sordi 439-41. 14.

SGDI

1862.2;

1978.3.

15. Cf. IG ix2 1.32 (a proxeny decreeof the secondcentury B.C.). Each person honoured in this decree has an Aetolian guarantor. The majority of guarantors are listed with their city nomenclature, but the last name on the list is identified solely by the ethnic 'OCtebq(line 46). 16. Schweigert, Hesperia viii (1939) 9; Sordi 435.

17. When Arrian usesthe plural rrpeo/36•at,he refers to a plurality of embassiessent from a number of different states (e.g. iii 5.1; vii 15.4; 19.1). A single embassy sent from a single state is always described in the singular (e.g. i 10.4; 29.5; iv 1.2). 18.

Cf. Xen. Hell. vii 4.33; 38.

19.

See now A.B. Bosworth, 'Errors in Arrian', CQ xxvi (1976)

117-39.

20. This was argued by W. Hohmann, Aitol[en und Aitoler bis zum lamischen Krieg (Diss. Halle, 1908) 37, and rejected by Sordi 435 n. 34 on the ground that there is no solid evidence in the sources. But, given the obscurity of early Aetolian history, it would be excessively optimistic to expect explicit corroboration. The text of Arrian can only be assessedon its own merits, and one cannot assume a priori (as does Sordi) that there is an exact analogy between the embassiesof 426 and 335. 21. Xen. Hell. v 2.7; Diod. xv 5.4; cf. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F 79. 22. On these events see J.A.O. Larsen, Greek federal states (Oxford, 1968) 171 f.; M. Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidier (Vestigia xiv; Munich, 1971) 94-104.

23. Diod.xvi60.2;Paus. x 3.2i35.6;36.6;cf.Wast,PhilippH 17 f.; Larsen, op. cit. 300. Note also Aeschines'predictions in 346 (Dem. 5.10). 24. There is no explicit evidence about Philip's treatment of the Boeotian League. Arrian speaks of the existence of Boeotarchs at the time of the Theban revolt (i 7.11), but his evidence is ambiguous. The League may have been dissolved, so that the first act of the insurgent Thebans was to elect

fresh Boeotarchs, as had happened in 379 (Plut. Pelop. 13.1; 14.2). On the other hand Philip may have retained the League, eliminating the Theban predominance; the cities of Plataea, Orchomenus and Thespiae would then have become eligible for the Boeotarchies which they had lost in the course of the previous century (cf. Hell. Ox. 16.3 Bartoletti). In that case Philip followed his propaganda of 346--to make Thebes Boeotian, not vice versa (Aeschin. 2.119). His draconian settlement of Thebes (cf. Justin ix 4.6-10) cannot have left her the undisputed mistress of the Boeotian League.

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

177

25. Tod, GHI ii no. 177, lines 12-14; [Dem.] 17.10 (cf. H.H. Schmitt, Staatsvertri•ge iii (Munich, 1969) 3-14, no. 403). T.T.B. Ryder, Koine eirene (Oxford, 1965) 104, comments somewhat naively: 'this measure left few loopholes for aggression.'

26. Cf. Klaffenbach,IG ix2 1.1.xiii; Sordi430. 27. IG ii2 358 = SEG xxi 326. The inscriptionhas had a chequered history. It was originally dated to the archonship of Hegemon (327/6) and later redated to 333/2, the year of Nicocrates (W.B. Dinsmoor, The archons of A thens (Cambridge, 1931 ) 357; B.D. Meritt, The A thenJanyear (Berkeley,

1961) 84 f.). Study of the inscription was put on a new footing by the complementary articles by S. Dow, HSCP lxvii (1963) 56-60, and B.D. Meritt, Hesperia xxxii (1963) 435-38; the redating to 307/6 is one of the few points of agreement in what is otherwise an acrimonious exchange of fire. 28. Meritt's restoration (Hesperia xxxii 436) involves the assumption

that the name of the tribe 'I•rTroOcovr•boq occupied 10, not 12, letter spaces, which is hardly better than Dinsmoor's restoration of the secretary's name, which fits 21 letters into 20 spaces. There are other problems. A standard

formula (•a• OUlaTrp6cbpot) is omitted, and there are calendricdifficulties on which I am not competent to judge (cf. Meritt, Hesperia xxxiii (1964) 13-15). Dow at any rate has grave doubts whether the restoration can be correct (op. cit. 60).

29. For the Aetolian13ouXapX•a seeIG ix2 1.6, line 10 with Klaffenbach's note ad loc. The number

of bularchs

listed on Aetolian

decrees varies

between one and six: and the office only appears on documents of the third century B.C.

30. IG ix• 1.618 (cf. 625.1);$GDI2070; 2139. See Sordi442-44. Larsen, Greek federal states 197, expresses cautious agreement. 31. E. Bourguet, BCH xxiii (1899) 356. The archonship of Bathyllus

is dated to 329/8 by P. de la Coste-Messeli•re,BCH lxxiii (1949) 229 ff. (chart of archons, 236). 32. SIG • 380; 417.5; 500.5; 509; 621. 33. For this style of designation see particularly Arrian, Ind. 18.3-6.

Someepigraphicexamplesare SIG• 268 F and H; 269 L; 492.30; 35. 34. Sordi herself (436 n.36) cites examples of the formula of sympoliteia being used to refer to citizens of unfederated ethnic states; e.g. Hdt. vi 127.3 (sixth-century Arcadia); Thuc. iv 89.1 (fifth-century Phocis). 35. The Aetolian occupation of Macynia is usually said to have occurred at the same time as the annexation of Naupactus (cf. Klaffenbach

onIG ix• i. 13, line 22; L. Lerat,LesLocriensde l'Ouestii 61;66). That is by no means necessary. Macynia had been a Locrian possession(Plut. Q.G. 15 Mot. 295A)), but it passedout of Locrian hands at some unspecified date. There is no connexion, not even a geographical connexion, with Naupactus. Macynia lay some distance away, west of Cape Antirrhium and well inside the inhospitable coastline of Ait•lia epikt•tos (Lerat, op. cit. i 7-8, lists the relevant passagesof Strabo). It was far closer than Naupactus to central Aetolia and was probably occupied long before Naupactus. Significantly, Macynia is always cited among the Aetolian cities (Lerat i 34), and the Aetolian occupation should date back to the fifth century. Hellanicus at least seems to class it as Aetolian (Strabo x 2.6 (451 ) = FGrH 4 F 118). 36. Tod, GHI ii no. 177 (using Schwahn's supplements, which are certainly too adventurous); H.H. Schmitt, Staatsvertri•geiii 5-6 no. 403, prints a more conservative text with full critical apparatus.

178

A.B.

BOSWORTH

37. Thuc. ii 102.2' 6 T&p 'AxeX•oc . . . fidcop• Iltvbovb'povc &oX•tac •a[ 'ATpatwv•a[ 'AgCtX6XWV.Cf. Strabox 2.1 (450). 38. The supplement([... •a[ 'AT]patwv •a[ &oX6•wv) was first proposed in SA WW clxv.6 (1911 ) 15, and it has appeared in every subsequent text. Klaffenbach calls it a certum supplementurn and continues: 'colligitur

hancgertternetiamtumsui iurisfuisse'(IG ix2 1.1.xii). 39.

Thuc. iii 111.4; 114.2.

40.

They appear as part of Aetolia in the third-century treaty with

the Acarnanians;IG ix2 1.3, lines 8-10 = Schmitt, Staatsvertrageiii no. 480 (c. 263/2 B.C.).

41. Strabox 2.1 (450): 'ATpat•v Atr•Xt•oO •Ovovc;cf. x 2.5 (451); x 3.6 (465). 42. Polybius xviii 5.8 (cf. Livy xxxii 34.4). The difficulty arisesfrom the fact that the Amphilochians are also implied to be an Aetolian tribe. They certainly seem to have been under Aetolian control in Philip's reign

(IG ix• 1.186, line 16: cf. Polybius xxi 25.3); but their nationality was not Aetolian.

43.

[Dem.] 48.24-26; 7.32; cf. Schhferii 2 427.

44. F.W. Walbank, Historical commentary on Polybius ii 166. 45. This point has caused some embarrassment for conventional theories; cf. Lerat, Les Locriens de l'Ouest ii 54: 'l'expression de Strabon

suggdrerait une sorted'arbitrageplutgt qu'uneaction guerri•re'. 46. Strabo ii 5, 17 (121) = Dem. 9.26;x 1.3 (445) = Dem. 9.33. I owe these references to the erudition of an anonymous reader.

47. ½povp•oet• •v Na•d•r• o . . . •v•o• 5• Na•a•rov 'Axm&v Tv&P• ro• ½povpoO• abrO• &•rewe •dvra•. •oropei 6& 066•og•o• •v 66urdp•. ('Suda' Z 742 Adler) ½poupOoat •v Nau• r• o•,M•ou Nab•a• rov •Xdvroq'Axato[ro6c½poupobc &v•oCa•av •a[ Havoav[• rbv •pxovra rOc ½poopagbv•retvav, Oe6voyvo•. (Zenobius vi 33)

48. •[Xtvvoq •X&v Nabva•rov 'Axat&v roOq •povpoOq Cf. Schhfer ii• 559 n.2 (the emendationsare stated without argument). Jacoby followed suit and printed the wholly intelligible texts of the 'Suda' and Zenobius with obeli at the relevant points, appending Schhfer's emendations in the critical apparatus (FGrH 115 F 235). The result is that virtually all scholars who mention the capture of Naupactus cite Theopompus as evidence for its surrender to the Aetolians. It is hardly ever stated that the interpretation depends on emendation. Lerat is at least aware of the emenda-

tions but considersthem necessary--'puisqu'onsait que c'est au d•pens des Ach•ensque Philippe a prisNaupacte'(op. cit. ii 54 f.). He doesnot add that the knowledge in question is primarily derived from the emendations. 49. Greg. Cypr. iii 28 (Paroemiographi Graeci ii 89 Leutsch); Apostolius xvii 98.

50. The information is provided by the 'Suda' s.v. Z•v6•to• (Z 73 Adler). Zenobius' work was originally in three books and entitled an epitome of the proverbs of Didymus and Lucillus of Tarrhas. See further K. Rupprecht, RE

xviii

1753

fl.

51. For the Alexandrian tradition see K. Rupprecht, RE xviii 1742 fl.; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classicalscholarship (Oxford, 1968) 208 f.; 279 f. 52. FGrH ll5 F 38-41. Apart from an unexplained reference to Neon, the Messenian friend of Philip, these fragments deal with the Paeonian and Illyrian neighbours of Macedon.

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

179

53. The suggestion(•p (p)/3for •p/3) againgoesback to Schafer(ii2 559 n.2). Jacoby included the fragment in book lii of the Philippica; and the attribution is generally accepted. 54. Cf. Wt•st, Philipp II 164 n.4 (full bibliography). A minority of scholars place the capture in the aftermath of Chaeronea; e.g.W. Hohmann, Altolien und Aitoler 33 ff.; W.A. Oldfather, RE xii 1213 f.; xvi 1990. 55.

Cf. Diod.

56. 57.

Diod. xvi 30.4; 37.3. For the Athenian alliance with the Achaeans see Schafer ii 2

xvi 35.6.

485-88; W•ist, op. cit. 93; 119.

58. Aelian, VH vi 1; cf. Sch/ifer iii2 40 f.; Roebuck, CPh xliii (1948) 73 ff. 59. Polybius ii 40.5;41.9; cf. Larsen, Greek federal states 216. 60. Hypereides, c. Dem. col. 18. On this passagesee A. Aymard,

RI•A xxxix(1937) 5-28. 61. Paus. vii 6.5; vi 4.7. The excuse they gave for their neutrality, that they had not recovered from their losses at Chaeronea, has a specious ring. Those losseshad not prevented their taking an active role in Agis' War seven years before. 62. For their alliance with Sparta see Aeschines 3.165; Deinarchus 1.34; Curtius vi 1.20. Curtius' text is corrupt. It seemsclear that the Achaeans and Eleans were involved, but whether they or the Spartans were ordered to pay the 120 talents to Megalopolis is uncertain (Achas eteli codd.; variously emended to Achaeis et Eleis or Achaei et Elei).

63. Cf. Schhferii• 558 f.; Wrist 163-66; Lerat ii 53-54. Strabo may be wrong in saying that Amphissa was destroyed (ix 3.4 (419);4.8 (427); cf. Diod. xviii 38.2), but the ruling party was certainly exiled (Diod. xviii 56.5). The Locrians were in no position to launch an unauthorised attack on Naupactus. 64. Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 56. 65. For discussion see the detailed article by C. Roebuck, 'The settlements of Philip II in 338', CPh xliii (1948) 73-92 (partially reprinted in

S. Perlman, Philip and Athens (Cambridge, 1973)). 66. This was a regular criticism of the Aetolians by more sophisticated peoples: cf. Thuc. iii 94.5; Eur. Phoen. 138; Polybius xviii 5.8.

67. Schhferiii• 41-49; Roebuck,op. cit. 84-89. 68. Paus. vii 6.5, but see n.57 above. 69. Around 400 B.C. the Spartans wrested Naupactus from the possessionof Messeman exiles and restored the city to the Ozolian Locrians (Diod. xiv 34.2; cf. RE xvi 1989). In 367/6 Epaminondas 'liberated' the city, which was now in Achaean hands (Diod. xv 75.2). We are not told who received it from Epaminondas, but the Achaeans were back in possessionby

342/1 (Dem. 9.34). According to Ps.-Scylax (a work datable around 348) Naupactus was an Aetolian city ([Scyl.] 36). The statement has often been contested (e.g. Lerat, Les Locriens de l'Ouest ii 49 n.2); but the city changed hands so often in the course of the century that it is dangerous to reject explicit evidence. The Aetolians could have gained control temporarily somewhere around 350. They had entertained ambitions upon Naupactus for a century (cf. Thuc. iii 94.3; Xen. Hell. iv 6.14), and it would not be surprising if the circumstances occasionally favoured them.

70. Pausaniasis a well attested Aetolian name (SIG a 424 n.D). 71. Compare their servicesfor Agesilausin 389: Xen. Hell. iv 6.3-14.

180

A.B.

72.

BOSWORTH

Art. i 9.9. Diodorus (xvii

14.1) says that the decision was

entrustedto a councilof allies,which somehavetaken to meanthe delegate• from the ovvd6ptovof the Leagueof Corinth (U. Wilcken, $itzungsberichted. Preuss, Akad. d. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. 1922, 103 f. = Akademieschriften (Leipzig, 1970) i 132 f.; so J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch Alexander 30 f.; F.

Schachermeyr,Alexander der Grosse 2 117). But, given the speed of Alexander's march on Thebes (cf. Art. i 7.5), it was hardly possible for regular delegates of the League to have assembled in camp. What is more, Diodorus is notoriously prone to describe any gathering of Greeks as a

•ow6• ov•6p•o• (cf. xi 55.5; xv 38.3), and he might haveusedthe term to describe an ad hoc gathering of allies. 73. Plut. A/. 11.11; cf. Polybius xxxviii 2.13;iv 23.8.

74. $IG • 380. For the date seeChr. Habicht,Gottmenschentum und griechische $ti•dte• (Zetemataxiv; Munich, 1970) 40. 75. According to Pausanias vi 16.2, the Aetolians voted an honorary statue at Olympia to Timon of Elis because he had commanded their garrison at Naupactus during an expedition to Thessaly. The incident is not

dated, and there have been various suggestions (cf. Klaffenbach,IG ix• 1.1.xlviii; RE via 1297). It is worth noting, however, that during the Thessalian expedition of 321 the Aetolians used their entire levy and left their country vulnerable (Diod. xviii 38.1; 4). Under those circumstances the Aetolians might have welcomed an offer by a distinguished foreigner to supervise their newly acquired territory. In that caseTimon might possibly be identified with the father of Dameas, an Elean victor at the Lycaea of 320/19

($IG a 314 A). 76.

Justin ix 5.1.

77. Diodorus (xvi 89.1) dates the foundation meeting of the Corinthian League to the archonship of Phrynichus (337/6). It presumably took place in the summer of 337, some time before the expeditionary force under Parmenion and Attalus was sent to Asia, in summer 336. I cannot see any evidence for the much quoted date of winter 338/7. 78. Compare Theopompus, FGrH 115 F 246 (derived from

Harpocration). The principal manuscriptreads • reported--•v • (G) •v/3 (C).

v•, but there are variants

79. Diod. xvii 17.5. Antipater also had the recurrent task of feeding reinforcements to the fighting in Asia; and those reinforcements reached formidable numbers. The figures preserved in the extant sourcessuggestthat more than 8,000 Macedonian infantry had been taken from Macedonia before the end of 333; and in 331 the recruiting activities of Amyntas son of Andromenes raised an additional 6,000 (see, most recently, A.B. Bosworth, Phoenix xxix (1975) 35 f.; 42 f.). The result was that the outbreak of war in the Peloponnese found Antipater in serious difficulties (cf. Aeschin. 3.165). Given the circumstances, the Aetolians need have had little fear of reprisals from

Macedon.

80.

Diod. xviii 8.6; Plut. Al. 49.15.

81. Diodorus (loc. cit.) speaks of the occupation as a thing of the past. At the time of the Exiles Decree the Aetolians were in possession,

rot)q Oivt&3aq &•3e•3Ml•6req.The actual seizurecould have occurredseveral yearspreviously.Klaffenbach(IG ix• 1.1.xii) datesit around330. 82.

Tod, GHIiino.

177.5-10;[Dem.]

17.16.

EARLY

RELATIONS

BETWEEN

AETOLIA

AND

MACEDON

181

83. [Dem.] 17.8' d7rtrcirret•/ ovvOt}• e•Ot)½• &PX,••XevOdpov½

e•ctt•:ctlctf)ro•6t.tov½ rot)½"EXX•a½.For the sanctions clause seeTodno. 177.17 fl.; [Dem.] 17.6. 84. For the sources see Berve, Das Alexanderreich ii 17-19, no. 37. 85. On this incident see E. Badian, JHS lxxxi (1961) 36 f.; G.T. Griffith, PACA viii (1965) 12 fl. (sceptical); A.B. Bosworth, CQ xxi (1971)

125 f.; F. Schachermeyr,Alexander der Grosse •' 516-19. 86. Plut. Al. 49.14-15. The episode is loosely tacked onto the story of the murder of Parmenion, which occurred in late 330. The connexion,

however, is logical, not chronological (Badian, JHS lxxxi (1961) 37 n.159; J.R. Hamilton, Plutarch Alexander 138 f.). Plutarch mentions the insecurity Antipater felt as a result of Parmenion's death and gives its most striking instance. The reference to Alexander's threat of punishment is conclusive; that threat can hardly have been issued before his return to the west in 325/4. 87.

Diod.

xix 52.6.

88. E.g. Diod. xviii 8.6' 7rpooef6•co• ri•v drr[ ro•½7rapavola•laaotv &ra• oXovOo6oar • 6Xam•.

89. Diod. xvii 111.3; cf. Badian, JHS lxxxi (1961) 38. 90. Diod. xviii 9.4-5. A brief fragment of the Athenian decree of alliance survives;IG ii •' 370; cf. F.W. Mitchel, Phoenix xviii (1964) 13-17; L. Moretti, Iscrizionistoriche ellenistiche (Florence, 1967)no. 1.

91. Diod. xviii 10.2; Hypereides,Epitaphios 17; 40; cf. SIGa 317.10

ff. 92.

Diod.

93.

Justin xxviii 2.12. The whole episode of the Roman embassy was

xviii 25.4.

dismissedas unhistorical by M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grace et les monarchies

hell•nistiques(Paris, 1921) 5 ff. (see, however,F. Cfissola, I gruppipolitici romani nel III secolo a.C. (Trieste, 1962) 48 f.). That does not affect the historicity of the flashbacks in the Aetolian speech, and Klaffenbach at least

thoughtthat thereis sometruth in Justin'sstatement(IG ix•' 1.1.xii). 94. I am very grateful to Professor E. Badian for detailed and most helpful criticism of the first draft of this article.

THE DATEOF THE STRATOOF SIDONDECREE(IG 112141) There has been considerabledebate about the proper date for the Strato of

Sidon Decree (IG II 2 141=M. N. Tod, A Selectionof Greek Historical Inscriptions(Oxford, 1948) II.139) sinceits prescriptis not preserved. In an article publishedposthumously,R. P. Austin arguedthat it shouldbe dated ca. 360 and considered evidence for the involvement

of Athens in the Great

Satraps'Revolt) Tod favoreda date around367 in his commentaryon the inscription, becauseof its referenceto an embassyto the King of Persia, which he thoughtshouldbe dated 368/7. A. C. Johnsonsuggested it should be dated 378/7 on the basisof the formula usedfor specifyingwho should pay for the stele(lines 15-18).2 I shallcontendthat thoughthe epigraphical evidence in the inscriptionfails to provide groundsfor an exact date, the decree would best be dated in the year 364, sincethat year offers the most likely historical context. Arnold Schaefersuggestedthat the reference(lines 2-3) to an embassy to the King should be identified with the embassyknown from

Xenophon'sHellenika(7.1.33-38) in the winter andspringof 368/7. Judeich and Tod concurredin Schaefer'ssuggestion. 3 This may seemplausibleuntil one considersthe outcome of that embassy.The Atheniansare not likely to have been grateful to Strato for aidingthat embassy, 4 sinceit resultedin a Theban diplomatic victory, a resolutioncallingfor Athens to withdraw her shipsfrom the sea,and the disgraceof one of the two principalAthenian ambassadors. 5 This causedconsiderable angerin Athensand led to rejection of the proposedpeace(seeN. 19) and eventually,authorizationof Timotheos' expeditionagainstPersia(seeN. 20). Even thoughStrato could not be held responsiblefor this diplomaticdisaster,it seemsunlikely that he would be honored with such a conspicuouslyunusualdecree.(This is the first known decreeto call for the exchangeof diplomaticsymbolaand the rider provides for unusual blanket tax exemptions for Sidonian merchants residingat Athens.) Moreover,all other Attic decreeshonoringindividualsin the fourth century (down to 340 B.C.) indicate that Athensgainedsomeadvantageasa result of the actions of the personhonored? Furthermore,there was no particular reasonwhy Strato would have wishedto negotiateconfidentially with Athens(see lines 19-25) as early as 368/7. The rebelliousatmosphere which existedin the secondhalf of the decadeof the 360s wasjust beginning to build. Ariobarzanes,the Persiansatrapof HellespontinePhrygia,had not

yet revoltedagainstthe King.8 Whetheror not this argumentis sufficientto prove Athens could not have honored Strato in 368/7, it doesoffer reasonable groundsfor questioningthe standarddate and for investigating further. As Austin noted (op. cit. (N. 1) 99), the decreeprobablyshouldbe

associated with the Great Satraps'Revolt of 362/1. But his suggestion that the decree should be dated 360 is unacceptablefor severalinterrelated reasons.First, no embassyfrom Athensto the King in that year is definitely attested,and it is unlikely that there was one. In general,the Greekswere 182

STRATO

OF SIDON

DECREE

183

tryingto spurnPersianinterventionafter the Peaceof 362 (seeIG IV 556=Tod II 145 and Diod. 15.89.1-2, 94.1). Secondly,we know of no specificreason why Athens would send an embassyto the King in 360. Even if there had been an embassy,one wondershow Strato could havebeen of any serviceto the Athenians in that year since he himself was in open revolt againstthe

King? Finally,asthe inscriptionsettingforth the reply of the Greekstatesto the envoy from the satraps(IG IV 556=Tod II 145) indicates,Athens' attitude towardsthe Persianrebelshad changedby 362/1. Shewasno longer willing to risk open war with the King, so this decreeshouldnot be considered

evidencefor Athenianinvolvement in the Satraps'Revolt? The best argumentAustin had for the date 360 was the epigraphical formula deka h•merOn(lines 14-15). He found that it occurredin several decrees dated from 355/4 to 349/8 and therefore consideredthe latest possibledate for the decree under considerationthe most acceptableone.

(Strato ruled ca. 376-360. SeeAustin,op. cit. (N. 1) 98.) ThoughI havebeen unable to find an earlier example of this provision,its appearancethree to four yearsearlier than his suggested date doesnot seemmuch lessprobable, sincethis decreemust in any casebe dated at leastfive yearsearlierthan the earliest dated decree with this formula. In addition, the epigraphicalsimilarity to the proxeny decreeof 368/7, honoringKoroibos of Sparta, and otherdecrees in the 360smaycounterbalance Austin'sdecrees of the 350s.TM A. C. Johnson'sargumentthat the formula tous tamiastSi grammatei t•s boul•s(lines 16-17) suggests 378/7 is not compelling. He proposes that

duringthe periodca. 384-377, the Athenianofficialsin charge of payingfor inscriptions were the treasurers of Athena. 12 However,our decreemerely mentionstreasurers anddoesnot specifywhetherthey arethoseof Athenaor thoseof the demos(the boardin chargeof that functionin the period377303, according to Johnson). Wearenot certainaboutthedateof accession of Strato,sothe year378/7 cannotbe strictlyruledout, but it is not particularly likely, considering Austin'sargumentaboutthe formuladekah•merOn.One mightarguethat the ten talent fund mentionedin line 18 suggests a connection with the Decreeof Aristoteles (IG II 2 43=Tod II 123,lines66-69), but Tod's explanationthat the 'ten talentfund' wasprobablya specialfund set asidefrom the generaltreasuryfor suchpurposes aspublishing decrees is the

bestsuggestion, giventhe currentstateof our knowledge. •a Therefore the fund need not be consideredas a specialone associatedsolelywith the Second Athenian Confederacy.h•deed, Persian subjectswere expressly excludedfromthe confederacy (IG II • 43=TodII 123,lines17-18). On the basisof epigraphical letter forms,onewouldhaveto agreewith Austin that the decreecouldbe dated at any time within Strato'sreign(ca376-360).TMThe wordingof the decreeis, on the whole,singular; but there

are parallelsto clauses in otherinscriptions datedfrom368/7 to 361/0, so that there is no accurateway to date it by epigraphicalformulae. For instance,the formulaprescribing the inscriptionof the decreeand payment

for the steleis paralleled by sevenotherinscriptions listedin IG• for the period

184

ROBERT

A. MOYSEY

While Austin'sdate for the decreeis probablywrong,his belief that the decreeoffersimportantevidencefor Athenianforeignpolicyin the later 360s is correct. Austin tried to link this inscriptionwith the fragment of a decree honoringenvoysfrom Tachosof Egypt (IG II 2 119) and a gold coinin the BritishMuseum,suggesting Athenswas at least unofficiallyaidingthe revolt. Austin'sdate for the Tachosinscription(360 B.C.)is incorrectand therefore cannot be usedasevidenceto help date the Strato Decreein 360, but he may have been correct in associatingthe two decrees,in that they may both be dated to 364 and suggestpossibleAthenian cooperationwith other states hostileto Persia. •6 The goldcoinwith an Athenianowl andthe lettersTAO on one sideand the head of Athena on the other(seeCAH platesII 5h) was probably minted by Tachosof Egypt, but neednot be consideredasevidence for involvementon the part of the Athenianstate.RonaldStroud(Hesperia 43 (1974) 169-171) has recentlypointedout that suchcoinswereneither uncommon, nor limited to the reign of Tachos. Having rejected the dates suggestedby earlier scholars,I must now justify my suggestionthat the Strato of Sidondecreeshouldbe dated in 364.

Since the openinglinesprobablystatedthat Strato had helpedan Athenian embassyon its way to the King•7 and sincethere is goodreasonto doubt that the Athenianswould have been grateful to Strato for the outcomeof the embassyin 367, we must look for another possibleembassy.An alternative may be the year 364, when Athens may well havesentanotherembassy to Susato negotiatewith the King concerninghis demandthat shewithdraw her fleet from the seaand thusgiveup claim to her maritimeempire.•8 This demandwas part of the Theban-proposed CommonPeaceof 367 which was rejectedby the Greeks.•9 After the embassyin 367, Timotheoshad won an impressivevictory at Samos in 365 and Athens was waging a vigorous campaignto regainlost territory? Therefore this would havebeen a very appropriatepoint for the Atheniansto senda secondembassyto Susa,since they were in a strongerposition and the King in a weakerone than in 368/7. Demosthenes (7.29; 9.16; 19.137, 253) reportsthat Athens' right to Amphipoliswas recognizedby the King sometime after 367. Sincethe King played no part in the Peaceof 362, this recognitioncould not havetaken placein that year, as Olinstead(op. cit. (N. 8) 417) suggested. T.T.B. Ryder (Koine Eirene (Oxford, 1965) 81) suggested that the King came to this decisionafter Thebesfailed to force the Greeksto acceptthe Peaceof 367. We know, however,that Thebeslauncheda 100-shipfleet in 364/3 (Diod. 15.78.4-79.1). It is quite likely that its constructionwas financed by Persia. • ThereforePersiaprobablycontinuedto givefull supportto Thebes until ca. 364. Furthermore, Athens was still hostile to Persia until at least

364, asis indicatedby Timotheos'campaigns. By 364, however,it must have been clear to the King that he wasin a dangerousposition,with Datamesand Ariobarzanesin openrevolt• and other western satrapsplanning to join. Egypt remainedhostile and was planningto aid the satraps.Sparta had openly aided Ariobarzanes TMand Athenshad givenindirectaid24 in retaliationfor Persia'ssupportof Thebes.

STRATO

OF

SIDON

DECREE

185

Therefore the King reversedhis stand againstAthens and eliminated one potential enemy by recognizingher right to Amphipolis.This recognition would most logicallyhave comeabout duringa secondembassyto Susa,

beforeTimotheos'campaignat Amphipolisin 364/3 (Diod. 15.81.6,Dem. 23.149-150, Schol.Aesch.2.31, Polyainos3.10.7-8). A geographical argumentmight be addedin supportof the 364 date. The Athenian embassymay have gone up to Susavia Sidon, rather than along the usual route through Asia Minor, becauseof Ariobarzanes'revolt. During the embassyin 367 there is no particularreasonwhy the Athenian envoysshouldhave avoidedAsia Minor and taken the longerroute via Sidon. This argumentmay not be valid if the aid renderedby Strato took place outsideof Sidon, but the decree(lines 1-3) saysStrato saw to it that the Athenianembassywas conveyedto the King hOskallista.Thereforeit seems most likely that Strato'said took the form of seeingthat the envoysgot from Sidonto Susaas expeditiouslyas possibledespitethe internalturmoil in the PersianEmpire in 364. One might wonder why Strato shouldwant to aid Athens during this embassyin 364. If he was aware, ashe must havebeen,that generalrevolt was brewingin Asia Minor, he may well havebeeninclinedto help Athens,which wasstill an importanttradingand navalpowerandby no meanson friendly termswith the King. Strato himselfhad not yet openlyjoined the revolt,but may well havehad secretplansto do so (sincehe did join it in 362/1: see N. 9) and would thereforehaveliked to haveAthenianaid. Furthermore,he may have offered aid to Athens in her forthcoming naval war with Epaminondas'fleet. Hence, we find the provisionfor symbola('sealsfor diplomaticcorrespondence,' (lines 19-25); cf. Tod'scommentary,p. 118) so that the two statescould exchangeimportant future communications with confidencein their authenticity and secrecy.Since,however, Strato had not yet openly joined the revolt, he was still in a position to give aid to the Athenian ambassadorson their way to Susa.

The argumentfor 364 as the proper date for this decreeis also reasonablein the light of Athenianmotivesand interests.In that year Athens was actively seeking to regain lost territory around the Aegean and was particularly hostile towards the King becauseof his support for Thebes. Persiahad probably financedthe rival Theban fleet, and therefore Athens soughtsupportfrom Sidon,whosefleet made up a largepart of the Persian navy. Furthermore,if Thebessucceededin cuttingoff Athens'grain supply from the Black Sea, Athens would need the alternative sourceswhich Sidon's

merchants mighthelpto supply. 25 The Athenianswere probablyalsonegotiatingwith Tachosof Egypt at the sametime (seeN. 16) and thereforemay well havebeenwaginga general diplomatic'war' againstthe King. Sucha 'war' would certainlyfit well into

the periodbetweenAthens'greatrebuffin 367 andthe battleof Mantineain 362. Finally, four yearsearlier Athens had bestowedhonorssimilarto those

nowgrantedto StratouponDionysiosof Syracuse andhissonsfor supportof Athensand her allies? This seta precedentfor suchhonorarydecrees.

186

ROBERT

The Strato

of Sidon Decree

A. MOYSEY

should not be considered evidence for

Athenian involvementin the Great Satraps'Revolt. If the date I have suggestedis correct, it seemsmore reasonableto seein this decreeevidenceof Athens' earlier inclination to aid the rebels while at the sametime, and more

importantly, making substantialgainsin her own interest.After the battle of Mantinea in the summerof 362, Athens was worn out militarily and financially. She was besetby variousother problems(Alexanderof Pherae,Kotys of Thrace, and Thebes).Finally, the Kinghad at leastpartiallywithdrawnhis support of Thebesand may have recognizedAthens' right to Amphipolis. For those reasonsshe refused to become involved in a war with Persia, as we

learnin thereplyto theenvoyfromthesatraps (IG IV 556=Tod11145). 27 Robert A. Moysey

Princeton University NOTES

1. R. P. Austin, 'Athens and the satraps' revolt', JHS 64 (1944) 98-100; cf. Fiehn, RE 4A (1931) 273.41. 2. A. C. Johnson, 'Notes on Attic inscriptions', CP 9 (1914) 417423.

3. Walther Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien (Marburg, 1892) 198; Arnold Schaefer, Demosthenes und seine Zeit, second edition (Leipzig, 1885) I 94f; M. N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions (Oxford, 1948) II 139 (hereafter 'Tod'). 4. David Stockton (Hist. 8 (1959) 78), A. Andrewes (Hist. 10 (1961) 3, n. 6) and Meiggsand Lewis (Greek historical inscriptions 203) all seem to

have similar doubtsthat Athens could havehonored Herakleides(IG II 2 8) or anyone else for helping the Athenian embassy which concluded the King's Peace of 386. The outcome of the embassy to Susain 368/7 must have been almost equally abhorrent to the Athenians. 5. Xenophon's (Hell. 7.1.33-38) is the only ancient account of the embassy from the Greeks to Persia in 367, although it is alluded to by Diod. 15.81.3

and Plut. Pel. 30.

6. Cf. Tod II 108 (=SIG• 128), 109 (=IG II 2 20), 116 (=IG II 2 29), 117 (=IG II 2 31), 133 (=IG II 2 103), 135 (=IG II 2 106), 143 (=IG II 2 110), 167 (=IG II 2 212), 170 (=SIG• 263), 173 (=IG II 2 226). 7. No other Attic decree known to us makes provision for symbola in diplomatic exchanges.Athens seemsto be making a specialeffort to insure the authenticity of such exchanges (perhaps at Strato's request). Even if symbola in line 19 does not suggest'secret' negotiations, it certainly suggests future diplomatic relations between Athens and Strato, a Persian vassal, and probably more significant exchangesthan had taken place previously. Athens was clearly no favorite with the King in the 360s, therefore any negotiations between one of his subjects and Athens may reasonably be considered to sug-

gestat least potential disloyalty on the part of the subject(seepp. 184-185). 8. Diod. 15.90.3; Nepos Dat. 2.5, Tim. 1.2, 3; Pompeius Trogus, Prologue to Book 10; Dem. 15.9; Isok. 15.11 lff; A. T. Olmstead,History of the Persian empire (Chicago, 1948) 413 and Judeich (above, N. 3) 196-199. 9. Hieronymus (St. Jerome)adversus Jovinianum 1.45 (=J.-P. Migne, œatrologia Latina (Paris, 1865) XXIII col. 287) reports Strato had worked with Tachos of Egypt (cf. Diod. 15.90.3)in violation of his

STRATO

OF

SIDON

DECREE

187

foedus with the Persians. Xenophon (Ages. 230) reports Tachos first fled to Strato when the revolt failed and he was deposed in 360. Cf. G. L. Cawkwell, 'Demosthenes' policy after the peace of Philocrates I', CQ N.S. 13 (1963) 138. 10. Athens and the other signatories of the Common Peace of 362 were exhausted following the battle of Mantinea. They had made peace without Persian intervention and, whatever their differences, had agreed to resist Persianmanipulation of Greek affairs (cf. Diod. 15.89.1-2, 94.1). 11. Compare the formulae describing the reason for granting an honorary decree in the Strato Decree (lines 5-12)with those used in IG

II 2 106=Tod II 135, lines 11-15 (dated 367);IG II 2 109,1ines24-29(dated 363/2);IG II 2 117, lines 12-19 (dated 361/0) and thoseformulaeusedto prescribe how the decree was to be inscribed and the cost paid in the Strato

Decree (lines 13-18) with thoseinlG II 2 106=TodlI 135, lines 15-19 (dated 367); andlG II 2 110,1ines 10-14 (dated 362). 12. Johnson (above, N. 2)421. 13. Tod II, p. 118. Olmstead (above, N. 8) 411 suggeststhat the ten talents was a gift from Strato to Athens at this time (he dates the decree in 367), but this cannot be proved. Other decrees of the mid-fourth century specify that the cost of the inscription is to be paid from a fund set aside for

suchpurposes.See especiallyIG II •' 106=Tod II 135, an honorary decreefor Koroibos of Sparta dated 367 which specifies (lines 15-19) that the 20

drachma costof the inscriptionwasto be paid by the [ra]lai[a] g rob 8•laOV... [• for •C rd t