Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2-322/1 BC) 2 Volumes 1108612423, 9781108612425

Citation preview

Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2–322/1 bc)

Decree-making is a deining aspect of ancient Greek political activity: it was the means by which city-state communities went about deciding to get things done. his two-volume work provides a new view of the decree as an institution within the framework of fourth-century Athenian democratic political activity. Volume 1 consists of a comprehensive account of the literary evidence for decrees of the fourth-century Athenian assembly. Volume 2 analyses how decrees and decree-making, by ofering both an authoritative source for the narrative of the history of the Athenian demos and a legitimate route for political self-promotion, came to play an important role in shaping Athenian democratic politics. Peter Liddel assesses ideas about, and the reality of, the dissemination of knowledge of decrees among both Athenians and nonAthenians, and explains how they became signiicant to the wider image and legacy of the Athenians. Peter Liddel  is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Manchester. He has published extensively on Greek political history, notably Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens (2007), as well as on Greek history, historiography and epigraphy. He is co-editor of the Annual of the British School at Athens, and serves as co-editor of Brill’s New Jacoby and as associate editor of Polis. He is a founding member of the Editorial Board of the Attic Inscriptions Online project (www.atticinscriptions.com/) and is also Co-Investigator in a project to digitally publish Attic inscriptions in UK collections (AIUK).

Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2–322/1 bc) Volume 1 he Literary Evidence

PEtEr LIDDEL

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107184985 doi: 10.1017/9781316882726 © Peter Liddel 2020 his publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by tJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data names: Liddel, Peter P. (Peter Philip), 1977– author. title: Decrees of fourth-century Athens (403/2-322/1 bc) : political and cultural perspectives / Peter Liddel. description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, ny : Cambridge University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. identifiers: lccn 2018043697 | isbn 9781107185074 subjects: LCSH: Legislation – Greece – Athens – History – to 1500. | Democracy – Greece – Athens – History – to 1500. | Constitutional history – Greece – Athens – to 146 B.C. | Athens (Greece) – Politics and government classification: lcc KL4361.32.A75 L53 2019 | ddc 340.5/385–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018043697 isbn 978-1-107-18498-5 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of UrLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

page vi viii x

Acknowledgements Text Editions List of Conventions and Abbreviations Introduction

1

Inventory A Checklist

17

table 1 Comparison between the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence for Period 1 (403/2– 353/2) and Period 2 (352/1–322/1)

36

Checklist by Genre-type

39

Introduction Bibliography

45

Inventory A1 403/2–353/2

47

Inventory A2 352/1–322/1

397

Inventory B Checklist

832

Inventory B1 testimonia that can be identiied as Probable Decrees (DP)

837

Inventory B2 Other Possible Decrees

952

Inventory B Bibliography

961

Appendix 1 Decrees of the Athenian boule Appendix 2 Honoriic Decrees attested in the Literary Sources

966 972

Index locorum Pertaining to Decree Testimonia Index of Proposers of Literary Decrees Index of Honorands attested in the Literary Sources General Index

977 984 987 988

v

Acknowledgements

Since embarking upon this project in the spring of 2005, I have amassed debts to those who have helped me in the research for, and the completion of, these two volumes. I would like to thank J.K. Davies and M.H. Hansen for discussing with me issues relating to documents and decrees (when this project was at an early stage) and A.P. Matthaiou for his very thoughtful responses to my questions about inscribed Athenian decrees of the period before 352/1. I am grateful to Edward Harris and Mirko Canevaro for stimulating conversations about documents, democracy and other subjects about which I have learned a huge amount from their work. I am grateful to Shane O’rourke for bibliographical advice on the workings (and non-workings) of Cossack assemblies, and to my friends and colleagues terry Abbott, Ashley Clements, Jason Crowley, Stephen Fitzsimons, Deborah Kamen, Nikolaos Papazarkadas and Claire taylor for their help on subjects relevant to this book. Over the past decade I have taken pleasure in talking about the subject of Athenian decrees at seminars in Cardif, Durham, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester, Oxford and tübingen: I would like to acknowledge the patience and endurance of those audiences as well as their thought-provoking interventions. My wife Christy Constantakopoulou was a fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC in early 2015 and I was lucky both to be able to use the library resources for the duration of our stay and to have the opportunity to discuss this project with the other fellows (especially Madalina Dana, Sebastiana Nervegna, Zacharoula Petraki and Maria Xanthou). I owe special thanks to David Carter and Stephen todd for reading parts of volume 2 and for the thought-provoking and constructive comments they ofered. Stephen Lambert has constantly assisted me by sharing his work, and kindly read and commented on parts of volume 2: everyone who uses these volumes will quickly realise how much they owe to his ground-breaking research on the inscribed decrees of fourth-century Athens. Over the period of the fourteen years I worked with Polly Low at the University of Manchester, she was a brilliant and supportive colleague, collaborator and co-teacher; she too read and commented with insight on sections of volume 2. I owe thanks also to my other colleagues at Manchester for allowing me a reduced teaching load during semester 2 of academic year 2017–2018, which enabled me to complete this publication. I am hugely indebted to Alex Wilding, an expert in all things to do with the Amphiareion at Oropos, for her input into this project: vi

acknowledgements

vii

she read and commented on both volumes with great care. he attentive and critical Cambridge University Press reviewers saved me from many mistakes and misconceptions, and the diligent reading of P.J. rhodes played a crucial role in alerting me to complications I had overlooked and in the inalising of the typescript. his publication would not have been possible without my family: my mother and brother have been a constant source of assistance and companionship; my wider family, too (I am thinking of Andrew Asibong, Saavan Gatield, rob Anderson, Chris Whitield, the Haigs and the Constantakopouloi and Avgerodimoi of Vrilissia) have been constantly distracting and kind. Finally, my biggest thanks must go to Christy, heo and John who have been loving and forgiving to me even when I made things more diicult than they should have been: it is to you and your inspiration that I dedicate this work.

text Editions

Unless otherwise stated, testimonia for decrees collected in the Inventory draw upon the following editions: Aelian: Claudii Aeliani de natura animalium libri xvii, varia historia, epistolae, fragmenta, vol. 2, ed. r. Hercher. Leipzig (1866). Aeschines: Orationes, ed. M. Dilts. Stuttgart and Leipzig (1997). Antiphontis et Andocidis Orationes, eds. M. Dilts and D. Murphy. Oxford (2018). Anonymi de Comoedia, ed. G. Kaibel, Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 1.1. Berlin (1899) 6–10. Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 21.2], ed. H. rabe. Berlin (1896). Apsines: Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire: Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric, attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara, eds. M.r. Dilts and G.A. Kennedy. Leiden and Boston (1997). Aristotelis ars rhetorica, ed. W.D. ross. Oxford (1959). Aristotelis Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία, ed. H. Oppermann. Leipzig (1928). Aristophanes. Ecclesiazusae, ed. r.G. Ussher. Oxford (1973). Athenaei Naucratitae deipnosophistarum libri xv, ed. G. Kaibel, 3 vols. Leipzig (1887–90). Cornelii Nepotis vitae cum fragmentis, ed. P.K. Marshall. Leipzig (1977). Demosthenis Orationes, ed. M.r. Dilts. Oxford (2002–9).1 Didymos: On Demosthenes, ed. P.A. Harding. Oxford (2006). Dinarchi orationes cum fragmentis, ed. N. Conomis. Leipzig (1975). Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, ed. J. von Arnim, 2 vols. Berlin (1893–6). Diodori bibliotheca historica, ed. K.t. Fischer (post I. Bekker and L. Dindorf) and F. Vogel, 5 vols. Leipzig (1888–1906). Diogenes Laertius vitae philosophorum, ed. M. Marcovich, vol. 1. Stuttgart and Leipzig (1999). Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, eds. H. Usener and L. radermacher, vols. V and VI: Opuscula I and II. Leipzig (1899). 1 For the text of the Hypotheseis to Demosthenic speeches, I have used the texts in Demosthenes. Orationes, ed. C. Fuhr and I. Sykutris. Leipzig (1914–37).

viii

text editions

ix

Harpocrationis lexicon in decem oratores Atticos, ed. W. Dindorf. Oxford (1853). Hyperidis orationes sex, ed. C. Jensen. Leipzig (1917). Isée. Discours, ed. P. roussel, 2nd ed. Paris (1960). Isocrate. Discours, eds. É. Brémond and G. Mathieu, 4 vols. Paris (1929). Libanii opera, ed. r. Foerster, 11 vols. Leipzig (1903–22). Lycurgus Oratio in Leocratem cum ceterarum Lycurgi orationum fragmentis, ed. N.C. Conomis. Leipzig (1970). Lysiae orationes cum fragmentis ed. C. Carey. Oxford (2007). Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, ed. V. Bartoletti. Leipzig (1959). Photii Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker, vol. 1. Berlin (1824). Plutarchi moralia, ed. J. Mau, vol. 5.2.1. Leipzig (1971) 1–49. Pollucis onomasticon, ed. E. Bethe, 2 vols. [Lexicographi Graeci 9.1–9.2]. Leipzig (1900–31). Rhetores Latini minores, ed. C. Halm. Leipzig (1863). Scholia in Aeschinem, ed. M.r Dilts. Stuttgart and Leipzig (1992). Scholia Demosthenica, ed. M. r. Dilts, 2 vols. Leipzig (1983–6). Scholia in Aelium Aristidem. See Anonymi et Stephani in artem rhetoricam commentaria, ed. H. rabe [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 21.2]. Berlin (1896). Scholia in Aelium Aristidem, ed. W. Dindorf, Aristides, vol. 3. Leipzig (1829) 1–734. Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem, ed. F. Dübner. Paris (1877). Suidae lexicon, ed. A. Adler, 4 vols. Leipzig (1928–35). Xenophontis opera omnia. ed. E.C. Marchant, vol. 1. Oxford (1900). Zenobius: Epitome collectionum Lucilli Tarrhaei et Didymi, eds. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin, Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum, vol. 1. Göttingen (1839) 1–175.

Conventions and Abbreviations

Translations and Transliterations translations are my own, unless otherwise attributed. I have used Latinised versions only of the most familiar Greek names (e.g. place-names such as Athens, Corinth, and those of canonical authors, e.g. hucydides, Aeschines, Dinarchus).

Abbreviations Abbreviations of ancient authors and works follow those employed by H.G. Liddell and r. Scott, Greek–English Lexicon, 9th ed. Oxford (1940), save for a few self-explanatory exceptions: [Arist.] Ath. Pol.: [Aristotle], A History of the Athenian Constitution [Plu.] X Or.: [Plutarch], Lives of the Ten Orators (= Moralia 832b–852e) Xen. Hell.: Xenophon, A History of Greece Xen. Poroi: Xenophon, Ways and Means Abbreviations of standard works conform to the list in the AJA website (available at www.ajaonline.org/submissions/abbreviations). Journal abbreviations follows those recommended by the Archaeological Institute of America: see the AJA website (www.ajaonline.org/submissions/ journals-series). Abbreviations of epigraphical publications follow those listed at the CLArOS website (www.dge.ilol.csic.es/claros/cnc/2cnc3.htm).

Other Abbreviations Agora: he Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Princeton (1951–). AIO: Attic Inscriptions Online (www.atticinscriptions.com/). AIUK: Attic Inscriptions in UK Collections (www.atticinscriptions.com/papers/ aiuk/). AO: r. Develin, Athenian Oicials, 684–321 BC. Cambridge (1989). APF: J.K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971). CEG: P.A. Hansen, Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, 2 vols. Berlin (1983–9). x

list of conventions and abbreviations

xi

HCT: A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K.J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on hucydides, 5 vols. Oxford (1945–81). FGrH: F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin and Leiden (1923–). LGPN: M.J. Osborne and S.G. Byrne, A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names: Volume II. Attica. Oxford (1994). ML: r. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fith Century BC. 2nd ed. Oxford (1988). Or: r. Osborne and P. J. rhodes, Greek Historical Inscriptions 478–404 BC. Oxford (2017). Osborne, Naturalization: M.J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. In 3. Brussels (1981–3). PA: J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. Berlin (1901–3). PAA: J.S. traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, 21 vols. toronto (1994–2012). RE: A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, Real-Encyclopaedie der klassischen Altertumswissenschat. Berlin (1893–1980). rO: P.J. rhodes and r. J. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford (2003). SVA: H. Bengtson and H.H.Schmitt, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, vols. 2–3. Munich (1969–75).

Introduction 1  Scope and Challenges This volume presents the core material  – in the form of an Inventory of fourth-century Athenian decrees attested in the literary texts  – of this two-­ volume study of Athenian decrees. Such an assemblage of material marks a new contribution for three reasons: the testimonia pertaining to such decrees have never previously been brought together in such a format as they are in Volume 1; they have never been previously been subject to systematic historical analysis on a case-by-case basis as they are in Volume 1; they have never been assessed for the perspectives they offer into the significance of the decree as an institution in fourth-century Athenian politics and its legacy (the subject of Volume 2). In this Introduction to Volume 1, I set out the basic premises of this study of decrees of the fourth-century Athenian assembly (ecclesia) that are preserved in ancient literature. Decree-making is a defining aspect of ancient Greek political activity: it was the means by which city-state communities went about deciding to get things done. Between the late sixth century BC and the third century AD, the institutions of Greek political and religious associations, both democratic and non-democratic, enacted political transactions known as psephismata (literally, ‘things voted by ballot’, but generally translated as ‘decrees’). In fourth-century Athens, they concerned a broad area of administration and decisions, including the bestowal of honorific awards (including crowns, statues, proxeny-status and citizenship), alliances, declarations of war, mobilisation of military forces and religious and administrative regulations; they were a tool central to the demos’ organisation of citizens’ performance of duties and to the initiation of judicial and legislative processes. Many Greek communities inscribed their decrees on marble slabs and set them up in locations with religious and civic importance; some states even stored records of their decrees in archives.1

1 This discussion of the nature of decrees in the Greek world and Athens is expanded in the Introduction to Volume 2.

1

2

introduction

An important premise of this two-volume work is the view that, in order to understand the social and political significance of the decree to fourth-century Athenian political life, it is necessary to study not only their publication on stone inscriptions, of which there is a rich scholarly tradition,2 but also the representations of them and reactions to them that appear in ancient literary texts. Literary texts, and in particular those which were produced by contemporaries who drew upon decrees in the formulation of arguments and narratives, offer views of the content of decrees, insight into the identity of their audiences, and the ways in which they were read and deployed in support of a range of accounts and stances. By combining the literary and epigraphical evidence for the decree in fourth-century Athens, we can enhance our understanding of an important aspect of Athenian democracy and its legacy. This publication offers perspectives on the decree on the basis of a comprehensive study of decrees of fourth-century Athens (403/2–322/1) that are quoted and paraphrased in the ancient literary sources. At the core of Volume 1 of this work is the Inventory of Decrees (divided into two parts (A and B), according to the degrees of certainty of each reference to a decree), which collects, translates and offers discussions on the literary testimonia for decrees of the fourth-century Athenian assembly. In Volume 2, five analytical chapters explore the deployment of decrees in political and litigious contexts, the dissemination of knowledge about decrees, and their literary representation. The emphasis on the decree as a social, political and cultural transaction places the topic in a broader historical and literary context. While there has been extensive discussion of types of Athenian decrees in a number of scholarly contexts,3 the literary evidence for Athenian decrees of the period 403/2–322/1 has never previously been comprehensively published 2 For a recent study of the epigraphical publication of Athenian decrees, see the analyses of Hedrick, ‘Democracy’; Sickinger, ‘Nothing to do’; Meyer, ‘Inscriptions’ and ‘Posts’; Lambert, IALD: Epigraphical Essays. Discussion of decrees has been the subject of considerable discussion in studies of Athenian democratic institutions: see Hansen, Athenian Assembly, 108–18; Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 52–87; Schoemann, De comitiis, 129–47. The sole monograph dedicated to the Athenian decree is Biagi, Tractatus, 1785; the work took the form of an extended commentary on a decree of the Athenian council responding to a request of an association of ship-owners and merchants for permission to set up a statue of its host (IG II² 1012); Boeckh commented on how it published the decree ‘cum immense et usque ad nauseam prolixo fatuoque commentario’ (Boeckh, on CIG I.124). 3 See for instance Osborne, Naturalization, collecting both the epigraphical and literary data and discussing the implications of citizenship decrees.

introduction

3

as a dataset,4 nor have its implications been analysed. Important developments (pertaining to both the material and literary evidence) mean that the time is ripe for study of this material. From an epigraphical perspective, Lambert’s publication of the third edition of inscribed Athenian decrees of the period 353/2–322/1 (Inscriptiones Graecae II3 1, referred to hereafter as IG II3 1) in 2011 and the ongoing development of an open-access website (www.atticinscriptions.com/)  – which translates and offers historical commentaries on these and other Athenian inscriptions – has opened up a wide range of epigraphical perspectives on decrees to historians of fourth-century Greece.5 From a literary perspective, the publications of Canevaro and Harris have argued that the documentary versions of decrees appearing in the corpus of the Attic orators are not authentic copies of the decrees that they purport to represent.6 Their work does not, however, rule out the possibility that editors of such documents drew upon genuine decree-based material but, as Canevaro and Harris have shown, such a hypothesis can be tested only on the basis of extant evidence. It 4 Several scholarly works assisted the collection of data on decrees: Develin’s Athenian Officials lists decisions of the Athenian assembly on a year-by-year basis, but does not amount to a comprehensive dataset. For a list of decrees attributed (in both the literary and epigraphic record) to proposers, see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II, 34–69; for an overview of the content of decrees preserved in the literary and epigraphical records, see Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 108–13. Hansen’s book about the graphe paranomon (Hansen, The Sovereignty), the procedure that was used to challenge decrees in Athens, and Osborne’s collection of citizenship decrees (Osborne, Naturalization) were also important. 5 For historical perspectives on Athenian decrees, see now Lambert IALD: Historical Essays. 6 Canevaro, The Documents; Canevaro and Harris ‘The documents’; Harris ‘The authenticity’; Canevaro and Harris, ‘The authenticity’. For a list of the documents purporting to decrees discussed by Canevaro, see Volume 2, Appendix 2 note 1. Only a limited number of documents in the Demosthenic corpus have, since the late nineteenth century, been widely accepted as genuine. The authenticity of certain decrees has been the subject of recent debate (in particular those of Patrokleides, Demophantos (D19) and Teisamenos (D7) in Andocides’ On the Mysteries): some scholars, such as Sommerstein (‘The authenticity’) and Hansen (‘Is Patrokleides’ decree …?’, 898–901), maintain the authenticity of the decree of Demophantos: for discussion, and Harris’ reply (Harris ‘The authenticity’), see D19 below. For a defence of the authenticity of the decree of Teisamenos (D7 in this collection), see Hansen ‘Is Teisamenos’ decree…?’; for a response, re-asserting that it is a forgery, see Canevaro and Harris ‘The authenticity’. It is important to underline the fact that whereas the concern of this current work is with decrees alone, Harris and Canevaro’s work addresses the wider question of documents in the Attic orators. Canevaro recognises the possibility that the documentary versions of several laws in Demosthenes’ speech 24 may well be authentic: Canevaro 2013: 113–38, 151–7. But even those documents which appear to purport to refer to a decree genuine in the sense that it appears to have been proposed and enacted, such as the decree of Epikrates (D93), are established by Canevaro as inauthentic in terms of their substance: Canevaro, The Documents, 112. Carawan, ‘Decrees’ takes the view that the editor of Andocides’ On the Mysteries drew upon earlier sources, including Krateros’ work on decrees, to reconstruct the documents which appear in the text.

4

introduction

is, therefore, high time to analyse what the non-documentary literary material contributes to the view of fourth-century decrees. The status and reception of the fourth-century decrees of Athens in literature has not yet been comprehensively assessed: this book aims to fill that gap and to explain the significance of the decree to political life in this era. As will become clear, the literary evidence on decrees offers perspectives alternative to those of the inscriptions: whereas, as Osborne has argued,7 inscribed versions of decrees, acting as a monumentalised record of decisions taken by the Athenians, tone down the controversial aspects of their domestic political circumstances and present them as the uncontroversial decisions of the Athenian demos, the literary sources often tell stories about the political intentions and implications of decrees, portraying them at times as the political acts of self-interested individuals. Accordingly, the literary evidence does not offer a ‘window’ into the substance of Athenian decrees, but it sets them in particular literary, historical and rhetorical contexts which are distinct from those of the inscribed record; it gives us a view of which Athenian decrees were viewed as having substantive historical impact, their significance in the negotiation of domestic and inter-community relations, and, more broadly, the relationship between decrees of the Athenian assembly and those of the inscribed record. As we shall see, the primary literary evidence for decrees is that of the genre of oratory. Assembly (symbouleutic) oratory – which survives far less extensively than forensic oratory – contains some, but limited, reference to decrees, perhaps as most published speeches reflected the usually extemporaneous nature of speeches as they were made in the assembly; speakers at the assembly seem reluctant to name original proposers of past decrees.8 But most oratorical references occur in lawcourt (forensic) speeches, in particular those pertaining to cases which were purported to be relevant to issues of major public consequence. Self-interested orators quote, discuss and make reference to decrees of the Athenian assembly in a wide range of different contexts, but what the references have in common is that they are deployed in persuasive contexts and in support of arguments. Some orators constructed arguments contesting the legality or sense of a decree, seeking to overturn them within one year of their enactment by way of indictment by graphe paranomon.9 To accept 7 Osborne, ‘Inscribing democracy’. 8 On the revision and publication of assembly speeches, see Volume 2, Chapter 2 note 24. On decrees in symbouleutic oratory, see Volume 2, Chapter 2.3.1 and 2.5.2. On symbouleutic oratory, see now Edwards, ‘Greek political oratory’, suggesting at 30 that ‘Demosthenes was unusual in writing out drafts of his speeches in advance, perhaps through nervousness’. 9 On the graphe paranomon, the indictment against an illegal decree, see Hansen, The Sovereignty and Yunis, ‘Law’.

introduction

5

straightforwardly the content of such claims about decrees without analysis is problematic: however, as we see in the Commentaries to individual entries in the Inventory, a challenge that we face when trying to analyse the literary sources for decrees is posed not only by their opaqueness but also by the fact that often a shortage of comparative testimonia means that it is hard to critically assess their substantive content;10 this makes it difficult to be certain about whether they provide accurate testimony on a decree.11 Moreover, it is in terms of the intentions behind their proposal and the consequences of decrees that oratorical exaggeration and distortion is most pronounced. Other than oratory, there are some historiographical sources (primarily Xenophon, and the narrative sections of the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia) where there are passing references to decrees in political and military narrative. Moving beyond the contemporary sources, we encounter later writers like Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus, whose claims about decrees can be taken on board only with great caution. Finally, there are sub-literary texts such as those of lexicographers and ancient commentators; some such authors clearly drew on authentic material pertaining to decrees, but their testimonia must be treated on an individual basis.12 As already mentioned, Canevaro and Harris have demonstrated the absence of authentic documentary versions of fourth-century Athenian decrees in the manuscript tradition of the Attic orators. Accordingly, secure knowledge of Athenian decrees in the literary record is reliant entirely upon the sources’ descriptions – rather than documentary quotation – of decisions. There are times when the texts, in particular those of the orators, claim to quote verbatim the wording of an Athenian decree, as Demosthenes did when he compared the behaviour of the members of the second embassy to Philip with the decree that set out their orders (Dem. 19.278 = D133 T4).13 Indeed, on the whole, it seems reasonable to accept the view, enunciated recently by Carawan, that the Athenians, when discussing political activity in the courts,

10 Compare the methodological points well made by Johnstone, A History of Trust, 8. 11 The issue of distortion of decrees by literary authors will be discussed briefly here, but is treated on an ad hoc basis over the course of the Inventory. 12 In particular extant hypotheses tend to over-simplify the content of decrees as straightforward prohibitions: see, for instance, the hypothesis to Lycurgus’ Against Leokrates, positing the existence of a decree straightforwardly banning citizens from leaving the city; cf. Commentary on D168. 13 For other quotations of the texts of decrees, see D133 T3 (= Aeschin. 2.104) below; D130 T9 (= Dem. 19.4–9); D131 T1 (Aeschin. 3.73–5); D179 T1 (= Aeschin. 3.34).

6

introduction

‘did not tamper with the text of laws, decrees, and other documentary evidence’; when they claimed to be quoting a decree, it is likely that they were indeed doing so.14 Carawan’s view can reasonably be accepted for texts that were read out loud in public contexts. But particular factors mean that we cannot uncritically accept all accounts of decrees that appear in the literary texts at face value. First, we should note that Carawan’s principle applies only to those decrees referred to in the law courts and assembly by those orators who drew upon knowledge of them for the purposes of persuasion and substantiation of arguments: while the corpus of Attic oratory is the most substantial source for decrees, there are many other sources too, such as biography, historiography and sub-literary texts. Particularly in later sources, there are times when a tradition – hostile or otherwise – about a particular individual has led to a rather distorted record of a decree: one such case is the claim in the Life of Lysias ([Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a = D6) that Thrasyboulos proposed a grant of citizenship for Lysias, which seems to be a misrepresentation of his proposal in favour of those non-Athenians who had opposed the Thirty: see D6 Commentary. In the courts, too, it was well within the powers of speakers to distort their intentions or to present the scope of particular pieces of legislation as more narrowly focussed or more restrictive than they in fact were.15 This is hardly surprising given the contexts of persuasion in which laws were deployed. Critical analysis of such claims is difficult owing to the fact that only very rarely are there preserved speeches pertaining to both sides of a legal contest.16 Only on rare occasions, then, can an element of misrepresentation be detected: at the courts in 343, for instance, Aeschines (Aeschin. 2.121) implicated Demosthenes with moving of a decree praising the members of the controversial second embassy 14 Carawan, The Athenian Amnesty, 13. Harris, Aeschines, 7–16 outlines a very clear set of principles for assessing the credibility of claims made by the orators. For the view that versions of speeches revised for publication did not seriously distort the content of laws and decrees as they were presented in the courts, see Worthington, ‘Greek oratory’. 15 For discussion of the ways in which orators sometimes narrowed the scope of the legislation they discussed, see Aviles, ‘Arguing’ and Johnstone, A History of Trust, 161. A good example of the limitation of scope is that which is proposed by Epikrates in Hypereides’ Against Athenogenes (3–11): Epikrates argued, against his opponent, that the law that held all private agreements to be binding was limited only to fair agreements; this detail did not appear in the law with which he was concerned, but he put forward this interpretation on the basis of other laws which made exceptions. For the view that Isaeus (10.10) distorted a law about women’s rights to be involved in transactions so that it would appear more limiting, see Schaps, The Economic, 61 and Morris, Foragers, 218–19. For discussion of the treatment of doubtful claims and other oddities in Attic oratory, see Todd, ‘The use and abuse’ and Bers, ‘What to believe’. 16 The two pairs most relevant to the study of decrees are Dem. 19 and Aeschin. 2 and Aeschin. 3 and Dem. 18.

introduction

7

to Philip upon their return to Athens; Demosthenes’ reply to this was that the council’s decree that arose in response to his report did not honour them (19.31). In all likelihood, the council had passed a non-committal probouleuma (recommendation) to the assembly about the reception of the ambassadors upon their return to Athens, but stopped short of praising them (Dem. 19.34). Aeschines misleadingly implied that Demosthenes was the author of a decree praising the embassy. It is clear, then, that there is potential for distortion on the basis of detail, though Aeschines is on this occasion being economical with the truth rather than straightforwardly inventing a decree.17 While false quotation of decrees was too politically risky to be undertaken in the assembly and courts, it is clear that orators were often able to make claims about their impact and intentions in support of their arguments: one example is Philokrates’ decree extending the peace treaty with Philip to posterity, which Demosthenes (19.47–9 = D130 T9) claimed had the effect of handing over the Phokians to Philip. Of course this was not the primary intention of Philokrates’ decree, though it may arguably have contributed to the process which led to the destruction of Phokis. Cases like this, however, are most fruitfully discussed on an ad hoc basis, and for this reason they are treated in detail in Inventory A. Finally, when considering the authenticity of claims made about laws and decrees, it is important to be aware of the possibility that revision of lawcourt speeches after they had been delivered may well have given rise to alterations in their shape and argument.18 However, for the most part, as Worthington has argued, it seems to have been the case that the process of revision tended to address compositional issues rather than affecting the accuracy of content.19 In the next section I outline the terminology which I have identified as indicating the existence of a decree, the mode of research and principles of organisation of the Inventory.

2  Criteria for Inclusion in the Inventory of Athenian Decrees In the initial stages of work on this project (which was initiated in spring 2005), I collected literary references to decrees of the Athenian assembly of the period 17 See the discussion of this issue in Volume 2, D128 Commentary. 18 MacDowell (Demosthenes, On the False, 23–4) suggests that the versions we have of some speeches represent ‘a copy of what the speech-writer prepared in advance’ in the form of notes, but that in other cases what we have is ‘a copy of what was prepared after the trial for distribution to readers. This may or may not incorporate material written beforehand, which the writer has revised with additions and deletions.’ 19 On revision of oratorical texts and the implications for historical reliability, see Worthington, ‘Greek oratory’.

8

introduction

between the archonship of Eukleides in 403/2 and the end of archon year 322/1. This was undertaken by carrying out TLG-database searches for the relevant terms in contemporary sources and later writers. An analysis of these results revealed reference to 245 decrees of the period, plus reference to a further 90 testimonia for decisions (such as peace treaties, the dispatch of ambassadors, military expeditions, cleruchs, etc.) which, by analogy, we can reason were carried out on the basis of a decree of the assembly. These were then arranged (as far as possible) into chronological order; their testimonia are published in the core of this volume (the inventories of testimonia for decrees: Inventory A1 (403/2–353/2) and Inventory A2 (352/1–322/1), together with translations and historical commentaries; the testimonia for possible decrees about which there can be less certainty are accounted for in a terser format alongside accounts of other occasions when a decree of the people may have been involved (Inventory B). Decrees of the Athenian council are collected in Volume 1, Appendix 1; a number of literary fabrications are collected in Volume 2, Appendix 2. The best way of identifying literary testimonia for decrees is by detecting the appearance of words used to describe a proposal or a decree that was enacted.20 Texts that were searched consisted of contemporary sources (primarily the speeches and fragments of the Attic Orators, historiography, and Atthidography), the works of later writers on areas of relevance (such as Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Diogenes Laertius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus), and relevant sub-literary texts (Didymus, Harpokration, Pollux, Suda, and relevant scholia, whose mention of decrees can reasonably be used to assert knowledge of a literary tradition about a decree). The primary search-term was the word ψήφισμα (‘decree’), but searches were undertaken also for δόγμα (‘act’), which was on occasion used as a way of referring to political enactments. Searches were completed for cognates of the verb ψηφίζομαι (‘I cast a vote’), which was used frequently to refer to the process of voting on a proposal in the assembly. Literary texts were trawled also for traces of the enactment formulae – ἔδοξε (τῆι βουλῆι καὶ) τῶι δήμωι (‘the demos (and boule) resolve’) – which appear on inscribed Athenian decrees. I looked for terms which refer to a proposal, γνώμη (‘proposal’), to a recommendation of the council, προβούλευμα (‘recommendation’), and searched also for cognates of the verb γράφω (‘I propose’). Searches were undertaken also for those terms which were often used to refer to situations and phenomena which arose as a consequence of decrees of the Athenian assembly, such as συμμαχία

20 For this approach, see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II, 165 note 15.

introduction

9

(‘alliance’); σύμμαχοι (‘allies’); ἀτέλεια (‘exemption’); ἐπαινός (‘praise’). The other aspect of data-collection surveyed modern scholarship.21 Omitted from this collection are those pieces of legislation described simply as a nomos (‘law’): one such example is Lycurgus’ proposal to set up statues of the fifth-century tragedians and provide that their plays be written down and placed in the archive ([Plu.] X Or. 841f). But there are some instances where enactments are referred to both as decrees and laws:22 the nature of the enactment is discussed in the Inventory (see DD 9, 10, 11, 17 Commentary). In the remainder of this section, I outline the particular words and phrases used in the identification of particular decrees. For the sake of clarity, testimonia on decrees are classified into a hierarchy of five Attestation Types; Types 1 and 2 constitute strong evidence for the testimonia to be classified with a high degree of certainty as decrees of the Athenian assembly; they are marked as ‘D’ in the Inventory and make up Inventory A; Types 3 and 4 constitute reasonable evidence for near-certainty, and are marked as ‘DP’ (‘Probable Decrees’) of the Athenian assembly (see Inventory B1). Type 5 consists of ‘other possible decrees’, occasions where the sources do not associate particular developments with a decision of the people, but which plausibly might have been the consequence of a decree; some account of these is given in Inventory B2. This typology does not distinguish decrees that are of suspicious authenticity, but such decrees are marked with a dagger in the Checklist of decrees (see pp. 17–38 below); less convincing literary fabrications are discussed in Volume 2, Chapter 5 and in Appendix 2. Proposals which appear to have been rejected by the assembly are marked with a single asterisk (*) and those which appear to have been overturned by graphe paranomon are marked with a double asterisk (**). In terms of organisation of the Inventory, testimonia for Attestation Types 1 and 2 are collected together under the heading ‘D’ in Inventory A: they are translated, analysed in detail, with commentary and bibliography; testimonia for Attestation Types 3 and 4 are collected under the heading ‘DP’ in Inventory B, translated, and discussed in a brief commentary; testimonia for Attestation Type 5 are simply listed.

21 For the scholarly works drawn upon in the initial stages of this work, see note 4 above. 22 As Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165–9 points out, on a few occasions enactments were referred to by literary sources with both the terms nomos and psephisma. In fourth-century Athens, laws were distinguished from decrees by a rather different set of procedural practices, and the conventional view is also that they were different in terms of their substance, usually being directed to long-term or general regulations, whereas decrees were aimed at shortterm and specific matters: see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 161–205 and Volume 2, Chapter 1.2.2. For a selection of references to the initiation of the law-making process (nomothesia), see Inventory B2.6 below.

10

introduction

Attestation Type 1 The following are considered as strong indicators of a decree of the Athenian assembly, and are classified as ‘D’: (a) The description of a decision of the people with the term ψήφισμα (‘decree’; ‘the thing decided on by the psephos (ballot)’), e.g.: D5 T1; D14 T1; D16 T1; D20 T2; D27 T2; D39 T1; D44 T1; D46 T2; D67 T1; D71 T1; D76 T1; D81 T1; D91 T1; D94 T1; D98 T1; D101 T1; D105 T1; D107 T1; D111 T1; D115 T1; D116 T2; D119 T1; D121 T1; D122 T1; D127 T2; D129 T1; D130 T2; D131 T1; D132 T1; D133 T1–3; D138 T1; D140 T1; D159 T1; D161 T1; D162 T3; 165a T1; D166 T2; D167 T2; D169 T1; D175 T1; D176 T1 1; D177 T2; D179 T2; D181 T1; D186 T1; D193 T1; D194 T1; D195 T1; D196 T1; D199 T1; D200 T1; D202 T2; D205 T1; D206 T1; D207 T1; D209 T1; D212 T1; D213 T1; D214 T1; D215 T1; D217 T1; D218 T1; D219 T1; D220 T1; D223 T1; D232 T1; D237 T2; D238 T1; D240 T1; D241 T1). This can take the form of a passing report of a decree or the instruction to the secretary to read out a decree (‘ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὸ ψήφισμα’: D15 T1; cf. D23 T2; D41 T1; D64 T2; D70 T1; D85 T1; D88 T1; D93 T1; D134 T1; D135 T1; D147 T1; D160 T1; D170 T1), or an order for a secretary to fetch it (D114 T1; D128 T1). Aristophanic parody suggests three real decrees of the assembly of the period after 403/2 (DD 95–7). (b) An activity might be described as having taken place ‘ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος’ (D37 T1; cf. D69 T1), which constitutes very strong evidence for it being set in motion by the decree of the people. The mention that something was added to a decree ‘προσγράψαντες τῷ ψηφίσματι’ (D60 T1) also constitutes very strong evidence for enactment by a decree. (c) The attribution to the demos (sometimes addressed even in the lawcourts, as ‘ὑμεῖς’, the assembly, or ‘the Athenians’ of a decision with the verb ψηφίζομαι (‘I vote’; ‘I decide by vote’) constitutes very good evidence for an Athenian decree. The verb might take the form of an indicative (e.g. in the 2nd person, ἐψηφίσασθε: D7 T1; D8 T1; D9 T1; cf. D34 T1; D38 T1; D55 T1; D68 T1; D106 T1; D142 T1; D191 T1, or in the 3rd person, ἐψηφίσατο or ἐψηφίσαντο: D2 T2; D10 T2; cf. D19 T3; D45 T1; D50 T1; D56 T3; D65 T1; D120 T1; D143 T1; D151 T1; D164 T1; D168 T1; D182 T2; D183 T1; D190 T2; D197 T3), a participle form (e.g. D1 T6: ‘τοῦ γὰρ δήμου κατελθόντος ἐκ Πειραιῶς καὶ ψηφισαμένου’; cf. D42 T1; D51 T1; D53 T1; D64 T1; D85 T1; D123 T1; D201 T1), or a passive (D222 T1: ‘ἐψηφίσθη’). The attribution to the polis of a decision in this way (e.g. D11 T1: ‘ἡ πόλις ἡμῖν ἐψηφίσατο τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον’) also is strongly indicative of a decree. (d) A report of the enactment formulae (‘ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ’: D13 T1) is strong evidence of a decree of the people. On one occasion, there is an extant

introduction

11

speech (Demosthenes’ First Philippic) which appears to be that of a proposal of a decree: ‘δεδόχθαι φημὶ δεῖν’ (D108 T2).23 (e) Reference to the demos voting on a matter (D89 T1) or putting something to the vote (D143 T1). (f) On very few occasions, we encounter both epigraphical and literary references to what appears to be the same decree: e.g. the case of the honours to Evagoras (D24). IG II3 1 298 lines 22–6 (= D28 T2) constitutes good evidence for an honorific decree for Satyros, allusion to which can be detected in the literary source (D28 T1).24

Attestation Type 2 The following are considered as good indicators of a decree of the Athenian assembly, and are classified as ‘D’: (a) Reference to a term which is often associated with honorific decrees of the people: i. D3 T1, for instance, describes how ‘οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ῥίνωνα διά τε τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν εἰς τὸν δῆμον ἐπῃνέθησαν’. Given that the Athenian assembly often bestowed praise upon honorands, ‘ἐπῃνέθησαν’ may be taken to indicate that Rhinon and his associates received praise by a decree of the Athenian people. ii. D23 T1 describes how ‘ἐτιμήσαμεν (sc. Konon) ταῖς μεγίσταις τιμαῖς’: as the process of honouring was normally done by decree of the assembly, this can be thought of as a good indication of a decree of the people (cf. D24 T1; D54 T2). iii. The description of an award that we would normally expect to be consequent on a decree of the people, such as the crown for Thrasyboulos attested by Cornelius Nepos (D18 T1; cf. D146 T1; D228 T1; D229 T1; D230 T1), ἀτέλεια for the Thasians (D40 T1; cf. DD 31–2 T1; D104a–b), citizenship and crowns for Kotys (D43 T1), citizenship and proxeny for Antipater, Alexander and Alkimachos (D173 T1; D174 T1; D178 T1), an award (δωρεά) for Timotheos (D47 T1; cf. D102 T1; D221 T1), 23 The final paragraph of Demosthenes’ Third Olynthiac includes the statement ‘these are the things I propose’ (ταῦτα γράφω: 9.76), but it is not clear that such the recommendations he made over the course of the speech were put to the vote as a decree. 24 For further examples, see below, Volume 2, Chapter 3.3.4. The inscribed grant of citizenship for Dionysius of Syracuse (RO 33 lines 30–5) is referred to in passing at [Demosthenes] 12 Philip’s Letter 10, but as the inscribed decree is well known and the literary reference made only in a text of spurious authenticity, there was little justification to grant it a separate entry in the Inventory.

12

introduction

ἰσοπολιτεία for the Plataeans (D49 T1), a statue for Alexander as a benefactor (‘χαλκοῦν ἵστασαν ὡς εὐεργέτην’: D58 T3), a statue for Demades (D187 T1; cf. D189 T1), citizenship for Ariobarzanes (D59 T1; cf. D61 T1; D62 T1; cf. D72 T1; D73 T1; D74 T1; D77 T1; D78 T1; D84 T1; D100 T2; D109 T1; D174 T1; D203 T1; D204 T1; D227 T1; D235 TT 1–2; D236 D1; D243 T1; D244; D245), or awards of proxeny status (D103 T1). iv. The description of an alliance as συμμαχία or allies as σύμμαχοι (D21 T1; DD 29–30 T1; D33 T1; D36 T1; D63 T1; D80 T1, T2; D87 T1; D113 T2; D149 T2; D153 T1; D163 TT 1–3; D184 T1): it seems implausible to think that a formal alliance could be ratified by any other procedure than a decision of the Athenian demos. The φιλία made with Philip was, in all likelihood, a decision approved by the assembly (D79 T4) v. The claim (DD 29–30 TT 1, 2) that Thrasyboulos made the Thracian kings friends and allies of the Athenians suggest that his initial entreaties with these monarchs may have been ratified by the people. (b) The introduction of a proposal with a cognate of γράφω (‘[Aristophon] γέγραφεν’: D12 T1; cf. D124 T1; D125 T1; D126 T1; D139 T1; D144 T1; D145 T1; D148a T1; D148b T1; D154 T1; D155 T1; D156 T1; D158 T2; D171 T2; D172 T2; D180 T2; D185 T1; D188 T1; D192 T1; D198 T1; D231 T1; D234 T2), which indicates that a decree was proposed though, in itself, nothing on whether or not it was passed. At D88 T2, προσέγραψεν appears to indicate an additional provision introduced by the proposer. (c) The description of a proposal, a γνώμη, often points to a proposed decree that was under attack (e.g. D17 T2; D239 T1), but could also (D13 T1; D92 T1) be used to describe a proposal that led to a decree. (d) At D52 T1, the description of a peace treaty as ‘τὴν ὑπὸ Καλλίου τοῦ Ἱππον{ε}ίκου πρ[υ]τανευθεῖσαν εἰρήνην’ suggests that it was put to the vote by Kallias. (e) The association of εἰρήνη with a decision to bring war to an end (D90 T1). (f) A claim that a decree was indicted by graphe paranomon is used as evidence for a proposed decree (e.g. D66 T1; D99 T1; D136 T1; D208 T1; D210 T1; D211 T1; DD 224–5 T1; D226 T1; D233 T1; D242 T1). Decrees that were rejected (e.g. D4, Phormisios’ proposal on citizen rights; D6 honours for Lysias; possibly also D17 Theozotides’ decree for the orphans) are included in this collection, (g) Non-standard formulae, e.g. dogma, on occasion, may be deemed to refer to a decree: Harpokration’s reference to the Athenians ‘βουλῆς καὶ δέμου δόγμασι πειθόμενοι’ (D22 T1) strongly suggests that the term dogma is used to refer to a psephisma; this is probably also the case with the testimonium for Timotheos’ recall, which appears to write of sailing to Timotheos

introduction

13

‘κατὰ δόγμα τῆς πόλεως’, where the polis concerned was probably Athens (D48 T1). See also D150 T1.25 (h) ἔδοξεν, on its own, without an indirect object to indicate which body resolved a decree, may be deemed as good but hardly strong evidence for the enactment of a decree of the demos: at D25 T1 and D26 T2 the reference could plausibly be to a decree of the boule.26 (i) On occasion, the line of argument of a speech (Andocides 3 On the Peace), in which a particular policy is suggested (D26: on this occasion, to accept a peace) constitutes good evidence for the proposal of a decree (albeit one that was rejected); in this case, however, the spurious nature of the speech27 casts doubt on the authenticity of the proposal. See also D108 T2; D192 T1. (j) We cannot normally take the view that a συνθήκη, which could refer to an agreement made by a commander on the battlefield with a non-Athenian commander, amounted to a decree. However, on one occasion, the possibility of associating a συνθήκη with an inscribed alliance (RO 47) suggests that the συνθήκη formed a preliminary to an alliance ratified by vote of the assembly (D83 T1). (k) There are times when the description of a public activity, combined with aspects of the language of its description, constitutes good evidence for a decree of the people: for example, the testimonia for Androtion’s attention to cult matters state that he persuaded (D57 T1: ἔπεισεν) the people to melt down the crowns. In this case, the fact that the organisation of temple treasures is elsewhere attested as carried out by decree IG II2 216/7+261 = SEG 14.47) supports the idea that the process described at D57 T1 was initiated by decree of the people. (l) The claim that the people have been persuaded to pass a decree: ‘πεισθέντες δ’ ὑμεῖς’: D117 T1; ‘κινηθεὶς οὖν ὁ δῆμος’ (D157 T1). (m) The claim that an individual has introduced (εἰσηγήσατο) a particular measure: D137 T5.

25 On the use of the term dogma see Hansen (The Athenian Ecclesia, 277 note 32), suggesting that it could be used in a rather vaguer sense to apply to a decision made by the Athenians. 26 At Dem. 21.178 Demosthenes tells the jurors that ‘you resolved’ (‘ἔδοξεν ὑμῖν’) to condemn the father of the archon of 363/2 Charikleides because he had touched someone, when excluding them from the theatre during the Dionysia as he took his seat. It seems most likely that the resolution referred to here was not a decree of the assembly but a decision of the lawcourts, especially given that these examples were raised in the context of Demosthenes encouraging the jurors to remember their duty to guard the laws and their oath (Dem. 21.177); I have taken the same view of the trial and condemnation of Ktesikles (Dem. 21.180). 27 Cf. Harris, ‘The authenticity of Andocides’.

14

introduction

(n) The claim that honours have been bestowed in association with, or as an addition to, those for another individual (D75 T1) provides good evidence for a decree. (o) Reference to an amendment to a treaty (D141 T1). (p) Reference to a lack of opposition at the assembly: ‘τοῦ δήμου σφόδρα ἀποδεξαμένου καὶ τὸν Κτησιφῶντα ἐπαινέσαντος, ἀντειπόντος δ’ οὐδενός’ (D118 T1). (r) Analogy with a historical decree (D82 T2).

Attestation Type 3 Type 3 consists of testimonia defined not so much by terminology but by their association of the city, the demos, or ‘the Athenians’ with a particular activity which we might, by analogy, expect to have been arranged by a decree. As the connection with the decree is less than certain, each is designated ‘Decree: Probable’ (DP, and each is listed in): (a) Occasions upon which the Athenians dispatch forces (ἔπεμψαν, etc.: DP 4 T1; cf. DP 6 T1; DP 15 T1; DP 16 T1; DP 17 T1 DP 23 T1; DP 26 T1; DP 30 T1; DP 38 T1; DP 41 T1; DP 42 T1; DP 45 T1; DP 48 T1; DP 50 T1; DP 51 T1; DP 53 T1; DP 55 T1; DP 56 T1; DP 58 T1; DP 70 T1; DP 78 T1; DP 88 T1), send envoys (πέμψαντες: DP 5 T1; cf. DP 7 T1; DP 8 T1; DP 11 T1; DP 20 T1; DP 28 T1; DP 37 T1; DP 59 T1; DP 60 T1; DP 65 T1; DP 66 T1; DP 69 T1; DP 75 T1; DP 87 T1), send out a general (DP 10 T1; DP 12 TT 1-2; DP 13 T1; DP 14 T1; DP 19 T1; DP 30 T1; DP 35 T1, DP 36 T1; DP 44 T1; DP 46 T1; DP 48 T1; DP 49 T1; DP 67 T1; DP 79 T1; DP 80 T1; DP 81 T1; DP 82 T1), send out a convoy to safeguard grain transit (DP 25 T1), or send out cleruchs (DP 47 T1; DP 52 T1; DP 54 T1; DP 63 T1). (b) Occasions which the Athenians issue an order (e.g. DP 9 T1 forbidding something: τοῦ δὲ δήμου κωλύσαντος; cf. DP 32 T1; DP 33 T1; DP 86 T1), or bring back a general (DP 19 TT 1–2). (c) Establishment the sunedrion of the Confederacy (DP 21 T1: συνεστήσαντο).28 (d) Reference to the city levying eisphora tax (DP 34 T1; DP 42, etc.). (e) Persuasion of the Athenians: the Peloponnesians persuaded (ἔπεισαν) the Athenians to levy eisphora tax and to take risks on behalf of the Lakedaimonians (DP 34 T1). (f) The polis gives (ἔδωκεν: DP 1 T1) awards (τιμάς) and mourned those foreigners who had fallen fighting for it; or it sets up an epigram (DP 71 T1). 28 The charter of this decree is extant also in inscribed form: see RO 22.

introduction

15

(g) The Athenians assemble an army (DP 2 T1: στρατευσάμενοι), dispatching (εἰσπέμψαντες) representatives to those in Eleusis (DP 2 T1). (h) DP 31: a reference to Jason and Alketas as allies of Athenians, made in passing, but without reference to a summachia. (i) Official responses to ambassadors (DP 61 T1). (j) A call-up (DP 72 T1). (k) A grant of isoteleia (DP 77 T1).

Attestation Type 4 Type 4 consists of ‘Probable Decrees’ about which there is less certainty about the association of particular developments with the ‘Athenians’ or the ‘demos’; accordingly, their status as decrees is even less certain. Each is designated as ‘DP’ (Decree: Probable) and each is listed in Inventory B1. The following types and cases are included in this category: (a) While some peace agreements appear to have been ratified by vote of the assembly (e.g., possibly, D53), none of the sources of the King’s Peace (DP 18), associate it with a decree of the Athenian demos. The peace of 375/4 (DP 28; cf. DP 29 T1; DP 68 T1) appears to have been accepted by the Athenians, but there is no indication that it was approved at the assembly (cf. DP 39, the Peace of 366/5). After the defeat in the Lamian War, the Athenians may well have been forced to accept Antipater’s peace (DP 89 T1). (b) A number of activities concerning which there exists no firmly attested decree, but that, given that they are developments of clear public importance, it is plausible that they were set in motion by a decree of the people: gating the Peiraieus, the decision to fit out ships (DP 22 T1), consecrating an altar to Peace (DP 29 TT 1–2); the hiring out of mercenaries (DP 73 T1); the allocation of new territory (DP 74 T1). (c) DP 27 T1: Nepos’ claim that Timotheos ‘joined to Athens as allies the Epirotes, Athamanes, Chaones, and all the peoples bordering on that part of the sea’ may well offer evidence for a summachia with these peoples, but given the late date, and nature of the source, certainty about the nature of the alliances is impossible. The same applies in the case of DP 40, the alliance of Athens with Perdiccas. (d) Individuals who appear to have acquired citizenship (DP 3 T1; DP 57 T1; DP 83 T1; DP 84 T1; DP 90 T1).

introduction

16

Attestation Type 5 This type consists of ‘other possible decrees’: chiefly they refer to developments not explicitly associated with a decree of the people, but which by analogy may have been initiated by decree. They include the initiation of eisphora-levies, epidosis, the appointment of a speaker to read the epitaphios logos, appointments of magistrates, actions against individuals, and nomothesia. These are listed separately, at Inventory B2, in very concise form.

Attestation Type 6 (Excluded) The following developments are not counted as decrees of the people and are therefore not included in this collection: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Osborne’s ‘Excluded decrees’ pertaining to the award of citizenship, i.e. those marked ‘X’ in Osborne, Naturalization 3.122–8; Decisions by generals that appear to have taken place on the battlefield, although it is plausible that these might have been ratified later by a vote of the people (cf. D83; IG II2 404 lines 11–13); Expeditions of generals which cannot be associated with decisions of the people with any certainty, e.g. Chares to the Hellespont at D.S. 16.34.3; Decrees of the council, where there is no reason to believe that they coincided with, or led to, a decree of the people;29 Other decisions of the people, including sentences, elections, denunciations (e.g. those leading to eisangelia trials).

This introductory chapter continues with a checklist of decrees in literary texts (pp. 17–36); section 4 tabulates and analyses the proportions of different genre-types of decree preserved in the literary and epigraphical evidence. 29 These are discussed in Appendix 1.

Inventory A Checklist: Decrees and Proposals of the Athenian Assembly Attested in Literary Sources This checklist attempts to list, as far as possible in chronological order, decrees and proposals (that is, decrees that were rejected) of the Athenian assembly in the period 403/2–322/1 preserved in literary texts. It consists of those decrees that are deemed in section 2 (‘Criteria for Inclusion’) as Type 1 and Type 2 decrees. Testimonia, translation, and commentaries on these decrees can be found in Inventories A1 and A2 of this volume. Proposals which appear to have been rejected by the assembly (or which were not even discussed by the assembly, e.g. DD94 and 179, which never got beyond being a probouleuma) are marked with a single asterisk (*) and those which appear to have been overturned by graphe paranomon are marked with a double asterisk (**). Where there is uncertainty about the authenticity of a particular example as a decree or other serious problems with its identification, this is indicated with a dagger (†). This collection attempts to collect exclusively decrees of the Athenian assembly. Decrees of the Athenian council, where explicitly attested as such, are collected in Appendix 1. After a reference number and designation of its ‘(Attestation) Type’, the checklist contains the following elements: a title (consisting of a brief and simplified description of the content of the decree), its date, the name of its proposer (where known), and a reference to a leading testimonium which points to its identification as a decree. An ‘etc.’ indicates that there are other testimonia which point to its identification as a decree.

Inventory A1: Decrees of the Period 403/2–353/2 D1 (Type 1) Ratification of reconciliation agreement and amnesty; date: 403/2; And. 1.81: ἔδοξε μὴ μνησικακεῖν ἀλλήλοις τῶν γεγενημένων. δόξαντα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα …, etc. D2 (Type 1)  Interim decrees concerning the enactment of laws; date: 403/2; Schol. in Aeschin. 1.39 (Dilts 82.254-7): ἐψηφίσαντο καινοὺς νόμους εἰσφέρειν, etc. D3 (Type 2)  Honorific decree for members of the ‘second Ten’; date: 403/2; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 38.4: οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ῥίνωνα διά τε τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν εἰς τὸν δῆμον ἐπῃνέθησαν. 17

18

inventory a checklist

D4 * (Type 2)  Proposal concerning restriction of the franchise; proposer: Phormisios; date: 403/2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lysias 32 p. 49 3–9: Φορμίσιός τις … γνώμην εἰσηγήσατο. D5 ** (Type 1) Decree extending the award of citizenship to democrats; proposer: Thrasyboulos; date: 403/2; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2: τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ Θρασυβούλου, etc. D6 *† (Type 2)  Proposal of citizenship for Lysias; proposer: Thrasyboulos; date: 403/2; [Plu.] X Or. 835f-6a: ἐφ’ οἷς γράψαντος αὐτῷ Θρασυβούλου πολιτείαν μετὰ τὴν κάθοδον ἐπ’ ἀναρχίας τῆς πρὸ Εὐκλείδου, ὁ μὲν δῆμος ἐκύρωσε τὴν δωρεάν, ἀπενεγκαμένου δ’ Ἀρχίνου γραφὴν παρανόμων διὰ τὸ ἀπροβούλευτον εἰσαχθῆναι, ἑάλω τὸ ψήφισμα, etc. D7 (Type 1) Decree concerning the revision and writing up of the laws; proposer Teisamenos (?); date: 403/2; And. 1.82: ἐψηφίσασθε, δοκιμάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόμους, εἶτ’ ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τούτους τῶν νόμων οἳ ἂν δοκιμασθῶσι. D8 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the application of new laws; date: 403/2 or shortly after; And. 1.88: ἐψηφίσασθε χρῆσθαι ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος, etc. D9 (Type 1)  Proposal to re-enact a Solonian law concerning the xenikon; date: 403/2?; proposer Aristophon; Dem. 57.32: ἐψηφίσασθε πάλιν ἀνανεώσασθαι. D10 (Type 1) Decree concerning the dokimasia of magistrates; date: 403/2 or shortly after; Lys. 26.20: τὰς δοκιμασίας εἶναι ἐψηφίσαντο. D11 (Type 1) Decree providing a daily pension for the disabled; date: 403/2 or shortly after; Lys. 24.22: ἡ πόλις ἡμῖν ἐψηφίσατο τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον. D12 (Type 2)  Proposal concerning the repayment of 5 Talents to Gelarchos; date: 403/2 or later; proposer Aristophon; Dem. 20.149: Γελάρχῳ πέντε τάλαντ’ ἀποδοῦναι γέγραφεν. D13 (Type 2) Decree concerning the repayment of debts incurred by the Thirty; date: 403/2 or later; Isoc. 7 Areop. 68-9: ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ κοινὴν ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀπόδοσιν. D14 (Type 1)  Decree concerning citizenship; date: 403/2 or later; proposer Nikomenes; Schol. in Aeschin. 1.39 (Dilts 83): Εὔμηλος ὁ Περιπατητικὸς … φησὶ Νικομένη τινὰ ψήφισμα θέσθαι. D15 (Type 1)  Decree honouring those who returned from Phyle; proposer Archinos; date: 403/2 or later, perhaps 401/0; Aeschin. 3.187: ἦν μὲν γὰρ ὁ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψας καὶ νικήσας Ἀρχῖνος ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης, etc. D16 (Type 1) Decree concerning the Ionian alphabet; proposer Archinos; date: 403/2; Scholiast to Dionysius Thrax, lines 16–20: εἰσενέγκαντος Ἀρχίνου παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ψήφισμα.

inventory a checklist

19

D17 (Type 2)  Decree concerning war-orphans; proposer Theozotides; date: 403/2 (?); Lys. F130 Carey lines 72–82: Θεοζο]τίδης οὑτοσὶ τὴ[ν γνώ]μην ἀγορεύει … ἐνίκησε[ν ἐν τῶι δ]ήμωι, δι’ οὗ καὶ μ[….. γν]ώμην. D18† (Type 2) Honours for Thrasyboulos; date: 403/2; Nepos, Thrasybulus 4.1: huic pro tantis meritis honoris corona a populo data est, facta duabas virgulis oleaginis. D19 (Type 1)  Decree protecting democracy; date: 403/2 or later; proposer: Demophantos; Lycurg. 1.127: διομωμόκατε δ’ ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι τῷ Δημοφάντου. D20 (Type 1) Decree concerning alliance with Boiotians; date: 395/4; proposer: Thrasyboulos; Xen. Hell. 3.5.16: πάντες δ’ ἐψηφίσαντο βοηθεῖν αὐτοῖς. Θρασύβουλος δὲ ἀποκρινάμενος τὸ ψήφισμα. D21 (Type 2)  Alliance between Athenians, Boiotians, Corinthians and Argives; establishment of a common council; date: c. 395–393; D.S. 14.82.1: συμμαχίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐποιήσαντο. D22 (Type 2)  Decree (dogma) for the reconstruction of walls; date: 395/4; Harpokration s. v. Hermes: ἀρξάμενοι πρῶτοι τειχίζειν οἵδ’ ἀνέθηκαν βουλῆς καὶ δέμου δόγμασι πειθόμενοι. D23 (Type 1) Decree granting ateleia and statue for Konon; date: 394/3; Dem. 20.68–71: ἀναγνώσεται τὰ τότε ψηφισθέντα τῷ Κόνωνι, etc. D24 (Type 2)  Decree honouring Evagoras of Salamis; date: 394/3; proposer: Sophilos; Isoc. 9 Evagoras 57: ἐτιμήσαμεν ταῖς μεγίσταις τιμαῖς. D25 † (Type 2)  Decree concerning the discussion of peace; date: 392/1; Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace (= FGrH328 F149b): ἔδοξεν ὥστε εἴσω τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. D26 † * (Type 2) Proposal of peace with the Spartans; date: 392/1; proposer: Andocides; Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace (= FGrH328 F149b): Ἀνδοκίδης συμβουλεύει τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις καταδέξασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην. D27 (Type 1)  Decree impeaching ambassadors who negotiated with the Spartans; date: 392/1 or 387/6; proposer: Kallistratos; Dem. 19. 276-9: κατὰ τουτὶ τὸ ψήφισμ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν πρέσβεων ἐκείνων ὑμεῖς θάνατον κατέγνωτε, etc. D28 (Type 1) Citizenship and ateleia for Satyros of the Kimmerian Bosporos; date: before 389?; IG II3 1 298: τὰς δωρειὰς ἃς [ὁ δῆμ]ος ἔδωκε Σατύρωι καὶ Λεύκωνι, cf. Isoc. Trapezetikos 57. DD29, 30 (Type 2)  Friendship and alliance with Amadokos and Seuthes of Thrace; date: winter 391 or spring 390; Xen. Hell. 4.8.26: Ἀθηναίοις δὲ φίλους καὶ συμμάχους ἐποίησε, etc. DD31,   32 (Type 1)  Decrees for the exiles Archebios and Herakleides of Byzantion, making them proxenoi, euergetai, and awarding them ateleia;

20

inventory a checklist

date: 390 or 389-386; Dem. 20.60: μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἐκπεσόντων ἐψηφίσασθε ἅπερ, οἶμαι, φεύγουσιν εὐεργέταις δι’ ὑμᾶς προσῆκε, προξενίαν, εὐεργεσίαν, ἀτέλειαν ἁπάντων. D33 (Type 2) Alliance with Evagoras of Salamis in Cyprus; date: summer 390; Xen Hell. 4.8.24: ἐπὶ συμμαχίᾳ τῇ Εὐαγόρου. D34 (Type 1) Decree sending warships and aid to Cyprus; date: summer 390; Lysias 19.21–2: ὑμεῖς δὲ τριήρεις αὐτοῖς ἔδοτε καὶ τἆλλα ἐψηφίσασθε. D35 † (Type 2) Honours for Iphikrates of Rhamnous; date: post-390; see D54 below. D36 (Type 2)  Alliance with Akoris of Egypt; date: 390 or 389; Scholion on Aristophanes, Wealth 178: ἐκ τούτου Ἀθηναῖοι ἔπεμψαν τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις συμμαχίαν εἰς τὸν πρὸς Πέρσας πόλεμον. D37 (Type 1) Decree recalling Athenians from Aegina; date: 389; Xen. Hell. 5.1.5: ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος Ἀθηναῖοι πληρώσαντες ναῦς πολλὰς ἀπεκομίσαντο ἐξ Αἰγίνης πέμπτῳ μηνί. D38 (Type 1) Decree requesting accounts and recall of Ergokles; date: 390/89; Lys. 28.5: ἐψηφίσασθε τὰ χρήματα ἀπογράψαι. D39 (Type 1) Decree(s?) of ateleia and citizenship for Leukon and his sons; date: 389/8 or later; Dem. 20.35–7: τὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ περὶ τοῦ Λεύκωνος, etc. D40 (Type 2) Award of ateleia for Thasians; date: 389/8; Dem. 20.59: τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν Θασίους τοὺς μετ’ Ἐκφάντου πῶς οὐκ ἀδικήσετε, ἐὰν ἀφαιρῆσθε τὴν ἀτέλειαν. D41 (Type 1) Decree offering shelter to Corinthians exiled by Spartans; date: 386; Dem. 20.55: ἃ μὲν ἐψηφίσασθε τοῖς φεύγουσιν δι’ ὑμᾶς Κορινθίων ταῦτ’ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί. D42 (Type 1) Decree of citizenship for Pasion and his descendants; date: c. 390– 86; [Dem.] 59.2: ψηφισαμένου γὰρ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων Ἀθηναῖον εἶναι Πασίωνα καὶ ἐκγόνους τοὺς ἐκείνου διὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας τὰς εἰς τὴν πόλιν. D43 (Type 2) Award of citizenship and crowns for Kotys of Thrace; date: 384/3; Dem. 23.118: τὸν Κότυν ποτ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐποιήσασθε πολίτην, δῆλον ὡς κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον εὔνουν ἡγούμενοι. D44 (Type 1)  Decree for armed intervention in Thebes; date: winter 379/8; proposer: Kephalos; Din. 1.39: Κεφάλου τοῦ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψαντος, etc. D45 (Type 1) Decree declaring that the Spartans had broken the King’s Peace; date: spring 378; D.S. 15.29.7–8: ἐψηφίσαντο λελύσθαι τὰς σπονδὰς ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων. D46 (Type 1) Decree awarding statue and crown to Chabrias; date: 377/6 or 376/5; Dem. 20.84: λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῷ Χαβρίᾳ ψήφισμα ψηφισθέν.

inventory a checklist

21

D47 (Type 2)  Awards bestowed upon Timotheos; date: 376/5; Dem. 20.84: Τιμοθέῳ διδόντες τὴν δωρεάν. D48 † (Type 2) Decree (dogma) recalling Timotheos; date: 375; Xen. Hell. 6.2.2: δόγμα τῆς πόλεως. D49 (Type 2) Award of isopoliteia for Plataeans; date: 374/3; D.S. 15.46.5: τῆς ἰσοπολιτείας ἔτυχον διὰ τὴν χρηστότητα τοῦ δήμου. D50 (Type 1) Decree sending a force to Corcyra; date: 374/3; Xen. Hell. 6.2.11: ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ καὶ ἑξήκοντα ναῦς πληροῦν. D51 (Type 1) Decree in favour of peace; date: Skirophorion 371; Xen. Hell. 6.3.2: ἐκ τούτων δὲ ψηφισάμενος ὁ δῆμος εἰρήνην ποιεῖσθαι. D52 (Type 2)  Proposal of peace with the Great King; date: 371; proposer: Kallias; Did. Dem. Col 7.71-4: τὴν ὑπὸ Καλλίου τοῦ Ἱππον{ε}ίκου πρ[υ] τανευθεῖσαν εἰρήνην. D53 (Type 1) Ratification of the post-Leuktra peace at Athens; date: 371/0; Xen. Hell. 6.5.1–3. δόγμα ἐποιήσαντο μετὰ τῶν κοινωνεῖν βουλομένων ὀμόσαι τόνδε τὸν ὅρκον …. οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ψηφισάμενοι. D54 † (Type 2) Decree honouring Iphikrates (cf. D35); date: 371/0; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 12 p. 21 1–9: ἑπτὰ ἔτεσιν ὅλοις ἂν εἴη προτεροῦσα τῆς γραφῆς τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἡ τελευτὴ τοῦ ῥήτορος, etc. D55 (Type 1) Decree for armed assistance to the Lakedaimonians; date: 369/8; proposer: Kallistratos; Xen. Hell. 6.5.49: ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ βοηθεῖν πανδημεί, etc. D56 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the command of the forces in the alliance; date: 369/8; proposer: Kephisodotos; Xen. Hell. 7.1.14: ἐψηφίσαντο κατὰ πενθήμερον ἑκατέρους ἡγεῖσθα. D57 (Type 2) The repair of processional vessels; date: 368/7 or later; proposer Androtion; Dem. 22.69–70: συγχωνεύειν ἔπεισεν. D58 (Type 2)  Honours, military aid, alliance, and statue for Alexander of Pherai; date: 368/7; Plu. Pel. 31.6: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ μισθοδότην Ἀλέξανδρον εἶχον καὶ χαλκοῦν ἵστασαν ὡς εὐεργέτην. D59 (Type 2) Citizenship for Ariobarzanes (satrap of Phrygia), his three sons, and his subordinates, Philiskos and Agavos of Abydos; date: 368–366; Dem. 23.141: ὑμεῖς ἐποιήσασθε ἔν τισι καιροῖς καὶ χρόνοις Ἀριοβαρζάνην πολίτην καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Φιλίσκον, etc. D60 (Type 1)  Decree sending out Timotheos to Ariobarzanes; date: spring 366; Dem. 15.9: ὑμεῖς ἐξεπέμψατε Τιμόθεόν ποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, βοηθήσοντα Ἀριοβαρζάνῃ, προσγράψαντες τῷ ψηφίσματι… . D61 (Type 2)  Awards of citizenship for Phrasierides and Polysthenes; date: 366/5 or later; Dem. 23.202: πάλιν Τιμοθέου δόξαντός τι ποιῆσαι τῶν δεόντων ὑμῖν, πρὸς τῷ πάνθ’ ἃ μέγιστ’ ἦν αὐτῷ δοῦναι προσέθηκαν αὐτῷ Φρασιηρίδην καὶ Πολυσθένην.

22

inventory a checklist

D62 (Type 2) Citizenship for Klearchos; date: 366–362; Dem. 20.84: καὶ πάλιν Τιμοθέῳ διδόντες τὴν δωρειάν, δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἐδώκατε καὶ Κλεάρχῳ καί τισιν ἄλλοις πολιτείαν. D63 (Type 2)  Alliance with Arcadians; proposer Demotion (?); date: 366/5; Xen. Hell. 7.4.2: οὕτω δὴ προσεδέχοντο τὴν τῶν Ἀρκάδων συμμαχίαν. D64 (Type 1) Decree ordering Iphikrates to take care of Amphipolitan prisoners; date: summer 365; Dem. 23.149: ψηφισαμένων ὑμῶν ὡς ὑμᾶς κομίσαι παρέδωκεν Ἀμφιπολίταις, etc. D65 (Type 1)  Decree sending cleruchies to Samos; proposer: ?Kydias; date: 366/5; Arist. Rh. 1384b 32–5: ἃ ἂν ψηφίσωνται. D66 **? (Type 2)  Proposal relating to Keos; proposer: Aristophon; date: late 360s; Schol. Aeschin 1.64 (Dilts 145): ἐφ’ ᾧ γραφεὶς ὑπὸ Ὑπερείδου παρανόμων. D67 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the mobilisation of triremes; proposer: Aristophon; date: 24th Metageitnion 362/1; [Dem.] 50.3–7: καὶ ἐνίκησε τὸ Ἀριστοφῶντος ψήφισμα τουτί. D68 (Type 1) Decree on the levy of eisphora and about the report on the proeispherontes; date: on or shortly after 24th Metageitnion 362/1; [Dem.] 50.8: ἐψηφίσασθε … δόξαν γὰρ ὑμῖν. D69 (Type 1) Decree ordering that Polykles should take over as trierarch; date: autumn 361, perhaps Pyanepsion 361/0; [Dem.] 50.29: ἐπειδὴ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἠναγκάσθη ἐπὶ τὴν ναῦν ἀπιέναι. D70 (Type 1) Decree praising Apollodoros; date: after 24th Metageitnion 362/1; [Dem.] 50.13: ἀναγνώσεται τὴν μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ τοῦ δήμου. D71 (Type 1) Decree(s) concerning Miltokythes; date: summer 362; Dem 23.104: ἐγράφη τι παρ’ ὑμῖν ψήφισμα τοιοῦτον. D72 (Type 2) Citizenship for Phormion; date: 361/0; [Dem.] 46.13: ὁ δὲ Φορμίων Ἀθηναῖος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Νικοφήμου. D73 (Type 2) Decree awarding honours to the assassins of Kotys; date: c. 360; Dem. 23.116, 126–7: τοὺς ἀποκτείναντας ἐκεῖνον Πύθωνα καὶ Ἡρακλείδην, τοὺς Αἰνίους, πολίτας ἐποιήσασθε ὡς εὐεργέτας καὶ χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ἐστεφανώσατε. D74 (Type 2)  Citizenship for Kersobleptes, son of Kotys, of Thrace; date: c. 360–357; Dem. 23.141: ὑμεῖς ἐποιήσασθε ἔν τισι καιροῖς καὶ χρόνοις Ἀριοβαρζάνην πολίτην. D75 (Type 2) Citizenship for Euderkes; date: c. 360–357; Dem. 23.203: ἐπειδὴ Κερσοβλέπτην ἠξίουν ὧν αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει προστιθέασιν δύ’ αὐτῷ, τὸν μὲν ὅσ’ ὑμεῖς ἀκηκόατε εἰργασμένον κακά, τὸν δ’ ὅλως οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τίς ἐστιν, Εὐδέρκην ὄνομα. D76 (Type 1) Honorific crown for trierarchic victors; date: 360/59; Dem. 51.1: τὸ ψήφισμα ἐκέλευε δοῦναι τὸν στέφανον.

inventory a checklist

23

D77 (Type 2) Citizenship for Simon of Thrace; date: 359; Dem. 23.12: ὁ Σίμων οὐδ’ ὁ Βιάνωρ, πολῖται γεγενημένοι. D78 (Type 2) Citizenship for Bianor of Thrace; date: c. 359; Dem. 23.12: ὁ Σίμων οὐδ’ ὁ Βιάνωρ, πολῖται γεγενημένοι. D79 (Type 2)  Peace with Philip; date: 359; D.S. 16.4.1: ὁ Φίλιππος πρέσβεις ἐκπέμψας εἰς Ἀθήνας ἔπεισε τὸν δημον εἰρήνην πρὸς αὐτὸν συνθέσθαι. D80 (Type 2)  Alliance with Thracian kings; date: 358/7; Dem. 23.175: ἡ μὲν τοίνυν συμμαχία τοῖς βασιλεῦσι {τοῖν δυοῖν} τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον μετὰ τὴν παράκρουσιν τὴν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Κηφισόδοτον συνθηκῶν συνεστάθη. D81 (Type 1)  Decree sending envoys to Kersobleptes; date: 358/7; proposer: Glaukon; Dem. 23.172: ψηφίζεσθε ψήφισμα Γλαύκωνος εἰπόντος ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις δέκα ἄνδρας ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν. D82 (Type 1)  Decree sending a force to Euboia; date: 358/7; proposer: Kephisodotos (?); Dem. 8.75: οὐκοῦν εἶπε μὲν ταῦτα ὁ Τιμόθεος, ἐποιήσατε δ’ ὑμεῖς· ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπράχθη. D83 (Type 2) Alliance with Charidemos and Thracian kings; date: 357/6; Dem. 23.173: οὕτω γράφει πάλιν συνθήκας πρὸς τὸν Χάρητα. D84 (Type 2) Citizenship and gold crown for Charidemos of Oreos; date: 357/6 or late 360s; Dem. 23.145: ἴσως δέ τισιν λογιζομένοις ὑμῶν ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν πολίτης γέγονεν ἅνθρωπος, εἶτα πάλιν χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ὡς εὐεργέτης ἐστεφάνωται. D85 (Type 1)  Decree concerning collection of naval equipment; date: 357/6; proposer: Charidemos; Dem. 47.19: ψηφισμάτων  δὲ ὑμετέρων δήμου καὶ βουλῆς καὶ νόμου ἐπιτάξαντος, etc. D86 (Type 1) Decree on the recovery of state debts; date: 357/6; Dem. 47.21: ψήφισμα δήμου ἠνάγκαζε τὸ πρὸς μέρος ἡμῖν διδόναι τῶν ὀφειλόντων ἕκαστον εἰσπράξασθαι. D87 (Type 2)  Alliance with the Phokians; date: 356/5 or 355/4; proposer: Hegesippos; Aeschin. 3.118: ἅμα δὲ ἐμέμνητο τῆς τῶν Φωκέων συμμαχίας ἣν ὁ Κρωβύλος ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψε, etc. D88 (Type 1) Decree arranging the recovery of arrears of eisphora; date: 356/5; proposer: Androtion; Dem. 24.160: καταλύσας ψηφίσματι κληρωτὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, ἐπὶ τὴν εἴσπραξιν παρέδυ. D89 (Type 1) Honours for council of 356/5; date: 355/4; proposer: Androtion; Dem. 22.5: διεχειροτόνησεν ὁ δῆμος, ἔδοξεν. D90 (Type 2)  Decision bringing the Social War to an end; date: 355/4; D.S. 16.22.2: ὁ δῆμος εὐλαβηθεὶς ἔκρινε καταλύσασθαι τὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἀφεστηκότας πόλεμον.

24

inventory a checklist

D91 (Type 1) Decree appointing a commission of inquiry; date: before 353/2, probably 354/3; proposer: Aristophon; Dem. 24.11: ψήφισμα εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν Ἀριστοφῶν ἑλέσθαι ζητητάς. D92 (Type 2)  Decree ordering the collection of money; date: before Skirophorion 354/3; proposer: Euktemon; Dem. 24.11–14: προσῆλθε τῇ βουλῇ, προβούλευμα ἐγράφη. μετὰ ταῦτα γενομένης ἐκκλησίας προὐχειροτόνησεν ὁ δῆμος. D93 (Type 1)  Decree concerning establishment of nomothetai; date: Hekatombaion 11th 353/2; proposer: Epikrates (?); Dem. 24.26–9: λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναγίγνωσκε σύ. D94 * (Type 1) Proposal of protection for Charidemos; date: 353/2 or 352/1; proposer: Aristokrates; Dem. 23.16: καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ψηφίσματος αὐτοῦ μαρτυρία τίς ἐστ’ εὐμεγέθης. ‘ἂν γὰρ ἀποκτείνῃ τις Χαρίδημον’ γράψας, etc.

Decrees of Uncertain Date of the Period 403/2–c. 350 D95 (Type 1) Decree about the price of salt; date: c. 403–392; Schol on Ar. Eccl. 813: ψηφίσματα· Ἐψηφίσαντο γὰρ αὐτοὺς εὐωνοτέρους εἶναι, καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ἄκυρον γέγονε. D96 (Type 1) Decree withdrawing copper coinage; date: c. 403–392; Ar. Eccl. 816–17: τοὺς χαλκοῦς δ’ ἐκείνους ἡνίκα ἐψηφισάμεθ’, οὐκ οἶσθα. D97 (Type 1) Decree concerning the eisphora tax; date: before 392; proposer: Eurippides or Heurippides; Scholiast on Ar. Eccl. 825: τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς· οὗτος ἔγραψε τεσσαρακοστὴν εἰσενεγκεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας εἰς τὸ κοινόν. D98 (Type 1) Decree proposing exile of Xenophon; date: 399–394/3; proposer: Euboulos or Euboulides; Diogenes Laertius 2.59 (= Istros FGrH334 F32): κατὰ ψήφισμα Εὐβούλου. D99 (Type 2)  Decree of unknown content; date: c. 400–380; proposer: Phanias; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai, 551d–e: ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Φανίου παρανόμων ἐπιγραφομένῳ λόγῳ. D100 (Type 2) Citizenship for Strabax and Polystratos; date: 390s or 370s; Dem. 20.84: ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Φανίου παρανόμων ἐπιγραφομένῳ λόγῳ. D101 (Type 1)  Decree recalling Xenophon; date: 386 or 371–362; proposer: Euboulos; Diogenes Laertius 2.59 (= Istros FGrH334 F32): κατὰ ψήφισμα τοῦ αὐτοῦ. D102 (Type 2)  Award of ateleia for Aristophon; date: 403–355; Dem. 20.148: εὕρετο τὴν δωρειὰν παρ’ ὑμῖν. D103 (Type 2)  Decree bestowing proxeny on Lykidas and Dionysios; date: before 355; Dem. 20.131–3: διὰ τοὺς μισθοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα γράφοντας ἑτοίμως πρόξενοι γεγόνασι.

inventory a checklist

25

D104 a–b †  Award of ateleia for Megarians and Messenians; date: before 355/4; Dem. 20.131: ἔτι τοίνυν ἴσως ἐπισύροντες ἐροῦσιν ὡς Μεγαρεῖς καὶ Μεσσήνιοί τινες εἶναι φάσκοντες, ἔπειτ’ ἀτελεῖς εἰσιν.

Inventory A2: Decrees of the Period 352/1–322/1 D105 (Type 1) Decree celebrating a military victory; date: late summer 352; proposer: Diophantos; Dem. 19.86: λέγε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν. D106 (Type 1) Decree launching an expedition against Philip; date: 352/1; proposer: unknown; Dem. 3.4: ἐψηφίσασθε τετταράκοντα τριήρεις καθέλκειν καὶ τοὺς μέχρι πέντε καὶ τετταράκοντα ἐτῶν αὐτοὺς ἐμβαίνειν καὶ τάλαντα ἑξήκοντα εἰσφέρειν. D107 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the sacred orgas; date: 352/1; proposer: Philokrates; Didymus col. 13.42-58 = Philochorus FGrH328 F155: κατὰ [ψ]ήφισμα Φιλοκράτους. D108 * (Type 1) Proposal on mobilisation against Philip; date: between 352 and 350; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 4.33: ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἁγὼ γέγραφα. D109 ** (Type 2) Proposal for award of citizenship to Apollonides of Olynthos; date: 351 or 349; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 59.91: πολίτας ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου γενομένους. D110 ** (Type 2)  Proposal for award of citizenship to Peitholaos (and Lykophron) of Thessaly; date: 352-49; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 59.91: πολίτας ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου γενομένους with Arist. Rh. 1410a 17ff. D111 (Type 1) Decree for an expedition against the Megarians; date: 351; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 13.32; οἷον ἃ πρὸς τοὺς καταράτους Μεγαρέας ἐψηφίσασθε ἀποτεμνομένους τὴν ὀργάδα ἐξιέναι, κωλύειν. D112 (Type 1) Decree sending assistance to the Phleiasians; date: 351 or before 349/8; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 13.32: ἐψηφίσασθε … μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν· ἃ πρὸς Φλειασίους. D113 (Type 2) Peace and alliance with the Olynthians, followed by military intervention; date: 351–349/8; proposer: unknown; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaeus 9 p. 267 10–17 (= Philochorus FGrH328 F49): οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι συμμαχίαν τε ἐποιήσαντο. D114 (Type 1) Decree honouring Aeschines; date: 349/8; proposer: unknown; Aeschin. 2.169–70: ὅτι δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα. D115 ** (Type 1) Probouleuma and decree concerning the theoric fund; date: spring 348; proposer: Apollodoros; [Dem.] 59.4–6: ἔγραψε ψήφισμα ἐν τῇ βουλῇ Ἀπολλόδωρος βουλεύων καὶ ἐξήνεγκε προβούλευμα εἰς τὸν δῆμον.

26

inventory a checklist

D116 (Type 1) Decree dispatching envoys across Greece; date: 348/7; proposer: Euboulos; Dem.19.303–4: ὁ μὲν γράφων τὸ ψήφισμα Εὔβουλος ἦν. D117 (Type 2)  Decision to send envoys to Philip; date: 348/7, probably late summer 348; proposer: Phrynon; Aeschin. 2.12: πεισθέντες δ’ ὑμεῖς εἵλεσθ’ αὐτῷ Κτησιφῶντα πρεσβευτήν. D118 (Type 2) Honours for Ktesiphon; date: late summer/autumn 348/7; proposer: unknown; Aeschin 2.13: τοῦ δήμου σφόδρα ἀποδεξαμένου καὶ τὸν Κτησιφῶντα ἐπαινέσαντος, ἀντειπόντος δ’ οὐδενός. D119 (Type 1)  Decree censuring those who had betrayed Olynthos; date: 348/7; proposer: unknown; Dem. 19.267–8: λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ περὶ τῶν Ὀλυνθίων. D120 (Type 1) Decree honouring Olynthians; date: 348/7; proposer: unknown; Harpokration, s.v. isoteleis (citing Theophrastus, Nomoi, book 11): ἐψηφίζοντο τὴν ἰσοτέλειαν Ἀθηναῖοι ὥσπερ Ὀλυνθίοις τε καὶ Θηβαίοις. D121 (Type 1)  Decree allowing Philip to send a herald and ambassadors; date: 348/7; proposer: Philokrates; Aeschin. 2.13–14: δίδωσι ψήφισμα Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος. D122 (Type 1) Decree concerning the export of weapons to Philip; date: 347/6; proposer: Timarchos; Dem. 19.285–7: λέγε δή μοι τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν αὐτὸ τὸ τοῦ Τιμάρχου. D123 (Type 1)  Decree concerning mobilisation in response to a Phokian appeal; date: Gamelion/Anthesterion 346; proposer: unknown; Aeschin. 2.132–3: ψηφισαμένων δ’ ὑμῶν παραδοῦναι Προξένῳ τῷ στρατηγῷ τοὺς Φωκέας ταῦτα τὰ χωρία, καὶ πεντήκοντα πληροῦν τριήρεις, καὶ τοὺς μέχρι τετταράκοντα ἔτη γεγονότας ἐξιέναι. D124 (Type 2)  Decree praising Aristodemos; date: 347/6; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 2.17: στεφανῶσαι τὸν Ἀριστόδημον ἔγραψε, etc. D125 (Type 2) Decree dispatching ambassadors to Philip (the ‘First Embassy’); date: 347/6; proposer: Philokrates; Aeschin. 2.18: ψήφισμα ἔγραψεν ὁ Φιλοκράτης. D126 (Type 2)  Decree granting a truce for Philip’s envoys; date: late Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 2.53: ἐγὼ δὲ ψήφισμα γράψω. D127 (Type 1) Decree organising meetings of the assembly; date: Anthesterion/ Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 2.110: Ἔπειθ’ ἕτερον ἐπήγετο ψήφισμα, τὸ καὶ περὶ συμμαχίας βουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον. D128 (Type 1) Decree honouring Athenian envoys on the First Embassy; date: Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin.

inventory a checklist

27

2.45–6: ἔγραψε γὰρ ἡμᾶς στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ ἕκαστον εὐνοίας ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον … λαβέτω μοι τὸ ψήφισμα ὁ γραμματεύς, etc. D129 (Type 1)  Decree dispatching Antiochos to an Athenian general; date: Anthesterion or Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; proposer: Kephisophon; Aeschin. 2.73: ἠναγκάσθη γράψαι ψήφισμα Κηφισοφῶν ὁ Παιανιεύς. D130 (Type 1)  Decree for peace and alliance with Philip, the ‘Peace of Philokrates’; date: 19th Elaphebolion 347/6; proposer: Philokrates; Aeschin. 3.54: τοῦτον δ’ ἀφορίζεται τῇ γενομένῃ εἰρήνῃ καὶ συμμαχίᾳ ἣν Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος ἔγραψε, etc. D131 (Type 1)  Decree on the swearing of oaths of the ‘Peace of Philokrates’; date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6; proposer: Philokrates; Aeschin. 3.73–5: λανθάνει γὰρ ὁ μὲν Φιλοκράτης ἐν ψηφίσματι μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων γράμμα τι παρεγγράψας, ὁ δ’ ἐπιψηφίσας, Δημοσθένης. D132 * (Type 1) Proposal to allow Kersobleptes to give oaths to Philip; date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6; proposer: Aleximachos; Aeschin. 2.83–5: Ἀλεξίμαχος ὁ Πήληξ δίδωσιν ἀναγνῶναι ψήφισμα τοῖς προέδροις. D133 (Type 1)  Decree containing instructions for the ‘Second Embassy’ to Philip; date: Elaphebolion 347/6; proposer: unknown; Aeschin. 2.101: ἀνεγνώσθη μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καθ’ ὃ ἐπρεσβεύομεν, etc. D134 (Type 1)  Decree praising Philip, extending the peace to posterity and inserting a clause against the Phokians; date: 16th Skirophorion 347/6, after the return of the ‘Second Embassy’; proposer: Philokrates; Dem. 19.47–9: τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ δίδωσι γράψας μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Φιλοκράτης. D135 (Type 1)  Decree ordering the evacuation of the Attic countryside, the celebration of a festival of Herakles, and the restoration of fortifications; date: 27th Skirophorion 346; proposer: Kallisthenes; Dem. 19.86: λέγε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν τὸ τοῦ Διοφάντου καὶ τὸ τοῦ Καλλισθένους. D136 (Type 2) Decree honouring Phokion; date: 24th Gamelion 346/5, or later in the 340s; proposer: Meidias; [Plu.] X Or. 850b: γραψάμενος δὲ καὶ τὴν Φωκίωνος δωρεάν, ἣν εἶπε Μειδίας Μειδίου Ἀναγυράσιος ἐπὶ Ξενίου ἄρχοντος, Γαμηλιῶνος ἑβδόμῃ φθίνοντος, ἡττήθη. D137 (Type 2) Decree associated with the scrutiny of the citizen-body; date: 346/5; proposer: Demophilos; Scholiast to Aeschin 1.77 (Dilts 169b): Δημόφιλος δέ τις εἰσηγήσατο διαψηφίσεις. D138 (Type 1) Decree concerning public works on the Pnyx Hill; date: 346/5; proposer: Timarchos; Aeschin. 1.81: τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ οὗτος εἰρήκει περὶ τῶν οἰκήσεων τῶν ἐν τῇ Πυκνί. D139 (Type 2)  Decree proposing an embassy to the Peloponnese; date: 344; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.79: τὴν εἰς Πελοπόννησον πρεσβείαν ἔγραψα.

28

inventory a checklist

D140 (Type 1) Decree in response to Philip’s ambassador concerning amendments to the peace; date: 344/3; proposer: Hegesippos; [Dem.] 7.18–19: ἐν γὰρ τῇ αὐτῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ οἱ πρέσβεις ὑμῖν οἱ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου ἥκοντες διελέγοντο καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐγράφη. D141.(Type 2) Proposal concerning amendments to the Peace of Philokrates; date: 344/3; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 7.30–1: περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἐπανορθώματος, ὃ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῇ εἰρήνῃ ἐπανορθοῦσθε. D142 (Type 1) Decree calling on the Greeks to rally against the Great King; date: 344/3?; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 12.6: ἐψηφίσασθε, ἂν ἐκεῖνός τι νεωτερίζῃ, παρακαλεῖν ὁμοίως ἐμὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. D143 (Type 1) Decree concerning an intervention at Megara; date: 344/3; proposer: Phokion or unknown; Plu. Phoc. 15.1–2: ὡς ἐπεψηφίσαντο. D144 (Type 2)  Proposal to respond to Philip’s letter and to the speeches of ambassadors; date: 344/3; proposer: Hegesippos; [Dem.] 7.46: γράψαι τὴν ἀπόκρισιν. D145 (Type 2) Decree concerning the execution of Anaxinos of Oreos; date: 343 or later; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.223–4: ἔγραψας αὐτὸν θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι. D146 (Type 2) The crowning of an embassy; date: 343/2; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.83: στεφανώσας τοὺς μετὰ Ἀριστοδήμου εἰς Θετταλίαν καὶ Μαγνησίαν παρὰ τὰς τῆς εἰρήνης συνθήκας πρεσβεύσαντας. D147 (Type 1) Decree of alliance with Chalkis; date: 343/2 or 342/1; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.92-3: λαβέ μοι τὴν Καλλίᾳ γραφεῖσαν συμμαχίαν. ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισμα. D148a (Type 2)  Dispatch of ambassadors to Euboia; date: 343/2; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.79: ἔγραψα … εἶτα τὴν εἰς Εὔβοιαν, ἡνίκ’ Εὐβοίας ἥπτετο. D148b (= 148a?). (Type 2) Decree for ambassadors to go to Eretria and Oreos; date: 343/2 or summer 341; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.100–2: ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἤδη συστρέψας γράφει, ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις εἰς Ἐρέτριαν. D149 (Type 2)  Alliances with Achaians and others; date: around 343/2 (and later); proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.237: ἐγὼ συμμάχους μὲν ὑμῖν ἐποίησα Εὐβοέας, Ἀχαιούς, Κορινθίους, Θηβαίους, Μεγαρέας, Λευκαδίους, Κερκυραίους. D150 (Type 2)  Decree on settlers at the Chersonese; date: 343/2 or later; proposer: Polykrates(?); [Dem.] 12.16: κατὰ τὸ Πολυκράτους δόγμα πολεμούντων ἡμῖν. D151 (Type 1)  Alliance with Byzantians date: spring 341?; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.302–2: πέπρακται τοῖς ἐμοῖς ψηφίσμασι καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πολιτεύμασιν.

inventory a checklist

29

D152 (Type 1)  Alliance with the Abydians; date: spring 341?; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.302: πέπρακται τοῖς ἐμοῖς ψηφίσμασι καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πολιτεύμασιν. D153 (Type 2)  Alliance with the Chalkidians; date: spring/summer 341; proposer: unknown; Didymus, Demosthenes, col. 1 lines 13–18 (Philochorus FGrH328 F159): καὶ συμμαχί̣α̣ν̣ Ἀθηναῖοι̣ πρὸς Χα̣λ̣κ̣ι̣δ̣ε̣ῖ̣ς̣ ἐ̣π̣ο̣ι̣[ήσαντο. D154 (Type 2)  Proposal for an expedition to Oreos; date: summer 341; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.79: ἔγραψα … εἶτα τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ὠρεὸν ἔξοδον. D155 (Type 2) Decree dispatching expedition to Eretria; date: late summer 341; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.79: ἔγραψα … τὴν εἰς Ἐρέτριαν. D156 (Type 2)  Decree honouring Demosthenes; date: late 341/early 340; proposer: Aristonikos; Dem. 18.83: καί μοι λέγε καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα λαβών. D157 (Type 2) Dispatch of forces to the Hellespont (probably by decree); date: 340/39; proposer: Phokion; Plu. Phoc. 14.3: κινηθεὶς οὖν ὁ δῆμος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου καὶ μεταπεσών. D158 (Type 2) Proposal to dispatch forces to Byzantion, the Chersonese and other places; date: late summer 340; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.88: τίς δ᾽ ὁ τῇ πόλει λέγων καὶ γράφων καὶ πράττων καὶ ἁπλῶς ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἀφειδῶς δούς; D159 (Type 1)  Decree of mobilisation against Philip; date: 340/39; proposer: Demosthenes; Dion. Hal. To Ammaeus 11 p. 273 1–8 (= Philochorus FGrH328 F55a): ψηφίσματα γράψαντος ἐχειροτόνησε τὴν μὲν στήλην καθελεῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήνης καὶ συμμαχίας σταθεῖσαν, etc. D160 (Type 1)  Decree appointing nomothetai; date: 340; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.105: καί μοι λέγε πρῶτον μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καθ᾽ ὃ εἰσῆλθον τὴν γραφήν. D161 (Type 1) Decree concerning the attendance of the Athenian representatives at the meetings of the Delphian Amphictyony; date: autumn 340 or spring 339; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.125–8: τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία διεπράξατο ἐπιψηφισθῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι δήμου ψήφισμα. D162 (Type 1) Decree about marching to Eleusis and sending envoys to Thebes; date: 339/8; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.179: καί μοι φέρε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ τότε γενόμενον. D163 (Type 1) Decree of alliance with the Thebans; date: late spring 339; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.142–3: γράψας ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι. D164 ** (Type 1) Decree for the transfer of revenues to the stratiotic fund; date: 339/8; proposer: Demosthenes; Dion. Hal. To Ammaeus 11 p. 273 12–17 (= FGrH328 F56a): τὰ δὲ χρήματα ἐψηφίσαντο πάντ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικά, Δημοσθένους γράψαντος.

30

inventory a checklist

D165 (Type 1)  Decree celebrating military success; date: winter 339/8; proposer: unknown; Dem. 18.217–18: λέγε δὴ καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ψηφίσματά μοι. D166a (Type 1)  Decree of honours for Demosthenes; date: early summer 338/7; proposer: Demomeles; Dem. 18.222–3: καίτοι τότε τὸν Δημομέλη τὸν ταῦτα γράφοντα καὶ τὸν Ὑπερείδην, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ μου νῦν κατηγορεῖ, μᾶλλον ἂν εἰκότως ἢ τόνδ᾽ ἐδίωκεν. D166b (Type 1) Modification of honours for Demosthenes?; date: early summer 338/7 or later; proposer: Hypereides; [Plu.] X Or. 846a: ἐστεφανώθη, … Ὑπερείδου χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ … D167 Emergency measures after Chaironeia; date: late summer 338/7; proposer: Hypereides D167a * (Type 1)  Decree proposing that slaves, aliens, and disenfranchised slaves be enfranchised; date: late summer 338/7; proposer: Hypereides; Lycurg. 1.41: τὸν δῆμον ψηφισάμενον τοὺς μὲν δούλους ἐλευθέρους, τοὺς δὲ ξένους Ἀθηναίους, τοὺς δ’ ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους, etc. D167b (Type 1) Decree to evacuate women and children from the countryside to within the walls and empowering the generals ; date: late summer 338/7; proposer: Hypereides; Lycurg. 1.16: ἐψηφίσατο ὁ δῆμος παῖδας μὲν καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν εἰς τὰ τείχη κατακομίζειν, τοὺς δὲ στρατηγοὺς τάττειν εἰς τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οἰκούντων Ἀθήνησι, καθ’ ὅ τι ἂν αὐτοῖς δοκῇ. D167c (Type 1) Decree providing that the boule of 500 should go to the Piraeus: date: late summer 338/7; proposer: Hypereides; Lycurg. 1.36–7: καί μοι λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα, γραμματεῦ, τὸ Ὑπερείδου καὶ ἀναγίγνωσκε. D168 (Type 1)  Decree against deserters; date: late summer 338/7; proposer: unknown; Lycurg. 1.53: ἐψηφίσατο ἐνόχους εἶναι τῇ προδοσίᾳ τοὺς φεύγοντας τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος κίνδυνον. D169 (Type 1)  Decree(s) for military improvements; date: late summer 338; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 18.248: αἱ τάφροι, τὰ εἰς τὰ τείχη χρήματα, διὰ τῶν ἐμῶν ψηφισμάτων ἐγίγνετο. D170 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the dispatch of embassies and the organisation of citizens; date: late summer 338; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.78: ἀκούσατ’ ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι κἀκείνου τοῦ ψηφίσματος τοῦ γραφέντος ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους. D171 (Type 2) Decree proposing peace and alliance with Philip; date: autumn 338; proposer: Demades; [Dem.] On the Twelve Years 9–10: ἔγραψα τὴν εἰρήνην, ὁμολογῶ. D172 (Type 2) Decree relating to the common peace and Athenian membership of the League of Corinth; date: autumn 338; proposer: Demades; Plu.

inventory a checklist

31

Phoc. 16.4–5; Δημάδου δὲ γράψαντος ὅπως ἡ πόλις μετέχοι τῆς κοινῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τοῦ συνεδρίου τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, etc. D173 (Type 2)  Award of citizenship for Antipater; date: Gamelion 338 (?); proposer: Demades (?); Harpokration, s.v. Alkimachos: Ἀλκίμαχον καὶ Ἀντίπατρον Ἀθηναίους καὶ προξένους ἐποιησάμεθα. D174 (Type 2) Award of citizenship for Alexander the Great; date: autumn 338; proposer: unknown; Scholion in Aristeides Panathenaikos 178, 16 (Dindorf): ἡ πόλις ἐδέξατο, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, Ἀλέξανδρον, εἰς πολίτας ἀνέγραψεν. D175 (Type 1)  Decree granting citizenship to Troizenians; date: autumn 338; proposer: unknown; Hyp. Athenog. 31–3: τὸ τῶν [Τρ·οιζηνίω ̣ ̣ ]ν ψήφισμα, ὃ ἐψηφίσατ· [ο τῆι πόλει τῆ̣ι̣ ὑμ̣]ετέραι, δι’ ὃ ὑμεῖς αὐτοὺς [ὑπέδεξασθε] καὶ [π̣]ολίτας ἐποιήσασθε. D176 (Type 1) Decree prescribing meetings of the tribes for the repair of the walls; date: 29th Thargelion 338/7; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.27: καί μοι λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα. D177 (Type 1)  Decree awarding proxeny-status to Euthykrates of Olynthos; date: 338–336; proposer: Demades; Hypereides F76 Jensen (Johannes, ad Hermog. περὶ μεθόδου δεινότητος): ἔτι δὲ ἀναμνήσομεν διὰ ψηφίσματος εἰσφορᾶς, ὡς Ὑπ. ψηφίσματος κατηγορῶν ὑπὸ Δημάδου γραφέντος, πρόξενον Εὐθυκράτην εἶναι γράψαντος. D178 (Type 2) Decree awarding proxeny-status to Alkimachos; date: Gamelion 337/6; proposer: Demades (?); Harpokration, s.v. Alkimachos: Ἀλκίμαχον καὶ Ἀντίπατρον Ἀθηναίους καὶ προξένους ἐποιησάμεθα. D179 * (Type 1)  Honours for Demosthenes; date: winter 337/6; proposer: Ktesiphon; Aeschin. 3.49: λέγει γὰρ οὕτως ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι etc. D180 (Type 2)  Decree granting honours (statue, citizenship, and crown) for Philip of Macedon; date: summer 337 (and summer 336); proposer: Demades; [Demades], On the Twelve Years, 9: ἔγραψα καὶ Φιλίππῳ τιμάς, οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι. D181 (Type 1) Honours for proedroi; date: 336/5; proposer: Philippides; Hyp. Ag. Philippides 4–6: τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τὸ κρινόμενον ἔπαινος προέδρων. D182 (Type 1) Honours for Pausanias; date: late 337/6 to early 336/5; proposer: Demosthenes; Plu. Dem. 22.1: στεφανοῦν ἐψηφίσαντο Παυσανίαν. D183 (Type 1) Decree calling for the Athenians to evacuate Attica, repair walls and send envoys to Alexander; date: 335/4; proposer: unknown; D.S. 17.4.6: διόπερ Ἀθηναῖοι τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας ἐψηφίσαντο κατακομίζειν, τῶν δὲ τειχῶν τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι … D184 (Type 2)  Alliance with the Thebans and preparations for war; date: 335/4; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.239: τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν Θηβαίων συμμαχίαν ἐξειργάσατο.

32

inventory a checklist

D185 (Type 2) Decree for the election of ten ambassadors to be sent to Alexander; date: 15th–23rd Boedromion 335/4; proposer: Demades; Arrian, Anab. 1.10.2–3: ὁ δῆμος δὲ ἐς ἐκκλησίαν συνελθὼν Δημάδου γράψαντος δέκα πρέσβεις ἐκ πάντων Ἀθηναίων ἐπιλεξάμενος πέμπει παρὰ Ἀλέξανδρον. D186 (Type 1) Decree responding to Alexander’s demands for statesmen; date: 335/4; proposer: Demades; D.S. 17.15.3: ὁ μὲν οὖν δῆμος ἀποδεξάμενος τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τοῦ Δημάδου τό τε ψήφισμα ἐκύρωσε. D187 (Type 2) Decree granting statue and sitesis to Demades; date: 336/5; proposer: Kephisodotos; Din. 1.101: εἰσήγγελκας τὸν παρὰ τὰ τοῦ δήμου ψηφίσμα καὶ τοὺς νόμους πολλὰ διαπεπραγμένον; οὐδεπώποτε, ἀλλὰ περιεῖδες αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ χαλκοῦν σταθέντα καὶ τῆς ἐν πρυτανείῳ σιτήσεως κεκοινωνηκότα τοῖς Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος ἀπογόνοις. D188 (Type 2)  Proposal of peace with Alexander; date: 335/4?; proposer: Demades; [Demades], On the Twelve Years 14–15: ἔγραψα τὴν εἰρήνην, ὁμολογῶ. D189 (Type 2)  Statue for Epikrates; date: 335/4; proposer: unknown; Harpokration, s. v. Epikrates: μνημονεύει Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ περὶ διοικήσεως, λέγων ὡς χαλκοῦς ἐστάθη διὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν περὶ τῶν ἐφήβων. D190 (Type 1) Honours for Diotimos; date: 338/7 or 334/3; proposer: Lycurgus; [Plu.], X Or. 844a ψηφίσατο δὲ καὶ Διοτίμῳ Διοπείθους Εὐωνυμεῖ τιμὰς ἐπὶ Κτησικλέους ἄρχοντος (with Dem. 18.114). D191 (Type 1) Decree reacting to the Macedonian seizure of grain-ships; date: 333/2 or later; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 17.20: ἐψηφίσασθε τριήρεις ἑκατὸν πληροῦν καὶ καθέλκειν εὐθὺς τότε, καὶ στρατηγὸν ἐπ’ αὐταῖς ἐτάξατε Μενεσθέα. D192 *† (Type 2) Proposal of war on Alexander; date: 333/2 or later; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 17.30: ἐὰν οὖν κελεύητ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, γράψω, καθάπερ αἱ συνθῆκαι κελεύουσι, πολεμεῖν τοῖς παραβεβηκόσιν. D193 (Type 1) The detention of Harpalos; date: early summer 324; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.68: κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ Δημοσθένους. D194 (Type 1) Decree investigating which politicians had accepted money from Harpalos; date: summer 324; proposer: unknown; Din. 1.4: ψηφισαμένου γὰρ τοῦ δήμου δίκαιον ψήφισμα, καὶ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν βουλομένων εὑρεῖν, τίνες εἰσὶ τῶν ῥητόρων οἱ τολμήσαντες ἐπὶ διαβολῇ καὶ κινδύνῳ τῆς πόλεως χρήματα παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβεῖν. D195 (Type 1) Instruction to the Areopagus to investigate the Harpalos affair; date: August 324; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.4: πρὸς τούτοις ψηφίσματι γράψαντος ὦ Δημόσθενες σοῦ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, ζητεῖν

inventory a checklist

33

τὴν βουλὴν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτῇ πάτριόν. ἐστιν, εἴ τινες εἰλήφασι παρ’ Ἁρπάλου χρυσίον, ζητεῖ ἡ βουλή. D196 (Type 1) Decree concerning Harpalos’ money; date: August 324 or shortly afterwards; proposer: Philokles; Din. 3.2: γράψας καθ’ ἑαυτοῦ ψήφισμα καὶ θανάτου τιμησάμενος ἐὰν εἰλήφ[ῃ] τι τῶν χρημάτων ὧν Ἅρπαλος εἰς τὴν χώραν ἐκόμισεν. D197 ** (Type 1) The deification of Alexander and award of an honorific statue; date: autumn 324; proposer: Demades; Aelian, Hist. Misc. 5.12: ὁ Δημάδης ἐψηφίσατο θεὸν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον τρισκαιδέκατον, etc. D198 *(?) (Type 2)  Proposal that only established deities be worshipped; date: 324/3; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.94: καὶ τοτὲ μὲν γράφων καὶ ἀπαγορεύων μηδένα νομίζειν ἄλλον θεὸν ἢ τοὺς παραδεδομένους. D199 (Type 1) Decree proposing war against Macedon; date: summer 323; proposer: unknown; D.S. 18.10.2–5: οἱ μὲν ῥήτορες τὰς τῶν δημοτικῶν ὁρμὰς σωματοποιοῦντες ἔγραψαν ψήφισμα τῆς κοινῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας φροντίσαι τὸν δῆμον. D200a–b (Type 1) Decrees recalling Demosthenes and remitting his debt; date: summer 323/2 (midsummer 322); proposer: Demon; Plu. Dem. 27.6: ὁ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος ψηφίζεται τῷ Δημοσθένει κάθοδον. τὸ μὲν οὖν ψήφισμα Δήμων ὁ Παιανιεύς, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν Δημοσθένους, εἰσήνεγκεν. D201 (Type 1) Dispatch of envoys to Antipater; date: after Metageitnion 322/1; proposer: Demades; Plu. Phoc. 26.3–5: τότε γράφει ψήφισμα, [καὶ] πέμπειν πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορας. D202 (Type 1) Decree imposing death or exile on anti-Macedonian politicians; date: Metageitnion–Boedromion 322/1; proposer: possibly Demades or Phokion; Plu. Dem. 28.2: ὁ δὲ δῆμος αὐτῶν θάνατον κατέγνω Δημάδου γράψαντος.

Decrees of Uncertain Date of the Period 352/1–322/1 D203 (Type 2)  Award of citizenship for Antiphanes son of Stephanos/ Demophanes; date: between 388 and 330; proposer: Demosthenes (?); Anonymi de Comoedia 12 (Kaibel p. 9): παρεγγραφῆναι δὲ εἰς τὴν Ἀθηναίων πολιτείαν ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους. D204 (Type 2) Award of citizenship for Teres of Thrace; date: 359–343; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 12.8–9: Τήρην καὶ Κερσοβλέπτην … ὄντας Ἀθηναίους.

34

inventory a checklist

D205 (Type 1)  Decree concerning the contribution of the Ainians to the Athenian naval confederacy; date: 357–340; proposer: Thoukydides; Dem. 58.37–8: τὸ ψήφισμα … ὃ Θουκυδίδης εἶπε. D206 (Type 1)  Decree of unknown content; date: 353–340; proposer: Demosthenes; Dem. 58.36: τὴν γραφὴν ἣν ἐγράψατ’ αὐτόν. D207 (Type 1) Decree against those who threaten merchants; date: 357–340; proposer: Moirokles; Dem. 58.56: οὐ γὰρ δήπου Μηλίους μέν, ὦ Μοιρόκλεις, κατὰ τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα δέκα τάλαντα νῦν εἰσεπράξαμεν. D208 (Type 2) Decree concerning property in Kardia; date: 357–340; proposer: Kallippos; Dem. 7.42–3: καὶ ταῦθ’ ὑμέτερον πολίτην γράψαι ἐν ψηφίσματι, Κάλλιππον Παιανιέα. D209 ** (Type 1) Decree awarding sitesis to Charidemos; date: 357–340; proposer: father of Epichares; Dem. 58.30–1: περὶ οὗ τὸ ψήφισμα γεγραμμένον ἦν. D210 (Type 2) Decree of unknown content; date: before 347; proposer: Skiton; Dem. 21.182–3: Σμίκρῳ δέκα ταλάντων ἐτιμήσατε καὶ Σκίτωνι τοσούτων ἑτέρων, δόξαντι παράνομα γράφειν. D211 (Type 2) Decree of unknown content; date: before 347; proposer: Smikros; Dem. 21.182–3: Σμίκρῳ δέκα ταλάντων ἐτιμήσατε καὶ Σκίτωνι τοσούτων ἑτέρων, δόξαντι παράνομα γράφειν. D212 (Type 1) Decree for the people of Tenedos; date: before 340; proposer: Antimedon; Dem. 58.35: ὑπὲρ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὃ Ἀντιμέδων ἔγραψε τοῖς Τενεδίοις. D213 (Type 1) Decree formulating policy against Philip; date: 346–343; proposer: Philokrates; Dem 18.75: τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν τὸ ψήφισμ’ Εὔβουλος ἔγραψεν, οὐκ ἐγώ, τὸ δ’ ἐφεξῆς Ἀριστοφῶν, εἶθ’ Ἡγήσιππος, εἶτ’ Ἀριστοφῶν πάλιν, εἶτα Φιλοκράτης, εἶτα Κηφισοφῶν, εἶτα πάντες. D214 (Type 1) Decree granting powers to the Areopagus; date: 340s or later; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.62–3: ἀλλὰ μὴν πρότερον ἔγραψας σὺ {ὦ} Δημόσθενες κατὰ πάντων τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων κυρίαν εἶναι τὴν ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴν κολάσαι τὸν παρὰ τοὺς νόμους πλημμελοῦντα, χρωμένην τοῖς πατρ[ί]οις νόμοις. DD215–16 (Type 1)  Two (?)  decrees against Philip; date: 346–338; proposer Aristophon; Dem. 18.75: see, D213 above. D217 (Type 1) Decree proposing policy against Philip; date: 346–338; proposer: Diopeithes; Dem. 18.69–70: Εὐβούλου καὶ Ἀριστοφῶντος καὶ Διοπείθους τῶν περὶ τούτων ψηφισμάτων ὄντων, οὐκ ἐμῶν. D218 (Type 1) Decree proposing policy against Philip; date: 346–338; proposer: Euboulos; Dem. 18.69–70: see D217 above. D219 (Type 1) Decree proposing policy against Philip; date: 346–338; proposer: Hegesippos; Dem. 18.75: see D213 above.

inventory a checklist

35

D220 (Type 1) Decree proposing policy against Philip; date: 346–338; proposer: Kephisophon; Dem.18.75: see D213 above. D221 (Type 2) Honours for Euboulos; date: before 343 or 343–330; proposer: unknown; Harpokration s.v. Hermai, s.v. Euboulos, s.v. Pentekoste; Eusebios Preparatio Evangelica 10.3.15.1: περὶ τῶν Εὐβούλου δωρεῶν. D222 (Type 1)  Statue for Astydamas; date: after 340; proposer: unknown; Zenobios 5.100 (Snell TrGF60 T2b): Ἀστυδάμας γὰρ ὁ Μορσίμου εὐημερήσας ἐν τῇ ὑποκρίσει Παρθενοπαίου ἐψηφίσθη εἰκόνος ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἀξιωθῆναι. D223 (Type 1) Decree of unknown content; date: after 338; proposer: ?Nausikles; Aeschin. 3.159: ὑμεῖς δὲ κατὰ μὲν τοὺς πρώτους χρόνους οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα εἰᾶτε τὸ Δημοσθένους ἐπιγράφειν ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ Ναυσικλεῖ τοῦτο προσετάττετε. DD224-225 ** (Type 2) Challenges to two proposals of unknown content; date: before 336; proposer: Philippides: Hyp. 4 Ag. Phil. 11: κα̣ ὶ̣ ἂ̣[ν ἄρα λέγῃ τις ἀνα̣βὰς ὡς δὶς ἥλωκεν πρ̣ότερον παρανόμων, [κ]αὶ διὰ τοῦτο φῇ δεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀπ̣οψηφίσασθαι, τοὐναντ· [ί]ον ποιεῖτε κατ’ ἀμφότερα. D226 † (Type 2) Decree on water-pipes(?) date: after 335; proposer: Stephanos; Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Dinarchus, 10 p. 312, 1–3: Κατὰ Στεφάνου παρανόμων. D227 (Type 2)  Bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros and Gorgippos, the tyrants from the Bosporos, and possible alliance; date: later than 344/3; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.43: ἢ τὸ χαλκοῦς ἐν ἀγορᾷ στῆσαι Παιρισάδην καὶ Σάτυρον καὶ Γόργιππον τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου τυράννους. D228 (Type 2) Honours for Nausikles; date: 338/7–333/2; proposer: unknown; Dem. 18.114: πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ Ναυσικλῆς στρατηγῶν ἐφ’ οἷς ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων προεῖτο πολλάκις ἐστεφάνωται ὑφ’ ὑμῶν. D229 (Type 2) Honours for Charidemos; date: 338/7–335; proposer: unknown; Dem. 18.114: εἶθ’ ὅτε τὰς ἀσπίδας Διότιμος ἔδωκε καὶ πάλιν Χαρίδημος, ἐστεφανοῦντο. D230 (Type 2)  Honours for Neoptolemos; date: 338/7 or later; proposer: Lycurgus; [Plu.] X Or. 843f: ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Νεοπτόλεμον Ἀντικλέους στεφανῶσαι καὶ εἰκόνα ἀναθεῖναι. D231 (Type 2) Proposal of citizenship for Kallias and Taurosthenes of Chalkis; date: 341/0 or early 330s; proposer: Demosthenes; Aeschin. 3.85: οὓς οὗτος νυνὶ μισθὸν λαβὼν Ἀθηναίους εἶναι τολμᾷ γράφειν. D232 (= 231?) (Type 1)  Praise for Kallias of Chalkis; date: 340s/330s; proposer: unknown; [Dem.] 12.5: διὰ ταῦθ’ ὑμεῖς ἐπῃνεῖτ’ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν.

inventory a checklist

36

Table 1  Comparison between the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence for Period 1 (403/2– 353/2) and Period 2 (352/1–322/1) Genre-type of decree

Inscriptions containing decrees: Period 1 (approximate figures)1

Inscriptions containing decrees: Period 2 (Lambert’s figures)2

Decrees attested in the literary record: 403/2–322/1 (Period 1; Period 2)

Attested decrees: total

c. 223+3

240

245 (104; 141)

Number of attested decrees of discernible content

182

199

235 (103; 132)

Honorific: total

126 (69.2%)

180 (90.5%)

80 (32.7%) (38; 42)

125 (68.7%)4

116 (58.3%)

48 (19.6%)5 (27; 21)

●●

Honours for non-Athenians

1 Percentages are those of attested decrees of discernible content; I am grateful to Angelos Matthaiou for his assistance in drawing up a list of inscribed decrees of this period. It is important to note that on occasion inscriptions make mention of several different decrees enacted distinctly: one example is the case of IG II3 1 306, which contains an account of honorific decrees for an outgoing council (lines 24–6) while providing texts of a proposal of Phanodemos (lines 17–23) and the honorific decrees for Phanodemos (lines 4–16) and Eudoxos (lines 27–33, 43–9); another inscription contains a dossier of five decrees for a single individual (Herakleides of Salamis: IG II3 1 367). However, this table measures the number of self-standing inscriptions containing decrees and accordingly counts them as single cases. It does not attempt to include all dedications which indicate the passing of decrees. Moreover, with the exception of IG II2 1629.170–271 (= IG II3 1 370) it does not include decrees referred to in the inscribed accounts of the naval epimeletai; these decrees are the subject of work being undertaken by Adele Scafuro. 2 Figures in this column are based upon Lambert, IALD: Historical Essays: 62–4. I have removed laws from Lambert’s figures (which originally included both laws and decrees). Excluded also are dubia et incerta (IG II3 1 531–72). 3 A minimal figure which excludes those fragments such as those dated by IG II2 to the period 400–350 (e.g. IG II2 87–94) or 400–300 (e.g. IG II2 608–11, 629–39) the content of which is so fragmentary as to make their identification as decrees uncertain. The figures here do not include the fragments of the period before 352/1 published by Walbank, Fragmentary Decrees nos. 1–10. Once the new edition of decrees of the period 403/2–353/2 is published, the total figure, including fragmentary decrees, is likely to be higher. Indeed, a higher figure is suggested by Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 110–11, stating the existence of 488 decrees preserved on stone for the period 403/2–322/1, of which he counted 100 as fragmentary. IG II2 (published in 1913) counted 447 fragmentary and non-fragmentary decrees and laws for the whole period 403/2–322/1 (IG II2 1–447). 4 Of these honours for non-Athenians, 61 are proxeny and 9 are citizenship awards. 5 See Appendix 2. This figure consists of 29 citizenship awards, 5 proxeny awards, and a range of other awards (including ateleia, isopoliteia, protection and statues).

inventory a checklist

37

Honours for Athenians

1 (0.5%)

29 (14.6%)6

31 (12.7%) (11; 20)

Honours for a deity

0 (0%)

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

Honours for a party whose ethnicity is not known

0 (0%)7

34 (17.1%)

1 (0.4%)

Alliances/treaties/war and peace

34 (18.7 %)

11 (5.3%)8

39 (15.9%) (19; 20)

Commands/ dispatches/ expeditions/ mobilisation

0 (0%)

3 (1.5%)9

35 (14.3%) (13; 22)

Religious regulations

4 (2.2%)

5 (2.5%)10

10 (4.1%) (1; 9)

Other domestic arrangements (incl. appointments, constitutional, evacuations, financial, legislative, procedural, regulations)

3 (1.6%)

0 (0%)11

51 (20.8%) (31; 20)

Other foreign policy

1512 (8.2%)

2 (1%)

22 (9.0%) (1; 21)

●●

●●

●●

Note: Fifth-century figures: see Sickinger, ‘Literacy’ and Lambert, ‘Two inscribed,’ 5 n. 5: ‘Of the ca. 240 total of inscribed decrees from before 403/2 (i.e. the ca. 230 dating to after 454 and the handful inscribed before that), ca. 68 award honours, almost all to foreigners (28%), ca. 54 are treaties or otherwise relate to foreign affairs (23%), ca. 46 are religious measures (19%), ca. 9 are on other topics (4%), ca. 63 are too fragmentary for their subject matter to be determinable (26%).’ The comparison between the literary and epigraphical record for decrees based on this table are discussed in Volume 2, Chapter 3.4. 6 This figure includes two decrees of the Athenian boule, IG II2 1155 lines 1–6 and 1156 lines 36–44. 7 Unidentified honours for the period 403/2–353/2 are assumed to have been honours for non-Athenians. 8 This figure excludes regulations concerning overseas relations: see note 9 below. 9  IG II3 1 370 (on the expedition to the Adriatic), 399 (forbidding attack on Eretria), 433 (agreement with Sokles). 10 This figure includes IG II3 1 447 (containing both a law and a decree) but excludes the fragmentary IG II3 1 487, which may perhaps be a lease. 11 The figures in this row do not include inscribed laws. 12 This figure includes some decrees which appear to concern foreign policy but whose precise content is indecipherable.

38

inventory a checklist

D233 (Type 2) Challenge to a proposal of unknown content; date: before mid 330s; proposer: Lycurgus; Hyp. Against Diondas 9 Horváth: Λυκοῦρ(γον) δὲ οὐ μόνον παρανόμων ἐδίωξεν. D234 (Type 2) Honours for Diphilos; date: 334–324; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.43: εἴπατέ μοι πρὸς Διὸς ὦ ἄνδρες, προῖκα τοῦτον οἴεσθε γράψαι Διφίλῳ τὴν ἐν πρυτανείῳ σίτησιν καὶ τὴν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀναθησομένην εἰκόνα. D235 (Type 2)  Decree(s) bestowing citizenship on Chairephilos and sons; date: late 330s; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.43: ἢ τὸ ποιῆσαι πολίτας ὑμετέρους Χαιρέφιλον καὶ Φείδωνα καὶ Πάμφιλον καὶ Φείδιππον, ἢ πάλιν Ἐπιγένην καὶ Κόνωνα τοὺς τραπεζίτας; D236 (Type 2)  Decree(s) bestowing citizenship on two bankers, Konon and Epigenes; date: late 330s or 320s; proposer: Demosthenes; Din. 1.43: see D235 above. D237 ** (Type 1) Decree concerning the punishment of those stealing sacred garments; date: 335–330; proposer: Aristogeiton; Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 25, 2: Ἀριστογείτων γράφει ψήφισμα. D238 ** (Type 1)  Decree concerning the apportionment of land at Oropos; date: after 338/7–335/4; proposer: Polyeuktos; Hyp. Eux. 14–18: ψήφισμα δὲ αὐτοτελὲς ἔγραψας κατὰ δυοῖν φυλαῖν οὐ μόνον ἀδικώτατον. D239 (Type 2)  Decree(s) of unknown content; date: 360s or earlier; proposer: Stephanos; [Dem.] 59.43: γραφομένων μισθοῦ καὶ φαινόντων καὶ ἐπιγραφομένων ταῖς ἀλλοτρίαις γνώμαις, ἕως ὑπέπεσε Καλλιστράτῳ τῷ Ἀφιδναίῳ. D240 (Type 1) Decree concerning piety; date: before 331; proposer: Lycurgus (?); Lycurg. 1.146: καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦ δήμου παρασχόμενος, ὃ περὶ εὐσεβείας ἐποιήσατο. D241 (Type 1)  Decree on the behaviour of priestesses; date: 330s–320s; proposer: Lycurgus (?); Lycurg. Fr 31 Conomis (ap. Suda s. v. συσσημαίνεσθαι): προστεταγμένον ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος καὶ τὴν ἱέρειαν συσσημαίνεσθαι τὰ γραμματεῖα. D242 (Type 2)  Proposal of unknown content; date: 353/2–322/3; proposer: Demosthenes; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Dinarchus 11 p. 317 2–3: Κατὰ Δημοσθήνους παρανόμων. D243 (Type 2) Citizenship for Harpalos; date: 330s–320s; proposer: unknown; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 586d (= Snell TrGF91 F1): πολίτην γεγονέναι. D244 (Type 2) Honours for Kallisthenes; date: 340s–324; proposer: unknown; Harpokration s. v. στεφανῶν τοὺς νενικηκότας: … ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Καλλισθένην ἑκατὸν μναῖς ἐστεφανώσατε. D245 (Type 2) Honours for Lycurgus; date 330s–324; proposer: unknown; [Plu.] X Or. 843c: ἐστεφανώθη δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου πολλάκις καὶ εἰκόνων ἔτυχεν.

Checklist by Genre-Type

On pp. 17–36 above, I set out the references and dates for the literary references to the 245 decrees which are collected in Inventory A; these figures are presented concisely in the right-hand column of Table 1. It is clear from this table that the largest proportion of literary-attested decrees of discernible content pertain to honorific practices (32.7 per cent of the total), and that a majority of them (48 out of 80) refer to honours for non-Athenians, including awards of proxeny-status, exemption, statues and awards of citizenship; 31 attest awards made to citizens.1 The second-largest category (20.8 per cent of the total) pertains to domestic arrangements (legislative, financial and other provisions). A substantial proportion of the literary material (15.9 per cent of the total) pertains to decrees relating to the creation of alliances, declarations of war, and peace treaties, while 9.0 per cent pertains to other aspects of foreign policy. A significant figure pertains to the organisation and mobilisation of expeditions (14.3 per cent of the total). A much smaller proportion (4.1 per cent of the total) relates to religious regulations. These proportions – which seem to emphasise those decrees relevant to the Athenian assembly’s dealings with other city-state communities – are a reflection of the interest of the sources for this period of history in Athenian foreign policy and in debating the merits of prominent citizens. At the same time, decrees of the assembly are clearly important tools in the organisation and administration of the city. But other points of interest can be brought out by comparing the numbers of decrees surviving in the two types of sources; analysis of this comparison will be undertaken in Volume 2, where consideration be given also to the overlaps between epigraphical and literary evidence (Chapter 3.4)

Checklist of Decrees by Genre-Type This checklist arranges the Athenian decrees attested in literary texts of the period 403/2–322/1 according to type. A further breakdown of the honorific decrees is offered in Appendix 2.

1 For assessment of the implications of these figures and the literary deployment of honorific decrees, see Liddel, ‘The honorific decrees’.

39

40

checklist by genre-type

Honours for non-Athenians: 48 of the 245 Literary Decrees D5 (403/2: citizenship); D6 (403/2: citizenship for Lysias); D24 (394: statue of Evagoras); D28 (before 389: citizenship and exemption for Satyros); DD 31, 32 (390 or 389–386: proxeny, euergesy, ateleia for Archebios and Herakliedes of Byzantion); D39 (389/8 or later: ateleia and citizenship for Leukon); D40 (389/8: ateleia for Thasians); D41 (386: shelter to Corinthians); D42 (390–86: citizenship for Pasion and descendants); D43 (384/3: citizenship and crowns for Kotys); D49 (374/3: isopoliteia for Plataeans); D58 (368/7: honours, military aid, alliance, and statue for Alexander of Pherai; listed also under ‘alliances’); D59 (368–366: citizenship for Ariobarzanes); D61 (366/5: citizenship for Phrasierides and Polysthenes); D62 (366–362: citizenship for Klearchos); D72 (361/0: citizenship for Phormio); D73 (c. 360: honours for assassins of Kotys); D74 (360–357: citizenship for Kersobleptes); D75 (c. 357: honours, possibly citizenship for Euderkes); D77 (359: citizenship to Simon of Thrace); D78 (359: citizenship to Bianor of Thrace); D84 (357/6 or late 360s: citizenship and gold crown for Charidemos); D94 (353/2 or 352/1: protection for Charidemos); D100 (390s or 370s: citizenship for Strabax and Polystratos); D103 (pre-355: proxeny for Lykidas and Dionysos); D104 (before 355/4: ateleia for Megarians and Messenians); D109 (351 or 349: citizenship for Apollonides of Olynthos); D110 (352–349: citizenship for Peitholaos and Lykophron of Thessaly); D120 (348/7: honouring Olynthians); D134 (16th Skirophorion 347/6: honouring Philip, etc; mentioned below also under ‘Alliances’); D173 (autumn 338: citizenship for Antipater); D174 (autumn 338: citizenship for Alexander); D175 (autumn 338: citizenship for Troizenians); D177 (338–336: proxeny for Euthykrates of Olynthos); D178 (Gamelion 337/6: proxeny for Alkimachos); D180 (summer 337 and 336 statue, citizenship and crown for Philip); D182 (late 337/6 or early 336/5: honours for Pausanias); D197 (autumn 324: deification and statue of Alexander; mentioned also under ‘Religious’); D203 (388–330: citizenship for Antiphanes); D204 (359-343: citizenship for Teres); D227 (later than 344/3: statues of Pairisades, Satyros, and Gorgippos of Bosporos); D229 (338/7–335: honours for Charidemos); D231 (c. 341/0 or early 330s: citizenship for Taurosthenes and Kallias of Chalkis); D232 (340s–330s: praise for Kallias of Chalkis); D235 (late 330s: citizenship for Chairephilos and sons); D236 (330s–320s: citizenship for bankers Konon and Epigenes); D243 (330s–320s: citizenship for Harpalos).

Honours for Athenians: 31 (counting 164a and 164b together) of the 245 Literary Decrees D3 (403/2: praise for second ‘Ten’); D15 (403/2 or later: honours for those returning from Phyle); D18 (403/2: crown for Thrasyboulos); D23 (394 ateleia

checklist by genre-type

41

and statue for Konon); D35 (post-390: honours for Iphikrates); D46 (377/6– 376/5: statue and crown for Chabrias); D47 (376/5: awards for Timotheos); D54 (371/0: honours for Iphikrates); D70 (24th Metageitnion 362/1: decree praising Apollodoros); D89 (355/4: honours for council of 356/5); D102 (403–355: ateleia for Aristophon); D114 (349/8: honours for Aeschines); D118 (late summer–autumn 348/7: praise for Ktesiphon); D124 (347/6: praising Aristodemos); D128 (Anthesterion–Elaphebolion 1-4, 347/6: honours for Athenian envoys); D136 (24th Gamelion, 346/5: honours for Phokion); D146 (343/2: crowning an embassy); D156 (late 341–early 340: honours for Demosthenes); D166a–b (early summer 338: honours for Demosthenes); D179 (winter 337/6: honours for Demosthenes); D181 (336/5: honours for proedroi); D187 (336/5: statue and sitesis for Demades); D189 (335/4: statue of Epikrates); D190 (338/7 or 334/3: honours for Diotimos); D209 (357–340: sitesis for Charidemos); D221 (before 343 or 343–330: honours for Euboulos); D222 (after 340: statue for Astydamas); D228 (between 338/7 and 333/2: honours for Nausikles); D230 (338/7 or later: honours for Neoptolemos); D234 (c. 334–324: sitesis and statue for Diphilos); D245 (330s–324: crown for Lycurgus).

Honours for an individual whose ethnicity is not known: 1 of the 245 Literary Decrees D244 (340s–324: crown for Kallisthenes).

Alliances/Treaties/War and Peace: 39 of the 245 Literary Decrees D20 (395/4: alliance with Boiotians); D21 (395–393: alliance with Boiotians, Corinthians and Argives); D26 (392/1: proposal of peace with Spartans); DD 29, 30 (winter 391/0: friendship and alliance with Thracian kings); D33 (summer 390: alliance with Evagoras); D36 (390 or 389: alliance with Akoris); D45 (spring 378: declaration that Sparta had broken the Peace); D51 (Skirophorion 371: decree in favour of peace); D53 (371/0: ratification of peace); D55 (369/8: armed assistance to the Lacedaimonians); D56 (369/8: concerning the command of forces); D58 (368/7: honours, military aid, alliance, and statue(?) for Alexander of Pherai; listed also under ‘honours’); D63 (366/5: alliance with Arkadians); D79 (359: peace with Philip); D80 (358/7: alliance with Thracian kings); D83 (357/6: alliance with Charidemos and Thracian Kings); D87 (356/5 or 355/4: alliance with the Phokians); D90 (355/4: bringing the Social War to an end); D113 (351–349/8: peace and alliance with Olynthians, followed up by expedition); D126 (late Anthesterion–Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6: calling truce for Philip’s envoys); D130 (19th Elaphebolion 347/6: Peace of Philokrates); D131

42

checklist by genre-type

(25th Elaphebolion 347/6: on swearing of oaths of Peace of Philokrates); D132 (25th Elaphebolion 347/6: allowing an envoy from Kersobleptes to partake in oaths of Peace of Philokrates); D134 (16th Skirophorion 347/6: extending peace to posterity and introducing a clause concerning the Phokians; mentioned also under ‘Honours’); D140 (344/3: response to Philip’s ambassador); D141 (344/3: amending the Peace of Philokrates); D147 (343/2 or 342/1: alliance with Chalkis); D149 (343/2: alliance with Achaians and others);2 D151 (spring 341: alliance with Byzantines); D152 (spring 341: alliance with Abydians); D153 (spring/summer 341: alliance with Chalkidians); D163 (late spring 339: alliance with Thebans); D171 (late 338: peace and alliance with Philip); D172 (autumn 338: relating to peace and alliance with Philip); D184 (335/4: alliance with Thebans and preparations for war); D188 (335/4: peace with Alexander); D192 (333/2: war against Alexander); D199 (summer 323: war against Macedon).

Expeditions/Dispatches/Mobilisation/Commands: 35 (counting 148a and b as one decree together) of the 245 Literary Decrees D34 (summer 390: dispatch of expedition to Cyprus); D37 (389: recalling Athenians from Aegina); D38 (390/89: requesting accounts and recalling Ergokles); D44 (winter 379/8: armed intervention in Thrace); D48 (375: recall of Timotheos); D50 (374/3: dispatch of force to Corcyra); D60 (spring 366: dispatch of Timotheos); D64 (summer 365: ordering Iphikrates to take care of prisoners); D65 (366/5: dispatch of cleruchies to Samos); D67 (24th Metageitnion 362/1: mobilisation of triremes); D69 (autumn 361: that Polykles should take over as trierarch); D81 (358/7: embassy to Kersobleptes); D82 (358/7: dispatch of force to Euboia); D106 (352/1: expedition against Philip); D108 (between 352 and 350: mobilisation against Philip); D111 (351: expedition against Megarians); D112 (351 or before 349/8: assistance to Phleiasians); D116 (348/7: dispatch of envoys across Greece); D117 (late summer 348: dispatch of envoys to Philip); D123 (Gamelion/ Anthesterion 346: mobilisation and response to Phokian appeal); D125 (347/6: dispatch of ambassadors to Philip); D129 (Anthesterion–Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6: dispatch of Antiochos); D133 (Elaphebolion 347/6: instructions for the second embassy to Philip); D139 (344: embassy to Peloponnese); D143 (344/3: intervention at Megara); D148a–b (343/2 or summer 341: proposal for ambassadors to go to Euboia); D154 (summer 341: expedition to Oreos); D155 (summer 341: expedition to Euboia); D157 (340/39: dispatch of forces to Hellespont); D158 (summer 340: dispatch of forces to Byzantion, Chersonese and elsewhere); 2 Note: D149 contains reference to Athenian alliances with several communities, which may have been made on separate occasions.

checklist by genre-type

43

D159 (340/39: mobilisation against Philip); D162 (339/8: concerning the march to Eleusis and dispatch of envoys to Thebes); D170 (late summer 338: dispatch of embassies and organisation of citizens); D191 (333/2: dispatch of expedition); D201 (post Metageitnion 322: envoys to Antipater).

Religious Matters: 10 of the 245 Literary Decrees D57 (368/7: repair of processional vessels); D105 (late summer 352: celebrating a military victory); D107 (352/1: concerning the sacred orgas); D165 (winter 339/8: celebrating military success); D197 (autumn 324: deification and statue of Alexander; mentioned also under ‘Honours’); D198 (324/3: worship of only established deities); D237 (335–330: punishment of those stealing sacred garments); D238 (post 338/7–335/4: land at Oropos); D240 (before 331: concerning piety); D241 (330s–320s: behaviour of priestesses).

Other Domestic Matters (Including Legislative, Regulations, Financial, Constitutional, Appointments, Procedural, Evacuations etc.): 51 (counting 167a–c as one decree) of the 245 Literary Decrees D1 (403/2: reconciliation); D2 (403/2: enactment of laws); D4 (403/2: restriction of franchise); D7 (403/2: revision of laws); D8 (403/2: application of new laws); D9 (403/2: re-enactment of xenikon law); D10 (403/2: dokimasia); D11 (403/2: pension); D12 (403/2: repayment of debt to Gelarchos); D13 (403/2: repayment of debts); D14 (403/2: concerning citizenship); D16 (403/2: alphabetic reform); D17 (403/2 (?): concerning war-orphans); D19 (403/2 or later: concerning democracy); D22 (395/4: reconstruction of walls); D25 (392/1: concerning the discussion of peace); D27 392/1 or 387/6: impeachment of ambassadors); D52 (371: putting peace to the vote); D66 (late 360s: relating to Keos); D68 (24th Metageitnion 362/1: levy of eisphora); D76 (360/59: award of crown to trierarchs); D86 (357/6: on the recovery of state debts); D88 356/5: recovery of arrears of eisphora); D91 (before 353/2, probably 354/3: appointing commission of inquiry); D92 (before Skirophorion 354/3: collection of money); D93 (11th Hekatombaion 353/2: establishment of nomothetai); D95 (c. 403–392: concerning price of salt); D96 (c. 403–392: withdrawing copper coinage); D97 (before 393: concerning the eisphora); D98 (399–394/3: exiling Xenophon); D101 (386 or 371–362: recalling Xenophon); D115 (spring 348: concerning the theoric fund); D127 (Anthesterion–Elaphebolion 1-4 347/6: organising meetings of assembly); D135 (27th Skirophorion 346, ordering evacuation of Attica); D137 (346/5: scrutiny of citizen-body); D138 (346/5: public works on Pnyx); D160 (340: establishment of nomothetai); D164 (339/8: transfer of funds to stratiotic fund); D167a

44

checklist by genre-type

(summer 338: enfranchisement); D167b (summer 338: evacuation); D167c (summer 338: arming the councillors); D168 (early 338/7: against those leaving the city); D169 (late summer 338: military improvements); D176 (20th Thargelion, 338/7: meetings of tribes for repair of walls); D183 (335/4: evacuation of Attica); D185: (17th–23rd Boedromion 335/4: election of ambassadors to be sent to Alexander); D194 (summer 324: investigating which politicians had received money from Harpalos); D195 (summer 324: ordering the Areopagus to investigate the Harpalos affair); D196 (summer 343: concerning Harpalos’ money); D200 (summer 322: recall of Demosthenes); D202 (Metageitnion–Boedromion, 322: exile or death for anti-Macedonian politicians); D214 (340s or later: empowering the Areopagos); D226 (after 335: on water-pipes).

Other Foreign Policy: 22 of the 245 Literary Decrees D71 (summer 362: decree concerning Miltokythes); D119 (348/7: decree censuring those who had betrayed Olynthos); D121 (348/7: allowing Philip to send herald and ambassadors); D122 (347/6: concerning export of weapons to Philip); D142 (344/3: calling Greeks to rally against the Great King); D144 (344/3: proposal to respond to Philip’s letter); D145 (343: execution of Anaxinos); D150 (343/2: decree on settlers at Chersonese); D161 (autumn 340/spring 339: attendance of the Athenian representatives at the meetings of the Delphian Amphictyony); D186 (335/4: response to Alexander); D193 (early summer 324: detention of Harpalos); D205 (357–340: concerning the contribution of the Ainians); D207 (357–340: against those who threaten merchants); D208 (357–340: concerning property in Kardia); D212 (before 340: for the people of Tenedos); D213 (346– 343: policy towards Philip); DD 215-16 (346-38: policy towards Philip); D217 (346-338: policy towards Philip); D218 (346–338: policy towards Philip); D219 (346–338: policy towards Philip); D220 (346–338: policy towards Philip).

Content Unknown: 10 of the 245 literary decrees D99 (c. 400–380); D206 (353–40); D210 (before 347); D211 (before 347); D223 (post-338); DD 224–5 (before 336); D233 (before 330); D239 (before 360s); D242 (340s–320s).

Introduction Bibliography

Aviles, D., ‘“Arguing against the law”: non-literal interpretation in Attic forensic oratory’, Dike 14 (2011) 19–42. Bers, V., ‘What to believe in Demosthenes 57, Against Eubulides’, Hyperboreus 8 (2002) 232–9. Biagi, C., Tractatus de Decretis Atheniensium in que Illustratur Singula Decretum Atheniense ex Museo Equitis ac Senatoris Iacobi Nanii Veneti. Rome (1785). Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. With a chapter by E.M. Harris. Oxford (2013). Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62 (2012) 98–129. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of the documents at Andocides’ On the Mysteries 77–79 and 83–88’ Dike 19 (2016) 9–49. Carawan, E., ‘Decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries and “latent fragments” from Craterus’, CQ 67 (2017) 400–421. Develin, R., Athenian Officials, 684–321 BC. Cambridge (1989). Edwards, M., ‘Greek political oratory and the canon of ten Attic orators’ in La rhétorique du pouvoir : Une exploration de l’art oratorie délibératif grec, ed. P. Derron. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 62. Vandoeuvres (2016) 15–40. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–1983. Copenhagen (1983). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly. Oxford (1987). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989). Hansen, M.H., ‘Is Patrokleides’ decree (Andoc. 1.77–79) a genuine document?’, GRBS 55 (2015) 884–901. Hansen, M.H., ‘Is Teisamenos’ decree (Andoc. 1.83–84) a genuine document?’, GRBS 56 (2016) 34–48. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1995). Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of Andocides De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History and Politics, eds. P. Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 479–506. Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of the documents at Andocides On the Mysteries 96–98’, Τεκμήρια 12 (2013–14) 121–53.

45

46

introduction bibliography

Hedrick, C.W., ‘Democracy and the Athenian epigraphical habit’, Hesperia 68 (1999) 387–439. Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes : Historical Essays. Leiden (2018). Lambert, S.D., ‘Two inscribed documents of the Athenian empire : the Chalkis decree and the tribute reassessment decree’, AIO Papers 8 (2017). Liddel, P., ‘The honorific decrees of fourth-century Athens: trends, perceptions, controversies’ in Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert : Zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition, ed. C. Tiersch. Berlin (2016) 335–57. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Meyer, E., ‘Inscriptions as honours and the Athenian epigraphical habit’, Historia 62 (2013) 453–505. Meyer, E., ‘Posts, kurbeis, metopes  : the origins of the Athenian “documentary” stele’, Hesperia 85 (2016) 323–83. Morris, I., Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve. Princeton and Oxford (2015). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3). Osborne, R.G., ‘Inscribing democracy’ in Performance Culture in Athenian Democracy, eds. R. Osborne and S. Goldhill. Cambridge (1999) 341–58. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Schaps, D., The Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh (1979). Schoemann, G.F., De comitiis Atheniensium: libri tres. Greifswald (1819). Sickinger, J.P.,‘Literacy, documents, and archives in the ancient Athenian democracy’, American Archivist 62 (1999) 229–46. Sickinger, J.P., ‘Nothing to do with democracy: ‘‘formulae of disclosure” and the Athenian epigraphic habit’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea (2009) 87–102. Sommerstein, A.H., ‘The authenticity of the Demophantus decree’, CQ 64 (2014) 49–57. Todd, S.C., ‘The use and abuse of the Attic orators’, G&R 37 (1990) 159–78. Walbank, M.B., Fragmentary Decrees from the Athenian Agora: Hesperia Supplement 38. Athens (2008). Worthington, I., ‘Greek oratory, revision of speeches and the problem of historical reliability’, C&M42 (1991) 55–74. Yunis, H., ‘Law, politics, and the graphe paranomon in fourth-century Athens’, GRBS 29 (1988) 361–82.

Inventory A1: 403/2–353/2

Decrees of the Athenian assembly are listed in chronological order, insofar as the testimonia enable each decree to be dated; firmly datable decrees are listed first (DD 1–94); those for which the date is less certain follow (DD 95–104). Proposals (gnomai) which appear to have been rejected by the assembly are marked with a single asterisk (*) and those which appear to have been overturned by graphe paranomon in the courts are marked with a double asterisk (**). Uncertainty about the authenticity of a particular example as a decree or other serious problems with its identification are indicated with a dagger (†). Decisions of the assembly which may plausibly constitute decrees, but for which there is no certain reference to their status as a decree are listed in Inventory B. The historiographical, legal and rhetorical contexts within which the testimonia appear are explored in each decree-entry of the Inventory under the heading Literary Context. The Commentary in each decree-entry sets out the historical context of the decrees and discusses, succinctly, the controversies relating to their content and interpretation which the reader may wish to follow up by reference to the references listed in the Bibliography. The Date of the decree precedes the Bibliography.

47

D1 Ratification of reconciliation agreement and amnesty Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2

Literary Context

The most detailed account of the terms of the reconciliation of 403/2 is that which appears in the Ath. Pol.’s narrative of the events of 404/3–403/2 (T1). The author provides this account to support his claim that the Athenians behaved with moderation and fairness towards even those who had been responsible for previous disasters (Ath. Pol. 40.2–3); Xenophon’s reference to the reconciliation agreement (T4), on the other hand, places more emphasis on the role of the Spartans in effectuating the settlement. Passing references are found in several other sources: Andocides (TT 2–3) mentions it in support of his argument that the decree of Isotimides was no longer valid and did not apply to him (And. 1.8, 71–2). Cornelius Nepos (T7) cites the amnesty as an example of a noble action of Thrasyboulos of Steiria. In other texts, too, the reconciliation was held up as an achievement which demonstrated Athenian wisdom (Aeschin. 2.176–7). Accounts of the reconciliation and amnesty, therefore, constitute a good example of a decision put to various rhetorical uses by literary texts.

Texts

T1 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 39.1–6: Ἐγένοντο δ’ αἱ διαλύσεις ἐπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος κατὰ τὰς συνθήκας τάσδε. τοὺς βουλομένους Ἀθηναίων τῶν ἐν ἄστει μεινάντων ἐξοικεῖν ἔχειν Ἐλευσῖνα ἐπιτίμους ὄντας καὶ κυρίους καὶ αὐτοκράτορας ἑαυτῶν καὶ τὰ αὑτῶν καρπουμένους. τὸ δ’ ἱερὸν εἶναι κοινὸν ἀμφοτέρων, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι δὲ Κήρυκας καὶ Εὐμολπίδας κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ μήτε τοῖς Ἐλευσινόθεν εἰς τὸ ἄστυ μήτε τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἄστεως Ἐλευσῖνάδε ἰέναι, πλὴν μυστηρίοις ἑκατέρους. συντελεῖν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν προσιόντων εἰς τὸ συμμαχικὸν καθάπερ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἀθηναίους. ἐὰν δέ τινες τῶν ἀπιόντων οἰκίαν λαμβάνωσιν Ἐλευσῖνι, συμπείθειν τὸν κεκτημένον. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ συμβαίνωσιν ἀλλήλοις, τιμητὰς ἑλέσθαι τρεῖς ἑκάτερον, καὶ ἥντιν’ ἂν οὗτοι τάξωσιν τιμὴν λαμβάνειν. Ἐλευσινίων δὲ συνοικεῖν οὓς ἂν οὗτοι βούλωνται. τὴν δ’ ἀπογραφὴν εἶναι

48

d1 ratification of reconciliation

49

T1 The reconciliation came about during the archonship of Eukleides according to the following agreements: Those of the Athenians who have remained in the city but now wish to leave should be allowed to live at Eleusis, retaining civic rights, lawful power, self-government of their own and the fruits of their own property. The sanctuary is to be the property of both parties, but the Kerykes and Eumolpidai are to take care of it, according to ancestral custom. It is not to be permitted to those from Eleusis to enter the city nor those in the city to enter Eleusis, with the exception for both at the time of the Mysteries. There is to be a contribution of the secessionists to the defence of the city just as other Athenians.

50

inventory a1

τοῖς βουλομένοις ἐξοικεῖν, τοῖς μὲν ἐπιδημοῦσιν ἀφ’ ἧς ἂν ὀμόσωσιν τοὺς ὅρκους δ[έκ]α ἡμερῶν, τὴν δ’ ἐξοίκησιν εἴκοσι, τοῖς δ’ ἀποδημοῦσιν ἐπειδὰν ἐπιδημήσωσιν κατὰ ταὐτά. μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ ἄρχειν μηδεμίαν ἀρχὴν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἄστει τὸν Ἐλευσῖνι κατοικοῦντα, πρὶν ἂν ἀπογράψηται πάλιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει κατοικεῖν. τὰς δὲ δίκας τοῦ φόνου εἶναι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, εἴ τίς τινα αὐτοχειρίᾳ ἔκτεινεν ἢ ἔτρωσεν. τῶν δὲ παρεληλυθότων μηδενὶ πρὸς μηδένα μνησικακεῖν ἐξεῖναι, πλὴν πρὸς τοὺς τριάκοντα καὶ τοὺς δέκα καὶ τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς τοῦ Πειραιέως ἄρξαντας, μηδὲ πρὸς τούτους, ἐὰν διδῶσιν εὐθύνας. εὐθύνας δὲ δοῦναι τοὺς μὲν ἐν Πειραιεῖ ἄρξαντας ἐν τοῖς ἐν Πειραιεῖ, τοὺς δ’ ἐν τῷ ἄστει ἐν τοῖς τὰ τιμήματα παρεχομένοις. εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἐξοικεῖν τοὺς ἐθέλοντας. τὰ δὲ χρήματα ἃ ἐδανείσαντο εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἑκατέρους ἀποδοῦναι χωρίς.

T2 And. 1.81: Ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐπανήλθετε ἐκ Πειραιέως, γενόμενον ἐφ’ ὑμῖν τιμωρεῖσθαι ἢ ἔγνωτε ἐᾶν τὰ γεγενημένα, καὶ περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσασθε σῳζέιν τὴν πόλιν τὰς ἰδίας τιμωρίας, καὶ ἔδοξε μὴ μνησικακεῖν ἀλλήλοις τῶν γεγενημένων. δόξαντα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι. T3 And. 1.90: Φέρε δὴ τοίνυν, οἱ ὅρκοι ὑμῖν πῶς ἔχουσιν; ὁ μὲν κοινὸς τῇ πόλει ἁπάσῃ, ὃν ὀμωμόκατε πάντες μετὰ τὰς διαλλαγάς, ‘καὶ οὐ μνησικακήσω τῶν πολιτῶν οὐδενὶ πλὴν τῶν τριάκοντα καὶ τῶν ἕνδεκα· οὐδὲ τούτων ὃς ἂν ἐθέλῃ εὐθύνας διδόναι τῆς ἀρχῆς ἧς ἦρξεν’.

d1 ratification of reconciliation

51

If anyone of those leaving the city were to take up a dwelling at Eleusis, the owner is to agree. Were they unable to reach agreement with each other, each side should select three valuators, and the owner should accept the valuation they decide. Those of the Eleusinians whom the secessionists desire are to live with them. The list of those wishing to secede should be compiled within ten days of their swearing the oaths if living in the city, and they should evacuate the city within twenty days. Those away from the city should be treated according to the same terms as from the date of their return. It is not to be permitted to hold office in the city for anyone of those taking up residence at Eleusis. Cases of homicide are to be held according to ancestral custom, if anyone killed or wounded anyone else with their own hands. No one should be victimised for his share in past events – with the exception of the Thirty, the first Ten, the Eleven, and those who were in charge at Piraeus; and even they should be included in the amnesty provided they submitted to euthuna: the magistrates of Piraeus are to submit to euthuna at the courts held there; the magistrates of the upper city at a court consisting of those who could show they possessed rateable property there. On the other hand, those who were not willing to submit to euthuna are allowed to emigrate. Each of the sides were to separately repay money that it had borrowed.

T2 After your return from Piraeus, though it was possible for you to take revenge, you decided to let bygones be bygones. You prioritised the preservation of Athens over personal vengeance, and you resolved not to revive accusations against one another for what had happened. On resolving this (see D2 below) you appointed twenty men. (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’, adapted) T3 Come, now, how do your oaths go? There’s the one the whole city shared, which you all swore after the reconciliations: ‘And I will not revive accusations against any citizen except the Thirty and the Eleven, nor against any of those who are willing to undergo euthuna in office.’ (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’, adapted)

52

inventory a1

T4 Xen. Hell. 2.4.38: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ πάντων αὐτῶν οἱ ἔφοροι καὶ οἱ ἔκκλητοι, ἐξέπεμψαν πεντεκαίδεκα ἄνδρας εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας, καὶ ἐπέταξαν σὺν Παυσανίᾳ διαλλάξαι ὅπῃ δύναιντο κάλλιστα. οἱ δὲ διήλλαξαν ἐφ’ ᾧτε εἰρήνην μὲν ἔχειν ὡς πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀπιέναι δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστον πλὴν τῶν τριάκοντα καὶ τῶν ἕνδεκα καὶ τῶν ἐν Πειραιεῖ ἀρξάντων δέκα. εἰ δέ τινες φοβοῖντο τῶν ἐξ ἄστεως, ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς Ἐλευσῖνα κατοικεῖν. T5 Philochorus, FGrH328 F143: ‘Μὴ μνησικακήσηις, εἰ σὺ Φυλὴν κατέλαβες.’ ὅτι μετὰ τὸ κατελθεῖν τοὺς μετὰ Θρασυβούλου Φυλὴν καταλαβόντας καὶ νικήσαντας ἐν Πειραιεῖ τοὺς τριάκοντα [ψηφίσματ’] ἔδοξε μὴ μνησικακῆσαι καθάπαξ ἀλλήλοις μηδὲν τοὺς πολίτας. ἀλλὰ ταῦτά γε οὔπω ἐπέπρακτο οὐδὲ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν τριάκοντα ἤδη ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ Φιλόχορός φησιν, πέμπτωι ἔτει ὕστερον, τῆς Θρασυβούλου γενομένης , Κριτίας ἐν Πειραιεῖ τελευτᾶι. τοῦτο οὖν ἔοικέ τις ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου Πλούτου μετενεγκὼν ἐνθάδε ὀλιγωρῆσαι τῆς ἀλογίας ταύτης, ἢ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ποιητὴς ὕστερον ἐνθεῖναι. T6 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Hypothesis to Lysias 34, lines 2–3 Carey: Τοῦ γὰρ δήμου κατελθόντος ἐκ Πειραιῶς καὶ ψηφισαμένου διαλύσασθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐν ἄστει καὶ μηδενὸς τῶν μνησικακεῖν. T7 Cornelius Nepos Thrasybulus 3.2: Praeclarum hoc quoque Thrasybuli, quod reconciliata pace, cum plurimum in civitate posset, legem tulit ne quis ante actarum rerum accusaretur neve multaretur, eamque illi oblivionis appellarunt.

T8  Scholion on Aeschin 1.39 (Dilts 82.277–8): Ψήφισμα ἐτέθη ἀμνησικακεῖν τῶν ὑπαξάντων ἐπ’ αὐτῶν. T9 Isocrates 18 Against Kallimachos 20: Ἆρα μικρῷ τῷ δικαίῳ πιστεύων τὴν παραγραφὴν ἐποιησάμην, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῶν μὲν συνθηκῶν διαρρήδην ἀφιεισῶν τοὺς ἐνδείξαντας ἢ φήναντας ἢ τῶν ἄλλων τι τῶν τοιούτων πράξαντας. T10  Lysias Against Hippotherses Carey F165, lines 38–43: Κελευουσῶν τῶν συνθηκῶν τὰ μὲν πεπραμένα τοὺς ἐωνημένους ἔχειν, τὰ δὲ ἄ[π]ρατα τοὺς κατελθόντας [κ]ομίζεσθαι ...

d1 ratification of reconciliation

53

T4 Upon hearing all of these delegates (sc. those from the city of Athens; cf. Xen. Hell. 2.4.37), the ephors and Spartan assembly sent out fifteen men to the Athenians, and they ordered them to make the best settlement possible with Pausanias. They agreed accordingly that they should be at peace with each other and that everyone should return to his home with the exception of the Thirty, the Eleven and the Ten who had been in charge at Piraeus. If anyone of those in the city were in a state of fear, they should be allowed to take up residence at Eleusis. T5 ‘If you took Phyle, don’t bear a grudge’: After the return, when Thrasyboulos and his companions had taken Phyle and defeated the Thirty in the Piraeus, it was resolved that the citizens not bear grudges at all for anything towards each other. But those things had not yet taken place, nor had the events under the administration of the Thirty happened, but as Philochorus says, in the fifth year later, after Thrasyboulos’ had been won, Kritias died in Piraeus. So it is likely that someone transferred this from the second Ploutos and ignored the illogicality or that even the poet himself inserted it later. (trans. Harding, The Story, p. 139, adapted) T6 The people came back from Piraeus and voted to make reconciliation with those of the city and not to bear grudges against anyone.

T7  Another noble action of Thrasyboulos was this: when peace was made and he held the chief power at Athens, he proposed a law (lex) providing that no one should be accused or punished on account of what had been done in the past; and they called it ‘the law of amnesty’. T8 A decree was set out not to bear a grudge for the things initiated during their (sc. that of the Thirty) time. T9 Did I trust a small matter of justice when I engaged on this special plea? No, not at all: it was the terms of the amnesty which explicitly exculpate anyone who provides information against or denounces anyone or acts in a similar way. T10 Given that the amnesty orders that the purchasers should possess the things which had been sold but that the returning exiles should recover what was unsold …

54

Commentary

inventory a1

[Aristotle] (T1) offers the most detailed account of the agreements between the former oligarchic regime and the democrats that arose out of the democratic restoration of 403/2. The other testimonia are more impressionistic but place emphasis upon the aspect of amnesty, reflecting an Athenian tradition that took pride in forgetting wrongdoings undertaken under the oligarchic regime. For discussion of the content of the agreement and discrepancies between the sources, see Rhodes, Commentary, 462–72; Loening, Reconciliation, 30–58; Shear, Polis and Revolution, 190–9; Joyce, ‘Oaths’, 34–5. For the application of the reconciliation, see Loening, Reconciliation, 59–97; for that of the amnesty, see Loening, Reconciliation, 99–146. Loening, Reconciliation, 23–8 takes the view that [Aristotle] (T1) and Xenophon (T4) describe the same agreement; an alternative perspective is that of Cloché, La Restauration, 239–4, suggesting that Xenophon (T4) was describing a peace agreement between Athens and Sparta, but [Aristotle] (T1) a separate treaty of reconciliation of which amnesty was an aspect. Recent scholarship has offered contradictory interpretations of the amnesty: Carawan (‘The Athenian’, ‘The Meaning’, The Athenian Amnesty, 90) proposes that it was aimed only at those citizens who had lost their rights under the Thirty; Joyce’s view (‘The Athenian’, ‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν’, ‘Oaths’) is that it had a more general application, and forbade prosecution of all crimes committed under the Thirty. Carawan’s view of T1 is that it is ‘hopelessly corrupt’ (The Athenian Amnesty, 32), and he offers a detailed discussion of the aspects of the amnesty that treat Eleusis, citizenship, property, political rights at Athens, and other legal and political arrangements (The Athenian Amnesty, 70–90). Joyce (‘Oaths’, 34–5), on the other hand, finds the account of the Ath. Pol. trustworthy and offers a twenty-point reconstruction of the convenants based upon T1. The reconciliation (referred to by the sources as the diallagai (And. 1.90 = T3; cf. Todd, Commentary, 364), dialuseis (Ath. Pol. 39.1 = T1; cf. Rhodes, Commentary, 463; Loening, Reconciliation, 20–1) or synthekai (TT 9, 10)) was a settlement between the democrats and their opponents effectuated by means of negotiation: Xenophon’s account describes it as an agreement between Spartan representatives and unnamed Athenian authorities before the return of the democratic forces to Athens (Xen. Hell. 2.4.38 = T4; cf. Ath. Pol. 38.3–4; Todd, Commentary, 464). What was the process behind the settlement? Once terms had been agreed by the unnamed representatives, Xenophon says that the generals called an

d1 ratification of reconciliation

55

assembly; he attributes to Thrasyboulos a speech persuading the people to stick to their oaths (Xen. Hell. 2.4.40–1): these may have been the oaths of the reconciliation sworn in early Boedromion 403/2 (i.e. autumn 403: see Shear, Polis and Revolution, 207–14). Xenophon, however, gives no indication that a decree was made about the amnesty (2.4.40–2). Nor does the detailed account of the Ath. Pol. 39 (T1) make it clear whether or not the reconciliation was made by a decree of the demos. As it is placed usually at a point before the return of the demos on 12th Boedromion 403/2 (Plu. Moralia 349f), it is generally thought that the agreement could not therefore constitute a decree of the demos (Loening, Reconciliation, 28–30 and Krentz, The Thirty, 107­8). However, the scholion reporting Philochorus (T5), the scholion on Aeschines (T8) and the language of Andocides 1.81 (T2: ‘ἔδοξε μὴ μνησικακεῖν ἀλλήλοις τῶν γεγενημένων. δόξαντα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι’) suggest that the amnesty was an enactment of the people (see also [Plu.] Mor. 814b, talking of the psephisma of the amnesty), while Nepos’ description (T7) of the act as a ‘lex’ is non-technical and should not be taken at face value (for other, later, references to the agreement as a decree or law, see Loening, Reconciliation, 28–30; Shear, Polis and Revolution, 199 note 34). There are at least three possible solutions: one is that Andocides (T2), as a way of making his claims about the significance of the amnesty more convincing, misrepresents the reconciliation as a decree, and was followed by the later sources; MacDowell takes the view that the amnesty was agreed by the Twenty before the democrats returned, but ‘may well have been confirmed by a general vote afterwards’ (On the Mysteries, 120; cf. Cloché, La Restauration, 294, arguing that the amnesty was ratified by decree). The third possibility is that the oath of amnesty came about by a separate decree (Joyce, ‘The Athenian’, 508; ‘Oaths’, 40–1 observing (at 41) ‘if the assembly voted to have everyone swear an oath, then they would have to have passed a decree’). Andocides’ mention (T2) of a simultaneous (or subsequent) decision to elect 20 men is treated here as a separate decree: see D2 T1 below. The aspects of the amnesty dealing with Eleusis are treated in detail by Carawan, The Athenian Amnesty, 70–81: he makes a good case for the view that these arrangements were devised in 403 and then were revised in 401/0. For imposition of the reconciliation agreement with those at Eleusis in 401/0, see Xen. Hell. 2.4.43 (DP 2 below). The role of Eleusis as a place of exiles is discussed in detail by Loening, Reconciliation, 59–69 and Anastasiades, ΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΑ, 29–67. Shear, Polis and Revolution, 197, suggests, on the grounds of the availability of the document to the ancient sources, that a version of the reconciliation agreement was inscribed, but there is no extant straightforward reference to an inscribed version.

56

inventory a1

Date

403/2. Loening, Reconciliation, 21–2. Shear, Polis and Revolution, 197, puts the reconciliation before the return of the demos on 12th Boedromion, 403/2: Plu. Moralia 349f; the details of the return procession are given at Xen. Hell. 2.4.39. Shear’s view is compatible with Rhodes, Commentary, 462, who suggests a date of late summer 403 (i.e. at the beginning of 403/2) for the reconciliation. But its ratification as a decree at the ecclesia, if it happened, would have taken place later in 403/2.

Bibliography

Anastasiades, V.I., ΕΛΕΥΣΙΝΑ. Θέατρο μιας αντιδραστικής ουτοπίας. Athens (2006). Bengtson, SVA 213. Carawan, E., ‘The Athenian amnesty and the “Scrutiny of the Laws”’, JHS 122 (2002) 1–23 at 3. Carawan, E., ‘The meaning of μὴ μνησικακεῖν’, CQ 62 (2012) 507–18. Carawan, E., The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Law. Oxford (2013) 21–42, 70–90. Cloché, P., La restauration démocratique à Athènes en 403 avant J.-C.. Paris (1915). Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens. London (2008). Joyce, C., ‘The Athenian amnesty and scrutiny of 403’, CQ 58 (2008) 507–18. Joyce, C., ‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν and “all the laws” (Andocides, On the Mysteries 81–2): a reply to E. Carawan’, Antichthon 48 (2014) 37–54. Joyce, C., ‘Oaths (ὅρκοι), covenants (συνθῆκαι) and laws (νόμοι) in the Athenian reconciliation agreement of 403 BC’, Antichthon 49 (2015) 24–49. Krentz, P., The Thirty at Athens. Ithaca (1982). Loening, T.C., The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 in Athens: Its Content and Application. Hermes Einzelschrift 53. Stuttgart (1987). MacDowell, D.M., Andokides On the Mysteries. Oxford (1962) 120. MacDowell, D.M., ‘Andocides’ in M. Gagarin (ed.), Antiphon and Andocides. Austin (1998) 93–170. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 468–72. Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011) 188–226. Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2007).

D2 Interim decrees concerning enactment of laws Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2

Literary Context

Andocides (T1) makes assertions about the revision of the laws in 403/2 in order to support his claim that the decree of Isotimides was obsolete and not applicable (And. 1.8, 71–2). As a way of explaining Aeschines’ argument that Timarchos’ behaviour as a boy (pais) should be ignored just as if they were acts dating to the period before the time of Eukleides (Aeschin. 1.39), the scholia (TT 2, 3) mention a decision made by the Athenians to annul the things done by the Thirty and to initiate the process of writing up new laws.

57

58

inventory a1

Texts

T1  And. 1.81: Δόξαντα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι· τούτους δὲ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς πόλεως, ἕως οἱ νόμοι τεθεῖεν· τέως δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος νόμοις καὶ τοῖς Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς. T2  Scholion on Aeschin. 1.39 (Dilts 82.254–7): Ἀπολαβὼν οὖν ὁ δῆμος τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἵλετο πολίτας εἴκοσι τοὺς ζητήσοντας καὶ ἀναγράψοντας τοὺς διεφθαρμένους τῶν νόμων. καὶ ἐψηφίσαντο καινοὺς νόμους εἰσφέρειν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀπολωλότων ἐπ’ ἄρχοντος Εὐκλείδου. T3  Scholion on Aeschin. 1.39 (Dilts 82.272–4): Ἄρξαντος οὖν Εὐκλείδου μετὰ τὴν τῶν τριάκοντα κατάλυσιν τὰ πρὸς αὐτῶν πραχθέντα ἄκυρα εἶναι ἐψηφίσαντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι. T4 Pollux, Onomastikon 8.112: Οἱ εἴκοσι. τούτους εἵλοντο μετὰ τοὺς τριάκοντα τῆς πολιτείας καὶ τῶν νόμων ἐπιμελητάς, ἀριστίνδην ἐπιλεξάμενοι.

Commentary

In his speech to the assembly after the return to Athens, Thrasyboulos urged the Athenians to make use of their old laws (archaioi nomoi: Xen. Hell. 2.4.42). However, the Athenians were quick to return to the subject of the revision of the laws which had been ongoing since 410 (see Robertson, ‘The Laws’; Rhodes, ‘The Athenian’). These testimonia suggest the initiation of law-making procedures in the immediate aftermath of the democratic restoration, and that the process predated the legislation associated with Teisamenos of autumn 403/2 (= D7; cf. Robertson, ‘The laws’, 60; Carawan, ‘The Athenian’, 22). The decision to appoint twenty legislators and the decision to make the enactments of the Thirty invalid would also surely have taken place early on during the legislative processes of the year 403/2. For a view of the Twenty (cf. TT 1, 4) as made up of ‘ten men from the city and ten from the Piraeus’, the first ten of whom were the honorands of D3, see Rhodes, Commentary, 459–60. However, the certainty of this identification is undermined by the Ath. Pol.’s description of them as negotiators of the reconciliation (Ath. Pol. 38.3–4). The testimonia refer to a board of twenty playing slightly different roles: (a) Andocides (T1) says, that ‘on this being resolved’ (that is, the amnesty: see above, D1), twenty men were selected by the people to manage the city

d2 interim decrees concerning enactment of laws

59

T1 On this resolution (sc. the amnesty: see D1 T2) you appointed twenty men; they were to manage the city until laws were made. In the meantime, the laws of Solon and the ordinances of Draco were to be used. T2 When the people had recovered their liberty, they appointed twenty citizens to search out and write up the laws that had been destroyed. And they voted, in the archonship of Eukleides, to introduce new laws in place of those destroyed utterly.

T3  When Eukleides was archon after the overthrow of the Thirty the Athenians voted to make the things done by them obsolete.

T4 The Twenty. They chose these after the Thirty as managers of the constitution and the laws, selecting them on the basis of merit.

(ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς πόλεως) until new laws were authorised. This preceded the organisation of the meeting as the assembly at which it was decided to write up the laws at the Stoa (And. 1.82 = D7 T1). (b) Pollux (T4) says that a Twenty was selected on the basis of birth as managers of the constitution and laws. (c) The Aeschines scholia (TT 2, 3) say that the Athenians voted to annul acts by the oligarchs, and that the Twenty were chosen by the people to re-instate laws that had been destroyed and to introduce new ones. Accordingly, we can outline three elements in these testimonia, some of which may have been the result of a decree of the assembly: (a) The Athenians annul acts by the oligarchs (TT 2, 3). (b) The decision to appoint a board of Twenty to take care/charge of the city until new laws are made (TT 1, 4). (c) The Athenians decide that the Twenty are to re-instate laws that had been destroyed and to introduce new ones (T2). We can, then, reasonably assert that a board of Twenty was appointed with some kind of interim authority. However, the claims of the scholiast’s note on Aeschines (T2) about their powers to re-instate destroyed laws and to introduce

60

inventory a1

new ones is an over-simplification of the more detailed process of revision undertaken after the appointment of a new council and nomothetai (And. 1.82: see D7 below). However, the scholion at T3 is right to add that the reforms of the Thirty were themselves to be abolished: for their legal reforms, which made use of the rhetoric of patrioi nomoi and the patrios politeia, see Xen. Hell. 2.3.2, 51; Ath. Pol. 35.1–2 (taking down the laws of Ephialtes from the Areopagus), 37.2; for the abolition of the graphe paranomon, see Aeschin. 3.191 (cf. its fate in 411: Thuc. 8.67.2). There is controversy about the extent of the revision of the laws: Carawan, ‘The meaning,’ takes the view that the scrutiny of laws was limited to those which affected the beneficiaries of the amnesty; Joyce (‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν’; ‘Oaths’ 41–9), on the other hand, takes the view that it was to be a comprehensive review of the laws of the city and that they were to be written up at the Stoa Basileios. For the view that the scholiast derives from a Lysianic speech, see Shear, Polis, 230 note 11.

Date

403/2, probably early autumn, is an uncontroversial date for the initiation of this process.

Bibliography

Carawan, E., ‘The Athenian amnesty and the “Scrutiny of the Laws”’, JHS 122 (2002) 1–23 at 3. Carawan, E., ‘The meaning of μὴ μνησικακεῖν’, CQ 62 (2012) 567–81. Joyce, C., ‘The Athenian amnesty and scrutiny of 403’, CQ 58 (2008) 507–18. Joyce, C., ‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν and “all the laws” (Andocides, On the Mysteries 81–2): a reply to E. Carawan’, Antichthon 48 (2014) 37–54. Joyce, C., ‘Oaths (ὅρκοι), covenants (συνθῆκαι) and laws (νόμοι) in the Athenian reconciliation agreement of 403 BC’, Antichthon 49 (2015) 24–49. Rhodes, P J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981). Rhodes, P.J., ‘The Athenian code of laws, 410–399 BC’, JHS 111 (1991) 95–100. Robertson, N., ‘The laws of Athens, 410–399 BC: the evidence for review and publication’, JHS 110 (1990) 43–75. Rolfe, J.C., Cornelius Nepos. Cambridge, MA and London (1984). Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011).

D3 Honorific decree for members of the ‘second Ten’ Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2

Literary Context

The Ath. Pol.’s account (T1) of the restoration of democracy is the sole source for a second board of Ten (a committee of officers appointed to oversee the transition to democracy), selected after the original Ten were deposed.

61

62

inventory a1

Text

T1  [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 38.4: Οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ῥίνωνα διά τε τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν εἰς τὸν δῆμον ἐπῃνέθησαν, καὶ λαβόντες τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ, τὰς εὐθύνας ἔδοσαν ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ, καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐδὲν ἐνεκάλεσεν αὐτοῖς, οὔτε τῶν ἐν ἄστει μεινάντων, οὔτε τῶν ἐκ Πειραιέως κατελθόντων, ἀλλὰ διὰ ταῦτα καὶ στρατηγὸς εὐθὺς ᾑρέθη Ῥίνων.

Commentary

The Ath. Pol. (38.3) states that foremost among the ‘second Ten’ were Rhinon Paianieus and Phayllos Acherdousios, who must have been among the honorands of this decree. Rhinon, who may have had de facto or de iure status as leader of the group, is well known: see Rhodes, Commentary, 460 for details of his political career; for a possible grave-monument, see Agora XVII 968. The Ath. Pol. (38.4) tells us that he was immediately afterwards elected strategos. Family members of Phayllos Acherdousios (APF pp. 53–4) are known, but there are no other certain attestations of him as an individual. The Ten were originally appointed to bring the war to an end and attempted to subdue the people by terror with the backing of the Spartans (Ath. Pol. 38.1– 3); according to the Ath. Pol. they were replaced by a ‘second Ten’, which was made up of well-born citizens described as beltistoi (38.3). According to the Ath. Pol., it was under this second board that negotiations with the party in Piraeus began and the democratic exiles were repatriated (38.3-4). We should distinguish them also from the ten magistrates who were chosen to govern the Piraeus (Ath. Pol. 35.1). It is likely that the first ‘Ten’ were among those who were excluded from the amnesty (Ath. Pol. 39.6) and it seems hard to envisage that the demos would have honoured them. Rhodes (Commentary, 459–60) casts doubt on the existence of the second board, but suggests that if they have any basis in fact, ‘we should look for them in the provisional government of Twenty appointed after the reconciliation …, who may have consisted of ten men from the city and ten from the Piraeus’ (Commentary, 459–60). Carawan, The Athenian, 147, too offers the view that the distinction between the ‘first’ and ‘second’ Ten is dubious, suggesting that there was instead a ‘shakeup’ of the group when its leaders were discredited. Ath. Pol. presents further justification for these honours: not only did the board show eunoia towards the demos, but they oversaw and organised the reconciliation and the return of the demos, negotiating with those at Piraeus before Pausanias arrived. Moreover, though they had taken office under the oligarchy, they underwent euthuna (scrutiny) under the democratic government, and no

d3 honorific decree for the ‘second ten’

63

T1 Rhinon and his colleagues were praised for their goodwill (eunoia) towards the people (demos). They had taken on office during the oligarchy, but they offered up their accounts to the democracy, and no one raised anything against them, neither anyone of those who remained in the city, nor of those who had come back from Piraeus. For this reason Rhinon was immediately elected general.

one made a complaint against them (38.4). It was a usual requirement of Athenian democracy that magistrates rewarded for overall performance received rewards only after having undergone euthuna: as Harris notes, the Athenians did subject honorands to euthuna when such decrees ‘reward overall performance during a term of office, not for single achievements, individuals, acts of generosity, or long-term service to the community’ (Harris, ‘Law and oratory’, 147; cf. Aeschin. 3.12). For further discussion of the law on euthuna, see D179 below. The identification of this testimonium as a decree of the assembly is far from certain, but the main means by which the demos would have communicated their praise would have been through such a decree. The fact that the existence of a second board of ten is otherwise unattested casts some doubt on the authenticity of this decree. Nevertheless, it is plausible that a board of some kind originally selected under the oligarchy, and involving Rhinon, was honoured by the restored demos. It is just possible that the reference to ‘good men’ (ἄνδρας ἀγαθούς) at Lysias 12.60 may be a reference to the honorands, but this is too vague to be certain.

Date

Autumn 403/2. Rhinon and his associates were honoured for negotiations with the party in Piraeus, shortly before the reconciliation, and for repatriating the exiles, which happened only after the initial return on 12th Boedromion 403/2. So the decree must be placed after that date.

Bibliography Carawan, E., The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Athenian Law. Oxford (2013) 247. Harris, E.M., ‘Law and oratory’ in I. Worthington (ed.), Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. I. Worthington. London (1994) 130–50. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 459–60.

D4* Proposal concerning the restriction of the franchise Proposer: Phormisios (PA 14945; PAA 962695) Date: 403/2

Literary Context

As part of his illustration of the style of Lysias, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (T1) introduces a speech in which he takes the view that the patrios politeia of Athens should be maintained and in which he opposes a proposal of Phormisios which would have disenfranchised some 5,000 citizens. The speech is generally classified as Lysias 34. Emphasising the value of freedom, Lysias associated the proposal with submitting to ‘what the Spartans command’ (‘ἃ Λακεδαιμόνιοι κελεύουσιν’: D.H. Lys. 33 = Lys. 34.6).

Text

T1  Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 32 p. 49 3–9: Φορμίσιός τις τῶν συγκατελθόντων μετὰ τοῦ δήμου γνώμην εἰσηγήσατο τοὺς μὲν φεύγοντας κατιέναι, τὴν δὲ πολιτείαν μὴ πᾶσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς [τὴν] γῆν ἔχουσι παραδοῦναι, βουλομένων ταῦτα γενέσθαι καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων. ἔμελλον δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματος τούτου κυρωθέντος πεντακισχίλιοι σχεδὸν Ἀθηναίων ἀπελαθήσεσθαι τῶν κοινῶν.

Commentary

Our knowledge of the substance of Phormisios’ proposal (gnome), which proposed to recall exiles and to restrict citizenship, is far from secure. It may be the case that the proposal was to recall oligarchic exiles from Eleusis and elsewhere (thus challenging one of the provisions of the amnesty: see D1, but for the final reconciliation with those at Eleusis, see DP 2 below); as Todd (Lysias, 336) points out, it is impossible to be certain whether Dionysius reports Phormisios’ original proposal or Lysias’ version of it; moreover, it is hard to tell whether ‘those who possess land’ referred to those who possessed a plot of a particular size. It is plausible, however, that there were debates going on at this time about the nature of, and restrictions to, Athenian citizenship: see Davies, ‘Athenian citizenship’. 64

d4* proposal concerning the franchise

65

T1 Phormisios, one of those who returned with the people, introduced a proposal that exiles be recalled, and that citizenship should be granted not to all, but to those who possess land; the Lakedaimonians wanted this to be the case too. However, had this proposal been approved of, almost five thousand Athenians would have been disenfranchised.

This is the sole attested proposal of Phormisios, though he is said to have acted as ambassador to the Persian king in the early 390s: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 62–3. The political activity of Phormisios in this period is well attested: for an assessment of the possibility that he was part of a moderate ‘Theramenist’ faction, and a speculative alternative, see Todd, Lysias, 337–8. Ostwald suggested that Phormisios adhered to a principle of the regime of 411 BC: that citizenship should be restricted to those able to ‘those best able to serve the state with their persons and their fortunes’ (Thuc. 8.65.3; Ath. Pol. 29.5; Ostwald, From Popular, 505); this is compatible with the Ath. Pol.’s claim (34.3) that Phormisios was one of those politicians who advocated a return to

66

inventory a1

the patrios politeia; Ruschenbusch suggested that he aimed to exclude the thetes from politics: Innenpolitik, 135–6. As Shear notes, the defeat of Phormisios’ proposal demonstrates that ‘a leading role in overthrowing the Thirty did not necessarily translate into automatic support by the majority of the Athenians in the ekklesia’ (Shear, Polis and Revolution, 312). Dionysius’ essay is a reliable source for the speech of Lysias, and it is therefore highly probable that Lysias was opposing a proposal of Phormisios, though we are far from certain about its content. Dionysius (Lys. 32), however, was unsure as to whether the speech was ever given in the courts; Phormisios’ proposal in any case seems not to have been made into a decree of the people: Ostwald, From Popular, 504–5. For cautionary words on the vagueness of Dionysius’ description and the reliability of the figure of ‘5,000’, see Todd, ‘The use and abuse’, 164.

Date

Dionysius (Lysias, 32) places the proposal and ensuring debate after the reconciliation of 403/2. Note that Ostwald, From Popular, 504, placed Phormisios’ proposal before that of Thrasyboulos (D5 below), but their precise order is uncertain.

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., ‘Athenian citizenship: the descent group and the alternatives’, Classical Journal 73 (1978) 105–21. Republished in P.J. Rhodes, Athenian Democracy. Edinburgh (2004) 18–39. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles (1986) 504–5. Ruschenbusch, E., Athenische Innenpolitik im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr: Ideologie oder Pragmatismus? Bamberg (1978). Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011). Todd, S.C., ‘The use and abuse of the Attic orators’, G&R37 (1990) 159–78 at 164. Todd, S.C., Lysias. Austin (2000) 335–8.

D5 ** Decree extending the award of citizenship to democrats Proposer: Thrasyboulos Lykou Steirieus (PA 7310; PAA 507785; APF) Date: 403/2

Literary Context

[Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2 (T1), in discussing the statesmanship of Archinos (on whom, see D15 below), says that he prosecuted Thrasyboulos for proposing that citizenship be conferred upon all those who had taken part in the return from Piraeus, a number of whom were known to be slaves. The fact that the graphe paranomon plays a part in [Aristotle]’s eulogy of Archinos indicates his approval of his resistance to enfranchising foreigners. Aeschines 3.195 (T2) mentions Archinos’ graphe paranomon as an example of the demos’ readiness to reject an illegal proposal despite the fact that the proposer, Thrasyboulos, had recently done good deeds on behalf of the people. In doing so, he assumes that the audience will agree that the enfranchisement would have been damaging to the Athenians. The proposal is mentioned also in a fragment of what appears to be a collection of biographies of famous men preserved on papyrus, dating to the second or third century AD (T3): it seems, therefore, that the episode was important to biographical accounts of Thrasyboulos.

67

68

inventory a1

Texts

T1  [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2: Γραψάμενος τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ Θρασυβούλου παρανόμων, ἐν ᾧ μετεδίδου Θρασύβουλος πολιτείας πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ Πειραιέως συγκατελθοῦσι, ὧν ἔνιοι φανερῶς ἦσαν δοῦλοι. T2 Aeschin. 3.195 Ἡγοῦντο γάρ, ὥσπερ τότε αὐτοὺς φεύγοντας άπὸ Φυλῆς Θρασύβουλος κατήγαγεν, οὕτω νῦν μένοντας ἐξελαύνειν παρὰ τοὺς νόμους γράφοντά τι. T3 P. Oxy. xv 1800 fr. 6 + 7 lines 5–9: Ἔγραψεν ψήφισμα Θρασύβουλος μεταδιδοὺς ἀυτοῖς τῆς πολιτείας ἀπροβουλεύτου δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματος γενομένου ... T4 See D6 T1.

Commentary

This is one of a number of rewards proposed for those who contributed to the overthrow of the Thirty and the re-instatement of democracy in the late fifth century: see also D6, 15 and RO pp. 24–5. During the regime of the Thirty, in 404/3, Thrasyboulos and his democratic supporters, after the occupation of Phyle, moved to the Piraeus, took the hill of Mounichia, and inflicted defeat upon the oligarchs before a reconciliation was made (Xen. Hell. 2.4.10–38); after the battle at Mounichia the democrats swore oaths that the foreigners who joined them should be granted isoteleia (2.4.25). At an assembly, after the agreement of reconciliation (D1 above) had been made, Thrasyboulos spoke and reminded the people to keep their promises (2.4.40–2). The decree he proposed on this or a later occasion, however, went further, proposing that those non-Athenians who had helped the Athenian democrats return from Piraeus be granted a share in the politeia (that is, be made citizens: T1). It was attacked as illegal, probably after it was passed in the assembly (this is suggested by [Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a: see D6 T1 below): see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 4. Lysias appears to have been either the speech-writer or an advocate for Thrasyboulos ([Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a). The decree was overruled by the courts: Aeschines’ (3.195 = T2) suggestion that its illegality was ‘driving them [sc. the democrats] into exile again’ may well reflect a hyperbolic argument lodged against the proposal. The decree may well have have been challenged for procedural reasons as well as by reference to the implications of its content: P. Oxy. xv 1800 frs 6–7 says that the decree was aprobouleuton (cf. D6 T1 = [Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a), in other words had not been discussed by the council. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 62 notes,

d5 ** decree of citizenship

69

T1 Indicting the decree of Thrasyboulos as illegal in which he shared citizenship with all those who had had a part in the return from the Piraeus of whom some were manifestly slaves. T2 They [sc. the jurors] believed that just as Thrasyboulos had brought them back from exile from Phyle, so now when they were restored he was attempting to exile them by making a proposal contradictory to the laws. T3 Thrasyboulos proposed a decree giving to them a share in citizenship, proposing the decree without consulting the council ... T4  See D6 T1: this passage is often thought to be a confused reference to Thrasyboulos’ decree.

however, that there is no reason to think (as Maximus Planudes, Scholia on the Staseis of Hermogenes (= C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, 5.343)) that ‘the proposal was aprobouleuton because there was no boule to approve it’ (Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 62). This is the earliest-known indictment of a decree on the basis that it was aprobouleuton. One plausible view is that after the overturning of this decree, Thrasyboulos made a proposal specifically for Lysias (see D6 T1 below), but the testimonia for that decree may well be a distortion of the current proposal. An alternative view (Hansen, The Sovereignty, 29) is that the decree may have been proposed in a moderated form, perhaps by Thrasyboulos, in 401/0, giving rise to the inscribed IG II2 10 (= Osborne, Naturalization D6 = RO 4), which distinguishes between those foreigners who joined in the return to Piraeus (who were awarded citizenship (politeia)) and those who joined in later at the battle at Mounichia or who remained in the Piraeus when the reconciliation (diallagai) took place (who were granted equality of obligations (isoteleia)); however, for other views of the honours granted, see RO p. 26). Archinos went on to propose a set of rewards crowning those who had returned from Phyle (D15). Ostwald points out that the proposal and overruling of Thrasyboulos’ and Phormisios’ decrees (D4 above) suggest the existence of disagreement over the question of the extent of citizenship (Ostwald, From Popular, 505), while Shear notes that Archinos’ proposal (see below) demonstrates that there did not exist consensus among those who had fought the Thirty ‘on how the events should be memorialised’ (Shear, Polis and Revolution, 311). To the honours granted to

70

inventory a1

those who contributed to the restoration of democracy, we might add Lysias’ observation that the foreigners received public burial and mourning and equal honours to citizens in the aftermath of the restoration (Lys. 2.66; see DP 1 below). There were clear precedents for Thrasyboulos’ proposal: the Athenians had offered citizenship to those slaves who had fought for them at Arginusae (Osborne, Naturalization T10) and to loyal Samians (OR 191 = ML 94) and, earlier, to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104–5 with the reservations, on the text, of Canevaro ‘The decree’). Lysias was associated with a speech in support of Thrasyboulos’ proposal (Plu. X Or. 836a–b with Todd, Commentary, 6 note 18). Thrasyboulos is known to have proposed two or three other decrees: a grant of citizenship to democrats (IG II2 10) and an alliance with the Boiotians of 395/4 (Xen. Hell. 3.5.16 = D20); see also D6 below. For his other political activity, including addressing the ecclesia, acting as defendant in a graphe paranomon, and acting as general, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 48–9; Buck, Thrasybulus, is an evaluation of his career, pointing to his dominance at the end of the fifth century (87–8) and moderate policies (91–2).

Date

403/2 (Ath. Pol. 40.2). Possibly early on in the year (see, D6 Date below). Note that Ostwald, From Popular, 504, places the defeat of this decree before Phormisios’ proposal (D3 above), but the precise order of proposals is uncertain.

Bibliography

Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy: Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Canevaro, M., ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)’, GRBS 50 (2010) 337­–69. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 29­–30 (no. 4). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’, 34–72 in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–­3), D6. Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles (1986) 504. MacDowell, D.M., Andocides On the Mysteries. Oxford (1962) 120. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 474–8. RO, GHI no. 4.

d6 *† proposal of citizenship for lysias

71

Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011) 188–226. Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2007).

D6 *† Proposal of citizenship for Lysias Proposer: Thrasyboulos Lykou Steirieus (PA 7310; PAA 507785; APF) Date: 403/2

Literary Context

The report of the decree in [Plutarch]’s Lives of the Ten Orators (T1) is indicative of its significance in the biographical traditions about Lysias: it is introduced as a consequence of the good services carried out by him. A scholiast’s note on Aeschines 3.195 (T2) adds details about the proposal when explaining Aeschines’ claim that the Athenians were right to reject Thrasyboulos’ proposal to reward foreigners, maintaining that the Athenians regarded highly those who defended the laws.

72

inventory a1

Texts

T1  [Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a: Ἐπιθεμένων δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ Φυλῆς τῇ καθόδῳ, ἐπεὶ χρησιμώτατος ἁπάντων ὤφθη, χρήματά τε παρασχὼν δραχμὰς δισχιλίας καὶ ἀσπίδας διακοσίας πεμφθείς τε σὺν Ἑρμᾶνι ἐπικούρους ἐμισθώσατο τριακοσίους, δύο τ’ ἔπεισε τάλαντα δοῦναι Θρασυδαῖον τὸν Ἠλεῖον, ξένον αὐτῷ γεγονότα. ἐφ’ οἷς γράψαντος αὐτῷ Θρασυβούλου πολιτείαν μετὰ τὴν κάθοδον ἐπ’ ἀναρχίας τῆς πρὸ Εὐκλείδου, ὁ μὲν δῆμος ἐκύρωσε τὴν δωρεάν, ἀπενεγκαμένου δ’ Ἀρχίνου γραφὴν παρανόμων διὰ τὸ ἀπροβούλευτον εἰσαχθῆναι, ἑάλω τὸ ψήφισμα. T2 Scholion on Aeschin. 3.195 (Dilts 438a): Θρασύβουλος ὁ Στειριεὺς μετὰ τὸ κατελθεῖν τὸν δῆμον ἀπὸ Φυλῆς ἔγραψε ψήφισμα δοθῆναι πολιτείαν Κεφάλῳ τῷ ῥήτορι πολλὰ εὐεργετήσαντι τοὺς εἰς Φυλὴν καταφυγόντας καὶ τοῦτο ἀπροβούλευτον εἰσήνεγκεν εἰς τὸν δῆμον. οὐδέπω γὰρ ἦν καθεσταμένη βουλὴ μετὰ τὴν τῶν λ κατάλυσιν· τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα ἐγράψατο παρανόμων Ἀρχῖνος ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης καὶ εἷλε καὶ ἐτίμησαν τῷ Θρασυβούλῳ οἱ δικασταὶ δραχμῆς μιᾶς.

Ἄλλως. ἐπίστευον τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἀμύνειν τοῖς νόμοις. Ἀρχῖνος γὰρ ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης ἐγράψατο παρανόμων ὅτε κατῆλθεν ὁ δῆμος Λυσίου τοῦ Συρακουσίου πεντακοσίας μὲν ἀσπίδας δόντος τοῖς μαχεσαμένοις ἐν Φυλῇ Συρακουσίοις, στρατιώτας δὲ μισθωσαμένου ἐξ Αἰγίνης ἔγραψε ψήφισμα πολίτην αὐτὸν γενέσθαι Θρασύβουλος. παρανόμων δὲ αὐτὸν Ἀρχῖνος ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης ἐγράψατο, ὅτι οὔπω γενομένης βουλῆς ψήφισμα ἔγραψεν ὀλιγώρως πρὸ τοῦ βουλὴν ὑπάρξαι, καὶ δικασταὶ κατήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τὰς ψήφους. ὁ δὲ ἐν τῇ τιμήσει παρελθών· θανάτου, ἔφη, τιμῶμαι, ὅτι ἀχαρίστους Ἀθηναίους ὄντας εὖ ἐποίησα. οἱ δὲ δικασταὶ αἰδεσθέντες τῷ μὲν ἐτίμησαν τὴν καταδίκην δραχμῆς, τὸν δὲ Λυσίαν οὐδ’ οὕτως ἐποιήσαντο πολίτην.

Commentary

The relationship between this decree and that which the same Thrasyboulos is said to have proposed for foreigners helping in the overthrow of the Thirty (D5 above), is unclear. While it is plausible that there were separate proposals, with the one proposed in the aftermath of the rejection of the other, it is more likely, as Rhodes suggests (Commentary, 476), that ‘a general proposal [sc. that at D5] was remembered by some as a proposal for Lysias’ (cf. also the views of Osborne, Naturalization, 2.30 note 77 and Roisman and Worthington, Lives, 129). Given that rewards for groups, rather than individuals, appear to be the norm for those associated with the restoration of democracy (see, for a list of

d6 *† proposal of citizenship for lysias

73

T1 But when the men at Phyle set about their return to Athens, he [Lysias] was seen to be more helpful than anyone else, since he supplied two thousand drachmas and two hundred shields and, when sent with Hermas, hired three hundred mercenaries and persuaded Thrasydaios of Elis, who had become his guest-friend, to give two Talents. For these services Thrasyboulos, after the restoration of the exiles to the city in the period of anarchy before Eukleides, proposed a grant of citizenship for him, and the popular assembly ratified the grant, but when Archinos had him up for illegality because it had not been previously voted by the council, the enactment was declared void. (trans. Fowler, Plutarch’s, adapted) T2 Thrasyboulos Steirieus, after the return of the demos from Phyle, proposed a decree to give citizenship to the orator Lysias son of Kephalos who had done many good things for those taking refuge at Phyle and he introduced this to the assembly without reference to the council; for the council had not yet been re-instated after the fall of the 30. Archinos from Koile prosecuted this decree as illegal and he won and the jurors fined Thrasyboulos one drachma. Alternative version: they (sc. the Athenian demos) trusted those who appeared to defend the laws. Archinos from Koile brought a charge for illegal proposal when the democracy was re-established … Thrasyboulos had proposed to grant citizenship to Lysias the Syracusan because he had given five hundred shields to those fighting in Phyle and had hired three hundred mercenaries from Aegina. Archinos from Koile indicted him for an illegal proposal in that he had proposed a law when a boule had not yet been constituted, and the jury condemned him for it. Thrasyboulos came forward in the discussion of the penalty, and said: ‘I judge myself worthy of death, for I did well by the Athenians, but they are ungrateful.’ The jury were ashamed, and fined him one drachma, but even so they did not make Lysias a citizen. (trans. Moore, Aristotle, 272, adapted).

the rewards made after the restoration of democracy, RO pp. 24–5), the view of this as a biographical distortion of a proposal of group reward seems plausible. Maximus Planoudes, Scholia on the Staseis of Hermogenes (Walz, Rhetores Graeci, V.343 lines 11–16) also contains the story that Thrasyboulos proposed to make Lysias a citizen, but was prosecuted for putting forward a decree that was aprobouleuton, and that he was fined. The story of Lysias’ extraordinary benefactions, Thrasyboulos’ proposal and its indictment appears also in Photius, Library, 262 489b–490a; there are no significant discrepancies on the details of the decree and the services for which it was made. Both Photius and [Plutarch] (T1) go on to mention that Lysias lived as an Athenian isoteles for the rest of his

74

inventory a1

life: this may have been the result of a grant made in fulfilment of the promise of isoteleia made by the democrats to any xenoi who would help them (Xen. Hell. 2.4.25). According to [Plutarch], Lysias wrote a speech in support of the decree which granted his citizenship, made against Archinos ([Plu.] X Or. 836a), but, as Todd points out, this is generally thought to have been a response to the graphe paranomon brought by Archinos against Thrasyboulos’ proposal (D5) to enfranchise all foreigners who had fought alongside the democrats (Todd, Commentary, 6 note 18). The extraordinary story of Thrasyboulos proposing his own death and of the jury, out of shame, reducing the fine (T2), is regarded by Todd as ‘procedurally implausible’ (Commentary, 6 note 20). For Thrasyboulos’ career, see D5 above.

Date

Early 403/2. [Plu.] X Or. 835f. places the proposal after the return of the demos (in other words, after 12th Boedromion 403/2) but before the period of Eukleides’ archonship: this can be regarded as in the period before the democracy was settled enough for Eukleides to have come into office.

Bibliography

Fowler, H.N., Plutarch’s Moralia: Volume X. Cambridge, MA and London (1936). Moore, J.M., Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy. London (1983). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 474–8. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius, and the Suda. Oxford (2015) 128–9. Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2007).

D7 Decree concerning the revision and writing up of the laws Proposer: ?Teisamenos Mechanionos (PA 13443; PAA 877610) Date: 403/2

Literary Context

As part of his insistence that the decree of Isotimides (And. 1.8, 71–2) – under the provisions of which he appears to have been prosecuted by endeixis by Kephisios and others in Boedromion 400/399 (Hansen, Apagoge, no. 10) – was obsolete and not relevant to his case, Andocides claimed that the Athenians in 403/2 called a meeting of the assembly to discuss the implementation of the laws of Solon and Draco and decreed that all the laws should be revised and those which were approved should be published (And. 1.82 = T1). This, he claims, was carried out (And. 1.85 = T2). The decree, accordingly, forms an institutional aspect of his line of defence: he maintains that it is not right to enforce a decree (viz. that of Isotimides) that is agraphos (And 1.86).

75

76

inventory a1

Texts

T1  And. 1.82: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ βουλὴν τε ἀπεκληρώσατε νοµοθέτας τε εἵλεσθε, ηὕρισκον τῶν νόµῶν τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων. ἐκκλησίαν ποιήσαντες ἐβουλεύσασθε περὶ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐψηφίσασθε, δοκιμάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόμους, εἶτ’ ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τούτους τῶν νόμων οἳ ἂν δοκιμασθῶσι. Andocides then asks for the decree to be read out loud. At sections 83–4 of the speech, there appears a document (printed here in parentheses, as it appears in the 2018 Dilts and Murphy edition) purporting to be the text of this decree: (Ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ, Τεισαμενὸς εἶπε, πολιτεύεσθαι Ἀθηναίους κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, νόμοις δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος, καὶ μέτροις καὶ σταθμοῖς, χρῆσθαι δὲ καὶ τοῖς Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς, οἷσπερ ἐχρώμεθα ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ. Ὁπόσων δ’ ἂν προσδέῃ, †οἵδε† ᾑρημένοι νομοθέται ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς ἀναγράφοντας ἐν σανίσιν ἐκτιθέντων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπωνύμους σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ, καὶ παραδιδόντων ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐν τῷδε τῷ μηνί. τοὺς δὲ παραδιδομένους νόμους δοκιμασάτω πρότερον ἡ βουλὴ καὶ οἱ νομοθέται οἱ πεντακόσιοι, οὓς οἱ δημόται εἵλοντο, ἐπειδὰν ὀμωμόκωσιν. ἐξεῖναι δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ βουλομένῳ, εἰσιόντι εἰς τὴν βουλὴν συμβουλεύειν ὅ τι ἂν ἀγαθὸν ἔχῃ περὶ τῶν νόμων. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τεθῶσιν οἱ νόμοι, ἐπιμελείσθω ἡ βουλὴ ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείουπάγου τῶν νόμων, ὅπως ἂν αἱ ἀρχαὶ τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις χρῶνται. τοὺς δὲ κυρουμένους τῶν νόμων ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖχον, ἵνα περ πρότερον ἀνεγράφησαν, σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ.) T2 And. 1.85: Ἐδοκιμάσθησαν μὲν οὖν οἱ νόμοι, ὦ ἄνδρες, κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τουτί, τοὺς δὲ κυρωθέντας ἀνέγραψαν εἰς τὴν στοάν.

Commentary

This process of examination of the laws had been going on since 410/9, and appears to have been re-initiated by decree at this point in 403/2 (see Robertson, ‘The laws’; Rhodes, ‘The Athenian’). The provisions described by the narrative of Andocides here appear to be subsequent to the selection of a board of Twenty (And. 1.81 = D2 T1) and establishment of nomothetai (1.82 = D7 T1); his narrative description of the decree (T1 and T2) contains two elements, aspects of which appear to be elaborated in the spurious document at 83–4: (a) Scrutiny of laws: Andocides (T1) says that all laws were to be examined (‘δοκιμάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόμους’); the document says that the laws handed

d7 decree concerning the revision of laws

77

T1 After you chose the council by lot and elected nomothetai, they found that there were many laws of Solon and Draco under which many citizens were liable to prosecution for the sake of things that had gone on previously. You organised a meeting of the assembly, discussed the matters, and voted that the laws were to be examined, then those which were scrutinised would be written up at the Stoa.

The  people resolved, Teisamenos proposed: the Athenians shall conduct their public affairs in the traditional manner. They shall employ the laws of Solon and his weights and measures, they shall employ also the ordinances of Draco, which we employed in former times. Such additions as are needed shall be inscribed on boards by the nomothetai appointed by the Council, and shall be exhibited in front of the tribal heroes for all to see and handed over to the officials within this month. The laws which are handed over shall be examined first by the Council and by the five hundred nomothetai appointed by the members of the demes, after they have taken the oath. Also any individual who wishes shall be permitted to come before the Council and make any good suggestion he can about the laws. After the laws are passed, the council of the Areopagus shall take care of the laws, to ensure that officials employ the laws which are in force. Those laws which are ratified shall be inscribed on the wall, where they were published before, for anyone who wishes to read them. (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’) T2 So the laws were examined in accordance with this decree, and the ones which were ratified were published in the Stoa. (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’, adapted)

over were to be examined first by the council and then by the nomothetai chosen in the demes (‘τοὺς δὲ παραδιδομένους νόμους δοκιμασάτω πρότερον ἡ βουλὴ καὶ οἱ νομοθέται οἱ πεντακόσιοι, οὓς οἱ δημόται εἵλοντο’). Carawan (‘The Athenian’) thinks that scrutiny came as a later addition to Teisamenos’ decree, though it is plausible to think that Andocides’ narrative simplified the provisions of the decree, or that a zealous later editor, fabricating a ‘decree of Teisamenos’, over-elaborated on them. There is controversy about the extent of the revision of the laws: Carawan, ‘The meaning,’ takes the view that the scrutiny of laws was limited to those which affected the beneficiaries of the

78

inventory a1

amnesty; Joyce (‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν’) takes the view that it was to be a comprehensive review of the laws of the city and that they were to be written up at the Stoa Basileios. (b) Writing up of laws: the narrative tells us that those of the laws which were scrutinised (‘τούτους τῶν νόμων οἳ ἂν δοκιμασθῶσι’) were to be written up at the stoa (‘ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ’: And. 1.82 = T1) and that those which were ratified were published in the Stoa (‘τοὺς δὲ κυρωθέντας ἀνέγραψαν εἰς τὴν στοάν’: And. 1.85 = T2). The document, despite its rather different language, is not totally incompatible, saying ‘τοὺς δὲ κυρουμένους τῶν νόμων ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖχον, ἵνα περ πρότερον ἀνεγράφησαν, σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ’. Thompson suggested that the revised laws were to be set up at the Stoa Baslieios (‘Buildings’, 75). Another possible solution is that of Robertson, ‘The Laws’, 44 and Rhodes, ‘The Athenian’, 100, who suggest that the document refers to a temporary display; indeed, ἀναγράφειν means ‘publish’, but without the strict implication of writing on stone. For a rather different view, which takes ἐν τῇ στοᾷ as referring to the erection of stelai at the Stoa Basileios, the physical form of which may be reflected in extant fragments of the sacrificial calendar (cf. Lambert, ‘The Sacrificial’) but which sees the phrase εἰς τὸν τοῖχον as a fabrication of the later author of the document, see Canevaro and Harris, ‘The documents’. The Stoa, according to Ath. Pol. (7.1) was the place of publication for the laws of Solon: accordingly, it was a well-established location for legislative inscriptions. A number of attempts have been made to reconcile the narrative of Andocides’ speech with that of the document of the ‘decree of Teisamenos’ which appears at sections 83 and 84 of the speech (for the reconciliatory view, see Harrison, ‘Law-making’, 32–5; MacDowell, Andocides, 194–9; Ostwald, From Sovereignty, 511–19; Shear, Polis and Revolution, 239–40). Robertson privileged the document, suggesting that Andocides’ account was a self-serving exaggeration of the extent of the revision of the laws (Robertson, ‘The laws’, 45–6, 49). Further provisions outlined by the document (T1) are as follows (for views of its provisions, see Rhodes, ‘The Athenian’, 98–100; Robertson, ‘The laws’, 46–9, 60-3; Carawan, The Athenian, 198–201): (a) the Athenians were to be governed kata ta patria though the employment of Solonian laws, weights and measures and the thesmoi of Draco; (b) the nomothetai were to write up additional laws as they were needed; (c) any citizen who wishes to suggest improvements in the laws may do so before the council;

d7 decree concerning the revision of laws

79

(d) ratified laws should be handed over to the Areopagus to ensure their enforcement. As Ostwald observes, the lack of testimonia for the role of the Areopagus at this point in Athenian history means this is rather a surprising provision (Ostwald, From Popular, 518). Carawan (The Athenian Amnesty, 198–201) suggests that Teisamenos’ decree came after the decree creating a board of Twenty (see D2 T1 above), but before the scrutiny mentioned in D7 T1  – which he regards as a later check on the results of Teisamenos’ decree. Accordingly, Carawan regards the document of Teisamenos’ decree as genuine, but one which was mis-identified by a later editor with the provisions of And. 1.82 and introduced at this point in the text in error (Carawan ‘The Athenian’, 21–3; The Athenian Amnesty, 186–7, 198–201, 282–4). As Carawan notes, the association between text and document is made problematic by the fact that the name ‘Teisamenos’ appears nowhere else in Andocides’ text, though he has traditionally been identified with the son of Mechanion mentioned in Lys. 30.28 (this Teisamenos is dismissed by Lysias, in the same derogatory breath as he treats Nikomachos, as the kind of minor figure that the contemporary Athenians have elected to revise their laws). There is no other attestation of his political activity, and so the association of this name with this decree must remain doubtful. In a subsequent article, Carawan (‘Decrees’, 407–11) argues that the text was composed on the basis of abridged versions or fragments of legislation. The view taken here (which follows that of Canevaro and Harris) is that it is possible to accept that there were two elements to this decree which appear in the narrative of Andocides, but that the provisions which appear in the document cannot be assumed uncritically to be those of a genuine Athenian decree. Canevaro and Harris (‘The documents’, 110–16), challenging the authenticity of the document in T1, suggest that it was a forged document inserted into the text long after the initial publication of the speech. In support of this position, they point to contradictions between the document and Andocides’ narrative, phrases and formulae which are not otherwise attested in inscribed decrees, and legal procedures which are inconsistent with those attested in other sources. Of the reasons Canevaro and Harris offer for rejecting the document, the clearest contradiction is that between Andocides’ statement that all laws were to be examined (82) and the document’s provision that the Athenians were to employ all those of Draco and Solon. The burden of proof now lies with those who want to make a case for the authenticity of this document. Hansen’s 2016 defence of the document’s authenticity (‘Is Teisamenos’ decree’) has been comprehensively repudiated by Canevaro and Harris (‘The authenticity’).

80

inventory a1

The provisions mentioned here, to examine and write up the laws, are mentioned in the context of Andocides’ description of Athenian decisions about legislation at And. 1.88; the further provisions mentioned there are treated separately (= D8 below).

Date

403/2. Ostwald (From Popular, 514) suggests late November or early December 403.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62 (2012) 98–129 at 110–16. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of the documents at Andocides’ On the Mysteries 77–79 and 83–88’, Dike 19 (2016) 9–49 at 33–47. Carawan, E., ‘The Athenian amnesty and the “scrutiny of the laws”’, JHS 122 (2002) 1–23 at 3. Carawan, E., ‘The meaning of μὴ μνησικακεῖν’, CQ 62 (2012) 567–81. Carawan, E., The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Athenian Law. Oxford (2013) 186–7, 198–201, 282–4. Carawan, E., ‘Decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries and “latent fragments” from Craterus’, CQ 67 (2017) 400–21 at 407–11. Hansen, M.H., Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis Against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes in Classical Athens. Odense (1976). Hansen, M.H., ‘Is Teisamenos’ decree (Andoc. 1.83–84) a genuine document?’, GRBS 56 (2016) 34–48. Harrison, A.R.W., ‘Law-making at Athens at the end of the fifth-century BC’, JHS 75 (1955) 26–35. Joyce, C., ‘The Athenian amnesty and scrutiny of 403’, CQ 58 (2008) 507–18. Joyce, C., ‘Μὴ μνησικακεῖν and “all the laws” (Andocides, On the Mysteries 81–2): a reply to E. Carawan’, Antichthon 48 (2014), 37–54. Lambert, S.D., ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, ABSA 97 (2002), 353–99. MacDowell, Andokides’ On the Mysteries. Oxford (1962) 194–9. MacDowell, D.M., ‘Andocides’, 93–170 in M. Gagarin and D.M. MacDowell (trans.), Antiphon and Andocides. Austin (1998). Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles (1986) 511–19. Rhodes, P.J., ‘The Athenian code of laws, 410–399 BC’, JHS 111 (1991) 87–100. Robertson, N., ‘The laws of Athens, 410–399 BC: the evidence for review and publication’, JHS 110 (1990), 43–75. Shear, J., Polis and Revolution. Cambridge (2007) 239–40. Thompson, H.A., ‘Buildings on the west side of the Agora’, Hesperia 6 (1937) 1–226.

D8 Decree concerning the application of new laws Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2 or shortly after

Literary Context

Andocides mentions this decree in support of his argument that offences committed before the revision of laws were exempt from prosecution.

81

82

inventory a1

Texts

T1  And. 1.88-9: Τῶν δὲ δημοσίων ὁπόσοις ἢ γραφαί εἰσιν ἢ φάσεις ἢ ἐνδείξεις ἢ ἀπαγωγαί, τούτων ἕνεκα τοῖς νόμοις ἐψηφίσασθε χρῆσθαι ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος. ὅπου οὖν ἔδοξεν ὑμῖν δοκιμάσαι μὲν τοὺς νόμους, δοκιμάσαντας δὲ ἀναγράψαι, ἀγράφῳ δὲ νόμῳ τὰς ἀρχὰς μὴ χρῆσθαι μηδὲ περὶ ἑνός, ψήφισμα δὲ μήτε βουλῆς μήτε δήμου κυριώτερον εἶναι, μηδ’ ἐπ’ ἀνδρὶ νόμον τιθέναι ἐὰν μὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις, τοῖς δὲ νόμοις τοῖς κειμένοις χρῆσθαι ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος, ἐνταυθοῖ ἔστιν ὅ τι ὑπολείπεται ἢ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον τῶν γενομένων πρότερον ψηφισμάτων, πρὶν Εὐκλείδην ἄρξαι, ὅπως κύριον ἔσται;

T2 And. 1.93: Τοῖς νόμοις ἐψηφίσασθε ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος χρῆσθαι.

Commentary

After re-iterating that the Athenians scrutinised and wrote up their laws, Andocides (1.88-9 = T1) reports that the Athenians voted (‘ἐψηφίσασθε’) about the application of laws from the archonship of Eukleides, the examination of the laws, and their being written up (cf. D7 above); they also introduced provisions against unwritten laws, the relationship between laws and decrees, and against ad hominem laws. Andocides’ remarks about the imposition of only those laws passed since the archonship of Eukleides (1.93 = T2) are consonant with comparable references to the imposition only of post-Eukleidian laws in the Diokles’ law at Dem. 24.42 (cf. Canevaro, The Documents, 121–7); for later allusions to the authority of specifically post-Eukleidian laws, see Aeschin. 1.39 (with Scholion Dilts 83), Isae. 6.47 and 8.43). The provisions against ad hominem laws (see Hansen, ‘Nomos’) and the rule that no decree should be more authoritative (kurioteron) than a law are mentioned elsewhere by orators, sometimes as a law: Dem. 23.87, 218; 24.18, 30, 59, 116, 188; Hansen, Athenian Ecclesia, 170; Hansen, Athenian Democracy, 172. Ad hominem legislation appears to have been forbidden in Athens, but decrees could pertain to honours or punishments applying to individuals (cf. Dem. 8.29). It is hard to be certain about the precise legislative status of these provisions. Given their general and permanent nature, they are sometimes regarded as laws (cf. Rhodes ‘The Athenian,’ 96–7; Canevaro and Harris, ‘The documents’, 116–19). Andocides’ language (1.88, 93: ‘ἐψηφίσασθε’; 1.89: ‘ἔδοξεν ὑμῖν’) suggests enactment at an assembly: this is problematic if we follow the view that it was not normally the assembly but a group of nomothetai constituted from the jurors that ratified new laws (Rhodes ‘Nomothesia’, 55–60 at 59); yet the view of

d8 decree concerning the application of new laws

83

T1  For offences dealt with by public prosecution (graphe) or denunciation (phasis) or indictment (endeixis) or arrest (apagoge) you voted that the laws should be applied from the archonship of Eukleides. So, when you had resolved that the laws should be examined, and that after being approved they should be written up, and that a law which had not been written should not be employed by officials on any matter whatever, and that no decree of the council or assembly should prevail over a law, and that a law applying to an individual should not be put in place unless the same law applied to all Athenians, and that the laws in force should be applied from the archonship of Eukleides, is there any thing left here, great or small, of the decrees which were passed before Eukleides became archon, which will be valid? (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’) T2 You voted that the laws should be applied from the archonship of Eukleides. (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’).

Canevaro and Esu (‘Extreme democracy’) that nomothesia was undertaken at a session of the assembly (with the demos at the assembly acting as nomothetai) makes the language of decree-enactment entirely compatible with that of nomothesia. Moreover, we should acknowledge also that, despite the fact that nomothetai appear to have been appointed for archon year 403/2 (D7 T1), one cannot be certain that this procedure would have been totally settled at this time of upheaval. For other occasions on which the Athenian sources refer to an enactment as both a psephisma and a nomos, see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165–7. Accordingly, the measures discussed in these testimonia are credible and indeed appear to be foundational in terms of fourth-century Athenian management of their laws and decrees. The distinction between law and decree was commonplace in fourth-century political rhetoric (Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 161–205). Rhodes has suggested that the separation between laws, as general and permanent and general measures, and decrees, which concerned ephemeral matters, arose not only from a distrust of the assembly but also out of a desire to defend laws from ‘the attacks of relativist sophists’: Rhodes, Commentary, 329; Rhodes, ‘Judicial’, 317. It is just possible that presenting the legislation as decisions of the people was more rhetorically useful to Andocides than presenting them as laws. For another reference to the voting of a law (in fact, the re-enactment of a Solonian law), see Dem. 57.32 = D9. At section 87 of Andocides’ speech, shortly before T1, there appear two documents which appear to represent versions of the laws described here, adding further provisions ((a) that an assembly of 6,000 might approve by secret ballot

84

inventory a1

a law applying to individuals but not the whole citizen body; (b) that all decisions in suits and arbitrations under democratic government are to be valid (a condition described in Andocides’ narrative at 1.88)). It is likely, however, that these documents are later compositions based on Andocides’ paraphrase in his text and additional provisions based on Demosthenes 23.46 and [59].89: see Canevaro and Harris ‘The documents’. For the view that the passage of the document pertaining to ad hominem legislation  – containing the additional provision that it might be permitted with the secret ballot of 6,000 – might be genuine, see Hansen, ‘Nomos’.

Date

This legislation must have been passed after the Athenians had embarked upon a codification of their laws in 403/2, and it makes sense to place this decree after the one for their revision and transcription (see D7 above).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013). Canevaro, M. and Esu, A., ‘Extreme democracy and mixed constitution in theory and practice: nomophylakia and fourth-century nomothesia in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia’ in Bearzot, T., Canevaro, M., Gargiulo, T. and Poddighe, E. (eds.), Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia: Aristotele e Ps.-Senofonte, Quaderni di ErgaLogoi. Milan (2018) 105–45. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62 (2012) 98–129 at 116–19. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles, 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly. Oxford (1987). Hansen, M.H., ‘Nomos ep’ andri in fourth-century Athens: on the law quoted at Andocides 1.87’, GRBS 57 (2017) 268–81. MacDowell, D.M., ‘Andocides’ in Antiphon and Andocides, ed. M. Gagarin and trans. D.M. MacDowell, Austin (1998) 93–179. Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles (1986) 522–4. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Nomothesia in fourth-century Athens’, CQ 53 (1984) 55–60. Rhodes, P.J., ‘The Athenian code of laws, 410–399 BC’, JHS 111 (1991) 87–100 at 96–7. Rhodes, P.J., ‘Judicial procedures in fourth-century Athens: improvement or simply change?’ in Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform?: Akten eines Symposiums 3.–7. August 1992, Bellagio, ed. W. Eder. Stuttgart (1995) 303–19.

D9 Proposal to re-enact a Solonian law concerning the xenikon (foreigners’ tax) Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: 403/2?

Literary Context

The speaker defends his citizenship at the time of the diapsephisis of 346, specifically against the charge that his family’s poverty and work in the market-place are inappropriate for a citizen. Demosthenes introduces discussion of legislation ‘to prove to you the very opposite – that it is not permitted to any alien to do business in the market’ (T1).

85

86

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 57.31–3, 34: Ἡμεῖς δ’ ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ ταινίας πωλεῖν καὶ ζῆν οὐχ ὅντινα τρόπον βουλόμεθα. καὶ εἴ σοί ἐστιν τοῦτο σημεῖον, ὦ Εὐβουλίδη, τοῦ μὴ Ἀθηναίους εἶναι ἡμᾶς, ἐγώ σοι τούτου ὅλως τοὐναντίον ἐπιδείξω, ὅτι οὐκ ἔξεστιν ξένῳ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ἐργάζεσθαι. καί μοι λαβὼν ἀνάγνωθι πρῶτον τὸν Σόλωνος νόμον.

ΝΟΜΟΣ Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοφῶντος· οὕτω γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦτον ἔδοξεν ἐκεῖνος καλῶς καὶ δημοτικῶς νομοθετῆσαι, ὥστ’ ἐψηφίσασθε πάλιν ἀνανεώσασθαι. ΝΟΜΟΣ … ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν ξένη ἦν, τὰ τέλη ἐξετάσαντας τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, εἰ ξενικὰ ἐτέλει …

Commentary

According to Demosthenes (T1), Aristophon was connected with the Athenians’ decision to re-enact the Solonian legislation forbidding foreigners from doing business in the agora without paying a tax (cf. the phrase ‘if she paid the foreigners’ tax’: ‘εἰ ξενικὰ ἐτέλει’ in T1). Whitehead suggests that the introduction of the xenikon tax mitigated an earlier straightforward exclusion of foreigners from the agora: Whitehead, Ideology, 78. In the fourth century, it appears to have been one of the few additional restrictions on metic commercial activity in the Athenian agora: indeed, for the prevalence of activity of non-Athenians in the agora, see Vlassopoulos, ‘Free spaces’, 39–46. After reading the Solonian law (T1), the speaker asks the secretary to ‘take now that of Aristophon’ (‘Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοφῶντος’: T1). The τόν appears to refer to the legislation of Aristophon as a nomos, but it may be the case that the term is being used here imprecisely to refer to a psephisma. It is probably the case that Aristophon proposed a vote in the assembly that the law of Solon be re-enacted, as T1 suggests: ‘ἐψηφίσασθε πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀνανεώσασθαι’; perhaps, if we can believe that nomothesia in its fourth-century form had taken shape, this would have initiated the process of nomothesia (for the vote at the assembly allowing for new laws be proposed, see Dem. 24.25 with Canevaro ‘Nomothesia’, 144; see further, D93). On the relation of the law to Solon’s reforms, see Whitehead, Ideology, 142. The laws of Solon were briefly re-introduced in 403/2 (And. 1.82), but the lawgiver was cited as a paradigm of activity in the years following (see Thomas,

d9 proposal to re-enact a solonian law

87

T1 We admit both that we sell ribbons and live not in the way that we would like to. And if this, Euboulides, demonstrates to you that we are not Athenians, I shall prove to you the complete opposite, that it is not permissible for a foreigner to do business in the agora. And read for me the first law of Solon. LAW Take now that of Aristophon; men of Athens, he seemed to make a law so well and democratically that you voted to re-enact it. LAW … But if she was an alien, examining the tax-records in the agora to see if she paid the foreigners’ tax ...

‘Law and the lawgiver’). Reference to laws of Solon can never be taken at face value; as Harris and Canevaro point out (‘The documents’, 125 note 133), there is a tendency for orators to label any Athenian law ‘Solonian’. However, the speaker’s claim that the people decided to re-enact it (57.32) is a creative spin and augments its credibility both to the contemporary audience and to modern scholarship. This is one of the five occasions on which the Athenian sources refer to an enactment as both a psephisma and a nomos: Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165–7; on this occasion it can be explained by its appearance as a post-Eukleidian re-enactment of a Solonian law. Aristophon was a prolific proposer of decrees: see Volume 2, Appendix 1. He was said to have been acquitted 75 times for proposing illegal decrees (Aeschin. 3.914); for his other activity, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 38, 68, 70, Whitehead, ‘The political career’ and Whitehead ‘Hypereides’ 232–3. This may well have been among his earliest proposals. He was granted honorific ateleia (in the case of a citizen, probably consisting of exemption from liturgies: D102).

Date

403/2, perhaps at the time when other Solonian laws were re-enacted (And. 1.82). For the date, see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 188–91, arguing that this instance of the enactment of a general provision by a decree rather than as a law belongs to the period before the advent of nomothesia; as Whitehead notes,

88

inventory a1

the assembly legislated by decree also in the 340s and 330s: Whitehead, ‘The political career’, 316.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., ‘Nomothesia in classical Athens: what sources should we believe?’, CQ 63 (2013) 139–60. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62 (2012) 98–129. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia I: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Thomas, R., ‘Law and the lawgiver in the Athenian democracy’ in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. R.G. Osborne and S. Hornblower. Oxford (1994) 119–33. Vlassopoulos, K., ‘Free spaces: identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens’, CQ 57 (2007) 33–52. Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge Philological Society Suppl., 4. Cambridge (1977). Whitehead, D., ‘The political career of Aristophon’, CPh 81 (1986) 313–19. Whitehead, D., Hyperides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000).

D10 Decree concerning the dokimasia of magistrates Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2 or shortly after

Literary Context

As part of his account of a prosecution speech related to the dokimasia (preliminary scrutiny) of Evandros, Lysias informs the audience that the Athenian people reformed the process of dokimasia as a way of ensuring that those who were in office at the time of the Thirty should not hold office again (T1). He says that the Athenians established the procedure ‘on account of those who committed many crimes’, and contrasted them with those who had not (T2).

89

90

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Lys. 26.9: Κἀκεῖνο ἐνθυμεῖσθε, ὅτι ὁ θεὶς τὸν περὶ τῶν δοκιμασιῶν νόμον οὐχ ἥκιστα {περὶ} τῶν ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ἀρξάντων ἕνεκα ἔθηκεν, ἡγούμενος δεινὸν εἶναι, εἰ δι’ οὓς ἡ δημοκρατία κατελύετο, οὗτοι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πολιτείᾳ πάλιν ἄρξουσι, καὶ κύριοι γενήσονται τῶν νόμων καὶ τῆς πόλεως, ἣν πρότερον παραλαβόντες οὕτως αἰσχρῶς καὶ δεινῶς ἐλωβήσαντο. T2 Lys. 26.20: Καὶ διὰ μέν γε τοὺς πολλὰ ἐξαμαρτόντας τὰς δοκιμασίας εἶναι ἐψηφίσαντο, διὰ δὲ τοὺς μηδὲν τοιοῦτον πράξαντας τὰς συνθήκας ἐποιήσαντο. τοσαῦτά σοι ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου ἀποκρίνομαι.

Commentary

According to one view, the Athenians revised their arrangements for scrutiny (dokimasia) of magistrates in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Thirty (see Feyel, Dokimasia, 35–48; Adeleye ‘The purpose’; pace Todd, The Shape, 285– 9, Todd ‘The Athenian’, 92). The legislation was referred to, by the speaker of Lysias 26, as a consequence of a vote of the people (‘ἐψηφίσαντο’: T2), which points to the possibility that the change was made by decree; however, earlier in the speech it is referred to as a nomos (T1): ‘ἐψηφίσαντο’ might on this occasion be oratorical shorthand for the enactment of a law, aiming to implicate the demos closely with responsibility for their legislation. However, nomos is a term that could be used in a broad sense to refer also to decrees: see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 188–9; this is one of the five occasions on which the Athenian sources refer to an enactment as both a psephisma and a nomos: Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165. Dokimasia was not a new thing and existed probably in the fifth century BC (Rhodes, Commentary, 616–17). However, from TT 1–2 it is plausible to think that, at some point (perhaps, but not definitely, after the restoration of democracy) the Athenians passed a law about dokimasia (T1); an alternative interpretation would be that they made a law about it and decided also, by decree, to hold, shortly after the restoration of democracy, scrutinies of particular individuals who had held office during the oligarchy (T2). This interpretation of T2 coincides with the view of Adeleye (‘The purpose’, 305) that the Athenians amended the practice of dokimasia by decree so that it could be used against those who had carried out particular acts of illegality at the time of the oligarchic regimes; however, as Todd (The Shape, 289) observes, Adeleye’s view does not take into account the ‘scope for the illegitimate use of a procedure’. The status of T2 as evidence for a decree, therefore, depends upon what we make of

d10 decree concerning the dokimasia of magistrates

91

T1  And consider this: that the person who established the law about scrutinies (dokimasiai) did so not least because of those who had been in office during the oligarchy, thinking it would be a terrible thing if those who had been responsible for the suspension of democracy should hold office again in that system, and that they might become authoritative over the laws and the city, which previously they had shamefully and terribly treated when they were in control of it. T2 They voted that scrutinies should occur on account of those who committed many crimes, and made agreements for those who had done no such things. Such things I offer in response on behalf of the people.

its claim that the Athenians ‘voted scrutinies’: it could be read (with Adeleye) as indicating a decree amending the practice of dokimasia, it could be read as a decision to initiate the process of nomothesia, or it could be read as indicating the initiation, by vote, of one-off dokimasiai against particular individuals. Certainty is impossible. The exact content of the legislation on dokimasia is not known, but Lysias (T1) maintains that it was aimed at preventing former oligarchs from holding office. However, Ath. Pol. 55.2 and 55.4 contain references to modifications of the dokimasia, which may be connected with this change: first, the introduction of ephesis (appeal) to the dikasteria (55.2), and second, (55.4) the provision that all jurors at the dikasteria were obliged to vote on the candidate, ‘so that if a criminal has managed to get rid of all his accusers it is still in the power of the jurors to disqualify him’ (55.4). For detailed discussion, see Rhodes, Commentary, 615–17. On the different forms of dokimasia, see Todd, ‘The Athenian’; the dokimasia ton rhetoron appears usually to have been initiated by a denunciation (epangelia) at the assembly (Aeschin. 1.81), but this was not, strictly speaking, a decree of the assembly (cf. Hansen, Athenian Assembly, 189 note 752). On the law about the dokimasia of orators, see MacDowell, ‘The Athenian procedure’.

Date

403/2 or shortly after (T1).

Bibliography

Adeleye, G., ‘The purpose of the dokimasia’, GRBS 24 (1983) 295–306. Feyel, C., Dokimasia: la place et le rôle de l’examen préliminaire dans les institutions des cités grecques. Paris (2009) 160–81.

inventory a1

92

Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly. Oxford (2007). MacDowell, D.M., ‘The Athenian procedure of dokimasia of orators’ in Symposion 2001: Vortra‥ge zur griechischen und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte. Vienna (2005) 79–87. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 468–72. Todd, S.C., The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford (1993) 285–9. Todd, S.C., ‘The Athenian procedure(s) of dokimasia’ in Symposion 2009: Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 21. (2011) 73–98.

D11 Decree providing a daily pension for the disabled Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2 or shortly after

Literary Context

The speaker of Lysias 24, in a speech to the council, justifies his claim to deserve a pension on the grounds of a public decision, claiming that ‘the city has voted to grant us this money’ (T1).

Texts

T1  Lys. 24.22: Ἐπειδὴ γάρ, ὦ βουλή, τῶν μεγίστων {ἀρχῶν} ὁ δαίμων ἀπεστέρησεν ἡμᾶς, ἡ πόλις ἡμῖν ἐψηφίσατο τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον, ἡγουμένη κοινὰς εἶναι τὰς τύχας τοῖς ἅπασι καὶ τῶν κακῶν καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν. T2 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 49.4: Νόμος γάρ ἐστιν, ὃς κελεύει τοὺς ἐντὸς τριῶν μνῶν κεκτημένους καὶ τὸ σῶμα πεπηρωμένους, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι μηδὲν ἔργον ἐργάζεσθαι, δοκιμάζειν μὲν τὴν βουλήν, διδόναι δὲ δημοσίᾳ τροφὴν δύο ὀβολοὺς ἑκάστῳ τῆς ἡμέρας.

d11 decree providing a daily pension for the disabled 93

T1 Since the divine force has deprived us of the greatest things, the polis voted for us this money, believing that both good and bad fortune are shared among all.

T2 There is a law which says that those who possess property not exceeding three mnai and who have a bodily disability which means they are unable to undertake employment, should be scrutinised by the council, in order to receive two obols a day subsistence from public funds.

94

inventory a1

Commentary

Ancient sources associate grants to those injured in war with Solon or Pisistratus (Plu. Sol. 31.3–4 with Leão and Rhodes, The Laws, 193); it is known that the Athenians maintained war-orphans during the period of the Peloponnesian War (see Blok, ‘The diôbelia’) and in the fourth century (Thuc. 2.46.1; Ath. Pol. 24.3 with Stroud, ‘Greek Inscriptions’, 288–90 and Rhodes, Commentary, 3089). The gratuity is also mentioned by a scholiast’s note on Aeschines 1.103 (Dilts 222a–b) and elsewhere: see Rhodes, Commentary, 570. Given that it is reasonable to presume that all types of misthophoria were abolished by the Thirty, Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165 note 16, 169, takes the claim made by the speaker of Lysias 24 (T1) that the Athenians voted that any poor or disabled citizen be entitled to a daily pension of one obol (cf. Lys. 24.13, 26) as evidence of its re-enactment after the restoration of democracy. Lysias’ statement that ‘ἡ πόλις ἡμῖν ἐψηφίσατο τοῦτο τὸ ἀργύριον’ (T1) strongly suggests that it was a decree. However, what is less clear is whether this passage refers to a decree which awarded the handout to the speaker, to the disabled generally, or one which re-instated the practice of financial assistance more broadly. Indeed, the same speech suggests that such citizens were granted a pension individually by a vote of the council (24.25–6; cf. 7, 13). Whereas the speaker of Lysias 24 (24.13, 26) mentions a one-obol handout, the pension for the disabled is that of 2 obols in [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 49.4; (= T2). Blok, ‘The diôbelia’ argues that the 2-obol handout was established in 410 but did not survive past the end of the Peloponnesian War. When re-introduced after the Peloponnesian war it seems to have been set again at 1 obol before being increased to 2 at some point in the fourth century, perhaps by law: Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165. We can reasonably assert that such handouts would have enabled their recipients to scratch the most meagre of livings; more favourable were the wages of soldiers and sailors who received 3 obols per day and those Erechtheion workers who received a drachma: Loomis, Wages, 257. At T2 the practice is described as based upon a nomos (as it is also in the Scholion on Aeschines 1.103 (Dilts 222a–b)); this is one of the five occasions on which the Athenian sources refer to an enactment as both a psephisma and a nomos: Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165–7.

Date

403/2 or shortly after. As Hansen (Athenian Ecclesia, 165 note 16) suggests, the reference to the Thirty (Lys. 24.25) and the claim that he has obtained the pension for several years (24.26) suggest that the handout was re-introduced in 403/2 or shortly after (Lys. 24.25–6). Gernet and Bizos (Lysias, 102) suggest that the speech was given shortly after the fall of the Thirty; others, on the other

d12 proposal concerning the repayment of 5 talents 95

hand, have suggested that it is a rhetorical exercise, even a parody of forensic oratory (Usher, Greek Oratory, 110), which would make the reality of the decree referred to here less certain.

Bibliography

Blok, J., ‘The diôbelia: on the political economy of an Athenian state fund’, ZPE 193 (2015) 87–102. Gernet, L. and Bizos, M., Lysias II. Paris (1926). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia I: A Collection of Articles, 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983) 165–7, 186. Leão, D.F. and Rhodes, P.J., The Laws of Solon: A New Edition with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. London and New York (2015) 193. Loomis, W.T., Wages, Welfare Costs, and Inflation in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor (1998). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 308–9, 570–1. Stroud, R., ‘Greek inscriptions: Theozotides and the orphans’, Hesperia 40 (1971) 280–301. Usher, S., Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality. Oxford (1999) 110.

D12 Proposal concerning the repayment of 5 Talents to Gelarchos Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: 403/2 or later

Literary Context

Demosthenes, attacking Aristophon’s support of Leptines’ law abolishing immunity (ateleia), argues that an earlier decree of his demonstrates his hypocrisy. Gelarchos appears to have given the democrats in Piraeus at the time of the civil war an unattested amount of money, and Aristophon proposed that he be paid five Talents, either as a reward or as a repayment (T1). The speaker makes the point that Aristophon wishes to repay gifts which, like this one, were made without witnesses, but not those which are attested by Athenian decrees written up on inscriptions.

96

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 20.149: Καὶ μὴν καὶ Γελάρχῳ πέντε τάλαντ’ ἀποδοῦναι γέγραφεν οὗτος ὡς παρασχόντι τοῖς ἐν Πειραιεῖ τοῦ δήμου.

Commentary

It appears that the fighting forces of the Athenian democrats, during the civil war of 404/3, based outside the city and deprived of normal state revenues, were reliant upon loans for their maintenance. Gelarchos is otherwise unattested, and it is not known whether he was a citizen or not. Kremmydas suggests that he may have been a merchant who happened to be at Piraeus and offered money in a time of crisis (Kremmydas, Commentary, 427). The other mention of the democrats borrowing money for the pursuit of war-aims occurs in the Ath. Pol. (39.6 (= D1 T1) and 40.3), which says that each of the two sides were to repay their own loans separately. Lysias 30.22 says that the Athenians struggled to pay back both money to the Spartans and the two Talents they owed to the Boiotians in the aftermath of the restoration. It seems likely that the Spartans gave loans to the oligarchs, and the Boiotians to the democrats: the Thebans are said to have given help to the democrats (Xen. Hell. 2.4.1–2; Dinarchus 1.25 mentions a Theban decision to turn a blind eye to Athenian democrats passing through their territory). See, for further discussion, Migeotte, L’Emprunt, 22–3 note 15. For the Athenian decision to repay a loan, taken out by the oligarchs, to the Spartans, see D13 below. Aristophon was a prolific proposer of decrees, said to have been aquitted 75 times for proposing illegal decrees (Aeschin. 3.914): see DD 9, 66, 67, 215–16 and also IG II2 111, 118, 121, 130, II3 1 307; for other activity, see Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II, 38, 68, 70, Whitehead, ‘Career of Aristophon’ and Whitehead, Hypereides, 232–3. This may well have been among his earliest proposals.

Date

403/2 or later.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 427–8. Migeotte, L., L’Emprunt public dans les cités grecques. Paris (1984) 19–23. Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge Philological Society Suppl., 4. Cambridge (1977).

d13 decree concerning the repayment of debts

97

T1  In addition, he (Aristophon) proposed to return five Talents to Gelarchos, because he had provided this sum to those of the democratic party who were based in Piraeus.

Whitehead, D., ‘The political career of Aristophon’, CPh 81 (1986) 313–19. Whitehead, D., Hyperides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000).

D13 Decree concerning the repayment of debts incurred by the Thirty Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2 or Later

Literary Context

As the ‘finest and greatest evidence (tekmerion)’ of the ‘fairness of the demos’ in the aftermath of the democratic restoration, Isocrates (T1) claims that the Athenian democrats decided at the ecclesia to repay the debts incurred by those besieging the democrats. Demosthenes (T2) also uses their repayment of the oligarchs’ loan as an indication of the character of the Athenians, which is contradicted by the law of Leptines which he is challenging.

98

inventory a1

Texts

T 1 Isoc. 7 Areop. 68–9: Ὃ δὲ πάντων κάλλιστον καὶ μέγιστον τεκμήριον τῆς ἐπιεικείας τοῦ δήμου δανεισαμένων γὰρ τῶν ἐν ἄστει μεινάντων ἑκατὸν τάλαντα παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίων εἰς τὴν πολιορκίαν τῶν τὸν Πειραιᾶ κατασχόντων, ἐκκλησίας γενομένης περὶ ἀποδόσεως τῶν χρημάτων, καὶ λεγόντων πολλῶν ὡς δίκαιόν ἐστιν διαλύειν τὰ πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους μὴ τοὺς πολιορκουμένους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δανεισαμένους, ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ κοινὴν ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀπόδοσιν. καὶ γάρ τοι διὰ ταύτην τὴν γνώμην εἰς τοιαύτην ἡμᾶς ὁμόνοιαν κατέστησαν καὶ τοσοῦτον ἐπιδοῦναι τὴν πόλιν ἐποίησαν ὥστε Λακεδαιμονίους, τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς ὀλιγαρχίας ὀλίγου δεῖν καθ’ ἑκάστην τὴν ἡμέραν προστάττοντας ἡμῖν, ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς δημοκρατίας ἱκετεύσοντας καὶ δεησομένους μὴ περιιδεῖν αὑτοὺς ἀναστάτους γενομένους. T2 Demosthenes 20.11–12: Ὅτι τοίνυν οὐδ’ ἐστὶν ὅλως, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦ ἤθους τοῦ ὑμετέρου κύριον ποιῆσαι τοιοῦτον νόμον, καὶ τοῦτο πειράσομαι δεῖξαι διὰ βραχέων, ἕν τι τῶν πρότερον πεπραγμένων τῇ πόλει διεξελθών. λέγονται χρήμαθ’ οἱ τριάκοντα δανείσασθαι παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐν Πειραιεῖ. ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἡ πόλις εἰς ἓν ἦλθεν καὶ τὰ πράγματ’ ἐκεῖνα κατέστη, πρέσβεις πέμψαντες οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τὰ χρήματα ταῦτ’ ἀπῄτουν. λόγων δὲ γιγνομένων καὶ τῶν μὲν τοὺς δανεισαμένους ἀποδοῦναι κελευόντων, τοὺς ἐξ ἄστεως, τῶν δὲ τοῦτο πρῶτον ὑπάρξαι τῆς ὁμονοίας σημεῖον ἀξιούντων, κοινῇ διαλῦσαι τὰ χρήματα, φασὶ τὸν δῆμον ἑλέσθαι συνεισενεγκεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ μετασχεῖν τῆς δαπάνης, ὥστε μὴ λῦσαι τῶν ὡμολογημένων μηδέν. πῶς οὖν οὐ δεινόν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, εἰ τότε μὲν τοῖς ἠδικηκόσιν ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ψεύσασθαι τὰ χρήματ’ εἰσφέρειν ἠθελήσατε, νῦν δ’ ἐξὸν ὑμῖν ἄνευ δαπάνης τὰ δίκαια ποιῆσαι τοῖς εὐεργέταις, λύσασι τὸν νόμον, ψεύδεσθαι μᾶλλον αἱρήσεσθε; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ἀξιῶ.

Commentary

The Spartan-backed regime of the Thirty in Athens in 404/3, facing strong resistance from the democrats, appears to have taken out loans from the Spartans to support their war effort; (on the loans taken out by the democrats, see D12 above). The Ath. Pol. says that the Thirty sent the Ten to Sparta to seek help and money (Ath. Pol. 38.1), while Lysias (12.59) talks of the oligarchs borrowing 100 Talents from the Spartans to hire mercenaries. Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.28) and Plutarch (Lys. 21.3-4) talk of Lysander’s role in arranging the loan at the point when the Thirty were threatened by the democrats at Phyle. As Krentz, Xenophon, 149 notes, the sources that mention the loan all agree on the large figure of 100 Talents, and he suggests (drawing on Diodorus’ assertion at

d13 decree concerning the repayment of debts

99

T1  But the finest and greatest evidence of all of the fairness of the people is this: those who stayed in the city borrowed a hundred Talents from the Lakedaimonians for besieging those occupying Piraeus; when the subject of the repayment of the money came up at the assembly, many said that it would be just not for those who were besieged but for those who took out the loan to settle the affair with the Lakedaimonians. But the people decided to use common monies for the repayment. And with this proposal they established such harmony among us and contributed so much to the city that the Lakedaimonians, who, during the oligarchy, would, almost every day, give us orders, came to us as suppliants to democracy and pleaded with us not to let them be driven out from their homes.

T2 Now, men of Athens, I will also try to show you very briefly that it is totally incompatible with your character to enact this law by describing to you one of the past deeds of the city. It is said that the Thirty had borrowed money from the Lakedaimonians to use against the democrats in the Piraeus. When the city was reconciled and the democratic constitution was restored, the Lakedaimonians sent ambassadors and demanded the return of their money. Deliberations were going on and some people demanded that those who had borrowed the money, namely the oligarchs (from the city), should give the money back, while others suggested that jointly paying the money back should become the first sign of civic concord. It is said that in the end the democrats decided to contribute to the expense so that the agreement would not be broken. How is it not terrible then, men of Athens, that in those days you decided to contribute money in order not to break your promises, whereas now that you can do what is fair for your benefactors without incurring any costs by abolishing this law, you will choose to break your promises? I think you should not. (trans. Kremmydas, Commentary, adapted)

D.S. 14.33.5) that the Athenians appealed to the Spartans for support for 1000 soldiers and the crew of 40 ships. The debate at the assembly to which Isocrates and Demosthenes allude is suggested in the reference to the episode by the Ath. Pol, which says that it was initially intended for the democrats (cf. D12 above) and oligarchs to repay separately the debts that they had incurred during the civil war (39.6 and 40.3, with the latter passage maintaining that the Athenians changed their mind for the sake of reconciliation). As Thomsen, Eisphora, 178, observes, the Athenians decided to repay the debt by levying money through an eisphora of the citizens. Isocrates’ account (T1) of the decision to repay debts is contextualised in terms

100

inventory a1

of an assembly meeting ‘ἐκκλησίας γενομένης’) and reported with the standard enactment formula (‘ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ’), strongly indicating that this was conceived of as a decree, though the absence of ψήφισμα and cognates should be noted. These testimonia demonstrate the enactment of another decree that contributed to the reconciliation at the end of the civil war, but as Krentz, Xenophon, 149 soberly notes, the repayment may have been undertaken ‘no doubt so the Lakedaimonians would not have grounds for further interference in Athens’. Moreover, Lysias gives us a rather different impression, claiming that the Spartans threatened the Athenians when they did not make repayments and that the Boiotians had to demand the return of their loan (cf. above, D12) too (Lys. 30.22). Accordingly, it seems that both Demosthenes and Isocrates have manipulated the motivation behind the decree to suit their own rhetorical purposes.

Date

403/2 or later.

Bibliography

Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 202–7. Krentz, P., Xenophon, Hellenika II.3.11–IV.2.8. Warminster (1985) 149. Migeotte, L., L’Emprunt public dans les cités grecques. Paris (1984) 19–21. Thomsen, R., Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen (1964).

D14 Decree concerning citizenship Proposer: Nikomenes (PA 10968; PAA 716940) Date: 403/2 or later

Literary Context

An ancient scholiast (T1) comments on the phrase ‘πρὸ Εὐκλείδου’ (‘before Eukleides’) at Aeschin. 1.39, quoting Eumelos the Peripatetic. Allusions by Athenaios (T2), in the course of his allegations against the orator Antiphon’s illegitimate daughter, associate her father with related legislation; reference is made to the legislation also in a speech concerning inheritance (T3).

101

102

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Scholion in Aeschin. 1.39 (Dilts 83) (= Eumelos FGrH (= BNJ) 77 F2): Πρὸ Εὐκλείδου. Εὔμηλος ὁ Περιπατητικὸς ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας κωμῳδίας φησὶ Νικομένη τινὰ ψήφισμα θέσθαι μηδένα τῶν μετ’ Εὐκλείδην ἄρχοντα μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως, ἂν μὴ ἄμφω τοὺς γονέας ἀστοὺς ἐπιδείξηται, τοὺς δὲ πρὸ Εὐκλείδου ἀνεξετάστως ἀφεῖσθαι. T2 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 13.577b (= Karystios FHG iv. 358 F11): Ἀριστοφῶν ... ὁ τὸν νόμον εἰσενεγκὼν ἐπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος ὃς ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀστῆς γένηται νόθον εἶναι. T3 Is. 6.47 [= cf. document in Dem. 43.51]: Τοὐναντίον τοίνυν συμβέβηκεν ἢ ὡς ὁ νόμος γέγραπται ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἔστι νόθῳ μηδὲ νόθῃ εἶναι ἀγχιστείαν μήθ’ ἱερῶν μήθ’ ὁσίων ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος.

Commentary

Nikomenes’ decree (T1) and Aristophon’s law (T2) are elements of legislation which concerned the inheritance of citizenship in classical Athens. Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/0 BC ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.3; Plu. Per. 27.2–4) stated that anyone who was not born from two astoi (usually thought of as citizens; the unorthodox view of Cohen, The Athenian, 62–6, that it refers instead to ‘locals’ is not disproved but not widely accepted) should not be able to share in the privileges of the city. It is likely that Pericles’ citizenship law was formally revoked at some point before 403, perhaps in 411: see Ogden, Greek Bastardy, 76–7; for the view that it was relaxed during the Peloponnesian War owing to a crisis in citizen numbers, see Strauss, Athens after, 70–86, 179–82). The prevailing view (of, e.g., Patterson, Pericles’, 145; Blok, Citizenship, 49) is that Nikomenes’ decree (T1) was a re-enactment of Pericles’ law on citizenship, as the wording is close to that of Ath. Pol. 26.3 (‘μὴ μετέχειν τῆς πόλεως, ὃ ἂν μὴ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἀστοῖν ᾖ γεγονώς’). The scholiast’s testimony on Nikomenes’ decree (T1) appears concordant with the situation described at Isaeus 6.47 (= T3), 8.43 and Dem. 57.30, which suggest that the legislation requiring citizens to demonstrate that both their parents were Athenians applied only to those born after the archonship of Eukleides. The stability of this requirement over the course of the fourth century is uncontroversial: Ath. Pol. 42.1 states that the process of enrolment among the demesmen required them to vote on whether the new citizen was born of two astoi.

d14 decree concerning citizenship

103

T1 Eumelos the Peripatetic philosopher says in the third book On Old Comedy that a certain Nikomenes laid down a decree that no one was to participate in the polis as of the archonship of Eukleides, who could not demonstrate that both his parents were astoi, but that those who had been enrolled before Eukleides should be left in peace. (trans. Blok, ‘Perikles’, 143) T2 Aristophon ... the man who proposed in the archonship of Eukleides that he who was not born from an astos woman, was a bastard.

T3 The opposite has been done of what the law has set out: for, according to the law, no male or female bastard has any claim based on kinship to share in sacred or profane matters, as of the archonship of Eukleides.

Athenaios 13.577b (T2) refers to a law of Aristophon, stating that whoever was not born of a mother from Athens (‘ἐξ ἀστῆς’), that is to say hoi metroxenoi (those with a foreign mother), should be deemed illegitimate, while Isaios 6.47 (T3) offers detail on the restrictions imposed upon bastards according to the law (which is then subsequently read out at 6.48). Blok (Citizenship, 49) follows Patterson’s definition of an illegitimate person as someone ‘born from parents whose relationship was not the result of the solemn transfer of a bride by her father to a husband of equal status’ (cf. Patterson, ‘Those Athenian bastards’, 41). It seems reasonable to separate Nikomenes’ decree, which essentially re-introduced Perikles’ citizenship law, from Aristophon’s law: indeed, Walters (‘Perikles’, 322) has recently made a case for distinguishing Nikomenes’ decree (as concerned with citizenship) from Aristophon’s law (as concerned with legitimacy); on the other hand, Harrison (Law of Athens, 1.26 note 1; followed by Ostwald, From Popular, 507) suggested that Nikomenes’ legislation modified an earlier law of Aristophon by re-admitting to the citizen body those metroxenoi born before 403/2. For later laws on mixed marriages, see [Dem.] 59.16 (law regulating marriage unions with non-Athenians) and 59.52 (law on giving an alien woman in marriage to an Athenian citizen) with Harrison, Law of Athens, 1.26; Kapparis, Apollodoros, 198–206, accepts the authenticity of these laws, but Canevaro’s analysis of the former is inconclusive and rejects the authenticity of the latter (Canevaro, The Documents, 183–96).

104

inventory a1

Harpokration, s.v. ‘ναυτοδίκαι’ (= Krateros BNJ 342 F4a) tells of a reference, ‘in Krateros’ 4th book of Decrees’ to the prosecution of those not born of two Athenian parents who had attempted to enrol into a phratry; this practice, however, is usually associated with Pericles’ citizenship law (see Carawan, Commentary on BNJ 342 F4). What is striking, though, is that this was discussed in Krateros’ work, Sylloge Psephismaton, which purported to collect psephismata, and suggests that the interest of his work extended into the imposition of decrees as well as their substance. As de Ste. Croix, Athenian Democratic, 240 points out, it is odd that Nikomenes’ enactment was a decree rather than a law. However, the Athenian demos does appear to have possessed comparatively wide legislative powers in the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of the Thirty (Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 165–9), and the re-enactment of old laws by way of decree may be identified at other points in 403/2 (see D9 above). The proposer of the decree, Nikomenes, is not known to have undertaken any other political activity.

Date

403/2 or after (postdating Aristophon’s law of 403/2). As Patterson, Pericles’, 146 observes, ‘the question of who could be (or become) an Athenian was in the air in the first months after the fall of the Thirty’.

Bibliography

Blok, J.H., ‘Perikles’ citizenship law: a new perspective’, Historia 58 (2009) 141–70 at 143. Blok, J.H., Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2017) 48–9. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Law and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013). Carawan, E., Commentary on BNJ 342 F4. Cohen, E.E., The Athenian Nation. Princeton (2003). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles, 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Harrison, A.R.W., The Law of Athens, 2 vols. Oxford (1968–71). Kapparis, K., Apollodoros: ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin and New York (1999). Ogden, D., Greek Bastardy in the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. Oxford (1996) 76–8. Ostwald, M., From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles (1986). Patterson, C., Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451–50 BC. Salem (1988) 144–7. Patterson, C., ‘Those Athenian bastards’, ClAnt 9 (1990) 40–73. Ste. Croix, G.E.M., de, Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays. Oxford and New York (2004).

d15 decree honouring democrats

105

Strauss, B.S., Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403–386 BC. London and Sydney (1986). Stronk, J., Commentary on BNJ 77 F2. Walters, K., ‘Perikles’ citizenship law’, ClAnt 2 (1983) 314–36.

D15 Decree honouring those who returned from Phyle Proposer: Archinos ek Koiles (PA 2526; PAA 213880) Date: 403/2 or later, perhaps 401/0

Literary Context

As part of his argument that Demosthenes is unworthy of the honours proposed by Ktesiphon (see D179 below), Aeschines maintains the superiority of the Athenians’ ancestors by pointing to the reward for those who returned from Phyle. Moreover, by way of contrast to Ktesiphon’s decree, he suggests the modesty of their former rewards, and the diligence with which they were granted (T1). Whereas those at Phyle were rewarded with an olive crown, Ktesiphon offered a gold crown to Demosthenes (3.187 and 189). Ktesiphon’s decree is said to erase the reward for the restorers of democracy; whereas his proposal was made shamefully (‘αἰσχρῶς’), that of Archinos was made well (‘καλῶς’: 3.188). After paraphrasing the decree, he had it read to the court, and claims that Ktesiphon’s decree for Demosthenes to all intents and purposes annulled it (T1). Aeschines went on to report also an epigram on the monument (T2), which has been used by modern scholars to restore epigraphical fragments from the Athenian agora (T3). As Aeschines predicted, Demosthenes claimed that it was unfair to compare his acts with those of the Athenians’ ancestors (Aeschin. 3.189 with Dem. 18.319). Aeschines’ experience as a secretary (see Harris, Aeschines, 29–30) appears to have given him familiarity with Athenian documents, of which he made significant use in his argumentation.

106

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Aeschin. 3.187–8: Ἐν τοίνυν τῷ μητρώῳ [παρὰ τὸ βουλευτήριον] ἣν ἔδοτε δωρεὰν τοῖς ἀπὸ Φυλῆς φεύγοντα τὸν δῆμον καταγαγοῦσιν, ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. ἦν μὲν γὰρ ὁ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψας καὶ νικήσας Ἀρχῖνος ὁ ἐκ Κοίλης, εἷς τῶν καταγαγόντων τὸν δῆμον, ἔγραψε δὲ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτοῖς εἰς θυσίαν καὶ ἀναθήματα δοῦναι χιλίας δραχμάς, καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἔλαττον ἢ δέκα δραχμαὶ κατ’ ἄνδρα, ἔπειτα κελεύει στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον, ἀλλ’ οὐ χρυσῷ· τότε μὲν γὰρ ἦν ὁ τοῦ θαλλοῦ στέφανος τίμιος, νυνὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ χρυσοῦς καταπεφρόνηται. καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο εἰκῇ πρᾶξαι κελεύει ἀλλ’ ἀκριβῶς τὴν βουλὴν σκεψαμένην ὅσοι ἐπὶ Φυλῇ ἐπολιορκήθησαν, ὅτε Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ οἱ τριάκοντα προσέβαλλον τοῖς καταλαβοῦσι Φυλήν, οὐχ ὅσοι τὴν τάξιν ἔλιπον ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ τῶν πολεμίων ἐπιόντων. ὅτι δ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν τὸ ψήφισμα.

Ψήφισμα περὶ δωρεᾶς τοῖς ἀπὸ Φυλῆς. Παρανάγνωθι δὴ καὶ ὃ γέγραφε Κτησιφῶν Δημοσθένει τῷ τῶν μεγίστων αἰτίῳ κακῶν. Ψήφισμα. Τούτῳ τῷ ψηφίσματι ἐξαλείφεται ἡ τῶν καταγαγόντων τὸν δῆμον δωρεά. εἰ τοῦτ’ ἔχει καλῶς, ἐκεῖνο αἰσχρῶς· εἰ ἐκεῖνοι κατ’ ἀξίαν ἐτιμήθησαν, οὗτος ἀνάξιος ὢν στεφανοῦται. T2  Aeschin. 3.190–1: Ἵνα δὲ μὴ ἀποπλανῶ ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑποθέσεως, ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν ὁ γραμματεὺς τὸ ἐπίγραμμα ὃ ἐπιγέγραπται τοῖς ἀπὸ Φυλῆς τὸν δῆμον καταγαγοῦσιν.

Ἐπίγραμμα. Τούσδ’ ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα στεφάνοις ἐγέραιρε παλαίχθων δῆμος Ἀθηναίων, οἵ ποτε τοὺς ἀδίκοις θεσμοῖς ἄρξαντας πόλιος πρῶτοι καταπαύειν ἦρξαν, κίνδυνον σώμασιν ἀράμενοι.   Ὅτι τοὺς παρὰ τοὺς νόμους ἄρξαντας κατέλυσαν, διὰ τοῦτ’ αὐτούς φησιν ὁ ποιητὴς τιμηθῆναι. T3 Malouchou, ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο’ (cf. SEG XXVIII 45) Lines 1–2: [Οἵδ’ ἀνεθέσαν καταλαβόντες Φυλ]ὴν [καὶ τὸν δῆμον καταγαγόντες].

d15 decree honouring democrats

107

T1 Then in the Mother’s shrine [beside the bouleuterion] one can see the reward you gave to them who restored the people from exile from Phyle. The man who proposed and carried the decree was Archinos of Koile, one of those who restored the democracy. He proposed that they be given 1,000 drachmai for sacrifices and dedications (this is less than ten drachmai per man). And then he gives instructions that each of them should receive a crown of olive, not gold. In those days the crown of olive was prized, while now even the gold crown has come to be despised. And he directs that even this should not be done casually, but after careful enquiry by the Council to establish all those who were under siege when the Spartans and the Thirty attacked the forces that had seized Phyle, not all those who deserted their post at Chaironeia when the enemy advanced. To prove I am speaking the truth, the decree will be read to you. Decree on the Reward for the Men from Phyle. Now read out in comparison the decree proposed by Ktesiphon for Demosthenes, the cause of the most serious disasters. Decree. By this decree [sc. Ktesiphon’s decree for Demosthenes: D179] the reward for the men who restored democracy is erased. If this one is right, the other is a disgrace; if those great men deserved their honour, this man is being given a crown he does not deserve. (trans. Carey, adapted). T2 But I don’t want to distract you from my theme; so the clerk will read out to you the epigram for the men who restored the people from exile from Phyle. Epigram: These men for their virtue were honoured with crowns by the ancient People of Athens, because once when men with unjust Ordinances ruled the city, they were first to check them And lead the way, accepting mortal danger. It was because they overthrew the men who ruled illegally that they were honoured, the poet says. (tr. Carey, Aeschines). T3 These men, who captured Phyle, restored the people, made the dedication. (there follow lists of names)

108

inventory a1

Lines 44–7: τού[σδ’ ἀρετῆς ἕ]νεκα στεφά[νοις ἐγέραιρε παλαίχθων] δῆμ̣    [ος Ἀθηναί]ων οἵ ποτε το[ὺς ἀδίκοις] θε[σμοῖς ἄρξα]ντας πόλεως π̣      [ρῶτοι καταπαύεν] ἦρ̣    [ξαν κίνδυνο]ν σώμα̣      σιν ἀρ̣   [άμενοι]. Lines 48–9: [ἔδοξ]εν τ[ῶι δήμωι· Ξεναίνετ]ος ἦρχεν· Πα      ̣ ν      ̣ [διονὶς ἐπρυτάνευεν, …ἐγραμμάτ][ευεν]. Κη[… 15…] ἐπεστάτε, Ἀρχῖνος εἶπε· — — — — — —] Lines 50–1 tentatively proposed by Malouchou as a possible restoration: [ἐπαινέσαι μὲ]ν τοὺς τῶν [ἀπὸ Φυλῆς φεύγοντα τὸν δῆμον καταγαγόντας]. [δοῦναι δὲ αὐτοῖς (δωρεὰν) τῶν δῆμ]ον [χιλίας δραχμὰς ἐς θυ]σ̣       ί̣  α̣       [ν καὶ ἀναθήματα.

Commentary

This decree constitutes one of a number of rewards proposed for those who contributed to the overthrow of the Thirty and the re-instatement of democracy in the late fifth century: see also D6 and RO, GHI, pp. 24–5. After the democratic restoration, Archinos’ decree honoured those who had been involved in the restoration of the demos, perhaps encompassing those involved in the first encounter with the Thirty (Xen. Hell. 2.4.2), Thrasyboulos’ rout of them at Phyle (Hell. 2.4.5–6) and their subsequent march to Piraeus (Hell. 2.4.10–11: see Taylor, ‘One hundred’, 378, 385). Archinos’ decree, offering praise, an olive crown, and 1000 drachmai for sacrifice and dedications (TT 1, 3), was considerably less generous than Thrasyboulos’ proposal to enfranchise those who had fought with the Athenians, which Archinos had himself opposed (see D5 above). It should also be contrasted with the rewards of citizenship of 401/0 for those foreigners associated with the struggle against the Thirty (RO 4). After Archinos had his decree passed, it appears to have been inscribed, with an epigram, on the monument (T3). Raubitschek’s identification of fragments of an inscription containing the heading, lists of names, verse and prescript of this decree (Raubitschek, ‘The heroes’, 287 no. 78; cf. SEG XXVIII 45 = T3; cf. CEG 431) is made persuasive by the survival of the initial 2–3 letters of each of the four lines of the verses preserved in Aeschines’ text (T2); moreover, the identification strongly suggests that the verses that appear in Aeschines’ text are genuine (this is the view also of Petrovic, ‘Inscribed’, 206, suggesting that the verses were preserved in a written collection of epigrams). Malouchou’s 2014 edition of a further

d15 decree honouring democrats

109

For translation of epigram, see T2 above.

The people resolve, Xenainetos was archon, the tribe Pandionis held the prytany, ... was secretary. Ke[phisiphon Paianieus?] was epistates, Archinos proposed ...

Praise those from Phyle who brought back the people who had fled. The people gives (a reward) of 1000 drachmai for sacrifice and dedications.

fragment (Malouchou, ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο’) makes the identification yet more certain. Taylor has recently made a case for the inscription originally listing the names of more than 100 men, including some 40 foreigners in a now-lost section. This view supports the implication of Aeschines’ claim that the provision of 1000 drachmai would turn out at less than 10 drachmai per man. But Malouchou’s recent discussion of the stone suggests that no more than 70 men were listed (Malouchou, ‘The restoration’, 70); this is the number offered by Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.2) of those returning with Thrasyboulos: it is quite likely, then, that Aeschines (T1) was exaggerating the number of men as a way of asserting the modesty of the reward. Moreover, Taylor’s proposal that foreigners were honoured on this stone is less than certain: it depends upon Meritt’s restoration of line 69, which appears to come after the tribal headings, as ‘ἔ[γγραφοι]’ (indicating that a list of metics followed); an alternative is that it reads Ἐ[λευθερᾶθεν] or Ἐ[λευθερεῖς] (this would indicate that the list contained those from the non-deme village of Eleutherai on the borders with Boiotia: Raubitschek, ‘The heroes’, 294); cf. Krentz, The Thirty, 83–4 note 54; Shear, Polis, 99 note 30; Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 188–9, taking the view that it honours only Athenians. An equivalent to the proposal, mentioned here, that the honorands be given 1000 drachmai for sacrifices and dedications (tentatively restored on the inscribed base by Malouchou: see T3 above), may be found also in a decree of Oropos dating to the period of Athenian domination, IOrop 298 (lines 35–7), in

110

inventory a1

which the ten honorands were to be given a total of 100 drachmai for dedication and sacrifice. This may suggest continuity in the agreed values for crowns or, alternatively, it may be the case that Aeschines is projecting contemporary values back to 403/2. By contrast, gold crowns were more expensive, ranging between 300 and 1000 drachmai each: see Henry, Honours and Privileges, 24–5; Lycurgus’ claim that the crown for Kallisthenes cost 100 mnai (= 10,000 drachmai) should perhaps not be taken literally as the cost of a crown: see D244 Commentary. Along with the claim that Ktesiphon’s decree virtually obliterated that of Archinos, Aeschines’ allegation that golden crowns were in his day despised is, of course, a rhetorical exaggeration, and, in all likelihood a rhetorical topos of his time: Lycurgus too stressed, in his speech against the award of a statue to Demades, that Pericles had been content with the award of a foliage crown (Lycurg. F58 Conomis; cf. D187). The award of foliage crowns was probably more frequent than the epigraphical evidence suggests (the evidence starts from the mid fourth century: Henry, Honours and Privileges, 38–40): as Lambert (Inscribed Athenian, 54–9) points out, decrees awarding a foliage crown do not normally seem to have been inscribed on stone in the fourth century BC (cf. IG II2 1155 and 1156, both of them decrees of the council inscribed alongside those of sub-polis groups). For examples of other crowns, see Appendix 2 below and for discussion of the earliest epigraphical evidence, see D181 below. An award of foliage, rather than golden, crowns was probably normal at the time. Yet, an alternative explanation of the award of olive crowns is that of Strauss (Athens after, 97), who argues that the financial restrictions would have ruled out the possibility of golden crowns and adds that ‘by de-emphasising the achievement of the men of Phyle, Archinos also de-emphasised the villainy of their opponents, thus reducing tension between democrats and the former Three Thousand’. Nevertheless, pace Strauss, the prestige of the award must have been heightened by the addition of inscribed verses to their monument (T2, 3), the substance of which certainly underlined the achievement of the democrats against the oligarchs. There is no absolute way of knowing whether the Athenians closely checked that the recipients of these honours were actually present at Phyle, as Aeschines alleged (T1). The relationship of this assertion to his point about Demosthenes still being subject to audit (euthuna) when he received the crown is rather strained (cf. Aeschin. 3.11, with Harris, ‘Law and oratory’, 143–4): the claim that the honorands at Phyle underwent an equivalent euthuna to those individuals who were granted honours at Athens later in history is far from convincing. Aeschines made much of the identity of the proposer: elsewhere, Archinos of Koile was classified, alongside Thrasyboulos, by Aeschines (2.176) as a

d15 decree honouring democrats

111

popular leader who led Athens after the restoration of democracy; he received a positive write-up in the Ath. Pol. 40.1–2 and a dazzling description at Dem. 24.135: ‘Take Myronides; he was the son of that Archinos who occupied Phyle, and whom, after the gods, we have chiefly to thank for the restoration of popular government, and who had achieved success on many occasions both as statesman and as commander’ (trans. Vince). Dinarchus 1.76 also praises him. The fact that Archinos himself appears among the honorands (SEG XXVIII 45 line 46) suggests that he was no shrinking violet. He is said to have been the proposer also of a decree about adapting the Ionic alphabet (see D16 below). For his other political activity, including proposing laws, acting as strategos, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 38. On his political activity of these years, see Strauss, Athens after, 96–8; Funke, Homonoia, 17–18. Aeschines mentions that it is possible to see this reward ‘Ἐν … τῷ μητρώῳ παρὰ τὸ βουλευτήριον’ (Aeschin. 3.187: ‘παρὰ τὸ βουλευτήριον’ was deleted by Baker), but as this was an archive (see Sickinger, Public Records, 105–38; 161–76), it is hard to tell whether the secretary who read it out loud drew upon an archival or an inscribed copy; Aeschines specifically asked the secretary to read out the epigram (3.190). Aeschines did not mention a stele, though he refers to ‘τὸ ἐπίγραμμα ὃ ἐπιγέγραπται’ (T2), which could plausibly, but does not have to, refer to an inscribed version. Interestingly, although Aeschines’ discussion of the decree formed part of his imaginary tour of the agora (cf. Hobden, ‘Imagining’, 395), and despite his physical proximity to the inscription as he gave his speech in the court, in contrast to his description of the Hermai (monuments inscribed with epigrams commemorating the victory at the river Strymon (Aeschin. 3.183–4)) he made nothing of the physical form of the inscription, being interested primarily in the substance of the decree. The form and findspot of the epigraphical fragments suggest that they derived from a base (rather than a stele) from the Athenian agora; it was probably a base for a dedication: see Malouchou, ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο’, 134–5; Malouchou, ‘The restoration’, 95. For the physical dimensions of the inscription, see the reconstruction in Raubitschek, ‘The heroes’ 289 fig. 1, followed by Taylor ‘One hundred’, but note the cautions of Shear, Polis and Revolution, 234 note 31. The place of discovery of the physical remains in the excavations of the Athenian agora (Meritt, ‘The inscriptions’) could well indicate that it was indeed set up at the Metroon, which at the time was in the process of becoming an Athenian state archive; however few inscribed Athenian decrees were set up there, with only one extant decree stating that its place of publication (Ag. XVI 221 of 240 BC) would be the Metroon. The agora did, however, become a more frequent place of publication for state decrees in the fourth century: see Liddel ‘The places’.

112

inventory a1

This is the earliest decree of the post-Eukleidian period for which there is both literary and material evidence (see Volume 2, Chapter 3, Table 2). But this is the sole occasion on which a literary source makes reference to an inscribed decree which is extant – in fragmentary form – in the material record. Moreover, it is the earliest decree containing honours for Athenians that is known to have been inscribed (as Shear, Polis and Revolution, 232 note 27 observes); Steinbock cites the coincidence between the inscribed and literary evidence to suggest that the people read and paid attention to the inscription (Steinbock, Social Memory, 243). Harris (‘Law and oratory’, 143–4) argues that Aeschines, elsewhere in the Against Ktesiphon, misrepresents the laws concerning crowns to benefit his position; for further discussion, see D179 below, Commentary. However, regardless of whether Aeschines referred to the inscribed version of the decree, Raubitchek’s identification of epigraphical evidence for the decree of Archinos virtually proves its authenticity.

Date

403/2. See Raubitschek, ‘The heroes’, 286 note 11. Malouchou (‘The restoration’, ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο’) has now proposed a date of 401/0 on the basis of the persuasive restoration of the archon name [Xenainet]os in (T3 line 48). Historically, then, it might make sense to view this as an award granted after a lapse of time.

Bibliography

Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 188–9. Funke, P., Homonoia und Arche: Athen und die griechische Staatenwelt vom Ende des peloponnesischen Krieges bis zum Königsfrieden. Historia Einzelschrift 19. Wiesbaden (1980). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, E., ‘Law and oratory’ in Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. I. Worthington. London (1994) 130–50. Harris, E., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. New York and Oxford (1995). Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). Hobden F., ‘Imagining past and present: a rhetorical strategy in Aeschines 3, Against Ctesiphon’, CQ 57 (2007), 490–501. Krentz, P., The Thirty at Athens. Ithaca (1982). Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2018).

d16 decree concerning the ionian alphabet

113

Liddel, P., ‘The places of publication of Athenian state decrees from the 5th century to the 3rd century AD’, ZPE 143 (2003) 79–93. Malouchou, G.E., ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο βάθρο ἀπὸ Φυλῆς τὸν δημὸν καταγαγόντων’, Hόρος 22–5 (2010–13) [2014] 115–44. Malouchou, G.E., ‘The restoration of Athenian democracy in 403 BC: new epigraphic evidence’, Γραμματεῖον 4 (2015) 89–98. Meritt, B., ‘The inscriptions’, Hesperia 2 (1933) 149–69. Petrovic, A., ‘Inscribed epigrams in orators and epigrammatic collections’ in Inscriptions and their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford (2013) 197–213. Raubitschek, A.E., ‘The heroes of Phyle’, Hesperia 10 (1941) 284–95. Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens, Cambridge (2011). Sickinger, J.P., Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. Chapel Hill and London (1999). Steinbock, B., Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Use and Meanings of the Past. Ann Arbor (2013). Strauss, B.S., Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403–386 BC. London and Sydney (1986). Taylor, M.C., ‘One hundred heroes of Phyle?’, Hesperia 71 (2002) 377–97. Vince, J.H., Demosthenes III. Cambridge, MA (1940).

D16 Decree concerning the Ionian alphabet Proposer: Archinos ek Koiles (PA 2526; PAA 213880) Date: 403/2

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned by the Scholiast to Dionysius Thrax (T1) and also by ancient lexicographers (Suda sigma 77 = T2; Photius 498.15–499.9). T2 attempted to explain a line of Aristophanes’ Babylonians of 426 BC, ‘it is the demos of the Samians: how multi-lettered’ (‘Σαμίων ὁ δῆμός ἐστιν· ὡς πολυγράμματος’) by reference to the claim that the 24 Ionian letters were first discovered by Kallistratos at Samos. The lexicographers and scholiasts associate the decree with Archinos, drawing apparently upon the historians Ephoros and Theopompus.

114

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Scholiast to Dionysius Thrax (Hilgard, Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1.3. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901, 183), lines 16–20: Οἷς δὲ νυνὶ χρώμεθα, εἰσὶν Ἰωνικοί, εἰσενέγκαντος Ἀρχίνου παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ψήφισμα, τοὺς γραμματιστάς, ἤγουν τοὺς διδασκάλους, παιδεύειν τὴν Ἰωνικὴν γραμματικήν, ἤγουν τὰ γράμματα. D’Angour (‘Archinus’, 126) simplifies the text as follows, which gives a clearer sense: Οἷς δὲ νυνὶ χρώμεθα, εἰσὶν Ἰωνικοί, εἰσενέγκαντος Ἀρχίνου παρ’ Ἀθηναίοις ψήφισμα, τοὺς γραμματιστάς, παιδεύειν τὴν Ἰωνικὴν γραμματικήν. T2  Suda, s.v. ‘Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος’ (sigma 77): … ἢ ὅτι παρὰ Σαμίοις εὑρέθη πρώτοις τὰ κδʹ γράμματα ὑπὸ Καλλιστράτου, ὡς Ἄνδρων ἐν Τρίποδι. τοὺς δὲ Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισε χρῆσθαι τοῖς τῶν Ἰώνων γράμμασιν Ἀρχίνου δ’ Ἀθηναίου (Ἀρχῖνος Bernhardy; ἄρχειν οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναίοις Photius) ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Εὐκλείδου. τοὺς δὲ Βαβυλωνίους ἐδίδαξε διὰ Καλλιστράτου Ἀριστοφάνης ἔτεσι πρὸ τοῦ Εὐκλείδου κεʹ, ἐπὶ Εὐκλέους. περὶ δὲ τοῦ πείσαντος ἱστορεῖ Θεόπομπος. T3 Ephoros FGrH70 F106: Καλλίστρατος δὲ Σάμιος ἐπὶ τῶν Πελοποννησιακῶν μετήνεγκε τὴν γραμματικὴν καὶ παρέδωκεν ᾽Αθηναίοις ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Εὐκλείδου. ὥς φησιν ῎Εφορος.

Commentary

Until the final quarter of the fifth century, most official Athenian inscriptions were written in the Attic alphabet (on which, see Threatte, The Grammar, 19–26; Jeffery, Local Scripts, 66–78). The Ionic alphabet, which added to the Attic the letters eta, omega, xi, psi and the diphthongs ει and ου (for more details, see Threatte, The Grammar, 26–32) had already become widespread in Attica before the time of this decree. D’Angour (‘Archinus’, 121) has viewed the official adaptation of Ionic as a ‘concession to Athens’ wider Hellenic connections’ and as a way of honouring the Samians; indeed, Low has pointed out the diplomatic connotations of the Athenian deployment of Ionic script in the fifth century (Low, ‘Looking’). Given that the Athenians are known to have used Ionian letters in the years before the reform (see Threatte, The Grammar, 41–9; Matthaiou, ‘Attic public’, suggesting that the change from Attic to Ionic script began during the Archidamian war in the demes and spread to the inscriptions of the city) this may well be a case of a decree subsequent to a shift in actual practice, and there is no need to hypothesise about the existence of a decree

d16 decree concerning the ionian alphabet

115

T1  [The letter-forms] we use today are Ionic, since Archinos proposed a decree to the Athenians that school-teachers should teach the Ionic alphabet. (trans. D’Angour, adapted)

T2 Demos of the Samians: … Alternatively [it is used] because the Samians were the first people among whom the 24 letters were discovered by Kallistratos, as Andron [writes] in The Tripod. He persuaded the Athenians to use the letters of the Ionians, [the decree] of Archinos the Athenian in the archonship of Eukleides. Aristophanes directed the Babylonians with Kallistratos as producer 25 years before Eukleides, in the year of Eukles. The source for the man who did the persuading is Theopompus (FGrH115 F155). (trans. Whitehead, Suda On-line, adapted). T3 Kallistratos the Samian during the Peloponnesian war changed the lettering and gave it to the Athenians during the archonship of Eukleides, as Ephoros says.

of the period of the Peloponnesian war (cf. T2 and T3). Vestiges of Attic script after 403/2 are scarce: Threatte, The Grammar, 49–50. The implications of T1 are that Archinos introduced a decree to the effect that teachers were to teach the Ionic alphabet; there is some, albeit limited, evidence for legislative interference concerning literate education in classical Athens and Greece more widely (Morgan, ‘Literate’; Harris, Ancient Literacy, 99–100; cf. D.S. 12.12.4; SIG3 578 lines 30–4 (Teos); the regulations at Aeschin. 1.9-12, however, concern the access of teachers to pupils rather than the contents of the syllabus). But it is quite possible that the intention of the reform aimed rather to standardise the form of script in Athenian public inscriptions. D’Angour (‘Archinus’, 114) has repunctuated the text of the Suda (T2), placing a semicolon between γράμμασιν and Ἀρχίνου:

Ὅτι παρὰ Σαμίοις εὑρέθη πρώτοις τὰ κδ γράμματα ὑπὸ Καλλιστράτου, ὡς Ἄνδρων ἐν Τρίποδι. τοὺς δὲ Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισε χρῆσθαι τοῖς τῶν Ἰώνων γράμμασιν· Ἀρχίνου δ’ Ἀθηναίου [sc. τότε πείσαντος] ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Εὐκλείδου.

116

inventory a1

Because it was among the Samians first [or among leading Samians] that the 24-letter alphabet was found by Kallistratos, according to Andron in the Tripod, and he persuaded the Athenians to use the Ionian letters; and Archinus the Athenian [sc. subsequently persuaded them] in the archonship of Eukleides. (trans. D’Angour) D’Angour’s suggestion, then, is that Kallistratos, a man of Samian origin, persuaded the Athenians on the issue before the decree of Archinos. As we have seen, given the gradual infiltration of the Ionic alphabet into Athens over the course of the fifth century, this is neither historically necessary nor altogether persuasive (see also Whitehead’s commentary on the Suda entry). However, there is another solution (that of Bernhardy), which is to put Archinos’ name in the nominative in T2 in order to make him the one who originally persuaded the Athenians to use these letters (cf. Whitehead, Suda On-Line, sigma 99, note 5). This is one of two decrees connected with Archinos of Koile; the other is D15, the honours for those returning from Phyle. For his other political activity, including proposing laws, acting as strategos, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 38.

Date

403/2 (Suda, s.v. ‘Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος’). D’Angour (‘Archinus’) has made a case for Archinos’ decree as a revival of an earlier decree proposed by Kallistratos (of Samian origin, rather than of Samos), but the connection of Archinos’ decree with the archonship of Eukleides is not affected.

Bibliography

D’Angour, A., ‘Archinus, Eucleides and the reform of the Athenian alphabet’, BICS 43 (1999) 109–30 Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, W.V., Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA and London (1991). Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (rev. ed, with supplement by A.W. Johnston). Oxford (1990) 66–78. Low, P., ‘Looking for the language of Athenian imperialism’, JHS 125 (2005) 93–111. Matthaiou, A.P., ‘Attic public inscriptions of the fifth century BC in Ionic script’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea (2009) 201–12. Morgan, T.J., ‘Literate education in classical Athens’, CQ 49 (1999) 46–61. Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions: I. Phonology. Berlin and New York (1980). Whitehead, D., Suda On-line www.stoa.org/sol/, sigma 99.

D17 Decree concerning war-orphans Proposer: Theozotides Athmoneus (PA 691 + 6914; PAA 507785; APF) Date: 403/2?

Literary Context

Lysias (TT 1–2) wrote a speech attacking, by graphe paranomon, a proposal of Theozotides concerning war-orphans (Hansen, Sovereignty, no. 5); twenty fragments of papyrus preserve parts of the speech (Lysias FF 128–49 Carey) which is cited also by Pollux (Lysias F150 Carey).

117

118

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Lysias Against Theozotides F128 Carey, lines 6–13: ... Τ[ο]ὺς νόθους τε καὶ τοὺς [ποιη]τοὺς οὔτε νομίμως οὔ[θ’ ὁσίω]ς. ἐμοὶ γὰρ δοκεῖ τῶν ὀρ[φάνων] … …. τον τοὺς νόθους [... ... τ]ὴν πόλιν ἢ τοὺς [γνησίους. τοὺς] γὰρ γνησίους [ἐπὶ τῶν πατρώιων] καταλεί[πει ὁ πατὴρ, ἀλλὰ τοὺ]ς νόθους. T2 Lysias Against Theozotides F130 Carey lines, 72–82: … σαν περὶ πο[λ]έμ[ου Θεοζο]τίδης οὑτοσὶ τὴ[ν γνώ]μην ἀγορεύει τοὺς μὲν ἱππέας ἀντὶ δραχμῆς τέτταρα[ς ὀβ]ολοὺς μισθοφορεῖν το[ὺς δ’ ἱπ]ποτοξότας ὀκτὼ ὀ[βολοὺς] ἀντὶ δυοῖν [δ]ραχμαῖ* καὶ τ[αύ]την τὴν γνώμην ε . […..] υακ .. ἐνίκησε[ν ἐν τῶι δ]ήμωι, δι’ οὗ καὶ μ[….. γν]ώμην. *ed. pr. [ὀ]β[ο]λ[ο]ῖ[ν].

Commentary

Welfare support may well have been available to war-orphans (and others) from the sixth century onwards (Scafuro, ‘Identifying’; Blok, ‘The diôbelia’, 97; see D11 above); it almost certainly was from 432 BC (Ath. Pol. 24.3; Loomis, Wages, 220), and such provisions may have been extended 410 (Blok, ‘The diôbelia’). In T1, we might identify opposition to Theozotides’ proposal to extend or re-­introduce the provision of support for orphans (Stroud, ‘Greek inscriptions’, 289–90). Moreover, according to the reading of T2 suggested here, public payment for both cavalrymen and mounted archers was to be reduced by Theozotides’ proposal: for discussion, see Loomis, Wages, 45–6; Loomis, ‘Pay differentials’. The fragments of Lysias’ speech suggest that the orator was attacking particular aspects of the decree: first, the speaker’s words (T1) suggest that Theozotides’ proposal failed to offer support to illegitimate and adopted children, though this might well be rhetorical exaggeration; second, they suggest that the decree maintained that pay for cavalry should be reduced from one drachma to 4 obols per day (T2); third (according to the restoration followed here), that the daily allowance to hippotoxotai (mounted archers) should be reduced from 2 drachmai to 8 obols (T2). If this is the correct interpretation of the papyrus (proposed by Loomis, ‘Pay differentials’), it makes it seem like a purely budgetary cutback eliminating the strongly pro-demotic implications of the original reading of the text and makes it a narrowly financial measure: the first editors, Grenfell and Hunt, suggested that, while cavalry pay was reduced, the hippotoxotai’s pay would be raised from 2 to 8 obols (this is the view supported by Todd (Lysias, 384 note 10), who retains the political subtext of the measure).

d17 decree concerning war-orphans

119

T1  … both the illegitimate and the adopted children, which is neither lawful nor right. It seems to me that of the orphans, the city those who are illegitimate than those who are legitimate: legitimate sons were left [to inherit their father’s property] whereas those who are illegitimate ... (trans. Todd, Lysias) T2 … concerning war, Theozotides here puts forward the proposal that the cavalry should be paid at a rate of four obols instead of a drachma, whereas the hippotoxotai (mounted archers) should receive eight obols instead of two drachmai [or, as ed. pr. tentatively accepted by Todd, obols]; and when he introduced this proposal … he won the debate in the assembly. Through this also… proposal. (trans. Todd, Lysias)

Fragments of an inscribed decree of Theozotides were discovered in 1970, re-used as a cover-slab over the great drain (Stroud, ‘Greek inscriptions’; Matthaiou, ‘The Theozotides decree’, 71–81). This inscription contained the provision that legitimate sons of those who died by violence in the oligarchy while helping the democracy should become the responsibility of the state. For the text of the inscription, see OR 178: Matthaiou, ‘The Theozotides decree’, 71–2: Resolved by the council and the people. Antiochis held the prytany, [----8----] was secretary, Kallisthenes presided, Theozotides made the motion. As many Athenia[ns] who died by violent death in the oligarchy while trying to assist the democracy, to grant to the sons of these, because of the well-doing of their fathers towards the people of the Athenians and because of their manly goodness, an obol a day as maintenance -- -- --- give to the orphans -- -- -- the prytaneion … (trans. OR 178, adapted).

There are other fragmentary remains, including a provision for dokimasia (line 15) and a mention of the Hellenotamiai (line 18). On the left side of the decree there is a list of names (presumably recipients of the money), with patronymics and demotics. The inscribed decree of Theozotides proposed to grant one obol per day as maintenance to those children whose fathers had died during the oligarchy (lines 4–5: ‘ὁπόσοι Ἀθηναίω[ν] ἀ[πέθαν]ον [β]ιαί   ̣ ωι θανάτωι ἐν τῆι ὀλιγ[αρχαι]’: this appears to have be a politically motivated supplement to what was already established treatment of war-orphans (cf. Stroud, ‘Greek inscriptions’, 288–90); the decree also adds regulations for the scrutiny (dokimasia) of claims and

120

inventory a1

responsibility for payment (lines 15–19). Stroud identified the oligarchs with those of the Thirty in 404/3; however, his identification has been opposed by Calabi Limentati (‘Vittime dell’oligarchia’) who argues persuasively that the inscription should be dated to 410 and honours those murdered during the regime of the Four Hundred in 411 (also, dissociating decree and speech, see Sartori, ‘Aristofane’, 67–9), a view supported by Matthaiou, ‘The Theozotides decree’. Should we identify the decree of the stele with the speech made against Theozotides? Calabi Limentani (‘Vittime dell’oligarchia’) offered four reasons against the identification: (a) that the phrase of the inscription ‘βιαίωι θανάτωι’ refers to violent death by murder not death on the battlefield (in other words, it does not refer to the war between the democrats and oligarchs of 404/3: Xen. Hell. 2.4.22); (b) the lack of evidence for the Hellenotamiai after 403; (c) that the inscription is a decree while Lysias’ speech refers to a law; (d) the clause ‘helping the democracy (‘[β]ο[ηθ]οῦντες τῆι δημοκρατίαι’) has its closest parallel in a reference to the time of the Four Hundred (Lys. 20.17). Matthaiou too opposes the identification, arguing that the decree of Theozotides opposed by Lysias’ speech (F129 Carey lines 34–5) ‘refers to orphans of the men (Athenians) who died in the battlefield: ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ fighting against a foreign enemy’ whereas the stone refers to ‘the orphans of those who died in the time of the oligarchy helping or trying to defend the democracy’ (Matthaiou, ‘The Theozotides decree’, 77–8 note 9). In favour of the identification of the literary testimonia with the inscription (advocated by Blok, ‘The diôbelia’, 95–6 who, however, places Theozotides’ decree at around 408/7), we can observe that one aspect of Lysias’ speech, the point about the exclusion of orphans, bastards and adopted citizens (T1) may be identified with the inscription’s limitation of the award to ‘as many Athenians …’ (‘ὁπόσοι Ἀθηναίων …’: line 4). Moreover, Lysias may have focussed his attack on particular aspects of the proposal or may have indeed distorted it. Against the identification, we might add that the changes to military pay mentioned by Lysias (F2) do not seem to have appeared on the stele (at least not those parts of it which are extant). The lack of any other evidence for Lysias making speeches before the restoration of 403/2 (Todd, A Commentary, 12), moreover, might support a date of the speech after these events (for further arguments concerning the dating of the speech see Stroud, ‘Greek inscriptions’). On balance, then, it is plausible that Lysias was attacking a post-­Eukleidian re-enactment of Theozotides’ decree (which had been passed and inscribed originally probably in 410), perhaps a re-enactment that extended its provisions to those sons of Athenian fathers who had died while fighting against the oligarchs. This is probably what provoked a rival into launching a graphe paranomon against the proposal.

d17 decree concerning war-orphans

121

Given the dissociation of the stone from the text, the epigraphic reason for believing that the decree was upheld by the court is eliminated; Theozotides’ proposal may have been overturned, but this remains uncertain: the outcome of the trial is not known. The papyrus refers to the legislation both as a nomos and a psephisma, and is one of five occasions on which the Athenian sources refer to an enactment as both a psephisma and a nomos: Hansen, Athenian Ecclesia, 165–7. As Shear (Polis and Revolution, 224) points out, the prosecution of Theozotides, like that of Thrasyboulos, suggests the existence of different opinions on how reconciliation was to be undertaken in 403/2. On the proposer, see the detailed account of Matthaiou, ‘The Theozotides decree’, 73: Theozotides was the proposer also of IG II2 5, an honorific decree.

Date

403/2. See Stroud, ‘Greek inscriptions’; it is suggested that the decree is contemporary with Thrasyboulos’ proposal granting citizenship to those who participated in the return from the Piraeus (D5 above). Blok, ‘The diôbelia’, however, suggests 408/7.

Bibliography

Blok, J., ‘The diôbelia: on the political economy of an Athenian state fund’, ZPE 193 (2015) 87–102. Calabi Limentati, I., ‘Vittime dell’oligarchia. A proposito del decreto di Teozotide’ in Studi in onore di Cesare Sanfilippo 6 (1985) 115–28. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. (eds.), The Hibeh Papyri, vol. 1. London (1896) no. 14. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 29–30 no. 5. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 8. Loomis, W.T., ‘Pay differentials and class warfare in Lysias’ Against Theozotides: two obols or two drachmas?’, ZPE 107 (1995) 230–6. Loomis, W.T., Wages, Welfare Costs, and Inflation in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor (1998). Matthaiou, A.P., ‘The Theozotides decree on the sons of those murdered in the oligarchy’, in A.P. Matthaiou, Τὰ ἐν τῆι στήληι γεγραμμένα: Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century BC. Athens (2011) 71–81. Sartori, F., ‘Aristofane e Agirrio nel 405 A.C.’ in Althistorische Studien Hermann Bengtson zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht. Historia Einzelschrift 40, ed. H. Heinen. Stuttgart (1983) 56–77. Scafuro, A., ‘Identifying Solonian laws’ in Solon of Athens: New Historical and Philological Approaches, eds J.H. Blok and A.P.M.H. Lardinois. Leiden and Boston (2006) 175–96.

inventory a1

122

Shear, J.L., Polis and Revolution. Cambridge (2011). Stroud, R., ‘Greek inscriptions: Theozotides and the Athenian orphans’, Hesperia 40 (1971) 280–301. Todd, S.C., Lysias, Austin (2000) 382–6. Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias. Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2011).

D18† Honours for Thrasyboulos Proposer: Unknown Date: 403/2

Literary Context

Cornelius Nepos (T1) describes this honour in connection with the virtuous actions of Thrasyboulos, that is, partaking in the reconciliation and proposing the amnesty (Thrasybulus, 3.1–3). After describing the honour, Nepos makes a moral claim about Thrasyboulos’ contentment with it, concluding that ‘as a rule small gifts are lasting, lavish ones are not permanent’.

Text

T1 Cornelius Nepos, Thrasybulus 4.1: Huic pro tantis meritis honoris corona a populo data est, facta duabas virgulis oleaginis; quam quod amor civium et non vis expresserat, nullam habuit invidiam magnaque fuit gloria.

Commentary

This is the sole testimonium for an honorific decree for Thrasyboulos. Given that the individual award is not attested in the fourth-century sources, we must wonder whether the story of an individual award for Thrasyboulos was generated out of the decree honouring the democrats who returned with him from Phyle and, who were granted an award of an olive foliage crown (D15 above). A possible parallel to such literary distortion is the story for an award for Lysias (D6) which appears to have been generated out of the story of a mass award (D5). On crowns for Athenians, see D181 below, Commentary and Appendix 2 below. On Thrasyboulos’ career, and his dominance at Athens after the restoration of democracy, see Buck, Thrasybulus, 87–8.

d18† honours for thrasyboulos

123

T1  In recognition of these great services (sc. ensuring that the amnesty came about) he was presented by the people with an honorary crown made of two olive branches. And since that crown was a token of the love of his fellow-citizens and was not wrung from them by force, it excited no envy, but brought him great glory.

Date

403/2.

Bibliography

Buck, R., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy: The Life of an Athenian Statesman. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998).

D19 Decree protecting democracy Proposer: Demophantos (PA 3659; PAA 320600) Date: 403/2 or later

Literary Context

Here we are concerned with three occasions in the surviving corpus of Attic oratory on which anti-tyranny measures are mentioned: (a) Andocides’ (T1) citation of what he claims to be a Solonian law against tyranny as part of his argument that only legislation imposed during the archonship of Eukleides is valid (Andoc. 1.99); he asked for the law to be read ‘from the stele’ (T1), and there follows a document which purports to be a piece of legislation proposed by a certain Demophantos; (b) Demosthenes’ (T2) encouragement of the jurors to vote for the repeal of Leptines’ law, reminding the Athenians of their tendency to reward benefectors, pointing to the ‘stele of Demophantos’, already referred to by Phormion [the fellow-speaker of Demosthenes]’ (Dem. 20.159); (c) Lycurgus’ (T3) invocation of decree against tyranny which he claims was passed in the aftermath of the Thirty, as a way of persuading the Athenians to punish Leokrates (whom he regards as a traitor).

Texts

T1  And. 1.95–6: Ὁ δὲ νόμος τί κελεύει, ὃς ἐν τῇ στήλῃ ἔμπροσθέν ἐστι τοῦ βουλευτηρίου; ‘ὃς ἂν ἄρξῃ ἐν τῇ πόλει τῆς δημοκρατίας καταλυθείσης, νηποινεὶ τεθνάναι, καὶ τὸν ἀποκτείναντα ὅσιον εἶναι καὶ τὰ χρήματα ἔχειν τοῦ ἀποθανόντος.’ ἂλλο τι οὖν, ὦ Ἐπίχαρες, ἢ νῦν ὁ ἀποκτείνας σε καθαρὸς τὰς χεῖρας ἔσται, κατά γε τὸν Σόλωνος νόμον; καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὸν νόμον τὸν ἐκ τῆς στήλης.

124

d19 decree protecting democracy

125

T1 But what does the law say, the one inscribed on the stele in front of the bouleuterion? ‘He who holds office in the city when the democracy has been overthrown may be killed with impunity, and the killer shall be sinless and shall possess the property of the dead man.’ So, Epichares, would anyone who kills you now have untainted hands, according to Solon’s law? Please read the law from the stele. There then follows a document purporting to be a law of Demophantos. Given the problems identified by Canevaro and Harris in the prescript of the document (‘The documents,’ 122–3) and contradictions between its content and the literary attestations (‘The documents’, 123–5), it seems best to omit the document from consideration as a decree of the assembly. Other recent studies, such as that of Teegarden, Death, 51, have, however, taken the language of the document to be authentic, while Sommerstein, ‘The authenticity’ has made a case for the idea that it represents a genuine decree of Demophantos extracted from a collection of Athenian decrees such as that of Krateros (BNJ 342); Sommerstein’s arguments, accepted by Hansen (‘Is Patrocleides’ decree’, 898–901), have been challenged convincingly by Harris (‘The authenticity’). The most recent scholarly edition of Andocides, that of Dilts and Murphy (2018) accepts that the documents in his first speech are not genuine.

126

inventory a1

T2  Demosthenes 20.159: Ἀλλ’ ἀναμνησθέντες τῶν καιρῶν, παρ’ οὓς εὖ πεπονθότες εὖ πεποιήκατε τοὺς εὑρομένους, καὶ τῆς Δημοφάντου στήλης περὶ ἧς εἶπε Φορμίων, ἐν ᾗ γέγραπται καὶ ὀμώμοται, ἄν τις ἀμύνων τι πάθῃ τῇ δημοκρατίᾳ, τὰς αὐτὰς δώσειν δωρειάς ἅσπερ Ἁρμοδίῳ καὶ Ἀριστογείτονι, καταψηφίσασθε τοῦ νόμου. οὐ γὰρ ἔνεστ’ εὐορκεῖν, εἰ μὴ τοῦτο ποιήσετε.

T3 Lycurg. 1.124–6: Ἱκανὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα τὴν τῶν προγόνων γνῶναι διάνοιαν, ὡς εἶχον πρὸς τοὺς παρανομοῦντας εἰς τὴν πόλιν· οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἔτι βούλομαι τῆς στήλης ἀκοῦσαι ὑμᾶς τῆς ἐν τῷ βουλευτηρίῳ περὶ τῶν προδοτῶν καὶ τῶν τὸν δῆμον καταλυόντων·τὸ γὰρ μετὰ πολλῶν παραδειγμάτων διδάσκειν ῥᾳδίαν ὑμῖν τὴν κρίσιν καθίστησι. μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς τριάκοντα οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν, πεπονθότες ὑπὸ τῶν πολιτῶν, οἷα οὐδεὶς πώποτε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἠξίωσε, καὶ μόλις εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν κατεληλυθότες, ἁπάσας τὰς ὁδοὺς τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἐνέφραξαν, πεπειραμένοι καὶ εἰδότες τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐφόδους τῶν τὸν δῆμον προδιδόντων. ἐψηφίσαντο γὰρ καὶ ὤμοσαν, ἐάν τις τυραννίδι ἐπιτιθῆται ἢ τὴν πόλιν προδιδῷ ἢ τὸν δῆμον καταλύῃ, τὸν αἰσθανόμενον καθαρὸν εἶναι ἀποκτείναντα, καὶ κρεῖττον ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς τοὺς τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχοντας τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἢ πειραθέντας μετὰ ἀληθείας αὐτοὺς δουλεύειν· ἀρχὴν γὰρ οὕτως ᾤοντο δεῖν ζῆν τοὺς πολίτας, ὥστε μηδ’ εἰς ὑποψίαν ἐλθεῖν μηδένα τούτων τῶν ἀδικημάτων. καί μοι λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα.

ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ  Ταῦτα ὦ ἄνδρες ἔγραψαν εἰς τὴν στήλην, καὶ ταύτην ἔστησαν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον, ὑπόμνημα τοῖς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συνιοῦσι καὶ βουλευομένοις ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος, ὡς δεῖ πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους ἔχειν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄν τις αἴσθηται μόνον μέλλοντας αὐτοὺς τούτων τι ποιεῖν, ἀποκτενεῖν συνώμοσαν.

d19 decree protecting democracy

127

T2 Instead, remember the times past when you received benefactions and rewarded your benefactors; remember the stele of Demophantos which Phormion alluded to: it is written and sworn that if anyone suffers harm while defending the democracy, he should receive the same honours as those awarded to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and vote against the law. If you do not do this you will not be true to the oath you have sworn. (trans. Kremmydas, adapted)

T3 These instances are enough for you to know the attitude of our ancestors towards those who broke the city’s laws. Nevertheless, furthermore, I want you to hear about the the stele in the bouleuterion concerning traitors and those who overthrow democracy. For by demonstrating with many examples it will be easy for you to make a judgement. For your ancestors, after the Thirty, who had suffered at the hands of citizens such things that no Greek ever thought appropriate, as soon as they had returned to their own city, fenced off all avenues of criminality, having learnt by experience the starting point and methods of those who are hostile to democracy. For they voted and they swore that if anyone ever made an attempt at establishing tyranny or betrayed the city or overthrew democracy, the one noticing this and killing him would be pure, and, they decided it was better for the one bearing the blame to die rather than for them to be enslaved, on learning the truth about the matter. For in this way, from the start they thought it was necessary for citizens to live their lives so that no-one might avoid the suspicion of these crimes. And read the decree for me. DECREE They wrote these things, o men, on the stele, and they set it up at the bouleuterion, as a memorandum for those who gather each day and deliberate on behalf of the fatherland how it is necessary to behave towards such men. And on account of this they swore to kill any one who was perceived as even contemplating such things. Later in the speech, Lycurgus (1.127) adds the following:

διομωμόκατε δ’ ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι τῷ Δημοφάντου, κτενεῖν τὸν τὴν πατρίδα προδιδόντα καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ καὶ χειρὶ καὶ ψήφῳ. You have sworn in the decree of Demophantos to kill the man who betrays the fatherland, whether by word, by deed, by hand or by vote.

128

Commentary

inventory a1

The fourth-century Athenians possessed traditions about legislation against threats to democracy going back to the time of Solon (Ath. Pol 8.4; cf. Ath. Pol. 16.10; Ostwald, ‘The Athenian’; RO p. 391; Teegarden, Death, 42–3) or perhaps earlier (see Ostwald, ‘The Athenian’, 103–6); these testimonia demonstrate that such legislation was perceived to be significant in fourth-century Athens, despite the absence of a co-ordinated anti-democratic movement (see Rhodes, ‘Democracy’); the literary evidence for a late fifth-century decree protecting democracy is, however, extremely problematic. There are some consistencies in the reports: that the killer of an individual hostile to democracy is to be deemed sinless (hosion: T1) or pure (katharon: T3); the existence of a stele (T2) ‘in front of ’ (T1) or ‘in’ (T3) the bouleuterion (as Hansen, ‘Is Patrokleides’, 899 points out, the reconstruction of the council chamber in the early fourth century might explain the shift in the position of the stele); and the swearing of an oath by the people (T2 and T3). The three testimonia place different emphases in their description of the anti-tyranny provision. Andocides (T1) introduces it as a Solonian law, and says that it maintains that the killer of someone who has held office in the city at the time of the subversion of democracy would be free from guilt and was to possess the property of the deceased: this is comparable in terms of intent to the inscribed law of Eukrates, which threatened members of the Areopagus with disenfranchisement and confiscation of property if they met after the overthrow of democracy (IG II3 1 320 = RO 79 lines 24–6); for a comparison between the language of Eukrates’ law and the (probably) inauthentic document of the Demophantos decree, as it appears in Andocides, see Teegarden, Death, 51. Demosthenes’ report (T2) says that the writing on the stele (he is not clear on whether he believes it to be a law or a decree) states that those who suffer in defence of democracy would receive the same reward as Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Lycurgus’ report (T3) maintains that the decree and oath, established after the rule of the Thirty, provided that anyone who found a person aspiring to tyranny or attempting to betray the city or overthrow the democracy should be without guilt if he killed him, and that the Athenians swore an oath to kill the man who betrays his city. For a view about the significance of the oath (T3) in the co-ordination of pro-democratic resistance in 403/2, see Teegarden, Death, 35–53. There are further contradictions between the different accounts: Lycurgus (T3) refers to it as a decree, but Andocides refers to it as a Solonian law (T1); Demosthenes (T2) refers to it as a stele and is otherwise non-commital. The stress in Demosthenes (T2) on rewards for those who are harmed while defending democracy, which suits the speech’s argument very well, is unique. Lycurgus (T3)

d19 decree protecting democracy

129

underlines the permissibility of punishment of someone who was even merely plotting at establishing tyranny, betraying the city, or overthrowing democracy. There are a number of possible explanations for these different emphases: (a) The different provisions are not incompatible, and may represent different elements either of the same enactment or a number of different enactments. One might envisage the existence of pre-Euclidian legislation (which made no attempt to distinguish between law and decree) referred to by Andocides (T1) and a post-403/2 decree referred to by other sources (TT 2, 3). (b) Lycurgus’ and Demosthenes’ version of the legislation may reflect a re-­ enactment, and publication on stone in the bouleuterion, of a pre-Euclidian law associated perhaps with Demophantos or the reputedly Solonian law mentioned by Andocides (1.95). The fact that an account of the decree of Aristophon on the xenikon (see D9 above) represents it as a re-­enactment of a Solonian law in 403/2 supports the idea that Andocides’ claim about the significance of Solonian legislation might have carried weight among his audience. (c) The decree dates to 410: Ostwald (‘The Athenian’, 117) proposed that a decree of Demophantos was passed in 410 (as an updated version of the ‘Draconian’ legislation cited at Ath. Pol. 16.10) only to be replaced in 403 by the law of eisangelia (Hyp. 4.7–8). This leads to the possibility that Lycurgus and Demosthenes (and, presumably, Phormio) were claiming that an obsolete but physically extant enactment (a phenomenon plausible to envisage given that (as demonstrated by Bolmarcich ‘The afterlife’), the Athenians did not automatically dismantle obsolete decrees) was in fact post-Euclidian. Shear, Polis and Revolution, 16, maintains, on the basis of the document at Andocides 1.96, that the decree of Demophantos was passed at the time of the re-instatement of democracy in 410; for a similar view, see Teegarden, Death, 30–53). Shear suggests that Lycurgus’ claim that it postdated the Thirty was confused, and that the context of the decree was ‘lost to him and so he conflates his oligarchs and associates the stele with the Thirty’. Demosthenes’ reference (T2) to the decree is vague enough to be compatible with this possibility. For an exploration of the significance of this view of the decree for Athenian civic identity, see Shear, ‘The oath’. Sommerstein, ‘The authenticity’, who, while accepting Harris and Canevaro’s point that Andocides (T1) was referring to a law in front of the council chamber which was separate from the decree of Demophantos (said to have been located in the council chamber: T3), maintains that

130

inventory a1 the document in Andocides preserves a genuine version of the decree of Demophantos which was inserted by a later interpolator from a collection like that of Krateros (BNJ 342). Sommerstein’s defence of the authenticity of the document relies heavily in justifying its unparalleled contents by the assertion that it is an ‘epoch-defining’ or ‘very exceptional’ document (51–3, 56). The parallels that Sommerstein offers to the language of the document are not completely convincing, at one point relying upon the spurious decree of Arthmios, as preserved in later oratory (54, citing Dem. 9.41, 19.272; Din. 2.24). His view is that it is a decree of 410/09, but this is a view which relies upon the emendation of the document’s secretary from Kleogenes to Kleigenes (53).

Solution (c) is reliant upon the authenticity of the document inserted at Andocides 1.96; Canevaro and Harris’ strong case against it (‘The documents’, 119–25; Harris, ‘The authenticity’) makes a date of 410 for the decree of Demophantos less likely. If, as seems more likely, (b) is correct, anti-tyranny provisions were re-enacted as a decree after the speech of Andocides (as Harris and Canevaro, ‘The documents’ suggest) or at some other point during or after the archonship of Eukleides (as Harris, ‘The authenticity’, 146–51). Carawan (‘Decrees’, 411–17) argues that the document was created by ‘an enterprising editor who reconstructed the text rather awkwardly’ (417). The name of Demophantos appears nowhere else in Andocides’ speech; the later fabricator of the document may have been familiar with the name from the speeches of Demosthenes and Lycurgus (T2 and T3). There is no reason to think of the name of the proposer as an outright invention: a late fifth-/early fourth-century date for Demophantos fits nicely with the earliest attestation of the name from Attica, as the father of a bouleutes of Kollytos, in the list of bouleutai of c. 370 (Agora XV 492 line 55). Finally, it is striking that Lycurgus chose to refer to this decree rather than the near-contemporary anti-tyranny law of Eukrates (IG II3 1 320 = RO 79): it may well be the case that his citation of a historic decree carries more rhetorical weight in the context of his speech; alternatively (or additionally), he may have felt that its emphasis on the permissibility of pre-emptive murder of a criminal (‘τις τυραννίδι ἐπιτιθῆται ἢ τὴν πόλιν προδιδῷ ἢ τὸν δῆμον καταλύῃ, τὸν αἰσθανόμενον καθαρὸν εἶναι ἀποκτείναντα’) fitted very well with his argument that the runaway Leokrates should be published as a traitor. We cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that Lycurgus’ account of the decree’s emphasis on preventative punishment is his own fabrication. All three testimonia take the view that there were some anti-tyranny provisions written up on a stele; the bouleuterion was the place of publication of only a small number of Athenian decrees: see Liddel, ‘The places’, 88–9. We should

d19 decree protecting democracy

131

compare the arrangments for the law of Eukrates, of which two copies were to be set up, one at the entrance to the Areopagus, the other in the assembly (IG II3 1 320 = RO 79 lines 24–7). Inscribed anti-tyranny laws are known from other Greek cities (see, at Eretria, Knoepfler, ‘Loi d’Érétrie’; generally, Koch, ‘Prozesse’; Teegarden, Death, passim).

Date

T3 places the decree after the fall of the Thirty. So the decree was made in 403/2 or later (Harris, ‘The authenticity’, 146–51) or perhaps after the speech of Andocides of late 400 BC (Canevaro and Harris, ‘The documents’ 125).

Bibliography

Bolmarcich, S., ‘The afterlife of a treaty’, CQ 57 (2007) 477–89. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62 (2012) 98–129. Carawan, E., ‘Decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries and “latent fragments” from Craterus’, CQ 67 (2017) 400–21 at 411–17. Hansen, M.H., ‘Is Patrokleides’ decree (Andoc. 1.77–79) a genuine document?’, GRBS 55 (2015) 884–901 at 899–901. Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of the document at Andocides On the Mysteries 96–98’, Τεκμήρια 12 (2013–14) 121–53. Knoepfler, D., ‘Loi d’Érétrie contre la tyrannie et l’oligarchie (première partie)’, BCH 125.1 (2001) 195–38. Knoepfler, D., ‘Loi d’Érétrie contre la tyrannie et l’oligarchie (deuxième partie)’, BCH 126.1 (2002) 149–204. Koch, C., ‘Prozesse gegen die Tyrannis’, Dike 4 (2001) 169–217. Liddel, P., ‘The places of publication of Athenian state decrees from the 5th Century to the 3rd Century AD’, ZPE 143 (2003) 79–93. MacDowell, D.M., Andokides On the Mysteries. Oxford (1962) 134–6. Ostwald, M., ‘The Athenian legislation against tyranny and subversion’, TAPhA 86 (1955) 103–28. Rhodes, P.J., ‘Democracy and its opponents in fourth-century Athens’ in Democrazia e antidemocrazia nel mondo Greco: atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Chieti 9-11 aprile 2003, ed. U. Bultrighini. Alessandria (2005) 275–89. Shear, J., ‘The oath of Demophantos and the politics of Athenian identity’ in Horkos. The Oath in Greek Society, eds A.H. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher. Bristol (2007) 148–60. Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011) 96–111. Sommerstein, A.H., ‘The authenticity of the Demophantus decree’, CQ 64 (2014) 49–57. Teegarden, D.A., Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle against Tyranny. Princeton (2014) 30–53.

D20 Decree concerning alliance with Boiotians Proposer: Thrasyboulos Lykou Steirieus (PA 7310; PAA 507785; APF) Date: 395/4

Literary Context

Xenophon records a speech of Theban ambassadors to the Athenian assembly (Xen. Hell. 3.5.8–16; cf. T2); after listening to them, the Athenians voted unanimously to help the Thebans, and Thrasyboulos told them that this vote was the answer of the Athenians (‘ἀποκρινάμενος τὸ ψήφισμα’, i.e. communicating an answer to the Thebans by way of a decree, as Underhill, A Commentary, 115). An alliance is reported by a scholion to Aristophanes, Ekklesiazousai, 193–6, which drew upon Philochorus (T1): Aristophanes complained of the fickleness of the people after the creation of an alliance (probably that with Corinth, Argos, Athens and the Boiotian League, which was made two years after the current alliance: D21 below; Harding, Story, 143; Sommerstein, Ecclesiazusae, 154–5). Harding (From the End, 28 note 3) suggests that this is a reference to the aftermath of the defeat by the Spartans at Haliartos and Corinth in 394. The alliance is also mentioned in Diodorus’ account of the outbreak of what he calls the ‘Boiotian War’ (T3).

Texts

T1 Aristophanes, Ekkl. 193–6: Τὸ συμμαχικὸν αὖ τοῦθ’, ὅτ’ ἐσκοπούμεθα, / εἰ μὴ γένοιτ’ ἀπολεῖν ἔφασκον τὴν πόλιν· / ὅτε δὴ δ’ ἐγένετ’ ἤχθοντο, τῶν δὲ ῥητόρων / ὁ τοῦτ’ ἀναπείσας εὐθὺς ἀποδρὰς ὤιχετο. Philochorus FGrH 328 F148 (= Scholion Rv. Aristoph. Ekkl. 193):

περὶ δὲ τοῦ συμμαχικοῦ Φιλόχορος ἱστορεῖ ὅτι πρὸ δύο ἐτῶν ἐγένετο συμμαχία Ἀθηναίων καὶ Βοιωτῶν. T2 Xen. Hell. 3.5.16: Ὁ μὲν ταῦτ’ εἰπὼν ἐπαύσατο. τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων πάμπολλοι μὲν συνηγόρευον, πάντες δ’ ἐψηφίσαντο βοηθεῖν αὐτοῖς. Θρασύβουλος δὲ ἀποκρινάμενος τὸ ψήφισμα καὶ τοῦτο ἐνεδείκνυτο ... T3 D.S. 14.82.2: Βοιωτοὶ δὲ πείσαντες Ἀθηναίους συνεπιλαβέσθαι τοῦ πολέμου. 132

d20 decree concerning alliance with boiotians

133

T1 Again, this treaty of alliance: when we were considering it, they were saying that the city would be destroyed if it did not come to completion. But when it came about, the people turned against it, and the orator who persuaded them to make it fled away immediately. Scholion: Regarding the treaty of alliance Philochorus records that, two years previously, an alliance of the Athenians and the Boiotians was made.

T2 With this he stopped speaking. Many Athenians rose to speak in support of him, and everyone voted to send help to the Thebans. Thrasyboulos answered with the decree and added that … T3 The Boiotians then persuaded the Athenians to participate with them in the war.

134

Commentary

inventory a1

The Corinthian War broke out in 395 when the Spartans supported the Phokians, and the Boiotians took the side of the Lokrians, in a local dispute; Sparta then threatened the Thebans, who sent ambassadors to Athens (Xen. Hell. 3.5.3–8). The alliance constitutes open acknowledgement of Athenian alignment with the Boiotians in the Corinthian War; at about the same time they made an alliance with the Lokrians (IG II2 15). As Strauss (Athens after, 110–11) notes, the alliance marked a U-turn in Athenian policy: this can be explained by reference to the growing threat of Sparta, Persia’s backing (including Tithraustes’ 50 Talents, brought by Timokrates of Rhodes: Xen. Hell. 3.5.2; cf. Hell. Oxy. 7.2), and Thrasyboulos’ pro-Theban stance and his argument that the Athenians should repay the Thebans for their restraint at the end of the Peloponnesian war (3.5.16). This alliance between the Athenians and the Boiotians (until the King’s Peace, functioning as a federal state, led by the Thebans) is also mentioned, in passing, by Andocides, On the Peace, 25 and Lys. 16.13 (as the point at which Mantitheos was conscripted into the cavalry). Both Xenophon (T2) and Diodorus (T3) offer sketchy details, and neither of them make it clear whether this was merely a decision to send aid or to ratify the ‘for all time’ alliance that is the epigraphically preserved RO 6 (lines 2–3). As Underhill (Xenophon, 113) suggested, though the alliance was made in the name of the Boiotians, the supremacy of Thebes over them is unquestionable. The decision does not appear to have been immediately effective: D.S. 14.81.2 reports that the Boiotians persuaded the Athenians to take part with them in the war but that, as things turned out, they took to the field at Haliartos alone; Thrasyboulos of Steira was in the area but it is not clear whether or not he had been sent out by decree of the Athenians (Plu. Lys. 29.1; Paus. 3.5.4–5). The alliance appears to have been, however, swiftly followed up by the creation of a broader alliance of states (see D21 below). The speaker of Lysias 26 claims that Thrasyboulos of Kollytos’ involvement in a plot to overthrow the Boiotian constitution ‘deprived us of that alliance’ (26.23). The proposer appears to have been Thrasyboulos of Steira, who is known to have proposed two or three other decrees, of which one was overruled by the courts (D5), another which is probably a literary fabrication (D6), and the other of which was inscribed (RO 4 = IG II2 10). For his other political activity, which includes addressing the ecclesia, acting as a defendant in a graphe paranomon trial, and serving as a general, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 48–9. For discussion of Thrasyboulos’ role and a view of the imperialistic ambitions which may have been at the background of the alliance, see Buck, Thrasybulus, 96–8; Develin, AO 208, does not support the idea that the proposer of aid to the Boiotians was Thrasyboulos. The literary sources make no mention of a stele of alliance, but there is little reason to doubt that the alliance referred to by Philochorus should be identified

d21 alliance between athenians, boiotians and others 135 with that of IG II2 14 = RO 6. This contains a subject heading and text of a defensive alliance between the Boiotians and the Athenians, together with a provision for amendment heavily reliant upon restoration; the decree by which it was enacted does not appear, though it may have been inscribed above the surviving text.

Date

395/4. If it is right to identify this alliance as the one which led to the Haliartos campaign of 395 (Lys. 16.13; Andoc. 3.25). Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 154–5 prefers to identify the Aristophanic reference (T1) with the wider alliance which superseded it: see D21.

Bibliography

Buck, R., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy: Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1995) no. 14. Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens. London (2008) 142–3. Sommerstein, A., Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae. Warminster (1998). Strauss, B., Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403–386 BC. New York (1986). Underhill, G.E., A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford (1906).

D21 Alliance between Athenians, Boiotians, Corinthians and Argives; establishment of a common council Proposer: Unknown Date: 395–393

Literary Context

At the start of his account of the archonship of Diophantos (395/4) in Athens, Diodorus (T1) narrates the Greek diplomatic moves that gave rise to an anti-Spartan alliance.

136

inventory a1

Text

T1  D.S. 14.82.1–4: Βοιωτοὶ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Κορίνθιοι καὶ Ἀργεῖοι, συμμαχίαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐποιήσαντο. μισουμένων γὰρ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὑπὸ τῶν συμμάχων διὰ τὸ βάρος τῆς ἐπιστασίας, ᾤοντο ῥᾳδίως καταλύσειν αὐτῶν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν, τὰς μεγίστας πόλεις συμφρονούσας ἔχοντες. καὶ πρῶτον μὲν συνέδριον κοινὸν ἐν τῇ Κορίνθῳ συστησάμενοι τοὺς βουλευσομένους ἔπεμπον καὶ κοινῶς διῴκουν τὰ κατὰ τὸν πόλεμον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πρέσβεις εἰς τὰς πόλεις ἀποστέλλοντες πολλοὺς συμμάχους ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπέστησαν· εὐθὺ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἥ τε Εὔβοια ἅπασα προσέθετο καὶ Λευκάδιοι, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Ἀκαρνᾶνές τε καὶ Ἀμβρακιῶται καὶ Χαλκιδεῖς οἱ πρὸς τῇ Θρᾴκῃ. ἐπεβάλοντο δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ κατοικοῦντας πείθειν ἀποστῆναι Λακεδαιμονίων, οὐδεὶς δ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπήκουσεν.

Commentary

Like the agreement between the Athenians and the Boiotians (see D20 above), in which D21 (‘συμμαχία’: T1) may well have had its origins (and probably superseded), this arrangement arose out of hostility towards Sparta. The agreement of such an alliance, and perhaps also the decision to establish a sunedrion koinon, was undertaken probably with the consent of a decree of the Athenian ecclesia. The dispatch of ambassadors to the Peloponnese, on the other hand, seems to have been a decision of the sunedrion koinon. As Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 154–5 comments, this alliance may well be the one referred to at Aristophanes’ Ekklesiazousai 193–6 (see D20 T1 above); it may also be identified with the anti-Spartan coalition referred to at Xen. Hell. 3.5.2 and 4.2.1 and in a brief overview of Athenian affairs after the Peloponnesian war mentioned by Andocides, 3.22.

Date

The decree can be placed at some point between 395/4 (T1), and 393, the date of Aristophanes’ Ekklesiazousai (see D20 T1 above) which refers to an alliance which might be identified with this one; given Xenophon’s references to a broad anti-Spartan alliance, an earlier date is preferable.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 225. Sommerstein, A., Aristophanes: Ecclesiazusae. Warminster (1998) 154–5.

d22 decree (dogma) for the reconstruction of walls 137

T1 The Boiotians and the Athenians, together with the Corinthians and the Argives, concluded an alliance with each other. As the Lakedaimonians were hated by their allies owing to the severity of their dominion, they thought that they would easily dismantle the Spartan hegemony, given that the strongest states were in agreement. First of all, they set up a sunedrion koinon in Corinth to which they sent representatives to form plans, and worked out in common arrangements for the pursuit of war. Afterwards they dispatched ambassadors to the cities and led many allies of the Lakedaimonians to revolt from them; immediately all of Euboia and the Leukadians joined them, and additionally the Akarnanians, Ambrakiots, and the Chalkidians of Thrace. They tried also to persuade the inhabitants of the Peloponnese to revolt from the Lakedaimonians, but no one listened to them.

D22 Decree (dogma) for the reconstruction of walls Proposer: Unknown Date: 395/4

Literary Context

The passage is cited by Harpokration as part of his explanation of the term ‘Hermes by the Gate’, in which he draws upon book 5 of Philochorus’ Atthis.

138

inventory a1

Text

T1  Philochorus FGrH 328 F40a (apud Harpokration, Lexicon, s.v. ‘Ἑρμῆς ὁ πρὸς τῆι πυλίδι’): Φιλόχορος ἐν τῆι ε Ἀθηναίων φησίν ἀρξαμένων τειχίζειν τὸν Πειραιᾶ, οἱ θ ἄρχοντες τοῦτον ἀναθέντες ἐπέγραψαν· Ἀρξάμενοι πρῶτοι τειχίζειν οἵδ’ ἀνέθηκαν βουλῆς καὶ δέμου δόγμασι πειθόμενοι.

Commentary

The Athenians were required at the end of the Peloponnesian War to destroy the Long Walls and the fortifications of the Piraeus (Xen. Hell. 2.2.20; And. 3.11–12; Plu. Lys. 14.8). The Piraeus was still unfortified when Thrasyboulos spoke in support of alliance with the Boiotians in 395 (Xen. Hell. 3.5.16). Work on its walls, dated to Skrophorion 395/4, is confirmed by IG II2 1656 (a block of masonry recording payment for the yoke-teams bringing the stones and for iron tools: see RO 9A). While some historians place the initiation of these works in 395 (Conwell, Connecting, 111), Xenophon dates them after Konon’s victory at the battle of Knidos of summer 394 after which he brought men and money from Pharnabazos for their construction (Xen. Hell. 4.3.10 and 4.8.9–10); he does, however, acknowledge (at 4.8.10) that Athenian and Boiotian allies had previously built part of the walls with help from other Greek states; attribution of the initiative to Konon (cf. Dem. 20.67) probably, therefore, reflects an exaggeration of his role. Building appears to have been continued with funds provided by Pharnabazos (D.S. 14.85.2–3; Philochorus FGrH 328 F146 = Didymos On Demosthenes col. 7.51–4, attesting to the role of Konon and the opposition of the Lakedaimonians). Other epigraphical evidence suggests that work continued between 394/3 and 392/1 (IG II2 1657–64, SEG XIX 145 and XXXII 165). We should note that Philochorus (T1) points to the evidence of an inscribed dedication for this activity, carried out according to the dogmata of the boule and demos; another entry of Harpokration’s Lexicon (s.v. ‘Hermes’) quotes Philochorus (F40b) in the fifth book of the Atthis saying that it was dedicated ‘for the tribes’ (though the text is corrupt here); as Harding (The Story, 144) suggests, this may be a reference to the tribal boards of wall-builders (teichopoioi). Some modern historians have connected the reconstruction of the walls of Piraeus, the Long Walls and the navy with the imperialistic policies of Thrasyboulos and his supporters at this time; indeed, Buck suggests that the reconstruction was initiated by Thrasyboulos, and that he has been unfairly pushed out of the limelight by the sources’ emphasis on Konon: Buck, Thrasybulus, 99. Further references to the rebuilding of the Piraeus and Long Walls are collected by Conwell, Connecting, 110 note 4. On the use of the term dogma possibly as a reference to a decree of the Athenians, see D150 T1 below and with discussion at DD 48 and 53 Commentary.

d23 decree granting ateleia and statue for konon

139

T1 Hermes by the Gate: Philochorus, in his fifth book, says that ‘when the Athenians were starting to fortify the Piraeus, the nine archons dedicated this (sc. the Herm), inscribing it as follows: “Those who began the fortification, obedient to the resolutions of the boule and the people, made this dedication.”’

There are no extant remains of this decree, but inscribed blocks of masonry built into a Hellenistic wall at Eetionia record payments made to workers on the blocks (RO 9A and B).

Date

395/4 (based upon IG II2 1656 (see RO 9A with commentary); Xen. Hell. 4.8.10 (before battle of Knidos); building continued after the battle of Knidos in August 394 (Philochorus FGrH 328 F146). Dates between 395 and 393 have, however, been suggested for the commencement of work: Conwell, Connecting, 111.

Bibliography

Buck, R., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy: Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Conwell, D.H., Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls. Mnemosyne Supplement 293. Leiden and Boston (2008) 109–18. Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens. London (2008) 142–4.

D23 Decree granting ateleia and statue for Konon Proposer: Unknown Date: 394/3

Literary Context

Isocrates (T1) offers an account of the rewards for Konon as a megiston tekmerion of the character and uprightness of Evagoras: Konon, ‘first among the Greeks for his very many glorious deeds,’ went to dwell with Evagoras (Isoc. 9

140

inventory a1

Evagoras 51–2), conferred and received benefits, became intimate friends with him and defeated the Spartans in a naval battle (51–7). It has been suggested that the passage of Demosthenes (T2) is influenced by that of Isocrates, but for a reasonable challenge to this view, pointing out key differences and the relative sparseness of Isocrates’ account, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 309. Demosthenes (T2), as a way of making a case against Leptines’ proposal to abolish ateleia, points to the deeds and awards for Konon. As Wolpert (‘Addresses’, 548–9) points out, Demosthenes makes the Athenians as a whole responsible for the decree for Konon, referring to the jury using the second-person pronoun (‘ὑφ’ ὑμῶν’) at 20.71 as a way of asserting that they would be inconsistent if they were to uphold Leptines’ law (for other second-person attribution of decrees, see D41 T1; D46 T2 below). The decree is mentioned by the scholiast’s note on Dem. 21.62 (T3), in a discussion of Iphikrates’ high opinion of himself. Apsines (T5) draws upon the passage as an example of how to make a case for honouring someone who has done a great action.

Texts

T1  Isoc. 9 Evagoras 56–7: Ὅπερ συνέβη· πεισθέντων γὰρ ταῦτα τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ ναυτικοῦ συλλεγέντος Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν κατεναυμαχήθησαν καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπεστερήθησαν, οἱ δ’ Ἕλληνες ἠλευθερώθησαν, ἡ δὲ πόλις ἡμῶν τῆς τε παλαιᾶς δόξης μέρος τι πάλιν ἀνέλαβεν καὶ τῶν συμμάχων ἡγεμὼν κατέστη. καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐπράχθη Κόνωνος μὲν στρατηγοῦντος, Εὐαγόρου δὲ τοῦτο παρασχόντος καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως τὴν πλείστην παρασκευάσαντος. ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡμεῖς μὲν αὐτοὺς ἐτιμήσαμεν ταῖς μεγίσταις τιμαῖς καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας αὐτῶν ἐστήσαμεν, οὗπερ τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἄγαλμα τοῦ σωτῆρος, πλησίον ἐκείνου τε καὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἀμφοτέρων ὑπόμνημα, καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς εὐεργεσίας καὶ τῆς φιλίας τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους. T2  Dem. 20.68–71: Πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν Κόνωνα σκοπεῖτε, εἰ ἄρ’ ἄξιον, καταμεμψαμένους ἢ τὸν ἄνδρα ἢ τὰ πεπραγμένα, ἄκυρόν τι ποιῆσαι τῶν ἐκείνῳ δοθέντων. οὗτος γάρ, ὡς ὑμῶν τινῶν ἔστιν ἀκοῦσαι τῶν κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἡλικίαν ὄντων, μετὰ τὴν τοῦ δήμου κάθοδον τὴν ἐκ Πειραιῶς ἀσθενοῦς ἡμῶν τῆς πόλεως οὔσης καὶ ναῦν οὐδεμίαν κεκτημένης, στρατηγῶν βασιλεῖ, παρ’ ὑμῶν οὐδ’ ἡντινοῦν ἀφορμὴν λαβών, κατεναυμάχησεν Λακεδαιμονίους, καὶ πρότερον τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτάττοντας εἴθισ’ ἀκούειν ὑμῶν, καὶ τοὺς ἁρμοστὰς ἐξήλασεν ἐκ τῶν νήσων, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δεῦρ’ ἐλθὼν ἀνέστησε τὰ τείχη, καὶ πρῶτος πάλιν περὶ τῆς ἡγεμονίας ἐποίησε τῇ πόλει τὸν λόγον πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους εἶναι. καὶ γάρ τοι μόνῳ τῶν πάντων αὐτῷ τοῦτ’ ἐν τῇ στήλῃ γέγραπται· ‘ἐπειδὴ Κόνων’ φησὶν ‘ἠλευθέρωσε τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους.’ ἔστιν δὲ τοῦτο τὸ γράμμ’, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐκείνῳ μὲν φιλοτιμία

d23 decree granting ateleia and statue for konon

141

T1  This is what actually happened: the generals followed his orders, a fleet was assembled and the Lakedaimonians were defeated in a battle at sea and lost their supremacy, while the Greeks were liberated and our city recovered some of its former glory and was established as leader of the allies. While these things were achieved while Konon was commander, Evagoras both made the result a possibility and provided most of the armament. We honoured them with the highest honours and set up their images where stands the statue of Zeus Soter, near to it and to one another, a memorial of both, and of the size of their benefaction and their friendship to each other.

T2 First of all, examine the case of Konon: is it fitting to cancel any of the grants we have given him by accusing either the man himself or his deeds? For this man, as one can learn from those of you who were alive at the time, after the return of the democratic party from Piraeus, at a time when our city was weak and did not possess a single warship, served as general for the Persian king and managed to defeat the Spartans in a sea-battle although he did not receive any help from you whatsoever; and he made them get used to the idea of obeying our commands, whereas before they were giving out orders; and he expelled the harmosts out of the islands; and after these events he came over here and rebuilt the [Long] Walls and was the first who made the leadership of Greece a matter of contention between Athens and the Spartans once again. For he was the only one for whom this has been written on the stele: ‘because [Konon]’, it says, ‘freed the Athenian allies’. This epigram is for Konon something to

142

inventory a1

πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, ὑμῖν δὲ πρὸς πάντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας· ὅτου γὰρ ἄν τις παρ’ ὑμῶν ἀγαθοῦ τοῖς ἄλλοις αἴτιος γένηται, τούτου τὴν δόξαν τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνομα καρποῦται. διόπερ οὐ μόνον αὐτῷ τὴν ἀτέλειαν ἔδωκαν οἱ τότε, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλκῆν εἰκόνα, ὥσπερ Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος, ἔστησαν πρώτου· ἡγοῦντο γὰρ οὐ μικρὰν τυραννίδα καὶ τοῦτον τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀρχὴν καταλύσαντα πεπαυκέναι. ἵν’ οὖν μᾶλλον οἷς λέγω προσέχητε, τὰ ψηφίσμαθ’ ὑμῖν αὔτ’ ἀναγνώσεται τὰ τότε ψηφισθέντα τῷ Κόνωνι. λέγε. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ. Οὐ τοίνυν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν μόνον ὁ Κόνων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τότ’ ἐτιμήθη πράξας ἃ διεξῆλθον ἐγώ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπ’ ἄλλων πολλῶν, οἳ δικαίως ὧν εὐεργέτηντο χάριν ᾤοντο δεῖν ἀποδιδόναι.

T3 Scholion on Demosthenes 21.62 (Dilts 200): Κόνωνος μὲν γὰρ πρώτου χαλκοῦς ἀνδριὰς ἔστη, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ μόνῳ ἐτιμήθη. T4 See D 24 T2 below

T5 Apsines, Art of Rhetoric, 3.5: Γράφει τις τὸν Κόνωνα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῶν τειχῶν τῶν αὐτῶν τιμῶν Ἁρμοδίῳ καὶ Ἀριστογείτονι τυγχάνειν.

Commentary

Honours for individual Athenians are known to have been granted in the fifth century (Pericles: Lycurg. Conomis F. 52; Cleon: Ar. Knights 573–6); there are sources that attest to individual honours for Thrasyboulos and Lysias, but these are uncertain (see DD 6 and 18 above). Accordingly, this is the earliest firmly attested post-Eukleidian honorific decree for an individual Athenian (for group awards, see DD 3, 5, 15). Konon was famous, particularly among the orators (Nouhaud, L’utilisation 333–8), for his contributions to the revival of Athens’ fortunes after the Peloponnesian war (T2), winning a victory at Knidos in August 394 and contributing to the reconstruction of the Piraeus walls (T2, T4): he is said to have obtained financial support from the Persians for both the Long Walls and the Piraeus circuit, and also employed the crews of his ships in the project (Conwell, Connecting, 110–11). Demosthenes states that these honours were inscribed on a stele which explicitly advertised that they were granted in recognition of his ‘freeing the allies’ (T2, citing the motivation formula of the decree, ‘ἐπειδὴ Κόνων  … ἠλευθέρωσε τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους’; cf. West, ‘The decrees’ 244 and Canevaro, Demostene, 306). Motivation clauses appear (introduced with the

d23 decree granting ateleia and statue for konon

143

be proud of in his relationship with you and for you in your relationship with all the Greeks. For when one of you causes something good to befall the other Greeks, our city’s reputation is enhanced by his glory. Therefore, the Athenians at the time awarded him not only the exemption but also set up a bronze statue for him for the first time ever, as in the case of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. For they thought that he had destroyed a great tyranny by bringing down the hegemony of the Spartans. The decrees that were voted for Konon at the time will be read out to you so that you can pay more attention to what I am saying. Read. DECREES. Now, Konon was not honoured only by you, men of Athens, for the deeds I have just recounted, but also by many other cities who thought that it was fair that they should return the favour for the benefactions they had received. (trans. Kremmydas, Commentary)

T3 Konon was the first of whom a bronze statue was set up, but this was the only honour which was given him. T4 Pausanias 1.3.2: see D24 T2 below. T5 Someone proposes, after the rebuilding of the walls, that Konon should receive the same honours as Harmodios and Aristogeiton.

word ‘ἐπειδή’ (the earlier form is ‘ἐπειδέ’): see West, ‘The decrees’) on Athenian decrees from the second half of the fifth century onwards. In this case, the act of freeing allies referred to clearing the islands of Spartan-imposed military governors, and in particular the victory over the Spartans at Knidos (on which, see Asmonti, Conon, 150–4 and D24 below), at which he was essentially an employee of the Persian satrap Pharnabazos. As Lambert (AIO https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/RO/11) suggests, the award for Konon (and Evagoras: see D24 below) might be seen as an Athenian ‘effort at persuasive interpretation of what had strictly speaking been a Persian-sponsored victory at Knidos as a Greek victory’; for the view of it as an Athenian appropriation of the victory, see Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 194. As a consequence of the public recognistion of his achievements, Konon was later held up as a liberator of Greece (cf. Din. 1.14); for Demosthenes (T2), this act of liberation was what justified an award that put him on a par with Harmodios and Aristogeiton. In addition to his victories and construction of the walls, he is said to have distributed 50 Talents, which he had received from Pharnabazos, among the people (Cor. Nep. Con. 4.5), and celebrated his victory

144

inventory a1

at Knidos over the Spartans by building a temple at Piraeus to Aphrodite Euploia (Paus. 1.1.3), sacrificing a full hecatomb and feasting all the Athenians (Ath. 3d). These awards appear to have been pioneering: according to Demosthenes Konon was the first Athenian, outside the families of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, to receive ateleia, a stele, and a statue (T2); this claim is generally accepted as true (Ma, ‘The history’, 166–7, noting also that the Greek habit of honouring benefactors with statues had earlier origins); for other honorific statues of fourth-century Athenians, see Engen, Honor, 165; Oliver, ‘Space’, 184–8, and see also the awards for Chabrias, Iphikrates, Timotheos, Diphilos, Demades, Astydamas, Epikrates (DD 35, 46, 47, 55, 187, 189, 222, 234); on the other hand, the inscriptional evidence for awarding statues does not start until the late fourth century (see discussion below). For a list of mortals to receive a statue in ancient Athens, see Oliver, ‘Space,’ 184–8; most such honorands were being rewarded for military success, though the reason for Demades’ honours is not preserved (D187). Oliver, ‘Space’, 195 uses the claim of Demosthenes about the existence of a stele for Konon to argue that most recipients of a statue would also have had their achievements recorded on a stele. For detailed biographical details on Konon, highlighting his significance for Athens’ military fortunes, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 308–9; Asmonti, Conon; for a view of his intentions to revive the imperialist fortunes of Athens, see Seager, ‘Thrasybulus’, 99–104; on his triumphs in the Corinthian war and his downfall, Buck, Thrasybulus, 107–10. Isocrates (T1) says that this statue, together with that for Evagoras, was set up at the statue of Zeus Soter. It was described by Pausanias, along with the statues of Evagoras and Timotheos as being set up at the Stoa Basileios (1.3.1–2). As Henry (Honours, 295) observes, the epigraphical evidence for the setting up of statues for honorands does not begin until that for Asandros (IG II2 450 lines 7–2 of 314/13 BC; or, for an Athenian, not until the end of the fourth century: IG II2 513 lines 4–5); however, RO 11, the honorific decree for Evagoras of Salamis – which mentions Konon in a fragmentary context (line 26)  – may well have originally contained a (now lost) reference to the statue set up for its honorand: this could be what is to be set up ‘in front of the image’ (lines 21–2). Demosthenes places emphasis on the ateleia (exemption) granted to Konon (T2: 20.70) as this is part of his challenge to Leptines’ law (Dem. 20.2, 29, 127). While Demosthenes is the sole source to associate ateleia with Konon and his assertion is contradicted by the scholiast (T3), it seems reasonable to accept Demosthenes’ claims on this occasion. On ateleia and its forms, see Henry, Honours, 241–6 and MacDowell, ‘Epikerdes’, 127–8, observing that it usually refers to exemption from liturgies; whereas ateleia for non-Athenians is limited to the fifth and fourth centuries, the only epigraphical reference to ateleia for

d23 decree granting ateleia and statue for konon

145

a citizen derives from 143/2, and appears to refer to exemption from import duties (IG II2 968 line 15, with Henry, Honours, 251 note 1). It is possible, then, that Konon was the first Athenian, apart from the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, to be granted exemption. For Aristophon, an Athenian recipient of ateleia, see D102. We are left, then, to speculate of what Konon’s ateleia consisted: as a prominent military figure, exemption from military duties would have been contradictory; it must then have consisted of exemption from liturgies, eisphora, and perhaps other taxes relating to the import of goods. Isocrates (T1) describes the awards as granted to Konon as megistai timai (57). By the late fourth century these, in all likelihood, consisted also of sitesis in the prytaneion and proedria (cf. IG II2 450); however, we cannot be certain that Konon too would have been granted this whole package: Osborne, ‘Entertainment’, 167 argues that the combination of sitesis and/or proedria and statue became canonised only around 330. Indeed, a scholiast on Dem. 21.62 claims that Konon received only a statue and neither sitesis nor proedria. On megistai timai, see Gauthier, Les cités grecques, 110–12. As Demosthenes mentions (Dem. 22.72, 80), Konon was also given a gold crown perhaps at the same time (he is known to have dedicated it on the acropolis probably in 394/3: IG II2 1424a (p. 801) line 347); it appears to have been inscribed with the words ‘Konon from the sea-battle against the Lacedaimonians’, indicating that it was a reward for his activity at the battle of Knidos. As Shear points out, the significance of the location of the statues of Konon (and Evagoras) lay in their visual connection with the tyrannicides group (Shear, ‘Cultural change,’ 107­–8); it can be seen to have placed Konon on a level with the tyrant slayers, emphasising his role as a bringer of freedom. On the further connotations of the location in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios and close to the statue of Zeus Soter, see D24 below on Evagoras’ statue. The place became a centre for the reward of Athens’ military heroes (see, for the statues of Iphikrates, Timotheos, and Chabrias, DD 35, 46, 47, 54 below). A probably separate statue base for Konon and his son Timotheos, found between the Parthenon and Erechtheion on the acropolis, dated to c. 375, survives (IG II2 3774 = Tod, GHI, 128; SEG XXXVI 246); this appears to have been seen by Pausanias (1.24.3), and should be distinguished from the statue of the decree; it may well have been a private dedication. Demosthenes’ claim that Konon received decrees from other cities is supported by the assertion of Pausanias that statues of Konon and Timotheos were dedicated at Samos and Ephesos (Paus. 6.3.16); and honorific decrees are attested for him at Erythrai (RO 8 = I. Erythrai 6, a bronze statue, restored as ‘gilded’: RO 8 lines 14–15) and Kaunos (I. Kaunos 81 with Ma, ‘The history’, 167): in the Erythraian decree, Konon, in addition to being written up as euergetes

146

inventory a1

and proxenos, was granted proedria, citizenship, a statue, and ateleia for all commodities in terms of import and export both in war and in peace (RO 8 lines 6–9). Domingo Gygax (Benefaction, 194) comments that if such awards had taken place before the Athenians voted honours for him, ‘the city may well have felt obliged to act at the same level’. Demosthenes (T2) had the decree read out loud in the lawcourt. As Canevaro (Demostene, 309) observes, his reference to the ‘things then decreed for Konon (τὰ τότε ψηφισθέντα τῷ Κόνωνι) refer to the different elements of the award, and the lemma “Decrees” derives from a scribe’s misunderstanding of the term “τὰ … ψηφισθέντα”’.

Date

The award dates to 394/3 (IG II2 1424a (p. 801) line 347), probably after the battle of Knidos of summer 394. Konon may not have returned to Athens until the very end of archon year 394/3, perhaps June (Funke, ‘Konons’, 175; Pascual, ‘Xenophon’, 85).

Bibliography

Asmonti, L., Conon the Athenian: Warfare and Politics in the Aegean, 414–386 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 235. Stuttgart (2015). Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Canevaro, M., Demostene: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 306–9. Conwell, D.H., Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls. Mnemosyne Supplement 293. Leiden and Boston (2008). Dilts, M.R. and Kennedy, G.A., Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire : Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara. Leiden, New York and Cologne (1997). Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City : The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 192–6. Engen, D.T., Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415–307 BC. Michigan (2010). Funke, P., ‘Konons Rückkehr nach Athen im Spiegel epigraphischer Zeugnisse’, ZPE 53 (1983) 149–89. Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. BCH Suppl. 12. Athens: French School. Paris (1985) 96–7. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983) 241–6. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012). MacDowell, D.M., ‘Epikerdes of Kyrene and the Athenian privilege of ateleia’, ZPE 150 (2004) 127–33.

d24 decree honouring evagoras of salamis

147

Ma, J., ‘The history of Hellenistic statues’ in Epigraphical Approaches to the PostClassical Polis: Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD, eds. P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas. Oxford (2013) 165–79. Nouhaud, M., L’utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques. Paris (1982). Oliver, G.J., ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees in Athens’ in Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, eds. P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff. Cambridge (2007) 181–204. Osborne, M.J., ‘Entertainment in the prytaneion in Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–79. Pascual, J., ‘Xenophon and the chronology of the war on land from 393 to 386 BC’, CQ 59 (2009) 75–90. Seager, R., ‘Thrasybulus, Conon, and Athenian imperialism, 396–386’, JHS 87 (1967) 95–115. Shear, J.L., ‘Cultural change, space, and the politics of commemoration in Athens’ in R. Osborne, Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–380 BC. Cambridge (2007) 91–116. West, W., ‘The decrees of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines’, ZPE 107 (1995) 237–47. Wolpert, A.O., ‘Addresses to the jury in the Attic orators’, AJPh 124 (2003) 537–55.

D24 Decree honouring Evagoras of Salamis Proposer: Sophilos Date: 394/3

Literary Context

Isocrates (T1), praising the virtues of Evagoras, tells us that one of the proofs of Evagoras’ greatness was that he was visited by Konon and co-operated with him. He adds that, in gratitude for their contributions, and as a memorial (‘ὑπόμνημα’) also of their philia, statues were awarded to them. Pausanias (T2) mentions the statues in a description of the Stoa Basileios.

148

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Isoc. 9 Evagoras 57 (see also above, D23): Ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡμεῖς μὲν αὐτοὺς ἐτιμήσαμεν ταῖς μεγίσταις τιμαῖς καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας αὐτῶν ἐστήσαμεν, οὗπερ τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἄγαλμα τοῦ σωτῆρος, πλησίον ἐκείνου τε καὶ σφῶν αὐτῶν, ἀμφοτέρων ὑπόμνημα, καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς εὐεργεσίας καὶ τῆς φιλίας τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους. T2  Pausanias 1.3.2: Πλησίον δὲ τῆς στοᾶς Κόνων ἕστηκε καὶ Τιμόθεος υἱὸς Κόνωνος καὶ βασιλεὺς Κυπρίων Εὐαγόρας, ὃς καὶ τὰς τριήρεις τὰς Φοινίσσας ἔπραξε παρὰ βασιλέως Ἀρταξέρξου δοθῆναι Κόνωνι· ἔπραξε δὲ ὡς Ἀθηναῖος καὶ τὸ ἀνέκαθεν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος, ἐπεὶ καὶ γενεαλογῶν ἐς προγόνους ἀνέβαινε Τεῦκρον καὶ Κινύρου θυγατέρα. ἐνταῦθα ἕστηκε Ζεὺς ὀνομαζόμενος Ἐλευθέριος καὶ βασιλεὺς Ἀδριανός, ἐς ἄλλους τε ὧν ἦρχεν εὐεργεσίας καὶ ἐς τὴν πόλιν μάλιστα ἀποδειξάμενος τὴν Ἀθηναίων.

Commentary

Evagoras, ruler of Salamis on Cyprus since 411 appears, along with his sons, to have been made, by decree, a citizen of Athens in early 407 (Osborne, Naturalization D3 = IG I3 113; Isoc. 9 Evagoras 54; [Dem.] 12 Philip’s Letter 10). He therefore had long-standing connections with Athens, and in particular Konon, who fled to Salamis after the battle of Aegospotami (Xen. Hell. 2.1.29; D.S. 13.106.6; 14.39.1–2; on the association between the two, see Asmonti, Conon, 104–16). Doubtless the role that the Cypriots played in making grain available to the Athenians (And. 2.20) was an important part of this association; vital too was the support offered by Evagoras to Konon’s defeat (sponsored by the Persian satrap Pharnabazos) of the Spartan fleet at Knidos in August 394/3 (Lys. 19.28; Xen. Hell. 4.3.10–12). It was this outcome, which curtailed the naval dominance that the Spartans had enjoyed since the end of the Peloponnesian War, which doubtless led to this award and that for Konon (D23). For the alliance of 390 of the Athenians with Evagoras of Salamis, see D33 below. This decree can with reasonable certainty be identified with fragments of an inscribed decree for Evagoras which originally bore a document relief of which only the lower right-hand corner survives (RO 11 = SEG XXIX 86 = Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, no. 84); a sculptured figure may originally have represented Salamis. The inscription contains the terms of the award including a (probably gold) crown (lines 29–31) and refers to the setting up of something (either the stele of the decree or the statue of the honorand) ‘in front of the statue’ (‘[πρόσθ]εν τοῦ ἀγάλμα[τος]’) at line 21–2; this indicates a place either close to the statue of Zeus or, as Lambert (https://www.atticinscriptions.com/

d24 decree honouring evagoras of salamis

149

T1 We honoured them [sc. Konon and Evagoras] with the highest honours and set up their images where stands the statue of Zeus Soter, near to it and to one another, a memorial of both, and of the size of their benefaction and their friendship to each other.

T2 Close to the colonnade (sc. the Stoa Basileios) stand Konon, Timotheos his son, and Evagoras king of Cyprus, who arranged for King Artaxerxes to give Konon the Phoenician triremes. He carried out the negotiations as an Athenian and on the grounds of his Salamian descent, for he traced his ancestry to Teukros and to the daughter of Kinyras. Zeus named Eleutherios is here, and so is the emperor Hadrian, who of all his acts of generosity showed it most of all to the city of Athens.

inscription/RO/11) suggests, close to that of Athena Promachos on the acropolis; the bestowal of praise is mentioned at line 22 and Konon’s name is visible at line 26. The inscribed version of this decree is the subject of important forthcoming work by A.P. Matthaiou. The sources are not clear on the motivation behind the grant of these honours; in all likelihood (as Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 193 suggests), they were granted in recognition of Evagoras’ contribution at Knidos against the Lakedaimonians (D.S. 14.39.1–2); surviving fragments of the inscribed version of this decree suggest that he was presented as fighting as a Greek on behalf of Greeks (RO 11 line 17) when in fact he was in the service of the Persians. For a view of Evagoras as a benefactor of the Greeks, see Isocrates 9 Evagoras 51 and 55 with Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 195. The statues of Evagoras and Konon were set up in close proximity to each other presumably because of their co-operation and friendship; their proximity to the statue of Zeus Soter (or Eleutherios) in the agora may be explained on the grounds that there was, in Evagoras’ home of Salamis, a cult of Zeus associated with the rulers (Zournatzi, ‘Cypriot’, 169–70); the epithet ‘Eleutherios’ may well also have significance in terms of the presentation of the honorand as a Greek fighting for Greeks (RO, p. 54). Isocrates’ description of the award as granting megistai timai to Evagoras suggest that the grant included other honours in addition to the statue. By the late fourth century megistai timai would have consisted also of sitesis in the prytaneion and proedria (cf. IG II2 450); however, we cannot be certain that

150

inventory a1

Evagoras too would have been granted this whole package: see Commentary on D23 above. The statue for Evagoras appears to have been the first for a non-Athenian benefactor in Athens (though he was, having received citizenship by decree, a naturalised Athenian). What makes the award more remarkable is that epigraphical evidence of statues for non-Athenians does not begin until the end of the fourth century BC (Henry, Honours, 295) with the example of Asandros (IG II2 450). There is literary evidence, however, for a statue of the tyrants of the Bosporos in the second half of the fourth century (Din 1.43: see D227 below). We should acknowledge also the images in relief of the tyrants of the Bosporos represented on the moulding of the stele bearing Androtion’s decree honouring Leukon’s sons in 346 (RO 64), described by Lawton as ‘the outstanding example of official flattery’ (Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs, p. 33). The proposer mentioned on the inscribed version of the decree (RO 11), Sophilos, was the proposer of a decree for a Rhodian who may well have been involved in Konon’s efforts against the Persians (IG II2 19 lines 4­–5; Osborne, D7 Commentary). Following Funke, ‘Konons’, Rhodes and Osborne (RO, p. 55) propose that ‘this decree belongs to the same year, perhaps even to the same meeting, and he proposed both as a member of the council’.

Date

After August 394 (the battle of Knidos); archon year 394/3 (SEG XXIX 86 = RO 11 line 4).

Bibliography

Asmonti, L., Conon the Athenian: Warfare and Politics in the Aegean, 414–386 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 235. Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 194–6. Funke, P., ‘Konons Rückkehr nach Athen im Spiegel epigraphischer Zeugnisse’, ZPE 53 (1983) 149–89. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983) 241–6. Lawton, C., Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens. Oxford (1995) no. 84. Lewis, D. and Stroud, R., ‘Athens honours king Euagoras of Salamis’, Hesperia 48 (1979) 180–93. Zournatzi, A., ‘Cypriot kingship in the classical period’, Τεκμήρια 2 (1996) 154–79.

D25 † Decree concerning the discussion of peace Proposer: Unknown Date: 392/1

Literary Context

In the Hypothesis to Andocides’ speech 3 On the Peace (in which Andocides makes a case vindicating his support for advocating peace: see especially sections 33–6), it is claimed that the Athenians made a decree to hold deliberations about peace within 40 days. An ancient summary (T1) of the speech offers explanation, drawing upon Philochorus.

151

152

inventory a1

Text

T1  Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace (= FGrH 328 F149b): …τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ μηκυνομένου πολέμου ... Ἀθηναῖοι πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους αὐτοκράτορας, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀνδοκίδης· τινῶν δὲ προταθέντων παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ ἀποστειλάντων κἀκείνων ἰδίους πρέσβεις, ἔδοξεν ὥστε εἴσω τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἀνδοκίδης συμβουλεύει τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις καταδέξασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην ... Φιλόχορος μὲν οὖν λέγει καὶ ἐλθεῖν τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐκ Λακεδαιμονίας καὶ ἀπράκτους ἀνελθεῖν, μὴ πείσαντος τοῦ Ἀνδοκίδου· ὁ δὲ Διονύσιος νόθον εἶναι λέγει τὸν λόγον.

Commentary

In 392, upon hearing about the Great King’s aid to Konon, the Spartans sent Antalkidas to Tiribazos at Sardis in an attempt to bring him over to their side (Xen. Hell. 4.8.12); the Athenians heard this and they sent ambassadors to Tiribazos (4.8.13; see DP 8 below); for the ensuing negotiations, see Xen. Hell. 4.8.14–19. Xenophon says that the talks broke down as the Athenians were reluctant to agree to allow the islands to be autonomos, lest they be deprived of Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros (4.8.15). The ambassadors mentioned here, sent to Lakedaimon (cf. DP 11), appear to be distinct from those sent to Tiribazos. This second set of negotiations discussed modifications to the peace proposals: this was the subject of Andocides’ speech 3 (Harding, Didymos, 168–70; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 31–3; Cawkwell ‘The imperialism,’ 271 note 13 and 276 note 25; Jehne, Koine Eirene, 35). If we follow the hypothesis to the speech (T1), the Athenians made a resolution to discuss the terms brought back by the ambassadors within 40 days. Harris, ‘The authenticity’, expanding on Dionysius’ claims that the speech was counterfeit (‘νόθος’), argues that it was spurious. Harris’ strong case casts doubt upon the authenticity of the proposals that are outlined in its text: see also Commentary on D26 below. However, while a hypothesis to a spurious speech cannot be held as convincing evidence for a decree, its quotation of Philochorus, which says that the Spartan ambassadors returned home when Andocides failed to persuade (the Athenians) to accept peace, strongly suggests that Andocides may have made a further proposal about making peace (see D26 below). Admittedly, though, this is slim evidence for a second conference: cf. Ryder, Koine, 31 note 2.

Date 392/1.

d26 † * proposal of peace with the spartans

153

T1 … since the Hellenic war was dragging on … the Athenians sent ambassadors with full powers to the Lakedaimonians. Of these, one was Andocides. After some proposals were made by the Lakedaimonians and they had sent their own ambassadors, it was resolved that the People would deliberate about the peace within forty days. And accordingly Andocides advises the Athenians to accept the peace … And so Philochorus says that the ambassadors came from Lakedaimon and returned home without accomplishing anything, since Andocides failed to persuade. Dionysios says that the speech is counterfeit.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’, CQ 26 (1976) 270–7. Harding, P.A., Didymos: On Demosthenes. Oxford (2006). Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of Andocides De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History and Politics, eds. P. Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein (eds.). Copenhagen (2000) 479–506 at 499–500. Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbe­ mühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschrift 63. Stuttgart (1994). Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 31–3.

D26 † * Proposal of peace with the Spartans Proposer: Andocides Leogorou Kydathenaieus (PA 828; PAA 127290; APF) Date: 392/1

Literary Context

A passage in Andocides’ speech 3 On the Peace refers to terms agreed at Sparta in 392/1 (T1; this is a speech in which the author makes a case in support of

154

inventory a1

peace: see especially sections 33–6 and 40–1); the ancient summary of the speech (T2) offers an explanation, drawing upon Philochorus. The passages provide tentative evidence for a proposal of Andocides at the assembly.

Texts

T1  And. 3 On the Peace 39, 41: Πεισθέντες τοίνυν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν Λακεδαιμόνιοι πάρεισι νυνὶ πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορες, τά τε ἐνέχυρα ἡμῖν ἀποδιδόντες, καὶ τὰ τείχη καὶ ναῦς ἐῶντες κεκτῆσθαι, τάς τε νήσους ἡμετέρας εἶναι ... ὁ γὰρ τὴν χεῖρα μέλλων ὑμῶν αἴρειν, οὗτος ὁ πρεσβεύων ἐστίν, ὁπότερ’ ἂν αὐτῷ δοκῇ, καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ τὸν πόλεμον (ποιεῖν). μέμνησθε μὲν οὖν, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, τοὺς ἡμετέρους λόγους, ψηφίσασθε δὲ τοιαῦτα, ἐξ ὧν ὑμῖν μηδέποτε μεταμελήσει. T2  Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace (= FGrH 328 F149b):  … τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ μηκυνομένου πολέμου ... Ἀθηναῖοι πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους αὐτοκράτορας, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀνδοκίδης· τινῶν δὲ προταθέντων παρὰ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ ἀποστειλάντων κἀκείνων ἰδίους πρέσβεις, ἔδοξεν ὥστε εἴσω τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν ἐπιβουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον  περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἀνδοκίδης συμβουλεύει τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις καταδέξασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην ... Φιλόχορος μὲν οὖν λέγει καὶ ἐλθεῖν τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐκ Λακεδαιμονίας καὶ ἀπράκτους ἀνελθεῖν, μὴ πείσαντος τοῦ Ἀνδοκίδου· ὁ δὲ Διονύσιος νόθον εἶναι λέγει τὸν λόγον.

Commentary

The conventional view is that these testimonia pertain to the aftermath of a second conference of 392/1 which took place in Sparta (on its dispatch, see Commentary on D25 above). After negotiations in 392/1, the Athenians resolved that they would make a decision about peace within forty days (D25); Andocides’ On the Peace purports to be a speech made in support of a decree about peace. The proposed peace appears to have suggested granting to the Athenians the right to a navy and the islands: Andocides closed the speech with the words ‘vote for that alternative which will never cause you any regrets’ (T1). These allowances would have been a considerable improvement on the terms imposed on the Athenians at the end of the Peloponnesian War; on Andocides’ proposals, see Ryder, Koine Eirene, 31–3. Philochorus (FGrH328 F149a in Didymos col. 7.18–28; see D27 T1) says that Andocides’ proposals to accept the peace ‘sent down from Antalkidas’ were rejected on the grounds that the treaty said that those Greeks who lived in Asia were to be the property of the King. While it has been suggested that Didymos has mistakenly connected Philochorus’ comments about the peace of

d26 † * proposal of peace with the spartans

155

T1 And now, persuaded by us, Spartan ambassadors are here today with full power, offering to give us back those securities, and agreeing that we should possess our own walls and ships and that the islands should belong to us. … Each one of you who is going to raise his hand is a delegate and will make peace or war, whichever he decides. So remember my words, men of Athens, and vote for a decision which will never cause you any regrets. (trans. MacDowell, ‘Andocides’)

T2 Since the Hellenic war was dragging on … the Athenians sent ambassadors with full powers to the Lakedaimonians. Of these, one was Andocides. After some proposals were made by the Lakedaimonians and they had sent their own ambassatdors, a resolution was made that the People would hold secret deliberations about the peace within forty days. And accordingly Andocides advises the Athenians to accept the peace … And so Philochorus says that the ambassadors came from Lakedaimon and returned home without accomplishing anything, since Andocides failed to persuade. Dionysius says that the speech is counterfeit.

387/6 with the proposals of 392/1, this identification is undermined by the fact that the 387/6 peace appears to have been imposed on Athens: see Harding, Didymos, 168–70. The Hypothesis to Andocides’ de Pace quotes Dionysius’ claim that the speech is spurious; the strength of the case that Harris has made for the later fabrication of the speech certainly affects the credibility of it as evidence for Athenian decrees; Rhodes (‘Heraclides’, 182–6) is, however, not convinced by Harris’ case against the authenticity of the speech. The claim made by the Hypothesis, that Andocides advised the Athenians to accept the peace, is based, presumably, upon the spurious speech, and does not provide convincing evidence for a proposal of Andocides. However, the fact that it quotes Philochorus’ claim (T2) that the ambassadors came from Sparta indicates that there may have taken place (pace Harris, ‘The authenticity’, 499) peace talks in 392/1, which may plausibly have led to a proposal (rejected by the Athenian assembly) along the lines of the one described here.

156

inventory a1

Date

392/1 (Philochorus FGrH 328 F149a).

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’, CQ 26 (1976) 270–7. Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of Andocides’ De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History and Politics, eds P. Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 479–506 at 499–500. Harding, P.A., Didymos: On Demosthenes. Oxford (2006) 165–77. Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens. Oxford (2008) 145–6. Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsb­ emühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.. Hermes, Einzelschrift 63. Stuttgart (1994). MacDowell, D.M., ‘Andocides’ in M. Gagarin and D.M. MacDowell trans., Antiphon and Andocides. Austin (1998). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Heraclides of Clazomenae and an Athenian treaty with Persia’, ZPE 200 (2016) 177–86. Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 31–3.

D27 Decree impeaching ambassadors who negotiated with the Spartans

Proposer: Kallistratos Kallikratous Aphidnaios (PA 815 + 812 + 8130; PAA s561575; APF, pp. 277-82) Date: 392/1 or 387/6

Literary Context

In his commentary on Demosthenes 10.34, Didymos (T1) quotes Philochorus as evidence that the Athenians rejected a peace agreement that was proposed in 392/1 and banished the ambassadors who had returned from Sparta. Demosthenes (T2), as a way of demonstrating that the Athenians have in the past punished harshly those ambassadors who have done less harm to the city than had Aeschines (19.276), had this decree read out in court in 343, and claimed that the ambassadors were punished by death. On this argument, and on the ambassador Epikrates, see MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 322–4.

157

158

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Philochorus FGrH 328 F149a (= Didymos, On Demosthenes col 7.11–28, on Dem. 10.34): [Τὴν προτ]έραν μὲν ἂν οὖν ἐπαν/όρθωσιν ἔ[νι]οί φασιν α[ὐτὸν λ]έγειν τὴν ἐ/π’ Ἀντιαλκ̣ [ίδου τοῦ Λ]άκ[ωνος κ]αταβᾶσ[α]ν / ε[ἰρήν]ην, οὐ[κ ὀρθῶς ὡς γοῦν] ἐμοὶ δ[οκεῖ]· ταύτην γὰρ / [ο]ὐ μ̣    [όνον οὐκ ἐδέξαντο] Ἀθ[η]ν[αῖοι], ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶν / τοὐν[αντίον ὡς ἀσεβὲ]ς αὐτοῖς ἀ[πε]ώσαντο παρ/α̣     νό[μημα, ὡς Φιλό]χορος ἀφηγ̣    [εῖ]τ̣    α̣      ι αὐτοῖς ὀνό/μασι, πρ[οθ]εὶς ἄρχοντα Φιλοκ[λέ]α Ἀναφλύ/στιον· ‘καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην τὴν ἐπ’ Ἀντι̣ α        ̣ λκίδου κατέ/πεμψεν ὁ βασιλεύς, ἣν Ἀθηναῖοι ο̣    [ὐκ] ἐδέξαντο, / διότι ἐγέγραπτο ἐν αὐτῆι τοὺ[ς τὴν Ἀ]σίαν οἰκοῦν/τ[ας] Ἕλληνας ἐν βασιλέως οἴκ[ωι π]άντας εἶναι / σ̣       υννενεμημένους· ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺ[ς πρέσ]βεις τοὺς / ἐν Λακεδαίμονι συγχωρήσα[ντας] ἐφυγάδευ/σαν, Καλλιστράτου γράψαντος, κ[αὶ οὐ]χ ὑπομεί/ναντας τὴν κρίσιν, Ἐπικράτην Κηφισιέα, Ἀν/δοκίδην Κυδαθηναιέα, Κρατῖνον Σ̣    φήττιον, Εὐ/βουλίδην Ἐλευσίνιον’. ·

T2  Dem. 19.276–9: Οὐ τοίνυν τὰ παλαί’ ἄν τις ἔχοι μόνον εἰπεῖν καὶ διὰ τούτων τῶν παραδειγμάτων ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ τιμωρίαν παρακαλέσαι· ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ ὑμῶν τουτωνὶ τῶν ἔτι ζώντων [ἀνθρώπων] πολλοὶ δίκην δεδώκασιν, ὧν ἐγὼ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους παραλείψω, τῶν δ’ ἐκ πρεσβείας, ἣ πολὺ ταύτης ἐλάττω κακὰ τὴν πόλιν εἴργασται, θανάτῳ ζημιωθέντων ἑνὸς ἢ δυοῖν ἐπιμνησθήσομαι. καί μοι λέγε τουτὶ τὸ ψήφισμα λαβών. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. Κατὰ τουτὶ τὸ ψήφισμ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν πρέσβεων ἐκείνων ὑμεῖς θάνατον κατέγνωτε, ὧν εἷς ἦν Ἐπικράτης, ἀνήρ, ὡς ἐγὼ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀκούω, σπουδαῖος καὶ πολλὰ χρήσιμος τῇ πόλει, καὶ τῶν ἐκ Πειραιῶς καταγαγόντων τὸν δῆμον καὶ ἄλλως δημοτικός. ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐδὲν αὐτὸν ὠφέλησε τούτων, δικαίως· οὐ γὰρ ἐφ’ ἡμισείᾳ χρηστὸν εἶναι δεῖ τὸν τὰ τηλικαῦτα διοικεῖν ἀξιοῦντα, οὐδὲ τὸ πιστευθῆναι προλαβόντα παρ’ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ μείζω δύνασθαι κακουργεῖν καταχρῆσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς μηδὲν ὑμᾶς ἀδικεῖν ἑκόντα. εἰ τοίνυν τι τούτοις ἄπρακτόν ἐστι τούτων ἐφ’ οἷς ἐκείνων θάνατος κατέγνωσται, ἔμ’ ἀποκτείνατ’ ἤδη. σκοπεῖτε γάρ. ‘ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τὰ γράμματα’ φησὶν ‘ἐπρέσβευσαν ἐκεῖνοι’. καὶ τοῦτ’ ἔστι τῶν ἐγκλημάτων πρῶτον. οὗτοι δ’ οὐ παρὰ τὰ γράμματα; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘Ἀθηναίοις καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχοις,’ οὗτοι δὲ Φωκέας ἐκσπόνδους ἀπέφηναν; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὁρκοῦν’ τοὺς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν’ οὗτοι δ’, οὓς Φίλιππος αὐτοῖς προσέπεμψε, τούτους ὥρκισαν; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘οὐδαμοῦ μόνους ἐντυγχάνειν Φιλίππῳ’ οὗτοι δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπαύσαντ’ ἰδίᾳ χρηματίζοντες; ‘καὶ ἠλέγχθησάν τινες αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ βουλῇ οὐ τἀληθῆ ἀπαγγέλλοντες.’ οὗτοι δέ γε κἀν τῷ δήμῳ. καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ; τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ λαμπρόν· ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμάτων· οἷς γὰρ ἀπήγγειλαν οὗτοι, πάντα δήπου γέγονεν τἀναντία. ‘οὐδ’ ἐπιστέλλοντες’ φησὶ ‘τἀληθῆ’ οὐκοῦν οὐδ’ οὗτοι. ‘καὶ καταψευδόμενοι τῶν συμμάχων καὶ δῶρα λαμβάνοντες.’

d27 decree impeaching ambassadors

159

T1  [By the] previous restoration some say he means the peace that came down in the time of Antalk[idas, the L]ak[onian], incorrectly, [at least as it] seems to me. For, not only [did] the Ath[e]n[ians not accept] that peace, but entirely the opposite, they also rejected [what was being offered] to them, for [the reason which Philo]–chorus recounts in these very words after the heading ‘the archon (was) Philo[kle]s of Anaphly[s]tos [sc. archon of 392/1]’: ‘And the King sent down the peace in the time of Ant[a]lkidas, which was not accepted by the Athenians, because there had been written in it that the Greeks who were inhabiting [As]ia were all (to be) accounted members in the King’s household. Furthermore, they banished the ambassadors, who gave their consent in Lakedaimon, on the motion of Kallistratos; and Epikrates of Kephisia, Andokides of Kydathenaion, Kratinos of Sphettos, and Euboulides of Eleusis did not even wait the judgement/trial.’ (trans. Harding, The Story of Athens, 145) T2 It’s not only the old cases that one could cite and use as examples to urge you to impose a penalty; many have been punished within the lifetime of you who are here, the present generation. I’ll pass over the rest of them, and mention one or two of those who suffered the death penalty as a result of an embassy which did much less harm to the city than this one. Please take this decree and read it out. DECREE. In accordance with that decree, men of Athens, you condemned those ambassadors to death. One of them was Epikrates, who, I am told by those older than I am, was a worthy man who did the city many services; he was one of those who restored democracy from Piraeus and was democratic in other ways. Rightly; for a man who undertakes the management of such important affairs must not be honest by halves, nor misuse the trust you have previously reposed in him to increase his ability to do harm, but must absolutely avoid doing you any wrong intentionally. Now, if these men have left undone any of the acts for which those men were condemned to death, execute me straightaway. Just consider. ‘Since they conducted the embassy contrary to their instructions’, it says; that’s the first of the charges. But didn’t these men act contrary to their instructions? Didn’t the decree say ‘for the Athenians and the allies of the Athenians’, and yet these men excluded the Phokians from the treaty? Didn’t the decree say ‘to administer the oaths to the officials in the cities’, and yet these men administered them to the people Philip sent to them? Didn’t the decree say ‘not to meet Philip alone anywhere’, and yet these men never stopped doing private business with him? ‘And some of them were proved to have been making an untrue report to the boule.’ These men were proved to have done so in the ecclesia too – and by whom? This is the clear point: by the facts themselves, for surely everything has turned out just the opposite to their report. ‘And sending untrue letters’, it says. So did these men. ‘And telling lies against our allies and accepting bribes.’ (trans. MacDowell, Demosthenes)

160

Commentary

inventory a1

Philochorus (T1) says that the Athenians rejected the Peace of Antalkidas and then, on the motion of Kallistratos, banished the ambassadors who gave their consent to the peace at Sparta (‘ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺ[ς πρέσ]βεις τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι συγχωρήσα[ντας] ἐφυγάδευσαν, Καλλιστράτου γράψαντος’). Controversy surrounds the question of which ambassadorial mission this refers to; there are three possibilities: (a) the negotiation of the Peace of Antalkidas in 387/6 (T1; D.S. 14.110.3–4; 15.5.1); (b) the abortive negotiations that took place in Sardis in 392/1 (Xen. Hell. 4.8.12–15); (c) the negotiations that took place in Sparta probably in 392/1 (the subject of Andocides’ On the Peace). As for (a), Bruce (‘Athenian embassies’) argued that Epikrates was put on trial for his part in the embassy which led to the King’s Peace in 387/6. Harris also (‘The authenticity’, 499 with 505 note 25) claims that Didymos misdates the negotiations discussed by Philochorus and that the peace he described was that of 387/6. However, Bruce’s view was challenged by Cawkwell (‘The imperialism’, 276 note 25), while Harding makes an extensive case for the idea that this passage refers to the negotiations in Sparta during 392/1 (Didymos, 167–73). The passage is unlikely to relate to the negotiations of 387/6 because that peace was not rejected by the Athenians (Badian, however, suggested that the Athenians first rejected then accepted the King’s Peace: Badian, ‘King’s Peace’, 32). There is nothing to suggest that the abortive negotiations of 392/1 at Sardis (possibility (b)) ever led to any agreement on the part of the Athenian ambassadors (Xen. Hell. 4.8.15). It seems most appropriate, therefore, to connect the impeachment with those ambassadors returning from Sparta in 392/1 (possibility (c): see D26 above). Regardless of the date, these passages present good evidence for a decree of Kallistratos banishing the ambassadors. As for the motivation behind the decree, Harding suggests (Didymos, 176) that ‘Andokides and his colleagues simply lost the debate over the Spartan proposal to their opponents in the Assembly, amongst whom was Kallistratos, who at some point took advantage of the people’s decision against the terms to propose some action against the ambassadors’. MacDowell follows Hansen’s view, based on Philochorus FGrH 328 F149a, that the legal process here was an impeachment (eisangelia) initiated by a decree of the assembly (MacDowell, On the False, 323); Demosthenes claims that the ambassadors disobeyed their instruction, making an untrue report to the council, sending misleading letters, telling lies against the interests of Athenian allies, and accepting bribes (T2). Demosthenes says that they were condemned to death (19.277) or expelled (19.280; cf. Plu. Mor. 135a, reporting that Andocides was banished); according to Philochorus they fled before they were punished.

d27 decree impeaching ambassadors

161

The proposer, Kallistratos, proposed three other decrees of the people (a rider to an honorary decree for Polychartides and Alkibiades of 378–76 (IG II2 84 lines 9–10), armed assistance to the Spartans in 370/69 ([Dem.] 59.27 = D55), and a response to the Mytilenean ambassadors in 369/8 (IG II2 107 line 36); for his other activity, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory,’ 50–1. For his career, see Sealey, ‘Callistratus’, demonstrating the difficulties in assessing Kallistratos’ alignments at this early stage in his career, and suggesting that his attacks on others were a means of winning prestige (Sealey, ‘Callistratus’, 285).

Date

392/1 (Cawkwell; Harding; MacDowell, Demosthenes, 323) or 387/6 (Badian, ‘The King’s’; Bruce, ‘Athenian’; Harris, ‘The authenticity’).

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘The King’s Peace’ in Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell. BICS Supplement 58, eds. M.A. Flower and M. Toher. London (1991) 25–48. Bruce, I. A. F., ‘Athenian embassies in the early fourth century BC’, Historia 15 (1966) 272–81. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’, CQ 26 (1976) 270–7. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) nos. 69–72. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P.A., Didymos: On Demosthenes. Oxford (2006) 164–77. Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of Andocides’ De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History and Politics, eds. P. Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 479–506. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 323–4. Sealey, R., ‘Callistratus of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 178–203.

D28 Citizenship and ateleia for Satyros of the Kimmerian Bosporos Proposer: Unknown Date: Before 389?

Literary Context

There is no straightforward literary reference to a decree honouring Satyros. However, at Isocrates Trapezitikos 5–6, 57 (T1), the Bosporan client makes reference to the good things that Satyros has secured for the Athenians, while RO 64 (T2) mentions awards to Satyros (and his son, Leukon).

Texts

T1 Isoc. Trapezitikos 57: Ἄξιον δὲ καὶ Σατύρου καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐνθυμηθῆναι, οἳ πάντα τὸν χρόνον περὶ πλείστου τῶν Ἑλλήνων ὑμᾶς ποιοῦνται, καὶ πολλάκις ἤδη διὰ σπάνιν σίτου τὰς τῶν ἄλλων ἐμπόρων ναῦς κενὰς ἐκπέμποντες ὑμῖν ἐξαγωγὴν ἔδοσαν· καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις συμβολαίοις, ὧν ἐκεῖνοι κριταὶ γίγνονται, οὐ μόνον ἴσον ἀλλὰ καὶ πλέον ἔχοντες ἀπέρχεσθε. T2 IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64) lines 22–6: ... εἶναι [Σπ]α[ρτ]όκωι [κ]αὶ Παιρισάδει τὰς δωρειὰς ἃς [ὁ δῆμ]ος ἔδωκε Σατύρωι καὶ Λεύκωνι· καὶ στεφ[ανο]ῦν χρυσῶι στεφάνωι Παναθηναίοις τοῖς Μεγάλοις ἀπὸ χιλίων δραχμῶν ἑκάτερ[ο]ν.

Commentary

The Spartokid kings (Satyros ruled from 433/2 to 389/8, Leukon from 389/8 to 349/8, Spartokos and Pairisades from 349/8: for the chronology, see Werner, ‘Die Dynastie’) were the rulers of the Kimmerian Bosporos, on the eastern side of the Crimea; on the dynasty, see Moreno, Feeding, 169–206. Moreno provides a vivid portrayal of Athenian attempts to ensure a supply of grain (in particular wheat for bread) from the Black Sea area through negotiation with the leaders of the area (see Moreno, Feeding, 144–208; cf. Sallares, Ecology, 323–32). Demosthenes (20.31) claimed the Athenians imported as much grain from here as from everywhere else combined. The Spartokids appear to have been ready to grant trading privileges to the Athenians (T1). The Spartokids were not the only rulers in this area to do business with the Athenians: the 162

d28 citizenship and ateleia for satyros

163

T1 It is important to keep in mind both Satyros and my father, who constantly place you above other Greeks; frequently in the past, when there was a scarcity of grain and they were sending away empty the ships of other merchants, they would give to you the privilege of export; moreover, in the private contracts of which they are arbiters, you hold not equal terms but actually an advantage. T2 … there shall be for Spartokos and Pairisades the grants which the people gave to Satyros and Leukon; and give each of them a gold crown worth 1000 drachmai at the Great Panathenaia.

rulers of Theudosia, an emporion which granted Athens commercial privileges (Dem. 20.33), may well have been exempted from taxation by the Athenians: see Kremmydas, Commentary, 254. Tuplin (‘Satyros’) makes a strong case for the view that T1 and T2 constitute evidence that honours were passed for Satyros. Demosthenes 20.29–37 (see D39 below) makes it clear that Leukon (the son of Satyros) received ateleia and citizenship from the Athenians. Given that IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64), the inscribed version of the honours for the sons of Leukon, bestow upon them ‘the grants which the people gave to Satyros and Leukon’, it is reasonable to accept, with Tuplin, that Satyros too received ateleia, citizenship, and crowns at every Panathenaia (T2). It is quite possible that the Athenians granted hereditary

164

inventory a1

awards, including even citizenship, to Satyros, and that they were renewed by Athenians at a later point for Leukon (D39) and his successors (IG II3 1 298). The award of ateleia is known as early as the late fifth century: see IG II2 8 line 19 of 403/2. Demosthenes, at 20.21, makes a show of estimating the number of awards of ateleia; suggesting that the figure was a maximum of 20 or 30, he may well have deliberately underestimated the figure (Hagemajer Allen, ‘Intercultural’, 204; Kremmydas, Commentary, 226). On ateleia and its forms, see Henry, Honours, 241–60 and MacDowell, ‘Epikerdes’, observing that while it usually implied exemption from liturgies, it could also bestow exemption from taxes on trade. Hagemajer Allen, ‘Intercultural’, 236 suggests that exports of Bosporan kings to Athens were exempt from Athenian taxation, but Engen, Honor, 284 points out that this would have applied only to trade undertaken on the authority of the kings themselves, not to goods shipped from Bosporos to Athens by private traders. This is the first attested post-403/2 grant of awards and privileges in return for trade-related services, though six fifth-century examples are known: see Engen, Honor, 231. As Engen points out (Honor, 285) given that IG II3 1 298 (line 21) mentions Satyros and not his predecessors, he was perhaps the first king of the Bosporos to institute favours for Athens (such as those listed at Dem. 20.31–3: gifts of grain, the grant to Athenian-bound traders of priority of loading and, at his ports, exemption from harbour taxes). Moreover, Tuplin identifies this decree as marking an important change in Athenian relations with the Bosporan kingdom, suggesting that the Athenians bestowed these honours as a way of encouraging favourable trading terms. The Athenians maintained a good relationship with the kings thereafter, and honoured also Leukon (see D39 below) and his sons (RO 64); on the series of awards, see Engen, Honor, 99 and Osborne, Naturalization, T41. It may have been the case that the Athenians regularly made awards of crowns to those kings of the Bosporos who offered the Athenians favourable terms (for a crown dedicated by Spartokos, see IG II2 1485 lines 21–4 and 1486 lines 14–16). The award of a gold crown to foreigners was relatively rare before the middle of the fourth century: Henry, Honours, 22–4 collects the evidence, noting that the award became common (but not universal) to those praised from the mid fourth century. For Athens’ honours to Leukon, Satyros’ son, see D39 below; for the bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros and Gorgippos, see D227. IG II3 1 298 mentions a stele bearing details of the awards for Satyros and Leukon (lines 46–7): this indicates that Satyros’ honours were written up on the same inscription as those for his son. We do not know, however, whether Leukon’s honours were written up on a stele that already bore Satyros’ honours or if Satyros’ honours were added to a stele set up for his son (cf. Tuplin,

dd 29, 30 friendship and alliance with amadokos

165

‘Satyros’, 122). As IG II3 1 298 was found near the main harbour at Piraeus, it seems likely that Satyros’ honours were written up there too.

Date

It is probable that the Athenians honoured Satyros at some point before his death in 389/8 (Tuplin, ‘Satyros’, 125–7). Osborne suggests that the grant was made in an earlier period of his reign, c. 430–400 (Naturalization, T21).

Bibliography

Engen, D.T., Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415–307 BC. Michigan (2010). Hagemajer Allen, K., ‘Intercultural exchanges in fourth-century Attic decrees’, ClAnt 22 (2003) 199–246. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). MacDowell, D.M., ‘Epikerdes of Kyrene and the Athenian privilege of ateleia’, ZPE 150 (2004) 127–33. Moreno, A., Feeding the Democracy. Oxford (2007). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–­3) TT 21, 33, 41. Sallares, R., The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World. London (1991). Tuplin, C., ‘Satyros and Athens: IG II2 212 and Isocrates 17.57’, ZPE 49 (1982) 121–8. Werner, R., ‘Die Dynastie der Spartokiden’, Historia 4 (1955) 412–44.

DD 29, 30 Friendship and alliance with Amadokos and Seuthes of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: Winter 391 or Spring 390

Literary Context

In his account of Thrasyboulos’ naval expedition in the Northern Aegean, Xenophon (T1) tells us about his negotiations with the kings of Thrace; Diodorus (T2) offers a compatible, but concise account of the same events.

166

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Xen. Hell. 4.8.26: Εἰς δὲ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον πλεύσας καὶ οὐδενὸς ἀντιπάλου παρόντος ἐνόμισε καταπρᾶξαι ἄν τι τῇ πόλει ἀγαθόν. καὶ οὕτω δὴ πρῶτον μὲν καταμαθὼν στασιάζοντας Ἀμήδοκόν τε τὸν Ὀδρυσῶν βασιλέα καὶ Σεύθην τὸν ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ ἄρχοντα ἀλλήλοις μὲν διήλλαξεν αὐτούς, Ἀθηναίοις δὲ φίλους καὶ συμμάχους ἐποίησε, νομίζων καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ τῇ Θρᾴκῃ οἰκούσας Ἑλληνίδας πόλεις φίλων ὄντων τούτων μᾶλλον προσέχειν ἂν τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις τὸν νοῦν. T2 D.S. 14.94.2: Κατὰ δὲ τούτους τοὺς χρόνους Ἀθηναῖοι στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενοι Θρασύβουλον ἐξέπεμψαν μετὰ τριήρων τετταράκοντα. οὗτος δὲ πλεύσας εἰς Ἰωνίαν καὶ χρήματα λαβὼν παρὰ τῶν συμμάχων ἀνέζευξε, καὶ διατρίβων περὶ Χερρόνησον Μήδοκον καὶ Σεύθην τοὺς τῶν Θρᾳκῶν βασιλεῖς συμμάχους ἐποιήσατο.

Commentary

The area of Thrace, to the north of the Aegean Sea, was rich in resources; for classical awareness of them (such as silver and wood), see Herodotus 5.23.2. It also appears to have been culturally attractive to some Athenians (Sears, Athens, Thrace, 174–233). A nexus of ties connected important Thracians with some prominent fourth-century Athenians including Thrasyboulos, Iphikrates and others: Sears, Athens, Thrace, 99–109. Diplomatic relations between the Athenians and the kings of the area date at least as far back as the early years of the Peloponnesian War, with the Athenians securing Sitalkes as an ally in 431 and giving citizenship to Sadokos, his son (Thuc. 2.29; 2.67.2). The Athenian foundation of Amphipolis on the river Strymon in 437 was a significant fifth-century development (Scholion on Aeschin. 2.31 (Dilts 67a); Thuc. 4.102); the Athenian population remained a minority and the territory was taken by Brasidas in 424/3 (4.106); the Athenian desire to recapture it was a long-­standing concern of Athenian foreign policy (Iphikrates, for instance, was sent to retake it in 367 (D.S. 15.71.1; Aeschin. 2.28–9: DP 32); he failed and was replaced with Timotheos (Dem. 23.149)): for more on Athenian attempts to retake Amphipolis, see D64 below. Thrasyboulos appears to have been sent out on an anti-Spartan mission around Rhodes in early 390 (Xen. Hell. 4.8.25: see DP 12; the date is controversial: for a date of winter 391 for Thrasyboulos’ mission, see Cawkwell, ‘Imperialism’ 274–5), but appears to have concentrated instead on activities in the northern Aegean, and sailed to the Hellespont, where Amadokos (known to Xenophon (T1) and Diodorus (T2) as Amedokos and sometimes in Athenian inscriptions

dd 29, 30 friendship and alliance with amadokos

167

T1 He (Thrasyboulos) sailed towards the Hellespont, and since there was no opposition present he decided to accomplish some good for the city. And so initially, on learning that Amedokos the king of the Odrysians and Seuthes, who held power at sea, were at war with each other, he decided to reconcile them and to make them friends and allies of the Athenians. He thought that with these kings being friendly to the Athenians thus also those Greek cities along the Thracian coast would be inclined to be pro-Athenian. T2 During this year [of Philokles, 392/1], the Athenians, after chosing Thrasyboulos as general, sent him out with 40 triremes. On sailing to Ionia, he collected money from the allies, and proceeded on his way; and while spending time at Chersonesos he made allies of Medokos and Seuthes, the kings of the Thracians.

as Medokos) and Seuthes held sway. Diodorus adds the detail that he went first to Ionia where he raised money from the allies (D.S. 14.94). The alliance, therefore, may be seen as part of Thrasyboulos’ expeditions in the northern Aegean. Archibald, The Odrysian, 123–4, suggests that Diodorus’ description of the two Thracian rulers as ‘kings of the Thracians’ is inaccurate and that Seuthes, having taken refuge at Amadokos’ court after being orphaned as a boy, was a subordinate general (Xen. Anab. 7.2.32); Seuthes, however, had grown in influence in the first decade of the fourth century. It is in the context of this rivalry that Thrasyboulos brought the kings into alliance with the Athenians. Lysias 28.5–6 adds the detail that Ergokles, one of Thrasyboulos’ generals, had urged him to marry the daughter of Seuthes, ‘so that you can cut short their sycophancy because you will make them fear for themselves, and stop them sitting and plotting against you and your friends’. This, together with the evidence of Xenophon, points towards the possibility that this alliance was one made independently by Thrasyboulos, though it may have been ratified by the Athenian demos at a later point: this is the view taken by Hamel, Athenian Generals, 41 note 2. For other possible examples of a treaty made by the generals out on the field and later ratified by the assembly, see Alkibiades’ treaty with the Selymbrians (OR 185 with OR p. 522), D83, and also the confirmation of Chabrias’ agreement with the cities of Keos: IG II2 404 lines 11–13 of the period 375–38.

168

inventory a1

Xenophon (T1) suggests that the Athenians hoped that this alliance would win further allies for Athens in the area, but the reconciliation between the two kings was short-lived, with the Athenians fighting on behalf of Seuthes II against Amadokos within a few years (for hostilities, see Polyain. 7.38, Cornelius Nepos, Iph. 2.1 with Sears, Athens and Thrace, 124; Archibald, The Odrysian, 219). Archibald takes the view that Thrasyboulos’ intervention was inconsequential for internal Thracian affairs: Amadokos died shortly after, and Seuthes’ attempt to involve Thrasyboulos in his own affairs was unsuccessful (see above, Lysias 28.5-6, with Archibald, The Odrysian, 218). However, the Athenians honoured Hebryzelmis (probably the successor of Amadokos in 386/5, though he has been identified as playing other roles: Archibald, The Odrysian, 219): see IG II2 31. He reigned until Kotys, the son of Seuthes, took the throne in 383. On Kotys, see D43 below. For a later treaty between Athens and Thracian kings, see DD 80, 83 and RO 47. The treaty with Seuthes may be referred to in a fragmentary decree from the Athenian acropolis: IG II2 21 (with Add. p. 656); there survives also a decree which can be restored with the name [Ἀ]μήδο[κος] (IG II2 22 with SEG XL 56).

Date

Diodorus says that Thrasyboulos made the alliance in 392/1; Xenophon’s account, however, points to a date in early 390 for Thrasyboulos’ mission (Buck, Thrasybulus, 115): this suggests that contact with the Thracian kings was made in spring 390. The date of the mission, however, is controversial: for a date of winter 391 for Thrasyboulos’ mission, see Cawkwell, ‘Imperialism’ 274–5).

Bibliography

Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford (2008). Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden (1998). Sears, M., Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership. Cambridge (2013).

DD 31, 32 Decrees for the exiles Archebios and Herakleides of Byzantion, making them proxenoi, euergetai, and awarding them ateleia Proposer: Unknown Date: 390 or 389–386

Literary Context

As part of his argument against Leptines’ law withdrawing ateleia from benefactors, Demosthenes (T1) argues that it would be shameful to strip Athenian honorands of grants previously made to them.

169

170

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 20.60: Τοῦτο δ’ Ἀρχέβιον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην, οἳ Βυζάντιον παραδόντες Θρασυβούλῳ κυρίους ὑμᾶς ἐποίησαν τοῦ Ἑλλησπόντου, ὥστε τὴν δεκάτην ἀποδόσθαι καὶ χρημάτων εὐπορήσαντας Λακεδαιμονίους ἀναγκάσαι τοιαύτην, οἵαν ὑμῖν ἐδόκει, ποιήσασθαι τὴν εἰρήνην; ὧν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἐκπεσόντων ἐψηφίσασθ’ ἅπερ, οἶμαι, φεύγουσιν εὐεργέταις δι’ ὑμᾶς προσῆκε, προξενίαν, εὐεργεσίαν, ἀτέλειαν ἁπάντων. εἶτα τοὺς δι’ ὑμᾶς φεύγοντας καὶ δικαίως τι παρ’ ὑμῶν εὑρομένους ἐάσωμεν ἀφαιρεθῆναι ταῦτα, μηδὲν ἔχοντες ἐγκαλέσαι; ἀλλ’ αἰσχρὸν ἂν εἴη.

Commentary

The Athenians under Thrasyboulos had, in 390, installed democratic and pro-Athenian governments in the cities around Byzantion (Xen. Hell. 4.8.27). The two honorands of this decree presumably had been involved in the handing over of their city to Thrasyboulos; this allowed the Athenians to farm out the ten per cent tax (dekate: Xen Hell 4.8.27; cf. Canevaro, Demostene, 293), which the Byzantines habitually levied upon all goods entering and leaving the Black Sea (see Harris, ‘Notes’); further on dekate, see below, Commentary on D38. In this decree, the exiles Archebios and Herakleides of Byzantion are reported to have been made proxenoi and euergetai; they were granted ateleia, probably, in this case, consisting of exemption from the metoikion (Henry, Honours, 244–6), which is known to have been granted to other exiles (IG II2 33 (+Add p. 656) lines 5–8, II2 37 (+Add. pp. 656–7) lines 16–18; Kremmydas, Commentary, 299), but also from other harbour dues. For examples of the grant of ateleia, see DD 23, 39, 40, 101, 103 with Henry, Honours, 241–6. Dem. 20.132 suggests that the award was more exclusive than that of proxenia, though the two are known in combination with each other (IG I3 164 line 29). On awards of proxenia and euergesia, see Henry, Honours, 116–62. The claim made here that this development enabled the Athenians to force the Lakedaimonians to conclude the King’s Peace on favourable terms is, however, greatly exaggerated and misleading: the Peace, which gave the Persians control of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, was concluded only owing to Athenian fear of the alliance between the Spartans and the Persians (Xen. Hell. 5.1.28–9) and its implications for the control of the Hellespont. Archebios is mentioned as a friend of Athens in Dem. 23.189 alongside other pro-Athenians (Simon and Bianor the two kings of Thrace, and the mercenary Athenodoros). For attempts to identify the Herakleides mentioned here, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 297 and the next paragraph below. On the strategic

dd 31, 32 decrees for exiles of byzantion

171

T1 And what about Archebios and Herakleides? These men handed over Byzantion to Thrasyboulos and put you in charge of the Hellespont so that you farmed out the 10 per cent tax (dekate), and forced the Spartans, though they were wealthy, to agree to the peace treaty with favourable terms for you. When shortly afterwards these men fled into exile, men of Athens, you voted for them honours that benefactors exiled for your sake deserved to receive: proxenia, euergesia, and ateleia from all duties. Therefore will we allow these men who were driven out of their homelands for your sake and justly receive awards from you to be deprived of them without us having any cause of complaint against them? But that would be shameful.

importance of Byzantium for Athenian grain imports from the Propontis, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 297. Some have identified the Herakleides of OR 157 = ML 70 (IG II2 8 = I3 227) with the Herakleides of Byzantium mentioned here; however, Meiggs and Lewis (ML Addendum, p. 313), followed by Kremmydas, identify the honorand as Herakleides the Klazomenian (on the basis of an epigraphical identification proposed by Walbank) and date the inscription to 424–3 BC; OR 157 places it ‘after 423’. For a contrary view, that the decree should be dated to the early fourth century, see Culasso Gastaldi, Le prossenie, 34–55; for an overview of the arguments, see Canevaro, Demostene, 293–4. Nevertheless, the identification of the literary testimonium with the inscribed evidence remains unlikely: the fact that both the literary and epigraphical testimonia record a grant of ateleia, euergesy, and proxeny status is not enough to ensure identification of the two; indeed, the inscribed version awards enktesis, which is not mentioned in T1 here. Demosthenes had the decrees read aloud to the court (Dem. 20.63) and went on to remind his audience that it was appropriate ‘to allow these inscriptions to be authoritative for all time’ (Dem. 20.64).

Date

At some point before the King’s Peace (386 BC): c. 390, as Cawkwell, ‘Imperialism’, 274–5 and Buck, Thrasybulus, 115–16; alternatively, 389–386, as Canevaro, ‘Demostene’, 293–4 suggests, placing the awards after the end of Thrasyboulos’ campaign.

Bibliography

Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120, Stuttgart (1998).

172

inventory a1

Canevaro, M., Demostene: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 293–4. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’, CQ 26 (1976) 270–7. Culasso Gastaldi, E., Le prossenie ateniesi del IV secolo a. C.: gli onorati asiatici. Alessandria (2004). Harris, E.M., ‘Notes on the new grain-tax law’, ZPE 128 (1999) 269–72. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 296–8.

D33 Alliance with Evagoras of Salamis in Cyprus Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 390

Literary Context

Xenophon mentions an Athenian summachia with Evagoras of Cyprus who was fighting against the Persian king (T1).

Text

T1  Xen Hell. 4.8.24: Αὐτὸς δ’ ἔπλει εἰς τὴν Ῥόδον, ἤδη ἔχων ναῦς ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι· πλέων δὲ περιτυγχάνει Φιλοκράτει τῷ Ἐφιάλτου πλέοντι μετὰ δέκα τριήρων Ἀθήνηθεν εἰς Κύπρον ἐπὶ συμμαχίᾳ τῇ Εὐαγόρου, καὶ λαμβάνει πάσας.

Commentary

For Athenian relations with Evagoras of Salamis, Cyprus, see D24 above; initially king of Salamis (probably the most powerful of Cypriot cities), Evagoras attempted to win control over the other cities of Cyprus; three of them (Amathos, Soli and Kition) appealed to Persia for help; the Great King decided to intervene and ordered Hekatomnos of Karia to make war on Evagoras (D.S. 14.98). Evagoras was defeated and was forced to accept the overlordship of the Persian king. As Xenophon points out later in this passage (Hell. 4.8.24), Athenian aid to Evagoras contradicted the Athenian friendship with the Persians. It is

d33 alliance with evagoras of salamis in cyprus

173

T1 Teleutias sailed to Rhodes, having already twenty-seven ships, for on his way there he had chanced upon Philokrates son of Ephialtes sailing from Athens to Cyprus with ten ships in honour of an alliance with Evagoras, and he captured them all.

reasonable to assume that the summachia mentioned by Xenophon (T1) was the result of a decree of the Athenian demos. For the Athenian decision to send ships to Evagoras, see D34 below.

Date

Summer 390 (SVA 234).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 234.

D34 Decree sending warships and aid to Cyprus Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 390

Literary Context

Lysias, in the course of providing a brief survey of the minor politician Aristophanes’ wealth in a case about the fate of his possessions after his execution, claims that he made donations to the Cypriots when they sent envoys appealing for help. Lysias (TT 1, 2) says that the Athenians voted to send warships and other things to Cyprus (‘ὑμεῖς δὲ τριήρεις αὐτοῖς ἔδοτε καὶ τἆλλα ἐψηφίσασθε’) after envoys from that island had made an appeal. The ten ships mentioned by Lysias are presumably those mentioned by Xenophon (see D33 T1 above)

Texts

T1 Lysias 19.21–22: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπειδὴ οἱ πρέσβεις ἧκον ἐκ Κύπρου ἐπὶ τὴν βοήθειαν, οὐδὲν ἐνέλιπε προθυμίας σπεύδων. ὑμεῖς δὲ τριήρεις αὐτοῖς ἔδοτε καὶ τἆλλα ἐψηφίσασθε, ἀργυρίου δ’ εἰς τὸν ἀπόστολον ἠπόρουν. ὀλίγα μὲν γὰρ ἦλθον ἔχοντες χρήματα, πολλῶν δὲ προσεδεήθησαν, οὐ γὰρ μόνον εἰς τὰς ναῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πελταστὰς ἐμισθώσαντο καὶ ὅπλα ἐπρίαντο. Ἀριστοφάνης δ’ οὖν τῶν χρημάτων τὰ μὲν πλεῖστα αὐτὸς παρέσχεν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐχ ἱκανὰ ἦν, τοὺς φίλους ἔπειθε δεόμενος καὶ ἐγγυώμενος. T2 Lys. 19.43: Εἰς δὲ τὸν ἀπόστολον τῶν τριήρων, ὅτε οἱ Κύπριοι ἦλθον καὶ ἔδοτε αὐτοῖς τὰς δέκα ναῦς, καὶ τῶν πελταστῶν τὴν μίσθωσιν καὶ τῶν ὅπλων τὴν ὠνὴν παρέσχε τρισμυρίας δραχμάς. T3 See D33 T1 above

Commentary

The Cypriot appeal was made by Evagoras, who was in revolt against the Persian king As Costa, ‘Evagoras I’ argues, the king had provoked the revolt by aiming to stem Evagoras’ power: D.S. 14.98.2–4; until that point, Evagoras’ policy had featured an anti-Spartan tilt: Costa, 51–2. The appeal may have been made on 174

d34 decree sending warships and aid to cyprus

175

T1 Afterwards, when the envoys came from Cyprus for the sake of aid, Aristophanes did not relax his passion for activity. You gave them ten triremes and voted for other expenditures, but they lacked money for the expedition. They had arrived with little money and needed a lot more, not simply for the ships but because they had also hired peltasts and had purchased weapons. Aristophanes personally supplied most of their money, and when this was insufficient, he persuaded his friends, by pleading and offering guarantees. (trans. Todd, Lysias, adapted) T2 For the dispatch of the triremes, when the Cypriots came and you gave them ten ships, he supplied 30,000 drachmai for the payment of peltasts and the purchase of weapons. T3 Xenophon (see D33 T1 above)

the basis of Evagoras’ alliance with the Athenians (see D33 above). Xenophon reports that the ten ships were put to sail by Philokrates, the son of Ephialtes, and were captured by the Spartans (Xen. Hell. 4.8.22); the expedition was a disaster. The natural assumption is to envisage that Lysias (T1, 2) and Xenophon

176

inventory a1

(T3) refer to the same expedition, but Stylianou, ‘How many’ makes a case for separating the two. Cawkwell (‘The imperialism,’ 275 note 20) suggests that the ten ships were the remnants of the fifth-century navy that the Athenians had been allowed to keep; but the Athenians by this time had probably resumed the construction of triremes. The war of the Cypriots in revolt against the Persians was described by the ancient sources as lasting ‘almost ten years’ (D.S. 15.9.2; Isoc. 9.64); it ended in defeat for Evagoras. The Athenians sent reinforcements later in the war under Chabrias (Xen. Hell. 5.1.10; see DP 17 below). The hypocrisy of the Athenian decision to assist a monarch in revolt against the Persian king, who was their ally, is noticed by Xenophon (Hell. 4.8.24); this, along with the extortion of Thrasyboulos and Ergokles in Asia Minor, contributed to erosion of the friendship between the Athenians and the Great King. Cornelius Nepos (Chabrias, 2) identifies Chabrias as commander of the expedition, and adds that he completely conquered the island of Cyprus. No proposer is named in these testimonia, but Strauss makes a case for thinking that the organisers of the internvention, perhaps the proposers, were Konon’s associates Aristophanes and his father Nikophemos (Strauss, Athens after, 150­–1).

Date

Summer 390: Cawkwell, ‘The imperialism’, 274; Stylianou, ‘How many’, 469.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 234. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’, CQ 26 (1976) 270–7. Costa, E., ‘Evagoras I and the Persians, ca. 411 to 391 BC’, Historia 23 (1974) 40–56. Strauss, B.S., Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403–386 BC. London and Sydney (1986). Stylianou, P.J., ‘How many naval squadrons did Athens send to Evagoras?’, Historia 37 (1988) 463–71. Todd, S.C., Lysias. Austin (2000).

D35 † Honours for Iphikrates of Rhamnous Proposer: Unknown Date: Post-390?

See D54 below.

177

D36 Alliance with Akoris of Egypt Proposer: Unknown Date: 390 or 389

Literary Context

Aristophanes Wealth 178 refers to an alliance with the Egyptians; the scholiast’s note (T1) explains that at a time of shortage the Athenians sent to him seeking grain; his generous response led the Athenians to make an alliance with them.

Text

T1 Scholion on Aristophanes Wealth 178 (Dübner), ‘ἡ ξυμμαχία’: Ἐπὶ Ἀμάσιδος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως ἐν σιτοδείᾳ ὄντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἔπεμψαν πρὸς αὐτὸν αἰτοῦντες σῖτον· καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτοῖς ἱκανόν. ἐκ τούτου Ἀθηναῖοι ἔπεμψαν τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις συμμαχίαν εἰς τὸν πρὸς Πέρσας πόλεμον, καὶ εἶχον φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν πρὸς ἀλληλους· ὕστερον μέντοι ἐλύθη καὶ συνεμάχησαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοῖς βασιλέως στρατηγοῖς κατὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων Ἰφικράτους ἡγουμένου.

Commentary

Egypt successfully revolted from Persia at the end of the fifth century; it remained independent of the Achaemenid empire until the long-term Persian efforts to restore Egypt to their territory finally succeeded in 343 (Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 2.673–4). The scholiast appears to have mistaken the name of the Egyptian king, which is known from other Greek sources as Akoris (D.S. 15.2.3; 15.3.3, attesting to his alliance with Evagoras and his transport of grain from Egypt to Evagoras; see further Bengtson, SVA 237). For his hostility to the Persian king and his use of the Athenian Chabrias, see D.S. 15.29.1–4). Stylianou (‘How many,’ 470) takes the view of Athenian policy of aligning with both Evagoras and Akoris as a ‘return to those [methods] of the 460s and 450s’; it met with similar failure. The Persian policy of securing her own position by siding with Sparta’s ambitions (Xen Hell. 5.1.25–8), marked the initial step towards the King’s Peace. Egypt was known to the Athenians as a source of grain (see Demosthenes 56, a case concerning a maritime loan, esp. section 7; for the import of grain from Cyrene to Greece in the 320s see RO 96). Grain prices realised at the 178

d36 alliance with akoris of egypt

179

T1 The alliance. In the time of Amasis the king of Egypt, the Athenians, being in a state of grain shortage, sent to him requesting grain. And he sent plenty to them. After this the Athenians sent an alliance to the Egyptians for the war against the Persians, and they had philia and summachia with each other; later however they broke it off and the Athenians, with Iphikrates leading, fought with the generals of the King against the Egyptians.

market in Egypt appear to have been important for the Athenians (cf. Dem. 56.21); on the trade in the archaic period, see Roebuck, ‘The grain’). The king of Egypt sent a gift of grain also in 445/4, according to Philochorus (FGrH 328 F119) and Plu. Per. 37.3. For Athenian attempts to patch up relations with the Persians in the early 370s, see D.S. 15.29.3–4 (DP 19 below), referring to their recall of Chabrias after a complaint from the Great King that he was working as a mercenary general for the Egyptians.

Date

390 or 389 (SVA 236).

Bibliography

Kuhrt, E., The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC, 2 vols. London and New York (1995). Roebuck, C., ‘The grain trade between Greece and Egypt’, Classical Philology 45 (1950) 236–47.

inventory a1

180

Stylianou, P.J., ‘How many naval squadrons did Athens send to Evagoras?’, Historia 37 (1988) 463–71.

D37 Decree recalling Athenians from Aegina Proposer: Unknown Date: 389

Literary Context

It his account of naval manoeuvres around Aegina in 389, Xenophon (T1) says that the Athenians began to besiege Aegina but themselves were blockaded by 12 Spartan triremes. The Athenians sent aid to their men in the form of this decree. On the sending out of the original mission of Aegina, see Xen. Hell. 5.1.2 = DP 15.

Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 5.1.5: Ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος Ἀθηναῖοι πληρώσαντες ναῦς πολλὰς ἀπεκομίσαντο ἐξ Αἰγίνης πέμπτῳ μηνὶ.

Commentary

Aegina was independent after the Peloponnesian War, but was the location of a Spartan garrison in the early years of the fourth century: see Figueira, ‘Aigina’, 27. Xenophon began his account of hostilities (Xen. Hell. 5.1.1) at a point when Athens appears to have been at war with the Aeginetans already for some time: old tensions may have been re-kindled by the resurgence of Athenian naval power; the Aeginetans were encouraged by the Spartans to carry out raids against Attica. Indeed, Aegina seems to have become a haven for pro-Spartans displaced by Konon’s expeditions in the Cyclades (Figueira, ‘Aigina’, 32–3 with Isocrates 19 Aiginetikos 18–24, 36). In response, the Athenians dispatched hoplites to blockade the city of Aegina (Xen. Hell. 5.1.2 = DP 15). The Athenians were trapped by a Spartan force sent out initially with Teleutias and then assisted by Hierax and Gorgopas, the Spartan

d37 decree recalling athenians from aegina

181

T1  By a decree the Athenians manned a large number of ships and, in the fifth month, brought back from Aegina their men from the fortifications.

harmost (Xen. Hell. 5.1.2–5). The Athenians appear to have rescued their hoplite force on Aegina through this mission and returned them to Athens (T1). However, after this, according to Xenophon (Hell. 5.1.5) the Athenians were troubled by raiders and later manned thirteen triremes against Gorgopas: see DP 16. Aegina seems to have been an important naval base for the Spartans at this time: Rutishauser, Athens, 149; it was an important territory in terms of the struggle between the Athenians and Spartans for the naval hegemony of the Saronic Gulf: see Figueira, ‘Aigina’.

Date

389 (T1).

inventory a1

182

Bibliography

Figueira, T.J., ‘Aigina in the naval strategy of the late fifth and early fourth centuries’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 153 (1990) 15­–51. Rutishauser, B., Athens and the Cyclades: Economic Strategies 540–314 BC. Oxford (2012) 149.

D38 Decree requesting accounts and recall of Ergokles Proposer: Unknown Date: 390/89

Literary Context

In this prosecution speech charging Ergokles (a general who served with Thrasyboulos of Steiria on his expedition in the Northern Aegean), with embezzlement and receiving bribes (see Hansen, Eisangelia, 88), Lysias (T1) maintains that the Athenians had required, by decree, that he and his magistrates present accounts of what they had taken from the cities. The presentation of Ergokles’ response, as Stephen Todd points out (pers. comm.), may be intended to present him as contemptuous towards an Athenian decree, and aims to prejudice the jury’s attitude towards the defendant.

Text

T1 Lysias 28.5: Ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπειδὴ τάχιστα ὑμεῖς ἐψηφίσασθε τὰ χρήματα ἀπογράψαι τὰ ἐκ τῶν πόλεων εἰλημμένα καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς μετ’ ἐκείνου καταπλεῖν εὐθύνας δώσοντας, Ἐργοκλῆς ἔλεγεν ὡς ἤδη συκοφαντεῖτε καὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων νόμων ἐπιθυμεῖτε, καὶ Θρασυβούλῳ συνεβούλευε Βυζάντιον καταλαβεῖν καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἔχειν καὶ τὴν Σεύθου θυγατέρα γαμεῖν.

Commentary

After reconciling and making alliance with the Thracian kings (DD 29, 30 above), Thrasyboulos of Steiria turned his attention to Byzantion, which was an

d38 decree requesting accounts and recall

183

T1 And what’s more, as soon as you had voted that he was to compose an inventory of the monies taken from the cities, and that the magistrates who were with him should sail back in order to undergo an audit of their accounts, Ergokles said that you were again acting as sycophants and longing for the old laws. He advised Thrasyboulos to take Byzantion, to keep the ships, and to take the daughter of Seuthes in marriage.

important location for securing Athens’ grain supply from the Black Sea area, and distributing contracts for collecting taxes on ships sailing out of Pontos

184

inventory a1

(Xen. Hell. 4.8.27). This is the likely context for the decree concerning money taken from the cities which ordered Ergokles’ officials (among whom was a certain Philokrates: Lys. 29.3) to sail home (T1); the accusation the officials faced was that they had kept for themselves the money that they had accumulated (Lys. 28.6; 29.2). This appears to have been the basis of the impeachment of Ergokles for corruption (Lys. 28.1; Hansen, Eisangelia no. 73), as the result of which he was condemned to death (Dem. 19.80). Ergokles’ advice to Thrasyboulos, his fellow-general, was to carry on regardless of the decree (T1). Thrasyboulos appears also to have been recalled, but died in summer 389 before he returned to Athens (Xen. Hell. 4.8.30–1; Lys. 28.8). As Buck (Thrasybulus, 117) observes, the main Athenian concern was that ‘Thrasybulus and his colleagues were not providing enough funds for the fleet and the Athenian treasury because they were corrupt’, though it would have been the case also that Thrasyboulos needed funds to pay his rowers and mercenaries. The money-raising attempts of Thrasyboulos should be seen in the context of the Athenian financial crisis in the aftermath of the withdrawal of Persian funding (Seager, ‘Thrasybulus’, 111; on his campaigns of early 390– summer 389, see Buck, Thrasybulus, 115–18). Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 3.8.27) and Demosthenes (Dem. 20.60) describe the collection of a 10 per cent tax (dekate), and reveal that it was a duty levied on ships sailing in and out of the Pontos (see DD 31–32 above); it had its origins in the dekate levied by Alcibiades on ships sailing this way in 410 (Xen. Hell. 1.1.22; Harris, ‘Notes’). The Athenian collection of the dekate was stalled by the success of Antalkidas and the Spartans in that area in 387 (Xen. Hell. 5.1.28); on this and other dekatai levied by the Athenians, see Stroud, The Athenian Grain, 82–4. For a 5 per cent tax (eikoste) imposed on the Klazomenians in 387/6, see RO 18 line 8; this was mentioned also in connection with Thrasyboulos in a fragmentary document connected with Thasos (IG II2 24 a lines 3-6). This ‘twentieth’ was presumably a tax on commerce (cf. the 5 per cent tax on commerce introduced in place of tribute in 413 (Thuc. 7.28.4), see also Stroud, The Athenian Grain, 27). The ‘old laws’ mentioned here were, as Todd suggests, a reference either to the fifth-century extraction of phoros from allies, or a reference to broader habits of imperial control (Todd, Lysias, 289 note 3).

Date

390/89 (Hansen, Eisangelia no. 7).

Bibliography

Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998) 115–18.

d39 decree(s?) of ateleia and citizenship

185

Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden (1998) 148. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) no. 73. Harris, E., ‘Notes on the new grain-tax law’, ZPE 128 (1999) 269–72. Stroud, R.S., The Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3 BC. Hesperia Supplement 29. Athens and Princeton (1998). Todd, S.C., Lysias. Austin (2000).

D39 Decree(s?) of ateleia and citizenship for Leukon and his sons Proposer: Unknown Date: 389/8 or later

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in making a case against Leptines’ law abolishing ateleia, points up the significance of the Athenians’ award for Leukon (T1). He warns the Athenians of the implications of abolishing ateleia while there stand extant stelai detailing the Athenians’ awards for Leukon (T2).

186

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 20.29–30: Ἀφαιρεῖται καὶ Λεύκωνα τὸν ἄρχοντα Βοσπόρου καὶ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ τὴν δωρειὰν ἣν ὑμεῖς ἔδοτ’ αὐτοῖς. ἔστι γὰρ γένει μὲν δήπου ὁ Λεύκων ξένος, τῇ δὲ παρ’ ὑμῶν ποιήσει πολίτης· κατ’ οὐδέτερον δ’ αὐτῷ τὴν ἀτέλειαν ἔστιν ἔχειν ἐκ τούτου τοῦ νόμου. T2  Dem. 20.35–7: Ἀνάγνωθι λαβὼν αὐτοῖς τὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ περὶ τοῦ Λεύκωνος. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ. Ὡς μὲν εἰκότως καὶ δικαίως τετύχηκεν τῆς ἀτελείας παρ’ ὑμῶν ὁ Λεύκων, ἀκηκόατ’ ἐκ τῶν ψηφισμάτων, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί. τούτων δ’ ἁπάντων στήλας ἀντιγράφους ἐστήσαθ’ ὑμεῖς κἀκεῖνος, τὴν μὲν ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, τὴν δ’ ἐν Πειραιεῖ, τὴν δ’ ἐφ’ Ἱερῷ. σκοπεῖτε δὴ πρὸς ὅσης κακίας ὑπερβολὴν ὑμᾶς ὁ νόμος προάγει, ὃς ἀπιστότερον τὸν δῆμον καθίστησ’ ἑνὸς ἀνδρός. μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθ’ ὑμῖν ἄλλο τι τὰς στήλας ἑστάναι ταύτας ἢ τούτων πάντων ὧν ἔχετ’ ἢ δεδώκατε συνθήκας, αἷς ὁ μὲν Λεύκων ἐμμένων φανεῖται καὶ ποιεῖν ἀεί τι προθυμούμενος ὑμᾶς εὖ, ὑμεῖς δ’ ἑστώσας ἀκύρους πεποιηκότες, ὃ πολὺ δεινότερον τοῦ καθελεῖν· αὗται γὰρ οὑτωσὶ τοῖς βουλομένοις κατὰ τῆς πόλεως βλασφημεῖν τεκμήριον ὡς ἀληθῆ λέγουσιν ἑστήξουσιν.

Commentary

Leukon, the honorand of these decrees, was King (described here as archon: see Canevaro, Demostene, 242) of the Cimmerian Bosporos from 389/8 to 349/8 (see Werner, ‘Die Dynastie’); he was the son of Satyros, honorand of D28, and father of Spartokos, Pairisades, and Apollonios, the honorands of RO 64 (= IG II3 1 298; see Canevaro, Demostene, 242–3). On the Spartokid Kings of the Bosporos and their relations with the Athenians, see D28 above, the Athenian honours for Satyros. Demosthenes presents Leukon as Athens’ most enduring benefactor (Dem. 20.30) and says that the Athenians imported as much grain from his kingdom as from anywhere else (Dem. 20.31–3); the abundance of grain in his homeland, combined with the Spartokid dynasty’s control of it, meant that he was able to sell to the Athenians huge amounts of grain: indeed, he gave them exemption from harbour taxes, priority in filling their ships with grain, and occasional gifts of it (20.31–3). For discussion of his gifts, see Engen, Honor, 80, 286–7. Leukon either inherited (Osborne T21 Commentary) from Satyros (D28) or received the Athenian citizenship mentioned by Dem. 20.30. Ateleia for himself and his sons (Dem. 20.31) appears to have been an additional honour. Ateleia, exemption from tax (telos), was a prestigious award which, in this case, aimed to promote commercial activity; see above, D28 Commentary. Kremmydas’

d39 decree(s?) of ateleia and citizenship

187

T1 He (sc. Leptines) deprives also Leukon, the ruler of the Bosporos, and his children, of the award which you yourselves gave them. Of course Leukon is a foreigner by descent, but he was made a citizen by you. Nevertheless, on the basis of Leptines’ law there is no exemption on either count.

T2 Take and read to them the decrees concerning Leukon. DECREES.

You have heard from the decrees, judges, how rightly and justly Leukon has been granted the exemption by you. Both you and he have set up copies of all these decrees on stelai, one at the Bosporos, one in Piraeus, and one at Hieron. Now, look at how this law leads you to a huge amount of evil, as it makes the people appear less trustworthy than a single man. And don’t you believe anything else than that you have set up these stelai to serve as an agreement about all these privileges that you enjoy or have received. Leukon appears faithful to such things and is always keen to do what he can to benefit you, whereas you have made them invalid while they are still standing. This is even worse than pulling them down, for if there is someone who wishes to speak ill of the city, these stelai constitute evidence that he is telling the truth.

discussion (Commentary, 43–5) is excellent and distinguishes between ‘routine ateleia’ (an exemption from liturgies for a short time), and the honorific ateleia that we have here granted by the demos to those who are deemed to have carried out extraordinarily good deeds for the Athenians. As Engen, Honor, 284 points out, the exemptions bestowed would have applied only to the kings themselves, not goods shipped from Bosporos to Athens by private traders. Athens maintained the relationship after Leukon’s death by honouring his sons in 347/6, and these were set up on an inscribed decree discovered at Piraeus (RO 64 = IG II3 1 298). The inscription gives us more information on the award for Leukon. Given that RO 64 mentions the bestowal upon the honorands of ‘the grants (δωρειάς) which the people gave to Satyros and Leukon’ (lines 22–3), it is reasonable to accept, with Tuplin (‘Satyros’), that Leukon received, in addition to ateleia, citizenship and regular crowns (RO 64 lines 26–9). Athenian policy towards these rulers was consistent over the course of the fourth century: later, perhaps in the 330s, Demosthenes proposed bronze statues for, and perhaps also an alliance with, the rulers of the area (D227). Demosthenes had the decrees pertaining to Leukon read out in the court (Dem. 20.35), and says that copies of ‘τούτων δ’ ἁπάντων στήλας ἀντιγράφους ἐστήσαθ’ ὑμεῖς κἀκεῖνος, τὴν μὲν ἐν Βοσπόρῳ, τὴν δ’ ἐν Πειραιεῖ, τὴν δ’ ἐφ’

188

inventory a1

Ἱερῷ’: 20.36). The inscription mentions a stele (lines 46–7) – which does not survive – of the awards for Leukon and Satyros (his father); this was the version set up probably at Piraeus, where the inscription was found. As Canevaro suggests (Demostene, 259–60) these decrees may well have had practical content, specifying the particular commercial privileges that the kings had been granted and those which they had pledged to the Athenians: this may be one reason why the Athenians  – and Leukon  – had them set up at places where mercantile activity took place. On Hieron, at the mouth of the Black Sea, see now Moreno, ‘Hieron’ and Canevaro, Demostene, 260. It was a conspicuous place for inscribed dedications: Herodotos (4.81) and Nymphis (BNJ 432 F9) mention Pausanias’ bronze bowl, which may have been set up there; for other inscriptions set up there, Moreno, ‘Hieron’, 702–6. It is possible that the phrase ‘always keen to do what he can to benefit you’ (‘ποιεῖν ἀεί τι προθυμούμενος ὑμᾶς εὖ’) may reflect some aspect of the motivation clause of the decree: we might compare the language of IG II2 77 (the proxeny award for Komaios of Abdera) lines 11–13: ‘since he shows zeal to do whatever good he can concerning the Athenian people’ (‘ἐπειδὴ πρόθυμός ἐστιμ περὶ [τὸν] δῆ[μο]ν τὸν Ἀθηναίων ποιε͂ν ὅτι ἂν δύνητ̣    α̣       ι̣ ἀγα̣       θ̣     όν̣     ’); on the notion of prothymia see Canevaro, Demostene, 262. The consistent reference of T2 and the lemma ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ to the plural ‘decrees’ suggests that Leukon may have been granted privileges on more than one occasion by the Athenians; alternatively (as Canevaro, Demostene, 259 suggests) the reference may be to the honours for his predecessor Satyros (D28).

Date

It is likely that the Athenians granted these awards after the death of his father Satyros as a way of re-affirming their links. For the death of Satyros in 389/8, see Werner, ‘Die Dynastie’, though a date at some later point before Demosthenes’ speech Against Leptines, dated to 355/4 (Dion. Hal. Amm. 1.4 and Kremmydas, Commentary, 33-4) is plausible.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene: Contro Leptine. Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 242–4, 258–62. Engen, D.T., Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415–307 BC. Michigan (2010). Hagemajer Allen, K., ‘Intercultural exchanges in fourth-century Attic decrees’, ClAnt 22 (2003) 199–246. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012).

d40 award of ateleia for thasians

189

Moreno, A., ‘Hieron: the ancient sanctuary at the mouth of the Black Sea’, Hesperia 77 (2008) 655–709. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) TT 21, 33. Tuplin, C., ‘Satyros and Athens: IG II2 212 and Isocrates 17.57’, ZPE 49 (1982) 121–8. Werner, R., ‘Die Dynastie der Spartokiden’, Historia 4 (1955) 412–44.

D40 Award of ateleia for Thasians Proposer: Unknown Date: 389/8 or later

Literary Context

In his attack on Leptines’ law revoking ateleia, Demosthenes (T1) claims that if ateleia is suspended, the ‘Thasians who were siding with Ekphantos’ would be wronged.

190

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 20.59: Τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν Θασίους τοὺς μετ’ Ἐκφάντου πῶς οὐκ ἀδικήσετε, ἐὰν ἀφαιρῆσθε τὴν ἀτέλειαν, οἳ παραδόντες ὑμῖν Θάσον καὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων φρουρὰν μεθ’ ὅπλων ἐκβαλόντες καὶ Θρασύβουλον εἰσαγαγόντες καὶ παρασχόντες φίλην ὑμῖν τὴν αὑτῶν πατρίδα αἴτιοι τοῦ γενέσθαι σύμμαχον τὸν περὶ Θρᾴκην τόπον ὑμῖν ἐγένοντο;

Commentary

The Athenians were interested in the powerful island of Thasos throughout the fifth and fourth centuries; its attraction lay in its proximity to the resources of the Thracian peraia and its own natural wealth (in particular wood and precious metals). The Athenians famously fought for two years in the 460s to ensure control of it and the peraia (Thuc. 1.100–1). Thasos appears to have fluctuated between pro-Athenian and pro-Spartan influence in the last decade of the fifth and first decade of the fourth centuries (see, for instance OR 176 = ML 83 (c. 411–09 BC), set up probably by an oligarchic government, offering awards for informers). On relations between Thasos and Athens see Isaac, The Greek Settlements, 1–51, summarised at Canevaro, Demostene 29–32. Earlier scholars suggested that the handing over of Thasos to which Demosthenes (T1) refers was something that took place in the fifth century (Kremmydas, Commentary, 294–5; Harris, Demosthenes, 39 note 85). Indeed, the events to which Demosthenes is referring could be the upheaval at Thasos which resulted in the expulsion of a pro-Spartan party in 410 (Xen. Hell. 1.1.32) and Thrasyboulos’ subsequent capture of Thasos in 409/8 (D. S. 13.71.1–2; Xen. Hell. 1.4.9). However, the mention of ‘Ἔχφα[ντον]’ in a fourth-century decree, IG II2 33 line 9, makes a fourth-century date likely. The awards, then, might be associated with Thrasyboulos’ expeditions in the area in 390/89 (Xen. Hell. 4.8.26; Buck, Thrasybulus, 115). The scholiast on Dem 20.59 (Dilts 146 lines 1–2) says that Ekphantos was the strategos of the Thasians. It is, therefore, possible, that Ekphantos and his men were rewarded for giving assistance to an Athenian force bringing the Thasos into the Athenian sphere of influence: see, with detailed discussion, Canevaro, Demostene, 291. IG II2 33 mentions a grant of ateleia ‘just as for the Mantineaians’ ‘καθά[περ Μ]αν[τ]ινε[ῦ]σιν’ lines 8–9) to Thasian refugees exiled on a charge of Atticism (‘[ἐπ’ ἀ]ττικισμῶι’: lines 7–8) and invites them to xenia (lines 5). N[ausimachos] and Echpha[ntos] (the latter to be identified with Demosthenes’ Ekphantos) are to be charged with writing up their names. Osborne (Naturalization, vol 2, pp 51–2), following Wilhelm, dates the decree to c. 385, on the basis of the reference to the Mantineians (the date of the

d40 award of ateleia for thasians

191

T1 On the one hand, if you remove the exemption, how will you not wrong the Thasians who were siding with Ekphantos? These men handed over Thasos to you, expelling by force of arms the Spartan garrison, and brought Thrasyboulos into the city. In this way they made their city well disposed to yours and caused the population in the area around Thrace to become our allies.

destruction of their city by the Spartans: Xen Hell. 5.2.1–7). Osborne suggests that the inscribed ateleia for the Atticising Thasians was made after Thasos returned to the Spartan fold and the expulsion of the pro-Athenian faction (or, as Kremmydas, Commentary, 295 suggests, the Atticisers may have been obliged to flee after the King’s Peace of 387/6). Given that N[aumachos] and Echpha[ntos] are appointed to write up the names of the honorands, but do not seem to be honorands themselves, they may well already have been honoured before Thasos fell to the Spartans. It is quite plausible that such a grant to Naumachos and Ekphantos is the reward to which Demosthenes (T1) refers (though, as Kremmydas, Commentary, 295, notes, it is striking that Demosthenes does not mention Nausimachos). The epigraphically attested award of citizenship to Archippos and Hipparchos of Thasos, originally of 390/89, and which was inscribed before 387/6, may also be related to the upheavals of this era: certainly they appear to have been involved in something to do with a 2 per cent tax (eikoste: IG II2 24 a lines 3–4) and were awarded with protection by the Athenian demos, access to the council, and Archippos were invited to xenia at the prytaneion (b lines 1–17). On the award of ateleia, see D39 above. In this case it might have consisted of exemption from liturgies, harbour dues, or both. West, ‘The decrees’, 242, suggests that a chunk of the motivation formula of an inscribed decree might be paraphrased in the words of Demosthenes 20: ‘οἳ παραδόντες ὑμῖν Θάσον καὶ τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων φρουρὰν μεθ’ ὅπλων … καὶ παρασχόντες φίλην ὑμῖν τὴν αὑτῶν πατρίδα.’ As noted in the Commentary, while there is no extant fragment of the decree described in this literary testimonium, IG II2 33 appears to allude to related events.

Date

See Commentary above.

192

Bibliography

inventory a1

Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Canevaro, M., Demostene: Contro Leptine. Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston. (2016) 291–2. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22. Austin (2008). Isaac, B. The Greek Stettlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden (1986) 1–51. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 294–5. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3). West, W., ‘The decrees of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines’, ZPE 107 (1995) 237–47.

D41 Decree offering shelter to Corinthians exiled by Spartans Proposer: Unknown Date: 386

Literary Context

As part of his argument about the shameful implications of Leptines’ law revoking awards of ateleia, Demosthenes (T1) holds up the example of the Athenians offering refuge to political exiles from Corinth after the Peace of Antalkidas. In terms of its rhetorical poise, this is a good example of knowledge of a decree being used in a direct address to the jurors: this type of appeal has been judged important both ‘in the perpetuation of this fiction of an ageless demos’ and also in depicting the demos ‘as under attack and placed the burden on the jury either for preserving or restoring democratic order’; see Wolpert, ‘Addresses’, 551.

193

194

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 20.54–5: Ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἡ πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους εἰρήνη μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἐγένετο, ἡ ἐπ’ Ἀνταλκίδου, ἀντὶ τῶν ἔργων τούτων ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐξέπεσον. ὑποδεξάμενοι δ’ ὑμεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐποιήσατ’ ἔργον ἀνθρώπων καλῶν κἀγαθῶν· ἐψηφίσασθε γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἅπανθ’  ὧν ἐδέοντο. εἶτα ταῦτα νῦν εἰ χρὴ κύρι’ εἶναι σκοποῦμεν; ἀλλ’ ὁ λόγος πρῶτον αἰσχρὸς {τοῖς σκοπουμένοις}, εἴ τις ἀκούσειεν ὡς Ἀθηναῖοι σκοποῦσιν εἰ χρὴ τοὺς εὐεργέτας ἐᾶν τὰ δοθέντ’ ἔχειν· πάλαι γὰρ ἐσκέφθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἐγνῶσθαι προσῆκεν. ἀνάγνωθι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμ’ αὐτοῖς. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. Ἃ μὲν ἐψηφίσασθε τοῖς φεύγουσιν δι’ ὑμᾶς Κορινθίων ταῦτ’ ἐστίν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί.

Commentary

The Corinthians of this period experienced great political upheaval (Salmon, Wealthy, 354–70); their administration is portrayed as fluctuating between Athenian and pro-Spartan governments: a pro-Athenian faction was ascendant immediately before the outbreak of the Corinthian War in 395 (Xen. Hell. 3.5.1) and Athenians had rebuilt Corinth’s Long Walls in 391 (Xen. Hell. 4.4.18). However, there was a significant faction of pro-Spartan Corinthian exiles fighting on the Spartan side in the war (Xen. Hell. 4.4.9, 11; 4.5.1, 19). They returned to Corinth around the time of the King’s Peace (Xen. Hell. 5.1.34), after which Corinth went through a period of pro-Spartan government and became an ally of Sparta (Xen. Hell. 5.1.36; SVA 244; Salmon, Wealthy, 369–70). As a consequence of this development anti-Spartan Corinthian exiles fled to Argos (D.S. 15.40.3) and Athens (Dem. 20.51–7). After the King’s Peace (see DP 18 below) was concluded, Demosthenes (T1) claims, the Athenians gave shelter to those Corinthians exiled from their city because of their pro-Athenian activity. His view is that the Athenians, then, acted like good men, decreeing them what they needed (T1). ‘ὧν ἐδέοντο’ is usually translated as ‘things that they needed’, but could also refer to ‘things that they begged’ (LSJ s.v. δέω B II Dep. δέομαι 2): it is quite plausible that political exiles would have travelled to Athens and made a request to be granted something. Demosthenes had the decree read out in court, but does not offer the details of the honours offered to them. He offers the explanation (20.53) that the awards were made in return for the Corinthians having opened the gates of the city for the Athenians to enter at the time of the battle by the River Nemea in summer 394; the accuracy of this statement is questionable given that Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 4.2.23) reports that the Athenians and their allies were shut out of Corinth after the Spartan victory at Nemea.

d41 decree offering shelter to corinthians exiled

195

T1 Later, when the peace with the Spartans was brought about, that is the Peace of Antalkidas, they [sc. Corinthians sympathetic to Athenian interests] were exiled by the Spartans because of what they had done. By receiving them you did a deed of noble and good men, for you voted for them what they needed. Shall we now examine whether these grants should remain valid? For it is shameful even to ask the question, if anyone were to hear how the Athenians are examining whether it is necessary to keep the grants they have been given. These things should have been scrutinised and decided about long ago. Read out also this decree to them. DECREE. These are things you voted for those Corinthians who went into exile because of you.

For the relationship of this decree to the Athenian ideology of hospitality to political exiles, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 290, noting also the practical aspects of the award; other decrees granting awards to exiles are known from this period: see DD 31, 32.

Date

386, after the King’s Peace of 387/6 and the subsequent alliance between the Corinthians and Spartans: Xen. Hell. 5.1.36.

Bibliography

Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012). Salmon, J.B., Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 BC. Oxford (1984). Wolpert, A.O., ‘Addresses to the jury in the Attic orators’, AJPh 124 (2003) 537–55.

D42 Decree of citizenship for Pasion and his descendants Proposer: Unknown Date: c. 390–86

Literary Context

The speeches of Apollodoros, the son of Pasion, provide the testimonia for the decree granting citizenship to his father. Theomnestos brought the indictment against Neaira in support of which [Demosthenes] 59 was composed; in this passage he opens the speech, offering a background to his prosecution and introducing Apollodoros, his synegoros and father-in-law. He claims that when the people of Athens passed a decree granting the right of citizenship to Pasion and his descendants on account of their services to the state (T1), his father betrothed his daughter (i.e. Theomnestos’ sister) to Apollodoros.

Text

T1 [Dem.] 59.2: Ψηφισαμένου γὰρ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων Ἀθηναῖον εἶναι Πασίωνα καὶ ἐκγόνους τοὺς ἐκείνου διὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας τὰς εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ὁμογνώμων καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγένετο ὁ ἐμὸς τῇ τοῦ δήμου δωρεᾷ καὶ ἔδωκεν Ἀπολλοδώρῳ τῷ υἱεῖ τῷ ἐκείνου θυγατέρα μὲν αὑτοῦ, ἀδελφῆν δὲ ἐμήν, ἐξ ἧς Ἀπολλοδώρῳ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν.

Commentary

Pasion, the slave of a banking business, born before 430, was manumitted in the 390s and gained control of the enterprise (Kapparis, Apollodoros, 169; Isoc. 17.36, Dem. 36.47). On the basis of his euergesia (for the meaning of euergesia, see Whitehead, ‘Cardinal’, 54–5) to the Athenians, he was granted citizenship. As for his donations, Apollodoros, boasting in order that he might not receive ‘unworthy treatment’, gives us details of his father’s gift of 1000 shields ([Dem.] 36.4; in all likelihood, they were the product of his shield-factory); moreover, he voluntarily contributed five triremes, manning them at his own expense when serving as trierarch ([Dem.] 45.85); his donations of white curtains (to protect the rowers of triremes from the sun’s rays) and two anchors are mentioned in IG II2 1609 lines 85–6 (of the period 374–362; for discussion of the date, see 196

d42 decree of citizenship for pasion

197

T1  For when the demos of the Athenians voted Pasion and his descendants be Athenians on account of their euergesia towards the city, my father approved of the grant of the people and he gave in marriage his daughter, my sister, to Apollodoros, from whom Apollodoros has children.

Trevett, Apollodoros, 36–8, preferring 365/4). The link between these gifts and the grant of citizenship is controversial, especially given the lack of evidence to show that metics served as trierarchs; moreover, it is far from certain that Pasion – lacking the right of enktesis – would have been legally entitled to own a shield-factory before he was a citizen; Trevett (Apollodoros, 22–3), however, offers solutions to these problems, arguing that it was possible for Pasion to have offered ships and to have incurred the expenditure equivalent to that of a trierarch without actually acting as one; moreover, the shield-factory may have been based on rented property. For the total cost of the donations, Trevett (Apollodoros, 24–5 note 10 and 39–41 note 23) suggests at least 9½ Talents for the triremes and crews, plus the cost of equipping them, and a purchase price

198

inventory a1

of 3 Talents and 2000 drachmai for the shields. In this case, then, Pasion the banker was rewarded for his donations rather than work as a banker, but for other bankers who were honoured by the Athenians, cf. DD 72, 235, 236. See also Cohen, Athenian Economy, 88–9, 102–6, 177–8. As Osborne observes, Apollodoros had been born (probably in 394: Kapparis, Apollodoros, 169) by the time of the award of Pasion’s citizenship, and strictly speaking he too was naturalised: he calls himself a citizen kata psephisma: [Dem.] 53.18). The formulation of the award of citizenship as Ἀθηναῖον εἶναι Πασίωνα καὶ ἐκγόνους (T1) is entirely consistent with inscribed formulae for the award of citizenship: see Henry, Honours, 64–6. Pasion and Phormion (D72) are the only two slaves firmly attested to have received citizenship by enfranchisement. As Stephen Todd points out, one wonders whether the phenomenon of granting citizenship to slaves was frequently associated with those involved in banking, or whether our knowledge is a result of the interests of Apollodoros.

Date

390–86 (Davies, APF p. 430, suggesting that the gifts ‘and Pasion’s rise to citizen status’ were made at some point before the end of the Corinthian war in 386). Trevett, Apollodoros, 21–4 note 9, however, suggests that the grant could have been made at any point between 394/3 and 376 and favours a later dating; for others who prefer a later date, see Kapparis, Apollodoros, 186

Bibliography

Cohen, E.E., Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton (1992). Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). Kapparis, K., Apollodoros: ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin and New York (1999) 169. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T30. Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992) 1–6. Whitehead, D., ‘Cardinal virtues: the language of public approbation in democratic Athens’, C&M 44 (1993) 37–75.

D43 Award of citizenship and crowns for Kotys of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: 384/3

Literary Context

As part of his argument against the decree which would make anyone who had killed Charidemos liable to arrest (D94), Euthykles (the speaker of Dem. 23: T1) points to the example of Kotys as someone whom the Athenians gave citizenship contrary to their interests. In order to reinforce his strictures about the Athenian honorific habit, Demosthenes goes on to point out that the Athenians honoured the killers of Kotys, Python and Herakleides of Ainos (see D73 below).

199

200

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 23.118: Ὅτι τοίνυν ὅλως οὐδ’ ὑγιαινόντων ἐστίν ἀνθρώπων τοιαῦτα γράφειν ψηφίσματα καὶ διδόναι τισὶ τοιαύτας δωρειάς, καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐκ πολλῶν ῥᾴδιον γνῶναι. ἴστε γὰρ δήπου πάντες, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τοῦθ’ ὁμοίως ἐμοί, τὸν Κότυν ποτ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐποιήσασθε πολίτην, δῆλον ὡς κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον εὔνουν ἡγούμενοι. καὶ μὴν καὶ χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ἐστεφανοῦτε, οὐκ ἄν, εἴ γ’ ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε.

Commentary

The award of citizenship and crowns to Kotys, king of Odrysian Thrace, shortly after he gained his throne in 384/3 (Archibald, Odrysian, 218–20), should be seen in the context of growing Athenian interests in the area of Thrace in the 380s, perhaps as a way of securing safe passage for the grain supply of the Black Sea area; for other awards to Thracians, see IG II2 21, 22a, 31, 115, 126, 127 and D29, 30, 76, 77, 79; on Athenian interests in Thrace, see DD 29, 30 above). The style of reference to Kotys being made a citizen (using the verb ποιοῦμαι: ‘τὸν Κότυν … ἐποιήσασθε πολίτην’) is not paralleled in the epigraphical evidence for honours, and may not represent verbatim the language of the decree (for the language of the epigraphically preserved awards, see Henry, Honours, 63–115). The award of a gold crown was relatively rare before the middle of the fourth century: Henry, Honours, 22–4 collects the evidence for gold crowns, noting that it became common (but not universal) to those praised from the mid fourth century onwards; Satyros the King of the Bosporos may have been awarded them (see DD 28, 39 above; Engen, Honor 283, 286): the decree for Dionysius of Syracuse in 369/8 can be restored to say that he received a gold crown (IG II2 103 lines 28–9). For other awards of gold crowns, see Appendix 2 below. Kotys became more hostile to the Athenians in the late 360s (see Kallet, ‘Iphikrates’ and Harris, ‘Iphicrates’), and this shift was what enabled Demosthenes to make his point about the fickleness of such awards (T1); at one point, Kotys actually had the Athenian mercenary commander Iphikrates fight on his side against the Athenians (Dem 23.130 with Sears, Athens and Thrace, 128). As Archibald, Odrysian, 220, observes, ‘Kotys’ reputation as an inveterate enemy of Athens rests solely on Demosthenes’ testimony’, but the charges laid against Kotys are flimsy; Athenaios quotes a number of luxuriant and extreme aspects of Kotys’ life (Ath. 531e–2a = FGrH 115 F31). Nevertheless, the Athenian backing of Kotys was opportunistic and was maintained only as long as it coincided with Athenian interests: the Athenians in 360 passed awards for his assassins (see below, D73).

d43 award of citizenship and crowns

201

T1  It is easy to discern from many examples that it is wholly the act of men of unsound mind to propose such decrees and to give such awards to these men. For surely you all know well, men of Athens, as I do, that once you made that Kotys a citizen, for it seems at that time that you believed him a well-wisher and in truth also you crowned him with golden crowns; you would not have done that had you believed him to be your enemy.

Later sources claim that the Athenian general Iphikrates married Kotys’ sister, and he is known to have other personal links to Kotys (Sears, Athens, Thrace, 124–9, 134–6, 221–4) but see Kremmydas, Commentary, 335; Harris, ‘Iphicrates’; Kallet, ‘Iphikrates’).

Date

Kotys came to the throne in 384/3 and and it is likely that the Athenians made the award ‘on this occasion or soon afterwards’ (Osborne, Naturalization, T36 commentary).

Bibliography

Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford (2008). Engen, D.T., Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415–307 BC. Michigan (2010). Harris, E.M., ‘Iphicrates at the court of Cotys’, AJP 110 (1989) 264–71. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). Kallet, L., ‘Iphikrates, Timotheos, and Athens, 371–360 BC’, GRBS 24 (1983) 239–52. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T36. Sears, M., Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership. Cambridge (2013).

D44 Decree for armed intervention in Thebes Proposer: Kephalos Kollyteus (PA 8277; PAA 566650) Date: Winter 379/8

Literary Context

Dinarchus (T1), in his discussion of those politicians who behaved in a way equivalent to the reputation of the Athenians (contrasted to the behaviour of Demosthenes), says that Kephalos persuaded the Athenians to take to the field when he proposed the decree moving that the Athenians should march out to help Theban exiles. The decree is described also by Diodorus (T2), without naming the proposer; Xenophon, however, reports Athenian action, but does not directly connect it with a decision of the people. Diodorus offers a view of the twin intentions behind the decree: both to repay the Theban euergesia (presumably the hosting of Athenian democratic refugees during the civil war of 404/3: Xen. Hell. 2.4.1–2) and the aim to befriend the Thebans as an ally against Sparta.

Texts

T1 Din. 1.39–40: … οἱ δὲ πείσαντος ἐξελθεῖν ὑμῶν τοὺς προγόνους Κεφάλου τοῦ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψαντος, ὃς οὐ καταπλαγεὶς τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων δύναμιν, οὐδὲ λογισάμενος ὅτι τὸ κινδυνεύειν καὶ τὸ γράφειν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως ἐπισφαλές ἐστιν, ἔγραψεν ἐξιέναι βοηθήσοντας Ἀθηναίους τοῖς κατειληφόσι τῶν φυγάδων Θήβας· καὶ ἐξελθόντων ἐκεῖσε τῶν ὑμετέρων πατέρων ὀλίγαις ἡμέραις ἐξεβλήθη ὁ Λακεδαιμονίων φρούραρχος, ἠλευθέρωντο Θηβαῖοι, διεπέπρακτο ἡ πόλις ἡ ὑμετέρα ἄξια τῶν προγόνων. ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν, ἐκεῖνοι ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι ἄξιοι σύμβουλοι καὶ ἡγεμόνες ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ δήμου. T2 D.S. 15.26.1: Ὁ δὲ δῆμος τῶν Ἀθηναίων διακούσας τῶν πρέσβεων ἐψηφίσατο παραχρῆμα δύναμιν ὡς πλείστην ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν ἐλευθερώσουσαν τὰς Θήβας, ἅμα μὲν τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀποδιδοὺς τὰς χάριτας ἄμα δὲ βουλόμενος τοὺς βοιωτοὺς ἐξιδιώσασθαι καὶ συναγωνιστὰς ἰσχυροὺς ἔχειν κατὰ τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων ὑπεροχῆς.

202

d44 decree for armed intervention in thebes

203

T1 … others [sent aid] when Kephalos moved his decree persuading your ancestors to march out. He, not flinching at the power of the Lakedamonians, nor considering the risk-taking and the making of the proposal on behalf of your city to be dangerous, proposed that the Athenians should march out to help those of the exiles who had taken Thebes. And when your ancestors did indeed march out there, the Spartan commander was expelled within a few days, the Thebans were liberated, and your city had acted in a way worthy of its ancestors. These men were worthy advisers and leaders of you and the people. T2 The demos of the Athenians, on listening to the ambassadors all the way through, voted to send out immediately as large a force as possible for the purpose of freeing Thebes, in this way repaying the favour of goodwill and at the same time hoping to win over the Boiotians and to have in them a strong ally in their battle against the supremacy of the Lakedaimonians.

204

Commentary

inventory a1

The immediate background to this decree lies in the Spartan commander Phoibidias’ seizure of the Theban Kadmeia in 382, and the subsequent installation of a Spartan garrison and exile of anti-Spartan citizens from Thebes. Those exiles rose up against the occupiers in 378/7 (D.S. 15.25.1–2); according to Diodorus, they appealed to the Athenians for help, reminding them of their aid in the restoration of democracy in 403/2 (D.S. 15.25.4). Xenophon’s account of the aftermath of the occupation of the Kadmeia says that Theban exiles sent horsemen to fetch Athenian troops who were stationed on the borders (Xen. Hell. 5.4.9-10); an Athenian force from the frontier and peltasts led by Chabrias appears to have been sent: Xen. Hell. 5.4.10, 14. Xenophon, however mentions neither an official Theban appeal nor an Athenian decree. He does, however, suggest that the Athenians were worried by the prospect of Spartan power (5.4.19), but according to his account, Athenian aid to the Thebans came only after the raid of Sphodrias in 378 and the failure of Spartan politicians to punish him (Xen. Hell. 5.4.34 = DP 22 below). Xenophon’s view has led some to believe that the initial Athenian intervention was the result of private initiative and not the result of a decree (most recently Worthington, Commentary, 195); however, Cawkwell makes a case against reading too much into Xenophon’s silence, contradicting the view that the decree was an invention of Ephoros (Cawkwell, ‘The foundation’, 56–8). Buck writes that Dinarchus’ report of Kephalos’ proposal refers to a decree ‘authorizing troop movements near the fontier’ (Buck, ‘The Athenians’, 107). Stylianou, furthermore, suggests that Xenophon was silent about the official nature of Athenian intervention in order to conceal the Athenian role in the liberation and ensuing rise of Thebes and the assault on his beloved Sparta: Stylianou, A Historical Commentary, 230– 6. This is not incompatible with the observation of Steinbock, that the accounts of Diodorus and Dinarchus may well reflect ‘the patriotic exaggerations of the Athenian master narrative’ (Steinbock, Social Memory, 263), and that the decision was likely to be remembered ‘since it conformed to the Athenians’ self-image’ (264). Indeed, as he points out, Athenian liberation of the Theban Kadmeia is mentioned also at Aeschin. 2.164 and Isoc. 14.28-9 (‘διὰ τῆς ὑμετέρας δυνάμεως’). This action was presumably the prelude to the alliance between the Athenians and the Thebans of 378/77 (IG II2 40), which formed the background to the formation of the second Athenian confederacy (IG II2 43; see DP 21 below). In the next year, 377/6, the Athenians, on hearing of the presence of the Spartans in Boiotia, sent a force to assist them (D.S. 15.32.2 = DP 24). Kephalos is attested to have proposed one other decree, in the form of a rider to the honours for Phanokritos in 387/6 (IG II2 29); for his activity as a synegoros and ambassador, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 51. Aeschines

d45 decree on the king’s peace

205

says that Kephalos, ‘ὁ δοκῶν δημοτικώτατος γεγονέναι’, boasted that although he had been the author of more decrees than any other, he had never been indicted for graphe paranomon (Aeschin. 3.194); Demosthenes says that he had an accomplished reputation (Dem. 18.219); on his influence, see Sealey, ‘Callistratus’, 185–6 (suggesting that he was among the most important men in Athens after the King’s Peace) and Worthington, Commentary, 192–3.

Date

Winter 379/8 (Cawkwell, ‘Foundation’ 56–7; SVA 254, arguing against Diodorus’ date of 378/7).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 254. Buck, R.J., ‘The Athenians at Thebes in 379/8 BC’, AHB 6 (1992) 103–9. Cawkwell, G., ‘The foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, CQ 23 (1973) 47-60. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Sealey, R., ‘Callistratos of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 178–203. Steinbock, B., Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Use and Meanings of the Past. Michigan (2013). Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998). Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 192–7.

D45 Decree declaring that the Spartans had broken the King’s Peace Proposer: Unknown Date: Spring 378

Literary Context

Diodorus (T1) places the foundation of a synedrion of allies (that is, the Second Athenian Confederacy) between the liberation of Thebes and Sphodrias’ raid

206

inventory a1

on Piraeus (see DP 21 below). He goes on to say that after Sphodrias’ (he calls him Sphodriades) raid on the Piraeus (this too he places in spring 378: see Stylianou, Historical Commentary, 261), the Athenians voted that the King’s Peace had been broken and they decided to make war (T1). He presents this as an act of Athenian philanthropia (cf. also D55 T3).

Text

T1 D.S. 15.29.7–8: Διόπερ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι χαλεπῶς φέροντες ἐπὶ τοῖς γεγονόσιν, ἐψηφίσαντο λελύσθαι τὰς σπονδὰς ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων. κρίναντες δὲ πολεμεῖν αὐτοῖς, στρατηγοὺς τρεῖς εἵλαντο τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους τῶν πολιτῶν, Τιμόθεον καὶ Χαβρίαν καὶ Καλλίστρατον. ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ στρατιώτας μὲν ὁπλίτας καταλέξαι δισμυρίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ πεντακοσίους, ναῦς δὲ πληρῶσαι διακοσίας. προσελάβοντο δὲ καὶ τοὺς Θηβαίους ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν συνέδριον ἐπὶ τοῖς ἴσοις πᾶσιν. ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ καὶ τὰς γενομένας κληρουχίας ἀποκαταστῆσαι τοῖς πρότερον κυρίοις γεγονόσι, καὶ νόμον ἔθεντο μηδένα τῶν Ἀθηναίων γεωργεῖν ἐκτὸς τῆς Ἀττικῆς. διὰ δὲ ταύτης τῆς φιλανθρωπίας ἀνακτησάμενοι τὴν παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν εὔνοιαν, ἰσχυροτέραν ἐποιήσαντο τὴν ἰδίαν ἡγεμονίαν.

Commentary

The passage under discussion describes events which, according to Diodorus, took place after the foundation of the synedrion which became the second Athenian confederacy (cf. his account of its foundation at 15.28.3–5 = DP 20 and 21). Some scholarship (e.g. Cawkwell, ‘The foundation’) has followed Diodorus’ order of events, placing the attempted raid of Sphodrias on the Piraeus after the foundation of the league but the developments at T1 subsequent to the raid and Sphodrias’ acquittal at Sparta. It is more likely, however, that Sphodrias’ attempt took place before the foundation of the league and provoked its creation: see Badian, ‘The ghost,’ 89–90 note 34; RO p. 100. It is likely, moreover, that T1 runs together a number of developments which pertained to separate decrees of the Athenian assembly. According to T1, after voting that the King’s Peace had been broken by the raid of Sphodrias, the Athenians decide the following: (a) To make war on the Spartans. (b) To elect generals to lead the expedition and to levy forces of 20,000 hoplites (a relatively large levy, but one contradicted by Polybius’ figure of 10,000 men and 1000 triremes (Polyb. 2.62.6): Stylianou, Historical Commentary, 267 suggests that Diodorus’ figure reflects the figures of a joint Athenian and allied effort, while that of Polybius pertains to that of Athens alone),

d45 decree on the king’s peace

207

T1 Accordingly, the Athenians, seriously vexed at what had happened, voted that the truce had been broken by the Spartans. They then decided to make war against them and they elected as generals three of their most eminent citizens, Timotheos and Chabrias and Kallistratos. They voted to conscript 20,000 hoplite soldiers and 500 cavalry, and to man 200 ships. Additionally they admitted the Thebans to the koinon sunedrion on equal terms in every way. And they voted to return land which had been taken up by cleruchs to its former owners, and they made a law that no Athenian was to farm land outside Attica. By this act of kindness they regained goodwill among the Greeks, and made their own leadership more secure.

500 cavalrymen, and 200 ships (again, Stylianou, Historical Commentary, 268 accepts the figures on the basis of the view that it includes the allied contingent); we should note that as Christ, ‘Conscription,’ 416 observes, Diodorus’ words do not reveal what system of conscription the Athenians were using at that time. (c) To admit the Thebans to the synedrion (though they may already have been allies of the Athenians). (d) To restore land appropriated by Athenian cleruchs to its former owners; as both Cargill, The Second Athenian, 147 and RO p. 102 note, pointing to the examples of cleruchies on Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros, Diodorus is wrong to claim that all such territories were handed over, and it is not clear how much land there was to be surrendered by private Athenian landowners. For Athenian establishment of new cleruchies in the fourth century BC, see D65 below. (e) To pass a ‘nomos’ forbidding the cultivation of non-Attic land by Athenians. As Stylianou suggests, what we have here may well be a compressed version of measures (perhaps transmitted through Ephoros) taken by the Athenians after they had declared the Peace to have been broken. As Stylianou (Historical Commentary, 265, 269–70) observes, the provision against Athenians farming land outside Athens is reflected, if not

inventory a1

208

verbatim, in the provisions of the inscribed charter of the league renouncing Athenian possessions in allied states (RO 22 lines 25–31) and against Athenians acquiring land or a house in the territory of allies (RO 22 lines 35–45). It is impossible, however, to tell how accurate the designation of the measure as a nomos is: Stylianou (Historical Commentary, 269) labels it ‘technically wrong’. Moreover, it is likely that Diodorus has misrepresented the pledge renouncing holdings in allied cities as one which renounced all holdings outside Attica: see Cargill, The Second Athenian, 147. For the decision, probably of 378/7, to assist the Boiotians, gate the Piraeus, and fit out ships in response to the Spartan acquittal of Sphodrias, see Xen. Hell. 5.4.34 (DP 22 below). Diodorus’ passage has clear resonances with the epigraphical evidence: both the decree IG II2 40, which appears to concern an alliance or at least the receipt of ambassadors from Thebes, and the famous charter of the 2nd Athenian Confederacy (RO 22). In the latter case, the correspondences between the inscribed and the literary attestations are linguistically rather distant, but both sets of evidence share the sense of limiting Athenian exploitation of allied territories.

Date

Spring 378 (shortly before or after the publication of RO 22, the inscribed decree pertaining to the foundation of the confederacy); Diodorus (T1) is probably wrong to place these events in 377/6.

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘The ghost of empire: reflections on Athenian foreign policy in the fourth century BC’ in Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Vollendung oder Verfall einer Verfassungsform?: Akten eines Symposiums 3.–7. August 1992, Bellagio, ed. W. Eder. Stuttgart (1995) 79–106. Cargill, J., The Second Athenian League: Empire or Free Alliance. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (1981). Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, CQ 23 (1973) 47–60. Christ, M.C., ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, CQ 51 (2001) 398–422. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998) 265–70.

D46 Decree awarding statue and crown to Chabrias Proposer: Unknown Date: 377/6 or 376/5

Literary Context

Demosthenes, emphasising the value of honorific awards undermined by Leptines’ legislation, offers, at great length, details of Chabrias’ achievements, and even asks the secretary to read an account of them (T1) and has the honorific decrees for him read out (Dem. 20.86). While Demosthenes set up Chabrias as a model recipient of honours, there was another reason for going into such detail about the exploits of this particular individual: Demosthenes presented his decision to take up this synegoria as motivated not only by a concern for the interest of the city but also ‘for the sake of the son of the now deceased Chabrias’ (Dem. 20.1); his name was Ktesippos; indeed, Leptines’ law would have meant that Ktesippos would lose the ateleia that he had inherited (75). It must be acknowledged, though, that while philia may have been a motivating factor, the precise nature of Demosthenes’ motivation is not detailed (Kremmydas, Commentary, 178–9); as Rubinstein, Litigation, 139 and 147 points out, Demosthenes offers little insight into the connections of the case with his personal interests: he follows the pattern of endorsing the main prosecutor’s case. By underlining that his audience, addressed in the second person (esp. T2), was responsible for these honorific decrees, he heightens the feeling among them that they were responsible for upholding the threatened values of the Athenian democracy. On the use of the second person, as a way of making the jurors feel that they were acting on behalf of the city and to conflate their own interests with those of the city, see Wolpert, ‘Addresses’, 543. Aeschines, in his challenge to Ktesiphon’s decree for Demosthenes (T4), argues that the whole jury will recognise why Chabrias (and others) were rewarded, and this leads him to the question of why Demosthenes should be rewarded. Aristotle (T6) refers to the decree as an example of metaphor. The awards for Chabrias, and in particular his statues, appear to have attracted a great deal of attention in antiquity and were known to both Diodorus (T7) and Cornelius Nepos (T8). 209

210

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 20.75–8: Ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία τὸν παῖδα τὸν Χαβρίου περιίδωμεν ἀφαιρεθέντα τὴν ἀτέλειαν, ἣν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῷ δικαίως παρ’ ὑμῶν λαβὼν κατέλιπεν. ἀλλ’ οὐδέν’ ἀνθρώπων εὖ φρονοῦντ’ οἶμαι ταῦτ’ ἂν φῆσαι καλῶς ἔχειν. ἴστε μὲν οὖν ἴσως, καὶ ἄνευ τοῦ παρ’ ἐμοῦ λόγου, ὅτι σπουδαῖος Χαβρίας ἦν ἀνήρ, οὐ μὴν κωλύει γ’ οὐδὲν κἀμὲ διὰ βραχέων ἐπιμνησθῆναι τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτῷ. ὃν μὲν οὖν τρόπον ὑμᾶς ἔχων πρὸς ἅπαντας Πελοποννησίους παρετάξατ’ ἐν Θήβαις, καὶ ὡς Γοργώπαν ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν Αἰγίνῃ, καὶ ὅσ’ ἐν Κύπρῳ τρόπαι’ ἔστησεν καὶ μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, καὶ ὅτι πᾶσαν ἐπελθὼν ὀλίγου δέω λέγειν χώραν οὐδαμοῦ τὸ τῆς πόλεως ὄνομ’ οὐδ’ αὑτὸν κατῄσχυνεν, οὔτε πάνυ ῥᾴδιον κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν εἰπεῖν, πολλή τ’ αἰσχύνη λέγοντος ἐμοῦ ταῦτ’ ἐλάττω φανῆναι τῆς ἐν ἑκάστῳ νῦν περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξης ὑπαρχούσης· ἃ δ’ οὐδαμῶς ἂν εἰπὼν οἴομαι μικρὰ ποιῆσαι, ταῦθ’ ὑπομνῆσαι πειράσομαι. ἐνίκησεν μὲν τοίνυν Λακεδαιμονίους ναυμαχίᾳ καὶ πεντήκοντα μιᾶς δεούσας ἔλαβ’ αἰχμαλώτους τριήρεις, εἷλε δὲ τῶν νήσων τούτων τὰς πολλὰς καὶ παρέδωκεν ὑμῖν καὶ φιλίας ἐποίησεν ἐχθρῶς ἐχούσας πρότερον, τρισχίλια δ’ αἰχμάλωτα σώματα δεῦρ’ ἤγαγεν, καὶ πλεῖν ἢ δέκα καὶ ἑκατὸν τάλαντ’ ἀπέφην’ ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων. καὶ τούτων πάντων ὑμῶν τινὲς οἱ πρεσβύτατοι μάρτυρές εἰσί μοι. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἄλλας τριήρεις πλεῖν ἢ εἴκοσιν εἷλε, κατὰ μίαν καὶ δύο λαμβάνων, ἃς ἁπάσας εἰς τοὺς ὑμετέρους λιμένας κατήγαγεν. ἑνὶ δὲ κεφαλαίῳ μόνος τῶν πάντων στρατηγῶν οὐ πόλιν, οὐ φρούριον, οὐ ναῦν, οὐ στρατιώτην ἀπώλεσεν οὐδέν’ ἡγούμενος ὑμῶν, οὐδ’ ἔστιν οὐδενὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἐχθρῶν τρόπαιον οὐδὲν ἀφ’ ὑμῶν τε κἀκείνου, ὑμῖν δ’ ἀπὸ πολλῶν πόλλ’ ἐκείνου στρατηγοῦντος.  ἵνα δὲ μὴ λέγων παραλίπω τι τῶν πεπραγμένων αὐτῷ, ἀναγνώσεται γεγραμμένας ὑμῖν τάς τε ναῦς ὅσας ἔλαβεν καὶ οὗ ἑκάστην, καὶ τῶν πόλεων τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τῶν τροπαίων οὗ ἕκαστον. λέγε. ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΧΑΒΡΙΟΥ.  T2  Dem. 20.84: Λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῷ Χαβρίᾳ ψήφισμα ψηφισθέν. ὅρα δὴ καὶ σκόπει· δεῖ γὰρ αὔτ’ ἐνταῦθ’ εἶναί που. Ἐγὼ δ’ ἔτι τοῦτ’ εἰπεῖν ὑπὲρ Χαβρίου βούλομαι. ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τιμῶντές ποτ’ Ἰφικράτην, οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν ἐτιμήσατε, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Στράβακα καὶ Πολύστρατον· καὶ πάλιν, Τιμοθέῳ διδόντες τὴν δωρειάν, δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἐδώκατε καὶ Κλεάρχῳ καί τισιν ἄλλοις πολιτείαν· Χαβρίας δ’ αὐτὸς ἐτιμήθη παρ’ ὑμῖν μόνος.

T3 Dem. 20.146: Οὗτος ἐγράψατο τὴν Χαβρίου δωρεάν, ἐν ᾗ τοῦτ’ ἔνεστιν τὸ τῆς ἀτελείας τῶν ἐκείνῳ τι δοθέντων, καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰσελθὼν ἡττήθη.

d46 decree awarding statue and crown to chabrias

211

T1 But, by Zeus, shall we overlook the son of Chabrias being stripped of the exemption which his father rightly received from you and has now given to him? I do not think that any right-thinking person would maintain that this is fair. And so perhaps you know, even without an account by me, that Chabrias was an excellent man, but yet this does not prevent me at all from reminding you briefly of some of the things achieved by him: in what way he arranged you for battle against all of the Peloponnesians at Thebes, and how he killed Gorgopas at Aegina, and how many trophies he set up at Cyprus and after that in Egypt; that he ventured across almost every land and never brought shame on the name of the city or himself. It is by no means easy to do justice in a speech; it would bring great shame were I in my speech to make his achievements seem inferior to his current reputation. But I shall try to recall these things which I think will be in no way diminished by my words. Accordingly he defeated the Lakedaimonians in a sea-battle and took captive forty-nine triremes, he took many of these islands and he handed them over to you and made them your allies, whereas previously they had been hostile to you; he brought three thousand captives here, and he took from enemies more than 110 Talents. The older men among you are my witnesses. And additionally he took more than twenty triremes, taking them one or two at a time, and he brought them all into your harbours. In short, he alone of all your generals never lost a city, nor a garrison, nor a ship, nor a single soldier while leading you and there is not even one trophy of your enemies for a victory over him, though there are many trophies for you when he was commanding. So that I do not forget to mention any of his accomplishments, there will be read out in front of you a written record of how many ships he took and where each one came from, and of the number of cities and the amount of money and the location of each of his trophies. Read. DEEDS OF CHABRIAS.

T2 Get now also the decree that was voted for Chabrias. Look at it and search for it, for it must be somewhere. For I want to say this too about Chabrias. For when you honoured Iphikrates, men of Athens, you did not only honour him, but also, for his sake, you honoured Strabax and Polystratos. And furthermore when you gave the award to Timotheos, for the sake of him you also gave the citizenship to Klearchos and others. But Chabrias himself was honoured on his own by you. At 20.86, Demosthenes requests that the decree be read out loud, but the manuscripts preserve no text of it. T3 He (sc. Leodamas) indicted the award of Chabrias, in which there was included among other things the grant of exemption, and when it came before you, he was defeated.

212

inventory a1

T4  Aeschin. 3.243: Ἐπερώτησον δὴ τοὺς δικαστὰς εἰ ἐγίγνωσκον Χαβρίαν καὶ Ἰφικράτην καὶ Τιμόθεον, καὶ πυθοῦ παρ’ αὐτῶν διὰ τί τὰς δωρεὰς αὐτοῖς ἔδοσαν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἔστησαν. Ἅπαντες γὰρ ἅμα ἀποκρινοῦνται ὅτι Χαβρίᾳ μὲν διὰ τὴν περὶ Νάξον ναυμαχίαν, Ἰφικράτει δὲ ὅτι μόραν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπέκτεινε, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διὰ τὸν περίπλουν τὸν εἰς Κέρκυραν, καὶ ἄλλοις, ὧν ἑκάστῳ πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργα πέπρακται. Δημοσθένει δ’ ἀντεροῦ διὰ τί; T5  Dem. 24.180: Οἶμαι γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἅπαντας ὁρᾶν ὑπὸ τῶν στεφάνων ταῖς χοινικίσιν κάτωθεν γεγραμμένα … ‘Χαβρίας ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν Νάξῳ ναυμαχίας’. T6 Aristotle Rh. 1411b6–10: Καὶ Λυκολέων ὑπὲρ Χαβρίου ‘οὐδὲ τὴν ἱκετηρίαν αἰσχυνθέντες αὐτοῦ, τὴν εἰκόνα τὴν χαλκῆν’·μεταφορὰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ παρόντι, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀεί, ἀλλὰ πρὸ ὀμμάτων· κινδυνεύοντος γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἱκετεύει ἡ εἰκών, τὸ ‘ἔμψυχον δὴ ἄψυχον’, τὸ ὑπόμνημα τῶν τῆς πόλεως ἔργων. T7 D. S. 15.33.4: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ μὲν Ἀγησίλαος μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Πελοπόννησον, οἱ δὲ Θηβαῖοι διὰ τὴν Χαβρίου στρατηγίαν σωθέντες ἐθαύμασαν τἀνδρὸς τὴν ἐν τῷ στρατηγήματι ἀγχίνοιαν. ὁ δὲ Χαβρίας, πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν αὐτῷ πεπραγμένων κατὰ πόλεμον, ἐπὶ τούτῳ μάλιστα ἐσεμνύνετο τῷ στρατηγήματι, καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας τὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου δοθείσας αὐτῷ καθίστανεν ἐχούσας τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα. T8 Nepos, Chabrias 1.3: Hoc usque eo tota Graecia fama celebratum est, ut illo statu Chabrias sibi statuam fieri voluerit, quae publice ei ab Atheniensibus in foro constituta est.

Commentary

Chabrias possessed one of the foremost reputations of fourth-century Athenian generals. As Kremmydas (Commentary, 320) notes, Chabrias is part of the triumvirate of generals who appear in the orators as models of civic virtue: the others are Timotheos and Iphikrates (Dem. 20.84–5, Aeschin 3.243 and Din. 1.75; see DD 47 and 54), but Konon was celebrated too in Athens (see D23 above) and with honours granted to him elsewhere in the Greek world (e.g. IErythrai 6). Over the course of a long career, from 390–357/6, Chabrias was associated with a number of significant military engagements, the most famous of which was his defeat of the Lakedaimonian fleet at Naxos in 376: Demosthenes 24.180 mentions a dedicated crown which commemorated this victory (which was referred to also at Dem. 13.22; 23.198 and Din. 1.75). For a fuller account of

d46 decree awarding statue and crown to chabrias

213

T4 Then ask the jurors if they recognised Chabrias and Iphikrates and Timotheos, and inquire among them as to why they gave them rewards and set up statues of them. And they will all respond harmoniously that Chabrias was rewarded for the sea-battle off Naxos, Iphikrates for destroying a Spartan mora, Timotheos for his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese to Corcyra, and there are others, who accomplished many fine achivements in war. Then, ask in turn, why reward Demosthenes?

T5 I believe that you all have seen the words written under the circlets of the crowns … ‘Chabrias, from the sea-battle off Naxos’. T6 And Lykoleon said, on behalf of Chabrias, ‘not even having respect for the suppliant posture of his statue of bronze’, an ephemeral metaphor, not for all time, but still vivid; for when Chabrias is in danger, the statue intercedes for him, ‘the inanimate becomes animate’, the memorial of the things he has done for the city-state. T7  After this Agesilaus came back with his force to the Peloponnese, and the Thebans, saved by the generalship of Chabrias, were amazed at his strategic skill. Chabrias, though he had performed many brave deeds in war, was particularly proud of this aspect of strategy and he ensured that the statues which had been granted by the people be erected to display that posture.

T8  This manoeuvre became so renowned across Greece that, when a statue was erected by the city to Chabrias in the agora at Athens, he chose to be represented in that pose.

the achievements of his career, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 320–1; Canevaro, Demostene, 313–15; Worthington, A Historical, 155–6; Gauthier, Les cités, 101–2. As Canevaro, Demostene, 315 notes, Demosthenes emphasises the enormous geographical extent of Chabrias’ activity. He appears to have been granted hereditary ateleia (it was passed to his son, Ktesippos: TT 1, 3) and a statue, probably in recognition of his efforts at Naxos in 376 (T4, though see below for a discussion of the connection of the honorific statue with other military achievements; T8). Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 197 note 119 suggests that the other rewards (dorea) referred to in TT 3 and 4 indicate that he was granted also sitesis and proedria. Demosthenes, in the speech Against Timokrates, claims knowledge of the crown, and quotes it (T5).

214

inventory a1

Demosthenes claims that at the battle of Naxos (376), he defeated the Lakedaimonians in a sea-battle, taking 49 triremes, capturing most of the islands nearby and making them into allies, bringing to Athens 3,000 captives, and paying 110 Talents taken from the enemy into the treasury (Dem. 20.77). It was a victory which restored Athenian naval supremacy in the Aegean. Demosthenes exaggerates the achievements of Chabrias at a number of points: given that it is unlikely he travelled west, one can hardly be sure that he travelled over ‘every land’ (20.76); his claims about the numbers of triremes captured should be contrasted with Diodorus’ (15.32.2) report that eight Spartan triremes were captured and twenty-four destroyed (Harris, Demosthenes, 45 notes 108, 110; Kremmydas, Commentary, 323; cf. IG II2 1606 lines 78–9, 82–3; 1607 lines 20–1, 114–15, 145–6). Aeschines (T4) suggests that it was this victory that led to the honours being passed for him, but Demosthenes’ reading of a documentary version of the ‘deeds of Chabrias’ may have its origin in a dossier of accomplishments put together by the honorand in support of his honours. Demosthenes (T2) makes much of the fact that Chabrias was honoured alone by the Athenians: this distanced his award from the practice of honouring others alongside a principal honorand ‘on account of him’ (‘δι’ ἐκεῖνον’), perhaps on the request of the original honorand (20.85). As Canevaro points out, it may have in fact been the case that Lykidas (D103) was granted honours at the same time as Chabrias: cf. Canevaro, Demostene, 332–3. The award for Chabrias was unsuccessfully indicted by Leodamas (T3; see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 7), and may have been defended by Aristotle’s Lykoleon (T6). According to Aristotle (T6), when he was charged by the same Leodamas with treason as a general of 366/5 (Scholion in Dem. 21.64 Dilts 204; D.S. 15.76), his synegoros, Lykoleon, cited the decree in his defence. Perhaps this contributed to his acquittal (Hansen, Eisangelia 93 (no. 84); Hamel, Athenian Generals, 150–1 (no. 43)). Interestingly, Demosthenes asks the clerk to read aloud an inventory of ships taken by Chabrias, the number of cities and amount of treasure he captured, and the place where he set up each trophy (Dem. 20.78), but there is no clear indication that this list was preserved in the decree (read aloud, but not preserved, at Dem. 20.84 and 86). No decree for Chabrias is preserved in the material record, but there are inventory records which list ships captured by Chabrias in 374/3 (IG II2 1606 lines 78–9, 82–3; 1607 lines 20–1, 114–15, 145– 6). Kremmydas suggests that the ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΧΑΒΡΙΟΥ read out at the end of section 78 was a list of Chabrias’ naval accomplishments which Demosthenes had composed on the basis of scrutiny of public documents (Kremmydas, Commentary, 325); the scholiast’s statement (Dilts 183) said that the deeds were read ‘from a memorandum’ (‘ἐξ ὑπομνήματος’); a privately composed dossier

d46 decree awarding statue and crown to chabrias

215

is also a possibility. Gauthier, on the other hand, suggests that Demosthenes is drawing upon a list of deeds (‘πεπραγμένα’) which were submitted to the council at the time when Chabrias’ honours were requested (Gauthier, Les cités 99–102); Gauthier maintains the significance of the request (aitesis) of rewards in the classical period at Les cités 102–3, citing Aeschin 3.186; for an example of a foreigner requesting an award, see Dem. 23.127 (= D73 T2). As Canevaro (Demostene, 320) observes, the lemma ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΧΑΒΡΙΟΥ is probably a later addition and has no documentary status. Later in the speech (T2) Demosthenes had the decree for Chabrias read out, suggesting in his language that the echinos (box containing documents to be read out in the speech) was in a state of disorder: see Dem. 20.84 with Canevaro, Demostene, 329 and Kremmydas, Commentary, 334. Plutarch offers a perspective into why the victory at Naxos was so widely acclaimed: he writes that it was the first sea-battle that the Athenians had won since the capture of their city at the end of the Peloponnesian war, and for this reason they ‘made exceedingly much of Chabrias’ (‘τόν … Χαβρίαν ὑπερηγάπησε’). Diodorus says that it surpassed the battle of Knidos in glory as they had fought it with their own ships (D.S. 15.35.2). Chabrias, for his part, brought back considerable spoils from the battle (D.S. 15.35.2) and kept the memory of the victory fresh in their mind by providing the Athenians with wine at the time of the Mysteries, commemorating the time of year at which the victory had been won (Plu. Phoc. 6.7). Chabrias’ reputation spread beyond Athens: at some point in his career, Chabrias was honoured by the Chians (Dem. 20.81). It is perhaps striking that, despite his reputation in the orators, his profile in the Hellenika of Xenophon is relatively low, receiving only passing mentions in that text (Xen. Hell. 5.1.10, 12; 5.4.14, 54, 61); Xenophon emphasised the achievements of Iphikrates at his expense (Hell. 6.2.39). While Demosthenes concentrates on the achievements of Chabrias that led to the reward of ateleia, Aeschines (T4) and the later sources (TT 6, 7, 8) are more interested in the statue-group set up in his honour. Whereas Aeschines (T4) connects them with the victory off the coast of Naxos, Diodorus (T6) claims that they were erected after he defeated the Lakedaimonians near Thebes in 377/6, leading mercenaries against Agesilaus (D.S. 15.32.5 with T7; note that Demosthenes 20.76 ‘shades the truth by implying the soldiers were Athenians’: Harris, Demosthenes, 45 n. 105). Nepos (T8) repeats this story, and adds the detail that the statue was erected at the agora (for the strategy see also Polyainos 2.1.2). The design of the statues, with shield leaning against knees and spear upright (D.S. 15.32.5, 33.4; Nep. 1.2) is said by Diodorus to have been based upon the pose used by Chabrias as an insult to his enemies when he fought against the Spartans with mercenaries on behalf of the Thebans in 377/6. As for the physical

216

inventory a1

form of the monument, Stylianou (A Historical, 300, following Anderson, ‘The statue’ and Buckler, ‘A second’) rejects Burnett and Edmondson’s view that the statue represented Chabrias kneeling on one knee: standing hoplites are more likely. Stylianou, A Historical, 299, also suggests, against Diodorus (T7), that there was just one statue, rather than a group. Nepos went on to claim that the statue was stylistically significant, leading athletes and others to be represented in action. Shear describes it as a ‘martial image’, placed in the agora in proximity to that of the tyrannicides by way of contrast to their achievements: Shear, ‘Cultural change’, 111. For the physical remains, deriving from the Athenian agora, of a statue-base for Chabrias, which bears honours awarded by soldiers on campaign at Syros, Naxos, Abydos, Mytilene, and in the Hellespont at the Aianteion (or the Korybanteion, as Stylianou, A Historical, 301 suggests), the demos of the Mytileneans and others, see Burnett and Edmondson, ‘The Chabrias monument’; they can be dated to 375 or 374: see SEG XIX 204. As Shear notes, the base, which was decorated with inscriptions and incised olive crowns voted by a number of groups (soldiers on campaign at Syros, Naxos, Abydos, Mytilene, the Aianteion at the Hellespont, and the demos of Mytilene) amounts to ‘a partial history of the honorand’s career’: Shear, ‘Cultural Change’, 111. Leodamas (T3) launched an indictment of the decree for Chabrias’ honours, but the award was upheld.

Date

376/5, after the battle of Naxos, as suggested by Gauthier, Les cités, 101. Gauthier argues that the statues for Chabrias, Timotheos and Iphikrates were all set up soon after the events, and is followed by Shear, ‘Cultural change’, 110 note 75. But the claim at Dem. 20.85, that Chabrias would have been able to point to the nature of rewards made to Iphikrates and Timotheos, is hard to reconcile with the usual chronology of these awards.

Bibliography

Anderson, J.K., ‘The statue of Chabrias’, AJA 67 (1967) 411–13. Buckler, J., ‘A second look at the monument of Chabrias’, Hesperia 41 (1972) 466–74. Burnett, P.A., and Edmondson, C.N., ‘The Chabrias monument in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 30 (1961) 74–91. Canevaro, M., Demostene: Contro Leptine. Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 313–20, 329–33. Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City : The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 197–8. Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, BCH Supplement 12. Paris (1985) 99–102.

d47 awards bestowed upon timotheos

217

Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden and New York (1998). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 7 Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22. Austin (2008). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 318–41 Rubinstein, L., Litigation and Cooperation: Supporting Speakers in the Courts of Classical Athens. Historia Einzelschrift 147. Stuttgart (2000) 139, 147 no. 18. Shear, J.L., ‘Cultural change, space, and the politics of commemoration in Athens’ in Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution : Arts, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–380 BC, ed. R.G. Osborne. Cambridge (2007) 91–116. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998). Wolpert, A.O., ‘Addresses to the jury in the Attic orators’, AJPh 124 (2003) 537–55. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992).

D47 Awards bestowed upon Timotheos Proposer: Unknown Date: 376/5

Literary Context

As Kremmydas, Commentary, 320 observes, Timotheos was one of a triumvirate of generals (along with Iphikrates (D54) and Chabrias (D46)) mentioned as models of civic virtue and effective generalship (see, for instance, [Dem.] 13.22). Timotheos was praised also in symbouleutic oratory as a model adviser (Dem. 8.73–5). In the speech Against Leptines (T1), he is cited as one of a number of living recipients of honorary ateleia (the others are Ktesippos, Iphikrates, Aristophon and the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton) whose privileges would, he claims, be removed were Leptines’ law upheld. Demosthenes (T2) suggests that the Athenians have deflected praise away from themselves by granting such awards, while at T3 Demosthenes claims that the simultaneous

218

inventory a1

honouring of others alongside Timotheos was an example of misplaced honorific practice. Aeschines (T4) holds up Timotheos as one of a number of worthy honorands, to be contrasted with Demosthenes; the honours are mentioned also in Nepos’ biography of Timotheos as a way of heightening his image (T5).

Texts

T1 Dem. 20.84: Καὶ πάλιν, Τιμοθέῳ διδόντες τὴν δωρεάν, δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἐδωκατε καὶ Κλεάρχῳ καί τισιν ἄλλοις πολιτείαν. T2 Dem 23.198: Νῦν δ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πολλοὶ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὡς Κέρκυραν εἷλε Τιμόθεος καὶ τὴν μόραν κατέκοψεν Ἰφικράτης καὶ τὴν περὶ Νάξον ἐνίκα ναυμαχίαν Χαβρίας· δοκεῖτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἔργων τούτων παραχωρεῖν τῶν τιμῶν ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς αἷς δεδώκατ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ τούτων. T3  Dem. 23.202: Πάλιν Τιμοθέου δόξαντός τι ποιῆσαι τῶν δεόντων ὑμῖν, πρὸς τῷ πάνθ’ ἃ μέγιστα ἦν αὐτῷ δοῦναι προσέθηκαν αὐτῷ Φρασιηρίδην καὶ Πολυσθένην, ἀνθρώπους οὐδ’ ἐλευθέρους, ἀλλ’ ὀλέθρους καὶ τοιαῦτα πεποιηκότας οἷα λέγειν ὀκνήσειεν ἄν τις εὖ φρονῶν. T4 Aeschin. 3.243: Ἐπερώτησον δὴ τοὺς δικαστὰς εἰ ἐγίγνωσκον Χαβρίαν καὶ Ἰφικράτην καὶ Τιμόθεον, καὶ πυθοῦ παρ’ αὐτῶν διὰ τί τὰς δωρεὰς αὐτοῖς ἔδοσαν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἔστησαν. Ἅπαντες γὰρ ἅμα ἀποκρινοῦνται ὅτι Χαβρίᾳ μὲν διὰ τὴν περὶ Νάξον ναυμαχίαν, Ἰφικράτει δὲ ὅτι μόραν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπέκτεινε, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διὰ τὸν περίπλουν τὸν εἰς Κέρκυραν, καὶ ἄλλοις, ὧν ἑκάστῳ πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργα πέπρακται. Δημοσθένει δ’ ἀντεροῦ διὰ τί; T5 Nepos, Timotheus 2.2–4: Quo facto Lacedaemonii de diutina contentione destiterunt et sua sponte Atheniensibus imperii maritime principatum concesserunt, pacemque iis legibus constituerunt, ut Athenienses mari duces essent. quae victoria tantae fuit Atticis laetitiae, ut tum primum arae Paci publice sint factae eique deae pulvinar sit institutum. cuius laudis ut memoria maneret, Timotheo publice statuam in foro posuerunt. qui honos huic uni ante id tempus contigit, ut, cum patri populus statuam posuisset, filio quoque daret. sic iuxta posita recens filii veterem patris renovavit memoriam.

d47 awards bestowed upon timotheos

219

T1 And what is more, when you gave the grant to Timotheos, because of him you also gave citizenship to Klearchos and some others. T2  But now, men of Athens, many say this, that Timotheos took Corcyra, that Iphikrates cut the Spartan mora to pieces, and that Chabrias won a sea-battle off Naxos. It appears that you surrendered any credit for these deeds by the extravagant awards that you have bestowed upon these commanders. (= [Dem.] 13.22–3) T3 Again, when Timotheos was held to have carried out a duty for you in some way, in addition to bestowing upon him all the greatest rewards, they conferred them also upon Phrasierides and Polysthenes, men who were not free-born, but were pestilent individuals whose behaviour was such that any right-thinking man would shrink from describing. T4 Then ask the jurors if they recognised Chabrias and Iphikrates and Timotheos, and inquire among them as to why they gave them rewards and set up statues of them. And they will all respond harmoniously that Chabrias was rewarded for the sea-battle off Naxos, Iphikrates for destroying a Spartan mora, Timotheos for his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese to Corcyra, and there are others, who accomplished many fine achievements in war. Then, ask in turn, why reward Demosthenes? T5 Thereupon the Lakedaimonians gave up a long-continued contest, and voluntarily yielded to the Athenians the first place in maritime power, making peace on terms which acknowledged the supremacy of Athens on the sea. That victory filled the people of Attica with such great joy that then for the first time an altar was publicly consecrated to Peace and a feast established in her honour. In order to perpetuate the memory of so glorious a deed, the Athenians set up a statue of Timotheos in the agora, at the cost of the state. This was an honour which had fallen to him alone of all men up to that time, namely that when the state had erected a statue to a father, a son received the same tribute. Thus the new statue of the son, placed beside that of the father, revived the memory of the latter, which had now grown old. (trans. Rolfe, Cornelius Nepos).

220

Commentary

inventory a1

Timotheos, the son of the Athenian general Konon (Nepos makes much of this relationship: see T5), was himself an important Athenian general of the fourth century: for a short biography, see Canevaro, Demostene, 331–2 and Kremmydas, Commentary, 337–8, emphasising his military successes from the point after he was elected general in 378. He faced severe hostility over the course of his career, being impeached by Kallistratos and Iphikrates in 373 (Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 80). In the early 360s ([Demosthenes] 49 with Harris, ‘The date’), charges were brought against him by Apollodoros, in an attempt to reclaim monies lent to him by Pasion, and in 360 he was indicted by Apollodoros for his failure at Amphipolis (Dem. 36.53; Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 93). His career was brought to an end when he was unable to pay a fine for his failure at Embata (Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 101). According to these sources, Timotheos received honours in recognition of his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese as far as Corcyra of 376/5 (T4: διὰ τὸν περίπλουν τὸν εἰς Κέρκυραν), his victorious sea battle off and capture of Corcyra in the same year (T2, T5; cf. Din. 1.75 and Xen. Hell. 5.4.64), and a subsequent victory at Alyzia in north-western Greece (Xen. Hell. 5.4.65). The honours are said to have included a statue (T4) and panta megista (T3), perhaps consisting of ateleia and sitesis at the prytaneion, although their precise form is not indicated. Nepos remarks that the award of a statue to the son of a father who had already received a statue was unique (T5). The achievements of Timotheos are said by Nepos to have given rise to the peace terms of 375/4: Nepos 2.1–2: see DP 27 below. Domingo Gygax (Benefaction, 198) suggests that the award might be seen also as a way of celebrating the foundation of the Athenian naval confederacy in 378, supporting this with the suggestion that Timotheos’ statue be placed close to the inscribed version of the charter of the second Athenian confederacy (RO 22). Demosthenes alleges that two others, Phrasierides and Polysthenes (see D61 below) ‘who were not even free-born’ were implicated in the awards for Timotheos (T3), and at T1 claims that ‘because of him’ the citizenship was awarded to Klearchos, the tyrant of Bosporan Herakleia (see D62 below). Given that these awards are usually placed at a later date, it is quite possible that Timotheos received more than one award. As Kremmydas, Commentary, 338 observes, there are epigraphically attested honours of associates of Athenian generals, such as Menelaos the Pelagonian, who was granted awards after Timotheos demonstrated that he assisted the Athenians (RO 38 lines 6–7). It is plausible to think that either the proposer of Timotheos’ honours, or Timotheos himself, may well have requested that Phrasierides, Polysthenes and Klearchos be granted honours.

d47 awards bestowed upon timotheos

221

Hansen takes the view that, given that Aeschines (T4) implies that it is the dikastai who bestowed the award of Iphikrates, it was unsuccessfully indicted: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 8; Develin, AO, 243 does not, however, find this interpretation convincing. Gauther, Les cités, 102 takes the testimonium of Dinarchus (1.17) that Timotheos died without asking for such extensive favours as would set him above the law (‘ἐτελεύτησεν οὐ τηλικαύτας τὸν δῆμον αἰτήσας δωρεὰς ὥστε τῶν νομῶν εἶναι κρείττων’) as indicating that the request of honours was normal; Worthington (Commentary, 159) however suggests that this was just part of an explanation that Timotheos accepted the verdict of a jury and did not ask to be put above the law when he stood trial for treason. Pausanias 1.3.2 mentions a statue of Timotheos at the agora, placing it close to the Stoa Basileios, and next to the statues of Konon and Evagoras (cf. Nepos, Timotheus 2.3, placing it next to that of his father). Pausanias mentions also that there was another statue of Timotheos (and Konon) on the acropolis (Paus. 1.24.3). A statue-base for Konon and his son Timotheos survives (IG II2 3774 = Tod, GHI, 128; SEG XXXVI 246), deriving from the acropolis: their findspot, together with Pausanias’ second reference, suggests there was more than one statue for the pair. This base may have supported a family dedication. We should note that though Timotheos’ career was controversial, and he was eventually impeached, his statues appear to have been left intact. Shear, Polis, 282, suggests that this location, close to the Zeus Eleutherios, meant that he was identified as a ‘saviour and bringer of freedom’, just like those in whose proximity he stood.

Date

376/5 (T2: the date of the voyage round Corcyra). The claim at Dem. 20.85, that Chabrias would have been able to point to the nature of rewards made to Iphikrates and Timotheos as purely hypothetical, does not need to be taken as an indication of its date. However, Osborne (Naturalization, T45, T46) suggests that the awards for Phrasierides and Polysthenes may be connected with the siege and capture of Samos in 366/5. It may be the case that there were separate rewards for Timotheos, which were associated with the awards for Phrasierides and Polysthenes (D61) and Klearchos (D62).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene: Contro Leptine. Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 331­–2.

inventory a1

222

Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City : The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 198–9. Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. BCH Supplement 12. Paris (1985) 102–3. Harris, E.M., ‘The date of Apollodorus’ speech against Timotheus and its implications for Athenian history and legal procedure’, AJPh 109 (1988) 44–52. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 8. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) 337–8. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3). Rolfe, J.C., Cornelius Nepos. Cambridge, MA (1984). Shear, J., Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2011). Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 159–60.

D48 † Decree (dogma) recalling Timotheos Proposer: Unknown Date: 375

Literary Context

In his description of the immediate aftermath of the peace of 375 (see DP 28 below), Xenophon (T1) offers details on the Athenian attempt to restrain Timotheos.

Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.2.2: Εὐθὺς δ’ ἐκεῖθεν δύο τῶν πρέσβεων πλεύσαντες κατὰ δόγμα τῆς πόλεως εἶπον τῷ Τιμοθέῳ ἀποπλεῖν οἴκαδε ὡς εἰρήνης οὔσης.

d48 † decree (dogma) recalling timotheos

223

T1 Two of the Athenian ambassadors, sailing immediately from there (Sparta), in accordance with a decree of the city, told Timotheos to sail homewards, as there was now peace.

224

inventory a1

Commentary

In 375, the Athenian demos, concerned about the growth of Theban power, troubled by piracy and exhausted by heavy taxes, made peace with the Spartans (Xen. Hell. 6.2.1; see DP 26 below): Timotheos’ victory at Corcyra and at the battle of Alyzeia made peace attractive from a Spartan point of view (Xen. Hell. 5.4.64–5; Nepos. Timotheus, 2.1–2). Xenophon says that two Athenian ambassadors sailed from Sparta and, in accordance with a decree of the city, told Timotheos to return home from his campaigns in Corcyra, as there was now a state of peace. But the peace was very short-lived: on his way back Timotheos took the chance to restore exiles from Zakynthos; the Zakynthians complained to the Spartans and war was resumed in 373: Stylianou, A Commentary, 352. It is very unclear whether the dogma which the ambassadors are imposing is one of Athens or one of Sparta. The term dogma is not normally used to describe a decree of the Athenian ecclesia (though it was on some occasions: see D22 T1, D150 T1 and Aeschin. 3.42, with Chankowski, ‘Le terme’); on another occasion it is used to describe an enactment of a meeting of delegates making the peace of 370: Xen. Hell. 6.5.2. It can also be used to describe a decree of the allies (D130 T12) or a decree of another state (e.g. a decree of the Phokians at D87 T1). For this reason, the status of the dogma as an Athenian decree is extremely doubtful. See, on the use of the term dogma, Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 277 note 32, suggesting that it could be used in a rather vaguer sense to apply to a decision made by the Athenians. Regardless of the terminology, it is probably right, with Hamel, Athenian Generals, 116 note 3 to point to it as an example of the ecclesia issuing instructions to the generals in mid-campaign.

Date:

375 BC (T1).

Bibliography

Chankowski, A., ‘Le terme δόγμα comme synonyme du terme ψήφισμα: à propos du décret de la tribu Akamantis SEG 23 (1968), no. 78, l. 1–12 (Reinmuth, Eph. Inscr. 1, l. 1–12), du décret de Latmos SEG 47 (1997), no. 1563 et du décret de Nagidos SEG 39 (1989), no. 1426, l. 19–56’, ZPE 195 (1995) 91–8. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 69 note 32. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 337–8. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998).

D49 Award of isopoliteia for Plataeans Proposer: Unknown Date: 374/3

Literary Context

Diodorus (T1) reports the Theban attack on Plataea and its aftermath, and uses the Athenian response to the Plataean appeal as an indication of Athenian uprightness. In his case Against Neaira, Apollodoros (T2) talks about the way that the Athenians have granted citizenship to those deserving it in the past, and refers probably to the fifth-century award for the Plataeans.

225

226

inventory a1

Texts

T1 D.S. 15.46.5: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα οἱ μὲν Θηβαῖοι τὰς Πλαταιὰς κατασκάψαντες καὶ Θεσπιὰς ἀλλοτρίως πρὸς αὐτοὺς διακειμένας ἐξεπόρθησαν, οἱ δὲ Πλαταιεῖς εἰς Ἀθήνας μετὰ τέκνων καὶ γυναικῶν φυγόντες τῆς ἰσοπολιτείας ἔτυχον διὰ τὴν χρηστότητα τοῦ δήμου. T2 (relating to the award of citizenship of 427 BC). [Dem.] 59.104-6: Τοῖς οὖν οὕτω φανερῶς ἐνδεδειγμένοις τὴν εὔνοιαν τῷ δήμῳ, καὶ προεμένοις ἅπαντα τὰ αὑτῶν καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας, πάλιν σκοπεῖτε πῶς μετέδοτε τῆς πολιτείας. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ψηφισμάτων τῶν ὑμετέρων καταφανὴς πᾶσιν ἔσται ὁ νόμος, καὶ γνώσεσθ’ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω. καί μοι λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦτο καὶ ἀνάγνωθι αὐτοῖς. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΛΑΤΑΙΕΩΝ.

Ἱπποκράτης εἶπεν, Πλαταιέας εἶναι Ἀθηναίους ἀπὸ τῆσδε τῆς ἡμέρας, ἐπιτίμους καθάπερ οἱ ἄλλοι Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ μετεῖναι αὐτοῖς ὧνπερ Ἀθηναίοις μέτεστι πάντων, καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων, πλὴν εἴ τις ἱερωσύνη ἢ τελετή ἐστιν ἐκ γένους, μηδὲ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων, τοῖς δ’ ἐκ τούτων. κατανεῖμαι δὲ τοὺς Πλαταιέας εἰς τοὺς δήμους καὶ τὰς φυλάς. ἐπειδὰν δὲ νεμηθῶσι, μὴ ἐξέστω ἔτι Ἀθηναίῳ μηδενὶ γίγνεσθαι Πλαταιέων, μὴ εὑρομένῳ παρὰ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων. τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων. Ὁρᾶτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὡς καλῶς καὶ δικαίως ἔγραψεν ὁ ῥήτωρ ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήπου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων, καὶ ἠξίωσε τοὺς Πλαταιέας λαμβάνοντας τὴν δωρεὰν πρῶτον μὲν δοκιμασθῆναι ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ κατ’ ἄνδρα ἕκαστον, εἰ ἔστιν Πλαταιεὺς καὶ εἰ τῶν φίλων τῶν τῆς πόλεως, ἵνα μὴ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ προφάσει πολλοὶ μεταλάβωσι τῆς πολιτείας·ἔπειτα τοὺς δοκιμασθέντας ἀναγραφῆναι ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ, καὶ στῆσαι ἐν ἀκροπόλει παρὰ τῇ θεῷ, ἵνα σῴζηται ἡ δωρεὰ τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις καὶ ᾖ ἐξελέγξαι ὅτου ἂν ἕκαστος ᾖ συγγενής. καὶ ὕστερον οὐκ ἐᾷ γίγνεσθαι Ἀθηναῖον ἐξεῖναι, ὃς ἂν μὴ νῦν γένηται καὶ δοκιμασθῇ ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, τοῦ μὴ πολλοὺς φάσκοντας Πλαταιέας εἶναι κατασκευάζειν αὑτοῖς πολιτείαν. ἔπειτα καὶ τὸν νόμον διωρίσατο ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐθέως ὑπέρ τε τῆς πόλεως καὶ τῶν θεῶν, {καὶ} μὴ ἐξεῖναι αὐτῶν μηδενὶ τῶν ἐννέα ἀρχόντων λαχεῖν μηδὲ ἱερωσύνης μηδεμιᾶς, τοῖς δ’ ἐκ τούτων, ἂν ὦσιν ἐξ ἀστῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἐγγυητῆς κατὰ τὸν νόμον.

Commentary

Diodorus Siculus (T1) says that when the Thebans had razed their city in 374/3, those Plataeans who fled with their wives and children received isopoliteia from the Athenians. Xen. Hell. 6.3.1 reports that both the Plataeans and the Thespians appealed to the Athenians not to allow them to become city-less (‘ἱκετεύοντας

d49 award of isopoliteia for plataeans

227

T1 After these things, the Thebans, having razed Plataea to the ground, destroyed also Thespiai, which was in conflict with them. The Plataeans with their children and wives fled to Athens, and received equality of civic rights (isopoliteia) because of the uprightness of the demos. T2 And so once again consider how you gave a share in the citizenship to those who clearly demonstrated their goodwill to the demos, by giving over all their possessions and their children and wives. The law will become clear for all on the basis of your decrees, and you will know that I speak the truth. And so please take the decree and read it to them. DECREE CONCERNING THE PLATAEANS Hippokrates made the motion, that the Plataeans are to be Athenians from this day, and they are to be enfranchised just as other Athenians and to share in all those things in which the Athenians have a share, both sacred and profane, except for a priesthood or tie which is restricted to a genos and serving as one of the nine archons, but for their descendants … and the Plataeans are to be distributed to the demes and the tribes. Once they are distributed, let it be forbidden for anyone else of the Plataeans to become an Athenian, unless he is awarded citizenship by the demos of the Athenians.

You see, Athenian men, how well and justly the orator proposed this on behalf of the Athenian people. He required, first, that each of the Plataeans receiving the award were to be scrutinised in the lawcourt, as a way of ensuring that each one was a Plataean and a friend of the city, so as to guard against many getting citizenship on the basis of a pretext. Then, those who passed the scrutiny were to be written up on a stone stele, which was to be set up at the acropolis by the statue of the goddess, so that the grant should be preserved for their descendants, amd that each of these might be able to demonstrate his relationship to the recipient of the grant. And the decree does not permit anyone, in a later period, to become an Athenian, unless he became one at the time and was approved by the court, so that it might not be the case that many might gain citizenship for themselves by claiming to be Plataeans. And then, immediately, he also prescribed the law in the decree applying to the Plataeans, on behalf both of the city and the gods, saying that it not be permitted for any Plataean to be allotted the office of one of the nine archonships, nor any priesthood, though it be permitted for those descendants who were born from a woman of the city who was betrothed according to the law.

δὲ Θεσπιᾶς μὴ σφᾶς περιιδεῖν ἀπόλιδας γενομένους’), but presents the outcome of this as peace (see below, D52), rather than awards for the Plataeans. Stylianou takes a stance against the view that the award of isopoliteia, better known from the Hellenistic period, is anachronistic, and gathers evidence for

228

inventory a1

the award pertaining to the classical period (Stylianou, A Commentary, 367–9). He accepts Gomme’s view (HCT 2.339) that the original award made to the Plataeans in 427 was also that of isopoliteia (see the claims of the Plataeans at Thuc. 3.55.3, and the response of the Thebans 3.63.2) and that the document at Dem. 59.104 records a later extension of these awards. The fact that Pankleon, the Plataean speaker of Lysias 23, claims Athenian citizenship, suggests that the fifth-century award could reasonably be cited in the early fourth century: for this view, see Todd, A Commentary, 279–81. It is quite possible that the term Plataikos was used, in the fourth century, to refer to anyone who had been given citizen rights: Harding, From the End, no. 115 note 3. Isocrates, in a speech purporting to be an appeal by a Plataean for Athenian refuge in 373, argues on the basis of the claim that epigamia (right of inter-­ marriage) had been granted in the past (Isoc. Plat. 51–2), which would be consistent with the fifth-century award detailed by Apollodoros ([Dem.] 59.104–6), or, as Osborne (Naturalization, 2.16), might represent a ‘euphemism for citizenship’. Osborne (Naturalization, T38) treats Diodorus’ testimonium as a re-affirmation of the award of 427, and uses the document in that speech as evidence that the Plataeans were allocated to Attic demes and phratries (document in [Dem.] 59.104 = T2). A preferable view, however, might be to regard the fourth-­century award to the Plataeans as nothing more than isoteleia which is known as an honour combined with proxeny and enktesis in around 370 (IG II2 83 lines 7–8; cf. Henry, Honours, 246–9, though is rare in literary sources: Whitehead, ‘Ἰσοτέλεια’, 19). Views of what isoteleia (a privilege granted to non-citizens) entailed vary: at the least it entailed exemption from the metic tax, but it may well have brought legal rights and military and financial privileges or fiscal equality of some sort (Whitehead, Ideology, 11–13). Isoteleia would have been meaningful to those Plataeans who had not claimed citizen rights or had not passed the scrutiny outlined in Apollodoros’ report of the fifth-century award (T2). In his speech Against Neaira, Apollodoros holds up the fifth-century Athenian award to the Plataeans of citizenship (T2) as indicative of the Athenian tendency to grant citizenship to those who have shown eunoia to the Athenians. On the fifth-century award, noting discrepancies between the account of Apollodoros and that of Thucydides, see Kapparis, Apollodoros, 195. For discussion of the inserted decree, see Kapparis, Apollodoros, 394–7, identifying problems and suggesting that passages have been omitted from an original. Canevaro, ‘The decree’, convincingly argues that the document is a post-classical forgery, passages of which may have been based on contemporary oratory (e.g. ‘μετεῖναι αὐτοῖς ὥνπερ Ἀθηναίοις μέτεστι πάντων, καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων’ with Dem. 23.65 (= D84 T1) and Canevaro, ‘The decree’ 356). The

d49 award of isopoliteia for plataeans

229

implications of Canevaro’s case are that we can accept as historical testimonia only those words which appear to have been spoken by Apollodoros. As Apollodoros’ discussion refers to developments purported to have taken place during the fifth century, this is not the place for detailed discussion of them; it is striking, though, that Apollodoros, for the purposes of persuasion, refers to the fifth-century award to the Plataeans, rather than the fourth-century award: this is an example of orators apparently choosing to draw upon older legislation over newer ones (cf., e.g. Lycurgus’ decision (Lycurg. 1.127) to cite the decree of Demophantos rather than the contemporary law of Eukrates: see D19). The lack of demonstrable overlap between the language of the document and Diodorus (or fourth-century inscribed testimonia for the award of citizenship) rule out the possibility of thinking of the document in T2 as a testimonium for the fourth-century award. Apollodoros refers to a list of those enfranchised after scrutiny being written up on the acropolis (59.105), but this is part of his account of the fifth-­century awards granted to the Plataeans.

Date

374/3 (Diodorus).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans (Dem. 59.104)’, GRBS 50 (2010) 337–69. Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K.J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols. Oxford (1945–81). Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985). Kapparis, K., ‘The Athenian decree for the naturalisation of the Plataeans’, GRBS 36 (1995) 359–78. Kapparis, K., Apollodoros: ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin and New York (1999). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) D1 and T38. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998) 366–8. Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2007). Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge (1977). Whitehead, D., ‘Ἰσοτέλεια, a metaphor in Xenophon’, Eirene 16 (1978) 19–22.

D50 Decree sending a force to Corcyra Proposer: Unknown Date: 374/3

Literary Context

In an account of developments in north-west Greece, Xenophon offers details of Athenian activity in Corcyra.

Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 6.2.11: Ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ καὶ ἑξήκοντα ναῦς πληροῦν, Τιμόθεον δ’ αὐτῶν στρατηγὸν ἐχειροτόνησαν.

Commentary

Timotheos in 375 had sailed around the Peloponnese and secured Corcyra and the area close to it for the Athenians (Xen Hell. 5.4.64); the Corcyreans were brought into the Athenian Confederacy probably in 375/4 (RO 24; for a challenge to doubts about the idea that Corcyra joined at this point, see Tuplin, ‘Timotheos’); an undated inscribed alliance of the 370s saw the Athenians pledge assistance to them in the case of another state exerting aggression (IG II2 97 = Harding, From the End, no. 42 = SVA 263). The relation of these diplomatic moves to the decree mentioned by Xenophon (T1) is uncertain, but it probably has something to do with civil upheaval provoked by Spartan intervention (and the Athenian response (see D.S. 15.46–7, confirming the dispatch of Timotheos but offering a different chronology of events). Xenophon’s description suggests that the Athenians decreed the number of ships and nominated the responsible general in one session of the assembly. Such a combination is paralleled in Thucydides’ description of the decision to send the expedition to Sicily (Thuc. 6.8 with Parker, ‘ΧΑΡΗΣ’, 136). It is likely that the sixty ships were voted and Timotheos selected as general to Corcyra after Ktesikles had been sent (Xen. Hell. 6.2.10 = DP 30 T1), but Diodorus suggests that Timotheos was the first general to be sent to Corcyra (DP 30 T3) and his chronology followed by preferred by Cawkwell, ‘Notes’, Develin, AO 244, Tuplin, ‘Timotheos’ and Stylianou, A Historical Commentary, 352–63.

230

d50 decree sending a force to corcyra

231

T1 And the Athenians voted to man sixty ships and elected Timotheos to take command of them.

Timotheos was not successful and he was soon replaced with Iphikrates (Xen. Hell. 6.2.12–14). Demosthenes 49.11 mentions that some of Timotheos’ property was mortgaged to the sixty trierarchs who had sailed out with him; the sixty ships included probably the contingents of the allies (Underhill, Commentary, with Dem. 49.14). Like Chabrias (see above, D46), Xenophon appears to have given Timotheos a relatively low profile: this episode is only one of two in which Timotheos is discussed by Xenophon (the other is his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese and expedition to Corcyra at 5.4.64–6).

Date

374/3 (T1).

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Notes on the peace of 375–4’, Historia 12 (1963) 84–95. Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 42. Parker, R.W., ‘ΧΑΡΗΣ ΑΓΓΕΛΗΘΕΝ: biography of a fourth-century Athenian strategos’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of British Colombia (1986) 136. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus. Oxford (1998) 325–63.

inventory a1

232

Tuplin C., ‘Timotheos and Corcyra: Problems in Greek history, 375–373 BC’, Athenaeum 62 (1984) 537–68. Underhill, G.E., A Commentary on The Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford (1900).

D51 Decree in favour of peace Proposer: Unknown Date: Skirophorion 371

Literary Context

Xenophon (T1) presents this decision as the result of the Athenians witnessing the Thebans marching against the Phocians and others of their allies.

Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.3.2: Ἐκ τούτων δὲ ψηφισάμενος ὁ δῆμος εἰρήνην ποιεῖσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν εἰς Θήβας πρέσβεις ἔπεμψε παρακαλοῦντας ἀκολουθεῖν, εἰ βούλοιντο, εἰς Λακεδαίμονα περὶ εἰρήνης. ἦν δὲ τῶν αἱρεθέντων Καλλίας Ἱππονίκου, Αὐτοκλῆς Στρομβιχίδου, Δημόστρατος Ἀριστοφῶντος, Ἀριστοκλῆς, Κηφισόδοτος, Μελάνωπος, Λύκαιθος.

Commentary

The evidence for peace-making at Athens in 371 can be divided between three parts: the current decree, which was a vote of the people that peace should be made and ambassadors sent to Thebes and Sparta; D52, Kallias’ proposal of terms of the peace; D53 is the ratification at Athens of peace after the collapse of Spartan power at Leuktra in 371. Xenophon suggests that the Athenians, when they saw the Thebans acting with hostility towards the Plataeans, Thespian and Phokian allies (Xen. Hell. 6.3.1), voted to make peace and sent invitations to the Thebans and Lakedaimonians (T1). Diodorus, on the other hand, alleges that the impetus came from the Great King, and that the proposal was received gladly by all those with the exception of the Thebans (15.50.4). See Stylianou, Historical

d51 decree in favour of peace

233

T1 The people voted, as a result of these developments, to make peace. First they sent ambassadors to Thebes to invite the Thebans to follow them, if they wished to do so, to Lakedaimon in order to initiate a peace. Among the ambassadors appointed were Kallias son of Hipponikos; Autokles son of Strombichides; Demostratos son of Aristophon; Aristokles; Kephisodotos; Melanopos; and Lykaithos.

Commentary, 382–5, observing that Xenophon’s silence – in this passage – on the role of the King is often used to suggest that Diodorus’ account is a doublet of his explanation of the peace of 375/4 (D.S. 15.38); however, other evidence (D.H. Lys. 12, dating the peace to the archonship of Alkisthenes (372/1)) supports the view that the King was involved; indeed, in his report on the negotiation of the post-Leuktra peace (Hell. 6.5.1; see D53 below), Xenophon implies that the peace was one which the King ‘sent down’ (‘ἣν βασιλεὺς κατέπεμψεν’). Accordingly, as Stylianou suggests, it is likely that both the King and the Athenians promoted the peace conference. Xenophon goes on to give an account of the negotiations at Sparta which resulted in the making of a peace agreement in 371 from which the Thebans remained aloof (6.3.3–20). For the proposal of the peace at Athens,

234

inventory a1

and on Kallias the son of Hipponikos, see D52 below. On the ambassadors, see Sealey, ‘Callistratus’ and Mosley, ‘The Athenian’, suggesting that Athenian financial restraints made peace desirable for Athens; for Kallistratos’ position and diplomatic skill, see Ryder, ‘The Athenian’.

Date

Midsummer 371. Plutarch (Ages. 28) says that the peace at Sparta was agreed on 14th Skirophorion 371; we can assume that the proposal for peace at Athens was made not long before this and was ratified by oath by Athenian delegates at about the same time (Xen. Hell. 6.3.19).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 269. Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsb­emüh­ ungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschrift 63. Stuttgart (1994). Mosley, D.J., ‘The Athenian embassy to Sparta in 371 BC’, PCPhS 8 (1962) 41–6. Ryder, T.T.B., ‘Athenian foreign policy and the peace-conference at Sparta in 371 BC’, CQ 13 (1963) 237–41. Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 63–7. Sealey, R., ‘Callistratus of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 193.

D52 Proposal of peace with the Great King Proposer: Kallias Hipponikou Alopekethen (PA 7826; PAA 554500; APF) Date: 371

Literary Context

Didymos (T1) makes this reference in the context of an account of recent benefactions by the Great King.

235

236

inventory a1

Text

T1  Didymos On Demosthenes col 7.71-4: Πολλὰς δ’ ἂν κ(αὶ) ἄλλας τις ἔχοι παρα[δ]ε[ι]κνύναι τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς τὴν πόλιν εὐεργεσίας, [ο]ἷ(ον) τὴν ὑπὸ Καλλίου τοῦ Ἱππον{ε}ίκου πρ[υ]τανευθεῖσαν εἰρήνην.

Commentary

The proposal to put a peace to vote on the motion of Kallias probably refers to the peace of 371, for the negotiations of which he was ambassador. Whereas the preceding decree proposed that discussions about peace be initiated (D51; Xen. Hell. 6.3.2), I suggest that Kallias’ decree proposed the ratification of the substance of that peace agreement. An alternative interpretation would be that this reference (T1) is to the ratification of the peace negotiation held at Athens later in 371 after the Spartan defeat at Leuctra (Xen. Hell 6.5.1; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 131–3; see D53 below). It is implausible that T1 is a reference to the fifth-century peace of Kallias which, as Harding, Didymos, 184–5 points out, could not reasonably be described as a ‘benefaction’ of the King. For the terms of the peace, see Jehne, Koine Eirene, 65–74; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 67–9, 127–30, the autonomy clause was replaced with the requirement that governors be withdrawn and armies and fleets demobilised and a guarantee clause providing for future maintenance of the peace (Xen. Hell. 6.3.18). Rhodes suggests that the principle ‘ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’ translated (‘Making,’ 24–7) as ‘having what belongs to one by right’, may have been written into the peace of 371; see also D140 Commentary. This appears to be the sole proposal attributed to Kallias; he served as general in 391/0 (Xen. Hell. 4.5.13) and was ambassador to Sparta three times (Xen. Hell. 6.3.2, 4), a role to which he was suited given that he was a hereditary proxenos of the Spartans (Hell. 6.3.4).

Date

371. Dion. Hal. Lys. 12, dating the peace to the archonship of Alkisthenes (372/1).

Bibliography

Harding, P.A., Didymos: On Demosthenes. Oxford (2006). Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemüh­ ungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.. Hermes, Einzelschrift 63. Stuttgart (1994). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Making and breaking treaties in the Greek world’ in War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, eds. P. de Souza and J. France. Cambridge (2008) 6–27 at 24–7.

D53 ratification of the post-leuktra peace

237

T1 One could produce many other examples also of the King’s benefaction towards the city, as, for example, the peace that was put to vote on the motion of Kallias, the son of Hipponikos. (trans. Harding, Didymos)

Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 63–7.

D53 Ratification of the post-Leuktra peace at Athens Proposer: Unknown Date: 371/0

Literary Context

After his account of the battle of Leuktra, Xenophon (T1) reports that the Athenians sent round to the cities and invited those who wished to share in the peace to send delegations to Athens.

238

inventory a1

Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.5.1-3: Ἐπεὶ γὰρ Ἀρχίδαμος ἐκ τῆς ἐπὶ Λεῦκτρα βοηθείας ἀπήγαγε τὸ στράτευμα, ἐνθυμηθέντες οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ὅτι οἱ Πελοποννήσιοι ἔτι οἴονται χρῆναι ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ οὔπω διακέοιντο οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ὥσπερ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους διέθεσαν, μεταπέμπονται τὰς πόλεις ὅσαι βούλοιντο τῆς εἰρήνης μετέχειν ἣν βασιλεὺς κατέπεμψεν. ἐπεὶ δὲ συνῆλθον, δόγμα ἐποιήσαντο μετὰ τῶν κοινωνεῖν βουλομένων ὀμόσαι τόνδε τὸν ὅρκον. ‘ἐμμενῶ ταῖς σπονδαῖς ἃς βασιλεὺς κατέπεμψε καὶ τοῖς ψηφίσμασι τοῖς Ἀθηναίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων. ἐὰν δέ τις στρατεύῃ ἐπί τινα πόλιν τῶν ὀμοσασῶν τόνδε τὸν ὅρκον, βοηθήσω παντὶ σθένει ...’ οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ψηφισάμενοι, ὥσπερ βασιλεὺς ἔγραψεν, αὐτονόμους εἶναι ὁμοίως καὶ μικρὰς καὶ μεγάλας πόλεις, ἐξέπεμψαν τοὺς ὁρκωτάς, καὶ ἐκέλευσαν τὰ μέγιστα τέλη ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ὁρκῶσαι.

Commentary

After the defeat of the Spartans at Leuktra the Athenians called for a renewal of the peace of 371. As we saw earlier (D51 T1), Xenophon presented the Peace of 371 originally as the initiative of the Athenians; here he presents the Athenians as the initiators of the wider agreement of the peace after the battle of Leuctra in 371. For its terms, see Jehne, Koine Eirene, 74–9; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 131–3, noting that it maintained the ‘autonomy principle’ of the King’s Peace, that it excluded the Thebans, and emphasised the importance of the ‘decrees of the Athenians and their allies’. Xenophon offers the sole account of this peace. The reference to a dogma agreed by the Athenians and allies is, in all likelihood, a reference to a decree of the confederacy of the Athenians and her allies (for an example of the term dogma used to refer to a decision of the allies, see D130 T2). However, the term dogma did, sometimes refer to a decision of the Athenian assembly (see above, D22 Commentary, discussion at D48 and D150 T1). The decision of the Athenians and others to send round delegates to the other Greek cities (‘οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ψηφισάμενοι … ἐξέπεμψαν τοὺς ὁρκωτάς’) may well have been imposed by a decree of the people. The reference to swearing according to the decrees of the Athenians and the allies might be a general reference, or, as Cawkwell (Xenophon, 335 note) suggests, it may refer specifically to a clause which proposed that Athens had a right to recover Amphipolis (cf. Aeschin. 2.32–3).

Date 371/0.

d54 † decree honouring iphikrates

239

T1  Next, Archidamos, then, withdrew the force sent out as aid to Leuktra. The Athenians, concerned that while the Peloponnesians still believed themselves bound to follow the leadership of Sparta, the Spartans themselves were no longer in the same position as that which they had presented to the Athenians, summoned those cities who wished to share in the peace on the terms sent down by the King. When they came together, they made a decree (dogma) that those wanting to partake in the peace should swear this oath: ‘I shall abide by the peace which the king sent down and with the decrees of the Athenians and their allies. If ever anyone makes war on any of the cities who have sworm this oath, I shall come to help with full strength ...’ The Athenians and the others voted that, as the King resolved, small and large cities were to be autonomous, and they sent out officials to administer the oath, and ordered them to have it sworn by the highest authorities in each city.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 270. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Introduction and notes’ in Xenophon: A History of My Times. Harmondsworth (1979). Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemüh­ ungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschrift 63. Stuttgart (1994) 74–9. Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 131–3.

D54 (cf. D35) † Decree honouring Iphikrates Proposer Unknown Date: 371/0

Literary Context

Iphikrates is one of the triumvirate of generals (cf. T4) who appear in the orators as models of civic virtue: the others are Timotheos and Chabrias. A

240

inventory a1

number of ancient texts attribute a speech with the title ‘Against Harmodios concerning the awards of Iphikrates’ (or ‘Speech on the statue of Iphikrates’) to Lysias (Lysias FF 41–9 Carey: see here T1, T7); the attribution, however, is disputed on the basis of chronology and style (Suda s.v. ‘Παῦλος’; [Plu.] X Or. 836d; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 12 = T7); Dionysios (T7) thinks it was written by Iphikrates himself. The speech appears to support the award of honours to Iphikrates, probably against a graphe paranomon brought by Harmodios (Hansen, Sovereignty, no. 9). In Demosthenes’ speech Against Leptines, Iphikrates is one of a number of living recipients of ateleia (the others are Ktesippos, Timotheos, Aristophon and the descendants of Harmodius and Aristogeiton), though the point that Demosthenes (T2) makes is that Chabrias, unlike Iphikrates, was honoured on his own. Demosthenes (TT 3, 4), in his challenge to Aristokrates’ decree proposing inviolability for Charidemos, points to Kotys’ betrayal of Iphikrates as a way of persuading the audience that honouring Charidemos the mercenary leader was not necessarily in their interests. Demosthenes (T5 = 23.198) points to his honours as a way of telling the Athenians thay they have deprived themselves of due credit.

Texts

T1 Lys. Fr. 47 Carey (= Aelius Aristides 49.85 p. 518 Dindorf): Καὶ ὑμεῖς μέν, φησίν, οἴεσθε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, παρ’ ὑμῶν ταῦτα μοι γράμματα καὶ τὴν στήλην εἶναί τι σεμνὸν, ἐμοὶ δὲ στήλη οὐρανομήκης ἔστηκεν ἐν τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ μαρτυροῦσα τὴν ἀρετήν. T2 Dem. 20.84: Ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τιμῶντές ποτ’ Ἰφικράτην, οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν ἐτιμήσατε, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Στράβακα καὶ Πολύστρατον. T3 Dem. 23.130: Ἴστε δήπου τοῦτ’, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι χαλκῆς εἰκόνος οὔσης παρ’ ὑμῖν Ἰφικράτει καὶ σιτήσεως ἐν πρυτανείῳ καὶ δωρειῶν καὶ τιμῶν ἄλλων, δι’ ἃς εὐδαίμων ἐκεῖνος ἦν, ὅμως ἐτόλμησεν ὑπὲρ τῶν Κότυος πραγμάτων ἐναντία τοῖς ὑμετέροις στρατηγοῖς ναυμαχεῖν, καὶ περὶ πλείονος ἐποιήσατο τὴν ἐκείνου σωτηρίαν ἢ τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἑαυτῷ παρ’ ὑμῖν τιμάς· καὶ εἰ μὴ μετριωτέραν ἔσχετε τὴν ὀργὴν ὑμεῖς τῆς ἐκείνου προπετείας, οὐδὲν ἂν αὐτὸν ἐκώλυεν ἀθλιώτατον ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων εἶναι. T4 Dem. 23.136: Ὁ μέν [sc. Κότυς] γ’ ἐκεῖνον τιμάς, σίτησιν, εἰκόνας, πατρίδ’ ἣ ζηλωτὸν αὐτὸν ἐποίησεν, ὀλίγου δέω λέγειν πάνθ’ ὧν ἄνευ ζῆν οὐκ ἄξιον ἦν Ἰφικράτει, νομίζων ἀποστερήσειν οὐκ ἐπεστράφη.

d54 † decree honouring iphikrates

241

T1  And he says that you believe, men of Athens, that these letters and this stele granted to me is something noble. But there has been set up for me in the Peloponnese an inscription which reaches to heaven and bears witness to my virtue.

T2 When you honoured Iphikrates, men of Athens, you did not only honour him, but because of him you also honoured Strabax and Polystratos. T3 You surely know, men of Athens, that, with a bronze statue, maintenance at the prytaneion, and other gifts and honours from you, Iphikrates was a fortunate man. Nevertheless, he dared to fight at sea on behalf of the interests of Kotys against your generals, and he made more of the safety of that king rather than those honours that existed for him in your city. And if your anger had not been more restrained than his rashness, nothing would have saved him from being the most wretched of all men. T4 He (sc. Kotys) expected to deprive Iphikrates of honours, of maintenance, of statues, of the country that made him a man to be envied, almost everything that made life worth living; yet he had no scruple.

242

inventory a1

T5 Dem. 13.22–3: Νῦν δὲ πολλοὶ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὡς Κέρκυραν εἷλε Τιμόθεος καὶ τὴν μόραν κατέκοψεν Ἰφικράτης καὶ τὴν περὶ Νάξον ναυμαχίαν ἐνίκα Χαβρίας· δοκεῖτε γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῶν ἔργων τούτων παραχωρεῖν τῶν τιμῶν ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς αἷς δεδώκατ’ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἑκάστῳ τούτων. T6  Aeschin. 3.243: Ἐπερώτησον δὴ τοὺς δικαστὰς εἰ ἐγίγνωσκον Χαβρίαν καὶ Ἰφικράτην καὶ Τιμόθεον, καὶ πυθοῦ παρ’ αὐτῶν διὰ τί τὰς δωρεὰς αὐτοῖς ἔδοσαν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἔστησαν. ἅπαντες γὰρ ἅμα ἀποκρινοῦνται ὅτι Χαβρίᾳ μὲν διὰ τὴν περὶ Νάξον ναυμαχίαν, Ἰφικράτει δὲ ὅτι μόραν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀπέκτεινε, Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διὰ τὸν περίπλουν τὸν εἰς Κέρκυραν, καὶ ἄλλοις, ὧν ἑκάστῳ πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργα πέπρακται ∆ημοσθένει δ’ἀντεροῦ διὰ τί. T7  Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys. 12 p. 21 1–19: Εἰ γὰρ ὀγδοηκονταετῆ γενόμενον θήσει τις τελευτῆσαι Λυσίαν ἐπὶ Νίκωνος ἢ ἐπὶ Ναυσινίκου ἄρχοντος, ἑπτὰ ἔτεσιν ὅλοις ἂν εἴη προτεροῦσα τῆς γραφῆς τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἡ τελευτὴ τοῦ ῥήτορος. μετὰ γὰρ Ἀλκισθένην ἄρχοντα, ἐφ’ οὗ τὴν εἰρήνην Ἀθηναῖοί τε καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ βασιλεὺς ὤμοσαν, ἀποδοὺς τὰ στρατεύματα Ἰφικράτης ἰδιώτης γίνεται καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς εἰκόνος ἦν τότ’ ἔτεσιν ἑπτὰ πρότερον τετελευτηκότος τῆς γραφῆς Λυσίου, πρὸ τοῦ συντάξασθαι τοῦτον τὸν ἀγῶνα Ἰφικράτει. T8 Scholion on Demosthenes 21.62 (Dilts 200): Πρῶτος γὰρ Ἰφικράτης τιμῶν ἔτυχεν ὧνς Ἀρμόδιος καὶ Ἀριστογείτων. Κόνωνος μὲν γὰρ πρώτου χαλκοῦς ἀνδριὰς ἒστη, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ μόνῳ ἐτιμήθη· Ἰφικράτης δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας δωρεὰς τὰς ἐκείνοις ψηφισθείσας ἔλαβεν, ὥστε καί τινα τῶν ἀφ’Ἀρμοδίου δικάσασθαι τῷ Ἰφικράτει περὶ τῶν δωρεῶν ὡς ἀναξίως λαβόντι.

Commentary

Iphikrates was a highly successful Athenian general and mercenary commander with a high reputation for reforms in military strategy and equipment (see Pritchett, Greek State, 2.117–25) and a reputation also for oratory (D.H. Lysias, 12); for a bibliography and a biographical sketch, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 335–8; Canevaro, Demostene, 330–1. Iphikrates’ involvement with King Kotys, mentioned by Demosthenes (TT 3, 4), may well have had its origins in his personal attachment to Thrace: he appears to have married Kotys’ sister; see Kremmydas, Commentary, 335. Whereas the successes of Chabrias and Timotheos gain a lesser profile in the work of Xenophon than they do in the orators, Iphikrates had a much higher profile, but not always a positive reputation (see, e.g. Xenophon’s critical account at Hell. 6.5.51).

d54 † decree honouring iphikrates

243

T5  But now, men of Athens, many say this, that Timotheos took Corcyra, that Iphikrates cut the Spartan mora to pieces, and that Chabrias won a sea-battle off Naxos. It appears that you surrendered any credit for these deeds by the extravagant awards that you have bestowed on these commanders. (cf. Dem. 23.198). T6 Then ask the jurors if they recognised Chabrias and Iphikrates and Timotheos, and inquire among them as to why they gave them rewards and set up statues of them. And they will all respond harmoniously that Chabrias was rewarded for the sea-battle off Naxos, Iphikrates for destroying a Spartan mora, Timotheos for his circumnavigation of the Peloponnese as far as Corcyra, and there are others, who accomplished many fine achievements in war. Then, ask in turn, why reward Demosthenes? T7  If one places the death of Lysias during the archonship of Nikon (379/8) or Nikophemos (378/7), then it would be the case that the death of the orator took place a whole seven years before the proposal of the decree. For it was after the archonship of Alkisthenes (372/1), during which the Athenians and the Spartans and the Great King swore a peace treaty, that Iphikrates gave up military activity and became a private citizen and the subject of the statue was raised, Lysias having died seven years previously, that is before the speech for Iphikrates was composed.

T8 Iphikrates happened to be the first to obtain the honours which Harmodios and Aristogeiton received. Konon was the first of whom a bronze statue was set up, but this was the only honour which was granted for him. Iphikrates received in addition all the other gifts which were voted to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, so that one of those descendants prosecuted Iphikrates on the basis that he was unworthy of them.

It seems likely that Iphikrates received honours from the Athenians on at least one occasion. A proposal in honour of Iphikrates was made in recognition of destruction of a regiment (mora: c. 600 hoplites) of Lakedaimonians (T6); this was presumably the time, circa 390, when Iphikrates recaptured Sidos, Krommyon and Oinoe: Xen. Hell. 4.5.19; D.S. 14.91.2–3; cf. T5, Dem. 23.198; Din. 1.75; Nepos, Iphikrates, 2. This is represented as D35 in this Inventory. Dionysios of Halikarnassos (Lys. 12) suggests that the award of a statue was made in 371/0 (‘after the archonship of Alkisthenes (372/1’). The awards mentioned for him were as follows: an honorary statue (TT 3, 4, 6, 7, mentioned also in Aristotle’s reference to words spoken by Isocrates:

244

inventory a1

Rhetoric, 1397b30–40), sitesis in the prytaneion (TT 3, 4; on the debate about the location of the prytaneion see Harris, Demosthenes, 79 note 172), and the erection of a stele in the Peloponnese (T1: Kremmydas, Commentary, 337 takes the view that this was a trophy in the Peloponnese, perhaps at Lechaion). Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 196, takes Demosthenes’ (T3) ‘other gifts and honours’ as indicating that he received proedria. The scholiast’s claim (T8) that he received equal honours to Harmodios and Aristogeiton is probably an exaggeration (in addition to their statues, they enjoyed a tomb at the Kerameikos, a cult with sacrifices, ateleia, proedria and sitesis: Kremmydas, Commentary, 219–20). Osborne observes that, other than the awards for the tyrannicides, the combination of sitesis and statue was, until then, previously unattested (‘Entertainment’, 167); Isocrates therefore may have been the first to be awarded such a combination of honours which is not attested again until the awards for Demades (D187) and Diphilos (D234). On the awards of statues and sitesis, see Henry, Honours, 262–310. The decree for the rewards of Iphikrates was attacked by the descendants of Harmodios (T8) but appears to have been upheld (see Lysias F41a Carey; Hansen, Sovereignty, no. 9); from T3 it is clear that Iphikrates’ activity would have made the honours controversial. Demosthenes (T2) associates the rewards with those for Polystratos and Strabax (see D100 below); the potentially slanderous claim that other honorands were associated with the awards for worthy men is known elsewhere: see Dem. 20.84 = D47; it is possible that the proposer of Iphikrates’ honours or Iphikrates himself requested the rewards to be extended to them. Pausanias describes seeing an eikon of Iphikrates (1.24.7) at the entrance to the Parthenon, but it is not clear that this is the same thing as the statue: it could refer also to a ‘portrait’. As Kremmydas, Commentary, 336 suggests, it is possible that ‘Iphikrates, like Konon and Timotheos, had his statue erected in the Agora at public expense and another put up at his own expense on the acropolis’. As Shear, ‘Cultural change’, 110 suggests, it is likely that the state-sanctioned statue for him was set up by the people in the agora, close to those of Timotheos, Konon and Chabrias. Pausanias mentions a statue of Iphikrates close to the Parthenon (Paus, 1.24.7), and this is likely to have been a private dedication (cf. Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 196). One of the awards for Iphikrates appears to have been attacked by Harmodios, a descendant of the tyrannicide (T1); the surviving fragment of Iphikrates’ speech in defence of the award demonstrates that there was an argument that he did not deserve such honours (T1); it may imply that Iphikrates himself had demanded the honours: see Domingo Gygax, Benefaction, 197.

d54 † decree honouring iphikrates

245

Date

The second award is most likely placed in 372/1 (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 12, which claims the spuriousness of Lysias’ speech for Iphikrates’ statue), presumably after his brilliant campaign in northwestern Greece: Xen. Hell. 6.2.27–39. His most famous exploit, the destruction of a Spartan regiment (connected with his honours by TT 5, 6 and also Dem. 23.198, Din. 1.75), indicates a date for the earlier of the two awards in the 390s (cf. Xen. Hell. 4.5.14). Indeed, it is likely that T1 refers to the earlier of the two. The claim at Dem. 20.85, that Chabrias would have been able to point to the nature of rewards made to Iphikrates, supports the likelihood of an earlier award. It is, then, plausible that Iphikrates received two rounds of rewards, one in the 390s (cf. D35) and the other in 372/1.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 330–1. Domingo Gygax, M., Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City : The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge (2016) 196–7. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 9. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012). Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, 5 vols. Berkeley (1974–91), vol 2 117–25. Osborne, M.J., ‘Entertainment in the prytaneion in Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–79. Shear, J.L., ‘Cultural change, space, and the politics of commemoration in Athens’ in Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution : Arts, Literature, Philosophy, and Politics 430–380 BC, ed. R.G. Osborne. Cambridge (2007) 91–116.

D55 Decree for armed assistance to the Lakedaimonians

Proposer: Kallistratos Kallikratous Aphidnaios (PA 815 + 812 + 8130; PAA 561575; APF, pp. 277–82) Date: 369/8

Literary Context

Xenophon (T1) informs us of the Athenian decision at the end of the assembly meeting (Xen. Hell. 6.5.33), attended by representatives from Sparta and other Peloponnesian cities, which discussed policy in the light of the Theban invasion of Laconia. Diodorus (T3) presents the decree as evidence of the magnanimity and generosity of the Athenians at a time of Spartan crisis. The decree is mentioned also by Apollodoros (T2), who claims that Xenokleides, a former lover of Neaira, opposed Kallistratos’ proposal on the grounds that he had purchased the right to collect the 2 per cent tax during peacetime: Apollodoros maintains that Stephanos unlawfully indicted Xenokleides for avoidance of military duty.

Texts

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.5.49: Μετὰ ταῦτα ἐβουλεύοντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀντιλεγόντων οὐκ ἠνείχοντο ἀκούοντες, ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ βοηθεῖν πανδημεί, καὶ Ἰφικράτην στρατηγὸν εἵλοντο. T2  [Dem.] 59.27: Ὅτε γὰρ Λακεδαιμονίους ὑμεῖς ἐσῴζετε πεισθέντες ὑπὸ Καλλιστράτου, τότε ἀντειπὼν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τῇ βοηθείᾳ, ἐωνημένος τὴν πεντηκοστὴν τοῦ σίτου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ δέον αὐτὸν καταβάλλειν τὰς καταβολὰς εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον κατὰ πρυτανείαν. T3  D.S. 15.63.2: Ἀλλὰ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἰσχυρότερόν ἐστιν ἀνάγκης καὶ τύχης, δι’ ὧν ἐβιάσθησαν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τῶν πολεμιωτάτων δεηθῆναι. ὅμως δ’ οὐ διεσφάλησαν τῶν ἐλπίδων. ὁ γὰρ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος, μεγαλόψυχος ὢν καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, τὴν μὲν τῶν Θηβαίων ἰσχὺν οὐ κατεπλάγησαν, τοῖς δὲ Λακεδαιμονίοις ὑπὲρ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ κινδυνεύουσιν ἐψηφίσαντο βοηθεῖν πανδημεί. καὶ παραχρῆμα στρατηγὸν καταστήσαντες τὸν Ἰφικράτην ἐξέπεμψαν καὶ τοὺς νέους αὐθημερόν, ὄντας μυρίους καὶ δισχιλίους. 246

d55 decree for armed assistance to lakedaimonians 247

T1 After this (sc. the speeches), the Athenians deliberated and, refusing to listen to any contradictory speeches, voted to go to help in full force, and they elected Iphikrates as general. T2 When, persuaded by Kallistratos, you went to the aid of the Lakedaimonians, he spoke against this assistance in the assembly, having bought the right to collect the 2 per cent tax on grain in peacetime and being obliged to make payments in the Council-house each prytany. T3 For there is nothing that is stronger than necessity and fortune, through which the Lakedaimonians were forced to seek aid from their worst enemies. Nevertheless their hopes were not disappointed, for the Athenian people, magnanimous and humane, were not terrified by the strength of Thebes, and they decreed to send aid with full strength to the Lakedaimonians who were running the risk of enslavement. And straight away they made Iphikrates general and sent him out on the same day with 12,000 young men.

248

inventory a1

Commentary

After the first Theban invasion of Sparta in winter 370–69, the Athenians called an assembly (Xen. Hell. 6.5.33), and, after listening to the speeches of the Lakedaimonians and other Peloponnesians, voted to send aid to them. The expedition led by Iphikrates was unfruitful (Xen. Hell. 6.5.49–52), but it formed the immediate background to an alliance between the Athenians and Spartans (Xen. Hell. 7.1.1; see D56 below). In his description of the assembly-meeting at which the decree was voted, Xenophon suggests that Spartan ambassadors happened to be present (Xen. Hell. 6.5.33); Diodorus, claiming that the Spartans were forced to seek aid (T3) portrays the Lakedaimonian role as much more proactive. Diodorus makes much of this as an act of Athenian philanthropia (on which, see Christ, ‘Demosthenes’ and Gray, ‘The polis’). This, of course, allows him to make much of Athenian humanity and kindness, on which topos see Stylianou, Commentary, 429. Both Xenophon (T1) and Diodorus (T3) emphasise the full force (πανδημεί) of the Athenian expedition; both authors emphasise the readiness of the Athenians to help, but whereas Diodorus claims that they set out on the same day, Xenophon (Hell. 6.5.49) says that Iphikrates ordered his men to be under arms at the academy for the evening meal, and it is not clear that they set off on the same day. If it is correct to connect the passage of Apollodoros (T2) to this decree, this forms a clear example where the orators offered a more detailed account of a decree than did Xenophon. The proposer of this decree, Kallistratos, was an important politician: he is known to have proposed three other decrees, including one which impeached the Athenian ambassadors to Sparta (see D27 above), a rider to an honorific decree (IG II2 84 lines 9–10) and a response to Mytilenean ambassadors (IG II2 107 line 36); for his other political activity, including launching and acting as a defendant in eisangelia trials, activity as an ambassador and general, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 50–1; see, further, Sealey, ‘Callistratos’ and Kapparis, ‘Apollodoros’, 223. It is likely that the Athenians voted to hold a levy of the eisphora to support the campaign: see DP 34 below (= Dem. 16.12).

Date

369/8 (Diodorus).

Bibliography

Christ, M., ‘Demosthenes on philanthropia as a democratic virtue’, CPh 108 (2013) 202–22.

d56 decree concerning the command

249

Gray, B., ‘The polis becomes humane? Philanthropia as a cardinal civic virtue in later Hellenistic honorific epigraphy and historiography’, Studi ellenistici 27 (2013) 137–62. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Kapparis, K., Apollodoros: ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin and New York (1999). Sealey, R., ‘Callistratos of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 178–203. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998) 429.

D56 Decree concerning the command of forces in the alliance Proposer: Kephisodotos ek Kerameon (PA 8327; PAA 567790) Date: 369/8

Literary Context

TT 1–3 occur in Xenophon’s account of the discussion at Athens of the terms of the alliance with Spartan ambassadors and their allies in early 369/8; after a debate on the command, Kephisodotos is accredited with passing the decree that each party should hold the command for periods of five days at a time.

250

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Xen. Hell. 7.1.1: Τῷ δ’ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων πρέσβεις ἦλθον αὐτοκράτορες Ἀθήναζε, βουλευσόμενοι καθ’ ὅ τι ἡ συμμαχία Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ Ἀθηναίοις ἔσοιτο. λεγόντων δὲ πολλῶν μὲν ξένων, πολλῶν δὲ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς δέοι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἴσοις καὶ ὁμοίοις τὴν συμμαχίαν εἶναι, Προκλῆς Φλειάσιος εἶπε τόνδε τὸν λόγον. T2 Xen. Hell. 7.1.2: Τῇ μὲν οὖν βουλῇ προβεβούλευται ὑμετέραν μὲν εἶναι τὴν κατὰ θάλατταν, Λακεδαιμονίων δὲ τὴν κατὰ γῆν. T3 Xen. Hell. 7.1.13–14: ‘Ἀπόκριναι δέ μοι’, ἔφη, ‘ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιε Τιμόκρατες, οὐκ ἄρτι ἔλεγες ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἴσοις καὶ ὁμοίοις ἥκοις τὴν συμμαχίαν ποιούμενος;’ ‘Εἶπον ταῦτα.’ ‘Ἔστιν οὖν’, ἔφη ὁ Κηφισόδοτος, ‘ἰσαίτερον ἢ ἐν μέρει μὲν ἑκατέρους ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦ ναυτικοῦ, ἐν μέρει δὲ τοῦ πεζοῦ, καὶ ὑμᾶς τε, εἴ τι ἀγαθόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ κατὰ θάλατταν ἀρχῇ, τούτων μετέχειν, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ κατὰ γῆν;’ ἀκούσαντες ταῦτα οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι μετεπείσθησαν, καὶ ἐψηφίσαντο κατὰ πενθήμερον ἑκατέρους ‘ἡγεῖσθαι’.

T4 D.S. 15.67.1: Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ παραδόξως ἀποτετριμμένοι τοὺς πολεμίους, ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους τῶν Σπαρτιατῶν, καὶ τὰς μὲν ὁμολογίας ἐποιήσαντο περὶ τῆς ἡγεμονίας, ὥστε τῆς μὲν θαλάττης ἄρχειν Ἀθηναίους, τῆς δὲ γῆς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐν ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐποιήσαντο κοινὰς τὰς ἡγεμονίας.

Commentary

After the first Theban invasion of the Peloponnese in 370–69, the Athenians reacted by first of all sending an expedition to the Peloponnese (see D55 above), and then, in 369/8, accepting ambassadors from Sparta to discuss the terms of an alliance between Athens and Sparta (T1). The alliance does not seem to have been formally sworn at the time when the question of leadership arose. According to Xenophon, the Athenian council (T2) and Prokles the Phliasian (Xen. Hell. 7.2.11) proposed that the command be divided between the Spartans (command by land) and Athens (by sea); this won favour with the Athenians but the Athenians, persuaded by Kephisodotos’ objections, agreed to hand over the command every five days (T3). The division suggests on the surface of things a return to the pre-Leuktra division of power (in 375/4, according to D.S. 15.38.4, the leadership was divided initially according to the land/sea

d56 decree concerning the command

251

T1  The next year, ambassadors of the Lakedaimonians came with full powers to Athens, for the sake of deliberating about what shape the alliance between them and the Athenians would take; after many foreigners and many Athenians had suggested that the alliance ought to be on equal terms, Prokles the Phliasian made this speech. T2 Your council has proposed that the command by sea should be yours; that by land should be the Lakedaimonians’. T3 [Kallistratos’ speech]: ‘Answer me’, he said, ‘Timokrates of Sparta. Did you not say just now that you had come for the purpose of making an alliance on wholly equal terms?’ ‘I did say that’, replied Timokrates. ‘Then,’ said Kephisodotos, ‘what could be fairer than for each of us to hold the naval- and foot-command, by turns? And so if there is any advantage in having the command by sea, you will share in it, and we in that which arises from command on land.’ The Athenians, on hearing this speech, were convinced, and they voted that each of them would hold command in turn for terms of five days. T4  The Lakedaimonians, who had ridden themselves of their enemies (sc. the Thebans), sent to Athens an embassy of the most distinguished Spartans, and made an agreement concerning the leadership: the Athenians were to be rulers of the sea, the Lakedaimonians of the land, but after this they set up a joint command.

distinction but later a joint command was established) from the situation of Athens as the prostates of the Peace of 371 (D.S. 15.57.1; Stylianou, Commentary, 444). But readiness to share the naval command stood in contrast to the ideal of Athenian naval dominance, at which fourth-century Athenians sometimes looked with nostalgia or even aspiration: see Ober, ‘Views of sea power,’ esp. 126. Diodorus’ more concise version (T4) alludes to the same change of policy. Buckler (Theban, 90–1) comments as follows: ‘Kephisodotos’ suggestion made little military sense, but politically it was very clever. It deftly underscored the fact that Sparta was no longer undisputed master on land. Kephisodotos probably saw his proposal more as a legal fiction than as something that the Athenians expected to be put fully into practice ... The Athenians dealt Spartan pretensions to hegemony a hard blow without having lost anything substantial themselves.’

252

inventory a1

Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 60, holds this up as an example of the assembly rejecting a probouleuma and adopting an alternative proposal.

Date

Spring/summer 369, after the Theban withdrawal (SVA, no. 274; Stylianou, Commentary, 444).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA no. 274. Buckler, J., The Theban Hegemony, 371–362 BC. Cambridge, MA (1980) 90–1. Ober, J., ‘Views of sea power in the fourth-century orators’, Ancient World 1 (1978) 119–30. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998).

D57 The repair of processional vessels Proposer: Androtion Andronos Gargettios (PA 913 + 915; PAA 129125; APF) Date 368/7 or later

Literary Context

As part of his speech in support of Euktemon’s graphe paranomon against Androtion’s proposal of honours for the outgoing council of 356/5 (see D89 below), Diodorus, the speaker of Dem. 22, confronts Androtion’s previous acts, including his decree proposing repairs to the pompeia, and appeals to the audience in the hope of provoking a feeling of emotional attachment to the wreaths (TT 1, 2; as Rutishauser, ‘Crowning the polis’, 72 observes, these wreaths would have been recorded at the Metroon, and on the acropolis, and may well have been put on display during the Panathenaia).

253

254

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 22.69–70: Ἀλλὰ νὴ Δία ταῦτα μὲν τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ἐν οἷς πεπολίτευται, ἄλλα δ’ ἔσθ’ ἃ καλῶς διῴκηκεν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τἄλλ’ οὕτως προσελήλυθε πάντα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὥσθ’ ἥκιστ’ ἐν οἷς ἀκηκόατ’ ἄξιός ἐστι μισεῖσθαι. τί γὰρ βούλεσθ’ εἴπω; τὰ πομπεῖ’ ὡς ἐπεσκεύασεν, καὶ τὴν τῶν στεφάνων καθαίρεσιν, ἢ τὴν τῶν φιαλῶν ποίησιν τὴν καλήν; ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις γε, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλ’ ἀδικῶν ἔτυχεν τὴν πόλιν, τρίς, οὐχ ἅπαξ τεθνάναι δίκαιος ὢν φανεῖται· καὶ γὰρ ἱεροσυλίᾳ καὶ ἀσεβείᾳ καὶ κλοπῇ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς δεινοτάτοις ἔστ’ ἔνοχος. τὰ μὲν οὖν πόλλ’ ὧν λέγων ὑμᾶς ἐφενάκιζεν παραλείψω· φήσας δ’ ἀπορρεῖν τὰ φύλλα τῶν στεφάνων καὶ σαπροὺς εἶναι διὰ τὸν χρόνον, ὥσπερ ἴων ἢ ῥόδων ὄντας, ἀλλ’ οὐ χρυσίου, συγχωνεύειν ἔπεισεν. κᾆτ’ ἐπὶ μὲν ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς τὸν δημόσιον παρεῖναι προσέγραψεν ὡς δὴ δίκαιος ὤν, ὧν ἕκαστος ἀντιγραφεὺς ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι τῶν εἰσενεγκόντων· ἐπὶ τοῖς στεφάνοις δ’ οὓς κατέκοπτεν οὐχὶ προσήγαγεν ταὐτὸ δίκαιον τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ αὑτὸς ῥήτωρ, χρυσοχόος, ταμίας, ἀντιγραφεὺς γέγονεν. T2 Dem. 22.72–3: Καὶ μήν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ χρόνου σκέψασθε ὡς καλὰ καὶ ζηλωτὰ ἐπιγράμματα τῆς πόλεως ἀνελὼν ὡς ἀσεβῆ καὶ δεινὰ ἀντεπιγέγραφεν. οἶμαι γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἅπαντας ὁρᾶν ὑπὸ τῶν στεφάνων ταῖς χοινικίσιν κάτωθεν γεγραμμένα ‘οἱ σύμμαχοι τὸν δῆμον ἀνδραγαθίας εἵνεκα καὶ δικαιοσύνης’, ἢ ‘οἱ σύμμαχοι ἀριστεῖον τῇ Ἀθηναίᾳ’, ἢ κατὰ πόλεις ‘οἱ δεῖνες τὸν δῆμον, σωθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου’, οἷον ‘Εὐβοεῖς ἐλευθερωθέντες ἐστεφάνωσαν τὸν δῆμον’, πάλιν ‘Κόνων ἀπὸ τῆς ναυμαχίας τῆς πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους·’ τοιαῦτα γὰρ ἦν τὰ τῶν στεφάνων ἐπιγράμματα. ταῦτα μὲν τοίνυν, ἃ ζῆλον πολὺν εἶχεν καὶ φιλοτιμίαν ὑμῖν, ἠφάνισται καθαιρεθέντων τῶν στεφάνων· ἐπὶ ταῖς φιάλαις δ’ ἃς ἀντ’ ἐκείνων ἐποιήσαθ’ ὑμῖν ὁ πόρνος οὗτος, ‘Ἀνδροτίωνος ἐπιμελουμένου’ {ἐποιήθησαν} ἐπιγέγραπται. T3 Harpokration, s.v. ‘πομπείας καὶ πομπεύειν’ (FGrH 328 F181): Πομπεῖα δὲ λέγεται τὰ εἰς τὰς πομπὰς κατασκευαζόμενα σκεύη, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς ῥήτωρκατ’ Ἀνδροτίωνος ὑποσημαίνει. ‘πομπείοις δὲ’ φησι Φιλόχορος ‘πρότερον ἐχρῶντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν λ κατασκευασθεῖσιν. ὀψὲ δὲ’ φησί ‘καὶ Ἀνδροτίων ἄλλα κατεσκεύασεν’.

Commentary

These testimonia suggest that Androtion arranged for the repair of pompeia (processional vessels), the kathairesis  – referred to also as a melting down/ breaking up – of crowns (on the grounds that the leaves of the crowns were

d57 the repair of processional vessels

255

T1 But by Zeus, such has he been in his political activities, but there are other things which he has done well. On the contrary, in every respect his behaviour towards his fellow-citizens has been such that the story you have heard is the least of the reasons you have for hating him. What do you wish me to say? How he repaired the pompeia? His kathairesis of the crowns? Or his wonderful production of phialai? For these performances alone, had he even chanced to commit no other crime against the city, it seems to me he deserves to die not once but three times; for he is guilty of temple robbery, of impiety, of theft, and all the most serious misdemeanours. I will leave to one side the many things which he said to deceive you. However, by alleging that the leaves of the crowns were rotten with age and falling off – as if they were violet-leaves or rose-leaves, not leaves made of gold – he persuaded you to melt them down. And then, in providing for the collection of eisphora, he (as if he were an honest man) introduced a clause that the public slave should attend, although each one contributing was about to act as checking-clerk. But in dealing with the crowns that he was to break up, he omitted this same just provision, but he himself was the rhetor, goldsmith, treasurer and checking-clerk. T2 Consider then, men of Athens, how beautiful and enviable were these inscriptions of the city that he has obliterated for all time, and how strange and blasphemous the inscriptions that he has written in their place. For I suppose you all see written on the mounting beneath the crowns the words: ‘The allies to the Athenian people for the sake of good-manliness and justice’; or ‘The allies to the Goddess of Athens, a prize of victory’; or, from the several cities, ‘Such-and-such a city to the people by whom they were delivered’; or, ‘The freed Euboians’, for example, ‘crowned the people’; or again, ‘Konon from the naval battle against the Lacedaimonians.’ Such, I say, were the things written on the crowns, which brought great admiration and philotimia to you; but now they have vanished with the acts of kathairesis of the crowns, and the phialai which that whore has made bear in their place bear the inscription, ‘Made under the supervision of Androtion’. T3 Of procession equipment and to process: pompeia is the term for the equipment prepared for the ceremonial processions, as the same author (sc. Demosthenes) indicates in Against Androtion (22.48). Philochorus says ‘Previously the Athenians used processional equipment (pompeia) that had been made from (the proceeds of) the property of the Thirty, but lately’, he says, ‘Androtion made other equipment’. (trans. Harding, The Story, adapted).

deteriorating), and the manufacture of phialai. The implication that he proposed these provisions in addition to (‘προσέγραψεν’: T1) those for the eisphora suggests that they were made by proposal of a decree. The speaker, Diodorus,

256

inventory a1

suggests that the phialai were made up from the melted crowns, the glorious inscriptions on which Androtion is said to have obliterated (T2: these included dedications by the Athenian allies to the Athenians and dedications made by Konon); the phialai instead were stamped with the inscription ‘Made under the direction of Androtion’ (T2; cf. Dem. 24.181). In so doing, it is alleged, he robbed the goddess of her crowns, extinguished the spirit of philotimia, and deprived the honorands of their rightful rewards (Dem. 22.74 = Dem. 24.182). Diodorus (T1) attacks also the alleged lack of accountability of the process of melting down the crowns (set into relief by Androtion’s insistence on the presence of the public slave (demosion) in the context of the collection of taxes: D88 below). Such allegations against Androtion are repeated in a speech made against his assistant Timokrates (Dem. 24.176–81), but add nothing further to our understanding of the decree. Demosthenes’ claims about the outrageousness of Androtion’s work on the crowns is perhaps misleading: the existence of three types of temple inventory – those recording the paradosis (handing over of records from one magistrate to his successor), kathairesis (items removed for, for instance, melting down or repair), and exetasmos (scrutiny relating to a special enquiry) – suggests that undertakings were perhaps not as extraordinary as Demosthenes makes it appear (see Aleshire, The Athenian Asklepieion, 103–110: on the melting down of discarded dedications, see Linders ‘The melting’, discussing the ‘established custom’ of creating new cult vessels from old or defective votives). Moreover, as D. Harris (The Treasures, 33) points out, an inventory entry ‘shows that wreaths did lose leaves from time to time: IG II2 1377 lines 22-24’. Androtion’s work, then, probably aimed to ‘simplify housekeeping inside the temples, and to make new cult equipment’ (Harris, The Treasures, 33). Harpokration (T3), drawing from Philochorus (or an epitimator of Philochorus: see Fornara and Yates ‘FGrHist’), suggests that the pompeia were manufactured from the proceeds of property confiscated from the Thirty (or, as Fornara and Yates, ‘FGrHist’, 32 note 4, suggest, metal objects may have been melted down in order to manufacture the pompeia). Such objects, defined by Parker (Polytheism, 180) as ‘symbols of wealth put to good use in the service of the Gods’, are known from the fifth century, referred to by Pericles who, in outlining Athens’ resources, talks of ‘ὅσα ἱερὰ σκεύη περί τε τὰς πομπὰς καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας’ (Thuc. 2.13.4). As Jacoby suggests, the metal of the items referred to by Pericles may have been melted down at a time of financial crisis towards the end of the Peloponnesian War, perhaps in 407/6 (Jacoby, FGrH 328 F181 Commentary, 550; Harding, The Story, 137). The Against Alkibiades of [Andocides] (29) claims that Alcibiades asked the Athenian architheoroi to Olympia to lend him the pompeia for celebration of his own victory; the pompeia are identified as golden basins and censers (‘χερνιβίοι καὶ θυμιατηρίοι’);

d57 the repair of processional vessels

257

Plutarch, referring to the same event, claims that he used them on his everyday table and that they were made of gold and silver (Plutarch, Alkibiades 13.3). So far we have considered pompeia as metallic containers, which would have been used to bear water and fire for a procession; non-metallic objects such as wickerwork baskets or winnowing fans also may, strictly speaking, have formed part of the processional objects (Burkert, Greek Religion, 99; Kavoulaki ‘Processional’, 300–1). For an interpretation of the pompe in Greek religion, considering it on a par with sacrifices, and asserting them as presenting the community, offerings, and material goods to the deity, see Kavoulaki, ‘Observations,’ 146. Greek states awarded crowns to the Athenian demos and/or boule in recognition of particular services (e.g. IG II2 1443 lines 93–5; Dem. 18.92); moreover, the Athenians sometimes required honorands to dedicate their crowns (RO 64 lines 33–8, requiring the sons of Leukon to dedicate their crowns to Athena Polias, inscribed with the words ‘Σπάρτοκος καὶ Παιρισάδης Λεύκωνος παῖδες ἀνέθεσαν τῆι Ἀθηναίαι στεφανωθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ἀθηνα[ί]ων’; cf. IG II2 1456 lines 49–51, a crown dedicated by Nausikles). There is, therefore, room for optimism that Diodorus’ account of the inscriptions was along the right lines; for the inscription of cult equipment see also IG II3 1 445 lines 41–2); Athenians too are attested to have dedicated crowns: IG II2 1496 lines 28–30, 42–6, 49–51). For crowns kept in Athenian cult stores, see Harris, The Treasures, 303, s.v. ‘wreath’. The claim that Diodorus makes about Androtion’s manufacture of phialai is vague but for their dedication by manumitted slaves and liturgists, see Lewis ‘Dedications’; for the view of them as dedicated by metics, see Meyer, Metics. For phialai kept in Athenian cult stores, see Harris, The Treasures, 302, s.v. phiale. Androtion was a prominent politician (see Harding ‘Androtion’s’); he is attested as proposer of four decrees other than this one: DD 88, 89, IG II3 1 298, and IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47: for his other activity (including bringing a graphe paranomon, addressing the ecclesia, acting as a synegoros for Timokrates, and as ambassador, see Hansen, ‘Updated’, 35; Harding, Androtion, 19–24). IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47, a decree which refers to a proposal concerning the handing over of pompeia, may or may not be associated with the decree treated here (see Harding, ‘Androtion’, 191–2), verifies Androtion’s interest in the management of processional vessels. What lay behind Androtion’s proposal? The re-organisation of temple treasures is thought to have been undertaken on two other occasions in the first half of the fourth century (Harris, The Treasures, 33 suggests 377/6 (IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47), 368/7 (the current decree) and 355/4 (on the basis of the changes in donations made on the basis of gold wreaths in IG II2 1436);

258

inventory a1

Lycurgus undertook the creation of pompeia ‘for the goddess’ (Paus. 1.29.16) and the renewal of cult equipment in the 330s: see the law IG II3 1 445 of c. 335 with Harris, The Treasures, 34–5. That the procedure is a regular one is strongly suggested by an inscription of c. 335 BC, IG II3 1 445, which mentions a law concerning an examination of cult property (line 11), deals with the creation of cult equipment and the inscription of the name of the deity to whom it is sacred (line 32–41); it mentions smaller items which were not to be handed over in the paradosis of items (line 45), and were presumably to be melted down in the production of other equipment (as Schwenk, Athens, 124 suggests). But by prescribing that the goddess was to be consulted as to whether or not the cult equipment sacred to Demeter and Kore was to be beautified and enlarged (lines 42–9), that law displays a sense of caution, perhaps born of Demosthenes’ prosecution of Androtion’s activity. Harding (Androtion 192) associates the melting of the materials with ‘an interest in ceremony not finance’. As the author of a local history of Attica, his interest in sacred matters and ritual are well attested: see Androtion FGrH 324 F2, 16. However, for a view that treasure and coin accumulated in cult holdings could be deployed as financial reserves, see Davies, ‘Temples’, 126, making reference to Androtion. The implications of Davies’ argument are that Androtion’s decree had a financial motivation: indeed, for his financial measures, see D88 below, arranging for the collection of arrears of eisphora; at Dem. 22.48, his financial motivations on that occasion are supported by Diodorus’ claims that Androtion offered three choices to the Athenians for the raising of funds: imposition of eisphora, breaking up the pompeia, or claiming money owed by debtors (Dem. 22.48).

Date

Following the date proposed by Lewis (‘Notes’, 45), Harding (Androtion, 18–20) suggests a point after 368/7, when a gold crown voted to Konon disappeared from the inventories. Some have connected this decree to that of Androtion, probably of 365/4 or earlier, in which he proposed the handing over of processional vessels from one board of treasurers to another: IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47 (see Lewis, ‘Notes’, 41). A firm terminus ante quem is offered by the date of the circumstances of Dem. 22 (356/5), but a date between 368/7 and 365/4 seems most likely.

Bibliography

Aleshire, S.B., The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications, and the Inventories. Amsterdam (1989). Davies, J.K., ‘Temples, credit, and the circulation of money’ in Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, eds. A. Meadows and K. Shipton. Oxford (2001) 117–28.

d58 honours, military aid, alliance

259

Fornara, C.W. and Yates, D., ‘FGrHist 328 (Philochorus) 181’, GRBS 47 (2007) 31–7. Harding, P., ‘Androtion’s political career’, Historia 25 (1976) 186–200. Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford (1994) 19–20, 54. Harding, P., The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika. London (2008) 148–9. Harris, D., The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford (1995). Kavoulaki, A., ‘Processional performance and the Polis’ in Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, eds. R.G. Osborne and S. Goldhill. Cambridge (1999) 293–320. Kavoulaki, A., ‘Observations on the meaning and practice of Greek pompe (procession)’ in Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece: Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17–19 April 2008, eds. M. Haysom and J. Wallensten. Stockholm, (2011) 135–50. Lewis, D.M., ‘Notes on Attic inscriptions’, ABSA 49 (1954) 17–50. Lewis, D.M., ‘Dedications of phialai at Athens’, Hesperia 37 (1968) 368–80. Linders, T., ‘The melting down of discarded metal offerings in Greek sanctuaries’, in Anathema: regime delle offerte e vita dei santuari nel Mediterranea antico (= Scienze dell’Antichita. Storia, archelogia, antropologia 3–4 (1989/90 [1991]) 281–5. Meyer, E.A., Metics and the Athenian Phialai-Inscriptions: A Study in Athenian Epigraphy and Law. Historia Einzelschrift 208. Stuttgart (2010). Parker, R.C.T., Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford (2005). Rutishauser, B., ‘Crowning the polis: island gifts and Aegean politics’ in Bonnin, G. and Le Quéré, E., Pouvoirs, îles et mer: formes et modalités de l’hégémonie dans les Cyclades antiques (VIIIe s. a. C– IIIe s. p. C.). Bordeaux (2014) 69–80. Schwenk, C.J., Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws and Decrees of ‘The Lycourgan Era’ 338–322 BC. Chicago (1985).

D58 Honours, military aid, alliance and statue for Alexander of Pherai Proposer: Unknown Date: 368/7

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) mentions this alliance in the context of his attack on Aristokrates’ proposal for the protection of Charidemos (by declaring his killers

260

inventory a1

liable to seizure within allied territory), arguing that, had he been granted such protection, it would have been hard to punish his subsequent violence and brutality. Diodorus (T2) mentions the alliance in his account of inter-state events and, like Demosthenes, suggests that the development was a consequence of Alexander’s arrest of Pelopidas; Plutarch (T3) contrasts the Athenian alliance with Pelopidas’ war against Alexander, as a way of emphasising Pelopidas’ quest for glory. The alliance is not mentioned by Xenophon: Tracy, ‘The Thessalians’, 27–8.

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.120: Ἀλέξανδρον ἐκεῖνον τὸν Θετταλόν, ἡνίκα εἶχε μὲν αἰχμάλωτον δήσας Πελοπίδαν, ἐχθρὸς δ’ ὡς οὐδεὶς ἦν Θηβαίοις, ὑμῖν δ’ οἰκείως διέκειτο οὕτως ὥστε παρ’ ὑμῶν στρατηγὸν αἰτεῖν, ἐβοηθεῖτε δ’ αὐτῷ καὶ πάντ’ ἦν Ἀλέξανδρος, πρὸς Διὸς εἴ τις ἔγραψεν, ἄν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Ἀλέξανδρον, ἀγώγιμον εἶναι, ἆρ’ ἂν ὧν μετὰ ταῦθ’ ὕβρισεν καὶ προὐπηλάκισεν ἀσφαλὲς ἦν τῳ παρ’ αὐτοῦ δίκην πειρᾶσθαι λαβεῖν; T2  D.S. 15.71.3: Θηβαίων δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς πραχθεῖσι παροξυνθέντων, καὶ ταχέως εἰς τὴν Θετταλίαν ἐκπεμψάντων ὁπλίτας μὲν ὀκτακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δ’ ἑξακοσίους, φοβηθεὶς Ἀλέξανδρος ἐξέπεμψε πρεσβευτὰς εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας περὶ συμμαχίας. ᾧ παραχρῆμα ὁ δῆμος ἐξέπεμψε ναῦς μὲν τριάκοντα, στρατιώτας δὲ χιλίους, ὧν ἦν στρατηγὸς Αὐτοκλῆς. T3  Plu. Pel. 31.6: Μάλιστα δ’ αὐτὸν καὶ παρεκάλει τὸ τῆς πράξεως κάλλος, ἐπιθυμοῦντα καὶ φιλοτιμούμενον, ἐν οἷς χρόνοις Λακεδαιμόνιοι Διονυσίῳ τῷ Σικελίας τυράννῳ στρατηγοὺς καὶ ἁρμοστὰς ἔπεμπον, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ μισθοδότην Ἀλέξανδρον εἶχον καὶ χαλκοῦν ἵστασαν ὡς εὐεργέτην, τότε τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπιδεῖξαι Θηβαίους μόνους ὑπὲρ τῶν τυραννουμένων στρατευομένους καὶ καταλύοντας ἐν τοῖς Ἕλλησι τὰς παρανόμους καὶ βιαίους δυναστείας.

Commentary

Whereas Thessaly did not play much of a starring role in Greek affairs during the archaic period, for its associations with Athens in the period from the Persian Wars to the Lamian War, see Tracy, ‘The Thessalians’, suggesting that the two acted ‘more often than not as allies against their common enemies, primarily the Spartans and Macedonians’ (31). The Thessalians became more politically prominent under Jason of Pherai in the mid 370s when he claimed to be tagos of all the Thessalians (Xen. Hell.

d58 honours, military aid, alliance

261

T1 And then there is Alexander of Thessaly. When he had taken Pelopidas prisoner, and was holding him captive, and no one was quite as hostile towards the Thebans, when he was so well disposed towards you that he requested from you a general when you gave aid to his arms, when Alexander was everywhere, by Zeus, if anyone had proposed that whoever killed Alexander should be liable to seizure (agogimos), would it have been safe for anyone to attempt to impose a punishment for his subsequent aggression and brutality? T2  As the Thebans were exasperated at what had been done, they speedily sent eight thousand hoplites and six hundred cavalry into Thessaly, striking such fear into Alexander that he sent ambassadors to Athens concerning an alliance. The Athenian people straight away dispatched thirty ships and a thousand men of whom the general was Autokles. T3 Certainly the glory of the deed urged him on, for he [sc. Pelopidas], being competitive, was filled with a burning desire (at the time when the Lakedaimonians were sending generals and harmosts to Dionysios the tyrant of Sicily, and the Athenians had Alexander as a paymaster and set up a bronze statue of him as benefactor) to show to the Greeks that the Thebans were the only ones who were marching on behalf of those who were repressed by tyrants, and were overthrowing those dynasties which were unlawful and violent.

6.1.1–19). In 375, Polydamos of Pharsalos went as far as boasting, to an audience in Sparta, that the Athenians would ‘do anything to become allies of ours’ (Xen. Hell. 6.1.10). The name ‘Jason’ has sometimes been restored at the erasure on line 111 of the prospectus of the second Athenian confederacy (RO 22), but this has been challenged (RO p. 105). In 373/2, Jason, with his ally Alketas of Epiros, went to Athens to speak on behalf of Timotheos, and they were described as allies ([Dem.] 49.10).

262

inventory a1

Jason was assassinated in 370; the brothers Polydoros and Polyphron succeeded him; Polyphron soon murdered his brother and then in turn was murdered by his brother-in-law Alexander in 369/8 (Xen. Hell. 6.4.33–7), who subsequently took the throne. Alexander of Pherai had a reputation for harshness towards both the Thessalians and his enemies (D.S. 15.62.2; see Sprawski, ‘Alexander’). During the period of Theban expansion, Pelopidas encountered him on entering Thessaly (D.S. 15.71.2–3), perhaps in response to an appeal from other Thessalian cities threatened by the Pheraians (Plu. Pel. 27.1). At the start of hostilities with Thebes, Diodorus says that he dispatched ambassadors to Athens to request an alliance, and that the people immediately sent him thirty ships and a thousand men (T2). The current state of hostility between Athens and Thebes must have been decisive in sealing the alliance: Alexander had taken Pelopidas prisoner, held possession of the town of Pharsalos, and looked like a threat to the Thebans; the Thebans got him freed by sending forces to threaten the Thessalians (Plu. Pel. 27–9), and Alexander’s reaction was to make this alliance with the Athenians (T2; see Buckler, The Theban, 123–9). Plutarch adds another motivation which may have appealed to the Athenians: Alexander’s promise to supply cheap meat for the Athenian market (Plu. Mor. 193e), but it is plausible that this is a claim which is based upon a reading of a comic parody of the award. Plutarch adds that the Athenians took his pay and erected a bronze statue of him as their euergetes (T3). If we believe this claim that there was a statue of Alexander, this is the first honorific statue of a non-Athenian attested to have been set up since the time of Evagoras (cf. D24): the honour was a great one. Whereas Demosthenes’ account (T1) suggests that the alliance created much rejoicing in Athens, the alliance and the honours are in fact a good example of a decree with a short life-span: in the late 360s, with his ambitions for expansion over land limited by the Thebans (D.S. 15.80, 81; cf. Tracy, ‘The Thessalians’, 28), Alexander started to challenge Athenian interests at Peparethos and Tenos ([Dem.] 50.4), and even lanched a raid on the Piraeus (D.S. 15.95.1–3; Polyaen. 6.2; Dem. 23.120). The Athenians, then, appealed to his enemy the Thessalian koinon for alliance (RO 44 lines 34–6); it seems likely from a fragmentary inscription that they had received Thessalian ambassadors at some prior or subsequent point (SEG LIX 107 lines 7–8). On the inscription ratifying the alliance of 361/0, the Athenians stated that the stele bearing the alliance with Alexander should be demolished (RO 44 = IG II2 116 line 39). For what is possibly an earlier alliance with the Thessalians, perhaps predating 368, see SEG LIX 106 (cf. IG II2 175). For the existence of a stele of this treaty, which was to be demolished, see RO 44 = IG II2 116.39.

d59 citizenship for ariobarzanes

263

Date

368/7 (Diodorus).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 368. Buckler, J., The Theban Hegemony, 371–362 BC. Cambridge, MA (1980) 123–9. RO, 44, esp. 222. Sprawski, S., ‘Alexander of Pherae: infelix tyrant’ in Ancient Tyranny, ed. S. Lewis. Edinburgh (2006) 135–47. Tracy, S.V., ‘The Thessalians and Athenians from the Persian Wars to the Lamian War’ in Philathenaios. Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, eds. A. Tamis, C.J. Mackie and S.G. Byrne. Athens (2010) 24–32.

D59 Citizenship for Ariobarzanes (satrap of Phrygia), his three sons, and his subordinates, Philiskos and Agavos of Abydos Proposer: Unknown Date: 368–366

Literary Context

In his attack on Aristokrates’ proposal to grant Charidemos protection (by declaring anyone who assassinated him liable to seizure within allied territory), Euthykles (the speaker of Dem. 23) recalls the time that the Athenians granted citizenship to Ariobarzanes and ‘on his account’, to Philiskos (T1). He points to Philiskos’ abuse of his power and the fact he was assassinated by liberators as a way of making a case against the propriety of making Charidemos’ assassins liable to seizure (agogimos: T2). Later in the speech (T3), he holds up the awards as examples of the award to those unworthy.

264

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.141: Ὑμεῖς ἐποιήσασθε ἔν τισι καιροῖς καὶ χρόνοις Ἀριοβαρζάνην πολίτην καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Φιλίσκον, ὥσπερ νῦν διὰ Κερσοβλέπτην Χαρίδημον. ὢν δ’ ὅμοιος ἐκεῖνος τούτῳ τῇ προαιρέσει τοῦ βίου, διὰ τῆς Ἀριοβαρζάνου δυνάμεως πόλεις κατελάμβανεν Ἑλληνίδας, εἰς ἃς εἰσιὼν πολλὰ καὶ δείν’ ἐποίει, παῖδας ἐλευθέρους {ἀδικῶν} καὶ γυναῖκας ὑβρίζων, καὶ πάντα ποιῶν ὅσ’ ἂν ἄνθρωπος ποιήσειεν ἄνευ νόμων καὶ τῶν ἐν πολιτείᾳ καλῶν τεθραμμένος εἰς ἐξουσίαν ἐλθών. T2  Dem. 23.142: Εἰ δὴ τῶν τότε ὑπὲρ Φιλίσκου λεγόντων, ὅτε ἐμισθοδότει μὲν τοῖς ἐν Περίνθῳ ξένοις, εἶχεν δ’ ὅλον τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον, μέγιστος δ’ ἦν τῶν ὑπάρχων, ἔγραψέ τις ὥσπερ οὗτος νυνί, ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Φιλίσκον, ἀγώγιμον αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν συμμάχων εἶναι, πρὸς Διὸς θεάσασθε εἰς ὅσην αἰσχύνην ἂν ἡ πόλις ἡμῶν ἐληλύθει. T3  Dem. 23.202: Πρῶτον μέν, ἵνα τῶν τελευταίων πρώτων μνησθῶμεν, Ἀριοβαρζάνην ἐκεῖνον οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς υἱεῖς τρεῖς ὄντας πάντων ἠξίωσαν ὅσων ἐβουλήθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύο Ἀβυδηνούς, μισαθηναιοτάτους καὶ πονηροτάτους ἀνθρώπους, προσέθηκαν αὐτῷ Φιλίσκον καὶ Ἀγαυόν.

Commentary

The background of these awards requires some explanation: as Xenophon tells us, in about 369, Ariobarzanes (satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia; on his background and career, see Weiskopf, The So-Called, 26–44) had his Asiatic Greek subordinate Philiskos sent to Greece to call a peace conference between the Thebans and the Spartans (Xen. Hell. 7.1.27), aiming probably to restore the stability that had been the design of the King’s Peace (Weiskopf, The So-Called, 35); Diodorus’ account is slightly different, saying that Philiskos was sent by the Persian king to Greece to urge them to make peace (D.S. 15.70.2). Stylianou sensibly suggests that the two views might be reconciled given that Philiskos would have made a proclamation in the name of the king (Stylianou, Commentary, 461). The mission does not, however, appear to have given rise to a peace treaty and when it failed Philiskos gathered mercenaries to fight on behalf of the Spartans: Xen. Hell. 7.1.27–40; Ryder, Koine, 134–5. Nevertheless, the approach may well have been at the background of the Athenian decision to grant him citizenship. Demosthenes (T2) implies that the presence of Philiskos’ and others’ mercenary forces at Perinthos and his possession of the whole Hellespont was what led the Athenians to grant the honours. As Osborne suggests (Naturalization,

d59 citizenship for ariobarzanes

265

T1 At one point, in particular circumstances, you gave citizenship to Ariobarzanes, and also, on his account, to Philiskos, just as you have recently given it to Charidemos because of Kersobleptes. Philiskos, who is rather like Charidemos in his way of life, through the power of Ariobarzanes, tried to occupy Greek cities. He invaded them and committed many awful things, insulting free-born boys and women, and behaving generally just as someone, raised without laws and the merits of a constitution, would do if he came to a position of power. T2  If someone speaking on behalf of Philiskos when, paymaster of the foreign solders at Perinthos, he held all of the Hellespont and was the most powerful of the subordinate governors, had proposed just as he does now, that if anyone killed Philiskos, he was to be liable to seizure within allied territory, by Zeus, consider into what depth of shame our city would have plunged. T3 First of all, so that we might make mention initially of the most recent example, they thought not only Ariobarzanes and his three sons to be worthy of all those things that they wanted, but also they added the two Abydians, the most hateful and wretched of men, Philiskos and Agavos.

3.52), Athenian decrees for the Thracian kings and their aides also demonstrate that the Athenians would grant citizenship to those in a position to assist the security of the passage of grain-ships. We might see the award (as Osborne, Naturalization, 3.52–3) as an Athenian attempt to draw closer to Ariobarzanes in 367 in the aftermath of the failed negiotiations for peace; there may also have been an element of reward, as Weiskopf (The So-Called, 35) suggests, ‘to a strong satrap and his subordinates in recognition of the absence of a disservice, the cutting of the Athenian grain supply’. The grant may have been simultaneous with the Athenian general Timotheos’ service (together with Agesilaos) for Ariobarzanes (Nepos, Timotheus, 1.3), when he was on the point of revolt. When Ariobarzanes was denounced as a rebel by the Great King, the Athenians withdrew their support, so as not to break the treaty with him (Dem. 15.9: see below, D60). Demosthenes (T1) claims that the Athenians at one time gave citizenship to Ariobarzanes and, on his account, to Philiskos (he was mentioned on the base set up for Chabrias in the Athenian agora: Burnett and Edmondson, ‘The Chabrias’, 84–5); later on in his speech Demosthenes reveals that the Athenians decided to grant everything that Ariobarzanes and his three sons had requested

266

inventory a1

and also associated him with two hateful and wretched men, Philiskos and Agavos (T3; Agavos should probably be viewed as Philiskos’ subordinate: Weiskopf, The So-Called, 34). The ‘association’ of honorands’ allies in honorific decrees is attested in claims made elsewhere by Demosthenes (e g. Dem. 20.84 = DD 62, 100; Dem. 23.203 = D75): in this case, one envisages that the proposer, on behalf of Ariobarzanes, proposed that the people honour both Philiskos and Agavos alongside the honorand.

Date

Between 368 and 366; possibly 368, the date of Philiskos’ visit to Greece (Xen. Hell. 7.1.27; D.S. 15.70.2; Ryder, Koine, 134-5). The account of the Athenians sending Timotheos to aid Ariobarzanes (Dem. 15.9; see D60 below) suggests that the honours may already have been in place in 366; as Osborne, Naturalization, 3.51 points out, ‘the fact that Timotheos broke off contact with Ariobarzanes as soon as he turned to open revolt confirms this [sc. that the grants were in place by 366] – for the Athenians were afraid to be seen openly aiding a rebel of the king, and in such circumstances they obviously were not going to vote him, his family, and his aides high honours after his rebellion’. Heskel, The North, 162, suggests mid-autumn 368.

Bibliography

Burnett, P.A., and Edmondson, C.N., ‘The Chabrias monument in the Athenian agora’, Hesperia 30 (1961) 74–91. Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T39. Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 131–3. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998) 461–2. Weiskopf, M., The So-Called ‘Great Satraps’ Revolt’, 366–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 63 (1989).

D60 Decree sending out Timotheos to Ariobarzanes Proposer: Unknown Date: Spring 366

Literary Context

As part of his encouragement to the Athenians to intervene in Rhodes against Mausolos (T1), Demosthenes points out that they added to their decree the condition that Timotheos should not breach the treaty with the king, and so instead he diverted his attention to the liberation of Samos.

267

268

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 15.9: Ὑμεῖς ἐξεπέμψατε Τιμόθεόν ποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, βοηθήσοντα Ἀριοβαρζάνῃ, προσγράψαντες τῷ ψηφίσματι ‘μὴ λύοντα τὰς σπονδὰς τὰς πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα.’ ἰδὼν δ’ ἐκεῖνος τὸν μὲν Ἀριοβαρζάνην φανερῶς ἀφεστῶτα βασιλέως, Σάμον δὲ φρουρουμένην ὑπὸ Κυπροθέμιδος, ὃν κατέστησε Τιγράνης ὁ βασιλέως ὕπαρχος, τῷ μὲν ἀπέγνω μὴ βοηθεῖν, τὴν δὲ προσκαθεζόμενος καὶ βοηθήσας ἠλευθέρωσε.

Commentary

The Athenians appear, rather opportunistically, to have sent aid to Ariobarzanes in early 366 when Autophradates, with the support of the Great King Artaxerxes, had launched a campaign against him (for details, and the view of the Satraps’ Revolt as essentially a series of local disruptions within the Persian empire, see Weiskopf, The So-Called, 45–54); Nepos claims that Timotheos did not accept money from him, but instead took territory as payment in the shape of Krithoe and Sestos (Nepos, Timotheus, 1.3; Isocrates, 15 Antidosis 112 claims, however, that Timotheos captured these cities after the siege of Samos). The decision to send aid may have followed, or perhaps was contemporary with, the Athenian decision to make Ariobarzanes a citizen (see D59 above). Demosthenes does not offer a reason why the Athenians sent Timotheos to the satrap, but it is very likely that he was preparing to revolt: unrest had been developing among the Persian governors of Asia Minor since the late 370s (see Sealey, Demosthenes, 80–2). The Athenians were cautious, though, and added a clause that Timotheos should not break the treaty with the King. It should be noted that while Timotheos broke off his aid to the satrap after he revolted, his 10-month siege of Samos (Isoc. 15.111) would have been seriously detrimental to the interests of the King. Sealey takes the view that the Athenian decision to aid Arobarzanes represented a lever to try to encourage the Great King to consider granting the Athenians possession of Amphipolis, (Sealey, ‘Callistratos’, 195–7). Heskel, The North, 100, envisages evidence for two separate decrees here: an original decree sending Timotheos out to Ariobarzarnes, and a second one adjusting the first, passed upon hearing Ariobarzarnes’ plans for revolt, forbidding him from breaking the treaty with the Great King. But it seems reasonable to take the view that this formed a rider to the original decree. On relations between Athens and Samos, see D65 below.

Date

Spring 366: Heskel, The North Aegean Wars, 100, 162.

d61 awards of citizenship for phrasierides

269

T1 Once, Athenian men, you sent out Timotheos so that he could help Ariobarzanes, adding to the decree ‘on the condition that he does not break the treaties with the King’. Timotheos, seeing that Ariobarzanes was clearly in revolt from the king, but that Samos was garrisoned by Kyprothemis (whom the governor of the King, Tigranes, had appointed), declined to help Ariobarzanes, but did in fact besiege Samos, and, assisting it, he freed it.

Bibliography

Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). Sealey, R., ‘Callistratos of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 178–203. Weiskopf, M., The So-Called ‘Great Satraps’ Revolt’, 366–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 63 (1989).

D61 Awards of citizenship for Phrasierides and Polysthenes Proposer: Unknown Date: 366/5 or later

Literary Context

As part of his challenge to Aristokrates’ decree awarding inviolability to Charidemos (by declaring his assassin liable to seizure within allied territory), Euthykles, the speaker of Dem. 23, cites the awards made to Phrasierides and Polysthenes as examples of honorands not worthy of citizenship.

270

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 23.202: Πάλιν Τιμοθέου δόξαντός τι ποιῆσαι τῶν δεόντων ὑμῖν, πρὸς τῷ πάνθ’ ἃ μέγιστ’ ἦν αὐτῷ δοῦναι προσέθηκαν αὐτῷ Φρασιηρίδην καὶ Πολυσθένην, ἀνθρώπους οὐδ’ ἐλευθέρους, ὀλέθρους καὶ τοιαῦτα πεποιηκότας οἷα λέγειν ὀκνήσειεν ἄν τις εὖ φρονῶν.

Commentary

These awards – apparently megistai timai (T1) – were associated with those made by the demos for the successful general Timotheos. Osborne (Naturalization, 3.54) suggests that they may have been granted in response to the honorands’ involvement in Timotheos’ 10-month siege and eventual capture of Samos (Isoc. 15.111­–12 and Dem. 15.9). Alternatively, they may have been simultaneous with the award to Ariobarzanes (see D59 above). The precise relationship between the honours for Timotheos and those for Phrasierides and Polysthenes is not clear: it is possible that the awards were proposed by the same citizen, or at the same meeting of the assembly, or even that Timotheos requested the honours for them as his associates.   Phrasierides is called ‘ὁ Ἀναφλύστιος’ at [Dem.] 50.41, which indicates that he took up his citizenship and entered the deme of his patron; he appears to have been appointed syntrierarch in 361/0, but did not arrive promptly enough to join his ship. Phrasierides is also mentioned as an associate of Timotheos (Dem. 49.43). Nothing more is known of Polysthenes, though, as Osborne suggests, the reward for him may also be associated with the siege of Samos.

Date

Osborne (T45, T46) suggests that the awards for Phrasierides and Polysthenes may be connected with the siege and capture of Samos in 366/5.

Bibliography

Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3), T45, T46.

d61 awards of citizenship for phrasierides

271

T1 Again, when Timotheos was held to have carried out a duty for you in some way, in addition to bestowing upon him all the greatest rewards, they conferred them also upon Phrasierides and Polysthenes, men who were not free-born and were pestilent: men whose behaviour was such that any right-thinking man would shrink from describing it.

D62 Citizenship for Klearchos Proposer: Unknown Date: 366–362

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) makes allegations about how others associated with famous Athenian honorands were granted honours alongside them.

Text

T1 Dem. 20.84: Καὶ πάλιν Τιμοθέῳ διδόντες τὴν δωρειάν, δι’ ἐκεῖνον ἐδώκατε καὶ Κλεάρχῳ καί τισιν ἄλλοις πολιτείαν.

Commentary:

Demosthenes here makes allegations about how others associated with famous Athenian honorands were granted honours alongside them. The precise relationship between the honours for Timotheos and Klearchos is not clear: it is possible that the awards were proposed by the same citizen, or at the same meeting of the assembly, or even that Timotheos requested the honours for them as his associates. Kremmydas and Canevaro identify this Klearchos with the tyrant of Bosporan Herakleia, who spent time in Athens. As Kremmydas suggests, the awards may have had their grounds in commercial advantages he offered to the Athenians in his ports, or some military aid to Timotheos (Kremmydas, Commentary, 338; Canevaro, Demostene, 332); Klearchos was said to have been a pupil of Plato and Isocrates, and so it is possible that he visited Athens (BNJ 433 F1). It is perhaps coincidental that Klearchos’ son was named Timotheos (Isoc. Ep. 7). If Osborne’s dating of these awards is correct, and if Demosthenes’ allegations about their association with an award to Timotheos is right, Timotheos must have been granted honours in the 360s, plausibly for his capture of Samos after 10–11 months of fighting (Isoc. 15.108, 113); for the earlier awards made to him, see D47 above.

272

d62 citizenship for klearchos

273

T1  And again, when you gave the award to Timotheos, thanks to him you gave citizenship also to Klearchos and some others.

Date

Osborne (T47 Commentary) suggests that, if the ‘certain others’ are to be identified with Phrasierides and Polysthenes, ‘who were made citizens on Timotheos’ initiative in the 360s, it is likely that Klearchos too was honoured for assistance in Timotheos’ naval campaigns in the years 366–2’.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene, Contro Leptine: Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 332. Kremmydas, C., A Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 338. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T47.

D63 Alliance with Arcadians

Proposer: Possibly Demotion (PA 3646; PAA 320127), or more likely Unknown Date: 366/5

Literary Context

Xenophon reports the Arcadian Lykomedes’ successful efforts to arrange an alliance with Athens (TT 1–3)

Texts

T1 Xen. Hell. 7.4.2: Καταμαθὼν δὲ ὁ Λυκομήδης μεμφομένους τοὺς Ἀθηναίους τοῖς συμμάχοις, ὅτι αὐτοὶ μὲν πολλὰ πράγματα εἶχον δι’ ἐκείνους, ἀντεβοήθησε δ’ αὐτοῖς οὐδείς, πείθει τοὺς μυρίους πράττειν περὶ συμμαχίας πρὸς αὐτούς. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον ἐδυσχέραινόν τινες τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὸ Λακεδαιμονίοις ὄντας φίλους γενέσθαι τοῖς ἐναντίοις αὐτῶν συμμάχους· ἐπειδὴ δὲ λογιζόμενοι ηὕρισκον οὐδὲν μεῖον Λακεδαιμονίοις ἢ σφίσιν ἀγαθὸν τὸ Ἀρκάδας μὴ προσδεῖσθαι Θηβαίων, οὕτω δὴ προσεδέχοντο τὴν τῶν Ἀρκάδων συμμαχίαν.

T2 Xen. Hell. 7.4.4: Εἰπόντος δὲ Δημοτίωνος ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τῶν Ἀθηναίων ὡς ἡ μὲν πρὸς τοὺς Ἀρκάδας φιλία καλῶς αὐτῷ δοκοίη πράττεσθαι, τοῖς μέντοι στρατηγοῖς προστάξαι ἔφη χρῆναι ὅπως καὶ Κόρινθος σῴα ᾖ τῷ δήμῳ τῶν Ἀθηναίων· ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα οἱ Κορίνθιοι, ταχὺ πέμψαντες ἱκανοὺς φρουροὺς ἑαυτῶν πάντοσε ὅπου Ἀθηναῖοι ἐφρούρουν εἶπαν αὐτοῖς ἀπιέναι, ὡς οὐδὲν ἔτι δεόμενοι φρουρῶν. T3 Xen. Hell. 7.4.6: Ἐκ μὲν οὖν τῆς Κορίνθου οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι οὕτως ἀπηλλάγησαν. τοῖς μέντοι Ἀρκάσι πέμπειν ἠναγκάζοντο τοὺς ἱππέας ἐπικούρους διὰ τὴν συμμαχίαν, εἴ τις στρατεύοιτο ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀρκαδίαν· τῆς δὲ Λακωνικῆς οὐκ ἐπέβαινον ἐπὶ πολέμῳ.

274

d63 alliance with arcadians

275

T1 Lykomedes learnt that the Athenians were finding fault with their allies, because while they themselves were doing many things for their sake, not one of them was helping them in return; accordingly, he persuaded the assembly of Ten Thousand to make moves about an alliance with them. Initially some of the Athenians were disgusted at the thought of becoming friends with those who were the enemies of the Lakedaimonians, who were their allies. But on considering the matter they found that it was no less in the interest of the Lakedaimonians than in their own interest for the Arcadians not to be in need of the Thebans, and so accordingly they accepted the alliance with the Arcadians. T2  Then Demotion spoke in the assembly of the Athenians, saying that while it struck him as excellent to make an alliance with the Arcadians, he said that there was need to order the generals to ensure that Corinth might be secure for the Athenian people; on hearing this, the Corinthians quickly dispatched adequate numbers of their own men to the garrisons everywhere where there were Athenians, and they ordered them to leave, as there was no longer any need of garrisons. T3  And so out of this development the Athenians departed from Corinth. They were, however, owing to the alliance, obliged to send cavalry to assist the Arcadians, if ever anyone marched into Arcadia. But they did not make a hostile move against Lakonian territory.

276

Commentary

inventory a1

The Arcadian Confederacy emerged in the aftermath of the Spartan defeat in 371 and the subsequent disappearance of the Peloponnesian League; most Arcadian states had joined it by 369 (Xen. Hell. 6.5.11 with Roy, ‘Problems’, 308– 10). The democratic tendencies of the league (Robinson, Democracy, 41–4) are perhaps reflected in its pro-Athenian foreign policy (Roy, ‘Problems’, 321), and this may well have made Lykomedes’ proposal of alliance with the Athenians attractive to the Arcadian assembly of Ten Thousand. Modern scholars have tended to accept Xenophon’s view of the motivations behind the alliance, that is the Mantineian Lykomedes’ detection of Athenian disappointment with their other Peloponnesian allies in the war against the Thebans (see Sealey, Demosthenes, 86). Kallistratos son of Kallikrates of Aphidna was sent as ambassador to the Arcadians in the 360s (Develin, AO, 294), and he may have conducted the negotiations that led to this alliance. Xenophon (T1) says that the Athenians accepted the Arcadian offer of an alliance (‘προσεδέχοντο τὴν τῶν Ἀρκάδων συμμαχίαν’), though he does not give any indication of the institutional process behind the agreement: the description of it as a συμμαχία strongly suggests, however, that it would have been ratified by a vote at the assembly. Xenophon reports (T2) that the otherwise unknown Demotion added that the generals should be instructed to see to it that the Corinthians also should be kept in a position where they could not pose a threat to Athens. As Sealey points out, though the Arcadians were technically enemies of Sparta, the Athenian alliance with Sparta was not contradictory, as the Athenians made only defensive alliances with both: Sealey, Demosthenes, 86. See D55 above, the decree sending armed assistance to the Lacedaimonians. As Buckler, Aegean Greece, 342, says, this short alliance freed the Arcadians from dependence upon the Thebans, and was not a burden to the Athenians, though it did disrupt Athenian relations with the Corinthians (T3). It is not altogether clear whether the alliance would have included all the Arcadian communities: it may well be that the main Arcadian instigators of the alliance were an anti-Theban faction (cf. Xen. Hell. 7.4.34–40; D.S. 15.77.1–4, 78.2–3, 82.1–4). Nepos, Epaminondas, 6.1, says that Kallistratos of Athens had urged the Arcadian assembly to align with Athens; this passage is dismissed by Bengtson as as ‘unhistorisch’, though he admits that a conversation between Epaminondas and Kallistratos is a possibility (Bengtson, SVA, p 241). The alliance did, however, have implications: in 365/4, when the Arcadians were fighting the Eleians, they were able to summon an Athenian force with which they attacked Lasion (D.S. 15.77.3; Xen. Vect. 3.7). Furthermore, in 363/2, as the Thebans prepared to march on Arcadia, the Arcadian assembly appealed

d64 decree sending orders to iphikrates

277

to both the Spartans and Arcadians (Xen. Hell. 7.5.3; D.S. 15.82.4); the Athenians, then, fought on their side at the battle of Mantineia (Hell. 7.5.15, 24). For an inscribed version of a later Athenian alliance with the Arcadians (and also the Eleians and the Phliasians) in the aftermath of Mantineia, see RO 41 of 362/1.

Date

366/5, probably summer/autumn 366. For detailed discussion of the chronology of the 360s, see Stylianou, Commentary, 446–55

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 284. Buckler, J., Aegean Greece in the Fourth Century BC. Leiden and Boston (1993). Robinson, E.W., Democracy beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge (2011) 41–4. Roy, J., ‘Problems of democracy in the Arcadian confederacy 370–362 BC’ in Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, eds. R. Brock and S. Hodkinson. Oxford (2000) 308–26. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993). Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998).

D64 Decree ordering Iphikrates to take care of the Amphipolitan prisoners Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 365

Literary Context

In an account of the misdeeds of Charidemos, Euthykles, the speaker of Dem. 23, argues that his surrender of hostages to the Amphipolitans prevented the Athenians from occupying the city (TT 1, 2): this contradicted the decree of the Athenians ordering Iphikrates to send the hostages back to Athens.

278

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.149: Ἐπειδὴ τὸν μὲν Ἰφικράτην ἀποστράτηγον ἐποιήσατε, Τιμόθεον δ’ ἐπ’ Ἀμφίπολιν καὶ Χερρόνησον ἐξεπέμψατε στρατηγόν, πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς Ἀμφιπολιτῶν ὁμήρους, οὓς παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβὼν Ἰφικράτης ἔδωκε φυλάττειν αὐτῷ, ψηφισαμένων ὑμῶν ὡς ὑμᾶς κομίσαι παρέδωκεν Ἀμφιπολίταις· καὶ τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν Ἀμφίπολιν τοῦτ’ ἐμποδὼν κατέστη. T2 Dem. 23.151: Καὶ ὅτι ταῦτ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τό τε ψήφισμα ἀνάγνωθί μοι τὸ περὶ τῶν ὁμήρων, καὶ τὴν Ἰφικράτους ἐπιστολὴν καὶ τὴν Τιμοθέου.

Commentary

Amphipolis was founded as an Athenian outpost in Thrace in 437/6 BC (Scholion on Aeschin. 2.31 (Dilts 67a–b); Thuc. 4.102), a move perhaps motivated by its position next to the Strymon river, which gave access to the resources of Macedonia (on the relation between Athens and Amphipolis, see Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.230–3; Heskel, The North, 15–17). The Athenian loss of Amphipolis to the Spartans in 424 (Thuc. 4.106) was the impetus for the Athenian long-standing concern for its recapture, which re-kindled in the late 360s, perhaps owing to the Athenian sense of threats to their interests in the north and instability in Thrace and Macedonia (Sealey, Demosthenes, 77–8; Heskel, The North, 43–6). Iphikrates, for instance, was sent to retake Amphipolis in the early 360s (Aeschin. 2.28–9; Heskel, The North, 42–3; see DP 35). Demosthenes and Aeschines later claimed that the Great King and other Greeks agreed that it should be Athenian: Dem. 19.137, 253; [Dem.] 7.29; Aeschin. 3.31–3, with MacDowell, Demosthenes, 261, suggesting that the occasion of this pledge took place in 367 when the Greeks sent ambassadors to him, or as Sealey, Demosthenes, 74–8, a meeting of 369; Heskel suggests June 366 (The North, 44). For the view that the Athenians invoked the principle ‘ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’, in their claims to Amphipolis, see Rhodes, ‘Making’, 24–7, translating the phrase as ‘having what belongs to one by right’). In late 366, the Amphipolitans, worried that they would be forced to submit to the Athenians, requested an alliance with Ptolemy of Macedon; they agreed to hand over hostages to his ambassador Harpalos, who would take them back to Macedonia (Dem. 23.149); for the significance of the hostages to Ptolemy’s expansionist plans, see Heskel, The North, 45, whose reconstruction of events is followed here. Harpalos, however, never succeeded in bringing them to Ptolemy, for Iphikrates captured them (TT 1, 2): as Heskel points out, Iphikrates may have forcibly seized them; alternatively, Harpalos may have handed them over voluntarily, wishing to sever ties with Ptolemy (Heskel, The

d64 decree sending orders to iphikrates

279

T1 When you removed Iphikrates from the generalship, and you sent out Timotheos as general to Amphipolis and the Chersonese, first of all he [sc. Charidemos] handed over to the Amphipolitans those hostages whom Iphikrates had taken from Harpalos so that he [sc. Charidemos] could guard them, although you had decreed that he send them to you; accordingly, this meant that you did not take Amphipolis. T2  To show that I am telling the truth, read for me the [decree] concerning the hostages, and then the letter of Iphikrates and that of Timotheos.

North, 45). Demosthenes (T1) maintains that capture of the hostages would have provided the Athenians with an important lever in their efforts to take Amphipolis; however, Iphikrates entrusted them to his mercenary Charidemos who sold the hostages back to the Amphipolitans (Heskel, The North, 45–6). As Harris (Demosthenes, 83 note 182) observes, this is an implausible explanation of Athenian failure to re-take the city: the decisive factor which prevented the Athenians from taking Amphipolis was Olynthian resistance to it. Athenian pre-occupation with Amphipolis continued regardless of this setback: when the Athenians honoured Menelaos the Pelagonian of 363/2, the award was justified on the basis of a claim that Menelaos was supporting the Athenians in the war ‘against the Chalkidians and against Amphipolis’ (RO 37 lines 8–9). Moreover, in 360 Timotheos was impeached by Apollodoros for his failure at Amphipolis (Dem. 36.53; Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 93). The Athenian expedition to Macedonia in support of Argaios against Philip II (D.S. 16.2.6, 16.3.3, 5: see DP 48) in 360/59 may well have aimed to regain Amphipolis for Athens. Philip, aware of the Athenian aspiration to reclaim it, declared it autonomos in c. 360 (D.S. 16.3.3; 16.4.1), but campaigned against it by force in 358/7 (D.S.16.8.2); after it fell, his enemies were expelled from the city (RO 49).

Date

Summer 365: Heskel, The North Aegean Wars, 45.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 230–3. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) no. 93.

inventory a1

280

Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Making and breaking treaties in the Greek world’ in War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, eds. P. de Souza and J. France. Cambridge (2008) 6–27 at 24–7. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993).

D65 Decrees sending cleruchies to Samos

Proposer: ?Kydias (PA 8924; PAA 588215) Date: 366/5 (Subsequent cleruchies sent in 361/0 and 352/1)

Literary Context

In a discussion of those situations in which men are likely to feel shame, Aristotle gives the example of Kydias’ exhortation to the Athenians to imagine the Greeks standing round them (T1); as Trevett (‘Aristotle’s knowledge’) suggests, he was probably drawing upon political traditions.

Text

T1  Arist. Rh. 1384b32–5: Ὥσπερ Κυδίας περὶ τῆς Σάμου κληρουχίας ἐδημηγόρησεν· ἠξίου γὰρ ὑπολαβεῖν τοὺς Ἀθηναίους περιεστάναι κύκλῳ τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ὡς ὁρῶντας καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκουσομένους ἃ ἂν ψηφίσωνται. T2 Settlers in 361/0 (= DP 47): Scholion on Aeschin, 1.53 (Dilts 121): Σάμῳ· εἰς Σάμον κληρούχους ἔπεμψαν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπ’ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Νικοφήμου. T3 Settlers in 352/1 (= DP 54): Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Dinarchus 13, p. 319 10­–14 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F154): Οὗτος ὁ λόγος (sc. Δεινάρχου Πρὸς Πεδιέα παραγραφή) εἴρηται ἐπὶ Ἀριστοδήμου ἄρχοντος, ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου γίνεται δῆλον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἰς Σάμον ἀποσταλέντες κληροῦχοι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀπεστάλησαν, ὡς Φιλόχορος ἐν ταῖς Ἱστορίαις λέγει.

d65 decrees sending cleruchies to samos

281

T1 Just as Kydias, when making an assembly speech to the people about the allotment of the territory of Samos, begged the Athenians to picture that the Greeks were standing in a circle around them and would not only hear, but also see, what they were going to vote. T2  At Samos: The Athenians sent cleruchs to Samos during the archonship of Nikophemos in Athens. T3 This speech (sc. Dinarchus, Paragraphe Against Pedieus) was spoken during the archonship of Aristodemos, as is clear from the speech itself. For the cleruchs who were sent out to Samos were sent out under this archon, as Philochorus says in his history.

282

Commentary

inventory a1

A prominent former member of the fifth-century Athenian empire, Samos, in the 390s, was under the influence of leaders installed by Lysander, and it appears not to have joined the Second Athenian Confederacy (Shipley, Samos, 135–6; Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 17–18). It was occupied by a Persian garrison commanded by Kyprothemis in 366, when the Athenian general Timotheos besieged it and brought it over to Athens (Dem. 15.9 = D60; cf. Shipley, Samos, 136–7; Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 18–19). It is likely that the cleruchy was sent out after Timotheos’ capture of Samos: see Dem. 15.9, Isoc 15.111, and Cornelius Nepos (Timotheus 1.2). D.S. 18.18.9, commenting that Perdiccas restored Samos to the Samians and brought exiles back after 43 years, is strongly suggestive of an Athenian cleruchy of 365. Cleruchy commanders are also mentioned in a naval record which may date to 371/70 or 366/5: IG II2 1609 lines 88–9. The scholiast to Aeschines (T2) suggests a date of 361/0, and Philochorus (T3) 352/1, but, as Rhodes (Commentary, 694) and Harding (Story, 153; From the End, 77) observe, it is likely that the settlement was reinforced at these dates. For a dedication made by ‘ὁ δῆ[μ]ο[ς ὁ] ἐν Σάμωι’, see IG II2 1437 lines 20–1, probably in 354/3. Aristotle (fr. 611 35 Rose, probably deriving from the lost Constitution of the Samians) adds the detail that the Samians were expelled. The Ath. Pol. reports that the Athenians paid an allowance to officials located there (Ath. Pol. 62.2; on bouleutai and other officers there see Hallof and Habicht, ‘Buleuten’). As Samos does not appear to have been a member of the Second Athenian League, the Athenian cleruchy there does not seem to breach the terms of the Confederacy charter (RO 22 lines 35–45). Indeed, as Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 19 points out, the consideration of Samos as Athenian territory was more realistic than any anachronistic pretence of Samian freedom. Samos remained a possession of Athens after Chaironeia (D.S. 18.56.7). Some have taken the view that ‘increasingly numerous settlers’ from Attica attempted to expel the Samian population (cf. TT 2, 3); cf. Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 20–1). Alexander’s decree on exiles in 324 (18.8.7) meant that the island was restored to the Samians in 322 (D.S. 18.18.9). This is probably the first Athenian cleruchy sent out in the fourth century BC, though there already existed Athenian settlers at Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros: see Cargill, Settlements, 1–8, 12–15, 42–66, 92-109. Sealey, however, proposed, by reference to a evidence for an expedition under the command of two kleroucharchontes (Sealey, ‘IG II2 1609’; IG II2 1609 lines 88–90), that an otherwise unknown cleruchy was sent out in 370/69 or earlier. Cawkwell (‘The date’) took the view that this epigraphical reference was to those who

d65 decrees sending cleruchies to samos

283

were responsible for the already existing cleruchies on the islands, while Davies (‘The date’) argued that it referred to the expedition of 365/4 to Samos. The Athenians sent out cleruchs elsewhere in later years, such as those sent to Potidaia in summer 361 (IG II2 114 = Harding, From the End, no. 58; Cargill, Settlements, 22–3), the Thracian Chersonese in the 350s (D.S. 16.34.3–4; IG II2 1613 lines 297–8; Cargill, Settlements, 23–31), and the Adriatic area in 325/4 (IG II2 1629 lines 17-21; Cargill, Settlements, 31–4) It is plausible that Kydias, who Aristotle represents as making a speech concerning the dispatch of cleruchs to Athens, was the proposer of this decree, but he is not known in connection with any other political activity. He may be the same Kydias as the one reportedly sent out as an admiral, to the despair of the comic speaker of Eubulus F67 Meineke.

Date

Late spring 365 (D.S. 18.18.9 with Heskel, The North, 166).

Bibliography

Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC. Leiden (1995). Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The date of IG II2 1609 again’, Historia 22 (1973) 759–61. Davies, J.K., ‘The date of IG II2 1609’, Historia 18 (1969) 309–33. Hallof, K. and Habicht, Ch., ‘Buleuten und Beamte der Athenischen Kleruchie in Samos’, MDAI(A) 110 (1995) 273–304. Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 37–-360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 58 Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika. London (2008). Meineke, A., Fragmenta comicorum Graecorum, vol. 3. Berlin (1840). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 694. Sealey, R., ‘IG II2 1609 and the transformation of the second Athenian sea league’, Phoenix 11 (1957) 95–9. Shipley, G., A History of Samos 800–188 BC. Oxford (1987) 138–43, 155–68. Trevett, J., ‘Aristotle’s knowledge of Athenian oratory,’ CQ 46 (1996) 371–9.

D66 **? Proposal relating to Keos

Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: Late 360s

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned by a scholiast on Aeschines (T1), in a note offering details of the career of Aristophon.

Text

T1  Schol. Aeschin. 1.64 Dilts 145: Ἀριστοφῶντι. κεκωμῴδηται ὁ Ἀριστοφῶν ὡς ὑπὲρ Χάρητος μισθοῦ λέγων καὶ ὡς παρανόμων γραφὴν πεφευγὼς καὶ ὡς στρατηγήσας ἐν Κέῳ καὶ διὰ φιλοχρηματίαν πολλὰ κακὰ ἐργασάμενος τοὺς ἐνοικοῦντας, ἐφ’ ᾧ γραφεὶς ὑπὸ Ὑπερείδου παρανόμων [Meier: παρ’ ὀλίγον] ἑάλω.

Commentary

T1 says that Aristophon was defeated in a graphe paranomon case against a decree; the language here (παρανόμων γραφὴν πεφευγώς) strongly suggests that he was its proposer; T1 adds that Hypereides attacked, and (unless we accept Meyer’s emendation) had over-ruled, his decree; it adds also that he spoke on behalf of Chares, and that, as general, he did many bad things to the people of Keos. The content of the decree is not preserved, but Hansen suggests that the mention of Keos indicates that the decree was probably connected with the subjection of that island (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 10). It may have been a reaction to the revolt of Kean cities of 363/2 implied in the Athenian decree – proposed by the same Aristophon – making arrangements for Ioulis (RO 39 = IG II2 111). The Kean revolt may have had its origins in the Theban naval ambitions of the era, as RO p. 201 and Rutishauser, Athens, 176 (with D.S. 15.78.4– 79.1) suggest; alternatively, Buckler, Theban, 169 argues that the Kean revolt may have been a response to the Athenian imposition of a cleruchy on Samos (D65). The decree referred to here – and Aristophon’s alleged behaviour towards the Keans – should be seen in the context of the mid fourth-century Athenian political subordination of the Keans, which was expressed in their regulation 284

d66 **? proposal relating to keos

285

T1 On Aristophon. Aristophon has been mocked for speaking for money on behalf of Chares and for acting as a defendant in a case for an illegal decree and for having been general at Keos and because of his greed he did many bad things to the inhabitants, for which he was indicted by Hypereides for an illegal proposal and was [Meier: ‘almost’, cf. Commentary] convicted.

of ruddle export (RO 40, see now Lytle, ‘Farmers’, re-iterating the economic importance of ruddle to the Athenians); this state of affairs is implied also in the Athenian renewal of treaties with the Keans insisting that ‘the Keans shall be governed according to cities’ (IG II2 404 lines 13, dating either to the period of the Social War, probably 356/5 (RO p. 200) or 363/2 (SEG XXXIX 73). Aristophon appears to have been sent to Keos as general in 363/2 (and, as we have noted, was proposer of the decree also making arrangements for Ioulis (RO 39 = IG II2 111)). His links with the islands are demonstrated also by his appearance in a list of proxenoi of Karthaia (IG XII.5 542 line 43), and his involvement in ransoming prisoners at Arkesine (IG XII.7 5 line 15). The Kean cities should be seen as an area of Aristophon’s expertise; otherwise, Aristophon was a prolific proposer of decrees, and is said to have been acquitted 75 times for proposing illegal decrees (Aeschin. 3.914): see Volume 2, Appendix 1; for his other political activity, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’ 38 and Whitehead, ‘Hypereides’ 232–3. Given that the decree appears likely to have been overturned by the courts (unless, that is, we emend, following Meier, ‘παρανόμων ἑάλω’ (‘he was

286

inventory a1

convicted for illegality’) to ‘παρ’ ὀλίγον ἑάλω’ (‘he was almost convicted’) 45, or reject the ἑάλω as factually incorrect, as does Whitehead, Hypereides, 233 on Hyp. Eux. 28), it cannot be identified with the inscribed decree IG II2 111 (= RO 39); for Hypereides’ rivalry with Aristophon and a reading of Hypereides FF 40–45 Jensen as referring to Hypereides’ indictment of Aristophon over Keos, see Cooper, ‘Hypereides’.

Date

363/2. Probably the year of the revolt of Keos, but also because this is the year when the proposer was general, as Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 10.

Bibliography

Buckler, J., The Theban Hegemony, 371–362. Cambridge, MA and London (1980). Cooper, C., ‘Hypereides, Aristophon, and the settlement of Keos’ in Epigraphy and the Greek Historian, ed. C. Cooper. Toronto (2008) 31–56. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 10. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of Rhetores and Strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Lytle, E., ‘Farmers into sailors: ship maintenance, Greek agriculture, and the Athenian monopoly on Kean ruddle (IG II2 1128)’, GRBS 53 (2013) 520–50. Rutishauser, B., Athens and the Cyclades: Economic Strategies 540–314 BC. Oxford (2012) 176–81. Whitehead, D., ‘The political career of Aristophon’, CPh 81 (1986) 313–19. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 233.

D67 Decree concerning the mobilisation of triremes Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: 24th Metageitnion 362/1

Literary Context

In the context of his prosecution of Polykles for expenses incurred while serving as a trierarch beyond the appointed time Apollodoros (T1), in a speech of the period between 360 and 358 (Trevett, Apollodoros, 43), describes an ineffective mobilisation, which led him to hire better sailors and furnish ships with his own money.

287

288

inventory a1

Text

T1 [Dem.] 50.3–7: Ὅσοι δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπεδημεῖτε, σιγῇ μου ἀκοῦσαι διηγουμένου ἅπαντα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἑκάστῳ, οἷς ἂν λέγω, τούς τε νόμους παρεχομένου καὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα, τά τε τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τὰ τοῦ δήμου, καὶ τὰς μαρτυρίας. Ἑβδόμῃ γὰρ φθίνοντος Μεταγειτνιῶνος μηνὸς ἐπὶ Μόλωνος ἄρχοντος, ἐκκλησίας γενομένης καὶ εἰσαγγελθέντων ὑμῖν πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων πραγμάτων, ἐψηφίσασθε τὰς ναῦς καθέλκειν τοὺς τριηράρχους· ὧν καὶ ἐγὼ ἦν. καὶ τὸν μὲν καιρὸν τὸν συμβεβηκότα τῇ πόλει τότε οὐκ ἐμὲ δεῖ διεξελθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἀναμνησθῆναι, ὅτι Τῆνος μὲν καταληφθεῖσα ὑπ’ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐξηνδραποδίσθη, Μιλτοκύθης δὲ ἀφειστήκει ἀπὸ Κότυος καὶ πρέσβεις ἐπεπόμφει περὶ συμμαχίας, βοηθεῖν κελεύων καὶ τὴν Χερρόνησον ἀποδιδούς, Προκοννήσιοι δὲ σύμμαχοι ὄντες ἱκέτευον ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ δήμῳ βοηθῆσαι αὑτοῖς, λέγοντες ὅτι ὑπὸ Κυζικηνῶν κατέχονται τῷ πολέμῳ καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, καὶ μὴ περιιδεῖν ἀπολομένους· ὧν ἀκούοντες τότε ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ δήμῳ αὐτῶν τε λεγόντων καὶ τῶν συναγορευόντων αὐτοῖς, ἔτι δὲ τῶν ἐμπόρων καὶ τῶν ναυκλήρων περὶ ἔκπλουν ὄντων ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου, καὶ Βυζαντίων καὶ Καλχηδονίων καὶ Κυζικηνῶν καταγόντων τὰ πλοῖα ἕνεκα τῆς ἰδίας χρείας τοῦ σίτου, καὶ ὁρῶντες ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ τὸν σῖτον ἐπιτιμώμενον καὶ οὐκ ὄντα ἄφθονον ὠνεῖσθαι, ἐψηφίσασθε τάς τε ναῦς καθέλκειν τοὺς τριηράρχους καὶ παρακομίζειν ἐπὶ τὸ χῶμα, καὶ τοὺς βουλευτὰς καὶ τοὺς δημάρχους καταλόγους ποιεῖσθαι τῶν δημοτῶν καὶ ἀποφέρειν ναύτας, καὶ διὰ τάχους τὸν ἀπόστολον ποιεῖσθαι καὶ βοηθεῖν ἑκασταχοῖ. καὶ ἐνίκησε τὸ Ἀριστοφῶντος ψήφισμα τουτί. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. Τοῦ μὲν ψηφίσματος τοίνυν ἀκηκόατε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί. ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπειδή μοι οὐκ ἦλθον οἱ ναῦται οἱ καταλεγέντες ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὀλίγοι καὶ οὗτοι ἀδύνατοι, τούτους μὲν ἀφῆκα, ὑποθεὶς δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ καὶ δανεισάμενος ἀργύριον πρῶτος ἐπληρωσάμην τὴν ναῦν, μισθωσάμενος ναύτας ὡς οἷόν τ’ ἦν ἀρίστους, δωρεὰς καὶ προδόσεις δοὺς ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν μεγάλας.

Commentary

The episodes described here (and in the next few decrees that follow: DD 68, 69, 70) took place at a time described in sections 4–6 of Apollodoros’ speech Against Polykles as one of crisis: Alexander of Pherai had seized Tenos, an embassy arrived from Miltokythes of Thrace calling for help, the allied Prokonnesians were appealing too, and the news arrived that the Byzantines, Kalchedonians and Kyzikenes were, in desperation, raiding ships that passed close to them: see Cawkwell, ‘Athenian naval power’, 335–6.

d67 decree concerning mobilisation

289

T1 Those of you who stayed at home, be quiet and listen to me as I address you about everything, and produce both laws and decrees, the enactments of both the council and the people, and witness-statements, in support of the things that I say. On the 24th day of the month Metageitnion, at the time of the archonship of Molon (362/1), when the assembly was held and news of many important developments was presented to you, you voted that the trierarchs should launch their ships; I was one of them. It is not necessary for me to describe the developments that the city was then experiencing, for you yourselves recall that Tenos had been captured by Alexander and its people enslaved; that Miltokythes had revolted from Kotys and had sent ambassadors concerning alliance, calling for help and offering to hand over the Chersonese; that at a meeting of the assembly, the Prokonnesians, as allies, were pleading with you to send help to them, saying that they were being hard pressed by the Kyzikenes in war both by land and sea, and asking you not to ignore them as they perished. At that time, you heard these things in the assembly spoken both by these men themselves and their advocates, and also that the merchants and shipowners were about to sail out of Pontos, and that those from Byzantion, Kalchedon, and Kyzikos were appropriating the ships because of their own need of grain. And you saw that in the Piraeus the price of grain was going up and that there was not much to be bought. And so you voted that the trierarchs should launch their ships and bring them to the promontory, and that the councillors and demarchs should make up lists of deme members and supply sailors, and that the expedition should be made up at great speed to send aid to each place. And this is the decree of Aristophon that was passed. DECREE. You have heard, then, the decree, men of the jury. Since the sailors enlisted by the demesmen did not appear, apart from a few weak ones who I dismissed, I pledged my own property and took loans of money, and I was the first to man a ship, hiring, as far as possible, the best sailors, and giving to each one gifts and a large advance payment.

Apollodoros (T1) claims that on the 24th Metageitnion, 362/1, after an assembly had been held and news of these developments had been brought to the Athenians, the people voted that the trierarchs should launch their ships. He offers details of the context and the nature of the mobilisation: it initially seems to have been the responsibility of the councillors and demarchs to make up lists of available seamen; this conscription, however, was ineffective, and Apollodoros hired men on his own initiative. While the state regularly passed

290

inventory a1

decrees ordering the manning of ships, as for conscription, trierarchs would frequently have recruited some or all of their crew (Gabrielsen, Financing, 108; cf. Hamel, Athenian Generals, 24 note 63), though it is not possible to tell whether the procedure to order bouleutai and the demarchs to make lists of demesmen and supply oarsmen ([Dem.] 50.6) was usual or not. For the possibility that, after Periandros’ legislation of 358/7, there was an expectation for the city to provide both the crew and equipment, see Dem. 21.155; on Periandros’ legislation more generally, Gabrielsen, Financing, 182–99. When we consider that each act of mobilisation would have required a vote of the assembly, it becomes clear that mobilisation decrees would have been common. This description of a decree is an interesting example of one which was, for rhetorical reasons, presented as totally ineffective! Heskel (The North Aegean, 172) links this decree with the Athenian expeditions to Chersonese, Prokonnesos and Macedonia, and it may also be seen as a reaction to the weakening Athenian grip on the Aegean in the late 360s (Rutishauser, Athens, 181). This situation is described vividly in the testimonium, though we should note that it was in Apollodoros’ interests to have exaggerated the level of the crisis. Trevett (Apollodoros, 135) and Cooper (‘Hypereides’, 45) link the proposal to that which gave Autokles his command in the north Aegean in 362 (see D71 below (= Dem. 23.104) on Miltokythes); this identification is possible but not necessary. Trevett’s suggestion that this was the proposal which was attacked by Hypereides (FF 40–44 Jensen) is rejected by Cooper, ‘Hypereides’, 45. Apollodoros’ reports about being the first to make his ship ready and his provision of the best sailors are symptomatic of the type of competition that existed among trierarchs: the Athenians awarded crowns to those who had their ships ready first (see Dem. 51, esp. 4–5 and 7, D76 and IG II3 1 370 lines 1–34). For Aristophon’s political career, see D66 Commentary.

Date

24th Metageitnion 362/1.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Cooper, C., ‘Hypereides, Aristophon, and the settlement of Keos’ in Epigraphy and the Greek Historian, ed. C. Cooper. Toronto (2008) 31–56. Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994).

d68 decree for the levy of eisphora

291

Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden, Cologne and Boston (1998). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). Rutishauser, B., Athens and the Cyclades: Economic Strategies 540–314 BC. Oxford (2012). Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992). Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000).

D68 Decree on the levy of eisphora and about the report on the proeispherontes Proposer: Unknown Date: On or shortly after 24th Metageitnion 362/1

Literary Context

In asserting that he met the financial obligations expected of him in 362/1, Apollodoros (T1) claimed that the Athenians voted that the bouleutai should report – on behalf of the demesmen – the names of those who were to pay the eisphora in advance; this included both those who were members of demes and those who owned property in them. Naturally he went on to maintain that he paid in advance but never recovered the money ([Dem.] 50.9).

292

inventory a1

Text

T1  [Dem.] 50.8: Οὐ μόνον τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τὰ κατὰ τὴν τριηραρχίαν ἀνήλισκον τότε οὕτω πολυτελῆ ὄντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν χρημάτων ὧν εἰς τὸν ἔκπλουν ἐψηφίσασθε εἰσενεχθῆναι μέρος οὐκ ἐλάχιστον ἐγὼ ὑμῖν προεισήνεγκα. δόξαν γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπὲρ τῶν δημοτῶν τοὺς βουλευτὰς ἀπενεγκεῖν τοὺς προεισοίσοντας τῶν τε δημοτῶν καὶ τῶν ἐγκεκτημένων, προσαπηνέχθη μου τοὔνομα ἐν τριττοῖς δήμοις διὰ τὸ φανερὰν εἶναί μου τὴν οὐσίαν.

Commentary

This is one of a number of decrees which appear to have been connected with the crisis of military funding and conscription that was experienced in 362/1: they were associated with a decision to send out an expedition in relation to a number of emergencies overseas (see above, D67, and Cawkwell ‘Athenian naval power’). This passage provides evidence of the decision by decree in 362/1 to collect an eisphora tax (I do not attempt in this collection to account for all occasions when the Athenians launched an eisphora, though some examples are listed in Inventory B2.1; for a historical survey of fourth-century eisphora, see Thomsen, Eisphora 178–249; for the reforms concerning it, see Christ, ‘The evolution’). The current decree appears to have sharpened the arrangements for the levy of the tax on this occasion: it required members of the council to report the names of the liturgy-payers known as the proeispherontes. Along with Isaeus 6.64 (of 364), this passage is among the earliest attestations of the proeisphora, though it is not the first: see Thomsen, Eisphora, 207–9. This liturgy, introduced at some point between 378/7 and 373/2, obliged Athens’ 300 wealthiest citizens to pay the total sum of the eisphora due from fellow-members of their symmoria (a group of wealthy citizens) in advance; they would then attempt to reclaim that sum from the other members of the symmoria. Wallace (‘The Athenian’, 481–2) makes a case, by reference to this passage, for the appointment through the demes of 300 new proeispherontes each time an eisphora was levied; the consensus view before Wallace’s article was that they were a standing college of 300, and that replacement could be made only through antidosis. This decree, as it emphasises the role of bouleutai (ratifying the sale of tax-collection rights was an important financial concern of the boule: Ath. Pol. 47.2 with Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 96–8), is in tune with the view of 33 Meier.

d68 decree for the levy of eisphora

293

T1 Not only, men of the jury, did I pay the trierarchical expenses, which then were extremely burdensome, but also I paid in advance a not insignificant part of the monies which you voted were to be contributed towards the expedition. For you resolved that the councillors, on behalf of the demesmen, should compose a list of those who were to pay up the eisphora in advance [the proeispherontes] and those who owned property in a deme, and because my property was visible, my name was reported in three demes.

Gabrielsen that they played an important role in identifying those who were liable to liturgies (Gabrielsen, Funding, 57–8). The addition of ‘demarchs and…’ (τοὺς δημάρχους καὶ) to some editions of the text, which gives them joint responsibility with the councillors for composing lists of those liable, is followed by Bers, Demosthenes, 23. But it does not appear in Dilts’ edition of the text which is followed here. Apollodoros claims that he was reported as holding land in three demes; accordingly, the passage is also evidence for the imposition of enktektikon, a tax on those who held property in demes other than their own (see Garland, The Piraeus, 195). Thomsen, Eisphora, 229, identifies this levy with the eisphora collected at the time of the campaign of Hegesilaos at Mantineia (see DP 42 below), mentioned by Xen. Vect. 3.7.

Date

On or shortly after 24th Metageitnion 362/1, as it is to be related to the previous decree.

Bibliography

Bers, V., Demosthenes: Speeches 50–59. Austin (2003). Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Christ, M.R., ‘The evolution of the eisphora’, CQ 57 (2007) 53–69. Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994). Garland, R., The Piraeus from the Fifth to the First Century BC. London (1989). Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Thomsen, R., Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen (1964). Wallace, R., ‘The Athenian proeispherontes’, Hesperia 58 (1989) 473–90.

D69 Decree ordering that Polykles should take over as trierarch Proposer: Unknown Date: Autumn 361, perhaps Pyanepsion 361/0

Literary Context

Over the course of a speech attempting to recover expenses incurred by Polykles’ failure to take over from him as successor trierarch, Apollodoros (T1) mentions that he was eventually forced to do so by a psephisma of the people.

Text

T1 [Dem.] 50.29: Ἐκ πολλῶν τοίνυν τεκμηρίων οἶμαι ὑμῖν ἐπιδείξειν Πολυκλέα, ὅτι οὔτε αὐτόθεν διενοεῖτο παραλαμβάνειν παρ’ ἐμοῦ τὴν ναῦν, οὔτ’, ἐπειδὴ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἠναγκάσθη ἐπὶ τὴν ναῦν ἀπιέναι, ἐλθὼν ἠθέλησέ μοι διαδέξασθαι αὐτήν. οὗτος γὰρ ἐπειδὴ ἀφίκετο εἰς Θάσον ἤδη μου τέταρτον μῆνα ἐπιτριηραρχοῦντος.

Commentary

Apollodoros presents an extraordinary decree of the people ordering Polykles to belatedly take over charge of a ship; one would not normally expect to have trierarchic succession arranged by a psephisma. In the course of the speech Apollodoros alludes to a law governing the succession of trierarchs ([Dem.] 50.43, 57). Cawkwell offers an interesting perspective, pointing out that the succession to Apollodoros was atypical, with Polykles insisting that he would not take over the trireme in the absence of his fellow syntrierarch ([Dem.] 50.37–9): indeed, in support of Polykles’ position, it may have been normal for each syntrierarch to serve only for half a year ([Dem.] 50.68): see Cawkwell, ‘Athenian naval power’, 336–9. On the system of the syntrierarchy, suggesting that syntrierarchs would have been able to deviate from the general rule and to ‘fix the length of their respective terms at their convenience’, see Gabrielsen, Financing, 176.

Date

Polykles was due to take over as trierarch in summer 361, at the start of 361/0; the speaker says he took over four months late. 294

d69 decree ordering polykles

295

T1 I believe that I am able to demonstrate to you, from many pieces of evidence, that Polykles did not spontaneously intend to take over the ship from me, nor, when he was forced by you and your decree to join the ship, was he willing to take it over. For, when he arrived at Thasos, I was in the fourth month of additional service.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994).

D70 Decree praising Apollodoros Proposer: Unknown Date: After 24th Metageitnion 362/1

Literary Context

In support of his case against Polykles (D69 above) Apollodoros claims that in order to pay his trierarchic crew during the expedition of 362/1, he mortgaged his farm, borrowed money to pay his crew, and put to sea, and that the demos, when they heard this, offered praise and invited him to dine in the prytaneion. He had the decree read aloud to the court (T1).

Text

T1  [Dem.] 50.13: Ὑποθεὶς δὲ τὸ χωρίον Θρασυλόχῳ καὶ Ἀρχένεῳ, καὶ δανεισάμενος τριάκοντα μνᾶς παρ’ αὐτῶν καὶ διαδοὺς τοῖς ναύταις, ᾠχόμην ἀναγόμενος, ἵνα μηδὲν ἐλλείποι τῷ δήμῳ ὧν προσέταξε τὸ κατ’ ἐμέ. καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἀκούσας ταῦτα ἐπῄνεσέν τέ με, καὶ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον ἐκάλεσεν. καὶ ὡς ταῦτ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τούτων ὑμῖν ἀναγνώσεται τὴν μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ τοῦ δήμου. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.

Commentary

On the crisis that the Athenians faced at this time, see DD 68–70 above, with Cawkwell, ‘Athenian naval power’: Apollodoros’ benefactions, recognised in the decree for him, appear to have been undertaken at a time of extreme shortages. Invitation to entertainment on a single occasion at the prytaneion was commonly awarded to envoys (both Athenian and foreign) and benefactors: see Henry, Honours, 262; permanent sitesis was much rarer: see Henry, Honours, 275–6; it was limited to priests of Demeter and Kore, certain men chosen by Pythian Apollo, descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, victors in gymnastic and equestrian contests, and possibly generals too (IG I3 131 with Osborne, ‘Entertainment’). We should note that, as someone who received Athenian citizenship from his naturalized father, Apollodoros mentions that he was invited to deipnon (rather than xenia) at the prytaneion: for the distinction, see Osborne ‘Entertainment’, 155–6; Rhodes, ‘ξένια’; Henry, Honours, 271–5; cf. IG II2 17 line 296

d70 decree praising apollodoros

297

T1 Pledging my estate to Thrasylochos and Archeneus as security for the 30 mnai which I borrowed from them and paid to the sailors, I set out to sea, so that none of the things which the people had ordered me might be neglected. And the people, hearing of this, both praised me, and invited me to dinner at the prytaneion. And to show that I am telling the truth, a witness statement of these things and the decree of the people will be read to you. WITNESS STATEMENT. DECREE.

36, where Sthorys of Thasos is invited, ultimately, to deipnon at the prytaneion line 36; also Appendix A of Miller, Prytaneion; for some apparent exceptions to the rule that xenia was for non-citizens and deipnon for citizens see Miller, Prytaneion, 4–7. For Apollodoros’ generosity and impressive record of service to the Athenians, including four trierarchies, the payment of an eisphora, and acting as choregos in the boys’ dithyramb at the Dionysia in the years between 368/7 and 352/1, see Trevett, Apollodoros, 10–14 with notes 17, 20, and 30; 171–3; Deene, ‘Naturalized citizens’ 170–1. Apollodoros was in no way modest about his expenditure: at [Dem] 50.7 and 10, he boasted of his prothymia in providing his own equipment and offering bonuses and advance payments as a way of hiring the best sailors; he made reference to a conversation in which the goldplated fittings of his trireme were criticised ([Dem.] 50.34). At 45.78 he boasted of carrying out services as splendidly as possible (‘ὡς δύναμαι λαμπρότατα’)

298

inventory a1

and presented the carrying out of duties by honorary citizens as the return of a favour (‘ὡς ἀποδιδόντας χάριν’). He was criticised at Dem. 36.41 for his excessive boasts about his trierarchies and services. His readiness to boast may be a reflection of the fact that he was the offspring of a naturalised citizen. For the self-presentation and display of Apollodoros as a reflection of his desire to project his legal status as a citizen, see Deene, ‘Naturalized citizens’, at 175.

Date

After 24th Metageitnion 362/1, as it follows the previous decrees mentioned in Dem. 50.4 and following.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Deene, M., ‘Naturalized citizens and social mobility in classical Athens: the case of Apollodorus’, G&R 58 (2011) 159–75. Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). Miller, S.G., The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form. London (1978). Osborne, M.J., ‘Entertainment in the prytaneion in Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–79. Rhodes, P.J., ‘ξένια and δεῖπνον in the Prytaneum’, ZPE 57 (1984) 193–9. Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992).

D71 Decree(s) concerning Miltokythes Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 362

Literary Context

In his argument against Aristokrates’ decree for the inviolability of Charidemos, Euthykles (the speaker of Demosthenes 23) (T1) makes a case for the powerful effect of contemporary Athenian decrees.

299

300

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 23.104: Ἵνα δὲ μὴ πάνυ θαυμάζητε εἰ τὰ παρ’ ὑμῖν ψηφίσματα τηλικαύτην ἔχει δύναμιν, γεγονὸς καὶ ὃ πάντες ἐπίστασθε πρᾶγμα ὑμᾶς ὑπομνήσω. ὅτε Μιλτοκύθης ἀπέστη Κότυος, συχνὸν ἤδη χρόνον ὄντος τοῦ πολέμου, καὶ ἀπηλλαγμένου μὲν Ἐργοφίλου, μέλλοντος δ’ Αὐτοκλέους ἐκπλεῖν στρατηγοῦ, ἐγράφη τι παρ’ ὑμῖν ψήφισμα τοιοῦτον, δι’ οὗ Μιλτοκύθης μὲν ἀπῆλθε φοβηθεὶς καὶ νομίσας ὑμᾶς οὐ προσέχειν αὐτῷ, Κότυς δ’ ἐγκρατὴς τοῦ τε ὄρους τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ τῶν θησαυρῶν ἐγένετο. καὶ γάρ τοι μετὰ ταῦτα, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Αὐτοκλῆς μὲν ἐκρίνετε ὡς ἀπολωλεκὼς Μιλτοκύθην, οἱ δὲ χρόνοι κατὰ τοῦ τὸ ψήφισμα εἰπόντος τῆς γραφῆς ἐξεληλύθεσαν, τὰ δὲ πράγματ’ ἀπωλώλει τῇ πόλει.

Commentary

Throughout the 360s and early 350s, the Athenians were involved in expeditions in the northern Aegean and in Thrace (Sealey, Demosthenes, 88–93, taking the view that Athenian operations ‘achieved considerable success’). This involved significant amounts of negotiation with the rulers of Thrace (see DD 43, 77, 78 above). Miltokythes was in the service of Kotys of Thrace until his revolt of 362, when he sent ambassadors to Athens appealing for help and apparently offering to give the Athenians back the Chersonese (this development is attested at [Dem. 50.5], where Apollodoros lists Miltokythes’ revolt from Kotys and his dispatch of ambassadors to appeal for a summachia as an aspect of the crises facing the Athenians; see also Sealey, Demosthenes, 89; Cawkwell, ‘Athenian naval power’). This appears to have amounted to a considerable threat to Kotys’ power (Archibald, The Odrysian, 221; for the view that Miltokythes aimed to kill Kotys, see Badian, ‘Philip II’), but the Athenian decree in relation to the development apparently did not meet with his aspirations. Demosthenes’ vagueness about the decree makes certainty about its content impossible; presumably it was a response to Miltokythes’ appeal. Evidently, while it did not give wholehearted support to the rebel, perhaps because the Athenians received embassies from both Miltokythes and Kotys in quick succession, it appears to have been so discouraging that Miltokythes decided not to revolt. Heskel, The North, 83, suggests that the Athenians may have passed two decrees: an earlier one offering support (which gave rise to the expedition of Autokles: see D67 above with [Dem.] 50.12) as they believed that this was the best way of recovering Chersonese; and a later one (referred to at T1), after the visit of ambassadors from Kotys, watering down their original offer of help. Demosthenes (T1) tells the Athenians that although Autokles was put on trial for having brought Miltokythes to ruin, the decree

d71 decree(s) concerning miltokythes

301

T1 So that you may not be excessively amazed that the decrees on the basis of your opinion have such great power, I shall remind you of something which happened and which you all know. When Miltokythes had revolted from Kotys, when the war had already continued for some time, and Ergophilos had been discharged, and Autokles was about to take command, such a decree was moved by you that Miltokythes withdrew out of fear, and realising that you were not in support of him, Kotys fell into possession of the Sacred Mountain and its treasures. And, Athenian men, after this, Autokles was tried for having destroyed Miltokythes, and the duration of time within which the decree could be indicted ran out, and things turned out badly for the city.

was not indicted. Cooper, ‘Hypereides’, 45 suggests that Autokles may well have spoken in favour of the decree which gave him his command and that Hypereides F55 Jensen, which says Autokles ought to have been punished for his words, was an attack on it; his (and that of Trevett, Apollodoros, 133) identification of this decree with Aristophon’s decree mobilising Athenian forces is possible but not necessary (Dem. 50.6 = D67): as Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 90 makes clear, the connection between the decree and eisangelia against Autokles is far from clear. What of the ruin of Miltokythes? As Harding, The Story, 150 notes, Theopompus (FGrH 115 F307) described his death at the hands of Kersobleptes, as did Dem. 23.169: see DD 80 and 81 below.

Date

Late summer 362: Heskel, The North, 81.

Bibliography

Badian, A., ‘Philip II and Thrace’, Pulpudeva 4 (1983) 51–71. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Cooper, C., ‘Hypereides, Aristophon, and the settlement of Keos’ in Epigraphy and the Greek Historian, ed. C. Cooper. Toronto (2008) 31–56 at 45. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) no. 90. Harding, P.A., The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika. London (2008). Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997) 81–3.

inventory a1

302

Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 88–91. Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992).

D72 Citizenship for Phormion Proposer: Unknown Date: 361/0

Literary Context

In his speech Against Stephanus, Apollodoros (T1) argues that his father, Pasion, did not make a will and could not anyway have left his wife in marriage to Phormion (he argues that Phormion in fact forged a will and seduced his mother), and cites details of the date of his being accepted into the citizenship.

Text

T1 [Dem.] 46.13: Ὁ δὲ Φορμίων Ἀθηναῖος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Νικοφήμου ἄρχοντος, δεκάτῳ ἔτει ὕστερον ἢ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν. πῶς ἂν οὖν μὴ εἰδὼς ὁ πατὴρ αὐτὸν Ἀθηναῖον ἐσόμενον, ἔδωκεν ἂν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα, καὶ προὐπηλάκισε μὲν ἂν ἡμᾶς, κατεφρόνησε δ’ ἂν τῆς δωρεᾶς ἧς παρ’ ὑμῶν ἔλαβεν, παρεῖδε δ’ ἂν τοὺς νόμους;

Commentary:

Apollodoros (T1) alleges that Phormion, the non-Greek slave of the banker Pasion and owner of merchant vessels (Reed, Maritime Traders, no. 23), became an Athenian citizen during the archonship of Nikophemos (cf. [Dem.] 45.71). His sons also became Athenians when he was granted the award ([Dem.] 45.75), which suggests that the award was hereditary. Passing references in a separate defence speech of Phormion suggest that the award of citizenship was a response to his contributions to the state (Dem. 36.47; APF pp. 435–6), though private favours are mentioned too in relation to the award (36.56–9); Christ suggests that, given that Phormion was a banker, these perceived acts of generosity may well have consisted of loans made on

d72 citizenship for phormion

303

T1 Phormion became an Athenian during the archonship of Nikophemos, in the tenth year after our father died. And so, how could my father, not knowing that he would become an Athenian, have given him his own wife in marriage, and both have outraged us and shown contempt towards that gift which he received from you, having contempt for the laws?

generous terms (Christ, Limits of Altruism, 23). For the liturgies he performed as a citizen, see Davies, APF pp. 435–6. On his banking activities and status, see Cohen, Athenian Society, 82–4; for Apollodoros’ resentment towards him, see Trevett, Apollodoros, 10–15, 174–6. Phormion and Pasion (father of Apollodoros: see D42) are the only two slaves firmly attested to have received citizenship by enfranchisement. As Stephen Todd points out, one wonders whether the phenomenon of granting citizenship to slaves was frequently associated with those involved in banking, or whether our knowledge is a result of the interests of Apollodoros.

inventory a1

304

Date

361/0 (T1).

Bibliography

Christ, M.R., The Limits of Altruism. Cambridge (2012) 22–3. Cohen, E.E., Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton (1992) 82–4. Davies APF, pp. 435–6. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T48. Reed, C.M., Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge (2003) no. 23. Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992).

D73 Decree awarding honours to the assassins of Kotys Proposer: Unknown Date: c. 360

Literary Context

As part of his case against Aristokrates’ proposal of inviolability for Charidemos, Euthykles (the speaker of Demosthenes 23) supposes what would have happened had the Athenians honoured Kotys with inviolability (T1). He also points to the example of Python in order to distinguish between those who wish to become an Athenian citizen out of enthusiasm for the customs and laws of Athens and those who do so purely out of self-interest (T2).

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.119: Ἀλλ’ ὅμως, ἐπειδὴ πονηρὸς καὶ θεοῖς ἐχθρὸς ἦν καὶ μεγάλα ὑμᾶς ἠδίκει, τοὺς ἀποκτείναντας ἐκεῖνον Πύθωνα καὶ Ἡρακλείδην, τοὺς Αἰνίους, πολίτας ἐποιήσασθε ὡς εὐεργέτας καὶ χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ἐστεφανώσατε. εἰ δὴ τότε, ὅτι ὑμῖν οἰκείως ἔχειν ὁ Κότυς ἐδόκει, ἔγραψέ τις, ἄν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Κότυν, ἔκδοτον αὐτὸν εἶναι, πότερ’ ἐξέδοτ’ ἂν τὸν Πύθωνα καὶ τὸν ἀδελφόν, ἢ παρὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦτο πολίτας ἐποιεῖσθε καὶ ὡς εὐεργέτας ἐτιμᾶτε;

d73 decree awarding honours

305

T1 Nevertheless, since he (sc. Kotys) was a wicked man, hostile to the gods, and was doing great acts of injustice to you, you made his assassins, Python and Herakleides of Ainos, as benefactors, Athenian citizens, and you crowned them with golden crowns. If, then, on that occasion, when Kotys seemed to behave in a friendly way, someone had proposed, that if anyone were to kill Kotys, he should be delivered up, would you have delivered up Python and his brother? Or would you, contradicting this decree, have made them citizens and honoured them as benefactors?’

306

inventory a1

T2 Dem. 23.126–7: Ἐγὼ νομίζω, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅσοι μὲν τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐθῶν καὶ νόμων ἐπιθυμηταὶ γενόμενοι πολῖται γενέσθαι ἐσπούδασαν, ἅμα τ’ αὐτοὺς ἂν τυγχάνειν τούτων καὶ παρ’ ἡμῖν οἰκεῖν καὶ μετέχειν ὧν ἐπεθύμησαν· ὅσους δὲ τούτων μὲν μηδενὸς μήτ’ ἐπιθυμία μήτε ζῆλος εἰσέρχεται, τὴν πλεονεξίαν δ’ ἀγαπῶσιν ἣν διὰ τοῦ δοκεῖν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν τιμᾶσθαι καρποῦνται, τούτους δ’ οἴομαι, μᾶλλον δὲ οἶδα σαφῶς, ὅταν ποτὲ μείζονος πλεονεξίας ἑτέρωθεν ἐλπίδα ἴδωσιν, οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ὑμῶν φροντίσαντας ἐκείνην θεραπεύσειν. οἷον, ἵν’ εἰδῆτε καὶ ὑμεῖς πρὸς ὃ ταῦτ’ ἐγὼ βλέπων λέγω, Πύθων οὑτοσί, ὅτε μὲν Κότυν εὐθὺς ἀπεκτονὼς οὐκ ἀσφαλὲς ἡγεῖτο ἀπελθεῖν ὅποι τύχοι, ἦλθεν ὡς ὑμᾶς καὶ πολιτείαν ᾔτησεν καὶ πάντων ἐποιήσατο πρώτους ὑμᾶς, ἐπειδὴ δ’ οἴεται τὰ Φιλίππου πράγματα συμφέρειν αὑτῷ μᾶλλον, οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν ὑμῶν φροντίσας τἀκείνου φρονεῖ.

Commentary

Euthykles, speaker of Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates, was extremely negative about Kotys, presenting him as Athens’ worst enemy (Dem. 23.149), despite the fact that he had been made an Athenian citizen: see D43 above. Euthykles’ words, though, cannot be taken at face value. By the late 360s, Kotys’ personal ambitions appear to have outstripped Athenian readiness to support him; a rift arose between Kotys and Iphikrates (Dem. 23.136), and, when Kotys invaded the Chersonesos in 362, Iphikrates was not ready to support him against Athenian aspirations in the area (Dem. 23.130–2). Accordingly, Kotys had become a threat to the Athenians and their interests in the area. The Athenians may have colluded in the assassination, but it is possible that his Ainaian assassins ‘were motivated by personal grievances’ (Archibald, The Odrysian, 221 note 36): Aristotle, Politics, 1311b20–2 claims that they were motivated by a desire to avenge their father. The Athenians honoured the brothers Pytho and Herakleides of Ainos with citizenship and gave them gold crowns after they had assassinated Kotys. It appears from the text that Pytho requested the honours after he had carried out the deed. After the death of Kotys, probably in 360/59, his kingdom was divided between Kersobleptes, Amadokos and Berisades, each of whom sought Athenian aid (Dem. 23.8; for the division, see Harris, Demosthenes, 31 note 33.

Date

Late 360, after the death of Kotys: Heskel, The North, 179.

Bibliography

Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford (2008). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018).

d74 citizenship for kersobleptes

307

T2 I believe, Athenian men, that those who, admiring our customs and laws, aspire to become Athenian citizens, would, on achieving it, live among us and would share in those things to which they aspired. But for those who feel neither desire nor emulation, who love only the advantage which they will reap by appearing to be worthy of honour by you, these people, I believe, indeed I know quite well, when they recognise the hope of some bigger advantage from some other quarter, they will think of serving that purpose rather than yours. So that you know what sort of thing I am talking about: that Python, when he had just killed Kotys, did not think he was safe to go off to some chance haven, but came to you and requested citizenship and put you first of all. But now, since he believes that the acts of Philip are more profitable to him, he sides with him, not thinking of you in any way whatsoever.

Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschrift 102. Stuttgart (1997). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T52.

D74 Citizenship for Kersobleptes, son of Kotys, of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: c. 360–357

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned in ‘Philip’s Letter’ (T1: on which, see MacDowell, Demosthenes, 366, considering it a genuine letter of Philip to the Athenians; for the view of it as the work of an Isocratean writer, see D142 Literary Context below) as an example of Athenian duplicity; it demonstrates how, according to the author of the letter, the Athenians drew out the connotations of honorary citizenship in their diplomacy. The honours are relevant also to Euthykles’ case against Aristokrates (TT 2, 3), who claims that they indicate the ongoing devaluation of honours.

308

inventory a1

Texts

T1  [Dem.] 12.8–9: Ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ γράφετε ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν ἐμοὶ προστάττοντες Τήρην καὶ Κερσοβλέπτην ἐᾶν Θρᾴκης ἄρχειν, ὡς ὄντας Ἀθηναίους. ἐγὼ δὲ τούτους οὔτε τῶν περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης συνθηκῶν οἶδα μετασχόντας ὑμῖν οὔτ’ ἐν ταῖς στήλαις ἀναγεγραμμένους οὔτ’ Ἀθηναίους ὄντας, ἀλλὰ Τήρην μὲν μετ’ ἐμοῦ στρατευόμενον ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς, Κερσοβλέπτην δὲ τοῖς παρ’ ἐμοῦ πρεσβευταῖς ἰδίᾳ μὲν τοὺς ὅρκους ὀμόσαι προθυμούμενον, κωλυθέντα δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων στρατηγῶν ἀποφαινόντων αὐτὸν Ἀθηναίων ἐχθρόν. καίτοι πῶς ἐστὶ τοῦτ’ ἴσον ἢ δίκαιον, ὅταν μὲν ὑμῖν συμφέρῃ, πολέμιον εἶναι φάσκειν αὐτὸν τῆς πόλεως, ὅταν δ’ ἐμὲ συκοφαντεῖν βούλησθε, πολίτην ἀποδείκνυσθαι τὸν αὐτὸν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν; T2 Dem. 23.141: Ὑμεῖς ἐποιήσασθε ἔν τισι καιροῖς καὶ χρόνοις Ἀριοβαρζάνην πολίτην καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Φιλίσκον, ὥσπερ νῦν διὰ Κερσοβλέπτην Χαρίδημον. T3 Dem. 23.203: Τὸ τελευταῖον δὲ νῦν, ἐπειδὴ Κερσοβλέπτην ἠξίουν ὧν αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει, καὶ περὶ τούτων ἦν ἡ σπουδή, προστιθέασιν δύο αὐτῷ, τὸν μὲν ὅσα ὑμεῖς ἀκηκόατε εἰργασμένον κακά, τὸν δ’ ὅλως οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τίς ἐστιν, Εὐδέρκην ὄνομα.

Commentary

In 360, when Kotys was murdered (see D73 above for Athens’ honours for his assassins), his son Kersobleptes (Kersebleptes in the epigraphical sources) attempted to secure control of the whole Thracian kingdom in the face of two competitors, Berisades and Amadokos; for their alliance with the Athenians, see D80 below. The Athenians honoured him presumably in an attempt to develop their interests in Thrace; Euthykles (the speaker of Demosthenes 23) claims that some unnamed Athenians  – in other words Aristokrates, Charidemos and their allies (see Roisman, Conspiracy, 96–103) – wanted to help him secure unrivalled control of Thrace (Dem. 23.9), while arguing that the division of Thrace between three rivals was in Athens’ diplomatic interests (Dem. 23.8). Osborne sees the awards as an indication of Athenian desperation to make links with the rulers of the Chersonese (Osborne, Naturalization, 3.59). In 357 the Athenians made an alliance with all three kings: it appears, then, that the kingdom was divided between the three: RO 47 = IG II2 126. Charidemos of Oreos (see T2), against whose inviolability Euthykles was protesting in Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates, was a mercenary supporter of Kersobleptes: Demosthenes (T3) adds that while they were proposing honours

d74 citizenship for kersobleptes

309

T1 But in addition to the other things, you tell me in your decrees to leave Teres and Kersobleptes to rule over Thrace, as they are Athenian citizens. But I know that they neither shared in the agreements with you concerning peace, nor are they written up on the inscriptions, nor are they Athenians; instead, Teres marches together with me against you, while Kersobleptes told my envoys in person that he was keen to swear oaths, but he was prevented by your generals who announced that he was an enemy of the Athenians. And yet how is it that this is either fair or just for you to state, when it suits you, that he is an enemy of the city, but to declare that he is a citizen of Athens when you want to make vexatious allegations against me?

T2  At one time, at some point, you made Ariobarzanes a citizen and, for his sake, Philiskos too, just as you have acted towards Charidemos on account of Kersobleptes. T3  And last of all for now, when they requested for Kersobleptes whatever they thought appropriate, and when their attention was focussed on these things, they added two other names to his: you have just heard about the bad deeds of one of them; the other is Euderkes by name, but there is no one anywhere who knows who this man is.

for Kersobleptes, two other individuals were added to his: one was the otherwise obscure Euderkes (see D75 below); the other was Charidemos (see D84 below). The de facto exclusion of Kersobleptes from the Peace of Philokrates (D131 T1) was a blow to his interests (Sealey, Demosthenes, 147–8); his ambitions were curtailed by Philip in 343/2 (Diodorus 16.71.1–2), and he was overthrown by Philip in the late 340s: Sealey, Demosthenes, 179–80. On Athens’ relations with Kersobleptes, see further D81 below.

Date

c. 360­–357.

Bibliography

Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford (2008) 93–125. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 366. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T54.

inventory a1

310

Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006). Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993).

D75 Citizenship for Euderkes Proposer: Unknown Date: c. 360–357

Literary Context

Euthykles, speaker of Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates, here maintains that the result of rewarding those unworthy is to reduce the value of the award.

Text

T1 Dem. 23.203: Τὸ τελευταῖον δὲ νῦν, ἐπειδὴ Κερσοβλέπτην ἠξίουν ὧν αὐτοῖς ἐδόκει, καὶ περὶ τούτων ἦν ἡ σπουδή, προστιθέασιν δύο αὐτῷ, τὸν μὲν ὅσα ὑμεῖς ἀκηκόατε εἰργασμένον κακά, τὸν δ’ ὅλως οὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τίς ἐστιν, Εὐδέρκην ὄνομα.

Commentary

Euderkes was, presumably, a local Thracian commander; from what Demosthenes (T1) says, it seems that rewards for him were proposed in association with those for Kersobleptes (D74). No more is known about Euderkes than what is claimed in Demosthenes 23. There is nothing to add to the statement of Osborne, Naturalization, 60: ‘Our ignorance of Euderkes is as great as that affected by Demosthenes. Presumably, like Charidemos, he was an aide (and perhaps a relative by marriage) of Kersobleptes. The grant to him will thus stem from a desire to please Kersobleptes and from his (desiderated) ability to influence matters at Kersobleptes’ court.’ The fact that Demosthenes discusses this example in the context of other recipients of citizenship makes it appear likely that Euderkes too was given this grant.

d75 citizenship for euderkes

311

T1  And last of all for now, when they requested for Kersobleptes whatever they thought appropriate, and when their intention was concerned with these things, they added two other names to his: you have just heard about the bad deeds of one of them; the other is Euderkes by name, but there is no one anywhere who knows who this man is. See D74 T3.

Date

c. 360–357.

Bibliography

Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T55.

D76 Honorific crown for trierarchic victors Proposer: Unknown Date: 360/59

Literary Context

Demosthenes (probably Demosthenes himself, rather than Apollodoros as Libanius suggested in his hypothesis (summary) of the speech: see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 133–6) makes claims (T1) in front of the council about being first to prepare his trireme for an expedition in 360/59. This was part of a plea that he should be granted a crown, according to the terms of the decree described here. He argues that taking notice of his opponents, who want to deprive him of the crown, would encourage other Athenians to perform duties with minimal outlay (Dem. 51.22).

Texts

T1 Dem. 51.1: Εἰ μὲν ὅτῳ πλεῖστοι συνείποιεν, ὦ βουλή, τὸ ψήφισμα ἐκέλευε δοῦναι τὸν στέφανον, κἂν ἀνόητος ἦν εἰ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ἠξίουν, Κηφισοδότου μόνου μοι συνειρηκότος, τούτοις δὲ παμπόλλων. νῦν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ παρασκευάσαντι τὴν τριήρη τὸν ταμίαν προσέταξεν ὁ δῆμος δοῦναι, πεποίηκα δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐγώ· διό φημι δεῖν αὐτὸς στεφανοῦσθαι. T2  Dem. 51.4: Ψήφισμα γὰρ ὑμῶν ποιησαμένων, ὃς ἂν μὴ πρὸ τῆς ἕνης καὶ νέας ἐπὶ χῶμα τὴν ναῦν περιορμίσῃ, δῆσαι καὶ δικαστηρίῳ παραδοῦναι, καὶ ταῦτα κυρωσάντων, ἐγὼ μὲν περιώρμισα καὶ στέφανον διὰ ταῦτα παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἔλαβον, οὗτοι δ᾽ οὐδὲ καθείλκυσαν, ὥστ᾽ ἔνοχοι δεσμῷ γεγόνασιν.

Commentary

The decree to which Demosthenes (TT 1 and 2) refers here evidently was passed by the Athenians as part of a general attempt to tighten up trierarchic performance; MacDowell, Demosthenes, 134 suggests that it was passed as part of a decree (not itself attested separately) which sent out Kephisodotos as a general that year. In this speech, Demosthenes makes claims about being the first trierarch to ready his ship so that it could be brought to the mole, and that he 312

d76 honorific crown for trierarchic victors

313

T1 If, Council, the decree ordered that the crown be given to him who possesses the greatest number of supporting speakers, it would have been foolish for me to claim it, given that Kephisodotos is the only one who speaks in support of me, but the others have plenty of them. But in fact the people ordered the treasurer to give the crown to the one who got his ship ready for sea first. And I did this; accordingly, I say it is necessary to crown me. T2 When you made and ratified this decree, which says that whoever failed to bring his ship around to the pier before the final day of the month should be arrested and should be handed over to the court, I brought my ship up to the jetty first, and for this I received a crown from you. At this point others had not even launched their ships: they, then, have made themselves liable for punishment.

had equipped it with gear and crew at his own expense, ensuring that the best rowers were employed by offering the most substantial wages (Dem. 51.4–6). As well as offering a reward to whomever was the first to ready his ship, it also punished anyone who failed to return their ship before the end of the month (T2). A comparable decree is that which is inscribed in the lists of the Athenian naval epimeletai of 325/4 and arranges for crowns to be awarded to the fastest

inventory a1

314

trierarchs to bring their ships to the jetty before the 10th of Mounichion; they are also to be announced (IG II3 1 370 lines 1–34): this decree was made in association with, though it was separate from, a decree sending settlers to the Adriatic.

Date

360/59, the year in which Demosthenes was trierarch for the second time: Scholiast on Aeschines 3.51 Dilts 112. See MacDowell, Demosthenes, 134. As Harris, ‘Applying’ 108 points out, the honorand appears to have been granted his crown during his term of office.

Bibliography

Harris, E.M., ‘Applying the law about the award of crowns to magistrates (Aeschin. 3.9-31; Dem. 18.113–117): epigraphic evidence for the legal arguments at the trial of Ctesiphon’, ZPE 202 (2017) 105­–17. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 133–6.

D77 Citizenship for Simon of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: 359

Literary Context

Demonstrating the ways in which the odds stacked up against Kersobleptes’ rivals to the throne in Thrace, Euthykles (the speaker of Demosthenes 23: T1) claims Simon and Bianor, supporters of Kersobleptes’ enemies, were highly unlikely to take the field against the Athenians.

Text

T1  Dem 23.12: Οὔτε γὰρ ὑμετέρῳ στρατηγῷ προχείρως ἐναντία θήσεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα ἔμελλ’ ὁ Σίμων οὐδ’ ὁ Βιάνωρ, πολῖται γεγενημένοι καὶ ἄλλως ἐσπουδακότες πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

d77 citizenship for simon of thrace

315

T1 For neither Simon nor Bianor, who had become citizens, and were in other ways well disposed towards you, were likely to raise their weapons readily against a general of yours.

inventory a1

316

Commentary

Both these honorands were generals in Thrace, and were supporters of Amadokos of Thrace, upon whom Kersobleptes was making war (Dem. 23.10, 180); nevertheless, Demosthenes argues, they were unlikely to take the field against the Athenians. It is hard to know the original background to the awards, but it is reasonable to identify the awards with a time when the Athenians were courting powerful leaders in Thrace. We know no more than what is claimed about them in this speech.

Date

Osborne (T57 Commentary) suggests c. 359 or shortly after, at a time when the Athenians were attempting to gain the favour of Thracian rulers and their allies.

Bibliography

Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T57.

D78 Citizenship for Bianor of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: 359

See D77 above.

D79 Peace with Philip Proposer: Unknown Date: 359

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in the Second Olynthiac (T1), argued, by reference to Philip’s trickery, that the Athenians must send aid to the Olynthians. Harpokration (T2) attempts to explain the ‘secret’ mentioned by Demosthenes in this passage, drawing on a passage of the Philippika in which Theopompus presented Philip’s foreign policy as unjust and mischievous (for this view, see Flower, Theopompus, 112 and Theopompus FGrH 115 F27). Diodorus Siculus (T4) presents Philip’s proposal of peace to the Athenians as motivated by his intention to turn his attention to an attack on the Paionians.

317

318

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 2.6: Νῦν δὲ θεωρῶν καὶ σκοπῶν εὑρίσκω τὴν μὲν ἡμετέραν εὐήθειαν τὸ κατ’ ἀρχάς, ὅτε Ὀλυνθίους ἀπήλαυνόν τινες ἐνθένδε βουλομένους ὑμῖν διαλεχθῆναι, τῷ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν φάσκειν παραδώσειν καὶ τὸ θρυλούμενόν ποτ’ ἀπόρρητον ἐκεῖνο κατασκευάσαι. T2  Harpokration s. v. Τί ἐστι τὸ ἐν τοῖς Δημοσθένους Φιλιππικοῖς ‘καὶ τὸ θρυλούμενόν ποτε ἀπόρρητον ἐκεῖνο’ (= Theopompus FGrH 115 F30a): Θεόπομπος ἐν [λ]α δεδήλωκε. φησὶ γάρ· ‘καὶ πέμπει πρὸς τὸν Φίλιππον πρεσβευτὰς Ἀντιφῶντα καὶ Χαρίδημον πράξοντας καὶ περὶ φιλίας, οἳ παραγενόμενοι συμπείθειν αὐτὸν ἐπεχείρουν ἐν ἀπορρήτωι συμπράττειν Ἀθηναίοις, ὅπως ἂν λάβωσιν Ἀμφίπολιν, ὑπισχνούμενοι Πύδναν. οἱ δὲ πρέσβεις οἱ τῶν Ἀθηναίων εἰς μὲν τὸν δῆμον οὐδὲν ἀπήγγελλον, βουλόμενοι λανθάνειν τοὺς Πυδναίους ἐκδιδόναι μέλλοντες ἐκείνους, ἐν ἀπορρήτωι δὲ μετὰ τῆς βουλῆς ἔπραττον.’

T3 Theopompus FGrH 115 F30b (Scholion on Demosthenes 2.6 (Dilts 50c)): Διὰ τί ἐν ἀπορρήτωι; ἵνα μὴ ἑκάτεροι μαθόντες φυλάξωνται, οἵ τε Ποτιδαιᾶται καὶ οἱ Πυδναῖοι. Θεόπομπος δέ φησιν ὅτι περὶ Πύδνης μόνον καὶ Φιλίππου, ἵνα δῶι αὐτὸς μὲν Ἀθηναίοις Ἀμφίπολιν, δέξηται δὲ παρ’ αὐτῶν τὴν Πύδναν αὐτοῦ οὖσαν. καὶ τὸ ἀπόρρητον δέ, ἵνα μὴ μαθόντες οἱ Πυδναῖοι φυλάξωνται· οὐ γὰρ ἐβούλοντο εἶναι ὑπὸ τὸν Φίλιππον. T4 D.S. 16.4.1: Ὁ Φίλιππος πρέσβεις ἐκπέμψας εἰς Ἀθήνας ἔπεισε τὸν δημον εἰρήνην πρὸς αὐτὸν συνθέσθαι διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἔτι προσποιεῖσθαι τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν.

Commentary

These testimonia are among the earliest firmly attested Athenian reactions to the growing power of Philip II of Macedon. Their details were doubtless shaped by the subsequent history of relations between the Athenians and Macedonians. Diodorus says that the Athenians were hostile to Philip as soon as he succeeded to the throne, and dispatched Mantias with 3,000 hoplites and a powerful naval force to the aid of his rival Argaios (D.S. 16.2.6: see DP 48 below); he suggests that Philip realised that the expedition intended also to recover Amphipolis (on Athenian aspirations to retake Amphipolis, see D64 above) for the Athenians (D.S. 16.3.3); Mantias went no further than Methone (16.3.5); Argaios went ahead but was defeated by Philip. This was the occasion for Philip’s peace proposal to the Athenians. Diodorus (T4) then, writing under

d79 peace with philip

319

T1 Now by monitoring things closely I find that, at the earliest stage, when a number of men wished to drive out those Olynthians who wanted to come to an agreement with you, he deceived us in our innocence by claiming that he would hand over Amphipolis to us by cooking up that once-famous secret. T2  What is the meaning of the statement in Demosthenes’ Philippics ‘the once much talked-about secret’ ? Theopompus has clarified this in his 31st book, for he says: ‘and he/it [i.e. the demos or the proposer: see de Ste Croix, ‘Alleged secret pact’, 117–18] sent Antiphon and Charidemos as ambassadors to Philip to negotiate also about friendship. And when they were in his presence they attempted to persuade him to co-operate with the Athenians in secret, in order that they might get Amphipolis, while promising (him) Pydna. The Athenian ambassadors did not make any report to the People, because they wished to conceal from the Pydnaians that they were intending to give them up, but handled the matter in secret with the council.’ (trans. Harding, From the End, no. 62, adapted) T3  Why in secret? So that that neither of the parties, the Potidaians nor the Pydnaians, might, being aware, be on guard. But Theopompus says that it concerned only Pydna and Philip, with the intention that he might give Amphipolis to the Athenians, and he would receive from them Pydna, which they held. And it was secret, so that the Pydnaians, might not, being aware, be on guard. For they did not want to fall under Philip. T4 Philip, having sent out ambassadors to Athens, persuaded the demos to make peace with him on the grounds that he no longer made any attempts to take Amphipolis.

359/8, says that Philip sent ambassadors to the Athenians and persuaded the assembly (ἔπεισε τὸν δῆμον) to make peace with him on the grounds that he abandoned for all time any claim to Amphipolis (T4); Demosthenes (T1) refers to Philip persuading the naive Athenians; to this we may add Demosthenes 23.121, which refers to correspondence (grammata) written by Philip to persuade them of alliance (symmachia) and to renew his patrike philia (on which see Harris, Demosthenes, 75 note 163, suggesting it might have consisted of ties the Athenians had with Amyntas III (Aeschin. 2.26) or fifth-century kings of Macedon) with them. Theopompus (TT 2, 3) offers a different slant on the story, saying that the Athenians sent ambassadors (which may well have necessitated a decree) to

320

inventory a1

negotiate about friendship. The ambassadors discussed with Philip the possibility of making a deal by which Amphipolis would be exchanged for Pydna, of which the Athenians at that point held possession. He suggests that they did not report their discussions to the Athenian demos, not wanting to allow the Pydnaians to know that they were to be handed over, but instead shared the details only with the Athenian council. However, de Ste Croix, ‘Alleged secret pact,’ argued against the plausibility of a secret deal, suggesting that the claim of the Scholiast on Demosthenes (T3), that the Athenians made a secret treaty with Philip, is an over-interpretation of Theopompus: Harpokration (T2), as Flower (Theopompus, 197) observes, is reporting that the ambassador proposed a secret agreement, not that one was actually made. The same view of Theopompus is held by Trevett, Demosthenes, 44–5 note 4, who suggests that ‘Theopompus is broadly correct. Certainly it was in Athens’ interest to keep any such negotiations secret from the Pydnians.’ RO p. 244, takes the view that ‘there were perhaps secret talks but not a treaty’. On the other hand, Hornblower, A Commentary, 3.37–8, has suggested that the council may plausibly have operated without the knowledge of the assembly, pointing to the council’s dispatch of Demainetos’ trireme in 395 (Hell. Oxy. 6.1 = DP 5). How, then, to reconcile the testimonia for the dispatch of ambassadors who undertook negotiations (TT 2, 3) with that for agreement and peace between Athens and Philip (TT 1, 4)? I propose that the Athenians at the assembly, after Philip’s defeat of Argaios, sent, by decree, ambassadors to Philip with the power to discuss peace and alliance; in the course of discussions, the possibility of handing over Pydna and Potidaia to Philip was raised; friendship might have been agreed by the assembly (T4), but the details of the ambassadors’ negotiations may not have been exposed in front of the people. The effect of these negotiations was not a positive one for the Athenians: while Philip’s advance against them may well have been stalled, in 357 he took Amphipolis by force (RO 49 and D.S. 16.8.2), having led some Athenians to think that, when he was besieging it, he intended to hand it over to Athens ([Dem.] 7.26–7; Dem. 23.116).

Date

359 (T4).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 298. Flower, M., Theopompus of Chios: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century BC. Oxford (1994) 197.

d80 alliance with thracian kings

321

Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 82–3. Hornblower, S., A Commentary On Thucyides: Volume III. Books 5.25–8.109. Oxford (2008) 27–8. RO, GHI, p. 244. Ste Croix, G.E.M., de, ‘The alleged secret pact between Athens and Philip II concerning Amphipolis and Pydna’, CQ 13 (1963) 110–19. Trevett., J. Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011) 44–5.

D80 Alliance with Thracian kings Proposer: Unknown Date: 358/7

Literary Context

In his attack on Aristokrates’ proposal for the inviolability of the mercenary leader Charidemos of Oreos, Euthykles, speaker of Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates, attacks the behaviour of Charidemos and his associate Kersobleptes. After describing the angry reaction of the Thracians to the murder of Miltokythes and his son, he describes the agreement made between the Thracian kings and the Athenians; the alliance was soon broken off by Kersobleptes.

322

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.170: Τῶν δὲ Θρᾳκῶν ἁπάντων χαλεπῶς ἐνεγκόντων ἐπὶ τούτοις, καὶ συστραφέντων τοῦ τε Βηρισάδου καὶ τοῦ Ἀμαδόκου, ἰδὼν τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον Ἀθηνόδωρος, συμμαχίαν ποιησάμενος πρὸς τούτους οἷος ἦν πολεμεῖν. ἐν φόβῳ δὲ καταστάντος τοῦ Κερσοβλέπτου γράφει ὁ Ἀθηνόδωρος συνθήκας, καθ’ ἃς ἀναγκάζει τὸν Κερσοβλέπτην ὀμόσαι πρός τε ὑμᾶς καὶ τοὺς βασιλέας εἶναι μὲν τὴν ἀρχὴν κοινὴν τῆς Θρᾴκης εἰς τρεῖς διῃρημένην, πάντας δ’ ὑμῖν ἀποδοῦναι τὴν χώραν. T2 Dem. 23.175: Ἡ μὲν τοίνυν συμμαχία τοῖς βασιλεῦσι {τοῖν δυοῖν} τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον μετὰ τὴν παράκρουσιν τὴν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Κηφισόδοτον συνθηκῶν συνεστάθη.

Commentary

The background to the Athenian symmachia with Berisades and Amadokos, kings of Thrace, lies in Athens’ ongoing interest in the area of Thrace and the struggle of Kersobleptes, the third of the three rival kings, to establish control after the death of his father Kotys in 360. The murder of Miltokythes (who had revolted from Kotys and appealed to the Athenians: see D67 T1, D71 above) appears to have led Berisades and Amadokos into making an alliance with the Athenians (TT 1, 2; the Athenian negotiator appears to have been the mercenary Athenodoros, the recipient of a statue at Keos: IKeos 2): this empowerment appears to have given Athenodoros, with the two kings, the opportunity to make war on Kersobleptes. It appears that Kersobleptes joined the alliance out of fear at a later point (T1). The reference to it as a summachia strongly suggests that it was enacted as a decree of the demos. The alliance of T1 does not seem to have endured: Demosthenes claimed that Charidemos, Kersobleptes’ mercenary commander, on perceiving the weakness of the Athenians, persuaded Kersobleptes to withdraw from the alliance, and proposed new, and less favourable, terms to the Athenian commander Chabrias (Dem. 23.171). Moreover, Demosthenes claimed that, after breaking off his alliance (23.177), Charidemos failed to return hostages he had taken, and claimed the right to levy a 10 per cent port tax and acted as though the whole of Thrace belonged to him. For subsequent developments, including the dispatch of ambassadors to Thrace, and the alliance with the kings, see DD 81, 83 below; relevant also is the decree of citizenship for Charidemos (D84) and the proposal of protection of his person, attacked by Euthykles in Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates (see D94).

d80 alliance with thracian kings

323

T1 While these things [sc. the murder of Miltokythes and his son] disturbed the whole population of Thrace, and both Berisades and Amadokos made a coalition, Athenodoros, seeing this opportunity, made an alliance with them and was able to wage war. While Kersobleptes was worried at this situation, Athenodoros proposed a convention, according to which he forced Kersobleptes to swear both to you and the other kings that the leadership of Thrace should be common, divided into three, and that they should all return your land to you. T2 Accordingly, the alliance with the [two] kings was completed after the cheating which arose through the convention with Kephisodotos.

These passages of Demosthenes 23 suggest that there was an Athenian alliance with all three kings: this is a close fit to the inscribed treaty between Athens and the three kings of 357 BC (RO 47). But there are clear differences: Demosthenes (T1) talks about the division of Thrace into three, and that Athenian territory is to be restored to them. The emphasis in the inscribed alliance, on the other hand, is on the three as joint rulers, and on the understanding that the Greek cities in Thrace were to pay a tribute to all three kings and a syntaxis to Athens. A clear alternative is, as Rhodes and Osborne suggest (RO p. 236), to connect the inscribed version with the final treaty negotiated by Chares in 357 (see D83 below): however, we know not enough of this arrangement to be certain about the identification.

Date 358/7.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 303. RO, p. 236.

D81 Decree concerning envoys to Kersobleptes Proposer: Glaukon (PA 3011; PAA 276730) Date: 358/7

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) mentions this decree, arranging for the dispatch of ambassadors to Thrace to swear oaths, in the course of his description of the mercenary commander Charidemos’ deceitful style of negotiation.

Text

T1  Dem. 23.172: Ἀκούσαντες δ’ ὑμεῖς ταῦτα, ἐν τῷ δήμῳ λόγων ῥηθέντων πολλῶν καὶ τῶν συνθηκῶν ἀναγνωσθεισῶν, οὔτε τὴν Χαβρίου δόξαν αἰσχυνθέντες οὔτε τῶν συναγορευόντων οὐδένα, ἀπεχειροτονήσατε καὶ ταύτας πάλιν τὰς συνθήκας, καὶ ψηφίζεσθε ψήφισμα Γλαύκωνος εἰπόντος ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις δέκα ἄνδρας ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, τούτους δέ, ἂν μὲν ἐμμένῃ ταῖς πρὸς Ἀθηνόδωρον συνθήκαις {Κερσοβλέπτης}, ὁρκίσαι πάλιν αὐτόν, εἰ δὲ μή, παρὰ μὲν τοῖν δυοῖν βασιλέοιν ἀπολαβεῖν τοὺς ὅρκους, πρὸς δ’ ἐκεῖνον ὅπως πολεμήσετε βουλεύεσθαι.

Commentary

Initially, Kersobleptes agreed to terms proposed by the mercenary Athenodoros (Dem. 23.170 = D80), which amounted to an alliance between the Athenians and the Thracian kings, but when his ally Charidemos saw that Chabrias had only one ship, he broke off the alliance and proposed new terms to Chabrias (23.171; cf. 176); Chabrias, in a state of weakness, appears to have been forced into the agreement (23.171): Charidemos seems to have been claiming the right to collect port-taxes (dekatai) and other taxes and refused to surrender hostages (Dem. 23.177). The reaction of the demos, when they heard the terms of the new convention, was the current decree, read out to the Athenians at 23.177, to elect ambassadors who would attempt to renew the oaths, or else organise war against him. But the ambassadors appear to have delayed their negotiations and gone later to Thrace (23.178); in the meantime the Athenians undertook a mission to 324

d81 decree concerning envoys to kersobleptes

325

T1 On hearing these things, many speeches were spoken at the assembly and the treaties were read aloud, and, not feeling shame for the reputation of Chabrias nor that of any of his fellow-speakers, you annulled these conventions again, and you voted a decree, with Glaukon proposing, to choose ten men as ambassadors from amongst yourselves. These men, if Kersobleptes were to adhere to his conventions with Athenodoros, were to swear the oath with him again; but if not, they were to receive oaths from the two kings, and to discuss in what ways they might make war against him.

Euboia (probably that of D82 below), and Charidemos drafted a new convention with Chares, this time supported by Athenodoros (Dem. 23.173), but it is unclear whether this was ratified by a decree of the assembly. We should note the power of the mercenary Athenodoros (on his affiliations, see Low, ‘State’, 45 and Harris, Demosthenes, 32 note 38) to make an alliance on behalf of Athens with Berisades and Amadokos (23.170), which appears to have been ratified by the demos; indeed, the phenomenon of the Athenian assembly ratifying agreements made by generals is known also in the epigraphical evidence: IG I3 119. However, the fact that Chabrias signed up to a convention with Charidemos subsequently revoked by the Athenians suggests that the demos would not automatically underwrite the provisions formed by diplomatic encounters undertaken outside Athens. Indeed, Kephisodotos was dismissed, fined and expelled from the generalship for making an agreement with Charidemos (Dem. 23.167); moreover, generals are known to have been put on trial (e.g. Thuc. 4.65.3, where generals were

326

inventory a1

tried for taking bribes in the making of a treaty; Hamel, Athenian Generals, 122–57). The proposer of the decree, Glaukon, is not attested as having undertaken any other political activity.

Date 358/7.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 303. Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Mnemosyne Supplement 122. Leiden, Boston and Cologne (1998). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Low, P.A., ‘State and warlord in classical Greece: from bipolarity to multipolarity’ in T. Ñaco del Hoyo and F. López Sánchez (eds.), War, Warlords, and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean. Leiden and Boston (2018) 36–53.

D82 Decree sending a force to Euboia Proposer: Kephisodotos ek Kerameon? (PA 8327; PAA 567790) Date: 358/7

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) cites the launching of this expedition as a good example of words spoken at the assembly being fulfilled in action on the field of battle; this, for Demosthenes, is the way in which the Athenians should behave, and forms a contrast to his criticism of the meaninglessness of Athenian decrees which are not backed up with force (e.g. Dem. 3.14–5 with Mader, ‘Fighting’). In his discussion of the four kinds of metaphor, Aristotle (T2) holds this passage as an example of that type kat’analogian (by proportion); as Trevett, ‘Aristotle’s knowledge’ suggests, he drew probably on oral traditions about political activity.

327

328

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Dem. 8.74–5: Ἴστε γὰρ δήπου τοῦθ’ ὅτι Τιμόθεός ποτε ἐκεῖνος ἐν ὑμῖν ἐδημηγόρησεν ὡς δεῖ βοηθεῖν καὶ τοὺς Εὐβοέας σῴζειν, ὅτε Θηβαῖοι κατεδουλοῦντ’ αὐτούς, καὶ λέγων εἶπεν οὕτω πως· ‘εἰπέ μοι, βουλεύεσθε,’ ἔφη, ‘Θηβαίους ἔχοντες ἐν νήσῳ, τί χρήσεσθε καὶ τί δεῖ ποιεῖν; οὐκ ἐμπλήσετε τὴν θάλατταν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τριήρων; οὐκ ἀναστάντες ἤδη πορεύσεσθε εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ; οὐ καθέλξετε τὰς ναῦς;’ οὐκοῦν εἶπε μὲν ταῦθ’ ὁ Τιμόθεος, ἐποιήσατε δ’ ὑμεῖς· ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἀμφοτέρων τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπράχθη. T2  Arist. Rh. 1411a6–10: Καὶ παρακαλῶν ποτὲ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους εἰς Εὔβοιαν ἐπισιτισαμένους ἔφη δεῖν ἐξιέναι τὸ Μιλτιάδου ψήφισμα.

Commentary

The cities of Euboia had joined the Second Athenian Confederacy early on in its history, but had gone over to Thebes after Leuktra (Brunt, ‘Euboea’, 247). In the early 350s, there was civil strife among the cities of Euboia: see D.S. 16.7.2; RO p. 240. The short expedition mentioned in these texts appears to have re-alligned the Euboian cities with the Athenians. The reason for thinking that these testimonia refer to a proposal of a decree by Kephisodotos is Aristotle’s metaphor, which may refer to a decree of Miltiades that was speedily carried out (Freese, Aristotle, 400 note a), or a decree which required those sent out to provide their own provisions. For discussion of the decree of Miltiades, probably written down only in the fourth century, which purported to order the sending out the Athenians to fight at Marathon; see MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 337–8; Hamel, Athenian Generals, 164–7, doubting that the mobilisation decree before Marathon was proposed by Miltiades; the decree is mentioned also at Dem. 19.303. The decree of Miltiades was one of a number of Persian War-era decrees patriotically revived in the fourth century as the Athenians faced up to the growth of Macedonian power over mainland Greece: see Volume 2, Chapter 5.4. Kephisodotos’ decree might be identified with an expedition mentioned at Aeschin. 3.85, which claims that the Athenians sent aid to their Euboian allies only five days after the Thebans had crossed over and brought the Thebans to terms within thirty: the speed at which Aeschines reported that the Athenians moved would seem to correspond to the haste urged in Aristotle’s report of Kephisodotos’ speech. Diodorus 16.7.2 describes the situation in Euboia as stasis, with one party summoning the Boiotians, the other calling upon the Athenians. This expedition may also be connected with Timotheos’ speech to

d82 decree sending a force to euboia

329

T1 You know, I suppose, that Timotheos once made a speech at the assembly saying that you ought to help and go to the rescue of the Euboians at the time when the Thebans were attempting to enslave them, and he said something along these lines: ‘Tell me, when you are holding the Thebans on an island, why are you deliberating about what you require and what to do? Won’t you fill the sea, men of Athens, with triremes? Won’t you get up and make your way to Piraeus? Won’t you launch your ships?’ Timotheos spoke these things, and you acted, but the thing was done by the combination of both. T2 And at another point he (Kephisodotos) told the Athenians that it was necessary to go out on expedition with the decree of Miltiades as sustenance.

the ekklesia in support of a campaign to Euboia (Dem. 8.74–5), and might also be that mentioned at Dem. 1.8, 4.17 (where they are said to have hurried out) and 21.174. The expedition appears to have been reinforced by a further mission perhaps during the next year: see DP 50 below. Moreover, the expedition appears to have formed the prelude to an alliance with Athens and Carystos (IG II2 124 = RO 48 of 357/6) and perhaps other Euboian cities. The proposer, Kephisodotos, is identified by Hansen as a proposer of three other decrees of the people: concerning the command of allied forces in 369/8 (Xen. Hell. 7.1.12–14), sending a protest to the Aetolian League (RO 35), and proposing honours for Straton of Sidon (IG II2 141 line 30). For his other political activity, including addressing the assembly, defending Leptines as a syndikos, and acting as ambassador to Sparta, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 51.

Date

358/7, if the decree is to be related to the strife in Euboia placed by Diodorus Siculus 16.7.2 in this year; according to Demosthenes, it took place after the decree of Glaukon (cf. Dem. 23.173; D81 above).

Bibliography

Brunt, P.A., ‘Euboea in the time of Philip II’, CQ 19 (1964) 245–65. Freese, J.H., Aristotle: The Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge, MA; London (1926) 400 note a. Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden (1998) 164–7. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 337.

330

inventory a1

Mader, G., ‘Fighting Philip with decrees: Demosthenes and the syndrome of symbolic action’, American Journal of Philology 2006 (127) 367–86. Trevett, J., ‘Aristotle’s knowledge of Athenian oratory’, CQ 46 (1996) 371–9.

D83 Alliance with Charidemos and Thracian kings Proposer: Unknown Date: 357/6

Literary Context

Euthykles, the speaker of Dem. 23 (T1), mentions this decree in the course of his description of the mercenary commander Charidemos’ deceitful style of negotiation.

Text

T1 Dem. 23.173: Καὶ Χάρης ἧκεν ἔχων τοὺς ξένους, καὶ στρατηγὸς ὑφ’ ὑμῶν αὐτοκράτωρ εἰς Χερρόνησον ἐξέπλει. οὕτω γράφει πάλιν συνθήκας πρὸς τὸν Χάρητα, παραγενομένου Ἀθηνοδώρου καὶ τῶν βασιλέων, ταύτας αἵπερ εἰσὶν ἄρισται καὶ δικαιόταται.

Commentary

This appears to have been the final συνθήκη (convention) of 357/6 between Charidemos and representatives of the Athenians. As it is described as a συνθήκη in this text, there is nothing to say that it was enacted as a decree of the Athenians (συνθήκη was a designation that could refer to an informal agreement); Rhodes and Osborne (RO p. 236), however, identify this passage with the inscribed alliance between Athens and the Thracian kings (RO 47). According to the terms of the treaty, both the Athenians and the Thracian kings agreed to guarantee that tributary states would pay appropriate sums to both parties, that these states would be free and independent, but that the kings would assist the Athenians if any state revolted from them. Identification of the inscription with the literary reference is plausible, given both the favourable (to

d83 alliance with charidemos and thracian kings

331

T1  Chares returned [sc. from Euboia] bringing with him his mercenaries, and was then was sent out by you to Chersonesos as general with full powers. And so Charidemos once more proposes a convention with Chares, supported by Athenodoros and the two kings: here it is, the best and most just of them.

the Athenians) terms of the inscription and the fact that Demosthenes (T1) calls it a set of ‘ἄρισται καὶ δικαιόταται’ agreements. Following this identification, the ‘two kings’ of T1 would be Berisades and Amadokos; Charidemos was the representative of the third king of RO 47, Kersobleptes. On the long career of Chares, spanning some fifty years, see Parker, ‘ΧΑΡΗΣ’; Salmond, ‘Sympathy’; on his relations with the Athenian polis, see Low, ‘State’, 48–50. Berisades died soon after the treaty of 357/6 (RO 47), and the Athenians, in 356/5, signed a treaty with his heirs, as well as the Paionian and Illyrian rulers, promising them aid against Philip: RO 53. We know from Diodorus that an Athenian alliance with Kersobleptes was still extant in 353, when he handed over cities on the Chersonese (except Kardia – whose inhabitants resisted the

332

inventory a1

Athenians) to the Athenians, and allowed the Athenians to settle cleruchies there (D.S. 16.34.3–4 = DP 52; IG II2 1613.297–8), and it was presumably still in place when the Athenians allowed Kersobleptes to fall outside the terms of the Peace of Philokrates (D130) in 346 (Aeschin. 3.74; cf. DD 131, 132).

Date

357/6, on the grounds of association with RO 47.

Bibliography

Low, P.A., ‘State and warlord in classical Greece: from bipolarity to multipolarity’ in T. Ñaco del Hoyo and F. López Sánchez (eds.), War, Warlords, and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean. Leiden and Boston (2018) 36–53. Parker, R.W., ‘ΧΑΡΗΣ ΑΓΓΕΛΗΘΕΝ: biography of a fourth-century Athenian strategos’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of British Colombia (1986). RO 47 with Commentary. Salmond, P.D., ‘Sympathy for the devil: Chares and Athenian politics’, G&R 43 (1996) 43–53.

D84 Citizenship and gold crown for Charidemos of Oreos Proposer: Unknown Date: 357/6 or late 360s

Literary Context

Euthykles (speaker of Demosthenes 23), as part of his attack on Aristokrates’ decree protecting Charidemos (see D94 below), alleged that Aristokrates made light of this award of citizenship by the further proposal that anyone who kills him would be treated as if they had killed an Athenian (T2); elsewhere, he alleges that the award was given ‘for the sake of Kersobleptes’ (‘διὰ Κερσοβλέπτην’: T3), suggesting that it was granted with the intention of improving relations with Kersobleptes, for whom Charidemos was general. Demosthenes maintains that Charidemos had resisted Athenian attempts to involve him in the wider nexus of obligations imposed by Athenian citizenship (Dem. 23.125–6 with Low, ‘State’ 42).

333

334

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.65: Ἡμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Χαρίδημον ἐποιησάμεθα πολίτην, καὶ διὰ τῆς δωρειᾶς ταύτης μετεδώκαμεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων καὶ νομίμων καὶ πάντων ὅσων περ αὐτοῖς μέτεστιν ἡμῖν. T2 Dem. 23.89: Μικρὰν δ’ ἀποφαίνει κἀκείνην τὴν δωρειὰν ᾗ τὴν πολιτείαν δεδώκατε τῷ Χαριδήμῳ. ὃς γάρ, ὡς ἀγαπώντων τοῦθ’ ὑμῶν καὶ προσοφειλόντων χάριν αὐτῷ, γέγραφεν καὶ πρὸς φυλάττειν ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖνον, ὅπως ἀδεῶς ὅ τι ἂν βούληται ποιῇ. T3 Dem. 23.141: Ὑμεῖς ἐποιήσασθε ἔν τισι καιροῖς καὶ χρόνοις Ἀριοβαρζάνην πολίτην καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Φιλίσκον, ὥσπερ νῦν διὰ Κερσοβλέπτην Χαρίδημον. T4  Dem. 23.145: Ἴσως δέ τισιν λογιζομένοις ὑμῶν ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν πολίτης γέγονεν ἅνθρωπος, εἶτα πάλιν χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις ὡς εὐεργέτης ἐστεφάνωται, θαυμάζειν ἐπελήλυθεν εἰ τὰ τηλικαῦθ’ οὕτως ἐξηπάτησθε ῥᾳδίως. T5  Dem. 23.187: Ἴσως τοίνυν ἐκεῖν’ ἄν τίς μ’ ἔροιτο, τί δήποτε ταῦτ’ εἰδὼς οὕτως ἀκριβῶς ἐγὼ καὶ παρηκολουθηκὼς ἐνίοις τῶν ἀδικημάτων εἴασα, καὶ οὔθ’ ὅτ’ αὐτὸν ποιεῖσθε πολίτην οὐδὲν ἀντεῖπον, οὔθ’ ὅτ’ ἐπῃνεῖτε, οὔθ’ ὅλως πρότερον, πρὶν τὸ ψήφισμα τουτὶ γενέσθαι.

Commentary

Charidemos of Oreos was a mercenary commander hired by Iphikrates in the early 360s and fought with Timotheos at Amphipolis in 364 (Dem. 23.148–9); later he was a mercenary commander for the Olynthians and King Kotys of Thrace (Dem. 23.150) and he went on to work for Kersobleptes, the son of Kotys. The Athenians found him a useful colleague in the struggles against Philip of Macedon (Blok, Citizenship, 50). For a summary of his career, see Pritchett, Greek State, 2.85–9 and Bianco, ‘Caridemo’. It was in his capacity as a mercenary for Kersobleptes that the Athenians honoured him: as Blok (Citizenship, 51) writes: ‘citizenship was given to Charidemos for pragmatic reasons: to encourage him to take Athenian interests more to heart than he probably otherwise would have done.’ The proposal, as it is attested by Demosthenes, praised Chairidemos (T5), made him a citizen and crowned him with golden crowns (T4). As Henry (Honours, 22) notes, the evidence for the demos awarding gold crowns is fitful until the middle of the fourth century, but the combination of gold crowns and

d84 citizenship and gold crown

335

T1 We, men of Athens, made Charidemos a citizen, and through that award we gave him a share both in our sacred and profane matters and our legal matters, and in all of those things in which we ourselves take part. T2 He [sc. Aristokrates] makes little account even of that award by which you gave citizenship to Charidemos. For claiming that you are fond of him and owe him gratitude, he proposed also that you should protect him, so that he might do what he likes without censure. T3  At one point, in particular circumstances, you gave your citizenship to Ariobarzanes, and also, on his account, to Philiskos, just as you have recently given it to Charidemos because of Kersobleptes. T4 Perhaps it amazes some of you, considering that this man has first become a citizen, then, furthermore, has been crowned with gold crowns as a benefactor, that you have been tricked so easily in such respects. T5 Now perhaps someone might ask me why I – who knew such things exactly and had followed closely some of his crimes but ignored them – did not speak up when you made him a citizen or when you praised him and had nothing to say at all at previous times, before this decree was passed.

the award of citizenship is known: e.g. IG II2 103 for Dionysius of Syracuse and sons of 369/8; IG II2 207 for Orontes of Mysia, c. 361. Demosthenes emphasises that citizenship meant that he was granted a share in Athenian civil and religious observances, in legal rights, and in all the things in which the Athenians participate (T1; for discussion, see below). As Kelly (‘Charidemos’s’) observed, one could reasonably assume that Charidemos must have performed an important role for the Athenians in order to be granted these rewards: Demosthenes, of course, wished to downplay the background to the award, instead presenting the award to Charidemos as the veiled return of favours to king Kersobleptes of Thrace. The award may have been made in relation to his role in negotiating an alliance between the Athenians and the kings of Thrace in 357 (see RO 47). The inventories confirm that three crowns were dedicated in the name of Charidemos (IG II2 1496 lines 22–51 (+ IG II2 41 + Hesperia 1940 (9) 328–30 no. 37)), but given his length of service to Athens, they may have been awarded at a

336

inventory a1

later point. For his later reward of crowns, see D229 below, with Canevaro, The Documents, 279–80. There are other pieces of evidence which also attest to the honorary citizenship of Charidemos: Athenaios 436b alludes to it, and, in the epigraphical record, IG II2 207 line 21 records him as a general (cf. FGrH 328 F50) for 349/8 and his name can be restored alongside Potidaian envoys (IG II2 118 line 7). He probably should not, however, be connected with Chairedemos, the proposer of a decree concerning the collection of naval equipment (Dem. 47.20 = D85). For Charidemos, see Osborne T51 commentary and Davies APF pp. 570–2 no. 15380; he was known to have served as a general in 351/0 (Dem. 3.5 with Pritchett, Greek State 2.87), 349/8 (IG II2 207 line 21, FGrH 328 F50) and probably also in 338/7 (Canevaro, The Documents, 280–1). We should note that whereas Demosthenes talks about giving the grant of politeia (citizenship) to Charidemos (TT 1–5), in the epigraphical record decrees use the phrase ‘δεδόσθαι αὐτῶι πολιτείαν’ only after 229; until that point, the inscriptions make the provision for the honorand ‘to be an Athenian’ (‘εἶναι αὐτὸν Ἀθηναῖον’: Osborne, Naturalization, 4.155). Henry suggests that the latter formulae indicated that the grant was to be ‘considered a practical privilege …. the Athenians were not simply bestowing the honour of politeia but taking practical steps for the full incorporation of the recipient into the citizen body. In the later period, by contrast, citizenship was awarded just like any other honour or privilege’ (Henry, Honours, 63). In this case, it might be that Demosthenes is trying to downplay the practical implications of the award. Moreoever, Demosthenes’ claim at T1 that ‘διὰ τῆς δωρειᾶς ταύτης μετεδώκαμεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἱερῶν καὶ ὁσίων καὶ νομίμων καὶ πάντων ὅσων περ αὐτοῖς μέτεστιν ἡμῖν’ is a claim about the implications of the grant giving him the chance to participate in the sacred rites of the Athenians, rather than a quotation of the actual text of the grant: it is unparalleled in Athenian epigraphy of the period (Canevaro, The Documents, 204–5). Canevaro (‘The decree’, 356) considers the possibility that it was a source used by a later forger of decree for the Plataeans at [Dem.] 59.104: see D49 Commentary above. For discussions of the implications of sharing in hiera kai hosia, see Blok, Citizenship, 53. In T5, Euthykles defends himself against the allegation that he had failed to attack this decree by graphe paranomon; it seems, then, that no one brought an indictment of this decree to the courts. For the later proposal to make the killers of Charidemos liable to prosecution, see D94 below.

Date

One possible date is 357/6, given Demosthenes’ association of the award with Kersobleptes (T3), which may be taken to refer to Athens’ treaty with the three

d85 decree concerning naval equipment

337

kings (RO 47) and an agreement between Chares and Kersobleptes in that year (see APF, p. 571; this is the view of Kelly, ‘Charidemos’s’). Osborne, T51 Commentary suggested that his appearance as a general in IG II2 207, which he dated to the late 360s, point to an earlier award. However, IG II2 207 is now generally dated later (see Kelly, ‘Charidemos’s’; SEG XLI 43; XL 71; XXXIX 83; XXXVIII 61; Lambert , Inscribed, 112), and a date for D84 in the 360s can be ruled out.

Bibliography

Bianco, E., ‘Caridemo: storia di un freelance’, Erga-Logoi 2 (2014) 7–29. Blok, J., Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2017) 50–3. Canevaro, M., ‘The decree awarding citizenship to the Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104)’, GRBS 50 (2010) 337–69 at 356. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013). Davies, APF, pp. 570–2 no. 15380. Kelly, D., ‘Charidemos’s citizenship: the problem of IG ii2 207’, ZPE 83 (1990) 96–109 Low, P.A., ‘State and warlord in classical Greece: from bipolarity to multipolarity’ in T. Ñaco del Hoyo and F. López Sánchez (eds.), War, Warlords, and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean. Leiden and Boston (2018) 36–53. Osborne, M.J. Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T51. Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006) 96–103, 165–7. Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, 5 vols. Berkeley (1974–91).

D85 Decree concerning collection of naval equipment Proposer: Chairedemos (PA 15112 + 15113; PAA 971980) Date: 357/6

Literary Context

As part of his justification of the plaintiff ’s efforts to exact state property from Theophemos, the unknown speaker claims that Chairedemos proposed a decree ‘in order that the equipment for the ships might be recovered and kept

338

inventory a1

safe for the city’ (T2): the speaker, then, represents himself as, as successor trierarch and epimeletes of his naval symmory (47.22), acting in accordance with the decrees and laws.

Texts

T1  Dem. 47.19–20: Ψηφισμάτων  δὲ ὑμετέρων δήμου καὶ βουλῆς καὶ νόμου ἐπιτάξαντος, εἰσέπραξα τοῦτον ὀφείλοντα τῇ πόλει σκεύη τριηρικά. δι’ ὅτι δέ, ἐγὼ ὑμῖν διηγήσομαι. ἔτυχεν ἔκπλους ὢν τριήρων καὶ βοήθεια ἀποστελλομένη διὰ τάχους. σκεύη οὖν ἐν τῷ νεωρίῳ οὐχ ὑπῆρχεν ταῖς ναυσίν, ἀλλ’ ἔχοντες οἱ ὀφείλοντες οὐκ ἀπεδίδοσαν· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις οὐδ’ ἐν τῷ Πειραιεῖ ὄντα ἄφθονα ὀθόνια καὶ στυππεῖον καὶ σχοινία, οἷς κατασκευάζεται τριήρης, ὥστε πρίασθαι. γράφει οὖν Χαιρέδημος τὸ ψήφισμα τουτί, ἵνα εἰσπραχθῇ τὰ σκεύη ταῖς ναυσὶ καὶ σᾶ γένηται τῇ πόλει. καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισμα. T2 Dem. 47.44: Καίτοι τό γε ψήφισμα δημοσίαν τὴν οὐσίαν ἐκέλευσεν εἶναι, οὐ μόνον ὃς ἂν ἔχων σκεύη μὴ ἀποδιδῷ τῇ πόλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃς ἂν ἰδίᾳ κτησάμενος μὴ πωλῇ· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἡ ἀπορία οὖσα συνέβαινεν τότε ἐν τῇ πόλει σκευῶν. καί μοι ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισμα. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.

Commentary

It is probably right to identify these two testimonia as referring to the same decree, which aimed not only at recovering the state’s equipment from those who had it in their possession (T1), but also forcing those who owned it but refused to sell it to hand it over (T2). As Edward Harris points out (pers. comm.), given that the speaker at Dem. 47.19 (T1) mentions decrees of the assembly, decrees of the council, and law, it is hard to be certain whether the decree of Chairedemos was one of the council or assembly (he notes that the council could be given the power to oversee the departure of the fleet (IG II3 1 370 lines 78–82). The decree at TT 1 and 2 is one of three provisions of 357/6 concerned with the naval equipment and its recovery (see also DD 85, 86 below); they may be viewed as supplementary measures to the law of Periander of 358/7, which created a symmory system for the performance of trierarchic duties: twenty symmories, each with an overseer (epimeletes) consisted of sixty members each (Dem. 14.16–17), and compelled successor trierarchs and the epimeletai to exact naval debts: see Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 155 note 8 and 157. The responsibility for recovering naval equipment from trierarchs who had completed their service appears traditionally to have fallen, in the first place, on the shoulders of their successors: Hunter, ‘Policing’, 30–1. Gabrielsen suggests that the legislation

d85 decree concerning naval equipment

339

T1 Submitting to orders of decrees of your assembly and council and obedient to law, I exacted from him the naval equipment which he owed the city. I shall tell you why. For it happened that some triremes were at the point of sailing and a military force was being sent out in haste. But there was no equipment for the ships in the ship sheds, but those who owed it were holding on to it and did not hand it over; additionally, there was available for purchase at Piraeus neither a sufficient supply of sail-cloth, flax, or rope, with which the triremes are equipped. And so Chairedemos proposes this decree, so that the naval equipment might be recovered and be secure for the city. Read the decree for me. T2  And yet the decree commanded that the property be made public, not only of those who held equipment and refused to give it back to the city, but also that of anyone who possessed such property but refused to sell it. Such was the lack of equipment that had developed in the city at that time. And read the decree for me. DECREE.

of 358/7 (the law of Periander) and 357/6 aimed to tighten ‘the responsibilities of debt collectors’ (consisting both of the succeeding trierarch and the epimeletes of his symmory) rather than ‘placing legal constraints on debtors’ (Gabrielsen, Financing, 160–1). Gabrielsen associates the decree with ‘a serious shortage of equipment in the dockyards in 357/6 and … the failure on the part of those withholding it to clear their debts’ (Gabrielsen, Financing, 154). But shortage of naval resources was not a new thing: there appear to have been shortages of public equipment in 362 when Apollodoros and his colleague Hagnias independently provided supplies of equipment ([Dem.] 50.7, 42). In 357/6, as Gabrielsen suggests, the scarcity may have been caused not by the lack of funds but the unavailability of raw materials (Dem. 47.20 with Gabrielsen, Financing, 141, 146–9). The hasty dispatch may well have been necessitated by revolt of the allies in the Social War (Scafuro, Demosthenes, 305 note 34); Scafuro suggests that the decree might have been concerned with the recovery of equipment for expeditions that required dispatch διὰ τάχους (Scafuro, Demosthenes, 305 note 35). As Theophemos appears to have refused to hand over trierarchic material, a decree of the Athenian council empowered them to recover equipment in any way at all (Dem. 47.28–33); regardless, Theophemos refused to hand over the

340

inventory a1

materials and in 357/6 he was brought to the council by eisangelia: see Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 144 Chairedemos should not be confused with the naturalized citizen Charidemos (see D84 above): he is not known to have undertaken any other political activity. In a speech, dated to 354/3 by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes made suggestions about naval organisation and urged the Athenians to vote on them (Dem. 14.14: ‘οἴομαι δὴ δεῖν ἀκούσαντας ὑμᾶς αὐτήν, ἂν ὑμῖν ἀρέσκῃ, ψηφίσασθαι’). These suggestions included raising the number of Athenians responsible for financing the fleet to 2,000, creating twenty symmories each consisting of sixty men who would be responsible for the provision of crews for 300 triremes (Dem. 14.14–22). While Demosthenes urges the audience to vote on the matter, the language of the proposals is not definitively that of a decree and, as Hansen points out, ‘Two notes’, 294–5 note 3, the nature of its content is that of a law not a decree.

Date

357/6 (Dem. 47.44, referring to archonship of Agathokles).

Bibliography

Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994). Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) no. 144. Hansen, M.H., ‘Two notes on Demosthenes’ symbouleutic speeches’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 283–97. Hunter, V., ‘Policing public debtors in Athens’, Phoenix 54 (2000) 21–38. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1971). Scafuro, A., Demosthenes, Speeches 39–49. Austin (2011).

D86 Decree on the recovery of state debts Proposer: Unknown Date: 357/6

Literary Context

As part of his justification of demanding naval equipment from Theophemos in accordance with the decrees and laws of the city, the plantiff describes a decree concerning the collection of naval equipment (see D85 above), the law of Periander and the current decree.

341

342

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 47.21: Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἕτερον ψήφισμα δήμου ἠνάγκαζε τὸ πρὸς μέρος ἡμῖν διδόναι τῶν ὀφειλόντων ἕκαστον εἰσπράξασθαι.

Commentary

As part of his account of the plaintiff ’s efforts to extract state property from Theophemos, the author of this speech (who may be Apollodoros: see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 141) claims that a decree of the people forced the symmories to assign to the incoming trierarchs the role of recovering debts from outgoing trierarchs. The measure appears to have been part of a broader attempt by Athenians to address the financial situation by exacting debts (cf. DD 85, 88); it may to have been a supplement to the law of Periander, which established a system of symmories in order to spread the burden of trierarchic costs (Gabrielsen, Financing, 159-61 with Dem. 47.21; see D85 above). It is unclear whether the decree referred to in this passage was an ad hoc arrangement for the exaction of Theophemos’ debts, or whether it was part of the general tightening referred to by Gabrielsen. Gabrielsen (Financing, 166) takes the view that the leniency towards naval debtors suggests that Periander’s law (Dem. 47.21), and its subsequent procedures, failed to have the desired impact. Our speaker, on the other hand, does not find fault with the system, but rather his opponent. He claims that debtors’ names appeared on the inscribed stelai, and that the magistrates handed over the names of the debtors to him for the purpose of reclaiming the debt (47.21). For the inscription of their names on the extant stelai of the accounts of the naval epimeletai, see IG II2 1612 lines 313–16: ‘Δημοχάρην Παιαν[ιᾶ], Θεόφημον Εὐωνυμέα, [ἃ] ἐπὶ τὴν Εὐφυᾶ ὤφειλ[ον, ὑ]ποζώματα, ἱστίον, ἀγκύρα[ς]’. For what may well be a supplementary decree enforcing the decree of the people, see BD 2 below. The speaker asked the secretary to read the decree (Dem. 47.24).

Date

357/6 (Dem. 47.44).

Bibliography

Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994). Hunter, V., ‘Policing public debtors in Athens’, Phoenix 54 (2000) 21–38. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 136–41.

d87 alliance with the phokians

343

T1 And additionally another decree of the people forced them to assign to us the debtors so that we might exact from each man the proportionate sum.

D87 Alliance with the Phokians

Proposer: Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus (PA 6351; PAA 481555; APF) Date: 356/5 or 355/4

Literary Context

Demosthenes in 343 asked the secretary in the lawcourt to read the alliance aloud in order to demonstrate the depth of Athenian betrayal of the Phokians in the Peace of Philokrates; he claimed that the relations were characterised by φιλία, συμμαχία, and pledges of βοήθεια (T1). Aeschines (T3) talks about exchanges which took place at a convention of the Delphian Amphictyony in 340/39: the Amphissans, allies of Thebes, had used this meeting to attack Athens, reminding the Amphictyons of ‘Topknot’s’ (sc. Hegesippos’) alliance with the Phokians, who themselves were being accused of impiety. Diodorus mentions the alliance, placing it in 355/4 as a result of Philomelos’ appeal to Greek states (T4).

344

inventory a1

Texts

T1  Dem. 19.61–2: Φέρε δή μοι καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν τὴν τῶν Φωκέων καὶ τὰ δόγματα ὑφ’ ὧν καθεῖλον αὐτῶν τὰ τείχη, ἵν’ εἰδῆθ’ οἵων ὑπαρχόντων αὐτοῖς παρ’ ὑμῶν οἵων ἔτυχον διὰ τούτους τοὺς θεοῖς ἐχθρούς. λέγε. ΣΥΜΜΑΧΙΑ ΦΩΚΕΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ. Ἃ μὲν τοίνυν ὑπῆρχε παρ’ ὑμῶν αὐτοῖς, ταῦτ’ ἐστί, φιλία, συμμαχία, βοήθεια· ὧν δ’ ἔτυχον διὰ τοῦτον τὸν βοηθῆσαι κωλύσαντα ὑμᾶς, ἀκούσατε. T2  Dem. 19.72: Εἰς τοίνυν τοῦτ’ ἀναιδείας καὶ τόλμης αὐτὸν ἥξειν ἀκούω, ὥστε πάντων τῶν πεπραγμένων ἐκστάντα, ὧν ἀπήγγειλεν, ὧν ὑπέσχετο, ὧν πεφενάκικε τὴν πόλιν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἄλλοις τισὶ κρινόμενον καὶ οὐκ ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς ἅπαντα εἰδόσιν, πρῶτον μὲν Λακεδαιμονίων, εἶτα Φωκέων, εἶτα Ἡγησίππου κατηγορήσειν. ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα γέλως, μᾶλλον δ’ ἀναισχυντία δεινή. T3 Aeschin. 3.118: Ἅμα δὲ ἐμέμνητο τῆς τῶν Φωκέων συμμαχίας ἣν ὁ Κρωβύλος ἐκεῖνος ἔγραψε, καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ καὶ δυσχερῆ κατὰ τῆς πόλεως διεξῄει, ἃ ἐγὼ οὔτε τότ’ ἐκαρτέρουν ἀκούων, οὔτε νῦν ἡδέως μέμνημαι αὐτῶν. T4 D.S. 16.27.5: Ἠξίου δέ, ἄν τις δι’ ἔχθραν ἢ φθόνον πολεμῇ Φωκεῦσι, μάλιστα μὲν συμμαχεῖν, εἰ δὲ μή γε, τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν. τῶν δὲ πρέσβεων τὸ προσταχθὲν πραξάντων Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καί τινες ἄλλοι συμμαχίαν πρὸς αὐτὸν συνέθεντο καὶ βοηθήσειν ἐπηγγείλαντο, Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Λοκροὶ καί τινες ἕτεροι τἀναντία τούτοις ἐψηφίσαντο καὶ τὸν πόλεμον ὑπὲρ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Φωκεῖς ἐπανείλαντο. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐπράχθη κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν ἐνιαυτόν. T5 Scholion on Aeschin. 3.118 (Dilts 256): Ὁ Κρωβύλος· Ἡγήσιππον λέγει· οὗτος γὰρ ἐπεκαλεῖτο Κρωβύλος. τοῦτο δέ φησιν ὡς γραψάντος αὐτοῦ Ἀθηναίους συμμαχεῖν Φωκεῦσιν οὖσι τότε διαφόροις Θηβαίοις καί τισιν Ἀμφικτυόνων.

Commentary

Athenian involvement with the politics of Phokis and Delphi was known before the fifth-century Sacred War (Thuc. 1.107, 112; SVA 142 = IG I3 9), with the Athenians finding the Phokians useful representatives of their interests. Athenian intervention in the politics of Delphi continued in the fourth century: in 363/2, the Athenians offered sanctuary to Astykrates and his colleagues, who had been exiled from Delphi (IG II2 109). The Amphictyonic Council’s decision in autumn 357 to fine the Phokians for the cultivation of sacred land and the ensuing Phokian default on their fine led

d87 alliance with the phokians

345

T1 Bring, then, for me, the alliance with the Phokians and the decisions (dogmata) according to which they pulled down their walls, so that you might see what sort of things they expected from us and what hostility they experienced through these godless men. Read it! ALLIANCE OF THE PHOKIANS AND THE ATHENIANS. So these are the things which the Phokians sought from you: friendship, alliance, aid. Now listen to those things which they received because this man stopped you from helping them. T2 I hear that he [sc. Aeschines] is going to be so bold and brazen that he will deny responsibility for everything that he did, for the reports he gave, the pledges he made, for misleading the city, just as if the trial were taking place before some other jury rather than you who know everything. He will blame first the Lakedaimonians, then the Phokians, and then Hegesippos. This is ridiculous, or even completely shameless. T3  And at the same time he [the Amphissan] recalled the alliance which that ‘Topknot’ [sc. Hegesippos] proposed with the Phokians; he offered many offensive charges against our city, which I could not stand listening to then, and which it does not please me to recall now. T4  He [sc. Philomelos] asked that, if anyone were to engage in hostility through enmity or jealousy with the Phokians, then these cities [sc. Athens, Lakedaimon, Thebes, and the other important cities of Greece: D.S. 16.27.5] should make an alliance with him, or if not, remain at peace. When his ambassadors had completed this mission, the Athenians, Lakedaimonians and certain others made an alliance with him and promised to help. However, the Boiotians, the Lokrians and certain others voted to go against them and renewed the war against the Phokians on behalf of the god. T5 ‘Topknot’: he means Hegesippos, for he was named ‘Topknot’; he [Aeschines] says this because that man [Hegesippos] had proposed that the Athenians make an alliance with the Phokians, being at odds with the Thebans and certain Amphiktyons.

Philomelos, a prominent Phokian, to embark on a foreign policy which culminated in his march on, and occupation of, the shrine of Apollo at Delphi, in late spring/early summer 356 (Buckler, Philip II, 20–4). Accordingly, Philomelos sent embassies to Greek states informing them that he had seized Delphi to claim the guardianship of the sanctuary (D.S. 16.27.3). He appealed to the other Greek states for aid if anyone through enmity or envy waged war against him (16.27.4), and the Amphictyons declared war against the Phokians (Buckler, Philip II, 28). Long-standing Athenian tension with the Thebans probably contributed to their positive response (T5; Buckler, Philip II, 27).

346

inventory a1

The terms φιλία, συμμαχία, βοήθεια may well be those used in the alliance (T2); nevertheless, the extent to which the alliance obliged the Athenians to assist the Phokians who seized Delphi is unclear; Diodorus claims that the Athenians did indeed fight on the side of the Phokians (D.S. 16.29.1) and reports that they sent 5,000 foot-soldiers to them in 352/1 (D.S. 16.36.3). Pausanias (3.10.3) says that the Athenians fought for the Phokians owing to the memory of old services, but does not mention alliance. McInerney (The Folds, 210), however, suggests that in fact the Athenians sent little aid to the Phokians in this war. Some years later, the alliance, however, set them at odds with members of the Delphian Amphictyony in the disputes that led to the outbreak of the fourth Sacred War in 339 (Aeschines 3.118; Sealey, Demosthenes, 190–3; Londey, ‘The outbreak’). Moreover, Philip’s destruction of the cities of the Phokians in the aftermath of the Peace of Philokrates stirred up political rivalries in Athens (McInerney, The Folds, 218–26) as it revealed that Athenian conduct had meant that they had effectively abandoned their Phokian allies: this was one of the claims made by Demosthenes (19.47–9, 61–2) against his rivals’ conduct in the formulation of the Peace of Philokrates. Hegesippos is associated with the proposal of five other decrees: a decree concerning Eretria (IG II2 155), honours for some Akarnanians (IG II3 1 316), a reply to Python (Dem. 7.23–6), a reply to Philip’s letter (Dem. 7.46) and a decree relating to Philip (Dem. 18.75): see Volume 2, Appendix 1. For his other political activity, including activity as ambassador, synegoros, and prosecutor in trials concerning eisangelia and graphe paranomon, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 47. Hegesippos had a reputation for being emphatically anti-Macedonian (MacDowell, Demosthenes, 239). But the policy of the alliance essentially consisted of hostility towards Thebes, which contradicted the policy of others who supported a pro-Theban policy (Buckler, Philip II, 29). Another view is that of Davies (‘Hegesippos’, 15), who suggests that Hegesippos’ foremost political concern was to re-create Athenian power, and that the alliance with Phokis constituted a ‘renewal of the military-diplomatic configuration of the mid-fifth centry which was aimed at boxing-in Boiotia’; this view is not completely incompatible with Diodorus’ description of the alliance as a result of a Phokian appeal rather than Athenian ambition. Athenian interest in those states of central Greece, and in securing good relations with potential allies to the Thebans is reflected also in a treaty with the Lokrians of c. 355 BC (IG II2 144). As Davies (‘Hegesippos’, 20) notes, some sources hint that Hegesippos’ motives were corrupt: the Scholion on Aeschin 1.71 (Dilts 161) suggests that he was parodied for having made a mistake with respect to the Phokians (‘ἐκωμῳδήθη ὡς αἰσχρὸς ... περὶ τὰ Φωκικὰ ἡμαρτηκώς’).

d88 decree arranging the recovery of eisphora

347

Date

355/4 (D.S.; Sealey, Demosthenes, 108, suggesting autumn or winter 355/4) or 356/5 (Buckler, Philip II, 27, suggesting before autumn 356).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA, 310. Buckler, J., Philip II and the Sacred War: Mnemosyne Supplement. Leiden. New York, Copenhagen and Cologne (1989). Davies, J.K., ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: an underrated politician’ in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S.D. Lambert. Swansea (2011) 11–24. Londey, P., ‘The outbreak of the 4th sacred war’, Chiron 20 (1990) 239–60. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). McInerney, J., The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancietn Phokis. Austin (1999). Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. New York and Oxford (1993) 108.

D88 Decree arranging the recovery of arrears of eisphora Proposer: Androtion Andronos Gargettios (PA 913 + 915; PAA 129125; APF) Date: 356/5

Literary Context

In the context of his offensive on Androtion, Diodorus, the speaker of Dem. 22, attacks Androtion’s collection of arrears of eisphora (about which Androtion is said to have boasted: Dem. 22.42; 24.160). Diodorus alleges that Androtion abolished an office (T1), dominated its collection (T1), and acted in a corrupt way (T1). Similar arguments were drawn up in the case Against Timokrates (T3), where Timokrates too was implicated in the illegal collection of arrears, and maintains that their activities were comparable to the atrocities of the Thirty (Dem. 24.163).

348

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 22.48–50: Οὗτος Εὐκτήμονα φήσας τὰς ὑμετέρας ἔχειν εἰσφορὰς καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐξελέγξειν ἢ παρ’ αὑτοῦ καταθήσειν, καταλύσας ψηφίσματι κληρωτὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, ἐπὶ τὴν εἴσπραξιν παρέδυ. δημηγορίαν δ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις ποιούμενος, ὡς ἔστι τριῶν αἵρεσις, ἢ τὰ πομπεῖα κατακόπτειν ἢ πάλιν εἰσφέρειν ἢ τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν, αἱρουμένων εἰκότως ὑμῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν, ταῖς ὑποσχέσεσιν κατέχων καὶ διὰ τὸν καιρὸν ὃς ἦν τότε ἔχων ἐξουσίαν, τοῖς μὲν κειμένοις νόμοις περὶ τούτων οὐκ ᾤετο δεῖν χρῆσθαι, οὐδ’, εἰ μὴ τούτους ἐνόμιζεν ἱκανούς, ἑτέρους τιθέναι, ψηφίσματα δ’ εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν δεινὰ καὶ παράνομα, δι’ ὧν ἠργολάβει καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων κέκλοφεν, τοὺς ἕνδεκα γράψας ἀκολουθεῖν μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ. εἶτ’ ἔχων τούτους ἦγεν ἐπὶ τὰς ὑμετέρας οἰκίας.

T2 Dem. 22.70: Τὰ μὲν οὖν πολλὰ ὧν λέγων ὑμᾶς ἐφενάκιζεν παραλείψω· … κᾆτ’ ἐπὶ μὲν ταῖς εἰσφοραῖς τὸν δημόσιον παρεῖναι προσέγραψεν ὡς δὴ δίκαιος ὤν, ὧν ἕκαστος ἀντιγραφεὺς ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι τῶν εἰσενεγκόντων· ἐπὶ τοῖς στεφάνοις δὲ οὓς κατέκοπτεν οὐχὶ προσήγαγεν ταὐτὸ δίκαιον τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ αὑτὸς ῥήτωρ, χρυσοχόος, ταμίας, ἀντιγραφεὺς γέγονεν. T3 Dem. 24.160–2: Καταλύσας ψηφίσματι κληρωτὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπὶ τῇ προφάσει ταύτῃ, ἐπὶ τὴν εἴσπραξιν παρέδυ, καὶ τοῦτον προὐβάλετο, εἰπὼν τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀρρωστίαν, ἵν’, ἔφη, συνδιοικῇ μοι. δημηγορίαν δ’ ἐπὶ τούτοις ποιούμενος, ὡς ἔστι τριῶν αἵρεσις, ἢ τὰ πομπεῖα κατακόπτειν ἢ πάλιν εἰσφέρειν ἢ τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν, αἱρουμένων εἰκότως ὑμῶν τοὺς ὀφείλοντας εἰσπράττειν, ταῖς ὑποσχέσεσιν κατέχων καὶ διὰ τὸν καιρὸν ὃς ἦν τότ’ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν, τοῖς μὲν κειμένοις νόμοις περὶ τούτων οὐκ ᾤετο δεῖν χρῆσθαι, οὐδ’, εἰ μὴ τούτους ἐνόμιζεν ἱκανούς, ἑτέρους τιθέναι, ψηφίσματα δ’ εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν δεινὰ καὶ παράνομα, δι’ ὧν ἠργολάβει, προσαγωγεῖ τούτῳ χρώμενος τῶν λημμάτων. καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων κέκλοφεν μετὰ τούτου, γράψας τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς ἀποδέκτας καὶ τοὺς ὑπηρέτας ἀκολουθεῖν μεθ’ αὑτοῦ. εἶτ’ ἔχων τούτους ἦγεν ἐπὶ τὰς ὑμετέρας οἰκίας, καὶ σύ, ὦ Τιμόκρατες, συνηκολούθεις μόνος τῶν συναρχόντων δέκα ὄντων.

d88 decree arranging the recovery of eisphora

349

T1 This man (Androtion) said that Euktemon was withholding your tax revenues and that he would prove it or pay the money out of his own pocket. On this pretext he dismissed by decree an officer appointed by lot and wormed his way into the job of collecting taxes. He made speeches in the assembly on the topic, claiming that there was a choice of three options: melt down the sacred vessels into coins, or levy another property tax, or collect money from those who owe it. When you reasonably chose to collect from those who owed it, once he had you bound to these promises, he took advantage of the situation at the time to gain power for himself. He did not think he was bound to follow the laws established for these activities, nor set up new ones if he considered these inadequate, but right in front of you proposed terrible illegal decrees, adding a clause instructing the Eleven to follow him around, which allowed him to make a profit and to steal much of your money. Then he took them along with him and led them into the houses of you citizens. (trans. Harris, Demosthenes adapted) T2 I will not mention the many things that he said to deceive you ... Then for the property tax he added a clause that the public slave be present, as if indeed he were an honest citizen – even though everyone who paid the tax was about to act as an auditor of his accounts. But for the crowns that he melted down, he did not add this same honest provision, but he acted as politician, goldsmith, treasurer, and auditor. (trans. Harris, Demosthenes) T3 On that pretext, he dismissed, by decree, a magistrate appointed by lottery, and forced his way into tax-collecting, and he brought in also him (Timokrates), making claims about his own physical illness, ‘so that’, he said, ‘he can help me’. He made a public speech on that occasion, saying that there were three choices, either to cut up the pompeia, or to pay an eisphora-tax again, or to recover money from debtors. Naturally you chose to exact money from the debtors, and as owing to his undertakings he had the choice at that time, he did not think it appropriate to make use of established laws about things, nor, if he thought them unsatisfactory, did he propose other laws, but rather he proposed at your assembly some terrible and illegal decrees, through which he went about making a profit, and with the assistance of this man he appropriated the things he received. And he has stolen many things from you with the help of this man, for he decreed that the Eleven and the receivers (apodektai) and their assistants should follow his orders. Then having these with him, he forced his way into your homes, and you, Timokrates, were only one of his assistants, one of the ten who held office with him.

350

Commentary

inventory a1

This was one of the ‘terrible illegal’ decrees (T1) proposed by Androtion, in which he is alleged to have taken pride (Dem. 22.42; 24.160). Diodorus, the speaker of Demosthenes 22, alleges that Androtion offered the people three options for raising money: to break up the processional objects (for his work on the pompeia, see D57 above), to introduce a further eisphora collection (Thomsen, Eisphora, 230, suggests that this indicates that the Athenians had already levied an eisphora during the first year of the Social War), or to extract money from defaulters: the people chose the last option (T1). Perhaps by this decree or a related vote in the assembly, he had Euktemon, the magistrate appointed by lot for collecting monies (who was the prosecutor of Androtion in the current case), expelled from office on a charge of corruption, and replaced him with a board of Eleven, including himself and Timokrates (TT 1, 3; pace Develin AO, 280). Diodorus’ claim (T3) was that the decree was illegal on the grounds that Androtion should have proposed a law about collecting arrears of taxes rather than a decree. However, as Harris, Demosthenes, 187 note 74 suggests, on the basis of Aeschin. 3.13, it may have been legal to make ad hoc appointments by way of decree. The magistrates involved (the Eleven and the apodektai) were obliged to follow his instructions (T3). Diodorus tells us that he added a clause that the public slave should be present at the collection of taxes (T2), perhaps for the purpose of coercive conduct. The collectors acted brutally, forcing their way into the homes of citizens and stealing money (TT 1, 3). Thomsen (Eisphora, 224) argues that the commission would have recovered monies from citizens alone: ‘it would, indeed, have been out of character for the Athenians to have made it possible for the metics to fall behind with their payment of eisphora’. The Athenians experienced difficulties in the fourth century in the collection of eisphora (see Christ, The Bad, 165–6), and they introduced proeispherontes, at some point between 378/7 and 373/2, to assist them in this (Rhodes, ‘Athenian democracy’, 311; Wallace, ‘The Athenian proeispherontes’; D68); for the importance of tax farmers for the collections of debt in Athens, see Hunter, ‘Policing’, 21 note 1, but for the role of the boule, the poletai and apodektai, see Hunter, ‘Policing’, 26–30. The Receivers usually collected public revenues (Ath. Pol. 48.1 with Rhodes, Commentary, 557–9), and on this occasion they were helped by the Eleven, who functioned usually as a demos-controlled set of stewards (Ath. Pol. 52.1). Androtion’s activities appear to have had some success: according to his accuser, he collected 7 out of 14 Talents of the arrears that had built up since 378/7 (Dem. 22.44), though Satyros collected 34 (22.63–4). Thomsen (Eisphora, 220) argues that the arrears sought by Androtion’s commission can be assumed

d88 decree arranging the recovery of eisphora

351

to stretch back to the period between 378/7 (with Dem. 22.44) and the introduction of the proeisphora. Bloch suggests (‘Date of Xenophon’s Poroi’, 15) that some 840 citizens would have owed eisphora: we should not, then, underestimate the scale of Androtion’s commission and the number of citizens upon whom it would have had an impact. Androtion was a prominent politician (see Harding ‘Androtion’s’): he is attested as proposer of five decrees: in addition to the current decree, DD 57, 89 and IG II2 212, and a decree referred to in IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47: for his other activity (including bringing a graphe paranomon, addressing the ecclesia, acting as a synegoros for Timokrates, and as ambassador, see Hansen, ‘Updated’, 35; Harding, Androtion, 19–24). The decrees outlined by Demosthenes demonstrate Androtion’s involvement with Athenian public finances.

Date

356/5, perhaps the year in which he was a member of the boule (Dem. 22.38: Harding ‘Androtion’s’, 193 note 54); note, however, Lewis’ (not widely accepted) view that Androtion was councillor in 359/8: Lewis ‘Notes’, 39–49. A date of 356/5 seems compatible with other events, notably the start of the Social War, when the Athenians attempted to raise funds to meet the challenges of revolting allies. Note however that some scholars, such as Jacoby, connect his collection of eisphora with expenses relating to Timotheos’ activity in the west during the 370s: Harding, Androtion, 19; ‘Androtion’s’, 19; others associate it with the introduction of the proeisphora in the 370s, but this view is challenged by Thomsen, Eisphora, 223.

Bibliography

Bloch, D., ‘The date of Xenophon’s Poroi’, C&M 55 (2004) 5–16. Christ, M.R., The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2006). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P.A., ‘Androtion’s political career’, Historia 25 (1976) 186–200. Harding, P.A., Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford (1994). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22, Austin (1998). Hunter, V., ‘Policing public debtors in Athens’, Phoenix 54 (2000) 21–38. Lewis, D.M., ‘Notes on Attic inscriptions’, ABSA 49 (1954) 17–50. Rhodes P.J., ‘Athenian democracy after 403’, CJ 75 (1980) 305–23. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 557–9. Thomsen, R., Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen (1964). Wallace, R., ‘The Athenian proeispherontes’, Hesperia 58 (1989) 473–90.

D89 Honours for council of 356/5

Proposer: Androtion Andronos Gargettios (PA 913 + 915; PAA 129125; APF) Date: 355/4

Literary Context

Demosthenes’ speech 22 was spoken by Diodorus, a synegoros for Euktemon’s graphe paranomon against Androtion’s decree granting a crown to the outgoing council of 356/5. Diodorus claimed that the decree was unconstitutional, being introduced without the consultation of the council (T1), that it was illegal on the grounds that the council had failed to build the requisite number of triremes over the course of the year (Dem. 22.8), and that Androtion had been a public debtor and prostitute and therefore did not have the right to introduce a decree (22.21–4, 33–4).

Text

T1  Dem. 22.5: Ἔστι γὰρ εἷς μὲν ὃν οἴεται τεχνικῶς ἔχειν αὐτῷ λόγος περὶ τοῦ ἀπροβουλεύτου. νόμος ἐστί, φησίν, ἐὰν ἀξίως ἡ βουλὴ δοκῇ βουλεῦσαι δωρειᾶς, διδόναι τὸν δῆμον τὴν δωρειὰν αὐτῇ. ταῦτ’ ἐπήρετο, φησίν, ὁ ἐπιστάτης, διεχειροτόνησεν ὁ δῆμος, ἔδοξεν. οὐδὲν δεῖ, φησί, προβουλεύματος ἐνταῦθα· κατὰ γὰρ νόμον ἦν τὰ γιγνόμενα. ἐγὼ δ’ αὐτὸ τοὐναντίον οἴομαι, νομίζω δὲ καὶ ὑμῖν συνδόξειν, περὶ τούτων τὰ προβουλεύματα ἐκφέρειν μόνων περὶ ὧν κελεύουσιν οἱ νόμοι, ἐπεὶ περὶ ὧν γε μὴ κεῖνται νόμοι οὐδὲ γράφειν τὴν ἀρχὴν προσήκει οὐδὲ ἓν δήπου.

Commentary

On the basis of a law which said that if the council by its performance of its duties was judged to deserve a reward, it would be granted by the people, Androtion proposed a crown for the outgoing council of 356/5 BC (T1; Dem. 22.8, 36, 39, 41). Euktemon indicted the decree by the graphe paranomon procedure (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 12). The supporting speech of Diodorus maintained that the decree was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was not the subject of a preliminary decree (probouleuma) of the council (T1; cf. hypothesis to Demosthenes 22, 1.2 and 2.9) and was contrary 352

d89 honours for council of 356/5

353

T1 He has one argument, which he thinks is ingenious, about his failure to obtain the Council’s prior approval. ‘There is a law’, he says, ‘that if the Council appears to deserve an award for performing its duties, the Assembly may grant the award. The epistates asked this question’, he says, ‘the Assembly cast its vote, and the motion was passed. In this case, there is no need for prior approval by the Council: these actions followed the law.’ My opinion is the very opposite, and I think you agree with me: one should introduce preliminary motions only about matters that the laws permit, because in regard to matters not covered by the laws, one should not even make a proposal to begin with, not even one. (trans. Harris, Demosthenes)

to the law which forbade the council from requesting the crown had they failed to construct the right number of triremes (Dem. 22.8–20; on the council’s responsibility to undertake work on ships, gear, and shipsheds, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 46.1). The speaker adds further personal accusations to the case, arguing that the proposer is atimos, a prostitute, and indebted to the state (33–4), that he has collected taxes illegally (42–68: see D88) and has melted down crowns dedicated in celebration of Athenian victories (69–78: see D57).

354

inventory a1

As Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 15, suggests, when Androtion proposed the rewards, it seems to have been customary for the retiring council to put the question of their honours on the assembly’s agenda (22.8). The Ath. Pol. states (45.4) that the assembly was not allowed to vote on any question not considered previously by the council and placed on its agenda by the prytaneis (cf. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 52–81): had the decree not been discussed by the council beforehand, it may well have technically been illegal. In such cases, as Harris, Demosthenes, 172 note 20, points out, there may, however, have been an exception to the general rule. Indeed Diodorus remarks in T1, Androtion pointed to a law which stated that ‘if the Council appears to deserve an award for performing its duties, the Assembly may grant the award’. In forthcoming work I. Giannadaki (‘Meden aprobouleuton’) offers a reasonable justification of the legality of Androtion’s proposal, suggesting that honorific grants made by the assembly which were regulated by specific laws ‘might have not explicitly required an additional ad hoc probouleuma, but such proposals could be introduced directly in the ecclesia, under “standing items” at ekklesiai kyriai, for instance, epicheirotonia ton archon, as it is most likely in this case’. According to this view, Androtion’s proposal was aprobouleuton but not illegal. Diodorus adds that the people voted by diacheirotonia (‘διεχειροτόνησεν ὁ δῆμος’), a term usually used to refer to a choice between alternatives: but the choice here was probably simply the question of accepting or rejecting the proposal to make the award: see Hansen, ‘How did the Athenian ecclesia vote?’, 103–4. The prosecution by Euktemon and Diodorus appears to have not affected the practice of retiring councils requesting a crown for themselves: Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 15. It would be pointless to try to ascertain the text of Androtion’s original decree, but it is clear that it included a crown for the council. The result of the graphe paranomon is unknown (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 12). Epigraphical evidence for the reward of tribal groups of prytaneis of the council stretches back to the fifth century BC (Agora XV 1), but the earliest extant list which appears to constitute a list of bouleutai of more than one tribe dates to the mid fourth century (Agora XV 20). The practice of crowning boards of officials is known from the inscribed inventories of the treasurers of Athena which record dedicated crowns of the syllogeis tou demou of 370/69 and 368/7 BC (IG II2 1425 lines 126 and 225; cf. IG II3 4 72 of 351/0). Androtion was a prominent politician (see Harding ‘Androtion’s’): he is attested as proposer of five decrees: in addition to the current decree, he is connected with DD 57, 88 and IG II2 212, and a decree referred to in IG II2 216/17 + 261 = SEG XIV 47: for his other activity (including bringing a graphe

d89 honours for council of 356/5

355

paranomon, addressing the ecclesia, acting as a synegoros for Timokrates, and as ambassador, see Hansen, ‘Updated’, 35; Harding, Androtion, 19–24).

Date

355/4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus ad. Amm. 4 dates the trial to 355/4, and so the proposal was presumably made by the council after the end of the year 356/5 (Harris, Demosthenes, 168 note 11); however Giannadaki, ‘Meden aprobouleton’ suggests that the proposal was made before the end of their term: if this was the case, the decree would surely have introduced the provision that the award was subject to the council passing its euthuna, which had evidently not yet taken place at the time of the trial (Dem. 22.38–9). What is perhaps problematic is that the proposed award appears to have been made in recognition of the overall performance of the council when it was in office, which could not be properly evaluated until after the duration of office had come to an end; for this reason we prefer a date early on in 355/4. Lewis’ view that Androtion was bouleutes in 359/8 is not widely accepted: Lewis, ‘Notes’, 39–49.

Bibliography

Giannadaki, I., ‘Meden aprobouleuton? Dem. 22 and the management of the Ekklesia’s business’ (under consideration). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 12. Hansen, M.H., ‘How did the Athenian ecclesia vote?’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia I: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983) 103–21. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P.A., ‘Androtion’s political career’, Historia 25 (1976) 186–200. Harding, P.A., Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford (1994). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22. Austin (1998). Lewis, D.M., ‘Notes on Attic inscriptions’, ABSA 49 (1954) 17–50. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972) 15–16.

inventory a1

356

D90 Decision bringing the Social War to an end Proposer: Unknown Date: 355/4

Literary Context

Diodorus (T1), under 356/5, describes this development as an explanation of the end of the Social War.

Texts

T1 D.S. 16.22.2–3: Ταῦτ’ οὖν ὁ δῆμος εὐλαβηθεὶς ἔκρινε καταλύσασθαι τὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἀφεστηκότας πόλεμον· εὑρὼν δὲ κἀκείνους ἐπιθυμοῦντας τῆς εἰρήνης ῥᾳδίως πρὸς αὐτοὺς διελύσατο.  Ὁ μὲν οὖν συμμαχικὸς ὀνομασθεὶς πόλεμος τοιοῦτον ἔσχε τὸ τέλος, διαμείνας ἔτη τέτταρα. T2 Scholion on Demosthenes 3.28 (Dilts 132b): Κατὰ τὸν συμμαχικὸν πόλεμον ἀπέστησαν αὐτῶν Χῖοι καὶ Ῥόδιοι καὶ Βυζάντιοι καὶ ἕτεροί τινες. πολεμοῦντες οὖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοὺς μὲν ἀνεκτήσαντο, τοὺς δὲ οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν, εἶτα εἰρήνην ἐποιήσαντο ὥστε πάντας αὐτονόμους ἐᾶσαι τοὺς συμμάχους. τοῦτο οὖν φησιν, ὅτι καὶ οὓς προσηγαγόμεθα τῷ πολέμῳ, καὶ τούτους διὰ τὴν εἰρήνην ἀπολωλέκαμεν. τοῦ δὲ τοιαύτην γενέσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην αἴτιος Εὔβουλος οὕτω διοικῶν τὰ πράγματα.

Commentary

The Social War had broken out by 357 (or, as Cawkwell, ‘Notes’ suggests, 356): assisted by Mausolos, Hekatomnid ruler of Karia, the Byzantians, Rhodians, Chians and Koans left the Athenian confederacy. The states that seceded embarked upon an aggressive campaign against Athenian interests in the eastern Aegean, and launched attacks on Athenian interests in Samos, Lemnos and Imbros. Athenian responses were ultimately counter-productive (for their military response, see DP 49 and DP 51; for the war, see Sealey, ‘Athens after’ 74–81; Cargill, Second, 176–85; Hornblower, Mausolus, 206–14 and Buckler, Philip II, 4). The sources generally agree that the Social War ended in 356/5 BC (cf. D.H. Lys. 12), but whereas Dionysius says that it lasted two years, Diodorus offers the views that it lasted three or four (D. S. 16.7.3–4; cf. 16.21–2); for

d90 decision bringing the social war to an end

357

T1 And so the people, judging it right to be cautious, brought an end to the war against their rebellious allies; and seeing that they too desired peace, they came to terms with them easily. And so the so-called Social War came to an end in this way, having lasted for four years. T2  During the Social War the Chians, Rhodians, Byzantians, and some others revolted from them. And so, fighting against them, they gained some back to their side, but others they were not able to bring back; consequently they made peace so as to allow all the allies to be autonomous. So he [sc. Demosthenes] says that even those who were brought over to our side in the war we have lost because of the peace. Euboulos was responsible for the shape that the peace took, as this is the way he administered affairs.

further scholarship on this matter, see Kremmydas, Commentary, 6 note 16; RO p. 240. Dispatched apparently to put down the rebellious allies (DP 50), Chares appears to have intervened on behalf of the rebel satrap Artabazos; alarmed at the threat that the Great King would send 300 ships to their enemies to remonstrate at this (DS 16.22.2; Sealey, Demosthenes, 104–5), the Athenians made terms with their rebellious allies. The terms may have included reassurance about the autonomy of the allies (in which sense they represented a renewal of the King’s Peace: T2; cf. Dem. 15.26). Coincident with this decree was the circulation of the view, among some, that the Athenians should tone down their military ambitions: Isocrates

358

inventory a1

advised that they abandon naval hegemony (8 On the Peace 64; hypothesis to Isoc. On the Peace 16; see SVA 313), but it is known that the Athenians carried on maintaining a large navy (Ryder, Koine Eirene, 92 note 5 citing IG II2 1613). Decrees officially bringing a war to an end are infrequent in the Athenian history of this period; in this case the decree was essentially an admission of defeat by the Athenians. Sealey (‘Athens after’, 75) points out that we should not think that Euboulos was the proposer of the peace: rather the character of the peace was due to Euboulos’ policy.

Date

355/4 (Harding no. 71).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA, 313. Buckler, J., Philip II and the Sacred War: Mnemosyne Supplement. Leiden, New York, Copenhagen and Cologne (1989). Cargill, J., The Second Athenian League: Empire or Free Alliance? Berkeley (1981) 178–85. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Notes on the Social War’, C&M 23 (1962) 34–40. Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 71. Hornblower, S., Mausolus. Oxford (1982). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012). Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 90. Sealey, R., ‘Athens after the Social War’, JHS 75 (1955) 74–81. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 103–8.

D91 Decree appointing a commission of inquiry Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: Before 353/2, probably 354/3

Literary Context

Demosthenes’ speech Against Timokrates, composed on behalf of Diodorus’ case against Timokrates’ law (on which, see D92 below), offers an account of the conflict between Euktemon (Diodorus’ associate), on one side, and Timokrates and Androtion on the other (T1). This decree is relevant to Diodorus’ account of the conflict between Euktemon and Timokrates: it formed the background to Euktemon’s claims about Androtion’s debt and that of the two other ambassadors returning with confiscated property (D92).

359

360

inventory a1

Text

T1 Dem. 24.11: Ψήφισμα εἶπεν ἐν ὑμῖν Ἀριστοφῶν ἑλέσθαι ζητητάς, εἰ δέ τις οἶδέν τινα ἢ τῶν ἱερῶν ἢ τῶν ὁσίων χρημάτων ἔχοντά τι τῆς πόλεως, μηνύειν πρὸς τούτους.

Commentary

Diodorus (T1) claims that Aristophon introduced a decree appointing zetetai (commissioners of enquiry) and instructing anyone who knew of sacred or public money in private hands to give information to them. The measure was proposed probably as part of the Athenian attempt to raise money at the time of the Social War, and it may be seen as a refinement of the law that holders of sacred or public monies should hand them over to the council or else face up to the council’s attempt to recover it (Dem. 24.96). As Harris (Demosthenes 122 note 47) notes, zetetai could be appointed on an ad hoc basis to collect information. It was this decree which gave rise to Euktemon’s declaration that Archebios and Lysitheides had held on to property captured from a ship of Naukratis to the value of 9 Talents and 30 mnai (see D92 below; on their mission, see Roisman, The Rhetoric, 105 note 23). Further, on those who held or misappropriated public money, see Hunter, ‘Policing public’, 23–4. Aristophon was at this time an experienced politician. He is connected with proposing eleven other decrees: see Volume 2, Appendix 1; for this other political activity, including the proposal of a law and bringing eisangeliai, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 38.

Date

Before the trial of Timokrates’ law (D.H. ad Amm. 4 puts Dem. 24 in 353/2; cf. Harris, Demosthenes, 109) and before D92; Develin, AO 284 suggests 355/4 for the decree, but 354/3 is possible too.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (1998). Hunter, V., ‘Policing public debtors in Athens’, Phoenix 54 (2000) 21–38. Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006).

d92 decree ordering the collection of money

361

T1 Aristophon proposed a decree at your assembly appointing commissioners of enquiry, and providing that if anyone knew of anyone holding anything of the city, whether it be sacred or public money, to give information to them.

D92 Decree ordering the collection of money Proposer: Euktemon (PA 5784; PAA 438085) Date: Before Skirophorion 354/3

Literary Context

Discussion of this decree forms the background to Diodorus’ attack on Timokrates’ law, which provided that debtors to the state should remain at liberty until the 9th prytany of the year, if they offered guarantees (see D93 below). The decree, according to Demosthenes, provoked Androtion’s unsuccessful graphe paranomon (24.14), and, in due course (24.15–16), Timokrates’ law: Diodorus insinuated that Timokrates was collaborating with Androtion (Dem. 24.14) so that the latter might avoid paying the fine imposed by this decree.

362

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 24.11-14: Μετὰ ταῦτ’ ἐμήνυσεν Εὐκτήμων ἔχειν Ἀρχέβιον καὶ Λυσιθείδην τριηραρχήσαντας χρήματα Ναυκρατιτικά, τίμημα τάλαντα ἐννέα καὶ τριάκοντα μνᾶς. προσῆλθε τῇ βουλῇ, προβούλευμ’ ἐγράφη. μετὰ ταῦτα γενομένης ἐκκλησίας προὐχειροτόνησεν ὁ δῆμος. ἀναστὰς Εὐκτήμων ἔλεγεν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ διεξῆλθεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὡς ἔλαβεν ἡ τριήρης τὸ πλοῖον ἡ Μελάνωπον ἄγουσα καὶ Γλαυκέτην καὶ Ἀνδροτίωνα πρεσβευτὰς ὡς Μαύσωλον, ὡς ἔθεσαν τὴν ἱκετηρίαν ὧν ἦν τὰ χρήματα ἅνθρωποι, ὡς ἀπεχειροτονήσαθ’ ὑμεῖς μὴ φίλια εἶναι τότε, ἀνέμνησεν ὑμᾶς, τοὺς νόμους {ἀνέγνω} καθ’ οὓς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πραχθέντων τῆς πόλεως γίγνεται τὰ χρήματα. ἐδόκει δίκαια λέγειν ὑμῖν ἅπασιν. ἀναπηδήσας Ἀνδροτίων καὶ Γλαυκέτης καὶ Μελάνωπος (καὶ ταυτὶ σκοπεῖτε ἂν ἀληθῆ λέγω) ἐβόων, ἠγανάκτουν, ἐλοιδοροῦντο, ἀπέλυον τοὺς τριηράρχους, ἔχειν ὡμολόγουν, παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς ζητεῖν ἠξίουν τὰ χρήματα. ταῦτ’ ἀκουσάντων ὑμῶν, ἐπειδή ποτ’ ἐπαύσανθ’ οὗτοι βοῶντες, ἔδωκε γνώμην Εὐκτήμων ὡς δυνατὸν δικαιοτάτην, ὑμᾶς μὲν εἰσπράττειν τοὺς τριηράρχους, ἐκείνοις δ’ εἶναι περὶ αὐτῶν εἰς τοὺς ἔχοντας ἀναφοράν· ἐὰν δ’ ἀμφισβητῆταί τι, ποιεῖν διαδικασίαν, τὸν δ’ ἡττηθέντα, τοῦτον ὀφείλειν τῇ πόλει. γράφονται τὸ ψήφισμα· εἰς ὑμᾶς εἰσῆλθεν· ἵνα συντέμω, κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἔδοξεν εἰρῆσθαι καὶ ἀπέφυγεν.

Commentary

After Aristophon’s decree appointing commissioners of enquiry (Dem. 24.11; see D91 above), Euktemon, claiming that the Athenian trierarchs Archebios and Lysitheides of the ship had illegally taken personal possession of property confiscated from a boat of Naukratis by an Athenian vessel (the one carrying the envoys Melanopos, Glauketes and Androtion to Mausolos), laid information against the commanders of the vessel (24.11: T1); the council drafted a probouleuma (T1: Rhodes’ view is that this was probably an ‘open’ one, which did not contain a specific recommendation: Athenian Boule, 58–9). T1 refers to a preliminary vote (procheirotonia: see Volume 2, 1.2.1) on the probouleuma, which appears to have given rise to a debate in the assembly and a proposal of Euktemon (cf. the view of Harris (Demosthenes, 122–3 notes 52 and 59). Euktemon proposed that the people should demand payment from the captains, that they should apply in turn to the men in possession of the items (sc. Melanopos, Glauketes and Androtion), that any dispute as to liability should go to litigation, and that the loser of such action was to be a state debtor (T1; on the process of diadikasia, see Todd, The Shape, 119–20, 228–9 and Roisman, The Rhetoric, 106); this provision is said by a scholiast’s

d92 decree ordering the collection of money

363

T1 After this (cf. D91) Euktemon laid information that Archebios and Lysitheides, who had been trierarchs, held property captured on a Naukratian ship to the value of 9 Talents and 30 mnai. He approached the council and proposed a probouleuma. Next, when the assembly was held, it took a preliminary vote (procheirotonia). Euktemon, standing up, spoke at length, telling you that the trireme that was carrying Melanopos, Glauketes, and Androtion on their embassy to Mausolos had taken this ship, explaining how the owners of the money presented a petition, and how you voted at the time that the goods were unfriendly property, and he reminded you of the laws according to which in such a situation the property belongs to the state. Everything that he said seemed to you to be just. At this point, Androtion, Glauketes and Melanopos jumped up (and now check that I speak the truth!) and shouted, were indignant, and made abusive speeches, exonerating the trierarchs, admitted that they held the money, and requested that the search should proceed at their own houses. When you heard these things, and when their shouting had subsided, Euktemon made a proposal that was as just as plausible, that you should exact payment from the trierarchs, and that they should turn to those holding the money, and that any conflict concerning liability should go to arbitration, and that the one defeated should be the one owing the money to the city. They indicted the decree; it was brought in front of you, where, in short, you decided that it was lawful, and it escaped prosecution.

note to have been in accordance with the law concerning tax-farmers (‘κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς τελωνικούς’: Scholion on Dem. 24.100 (Dilts 199)). The facts that the proposal is referred to as a psephisma (T1) and that Demosthenes (24.9) says that the assembly spent a day discussing the matter suggest that it was approved by the assembly before it was indicted (as Hannick ‘Note’ observes; cf. Hansen, The Sovereignty, 51-2, suggesting that it is an example of a decree appealed against before being passed by the assembly which was upheld by a the lawcourt acting as a sovereign body). The decree was challenged by graphe paranomon but was upheld (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 13). Euktemon’s decree seems uncontroversial when we consider that there already existed legal processes against those who held others’ confiscated property: see, for instance, Lysias 29. However, the implication of his decree, that cargo captured during a polis-sanctioned mission should now be counted as public (Dem. 24.12), seems to have been controversial. Indeed, Roisman points out that it is odd that Euktemon’s proposal demanded money from the trierarchs after the envoys had confessed to holding it (Roisman, The Rhetoric, 106); he takes the view that the speaker’s description of the decree as fair was

364

inventory a1

misplaced: he suggests that Euktemon focussed on the trierarchs ‘because of their greater accountability for the ship’s capture and the possibility that the Assembly allowed them de facto to have money, but especially because he wished to sow discord between them and the envoys’: Roisman, The Rhetoric, 111. The view of Pritchett (Greek State, 85–92) is that booty was automatically counted as public property. For Euktemon’s other political activity, including the bringing of a graphe paranomon against Androtion and acting as a synegoros, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 46.

Date

354/3. Dem. 24.15 says the challenge to Euktemon’s decree took place in Skirophorion, presumably that at the end of 354/3, and so Euktemon’s decree must have been enacted less than a year before then, probably earlier in 354/3.

Bibliography

Hannick, J.M., ‘Note sur la graphe paranomon’, AC 50 (1981) 393–7. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 13. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’, in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, vol.1. Berkeley (1971). Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006) 106–11. Todd, S.C., The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford (1993).

D93 Decree concerning establishment of nomothetai Proposer: ?Epikrates –otetou Palleneus (PA 4863; PAA 393525; APF) Date: Hekatombaion 11th 353/2

Literary Context

In Demosthenes 24, Diodorus indicted as inexpedient Timokrates’ law which proposed that those public debtors who offer a guarantee which was accepted by the Assembly could remain at liberty until the ninth prytany of the year. He claimed that Timokrates had his law passed without exhibiting it at the statues of the eponymous heroes (24.25; T1); he claims he did this in order to allow Androtion and others to avoid paying public debts (Dem. 24.14; see DD 91–2 above; Harris, Demosthenes, 116 casts doubt on the plausibility of this motive). Timokrates avoided the requirement of exhibiting the law, Diodorus claims, by getting a decree passed which cancelled the normal date of nomothesia and placed it on the following day, that of the festival of Kronos. Demosthenes had the decree read to the audience; the document that appears in the text (which in all likelihood was inserted later: Canevaro, The Documents, 105) purporting to be a decree proposed by Epikrates. For an overview of the case relevant to the speech Against Timokrates, see Harris, Demosthenes, 108–17.

365

366

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 24.26–9: Τούτων μέντοι τοσούτων ὄντων οὐδὲν πεποίηκε Τιμοκράτης οὑτοσί· οὔτε γὰρ ἐξέθηκε τὸν νόμον, οὔτ’ ἔδωκεν εἴ τις ἐβούλετο ἀναγνοὺς ἀντειπεῖν, οὔτ’ ἀνέμεινεν οὐδένα τῶν τεταγμένων χρόνων ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐν ᾗ τοὺς νόμους ἐπεχειροτονήσατε, οὔσης ἑνδεκάτῃ τοῦ ἑκατομβαιῶνος μηνός, δωδεκάτῃ τὸν νόμον εἰσήνεγκεν, εὐθὺς τῇ ὑστεραίᾳ, καὶ ταῦτ’ ὄντων Κρονίων καὶ διὰ ταῦτ’ ἀφειμένης τῆς βουλῆς, διαπραξάμενος μετὰ τῶν ὑμῖν ἐπιβουλευόντων καθέζεσθαι νομοθέτας διὰ ψηφίσματος ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν Παναθηναίων προφάσει. βούλομαι δ’ ὑμῖν τὸ ψήφισμ’ αὔτ’ ἀναγνῶναι τὸ νικῆσαν, ἵν’ ἴδηθ’ ὅτι πάντα συνταξάμενοι καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου τούτων ἔπραττον. λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναγίγνωσκε σύ. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. {Ἐπι τῆς Πανδιονίδος πρώτης, ἑνδεκάτῃ τῆς πρυτανείας, Ἐπικράτης εἶπεν, ὅπως ἂν τὰ ἱερὰ θύηται καὶ ἡ διοίκησις ἱκανὴ γένηται καὶ εἴ τινος ἐνδεῖ πρὸς τὰ Παναθήναια διοικηθῇ, τοὺς πρυτάνεις τοὺς τῆς Πανδιονίδος καθίσαι νομοθέτας αὔριον, τοὺς δὲ νομοθέτας εἶναι ἕνα καὶ χιλίους ἐκ τῶν ὀμωμοκότων, συννομοθετεῖν δὲ καὶ τὴν βουλήν.}

Ἐνθυμήθητε {ἀναγιγνωσκομένου} τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὡς τεχνικῶς ὁ γράφων αὐτὸ τὴν διοίκησιν καὶ τὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς προστησάμενος κατεπεῖγον, ἀνελὼν τὸν ἐκ τῶν νόμων χρόνον, αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν αὔριον νομοθετεῖν, οὐ μὰ Δί’ οὐχ ἵν’ ὡς κάλλιστα γένοιτό τι τῶν περὶ τὴν ἑορτήν (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ὑπόλοιπον οὐδ’ ἀδιοίκητον οὐδέν), ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ προαισθομένου μηδενὸς ἀνθρώπων μηδ’ ἀντειπόντος τεθείη καὶ γένοιτο κύριος αὐτοῖς ὅδ’ ὁ νῦν ἀγωνιζόμενος νόμος. τεκμήριον δέ· καθεζομένων γὰρ τῶν νομοθετῶν, περὶ μὲν τούτων, τῆς διοικήσεως καὶ τῶν Παναθηναίων, οὔτε χείρονα οὔτε βελτίω νόμον οὐδένα εἰσήνεγκεν οὐδείς, περὶ δ’ ὧν οὔτε τὸ ψήφισμα ἐκέλευεν οἵ τε νόμοι κωλύουσιν, Τιμοκράτης οὑτοσὶ κατὰ πολλὴν ἡσυχίαν ἐνομοθέτει, κυριώτερον μὲν νομίσας τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἢ τὸν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις εἰρημένον χρόνον. T2  Scholion on Dem. 24.27 (Dilts 74): Τὸ ψήφισμα λέγει, ὅπερ ἔγραψεν ὁ Ἐπικράτης, φίλος ὢν τοῦ Τιμοκράτους, λέγων ‘ἐπειδὴ ἐγγύς ἐστι τὰ Παναθήναια, συναχθῶμεν ἐπὶ τῷ σκέψασθαι περὶ αὐτῶν.’

Commentary

In the fourth century, the Athenians enacted laws through the process of nomothesia: this involved the holding of a preliminary vote at the assembly (see Dem. 24.25), the posting of proposals at the eponymoi, their being read out at the assembly (Dem. 24.94), the decision of the assembly to call a session of

d93 decree concerning nomothetai

367

T1 Yet although there were so many requirements, Timokrates here did not meet any of them: he did not display the law, did not allow anyone who read it and wished to lodge an objection to do so, and did not wait for the time appointed by law. The meeting of the Assembly during which you voted about the laws took place on 11th Hekatombaion. He immediately proposed this law on the next day, the 12th, though that was during the Kronia and when the council was in recess. He was acting in concert with men plotting against you to have the nomothetai sit by decree on the pretext of the Panathenaia. I wish to read to you the actual decree that they passed so that you know how craftily they arranged everything and left none of these things to chance. Get the decree for them and read it. DECREE [During the first prytany, that of the tribe Pandionis, on the 11th day of the prytany, Epikrates proposed: in order that the sacrifices may be offered, the budget for them may be sufficient, and if anything is needed for the Panathenaia, funds may be provided, the prytaneis from Pandionis should have the nomothetai meet tomorrow, there should be 1,001 nomothetai from the men from those who have sworn the oath and they should pass laws in conjunction with the Council.]

Pay attention to the decree,  how craftily its author held out the excuse of the budget and the pressing needs of the festival in order to eliminate the time appointed by law when he proposed that the legislation be passed on the next day. His aim, by Zeus, was not to ensure that the festival be as splendid as possible, for there was nothing left to be done, and no funds to be provided, but that this law now on trial be enacted and go into effect for their benefit without anyone noticing in advance and lodging an objection. Here is the proof: when the nomothetai hold a meeting about these matters, the budget and the Panathenaia, no one has ever introduced any law, be it better or worse. Yet Timokrates here was casually passing laws concerning matters that the decree did not order and the laws do not allow: he believed that the time appointed by the decree had more authority than the time stated in the laws. (trans. Harris, Demosthenes, adapted). T2 He talks of the decree, which Epikrates, a friend of Timokrates, advocated, saying, ‘Since the Panathenaia is close by let us come together for the purpose of discussing these things.’

nomothetai (Dem. 24.25), the repeal of contradictory laws in the courts (Dem. 24.34–5), the appointment of synegoroi for the old laws (Dem. 24.36; Dem. 20.146) and the meeting of the nomothetai. On the process of nomothesia, see now Canevaro, ‘Nomothesia’, 142–50; Canevaro, ‘Making’; Canevaro and Esu,

368

inventory a1

‘Extreme’ (taking the view that the nomothetai were the demos at the assembly), and discussion at D160 Commentary. The effect of the current decree was to summon the nomothetai to meet on the 12th day of Hekatombaion. Diodorus (T1) protests that the urgency of the meeting was explained on the basis of the pretext of financial organisation and providing as well as possible for the festival but maintains that, in reality, however, the nomothesia was organised hastily purely with the intention that Timokrates’ law about state debtors and their sureties might be enacted and come into force without anyone having having the chance to read it beforehand or formulate objections to it. Canevaro outlines the content of the decree as it appears in the narrative sections of Demosthenes’ speech: ‘it was passed on 11 Hekatombaion, and summoned the nomothetai for the day after (aurion) to deal with the reallocation of part of the city budget in order to fund any last-minute costs of the Panathenaia’ (Canevaro, The Documents, 106); Canevaro goes on to outline epigraphical attestations of the funding of last-minute expenditures. He makes a case for the formula of the decree including the words ‘ὡς κάλλιστα’ and ‘γίγνομαι’ in relation to the funding of the festival (for parallels see Ag. XVI 75 lines 5–6 and others listed at Canevaro, The Documents, 108). As things turned out (and this is Diodorus’ way of proving his allegations), nothing concerning the finances and the festival was discussed at the meeting of the nomothetai (29). For a discussion of the document, and the likelihood that it is a later fabrication, see Canevaro, The Documents, 106–13. Apart from the problems Canevaro identifies with the prescript (Canevaro, The Documents, 107–8), much of the content is unparalleled and therefore cannot be straightforwardly accepted; elements of the document may have been based by its creator on the narrative of Demosthenes’ text. The wording of the scholiast (T2) purports to be that spoken by the proposer in support of his decree, rather than the text of the decree itself. The name of the proposer (referred to in the narrative as ὁ γράφων αὐτό (24.28), ‘Epikrates’ (in both the scholion and the document), may perchance be accurate: Canevaro, The Documents, 107, 112–13. Other evidence attests to his proposal of two laws, one (unpublished: Agora inv. 7495 of 354/3) concerning the financing of a festival, and the other concerning the ephebes, in relation to which he was awarded a bronze statue (D189 Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἐπικράτης’ = Lycurg. F20 Conomis). See Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 45. Demosthenes makes much of the view that Timokrates had breached the law that no decree should be more authoritative (kurioteron) than a decree (Dem. 24.30), a hierarchy that is maintained frequently in the orators: see Andoc. 1.89; Dem. 23.86, 218; Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 170; Hansen, The Athenian Democracy, 172. He also makes much of the more tendentious claim that Timokrates and Epikrates collaborated as a way of manipulating the process

d93 decree concerning nomothetai

369

of nomothesia in order to rush through their law. Observing that ‘the speakers’ assertions reflect a typical conspiratorial mind-set which refuses to recognise in human conduct or past events conicidences’, Roisman (The Rhetoric, 113), while not denying the possibility of co-operation between Epikrates and Timokrates (indeed, such collaboration between politicians is known on other occasions: see Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 164 note 490; Hansen, The Athenian Democracy, 281; Aeschin. 3.3), suggests that Epikrates had originally proposed the decree about the date of the meeting of assembly to vote on the laws in good faith, but that the issue of the funding of the festival was forgotten about, and that Timokrates decided to ‘take advantage of a session that was left without business’ in order to propose his law (Roisman, The Rhetoric, 113).

Date

11th day of Hekatombaion 353/2 (Dem. 24.26 with Harris, Demosthenes, 108–9 note 9).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M.,‘Nomothesia in classical Athens: what sources should we believe?’, CQ 63 (2013) 139–60. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 104–13. Canevaro, M., ‘Making and changing laws in ancient Athens’ in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, eds. E.M. Harris and M. Canevaro. Oxford. (Online publication, 2016.) Canevaro, M. and Esu, A., ‘Extreme democracy and mixed constitution in theory and practice: nomophylakia and fourth-century nomothesia in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia’ in Bearzot, C, Canevaro, M., Gargiulo, T., and Poddighe, E. (eds.), Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia: Aristotele e Ps.-Senofonte. Quaderni di ErgaLogoi. Milan, 105–45. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly. Oxford (1987). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, Ideology. Oxford (1991). Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006). Vince, J.H., Demosthenes III. Cambridge, MA (1964).

D94 * Proposal of protection for Charidemos Proposer: Aristokrates (PA 1897; PAA 170830) Date: 353/2 or 352/1

Literary Context

Euthykles, the speaker of Demosthenes’ Against Aristokrates, maintained that Aristokrates’ proposal making the killer of Charidemos liable to arrest (T1) was illegal (TT 3, 6, 7; cf. Dem. 23.22–87), contrary to the interests of the Athenians (T2; cf. Dem. 23.116–94), not deserved (Dem. 23.102-3) and not needed, given that Athenian legal prodedures brought murderers to trial (Dem. 23.59).

Texts

T1 Dem. 23.11: ... εἰ πρῶτον μέν, ἄν τις αὐτὸν ἀποκτείνῃ, ψήφισμα ὑμέτερον γένοιτο, ἀγώγιμον εἶναι· δεύτερον δέ, εἰ χειροτονηθείη στρατηγὸς ὑφ’ ὑμῶν Χαρίδημος. T2 Dem. 23.16: Οὐ τοίνυν μόνον ἐκ τούτων δῆλόν ἐσθ’ ὅτι τούτων ἕνεκ’ ἐρρήθη τὸ προβούλευμα ὧν λέγω, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ψηφίσματος αὐτοῦ μαρτυρία τίς ἐστιν εὐμεγέθης. ‘ἂν γὰρ ἀποκτείνῃ τις Χαρίδημον’ γράψας καὶ παραβὰς τὸ τί πράττοντα εἰπεῖν, πότερ’ ἡμῖν συμφέροντα ἢ οὔ, γέγραφεν εὐθὺς ‘ἀγώγιμον ἐκ τῶν συμμάχων εἶναι.’ T3 Dem. 23.27: Ὁ μὲν δὴ τὸν νόμον τιθεὶς οὕτως, ὁ δὲ τὸ φήφισμα γράφων πώς; ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ’ φησὶν ‘Χαρίδημον.’ τὴν μὲν δὴ προσηγορίαν τοῦ πάθους τῆν αὐτὴν ἐποιήσατο, ‘ἄν τις ἀποκτείνῃ’ γράψας, ἥνπερ ὁ τὸν νόμον τιθείς· μετὰ ταῦτα δ’ οὐκέτι ταὐτά, ἀλλ’ ἀνελὼν τὸ δίκην ὑπέχειν ἀγώγιμον εὐθὺς ἐποίησεν, καὶ παραβὰς τὸ διωρισμένον ἐκ τοῦ νόμου δικαστήριον, ἄκριτον τοῖς ἐπαιτιασαμένοις παρέδωκεν ὅ τι ἂν βούλωνται χρῆσθαι τὸν οὐδ’ εἰ πεποίηκέ πω φανερόν. T4 Dem. 23.34: Γράψας γὰρ ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Χαρίδημον, ἀγώγιμος ἔστω’ φησὶν ‘πανταχόθεν’. T5  Dem. 23.50: Ἀλλ’ οὐ σοί, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς, ‘ἄν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Χαρίδημον, ἀγέσθω’, κἂν ἄκων, κἂν δικαίως, κἂν ἀμυνόμενος, κἂν ἐφ’ οἷς διδόασιν οἱ νόμοι, κἂν ὁπωσοῦν. 370

d94 * proposal of protection for charidemos

371

T1  … if their first step would be to pass a decree to make anyone who killed him subject to arrest, the second to get you to elect him general. (trans. Harris, Demosthenes) T2 It is clear not only from these things that this was the purpose of the probouleuma which was moved, but also there is a significant testimony from the decree itself: drafting the words, ‘for were anyone to kill Charidemos’, setting aside any mention of what he might be doing, whether it is advantageous for you or not, straight after he has written ‘he shall be liable to arrest from allied territory.’ T3 ‘That man framed the law in this way, but how does the decree put it?’ It says, ‘if anyone ever kills Charidemos.’ He has created the same label for the injury, writing, ‘if any man kill’, as the one who set down the law, but what follows is not the same: for abolishing submitting him to trial, he made him liable to immediate arrest, and passing over the distinct workings of the lawcourt according to law, he hands him however to the accusers, untried, so that they can do what they like to him even if it is not yet clear what he has done. T4 After proposing these words, ‘if anyone shall kill Charidemos’, he adds, ‘he shall be liable to arrest everywhere.’ T5 But you say, simply ‘if any man slay Charidemos let him be arrested’, even if he do it unwittingly, or justly, or in self-defence, or for a purpose permitted by law, or in any way whatsoever.

372

inventory a1

T6 Dem. 23.60: Ὁ μὲν δὴ νόμος εὐθὺς ἀμυνομένῳ δέδωκεν ἀποκτιννύναι, ὁ δ’ οὐδὲν εἴρηκεν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ’, κἂν ὡς οἱ νόμοι διδόασιν. T7 Dem. 23.83–4: Παρὰ τοίνυν ὅλον τοῦτον τὸν νόμον εἴρηται τὸ ψήφισμα. πρῶτον μὲν γάρ, ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ’ γράφων, οὐ προσέγραψεν ἀδίκως οὐδὲ βιαίως οὐδ’ ὅλως οὐδέν. εἶτα πρὸ τοῦ δίκην ἀξιῶσαι λαβεῖν, εὐθὺς ἔγραψεν ἀγώγιμον εἶναι. T8 Dem. 23.91: Γέγραφεν γὰρ ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Χαρίδημον, ἀγώγιμος ἔστω, ἐὰν δέ τις ἀφέληται ἢ πόλις ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἔκσπονδος ἔστω’.

Commentary

This decree appears to have offered protection to Charidemos in the sense that it made anyone who killed him liable to arrest (agogimos). Charidemos was a general of the Thracian king Kersobleptes; Kersobleptes, since the death of his father Kotys in 358, had attempted to impose his power over the whole of Thrace against his rivals Amadokos and Berisades. Charidemos had already been made an Athenian citizen in the late 360s or early 350s (see D84 above) on account of being a useful ally against the rise of Macedonian power. Demosthenes says that Charidemos’ friends in Athens aimed to win him the protection of a decree and even to get him elected to the generalship, in the hope that this would bolster his efforts at domination of Thrace (Dem. 23.11). As Pritchett observes, on balance, the evidence suggests that he was a better ally to the Athenians than Demosthenes alleged: Pritchett, Greek State 2.89. The importance of Amphipolis to this Athenian appeal to Charidemos should not be underestimated: the Athenians had been trying to recover it since 368 (see RO pp. 194–5), and felt aggrieved when Philip had taken it in 357 (DS 16.8.2; cf. D79 above). Some insight into the appeal of this approach to the Athenians is offered by the belief, attributed to a certain Aristomachos, that Charidemos was the only individual who would be able to recover Amphipolis for Athens (23.14); he argued that Charidemos be elected general; Demosthenes claims that Aristokrates had already drafted his probouleuma at the council in the hope that it would be ratified at the same time as Charidemos was elected general (T1; cf. Dem. 23.14). Charidemos indeed is known to have served as a general in 351/0 (Dem. 3.5 with Develin, AO 310 and Pritchett, Greek State 2.87), 349/8 (IG II2 207 line 21; FGrH328 F50) and probably also in 338/7 (Develin AO 343 and Canevaro, The Documents, 280–1). While Demosthenes talks of the proposal as a psephisma (T2), his claim at Dem. 23.92–3, that Aristokrates will reply that the decree was merely a probouleuma (provisional resolution) of the boule, suggests very strongly that it was indicted by graphe paranomon before it became a decree of the assembly.

d94 * proposal of protection for charidemos

373

T6 The law allows homicide in spontaneous retaliation, but he has said nothing of this, but simply, ‘if anyone kills him’, that is, even if the laws allow it. T7 The decree speaks, then, in defiance of all of this law. For, first, writing ‘if anyone kills’, it does not add ‘unjustly’ nor ‘violently’, or any qualification at all. Then he proposes that the culprit is to be seized instantly, before he has been allowed any trial at all. T8 He has written if any man kill Charidemos, he shall be liable to arrest, and if any person or any city rescue him, they shall be in violation.

Roisman, The Rhetoric, 100, suggests that Charidemos had undertaken some significant benefactions for the Athenians: ‘a non conspirational reading of the resolution’s language suggests that it was intended to protect Charidemos, not from Athenian commanders on the battlefield, but from plots against his life by Athens’ allies in Thrace’ (Roisman, The Rhetoric, 102). The provisions appear to have included the words ‘if any man kill Charidemos, he shall be liable to arrest’ (T8: ‘ἐάν τις ἀποκτείνῃ Χαρίδημον, ἀγώγιμος ἔστω’; cf. T1, 4, 5); there were provisions against any person or city who offered protection to a killer (T8). The provision of arrest appears to have applied either ‘everywhere’ (‘πανταχόθεν’) to which the speaker objected at T4 ‘or within allied territory’ (T2: ‘ἐκ τῶν συμμάχων’). Agogimos in this context probably means ‘arrest’ rather than seizure of one’s property (as it does in IG II3 1 399 lines 15–16). The speaker criticises the decree for distinguishing neither between intentional and non-intentional killing (T5) nor whether the killing was in self-defence or lawful (TT 5, 7). It may well have also included the provision that anyone, whether city or individual, rescuing his killer would be in violation of the decree (T8: ‘ἐὰν δέ τις ἀφέληται ἢ πόλις ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἔκσπονδος ἔστω’). For the view that Demosthenes does not report the content or even paraphrase the decree, see Anastasiadis, Interest, 15–16 note 12: Anastasiadis proposes that Demosthenes changed the words of the decree to make it sound ridiculous and contrary to Athenian interests; such a view goes too far, but it is clear that Euthykles at some points exaggerated the decree’s content: it is highly unlikely, as he claimed at Dem. 23.58, that the decree really gave the person who had arrested him the right to torture, maim and collect money from him (cf. Harris, Demosthenes 37 note 58). Elsewhere, he disingenuously suggests that Aristokrates’ decree would remove the right of a trial according to the laws (Dem. 23.59 with Harris, Demosthenes 50 note 92). The award of protection is known from other Athenian examples: in the fifth century the Athenians awarded Leonides protection in any of the cities that the

374

inventory a1

Athenians control (IG I3 156) and in 343/2 pledged ‘to take care of Arybbas so that he might suffer no injustice by the council holding office or by the generals in office if anyone kills Arybbas or any of Arybbas’ children with a violent death, the punishment shall be the same as for the rest of the Athenians’ (IG II3 1 411 (= RO 70) lines 5–10: ‘ἐπιμε[λ]ε[ῖσθαι] δὲ Ἀρύββου ὅπως ἂμ μηδ[ὲν ἀ]δικῆται τὴν βουλὴν τὴν ἀεὶ βουλεύουσαν καὶ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς τοὺς ἀεὶ στρατηγοῦντας’); in about 334, the award for Peisithides of Delos, who had fled to Athens during a time of political strife, specified that anyone who killed him would be an enemy of the city, as would be the city who harboured the killer (IG II3 1 452 lines 31–4). The punishment of exile from Athens or an allied state was slated for the killer of the Thasian honorands of IG II2 24b line 3. For examples of the imposition by decree of the same punishment against the Athenian murderer of an honorand, see, e.g., IG II2 32 line 12; Henry, Honours, 168–71; cf. Koch, ‘Verstiess’, 547–56. As Henry, Honours, 171–2 notes, these privileges are known for honorands of a range of types, including those granted citizenship. Demosthenes claimed that the award contradicted not only written law (Dem. 23.22–87) but also the common values of mankind (Dem. 23.61, 70, 85, 126). For assessment of the extent to which the decree may have breached legal norms, see Koch ‘Verstiess’, 554–5; Harris, Demosthenes, 25–6; MacDowell, Demosthenes, 196–206 takes the view that the weakness of Demosthenes’ legal arguments meant that he was forced to rely on rhetorical skill in constructing his case. On the religious aspects of his argument, suggesting that leaving a killer of Charidemos unpunished would leave the city impure, see Dem. 23.25, 38, 54; Martin, Divine Talk, 122–7. This decree appears to have been indicted by Euthykles (Dem. 23.5 and hypothesis to Demosthenes 23 Against Aristokrates, 2) while it was still a recommendation sent from the council; the trial dragged on so that the probouleuma was time-barred (Dem. 23.92–3) and it was never ratified by the assembly. It was attacked as unconstitutional, contrary to Athenian laws (for a summary of the aspects of illegality alleged by Euthykles, see Harris, Demosthenes, 25–6 with Dem. 23.22–87) contrary to the interests of the Athenian people (Dem. 23.95– 190), but the result of the trial is not known (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 14).

Date

Dionysius of Halicarnassus ad. Amm. 4 dates the trial for the graphe paranomon to 352/1 (a date supported by Harris, Demosthenes, 20, discussing the suggestions for what point in that year the speech is to be dated at note 20), and so it is likely that the decree was proposed earlier that year or the year before, in 353/2. Alternatively, Lane Fox, ‘Demosthenes’, 183–7, suggests that the trial took place in 353/2 and so the decree must have been proposed that year or earlier: Lane Fox, followed by Roisman, The Rhetoric, 165–7, suggests 356.

d95 decree about the price of salt

375

Bibliography

Anastasiadis, V.I., Interest and Self-Interest in Ancient Athens: Spoudasmata 151. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (2013). Blok, J., Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2017) 50–3. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 14. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 196–206. Martin, G., Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes. Oxford (2009) 122–7. Koch, S., ‘Verstiess der Antrag des Aristokrates (Dem. 23, 91) gegen die Gesetze?’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 106 (1989) 547–56. Lane Fox, R.J., ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius and the dating of six early speeches’, C&M 48 (1997) 167–203. Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, 5 vols. Berkeley (1974–91). Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (2006) 95–103, 165–7.

D95 Decree about the price of salt Proposer: Unknown Date: 403–392

Literary Context

Joking that Athenian decrees often result in the Athenians throwing away their own property (Ekklesiazousai, 813), Aristophanes’ Dissident and Neighbour discuss three failed or illogical decrees of the Athenian demos.

376

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Ar. Eccl. 812–14: Αν.: τί δεινόν; ὥσπερ οὐχ ὁρῶν ἀεὶ τοιαῦτα γιγνόμενα ψηφίσματα. οὐκ οἶσθ’ ἐκεῖν’ οὕδοξε, τὸ περὶ τῶν ἁλῶν; T2 Schol. in Ar. Eccl. 813: Ψηφίσματα. ἐψηφίσαντο γὰρ αὐτοὺς εὐωνοτέρους εἶναι, καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ἄκυρον γέγονε.

Commentary

It is without doubt that the decree parodied here concerned salt; the scholiast’s note suggests that it concerned the price of salt, but nothing more can be said with certainty concerning its content. As Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 209 observes, the text suggests, and the scholiast confirms, that the decree was soon repealed or was ineffective. The decree may have imposed limitations on the mark-up of salt (Lys. 22.8 refers to a regulation forbidding the sale of grain at more than an obol per medimnos above the cost-price); alternatively, it may have introduced a maximum price on a fixed amount (IG II2 1672–3 lines 282–3, 286–7 refers to the fixing of the price of barley and wheat). Generally, on the fixing of prices of grain, see Stroud, The Athenian, 73–6 and [Aristotle] Ath. Pol. 51.3: the evidence for such regulations is, however, limited to the market in grain. But the Aristophanic references (Ach. 521, 760), which suggest, as Davies (‘Hellenistic economies’, 24–6) points out, that the fifth-century Athenians imported salt, might point to the possibility that it was viewed as an important enough commodity to be regulated; for Attic production of salt, see Carusi, Il Sale, 49–56. On factors regarding the fluctuation in demand for salt in Greece, see Carusi, ‘Hypotheses’; at times of food crisis, shortages meant that the price of salt went up: it did so in 295, when, according to Plutarch (Demetrius, 33.5–6), the price reached 40 drachmai per medimnos.

Date

Possibly before the date of production of Ekklesiazousai (which is placed between 393 and 389: see Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 1).

Bibliography

Carusi, C., Il sale nel mondo greco, VI a.C.–III d.C.: luoghi di produzione, circolazione commerciale, regimi di sfruttamento nel contesto del Mediterraneo antico. Bari (2008) 49–57, 156–7.

d96 decree withdrawing copper coinage

377

T1 Dissident: What’s absurd? As if you couldn’t see that decrees like this get made all the time. Don’t you remember that one that got passed, the one about salt? (trans. Sommerstein, Aristophanes)

T2 Decrees: they voted them to be cheaper, and then the decree became invalid.

Carusi, C., ‘Hypotheses, considerations – and unknown factors – regarding the demand for salt in ancient Greece’ in Archaeology and Anthropology of Salt: A Diachronic Approach. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, 1–5 October 2008 Al. I. Cuza University (Iaşi, Romania), eds. M. Alexianou, O. Weller and R.-G. Curcă. Oxford (2011) 149–54. Davies, J.K., ‘Hellenistic economies in the post-Finley era’ in Hellenistic Economies, eds. Z.A. Archibald, J.K. Davies, and G.J. Oliver. London and New York (2001) 11–62. Sommerstein, A., Aristophanes’ Ecclesiasusae. Warminster (1998). Stroud, R., The Athenian Grain Tax Law: Hesperia Supplement 29. Princeton (1998).

D96 Decree withdrawing copper coinage Proposer: Unknown Date: c. 403–392

Literary Context

Joking that Athenian decrees often result in the Athenians throwing away their own property (Ekklesiazousai, 813), Aristophanes’ Dissident and Neighbour discuss three failed or illogical decrees of the Athenian demos.

378

inventory a1

Text

T1 Ar. Eccl. 816–22: Αν.: τοὺς χαλκοῦς δ’ ἐκείνους ἡνίκα ἐψηφισάμεθ’, οὐκ οἶσθα; Γε.: καὶ κακόν γέ μοι  τὸ κόμμ’ ἐγένετ’ ἐκεῖνο. πωλῶν γὰρ βότρυς  μεστὴν ἀπῆρα τὴν γνάθον χαλκῶν ἔχων, κἄπειτ’ ἐχώρουν εἰς ἀγορὰν ἐπ’ ἄλφιτα. ἔπειθ’, ὑπέχοντος ἄρτι μου τὸν θύλακον, ἀνέκραγ’ ὁ κῆρυξ μὴ δέχεσθαι μηδένα χαλκὸν τὸ λοιπόν· ‘ἀργύρῳ γὰρ χρώμεθα’.

Commentary

As Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 209, suggests, the reference is probably to the silver-plated bronze coins introduced at the end of the fifth century: see Kroll ‘Aristophanes’; Grandjean, ‘Athens and bronze coinage’. The context of their introduction during the Peloponnesian War is controversial: see Figueira, The Power, 497–511, but it is likely to have been necessitated either by a general financial crisis or by the inability of the Athenians to exploit fully their silver resources in the latter stages of the war. The coins were demonetised or withdrawn at some point between 403 and 392: their abolition and the revitalisation of silver coinage would, as Grandjean, ‘Athens and bronze’, 106 argues, have ‘contributed to the strength of the renewed Athenian democracy’. Sommerstein notes that they appear in other comic fragments (209); moreover, a fragment of Aristophanes’ Aeolosikon (Fr. 3, of 402 or shortly after, revised in 386) jokes that the two obols in his mouth had transformed into two kollyboi (that is, one-eighth of an obol).

Date

Sommerstein, Aristophanes, 209, suggests that this may be a reference to legislation in the period 403–392, this is the view taken by Kroll, ‘Aristophanes’, 339– 41, who points out that the bronze coinage could have been demonetised only once the Athenians were able to exploit their silver sources again and replacement silver coins were minted and were in circulation. Grandjean, ‘Athens and bronze’, suggests that demonetisation may have taken place either on the reinstatement of democracy or after the Athenian victory at Knidos.

Bibliography

Figueira, T.J., The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire. Pennsylvania (1998).

d97 decree concerning the eisphora tax

379

T1  Dissident: And when we voted for that copper coinage, don’t you remember that? Neighbour: Yes, and that coinage did me a bad turn. I’d been selling grapes, and I started out with a full cargo of coppers in my mouth, and then made for the agora to buy barley meal; then, just as I was holding my bag open for it to be poured in, the herald cried out ‘No one to accept copper any longer! Our currency is silver!’ (trans. Sommerstein, Aristophanes)

Grandjean, K, ‘Athens and bronze coinage’ in Agoranomia: Studies in Money and Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll, ed. P.G. von Alfen. New York (2006) 99–108. Kroll, J., ‘Aristophanes’ ponera chalkia: a reply’, GRBS 17 (1976) 329–41. Sommerstein, A., Aristophanes’ Ecclesiasusae. Warminster (1998) 209.

D97 Decree concerning the eisphora tax

Proposer: Eurippides (or Heurippides) Adeimantos Myrrinousios (PA 594 + 5955 + 5956; PAA 444540; APF) Date: Before 392

Literary Context

Joking that Athenian decrees often result in the Athenians throwing away their own property (Ekklesiazousai, 813), Aristophanes’ Dissident and Neighbour discuss three failed or illogical decrees of the Athenian demos.

380

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Ar. Eccl. 823–9: Αν. τὸ δ’ ἔναγχος οὐχ ἅπαντες ἡμεῖς ὤμνυμεν τάλαντ’ ἔσεσθαι πεντακόσια τῇ πόλει τῆς τετταρακοστῆς, ἣν ἐπόρισ’ Εὑριππίδης; κεὐθὺς κατεχρύσου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὑριππίδην· ὅτε δὴ δ’ ἀνασκοπουμένοις ἐφαίνετο ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμ’ οὐκ ἤρκεσεν, πάλιν κατεπίττου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὑριππίδην. T2  Scholiast on Aristophanes, Ecc. 825: Τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς· οὗτος ἔγραψε τεσσαρακοστὴν εἰσενεγκεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας εἰς τὸ κοινόν.

Commentary

The Dissident of Aristophanes’ Ekklesiazousai claims that the Athenians recently swore that the city was going to get 500 Talents from the 2 ½ per cent tax devised by Heurippides, which failed to yield anything (T1). Different views of this have been taken: Thomsen (Eisphora, 184–5) suggested that it was a reference to an indirect tax which did not yield very much and led the Athenians instead to levy an eisphora; Sommerstein (Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, 209–10) takes the view that it was an over-optimistic eisphora levy which was levied on property, contrasting it with the metic-only tax levied at some point in the 390s: Isoc. 17 Trapazitikos 41. It is likely, as Seager, ‘Thrasybulus’ 111 note 145 argues, that the decree was intended to raise money for the Athenians after Persian financial support had been withdrawn. The fact that it is attached to the name (perhaps with a comedy aspirate added) of a politician otherwise attested as a proposer (IG II2 145 lines 3–4) makes it likely that the passage makes a joke about an authentic decree. For the view that the usual form of his name was Heurippides, and a discussion of his career, see Sommerstein, Aristophanes’, 210.

Date

Before 392 (date of the Ekklesiazousai).

Bibliography

Seager, R., ‘Thrasybulus, Conon, and Athenian imperialism, 396–386’, JHS 87 (1967) 95–115. Sommerstein, A., Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae. Warminster (1998) 209­–10.

d98 decree proposing exile of xenophon

381

T1 Dissident: And just recently, didn’t we all swear that the city was going to get five hundred Talents from the two-and-a-half per cent tax that Heurippides had devised – and straight away everyone was covering Heurippides with gold? Then, when they examined it closely and the thing failed to yield enough, everyone turned round and started covering Heurippides with pitch! (trans. Sommerstein, Aristophanes)

T2 From the 2 ½ per cent tax: he proposed that a 2 ½ per cent tax be levied on property for the community.

Thomsen, R., Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen (1964).

D98 Decree proposing exile of Xenophon Proposer: Euboulos or Euboulides (PA 5369; PAA 428495) Date: 399–394/3

Literary Context

This testimonium for an Athenian decree occurs towards the end of Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Xenophon.

382

inventory a1

Text

T1 Diogenes Laertius 2.59 (= Istros FGrH 334 F32): Ἴστρος φησὶν αὐτὸν φυγεῖν κατὰ ψήφισμα Εὐβούλου, καὶ κατελθεῖν κατὰ ψήφισμα τοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Commentary

One problem with this testimonium is that, as Cawkwell (‘Eubulus’, 63 note 83) observes, Euboulos son of Spintharos, born c. 405, is too young to have been the proposer of Xenophon’s exile, which is placed usually in the 390s (see Date below). One interesting solution (that of Breitenbach, RE XVIII 1575) is that Diogenes was confused by Xenophon being exiled during the archonship of Euboulides (394/3), or, as Tuplin (‘Xenophon’s exile’, 67) suggests, as a decree proposed by that same Euboulides. Generally, his exile has been connected with either his decision to fight for Cyrus, his Laconism, and, less convincingly, his oligarchic connections, his links with Socrates (see Jansen, ‘After empire’, 32–3 note 10), or, as Tuplin (‘Xenophon’s exile’) interestingly argues, it has been explained as a result of Athens’ alignment with Persia against Sparta. Badian, ‘Xenophon’, 42, suggests that it took place after his decision to go to Sparta after the battle of Koroneia (cf. D.L. 2.51; Plu. Agesil. 18). Dreher (‘Der Prozess’) speculatively identified the exile of Xenophon as the result of a verdict of a graphe prodosias, and suggests that he was sentenced to death but became a de facto exile. For the recall of Xenophon, attributed also to Euboulos, see D101 below. While there are few occasions where our sources explicitly associate exile as the result of a decree of the Athenian assembly, the power to exile a citizen was within the scope of the powers of the Athenian assembly: this is clear from the terms of the reconciliation of 403/2 ([Aristotle], Ath. Pol. 39; cf. [Plu.] X Or. 849c, saying that a decree of the Athenians exiled Hermippos). If Tuplin is right that Diogenes has confused the name of the proposer, we could identify the proposer with Euboulides Epikleidou Eleusinios (PA 5325), a defendant in an eisangelia trial and ambassador to Sparta in 392/1: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 45.

Date

The date of Xenophon’s exile is unknown, but is usually placed between 399 and the start of 394/3 BC: for a view placing it in 394, before the battle of Koroneia, see Tuplin, ‘Xenophon’s exile’.

d99 decree of unknown content

383

T1 Istros says that he was exiled by a decree of Euboulos and recalled by a decree of the same man.

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘Xenophon the Athenian’ in Xenophon and his World, ed. C. Tuplin. Stuttgart (2004) 34–53. Cawkwell, G., ‘Eubulus’, JHS 83 (1963), 47–67. Dreher, B., ‘Der Prozess gegen Xenophon’ in Xenophon and his World, ed. C. Tuplin. Stuttgart (2004) 55–69. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Jansen, J.A., ‘After empire: Xenophon’s Poroi and the reorientation of Athens’ political economy’, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Austin (2007). Tuplin, C., ‘Xenophon’s exile again’, in Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble, eds. M. Whitby, P. Hardie and M. Whitby. Bristol (1987) 59–68.

D99 Decree of unknown content Proposer: Phanias (PA 14010; PAA 915070) Date: c. 400–380

Literary Context

This testimonium crops up in Athenaios’ discussion of the Athenian poet Kinesias.

384

inventory a1

Text

T1  Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 551d–e: Ὅτι δὲ ἦν ὁ Κινησίας νοσώδης καὶ δεινὸς τἄλλα Λυσίας ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ ὑπὲρ Φανίου παρανόμων ἐπιγραφομένῳ λόγῳ εἴρηκεν, φάσκων αὐτὸν ἀφέμενον τῆς τέχνης συκοφαντεῖν καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου πλουτεῖν.

Commentary

This passage makes reference to Lysias’ speech in support of a decree of Phanias, which was indicted under graphe paranomon by Kinesias. The excerpt gives away nothing of the content of the decree or any clues as to the outcome of the trial.

Date

400–380?

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and The Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) p. 30 (no. 6).

d100 citizenship for strabax and polystratos

385

T1 The orator Lysias, in his speech entitled On Behalf of Phanias on a Charge of Proposing an Illegal Motion, asserted that Kinesias was a sick and awful character, and he claimed that he gave up his profession in order to bring vexatious charges against people and become wealthy out of that.

D100 Citizenship for Strabax and Polystratos Proposer: Unknown Date: 390s or 370s

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in the Against Leptines (T1), emphasising the virtues of Chabrias’ decree, notes that he did not request benefits for others at the same time, just as the Athenians had given awards to others associated with Iphikrates and Timotheos (Dem. 20.84–5). Aristotle (T2) cites Theodektes’ discussion of the honours for Strabax (and Charidemos) as an example of argument from analogy. On Theodektes, a fourth-century rhetorician, see FGrH 1026 F48 with Commentary; his book Nomos was probably an epideictic work.

386

inventory a1

Texts

T1 Dem. 20.84: Ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τιμῶντές ποτ’ Ἰφικράτην, οὐ μόνον αὐτὸν ἐτιμήσατε, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Στράβακα καὶ Πολύστρατον. T2 Arist. Rh. 1399b 1–4: Καὶ Θεοδέκτης ἐν τῷ Νόμῳ, ὅτι ‘πολίτας μὲν ποιεῖσθε τοὺς μισθοφόρους, οἷον Στράβακα καὶ Χαρίδημον, διὰ τὴν ἐπιείκειαν· φυγάδας δ’ οὐ ποιήσεσθε τοὺς ἐν τοῖς μισθοφόροις ἀνήκεστα διαπεπραγμένους;’

Commentary

Kremmydas sympathetically suggests that these two men were ‘distinguished foreign commanders of Iphikrates’ forces, who were awarded honorary citizenship by Athens, in connection with one of his victories’ (Commentary, 337). On Iphikrates’ awards, see D54 above. Strabax is identified by Aristotle (T2) as a mercenary. Polystratos was a mercenary commander at Corinth during the Corinthian War of 394–87 with Iphikrates (cf. Dem. 4.24 and Develin, AO 209), but may have been active later. Osborne, Naturalization, T28 Commentary suggests the award was made at the time of their contribution to Iphikrates’ campaigns in Corinthia; it is highly likely that they were Thracians, given that that was the place of origin of Iphikrates’ mercenaries (Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers, 51). As Develin, AO 209 points out, it is impossible to be certain that Polystratos was granted citizenship. This is another example of the rhetorical association of citizenship awards with honours for a famous Athenian honorand, a practice of which Demosthenes is critical. For other claims that someone was awarded ‘because of ’ or ‘in association with’ a more illustrious honorand, see Dem. 23.141 = D59; Dem. 20.84 = D62; Dem. 23.203 = D75. Theodektes’, Law (T2) appears to be making a case for the exile of mercenaries who had damaged Athenian interests.

Date

Uncertain; Dem. 4.24 points to a date in the 390s (cf. Osborne, T28); Dem. 20.84 suggests a date in the late 370s.

Bibliography

Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 337. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T28. Parke, H.W., Greek Mercenary Soldiers. Oxford (1933).

d101 decree recalling xenophon

387

T1 When you honoured Iphikrates, men of Athens, you did not only honour him, but because of him you also honoured Strabax and Polystratos. T2 And Theodektes, in his work, Law, says, ‘since you make mercenaries such as Strabax and Charidemos citizens out of fairness, will you not banish those mercenaries who have brought about tremendous misfortunes?’

D101 Decree recalling Xenophon

Proposer: Euboulos Spintharou Probalisios (PA 5369; PAA 428495) Date: 386 or 371–362

Literary Context

This testimonium for an Athenian decree occurs towards the end of Diogenes Laertius’ Life of Xenophon.

Text

See D98 above.

Commentary

Diogenes Laertius claims that Istros (FGrH 334 F32) confirms that Xenophon was banished by a decree of Euboulos and recalled by a decree of the same man. It is surely the case that the Athenian assembly had the power to recall exiles by decree: Phormisios’ proposal in 403/2 (see D4 above) proposed the restoration of exiles. It is not clear whether Xenophon returned to exile; on his Athenian identity, see Tuplin, ‘Xenophon and Athens’. Euboulos is connected with at least two other decrees of the people: see Volume 2, Appendix 1. For other political activity, including the proposal of a nomos on the theoric fund, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’ 46 and Cawkwell, ‘Eubulus’. The attribution to Euboulos of both Xenophon’s exile (D98 above) and his recall may, however, be an error.

388

inventory a1

Date

The date of Xenophon’s recall is unknown. Cawkwell (‘Eubulus’ 63 note 83) suggests 387/6, after the King’s Peace, though, as Jensen observes, given that the Athenians did not come to terms with this peace enthusiastically, it is hard to believe that they would have consequently recalled all of their pro-Spartan exiles (Jansen, ‘After empire 34); placing the decree in the period of Athenian attempts at reconciliation between the collapse of Spartan power at battle of Leuktra of 371 and the Peace of 370/69 (Xen. Hell. 6.3.1–7; 6.5.1) would be reasonable, though the terminus ante quem is provided by Diogenes’ reference to Xenophon’s sons serving at Mantineia in 362. Jensen, ‘After empire’, 36 suggests a date late in the 360s. For further discussion, and a date in the 360s, see Dreher, ‘Der Prozess’, 55–69. It is not known, however, whether Xenophon ever returned to Athens: for discussion, see Jansen, ‘After empire’, 34–49.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Eubulus’, JHS 83 (1963) 47–67. Dreher, B., ‘Der Prozess gegen Xenophon’ in Xenophon and his World, ed. C. Tuplin. Stuttgart (2004) 55–69. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Jansen, J.A., ‘After empire: Xenophon’s Poroi and the reorientation of Athens’ political economy’, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Austin (2007). Tuplin, C.A., ‘Xenophon and Athens’ in M.A. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon. Cambridge (2017) 338–59.

D102 Award of ateleia for Aristophon Proposer: Unknown Date: Between 403 and 355

Literary Context

Demosthenes claims that Aristophon’s support of Leptines’ proposal to abolish awards of exemption, given that he himself received such an award, was hypocritical. As Kremmydas, Commentary, 427 observes, had Leptines’ law been upheld, Aristophon would have lost his privileges.

389

390

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 20.148: Καὶ μὴν πρός γε Ἀριστοφῶντα πολλὰ καὶ δίκαι’ ἂν ἔχειν εἰπεῖν οἶμαι. οὗτος εὕρετο τὴν δωρειὰν παρ’ ὑμῖν, ἐν ᾗ τοῦτ’ ἐνῆν. καὶ οὐ τοῦτ’ ἐπιτιμῶ· δεῖ γὰρ ἐφ’ ὑμῖν εἶναι διδόναι τὰ ὑμέτερ’ αὐτῶν οἷς ἂν βούλησθε. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνό γ’ οὐχὶ δίκαιον εἶναί φημι, τὸ ὅτε μὲν τούτῳ ταῦτ’ ἔμελλεν ὑπάρχειν λαβόντι, μηδὲν ἡγεῖσθαι δεινόν, ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἑτέροις δέδοται, τηνικαῦτ’ ἀγανακτεῖν καὶ πείθειν ὑμᾶς ἀφελέσθαι.

Commentary

Aristophon is one of those living Athenian honorands said by Demosthenes to have been granted ateleia; the others are Ktesippos (Dem. 20.75), Timotheos (20.84 = D47), Iphikrates (20.84 = D54). For further examples of awards of ateleia, see Henry, Honours, 241–6; for its forms see MacDowell, ‘Epikerdes’; in the case of Athenians, it consisted probably of exemption from liturgies. As Aristophon was an advocate (syndikos) of Leptines’ law (Dem. 20.146), he received treatment more hostile than that apportioned by Demosthenes to other honorands. As Kremmydas points out, the fact that Aristophon was apparently willing to surrender his award suggests the urgency of the reform (Kremmydas, Commentary, 23). Aristophon had a long political career (see Whitehead, ‘The political career’; Kremmydas, Commentary, 36–7; Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 37–8), so it is hard to be certain as to when or why he received his ateleia, but Whitehead, citing Schaefer, suggests that the grant was made in 403/2 as a reward for contributing to the effort against the Thirty: see Whitehead, ‘The political career’, 314 note 8; cf. Canavaro, Demostene, 34–5. The view is supported by the fact that he is not attested to have paid any liturgies (Davies APF p. 65).

Date

403/2 or later, see Commentary above; the date of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines provides the terminus post quem.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene, Contro Leptine: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 34–5. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012).

d103 decree bestowing proxeny on lykidas

391

T1 And with respect to Aristophon I believe that I am able to say many just things, for he received the award from you, in which was included this privilege. And I do not find fault with this, for it is necessary for you to be able to give away your own things to whomever you wish. But I say that what is unjust is that when he was about to receive this grant, he did not consider it a terrible thing, but now when it has been given to others, he is enraged and urges you to remove it.

MacDowell, D.M., ‘Epikerdes of Kyrene and the Athenian privilege of ateleia’, ZPE 150 (2004) 127–33. Whitehead, D., ‘The political career of Aristophon’, Classical Philology 81 (1986) 313–19.

D103 Decree bestowing proxeny on Lykidas and Dionysios Proposer: Unknown Date: Before 355

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) suggests that those speaking in favour of Leptines’ law abolishing exemption from liturgies will point to the abuse of the system of ateleia: they will point to those Megarians and Messenians whose false claims about possession of ateleia resulted in them being treated as if they did indeed possess it (see D104 below); on the other hand there are others, like Lykidas and Dionysios, who have been granted proxeny-status because of the support of politicians. Demosthenes’ solution to the problem is to suggest that those claiming to possess ateleia should be told to show them the decrees (T1).

392

inventory a1

Text

T1  Dem. 20.131–3: Ἔτι τοίνυν ἴσως ἐπισύροντες ἐροῦσιν ὡς Μεγαρεῖς καὶ Μεσσήνιοί τινες εἶναι φάσκοντες, ἔπειτ’ ἀτελεῖς εἰσιν, ἁθρόοι παμπληθεῖς ἄνθρωποι, καί τινες ἄλλοι δοῦλοι καὶ μαστιγίαι, Λυκίδας καὶ Διονύσιος, καὶ τοιούτους τινὰς ἐξειλεγμένοι. ὑπὲρ δὴ τούτων ὡδὶ ποιήσαθ’ ὅταν ταῦτα λέγωσι· κελεύετ’, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τὰ ψηφίσματα ἐν οἷς ἀτελεῖς εἰσιν οὗτοι δεῖξαι. οὐ γάρ ἐστ’ οὐδεὶς ἀτελὴς παρ’ ὑμῖν ὅτῳ μὴ ψήφισμα ἢ νόμος δέδωκε τὴν ἀτέλειαν. πρόξενοι μέντοι πολλοὶ διὰ τῶν πολιτευομένων γεγόνασι παρ’ ὑμῖν τοιοῦτοι, ὧν εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Λυκίδας. ἀλλ’ ἕτερον πρόξενόν ἐστ’ εἶναι καὶ ἀτέλειαν εὑρῆσθαι. μὴ δὴ παραγόντων ὑμᾶς, μηδ’, ὅτι δοῦλος ὢν ὁ Λυκίδας καὶ Διονύσιος καί τις ἴσως ἄλλος διὰ τοὺς μισθοῦ τὰ τοιαῦτα γράφοντας ἑτοίμως πρόξενοι γεγόνασι, διὰ τοῦθ’ ἑτέρους {ἀξίους} καὶ ἐλευθέρους καὶ πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίους, ἃς ἔλαβον δικαίως παρ’ ὑμῶν δωρειὰς ἀφελέσθαι ζητούντων. πῶς γὰρ οὐχὶ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο δεινότατ’ ἂν πεπονθὼς ὁ Χαβρίας φανείη, εἰ μὴ μόνον ἐξαρκέσει τοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα πολιτευομένοις τὸν ἐκείνου δοῦλον Λυκίδαν πρόξενον ὑμέτερον πεποιηκέναι, ἀλλ’ εἰ διὰ τοῦτον πάλιν καὶ τῶν ἐκείνῳ τι δοθέντων ἀφέλοιντο, καὶ ταῦτ’ αἰτίαν λέγοντες ψευδῆ; οὐ γάρ ἐστιν οὔθ’ οὗτος οὔτ’ ἄλλος οὐδεὶς πρόξενος ὢν ἀτελής, ὅτῳ μὴ διαρρήδην ἀτέλειαν ἔδωκεν ὁ δῆμος. τούτοις δ’ οὐ δέδωκεν, οὐδ’ ἕξουσιν οὗτοι δεικνύναι, λόγῳ δ’ ἂν ἀναισχυντῶσιν, οὐχὶ καλῶς ποιήσουσιν.

Commentary

Dionysios, claimed here to be a slave, is otherwise unknown. Demosthenes and the scholiast on the passage suggest that Lykidas was a freedman of Chabrias, who became a commander of mercenaries: see Scholion on Dem. 20.133 (Dilts 322) and Canevaro, Demostene, 395. As Kremmydas (Commentary, 404–5) rightly observes, at the crux of Demosthenes’ argument is the view that Lykidas and Dionysios were awarded proxenia rather than citizenship (cf. Scholion on Dem. 20.133 (Dilts 322)), but have claimed exemption. Demosthenes emphasies (T1) the difference between the awards of proxenia and ateleia, and despite the evidence that the two were sometimes granted alongside one another (Henry, Honours, 241–6), there is no need to dispute this claim. It may have been the case that Lykidas was granted honours at the same time as Chabrias (D46 above): if so this is a contradiction of the claim at Dem. 20.84 that Chabrias received his award alone: cf. Canevaro, Demostene, 332–3.

d103 decree bestowing proxeny on lykidas

393

T1  Well, perhaps they will say, in an evasive way, that certain Megarians and Messenians claimed to be, then actually were exempt, a large group of people altogether, and that some others, slaves and rogues, and will pick out men like Lykidas and Dionysios. When they make use of these arguments, you should do this: if they are telling you the truth, require them to show the decrees in which they are made exempt. For there is no one who is exempt among you who has not had it granted to him by a decree or law. However, many men may have become proxenoi because of politicians, and one such person is Lykidas. But it is one thing to be proxenos and another to be granted exemption. Do not let them mislead you. It is indeed the case that Lykidas and Dionysios and perhaps some other persons, who were slaves, readily became proxenoi because of those who made proposals about such things for the sake of pay. But don’t, because of these, seek to remove awards which you gave fairly to those other worthy, free, men who were responsible for numerous good things. For how would it not then be a completely terrible thing for Chabrias to suffer if those who propose this policy and have made Lykidas, that man’s slave, a proxenos, also deprive, on the grounds of false accusations, Chabrias of some of his awards on the grounds of Lykidas? For there is no exemption for him nor for any other proxenos, unless the people explicitly have given it to him. And the people have not made that gift to him, nor are they able to show that they have, but if they are shameless enough as to make such a claim, that would be disgraceful.

As Kamen (‘Servile’, 48) observes, though Lykidas is a freedman, Demosthenes refers to him as a slave: this is a demeaning use of language rather than a fair reflection on the status of the honorand, albeit it is one that may well have misled the scholiast. For discussion of the translation of this passage, and on the imaginary awards for the Megarians and Messenians, see D104a–b below.

Date

Before 355/4: the date of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines: Kremmydas, Commentary, 33.

inventory a1

394

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene, Contro Leptine: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 332–5. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Kamen, D., ‘Servile invective in classical Athens’, SCI 28 (2009) 43–56. Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012).

D104a–b† Award of ateleia for Megarians and Messenians Proposers: Unknown Dates: Before 355/4

Literary Context See D103 above.

Text

See D103 above.

Commentary

The translation of this passage offered above (D103 T1) raises some controversies. Kremmydas’ translation of ‘Ἔτι τοίνυν ἴσως ἐπισύροντες ἐροῦσιν ὡς Μεγαρεῖς καὶ Μεσσήνιοί τινες εἶναι φάσκοντες, ἔπειτ’ ἀτελεῖς εἰσιν’ (Dem. 20.131) suggests not, as the translation above (D103 T1, which follows that of Harris), that certain Megarians and Messenians claimed, misleadingly, that their communities were exempt, but rather that ‘some people are exempt by claiming that they are Megarians or Messenians’. A parallel example of a non-Athenian allegedly making claims on the basis of ethnicity about his rights (a man claiming to

d104a–b† award of ateleia for megarians

395

be a Plataean with the rights of an Athenian) is attested in Lysias’s speech 23, Against Pankleon. However, Harris’ interpretation is made more persuasive by the fact that Demosthenes goes on to advise that all those claiming exemption should be required to show evidence of the decrees which granted them the award (Dem. 20.131): this addresses the problem of individuals falsely claiming to be in possession of exemption, rather than individuals falsely claiming to be members of communities which had received block-grants of exemption.

396

inventory a1

Substantiating his interpretation of the text, Kremmydas suggests that ateleia may have been awarded to the Megarians for sheltering those Athenians who fled the Thirty (Xen. Hell. 2.4.1), while a context for the award to the Messenians is even more speculative (Commentary, 402–3). The fact that mass grants to these communities are otherwise unattested (Canevaro, Demostene, 394) certainly militates against Kremmydas’ translation (though, for a proxeny award for a Megarian from the time before 378/7, see IG II2 81 = SEG XL 57). Accordingly, it is far from clear that this passage provides adequate reference to decrees of the Athenians bestowing exemption on the Megarians and Messenians (though it is not impossible: Canevaro, Demostene, 394); for this reason this decree is marked as uncertain.

Date

Before 355/4: the date of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines: Kremmydas, Commentary, 33.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., Demostene, Contro Leptine: introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston (2016) 394. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 20–22. Austin (2008). Kremmydas, C., Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines. Oxford (2012) 402–5.

Inventory A2: 352/1–322/1 Decrees of the Athenian assembly are listed in chronological order, insofar as the testimonia enable each decree to be dated; firmly datable decrees are listed first (DD 105–202); those for which the date is less certain follow (DD 203–245). Proposals (gnomai) which appear to have been rejected by the assembly are marked with a single asterisk (*) and those which appear to have been overturned by graphe paranomon in the courts are marked with a double asterisk (**). Uncertainty about the authenticity of a particular example as a decree or other serious problems with its identification are indicated with a dagger (†). Decisions of the assembly which may plausibly constitute decrees, but for which there is no certain reference to their status as a decree are listed in Inventory B. The historiographical, legal and rhetorical contexts within which the testimonia appear are explored in each decree-entry of the Inventory under the heading ‘Literary Context’. The Commentary in each decree-entry sets out the historical context of the decrees and discusses, succinctly, the controversies relating to their content and interpretation which the reader may wish to follow up by reference to the references listed in the Bibliography. The Date of the decree precedes the Bibliography.

397

D105 Decree celebrating a military victory Proposer: Diophantos Thrasymedous Sphettios (PA 4438; PAA 367640) Date: Late Summer 352

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in 343, read the decrees of Diophantos and Kallisthenes to the court (T1); this served the purpose of juxtaposing good decree-making practice with instances when the people had been led astray by self-seeking politicians. See also D135 below.

Texts

T1  Dem. 19.86: Λέγε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν τὸ τοῦ Διοφάντου καὶ τὸ τοῦ Καλλισθένους, ἵν’ εἰδῆτε ὅτι, ὅτε μὲν τὰ δέοντ’ ἐποιεῖτε, θυσιῶν καὶ ἐπαίνων ἠξιοῦσθε παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐπειδὴ δ’ ὑπὸ τούτων παρεκρούσθητε, παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν κατεκομίζεσθε καὶ τὰ Ἡράκλεια ἐντὸς τείχους θύειν ἐψηφίζεσθε, εἰρήνης οὔσης. T2  Scholion on Dem. 19.86 (Dilts 199): Οὗτος ὁ Διόφαντος, τῶν συμμάχων περισωθέντων καὶ ἀπελαθέντος ἐκ τῆς Φωκίδος Φιλίππου, ἔγραψε χαριστηρίους θυσίας τοῖς θεοῖς.

Commentary

The decree of Kallisthenes was a response to defeat (in probably 346; see D135 below); but the decree of Diophantos celebrated with sacrifices and celebrations a victory (probably that against the Macedonians at Thermopylai in the summer of 352, as MacDowell, Demosthenes On the False Embassy, 245 suggests). For a comparable decree celebrating a victory with sacrifices and processions, see D165 below. The Athenians commemorated victory on the battlefield by setting up trophies (see Trundle, ‘Commemorating victory’), but sometimes they celebrated them through religious celebrations proposed by a decree of the assembly. For example, the Athenians performed thanksgiving sacrifices when the Greeks 398

d105 decree celebrating a military victory

399

T1 Take and read the decree of Diophantos and that of Kallisthenes, so that you might know that, when you did your duty, you were thought worthy of acts of sacrifice and of praise, both among Athenians and other peoples; but that when you were led astray by these men, you brought in your children and women from the countryside and you voted to make the sacrifices to Herakles within the city walls, even while there was peace. T2 This Diophantos proposed thank-offerings and sacrifices to the gods when the allies were saved and when Philip was thrown out of Phokis.

at Lamia held up Antipater: [Plu.] X Or. 846d–e (but note the observation of Hau, in her comprehensive survey of victory celebrations in historiography (‘Nothing to celebrate?’), that such festivities were underplayed by ancient Greek historians). The institution of sacrifices in commemoration of a victorious battle is known elsewhere: at Plataea (Plu. Arist. 19–20), for example, the Aiantis tribe made sacrifices and the Greeks were instructed to sacrifice at a new altar to Zeus the Liberator. According to Plutarch (Arist. 21), the Eleutheria games, probably in the Hellenistic period, were celebrated every four years together with a sacrifice by the Plataeans: see Austin, Hellenistic World, no. 51, for Glaukon’s honours for his contributions to the revived

400

inventory a2

Eleutheria in the third century; see Jung, Marathon und Plataeai, 299–320). For further discussion and testimonia related to epinikia hiera, that is, religious celebrations in honour of a military victory, see Pritchett, Greek State at War, III 186–9. On the occasion of Diophantos’ decree, however, it seems likely that the sacrifice was a one-off event. What is notable here is that the sacrifices and praise (presumably in the forms of ‘laudatory addresses from other cities’: MacDowell, Demosthenes On the False Embassy, 244) were to be undertaken both at Athens and elsewhere, though it is far from certain that the decree of Diophantos made provisions for their celebration outside Attica. The decision to carry out acts of sacrifice and praise demonstrates the elation that the Athenians and Greeks felt in reaction to the (temporary) suspension of the Macedonian threat; we might compare the Syracusan establishment of the Assinaria on the day of Nikias’ capture; this festival was named after the river where the Athenians had surrendered (Plu. Nic. 28.1; I am grateful to Jason Crowley for this example). Festivals were, on the other hand, generally regulated by law (Dem. 4.36) and the introduction of changes to cult activity or a new cult would have necessitated legislation, though the specifics of celebration – as in this case – could be adjusted by decree (see IG II 3 1 447 = RO 81). This proposer is usually identified as Diophantos Thrasymedous Sphettios rather than Diophantos Phrasykleidou Myrrinousios (PA 4435; PAA 367500), who proposed the decrees for Euenor (see IG II 3 1 324 lines 7–8 and 36–7). On the former Diophantos and his significance in mid fourth-century politics, see Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time, 118 and MacDowell, Demosthenes On the Embassy, 244; his other political activities included proposing honours for Koroibos in 368/7 (IG II2 106 line 6) and honours for envoys from Mytilene in the same year (IG II2 107 line 8); he was also a member of the theoric board from 360–50: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 44. Demosthenes claims that Diophantos testified against Aeschines (Dem. 19.198, 237). He has also been associated with the theoric fund (Schol. on Aeschin. 3.24 (Dilts 65) and Rhodes, Commentary, 514) and a plan to make use of slaves for public works, but Aristotle’s description is too vague to be able to tell whether or not this constituted a decree of the people (Arist. Pol. 1267b 18).

Date

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Dinarchus 13 p. 655 says that the Athenian expedition to Thermopylai was sent in 353/2 (DP 53). If, as Sealey (Demosthenes, 124) suggests, this took place in summer 352, then Diophantos’ decree can be dated to late summer 352.

d106 decree launching an expedition against philip 401

Bibliography

Austin, M.M., The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, 1st ed. Cambridge (1981). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Hau, L.I., ‘Nothing to celebrate? The lack or disparagement of victory celebrations in the Greek historians’ in Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World. Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 63, eds. A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong. Leiden (2013) 57–74. Jung, M., Marathon und Plataeai: Zwei Perserschlackten als ‘lieux de mémoire’ in antiken Griechenland. Göttingen (2006). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Pritchett, W.K., Greek State at War, vol. III. Berkeley (1979). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 514. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993). Trundle, M., ‘Commemorating victory in classical Greece: why Greek tropaia?’ in Rituals of Triumph in the Mediterranean World. Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 63, eds. A. Spalinger and J. Armstrong. Leiden (2013) 123–38.

D106 Decree launching an expedition against Philip Proposer: Unknown Date: 352/1

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) offers this decree as an example of one passed by the Athenian assembly that went unfulfilled (cf. Dem. 3.14). On this phenomenon, see Mader, ‘Fighting Philip’.

402

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 3.4: Μέμνησθε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτ’ ἀπηγγέλθη Φίλιππος ὑμῖν ἐν Θρᾴκῃ τρίτον ἢ τέταρτον ἔτος τουτὶ Ἡραῖον τεῖχος πολιορκῶν. τότε τοίνυν μὴν μὲν ἦν Μαιμακτηριών· πολλῶν δὲ λόγων καὶ θορύβου γιγνομένου παρ’ ὑμῖν ἐψηφίσασθε τετταράκοντα τριήρεις καθέλκειν καὶ τοὺς μέχρι πέντε καὶ τετταράκοντα ἐτῶν αὐτοὺς ἐμβαίνειν καὶ τάλαντα ἑξήκοντα εἰσφέρειν.

Commentary

Demosthenes (T1) describes the Athenians’ reaction to news of Philip’s siege of the fortress at Heraion Teichos (‘Hera’s Wall’: this was a stronghold of Kersobleptes, located in eastern Thrace close to the Propontis). The siege formed part of Philip’s assault on Thrace, probably in the autumn–winter of 352/1 (see Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.282–4), and was launched perhaps as a reaction to the Athenian negotiations with Kersobleptes and their dispatch of settlers there in 353/2: see Dem. 1.13 and D.S. 16.34.3-4. The fleet to which T1 refers was never dispatched (Dem. 3.4–5): as Sealey (Demosthenes, 124) points out, weather patterns meant that it would have been difficult to send such a fleet during the winter. Therefore, the Athenians never put the decree into action, although it appears to have been formally enacted. The dispatch of men by age class was common, and its introduction was dated by Christ, ‘Conscription’, 412–16 to the period between 386 and 366; see also D123 (= Aeschin. 2.132–3: to the age of 40) and D199 (= D.S. 18.10.2: to the age of 40). The levy of eisphora was based on a percentage of the total capital of the richest Athenians: a sum of 60 Talents was represented in this period as 1 per cent: Dem. 14.27; the total value of Attica was, therefore, 6,000 Talents: Dem. 14.19. It is likely that self-assessment played an important part in the declaration of wealth by the rich: see Christ, ‘The evolution’. Demosthenes goes on to say that in Boedromion, probably 351/0 (that is nine months later), the Athenians finally sent out Charidemos with ten ships and five Talents of silver (Dem. 3.5: ‘δέκα ναῦς ἀπεστείλατ’ ἔχοντα κενὰς Χαρίδημον καὶ πέντε τάλαντ’ ἀργυρίου’), but that on hearing reports that Philip was ill or dead, the Athenians abandoned the expedition.

Date

Maimakterion 352/1 (i.e. November 352/1; Demosthenes T1 with Sealey, Demosthenes, 124)

d107 decree concerning the sacred orgas

403

T1 You remember, men of Athens, when it was announced to you, two or three years ago, that Philip was in Thrace besieging Heraion Teichos; this was during the month of Maimakterion: when many speeches were made and there was a great uproar at the assembly, you voted to launch 40 triremes and to embark upon them men up to 45 years of age and to levy an eisphora of 60 Talents.

Bibliography

Christ, M.C., ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, CQ 51 (2001) 398–422. Christ, M.C., ‘The evolution of eisphora in classical Athens’, CQ 57 (2007) 53–69. Griffith, G.T. in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 282–4. Mader, G., ‘Fighting Philip with decrees: Demosthenes and the syndrome of symbolic action’, AJPh 117 (2006) 367–86. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 124.

D107 Decree concerning the sacred orgas Proposer: Philokrates Ephialtous (PA 14586; PAA 937130) Date: 352/1

Literary Context

Didymos, drawing on fourth-century Atthidographers, mentions the decree of Philokrates in his attempt to date speech 12 of Demosthenes (T1) and as part of an explanation of the phrase ‘accursed Megarians’ (T2). For the view that Androtion’s version (this is the subject of T2) was derivative of that of Philochorus (T1), see Harding, Androtion, 125.

404

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Didymos, On Demosthenes col. 13.42–58 Harding (= Philochorus FGrH328 F155): Ὅτι μνημονεύει τ(ῶν) πραχθέντ(ων) Ἀθηναίοις πρὸς Μεγαρέας περὶ τῆς ἱερ(ᾶς) Ὀργάδος. γέγονε ταυτὶ κατ’ Ἀπολλόδωρον ἄρχοντα καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ Φιλόχορος οὑτωσὶ γράφων· ‘Ἀθηναῖοι δ(ὲ) πρὸς Μεγαρέας διενεχθέντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ τῆς ἱερ(ᾶς) [Ὀ]ργάδος ἐπῆλθον εἰς Μέγαρα μ̣ ε̣ τ̣ ’ Ἐφιάλτου στρατηγο(ῦν)τος ἐπὶ τῆι χώραι κ(αὶ) ὡρίσαντο τὴν Ὀργάδα τ(ὴν) ἱεράν. ὁρισταὶ δ’ (ἐ)γένοντο συγχωρησάντων Μεγαρέων Λακρατείδης ὁ ἱ[ε]ροφάντης κ(αὶ) ὁ δαιδοῦχος Ἱεροκ[λ]είδ.η. ς, κ(αὶ) τὰς ἐσχατίας τὰς περὶ τὴν Ὀργάδα καθιέρωσαν τοῦ θεοῦ χρήσαντος λῶιον κ(αὶ) ἄμεινον ἀνεῖσι κ(αὶ) μὴ ἐργαζομ(έν)οισι. κ(αὶ) ἀφώρισαν κύκλωι στήλαις κατὰ [ψ]ήφισμα Φιλοκράτους.’ T2 Didymos, On Demosthenes col. 14.35–49 Harding (= Androtion FGrH 324 F30): Διείλεκται δ(ὲ) περὶ ταύτης τ(ῆς) Ὀργάδος κ(αὶ) Ἀνδ[ρ]οτίων ἐν τῆι Ζ τῶν Ἀτθίδ(ων) γράφ(ων) οὕτως· ‘Ὡρ̣    ί  ̣σ̣       αντο δ(ὲ) κ(αὶ) Ἀθην[αῖο]ι πρὸς Μεγαρέας τὴν Ὀργάδα δια τ[οῖ]ν θεοῖν ὅπως βούλοιντο· συνεχώρησαν γ(ὰρ) οἱ Μεγαρεῖς ὁριστὰς γενέσθαι τὸν ἱεροφάντ(ην) Λακρατείδην κ(αὶ) τὸν δαιδοῦχον Ἱεροκλείδην. κ(αὶ) ὡς οὗτοι ὥρισαν ἐνέμειναν. κ(αὶ) τὰς ἐσχατίας ὅσαι ἦσαν πρὸς τῆι Ὀργάδι καθιέρωσαν, διαμαντευσάμ(εν)οι κ(αὶ) ἀνελόντος τοῦ θεοῦ λῶιον κ(αὶ) ἄμεινον (εἶναι) μὴ ἐργαζομένοις. κ(αὶ) στήλαις ὡρ[ί]σθη κύκλωι λιθίναις Φιλοκράτους εἰπόντος.’

Commentary

There has been much discussion of the fertile tract of land known as the sacred orgas, which was the subject of dispute between the Athenians and Megarians in the fifth and fourth centuries BC (Plu. Per. 30.2; cf. Thuc. 1.139.2); on its history, nature and administration, see Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 244–59. It lay to the west of Eleusis, on the borders with Megara; a number of precise locations have been suggested, among them a watershed ‘northwest of Meletaki around the region of Korakas, at the head of the broad valley leading down to Mandra’, including associated arable land (see Edmonson, ‘The Topography,’ 110–12; Ober, Fortress Attica, 225–6; for further discussion, see Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 246 note 10). The subject of the use of the sacred land was of long-running concern to the Athenians (see, for instance, Cawkwell, ‘Anthemocritus’); this particular recrudescence of the affair has been very helpfully placed by Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 244–52, in the historical context of the dispute about the cultivation

d107 decree concerning the sacred orgas

405

T1 Because he (Demosthenes) mentions the things undertaken by the Athenians against the Megarians concerning the sacred orgas. This happened during the archonship of Apollodoros (350/49), as Philochorus recounts, writing as follows:  ‘When the Athenians had a dispute with the Megarians over the delimitation of the sacred [o]rgas, they passed over into Megara with Ephialtes, the general for the homeguard, and marked out its limits. With the Megarians’ agreement, the men who marked out the boundaries were Lakrateides the hierophant and Hierok[l]eides the daidouchos (torchbearer) they even consecrated the edge-lands around the orgas, after the god responded (that) it was preferable and better (for them) to leave (the edge-lands) untilled and to not farm (them). And they fenced around them in a circle with stelai according to the decree of Philokrates.’ (tr. Harding, Didymos, adapted). T2  And[r]otion, too, has written about this orgas in the seventh (book) of the Atthides. He writes as follows: ‘But the Athenians, too, with the Megarians’ consent, marked out the boundaries of the orgas in whatever way they wanted by aid of the Two Goddesses. For the Megarians agreed (that) the delineators of the boundary should be the hierophant, Lakrateides, and the daidouchos, Hierokleides. And they abided by the boundaries as these men had marked (them). And they consecrated the edge-lands that were beside the orgas, after they had consulted the oracle and the God had replied (that) it was preferable and better (for them) not to cultivate (the edgelands). And the boundary was marked off in a circle with marble stelai, on the motion of Philokrates.’ (tr. Harding, Didymos, adapted)

of the plain of Kirrha which gave rise to the Sacred War later in the fourth century. A range of factors could have re-ignited the dispute about the use of the sacred orgas, including controversial cultivation of the land on any sort of scale by local farmers. According to these testimonia, Philokrates proposed a decree which organised the demarcation of the boundary of the sacred orgas between Eleusis and Megara by the arrangement of stelai in a circle (T1: ‘ἀφώρισαν κύκλωι στήλαις κατὰ [ψ]ήφισμα Φιλοκράτους’; T2: ‘στήλαις ὡρ[ί]σθη κύκλωι λιθίναις Φιλοκράτους εἰπόντος’). It is possible (but far from certain) that Philokrates’ decree contained other provisions mentioned by Philochorus (T1) and Androtion (T2) (that is, those concerning the Eleusinian officials charged with marking out the boundaries of the orgas, and the consecration of the eschatiai in accordance with Delphic advice that they should be left untilled). Indeed, these two provisions appear to have been

406

inventory a2

set out in more detail in an inscribed decree IG II3 1 292 = RO 58 (itself passed at some point before 16th Poseideon (= December/January), 352/1; the name of the proposer is not extant): in the inscription, it is said that the Athenians were to ask the oracle about whether it considers it preferable and better (‘λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον’: identical language to TT 1 and 2) to cultivate the land outside the boundaries or not to do so (lines 23–30). It is perhaps significant that Philochorus (T1) says that the oracle told the Athenians to leave the land untilled, and consequently that the land was fenced with stelai according to Philokrates’ decree. This could be identified as a reference to the consultation mentioned in the inscription. However, the inscription refers back to an ‘earlier decree of Philokrates concerning sacred things’ (lines 54–5: ‘τὸ πρότερον τὸ Φι[λ]ο[κ]ράτο[υς τὸ περὶ τῶν] ἱ[ερῶν]’), telling nothing about its content; it refers also to boundary stones that have been removed (lines 74–5). One possibility is that this is the same decree of Philokrates as the one mentioned in these literary testimonia (TT1 and 2). How did Philokrates’ decree (or decrees) relate to escalation of the dispute between Athens and Megara, to which Philochorus refers (T1)? And how does/ do his decree(s) relate to the claim in [Demosthenes] 13.32, that the Megarians appropriated the land and that the Athenians voted to go out and prevent them (D111 T1)? From the eponymous archonship preserved in Didymos (T1), it can be inferred that this expedition was undertaken in 350/49. However, the inscription refers to a decree of Philokrates which predates 16th Poseideon 352/1. There are at least three ways to resolve this: (a) Either the inscription refers to an earlier decree of Philokrates of unknown content, whereas the decree of Philokrates of T1 and T2 came after the incursion, representing the final denouement of the dispute; this is a view supported by Scafuro, ‘IG II2 204’, 143, who suggests that the Athenian attempt to treat the dispute (as it is set out in the inscribed decree) as if it were a matter pertinent to the internal affairs of Athens, rather than an inter-state dispute, actually provoked the Megarians into encroachments of the decree and led to the later ‘decree for action’ of the Athenians. The chronology offered by Engen, ‘IG II2 204’, esp. 146–50, proposes, without firm evidence, two separate decrees of Philokrates, the first of which called for war with Megara; (b) alternatively that, as Daverio-Rocchi, ‘La ΙΕΡΑ ΟΡΓΑΣ’, claims, Didymos is confused and Athenian military action came after the enactment of Philokrates; (c) alternatively that Didymos refers to the date of the (belated) imposition (or re-imposition), rather than the enactment, of Philokrates’ decree: the Athenians may have failed to impose the provisions of Philokrates’ decree

d107 decree concerning the sacred orgas

407

until after the military incursion of 350/49, or they may have had to do so for a second time after the Megarians had torn them up. Interpretation (c) is the least cumbersome. If, therefore, we follow (c), the following chronology is proposed: Philokrates’ proposal to erect boundary stones defining the sacred orgas (T1, 2) was either the starting-point of the dispute or a reaction to an earlier incident; the markers were either not actually set up or were cast down by the Megarians (cf. IG II3 1 292 lines 74–5). Some months later, in December/January 352/1, at a time when a question was raised about the funding of a colonnade and restoration of the temple of the Two Goddesses at Eleusis (IG II3 1 292 lines 23–40), the Athenians suggested raising money from the leasing of the sacred orgas for cultivation: envisaging that a Phokiancontrolled oracle would ensure a positive answer (cf. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 250), they decided both to elect a 15-man commission that was to adjudicate disputes about the orgas (IG II3 1 292 lines 5–16) and to consult Delphi about it (IG II3 1 292 lines 23–54). Delphi appears to have responded that it was better for the land to be left untilled (T1). Shortly after, in 351, before Demosthenes 13 was spoken, the Athenians voted action against the Megarians, alleging that they had appropriated the orgas for their own purposes (see D111) below. But this mission was not carried out (see D111 Commentary below) until 350/49, when a renewed dispute with the Megarians  – perhaps the Athenians were alleging that they had disregarded the verdict of the oracle – led to Athenian forces being dispatched under Ephialtes (T1). After this, the Athenians, with the acquiescence of the Megarians, delineated the borders of the sacred lands and consecrated the eschatiai, marking them out with stones according to Philokrates’ original decree (T1). For similar solutions, see Harding, Androtion, 124–6 and RO p. 279. IG II3 1 292 lines 54–5 say that the decree of Philokrates was to be written up, together with the decree which is the main substance of the text, on stone on two stelai; but, as we have seen, identification of this decree with that of T1 and T2 is possible but not certain. As Scafuro, ‘IG II2 204’, 141, points out, the inscribed decree contains no acknowledgement of a dispute between the Athenians and Megarians: it is only the evidence for literary decrees that reveals these tensions; this tendency to write hostility out of the epigraphical picture is a feature that comparison between the inscribed and literary evidence for decrees highlights. It used to be generally agreed that the proposer was the same as that of the Peace of Philokrates; Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’ associates him with nine decrees of the people; see below, Volume 2, Appendix 1. But this identification is tentative: LGPN lists 195 individuals attested in Athens and Attica with the

408

inventory a2

name Philokrates, and Westwood (‘Philocrates’) has made a very strong case for identifying the proposer with Philokrates the son of Ephialtes.

Date

According to the interpretation proposed here, the decree was passed some point before that of IG II3 1 292 = RO 58 (itself passed at some point before 16th Poseideon (= December/January, 352/1)).

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Anthemocritus and the Megarians and the decree of Charinus’, REG 82 (1969) 327–35. Daverio-Rocchi, G., ‘La ΙΕΡΑ ΟΡΓΑΣ e la frontiera Attic-Megarica’ in Studi di antichità in memoria di Clementina Gatti. Milan (1987). Edmonson, C., ‘The topography of Northwest Attica’, Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. Berkeley (1966) 110–14. Engen, D., ‘IG II2 204 and On Organization (Dem.? 13): the dispute over the sacred orgas of Eleusis and the chronology of Philip II of Macedon’ in Text and Tradition: Studies in Greek History and Historiography in Honor of Mortimer Chambers, eds. R. Mellor and L. Tritle. Claremont (1999) 135–53. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis: The Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford (1994). Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006). Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 BC. Leiden (1985). Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford (2011). Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R., Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford (2003) no. 58. Scafuro, A., ‘IG II2 204: boundary setting and legal process in classical Athens’ in Symposion 1999: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. G. Thür. Cologne, Weimar and Vienna (2003) 123–43. Westwood, G. ‘Philocrates and the Orgas’, Hermes 146 (2018) 349–57.

D108 * Proposal on mobilisation against Philip Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF) Date: Between 352 and 350

Literary Context

The First Philippic appears to have been made in support of a proposal advocating mobilisation against Philip. Demosthenes argues that the force is necessary to demonstrate to Philip that the Athenians are ready to go to battle (T1). For the view that this was the only symbouleutic speech of Demosthenes to make straightforward statements about the proposal of a psephisma, see Hansen, ‘Two notes’. In other speeches, Demosthenes makes more general proposals (see, for instance, the recommendations for expeditions to be sent to Chalkidike or to ravage Philip’s territory: Dem. 1.17–18).

409

410

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 4.16–17: Πρῶτον μὲν τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τριήρεις πεντήκοντα παρασκευάσασθαι φημὶ δεῖν, εἶτ’ αὐτοὺς οὕτω τὰς γνώμας ἔχειν ὡς, ἐάν τι δέῃ, πλευστέον εἰς ταύτας αὐτοῖς ἐμβᾶσιν. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τοῖς ἡμίσεσιν τῶν ἱππέων ἱππαγωγοὺς τριήρεις καὶ πλοῖα ἱκανὰ εὐτρεπίσαι κελεύω. ταῦτα μὲν οἶμαι δεῖν ὑπάρχειν ἐπὶ τὰς ἐξαίφνης ταύτας ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας χώρας αὐτοῦ στρατείας εἰς Πύλας καὶ Χερρόνησον καὶ Ὄλυνθον καὶ ὅποι βούλεται· (δεῖ γὰρ ἐκείνῳ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ γνώμῃ παραστῆσαι, ὡς ὑμεῖς ἐκ τῆς ἀμελείας ταύτης τῆς ἄγαν, ὥσπερ εἰς Εὔβοιαν καὶ πρότερόν ποτέ φασιν εἰς Ἁλίαρτον καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα πρώην εἰς Πύλας). T2 Dem. 4.19: Ταῦτα μέν ἐστιν ἃ πᾶσι δεδόχθαι φημὶ δεῖν καὶ παρεσκευάσθαι προσήκειν οἴομαι· πρὸ δὲ τούτων δύναμίν τινα, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, φημὶ προχειρίσασθαι δεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἣ συνεχῶς πολεμήσει καὶ κακῶς ἐκεῖνον ποιήσει. μή μοι μυρίους μηδὲ δισμυρίους ξένους, μηδὲ τὰς ἐπιστολιμαίους ταύτας δυνάμεις, ἀλλ’ ἣ τῆς πόλεως ἔσται, κἂν ὑμεῖς ἕνα κἂν πλείους κἂν τὸν δεῖνα κἂν ὁντινοῦν χειροτονήσητε στρατηγόν, τούτῳ πείσεται καὶ ἀκολουθήσει. καὶ τροφὴν ταύτῃ πορίσαι κελεύω. T3  Dem. 4.21–2: Λέγω δὴ τοὺς πάντας στρατιώτας δισχιλίους, τούτων δε Ἀθηναίους φημὶ δεῖν εἶναι πεντακοσίους, ἐξ ἧς ἄν τινος ὑμῖν ἡλικίας καλῶς ἔχειν δοκῇ, χρόνον τακτὸν στρατευομένους, μὴ μακρὸν τοῦτον, ἀλλ’ ὅσον ἂν δοκῇ καλῶς ἔχειν, ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀλλήλοις· τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους ξένους εἶναι κελεύω. καὶ μετὰ τούτων ἱππέας διακοσίους, καὶ τούτων πεντήκοντα Ἀθηναίους τοὐλάχιστον, ὥσπερ τοὺς πεζούς, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον στρατευομένους· καὶ ἱππαγωγοὺς τούτοις. εἶεν· τί πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι; ταχείας τριήρεις δέκα. T4  Dem. 4.28:   Ἴσως δὲ ταῦτα μὲν ὀρθῶς ἡγεῖσθε λέγεσθαι, τὸ δὲ τῶν χρημάτων, πόσα καὶ πόθεν ἔσται, μάλιστα ποθεῖτε ἀκοῦσαι. τοῦτο δὴ καὶ περαίνω. χρήματα τοίνυν· ἔστι μὲν ἡ τροφή, σιτηρέσιον μόνον, τῇ δυνάμει ταύτῃ τάλαντα ἐνενήκοντα καὶ μικρόν τι πρός, δέκα μὲν ναυσὶ ταχείαις τετταράκοντα τάλαντα, εἴκοσιν εἰς τὴν ναῦν μναῖ τοῦ μηνὸς ἑκάστου, στρατιώταις δὲ δισχιλίοις τοσαῦθ’ ἕτερα, ἵνα δέκα τοῦ μηνὸς ὁ στρατιώτης δραχμὰς σιτηρέσιον λαμβάνῃ, τοῖς δ’ ἱππεῦσι διακοσίοις οὖσιν, ἐὰν τριάκοντα δραχμὰς ἕκαστος λαμβάνῃ τοῦ μηνός, δώδεκα τάλαντα. T5 Dem. 4.33: Ἃ μὲν οὖν χρήσεται καὶ πότε τῇ δυνάμει, παρὰ τὸν καιρὸν ὁ τούτων κύριος καταστὰς ὑφ’ ὑμῶν βουλεύσεται· ἃ δ’ ὑπάρξαι δεῖ παρ’ ὑμῶν, ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἁγὼ γέγραφα.

d108 * proposal on mobilisation against philip

411

T1 First, then, men of Athens, I say it is necessary to prepare 50 triremes, then, if it is necessary, you should decide to embark and sail in them yourselves. In addition, I advise you to prepare horse-transporting ships and supply-ships for half of our cavalry. These, I believe, are necessary against his sudden raids from his own territory against Thermopylai, the Chersonese, Olynthos, and anywhere else he wishes. (It is important to persuade him that you will shake off your extreme lethargy, and strike out, as you did at Euboia, previously at Haliartos, and recently at Thermopylai.)

T2 These are the decisions that strike me as necessary and the preparations that should be made; but I say that it is necessary to send out a corps before these forces, which will be ready to fight against him continuously and to damage him in this way. I’m talking not about 10,000 or 20,000 mercenaries, nor a force sent in the form of a letter, but one that will represent the strength of the city, and one that, regardless of whomever you elect as general, will follow and be obedient to him. I advise that you should also provide supplies for it. T3 I tell you that there should be 2,000 soldiers, of whom 500 should be Athenians, of whichever age you like, and that they should serve in turn for a set period, not a long period, but as long as seems right; I advise that the rest should be mercenaries. There should in addition be 200 cavalrymen, of whom at least 50 should be Athenians, serving in the same fashion as the infantrymen, and there should be horse-transporting vessels for them. Very well, what else? There should be ten fast triremes. T4 Perhaps you believe that this has been well-said, but you long to hear, above all, how much and from where the finances will come. And so now I proceed with this point. As for the cost, there is the upkeep: the bare subsistence alone, for this force, will be just over 90 Talents; for the ten fast ships 40 Talents, that is 20 mnai per ship per month; the same amount again for 2,000 soldiers, so that each soldier may receive 10 drachmas a month for maintenance; and for the 200 cavalry, if each is to receive 30 drachmas per month, 12 Talents.

T5 And so the means by and the point at which these forces will be employed is something that the person appointed by you is to decide; but what it is up to you to provide, I have put down in my proposal.

412

Commentary

inventory a2

In this speech, the earliest of those extant in which he tried to rally the Athenians, Demosthenes made proposals about both a rapid-response force against Philip (T1) and a smaller force, made up of Athenians and mercenaries, which would pursue a continuous war of interference against Philip in the North Aegean (TT 2, 3). They would face up to Philip’s expansion across Thessaly and his attacks on Olynthos, which had commenced in 351: see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.298–9. The first force would consist of 50 triremes and other vessels for the conveyance of cavalry (T1), the second of 2,000 Athenian infantrymen and 200 cavalry (of whom at least 50 should be Athenians) and 10 fast-sailing galleys to pursue a continuous war of interference against Philip (TT 2, 3); he offers a detailed account of finances at T4. As Gabrielsen (Financing, 113–14) notes, the expenditure on the bare subsistence money (trophe, siteresion) was an absolute minimum and was based on Athens’ limited financial resources (Dem. 4.22–4). It may be deduced from Demosthenes’ speech that, of a total force of more than 60 ships, the crew of only the ten fast triremes were to be paid (and at a low rate of 2 obols per day); he implied that advised raiding and booty would provide supplementary funds (Dem. 4.23, 29). The hoplites too were being paid two obols a day, and the cavalry 1 drachma per day, which means that they received half of the usual amount of misthos: see Loomis, Wages, 57–61. Cavalrymen would have to fund an attendant and perhaps two horses: Loomis, Wages, 52 note 88. As Wooten, on Dem. 4.16, notes, Demosthenes here is talking about the ships and cavalry who will be outfitted immediately, and accordingly we can tell nothing from these passages about Athens’ total strength at the time (Wooten, Commentary, 73). Demosthenes said that he was making a proposal (‘γέγραφα’: 33, T5), which he wanted the Athenians to put to the vote (‘ἐπιχειροτονῆτε τὰς γνώμας’: 30); he may well have read aloud a document at section 29 of the speech, but this is not extant. As there is no evidence that these forces were sent out, Cawkwell suggests that the proposal was probably rejected: Cawkwell, Philip of Macedon, 8; see also E. Badian, ‘The road to prominence’, 35. MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 215 maintains that Demosthenes’ proposals were not adopted and that the forces were never dispatched. The survival and arrangement of Demosthenes’ symbouleutic speeches may owe something to a process of selection ‘informed by considerations of a literary or paradigmatic nature’ (as Tuplin, ‘Demosthenes’ Olynthiacs’, 319 suggests; cf. Trevett, ‘Did Demosthenes’, proposing the hypothesis that the demegoric corpus as it stands consists largely of unrevised drafts); moreover, it is plausible to think that a later editor wanted

d108 * proposal on mobilisation against philip

413

to underline his advocation of an anti-Macedonian policy. Accordingly, absolute certainty about the success of these proposals, and their date, is hard to establish. Yet there is no reason to doubt that the proposal outlined in this speech reflects one actually put forward in the Athenian assembly. For the political activity of Demosthenes, a prolific proposer of decrees, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 41–3 and Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

352/1 (D.H. ad Amm. 4); summer 351 (MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 213); 351/0 (Ellis, ‘The date’); autumn 350 (Lane Fox, ‘Demosthenes’).

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘Road to prominence’ in Demosthenes: Statesman and Orator, ed. I. Worthington. London (2000) 9–44. Cawkwell, G.L., Philip of Macedon. London and Boston (1978). Ellis, J., ‘The date of Demosthenes’ First Philippic’, REG 79 (1966) 636–9. Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet. Baltimore (1994). Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 298–9. Hansen, M.H., ‘Two notes on Demosthenes’ symbouleutic speeches’, C&M 35 (1984) 5–70. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Lane Fox, R., ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius and the dating of six early speeches’, C&M 48 (1997) 167–203. Loomis, W., Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor (1998). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 210–18. Trevett, J., ‘Did Demosthenes publish his deliberative speeches?’, Hermes 124 (1996), 425–41. Tuplin, C., ‘Demosthenes’ Olynthiacs and the character of the demegoric corpus’, Historia 47 (1998) 276–320. Wooten, C., A Commentary on Demosthenes’ Philippic I: With Rhetorical Analyses of Philippics II and III. Oxford (2008).

D109 ** Proposal for award of citizenship to Apollonides of Olynthos Proposer: Unknown Date: 351 or 349

Literary Context

The speaker, Apollodoros, holds up this decree as an example of an award granted as a result of the people being deceived by the words of those requesting it (‘λόγῳ ἐξαπατηθέντος ὑπὸ τῶν αἰτούντων’: [Dem]. 59.91); however, it appears to have been indicted by graphe paranomon and annulled by the court. On this occasion, Apollodoros deflects blame from the people, maintaining that the proposer deceived them (cf. Wolpert, ‘Addresses’, 550).

Text

T1  [Dem.] 59.91: Καὶ ἤδη τισὶ τοῦ δήμου δόντος τὴν δωρεάν, λόγῳ ἐξαπατηθέντος ὑπὸ τῶν αἰτούντων, παρανόμων γραφῆς γενομένης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, ἐξελεγχθῆναι συνέβη τὸν εἰληφότα τὴν δωρεὰν μὴ ἄξιον εἶναι αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀφείλετο τὸ δικαστήριον. καὶ τοὺς μὲν πολλοὺς καὶ παλαιοὺς ἔργον διηγήσασθαι· ἃ δὲ πάντες μνημονεύετε, Πειθόλαν τε τὸν Θετταλὸν καὶ Ἀπολλωνίδην τὸν Ὀλύνθιον πολίτας ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου γενομένους ἀφείλετο τὸ δικαστήριον· ταῦτα γὰρ οὐ πάλαι ἐστὶ γεγενημένα ὥστε ἀγνοεῖν ὑμᾶς.

Commentary

The proposal was that Apollonides of Olynthos be made a citizen (see Osborne T61 Commentary, championing the reliability of T1 above). The court rescinded the award, presumably by graphe paranomon: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 15. Elsewhere, Demosthenes tells us that Apollonides was a leading figure in the anti-Macedonian movement at Olynthos and that he was expelled and sought refuge at Athens (Dem. 9.56, 66). It is not known whether he was exiled by the demos of Olynthians or a federal institution: see Zahrnt, ‘The Chalkidike’, 356. Kapparis (Apollodoros, 371) suggests that the cancellation of the award may have been owing to ‘political opposition’. Perhaps Apollonides’ opposition to the Macedonians was not as steadfast as it had first seemed: Athenian decrees 414

d109 ** proposal for award of citizenship

415

T1 And there have been cases previous to this, where the people has given a reward, after being deceived by the argument of the person requesting it, and an indictment for illegality has been proposed and brought into the court, with the consequence that the person who has received the grant has been deemed not worthy of it, and the lawcourt has deprived them of it. To go through all the old times when this has taken place would be a huge job, but you all recall Peitholas the Thessalian and Apollonides the Olynthian who were made citizens by the people but the lawcourt confiscated the award. These are cases which did not happen so long ago that you might be unaware of them.

against those who betrayed Olynthos may be relevant to the withdrawal of the awards (see D119 below). While there is a small amount of evidence for awards to non-Athenians being made on the basis of requests by the honorands (see Henry, Honours and Privileges, 113-14, notes 191 and 192), in this context, ‘τῶν αἰτούντων’ probably, as Kapparis points out, refers to the Athenians who proposed this grant, not the foreigners who would receive it: Kapparis, Apollodoros, 370. But the absence of any name attached to the decrees mentioned by Apollodoros suggests that T1 does not represent an attack on the proposers.

416

inventory a2

On the award for Peitholas mentioned in T1, see D110 below (where he is designated Peitholaos).

Date

351 (Osborne T61 Commentary) or 349 (Hansen). The dating depends upon whether or not we associate the award with the reconciliation with Olynthos (probably c. 351: D113 T1, 3) or the alliance with Olynthos (of 349/8: D113 T2).

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974). Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees, Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Kapparis, K.A., Apollodoros ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin (1999). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T61. Wolpert, A., ‘Addresses to the jury in the Attic orators’, AJPh 124 (2003) 537–55. Zahrnt, M., ‘The Chalkidike and the Chalkidians’ in Federalism in Greek Antiquity, eds. H. Beck and P. Funke. Cambridge (2015) 341–57.

D110 ** Proposal for award of citizenship to Peitholaos (and Lykophron) of Thessaly Proposer: Unknown Date: Between 352 and 349

Literary Context

On Apollodoros (T1), see D109 above. Aristotle (T2) alludes to the honorands when offering an example of a pithy statement. Against Dover’s view that Aristotle was quoting a written version of a forensic speech, Trevett (‘Aristotle’s knowledge,’ 373) proposes that the statement, deriving from a famous political scandal played out in the courts, was famous enough to be common knowledge and suggests that Aristotle’s knowledge derives from oral tradition; indeed, Apollodoros’ claim (T1), that the audience might be aware of the cases, supports Trevett’s assessment. But we should not take this claim at face value: the scarcity of other references to these honorands in public oratory suggests that they were as obscure as they were infamous.

417

418

inventory a2

Texts

T1 [Dem.] 59.91; see D109 T1 above. T2 Arist. Rh. 1410a17–20: Καὶ ὃ εἰς Πειθόλαόν τις εἶπε καὶ Λυκόφρονα ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ, ‘οὗτοι δ’ ὑμᾶς οἴκοι μὲν ὄντες ἐπώλουν, ἐλθόντες δ’ ὡς ὑμᾶς ἐώνηνται’.

Commentary

After the battle of Crocus Field in 352, Peitholaos and Lykophron, the tyrants of Pherai, fled from their city with mercenaries (D.S. 16.37.3, 39.4), and probably joined in the resistance to Philip at Thermopylai (D.S. 16.39.3; cf. DP 53); shortly after this they arrived in Athens (see Osborne T60 Commentary). The proposal was that Peitholaos of Thessaly be made a citizen (according to T1, Apollonides received the same reward); the court reversed the award after it had been ratified (T1), presumably by graphe paranomon: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 16; T2. As Osborne (T60 Commentary) points out, the party bringing the charge of graphe paranomon would have been able to point to the frequent tensions between the Athenians and the tyrants of Pherai (cf. IG II2 116 = RO 44, an alliance between the Athenians and the Thessalian koinon in which continued war against Alexander of Pherai was pledged at lines 31–4). For Athenian relations with Thessaly, not mentioning this decree, see Tracy, ‘The Thessalians.’ Peitholaos (known in D109 T1 as Peitholas) was the son of Jason, tyrant of Pherai (for Athenian links with Jason, see D58 above). The proposer, as Osborne (T60 Commentary) suggests, probably obtained the award by presenting them as anti-Macedonians, but it is not implausible to imagine that the proposer may have been motivated by the promise of gifts (T2). Diodorus offers inconsistent dates: he says that Peitholaos was expelled from Pherai, with his brother Lykophron, in both 352/1 and 349/8 (D.S. 16.37.3; 16.52.9). The former date is preferred by Osborne, the latter by Hansen. It seems likely that Lykophron was honoured in the same way as his brother (T2) and, if we accept T2, that his award was overturned at the same time, this suggests that Peitholaos and Lykophron were attacked in court together. Apollodoros (T1), however, says nothing about the award for Lykophron.

Date

352 (Osborne T60 Commentary) or 349 (Hansen, The Sovereignty no. 16).

d111 decree for an expedition against megarians

419

T2 And there was the thing that someone said against Peitholaos and Lykophron in the court, ‘These men, who used to sell you at home, have come here and bought you’.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974). Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Kapparis, K.A., Apollodoros ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin (1999). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols in 3. Brussels (1981–3) TT 59, 60. Tracy, S.V., ‘The Thessalians and Athenians from the Persian Wars to the Lamian War’ in Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, eds. A. Tamis, C.J. Mackie and S.G. Byrne. Athens (2010) 24–32. Trevett, J., ‘Aristotle’s knowledge of Athenian oratory’, CQ 46 (1996) 371–9.

D111 Decree for an expedition against the Megarians Proposer: Unknown Date: 351

Literary Context

As a substantiation of his point about the gap between Athens’ decrees and Athens’ failing performances and lack of power (for this theme, cf. Mader, ‘Fighting’), Demosthenes (T1) points to the Athenian resolution against the Megarians and that in favour of the Phleiasians (D112 below). The expedition against the Megarians was mentioned also in Didymos’ commentary on Demosthenes (T2), as a way of dating Demosthenes’ speech 13 to 349/8 (much recent scholarship, following Trevett, ‘Demosthenes’ speech’, has considered the

420

inventory a2

speech a genuine composition of Demosthenes: see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 226–9; MacDowell places the speech in 350, but for plausible datings of the speech to 351, see Date below). For the alternative view that the speech was a fabrication disseminated by Demosthenes’ nephew in the third century BC, see Sing, ‘The authenticity’. The reference’s casual slander against the Megarians may conceivably be considered a manifestation of Athenian hostility towards the Megarians, which was not infrequently expressed in the literary record: see Florence, ‘Wild neighbours’.

Texts

T1 Dem. 13.32: Τοιγαροῦν ἐκ τούτων τοιαῦτα τὰ πράγματα τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν ὥστε, εἴ τις ἀναγνοίη τὰ ψηφίσματα ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς πράξεις ἐφεξῆς διέλθοι, οὐδ’ ἂν εἷς πιστεύσαι τῶν αὐτῶν εἶναι ταῦτα κἀκεῖνα. οἷον ἃ πρὸς τοὺς καταράτους Μεγαρέας ἐψηφίσασθε ἀποτεμνομένους τὴν ὀργάδα, ἐξιέναι, κωλύειν, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν· ἃ πρὸς Φλειασίους, ὅτ’ ἐξέπεσον ἔναγχος, βοηθεῖν, μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τοῖς σφαγεῦσι, τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ τοὺς βουλομένους παρακαλεῖν.

T2  Didymos col. 13.42–58 Harding (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F155 (= D107 T1)): Ὅτι μνημονεύει τ(ῶν) πραχθέντ(ων) Ἀθηναίοις πρὸς Μεγαρέας περὶ τῆς ἱερ(ᾶς) Ὀργάδος. γέγονε ταυτὶ κατ’ Ἀπολλόδωρον ἄρχοντα καθάπερ ἱστορεῖ Φιλόχορος οὑτωσὶ γράφων· ‘Ἀθηναῖοι δ(ὲ) πρὸς Μεγαρέας διενεχθέντες ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ τῆς ἱερ(ᾶς) [Ὀ]ργάδος ἐπῆλθον εἰς Μέγαρα μ̣     ε̣    τ̣   ’ Ἐφιάλτου στρατηγο(ῦν)τος ἐπὶ τῆι χώραι κ(αὶ) ὡρίσαντο τὴν Ὀργάδα τ(ὴν) ἱεράν.’

Commentary

This decree appears to have been passed after the Athenians had alleged Megarian appropriation of the sacred orgas (T1) or had fallen into some other dispute about it (T2); according to the reconstruction proposed at D107 Commentary, it was enacted after the Megarians disregarded a decree of Philokrates which proposed the delineation of boundaries. Despite the fact that Demosthenes (T1) holds this up as an example of the Athenians not fulfilling the intentions of their decrees, T2 suggests that they did eventually march against the Megarians, while Dem. 3.20, talking of men who take up arms against the Corinthians and Megarians, strongly supports the idea that military action was, eventually, taken. Androtion (FGrH 324 F30 = D107 T2) provides more details on the marking out of the boundaries.

d111 decree for an expedition against megarians

421

T1 Consequently, the affairs of the city are in such a way that, if someone were to read out your decrees and were to go through your consequent actions, not one person would believe that the same men were responsible for both. For instance, when the accursed Megarians were appropriating the sacred orgas, you voted to march out, to prevent them, and not to surrender; again, there was the decree in favour of the Phleiasians, when they were exiled the other day: you voted to help them, and not to surrender them to those who were slaughtering them, and to call for volunteers from the Peloponnese. T2 Because he (Demosthenes) mentions the things undertaken by the Athenians against the Megarians concerning the sacred orgas. This happened during the archonship of Apollodoros (350/49), as Philochorus recounts, writing as follows:

 ‘When the Athenians had a dispute with the Megarians over the delimitation of the sacred [o]rgas, they passed over into Megara with Ephialtes, the general for the homeguard, and marked out its limits.’ (trans. Harding, Didymos, adapted).

As is suggested below (Date), the Athenians do not appear to have embarked upon this expedition straight away, but did so in 350/49 (T2). Relevant to this question also, and that relating to the assistance decreed for the Phleiasians (D112 below), is the debate about the authenticity of the speech. The position of Trevett (‘Demosthenes’ speech’), that it is an authentic piece of Demosthenic rhetoric, is now challenged by Sing (‘The authenticity’); if Sing – who concludes that the speech is not good evidence for the behaviour of Demosthenes and the Athenians in the 350s – is right that this is a composition disseminated at the behest of the third-century nephew of Demosthenes, Demochares, doubt is cast on the credibility of the decrees cited here and in D112.

422

inventory a2

Engen, ‘IG II2 204’, 148, identifies the proposal to invade Megara as a decree of Philokrates, but this cannot be proven.

Date

T2 dates the undertaking of the Athenian expedition to Megara to 350/49. However, the possible dating of Dem. 13 to 351 suggests that the decree for the expedition was rather earlier. Lane Fox (‘Demosthenes’, 193), in redating Dem. 13 to November 351, places the decree of T1 in 351. Engen (‘IG II2 204’) has independently placed the speech between June and November 351. Both datings are attractive because they account for Demosthenes’ claim that there is a contradiction between Athens’ decrees and its actions: what he thought to be a failure to fulfil the decree was simply a delay. Engen suggests that the delay was down to Athenian attention being diverted by Philip’s occupation of Heraion Teichos in November 351 (Dem. 3.4 = D106 with Engen ‘IG II2 204’, 146).

Bibliography

Engen, D., ‘IG II2 204 and On Organization (Dem.? 13): the dispute over the sacred orgas of Eleusis and the chronology of Philip II of Macedon’ in Text and Tradition: Studies in Greek History and Historiography in Honor of Mortimer Chambers, eds. R. Mellor and L. Tritle. Claremont (1999) 135–53. Florence, M., ‘Wild neighbours: Megarian ethnic identity in fifth-century Athenian comedy’, Syllecta Classica 14 (2003) 37–58. Lane Fox, R., ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius and the dating of six early speeches’, C&M 48 (1997) 167–203. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 226–9. Mader, G., ‘Fighting Philip with decrees: Demosthenes and the syndrome of symbolic action’, AJPh 117 (2006) 367–86. Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R., Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford (2003) no. 58. Sing, R., ‘The authenticity of Demosthenes 13, again’, CQ 67 (2017) 106–17. Trevett, J., ‘Demosthenes’ speech On Organization (Dem. 13)’, GRBS 35 (1994) 179–93.

D112 Decree sending assistance to the Phleiasians Proposer: Unknown Date: 351 or before 349/8

Literary Context See D111 above.

Text

See D111 T1 above.

Commentary

Nothing more is known of the precise content of this decree (‘ἃ πρὸς Φλειασίους’), other than that it did something in favour of Phleiasian exiles. It is perhaps relevant that the Phleiasians had made an alliance with the Athenians in 362/1 (IG II2 112 = RO 41), and, at that time, possessed a democratic regime (RO 41 line 30). But the fact that exiles were appealing to Athens suggests that political upheaval may have led to a change to a regime less friendly to Athens: see Robinson, Democracy, 47–50. On the authenticity of this speech, see D112 Commentary above.

Date

Lane Fox (‘Demosthenes’, 194), in redating Dem. 13 to November 351, places the decree of D111 T1 at November 351. Didymos (Commentary on Demosthenes col. 13.40–55; 14.35–49) dates the speech to 349/8, and so it is plausible to think that the decree dates to that year or shortly before.

Bibliography

Lane Fox, R., ‘Demosthenes, Dionysius and the dating of six early speeches’, C&M 48 (1997) 167–203. Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R., Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford (2003) no. 41. Robinson, E.W., Democracy Beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge (2011) 47–50.

423

D113 Peace and alliance with the Olynthians, followed by military intervention (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: 351–349/8

Literary Context

The Athenian reconciliation with Olynthos is mentioned in Demosthenes’ Third Olynthiac, a reply to an Olynthian appeal to the Athenians for assistance in a war against Philip (T1); Demosthenes recalls it with the intention of encouraging the Athenians to assist the Olynthians. The decree is mentioned in Libanius’ hypothesis on (summary of) the First Olynthiac (T3). Dionysius of Halicarnassus (T2) mentions the alliance and expeditions in a discussion of his dating of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

Texts

T1 Dem. 3.7: Ὑπῆρχον Ὀλύνθιοι δύναμίν τινα κεκτημένοι, καὶ διέκειθ’ οὕτω τὰ πράγματα· οὔτε Φίλιππος ἐθάρρει τούτους οὔτε οὗτοι Φίλιππον. ἐπράξαμεν ἡμεῖς κἀκεῖνοι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰρήνην· ἦν τοῦτο ὥσπερ ἐμπόδισμά τι τῷ Φιλίππῳ καὶ δυσχερές, πόλιν μεγάλην ἐφορμεῖν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ καιροῖς διηλλαγμένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ἐκπολεμῶσαι δεῖν ᾠόμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐκ παντὸς τρόπου, καὶ ὃ πάντες ἐθρύλουν, πέπρακται νυνὶ τοῦτο ὁπωσδήποτε. T2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaios 9 p. 267 10–17 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F49): Οὗτος δ’ ἐπὶ Καλλιμάχου γέγονεν ἄρχοντος, ὡς δηλοῖ Φιλόχορος ἐν ἕκτῃ βύβλῳ τῆς Ἀτθίδος κατὰ λέξιν οὕτω γράφων· ‘Καλλίμαχος Περγασῆθεν· ἐπὶ τούτου Ὀλυνθίοις πολεμουμένοις ὑπὸ Φιλίππου καὶ πρέσβεις Ἀθήναζε πέμψασιν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι συμμαχίαν τε ἐποιήσαντο *** καὶ βοήθειαν ἔπεμψαν πελταστὰς δισχιλίους, τριήρεις δὲ τριάκοντα τὰς μετὰ Χάρητος καὶ ἃς συνεπλήρωσαν ὀκτώ.’ T3 Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 1, 4.2: Ἀποδημοῦντα δὲ τηρήσαντες αὐτὸν πέμψαντες πρέσβεις πρὸς Ἀθηναίους κατελύσαντο τὸν πρὸς αὐτοὺς πόλεμον, ποιοῦντες τοῦτο παρὰ τὰς συνθήκας τὰς πρὸς Φίλιππον. 424

d113 peace and alliance with the olynthians

425

T1 The Olynthians at that time possessed some considerable strength, and this was the state of affairs: Philip had no confidence in them, nor did they have any in Philip. And so we made peace with each other. This was an impediment to Philip and hard (for him) to manage, for here was a great city, reconciled with us and waiting for any opportunities that might arise. We thought it necessary to involve these people in war in any way we could, and now that which everyone used to chatter about has somehow become reality. T2  This conflict (the Olynthian war) took place during the archonship of Kallimachos (349/8), as Philochorus in the sixth book of his Atthis shows, writing as follows in the entry: ‘Kallimachos Pergasethen: during this archonship, when the Olynthians were being attacked by Philip and sent ambassadors to Athens, the Athenians both made an alliance and sent help in the form of 2,000 peltasts, 30 triremes with Chares and eight (others) which they manned.’

T3  Seeing that he (Philip) was away, they (the Olynthians) sent ambassadors to Athens and put an end to the war against them, doing this contrary to their treaty with Philip.

426

Commentary

inventory a2

In the mid 360s, the Athenians appear to have made war against the Olynthians together with Perdiccas of Macedon (Dem. 2.14; cf. DP 40). Dem. 2.6 suggests that at about 358/7 some Olynthians had appealed to the Athenians to make an alliance with them but that they had been driven away, empty-handed. Diodorus suggests, contrarily, that the power of Olynthos meant that the Athenians and Philip competed with each other for the alliance with the Olynthians, but that Philip persuaded them by handing them Potidaia (D.S. 16.8.4–5; cf. Dem. 23.107–8; RO 50, an alliance between Philip and the Chalkidians including the Olynthians). However, as Philip’s power grew, Olynthian trust in him declined: Libanius (T3) preceded his account of the alliance with that of the growing Olynthian fear of Philip; Demosthenes (23.109) says that this led them to become friends with the Athenians and to say that they would become their allies (‘φίλους πεποίηνται, φασὶ δὲ καὶ συμμάχους ποιήσεσθαι’). Accordingly, when Philip was away (T3: perhaps in Thessaly in 352), the Olynthians sent ambassadors to Athens (TT 2, 3), and made peace (TT 1, 3). It is likely that this Athenian reconciliation with Olynthos took place before the First Philippic of probably 351, which talks of Philip’s campaigns against Olynthos (Dem. 4.17), launched perhaps as part of an attempt to bring the Olynthians back into his fold. For a detailed account of Philip’s indecisive campaign against Olynthos in 351, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.296–304. Probably in autumn 349 Philip once again invaded Olynthos and besieged it (D.S. 6.52.9, 53.2; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.315–28). The alliance between Athens and Olynthos may have been contemporary with these events (T2); Demosthenes’ Olynthiac speeches (1–3) urged the Athenians to send aid to the Olynthians. T2 gives us an impression of the size of the first expedition that the Athenians sent to Olynthos: 2,000 light-armed troops and 38 triremes. Shortly afterwards, the Athenians sent Charidemos with 18 triremes, 4,000 light-armed troops and 150 cavalry to assist the Chalkidians on the Thracian coast; a little later the Olynthians sent another embassy to Athens and in return the Athenians sent a further 17 triremes, 2,000 hoplites and 300 cavalry. Dionysius, drawing on Philochorus, describes three expeditions (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaios 1.9 = Philochorus FGrH 328 FF 49–51, asserting that they were based on three separate summachiai); for discussion and chronology of the Athenian campaigns to Olynthos, see Harris, Aeschines, 156–7; Sealey, Demosthenes, 137– 40, 141–3. But the Athenians were unable to save Olynthos: during its siege it was undermined by treachery; upon the fall of the city in 348/7, it is said to have been destroyed and its inhabitants enslaved (D.S. 16.53.1–2; Dem. 9.26;

d113 peace and alliance with the olynthians

427

FGrH 328 F156). Cawkwell, discussing Euboulos’ opposition to Demosthenes’ advocation of intervention, maintains that the forces were too small to make a difference, and that the Athenians made a strategic decision not to over-invest in the support of the Olynthians. On the destruction of Olynthos, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.321–8, taking the view that it was destroyed; recent examination of the material evidence, however, has pointed to the possibility that the destruction in 348 was far from complete, and that the city may have undergone destruction at a later point before the foundation of Kassandreia in 316: see Cahill, Household, 52. For awards to Olynthians, see DD 109, 120.

Date

The reconciliation and peace with Olynthos was made probably in 352/1 (TT 1, 3, when Philip was in Thessaly), while the alliance seems to have been made in 349/8 (T2). The expeditions were undertaken in 349/8.

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 323. Cahill, N., Household and City Organization at Olynthus. New Haven and London (2002). Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The defence of Olynthus’, CQ 12 (1962) 122–40. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 315–28. Harding, P., The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika (2008) 154–5. Harris, E., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford and New York (1994) 156–7. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 137–40, 141–3.

D114 Decree honouring Aeschines Proposer: Unknown Date: 349/8

Literary Context

Speaking in defence of his own record, Aeschines (T1) recalls his polis-patriotic activity and an honorific decree which acknowledged his bravery in the face of danger on the battlefield. The author of the Lives of the Orators (T2) may have drawn upon this source for his account of the crowns granted to Aeschines.

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 2.169–70: Καὶ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ μάχην συνεμαχεσάμην οὐκ αἰσχρῶς οὐδ’ ἀναξίως τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὰς εἰς Εὔβοιαν στρατείας ἐστρατευσάμην, καὶ τὴν ἐν Ταμύναις μάχην ἐν τοῖς ἐπιλέκτοις οὕτως ἐκινδύνευσα, ὥστε κἀκεῖ στεφανωθῆναι καὶ δεῦρο ἥκων πάλιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, τήν τε νίκην τῆς πόλεως ἀπαγγείλας, καὶ Τεμενίδου τοῦ τῆς Πανδιονίδος ταξιάρχου καὶ συμπρεσβεύσαντος ἀπὸ στρατοπέδου μοι δευρὶ [καὶ] περὶ τὸν γενόμενον κίνδυνον οἷος ἦν ἀπαγγείλαντος. ὅτι δὲ ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα. T2  [Plu.] X Or. 840f: Ἀπήγγειλε δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐν Ταμύναις νίκην πρῶτος Ἀθηναίοις, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐστεφανώθη τὸ δεύτερον.

Commentary

This award seems to have been made when Aeschines fought with a small force of Athenians sent out to Euboia on the invitation of Ploutarchos of Eretria to assist his struggle against Kleitarchos (Plu. Phoc. 12–13; Dem. 5.5 with scholiast; Aeschin. 3.86 with scholiast; Philochorus FGrH 328 F160). Burke, ‘Eubulus’, argues that the response to Plutarchos may have been brought on by a concern about the potential threat of Macedonian influence in the area and its implications for Athenian commercial interests; Cawkwell, ‘Defence’ 138, emphasises the military significance of the island to the Athenians. Philip had meddled in Euboia in the 350s (Dem. 4.34, 37) and would do so again in the 340s (e.g. Aeschin. 2.12, 3.87), though the extent to which Philip was involved in the early 340s in Euboia is the subject of debate: compare the views of Brunt, ‘Euboea’, 428

d114 decree honouring aeschines

429

T1  And I took part in the fighting at the battle of Mantineia, where I acquitted myself without disgrace and worthy of the city’s reputation; I took part in the expedition to Euboia, and at the battle in Tamynai I was part of the picked force (epilektoi) and I ran such risks that I was crowned both there and again by the people on return. That was when I announced the victory of the city and Temenides, the taxiarch for the Pandionid tribe and fellow-envoy to the city from the camp, offered a report on the danger I had faced on the battlefield. To show that I tell the truth, read out the decree. T2 He was the first to inform the Athenians of the victory at Tamynai, and he was granted a crown – his second – for this.

with those of Cawkwell, ‘Euboea in the late 340s’. Roisman and Worthington (Lives, 187) suggest that the Athenians aimed to reduce the chances of Kallias, ruler of Chalkis, making an alliance with Philip II. Diodorus describes how the Athenian force struggled against the resistant Euboians, but took possession of a ridge at Tamynai, which was being defended by the best fighters of their force (12.22–3). On the expedition, see DP 58 below and Sealey, Demosthenes, 140–1. The award which Aeschines claims was made while at Tamynai appears to have been ratified by the demos; as Harris (Aeschines, 37–8) notes, Aeschines was honoured also by being chosen, alongside Temenides, to report the victory to the Athenians at home. Aeschines had the decree read aloud in court. The immediate aftermath of this victory was an

430

inventory a2

apparent U-turn in Athenian policy: they decided to expel Ploutarchos (after he had betrayed them) and handed the government over to the people (Dem. 9.57; Plu. Phoc. 13.4). This meant that Kallias was left to attempt to take over the island through the re-establishment of a Euboikon koinon: see further, D147 below. According to his claim (T1), Aeschines was crowned initially while on campaign, presumably by his fellow soldiers. It may well be the case that a general’s award of a crown or panoply on the battlefield (presumably influenced by the opinions of his soldiers) was common practice in classical Greece: see, e.g. Aeschin. 2.168; Isoc. 16.29; Plat. Laws 12.943c–d, Polyainos 3.9.31; Christ, Bad Citizen, 110; van Wees, Greek Warfare, 194; Hamel, Athenian Generals, 64–70; Crowley, Psychology, 119–20. The grant of an honorific decree to an individual for serving in the ranks (apparently not as general or taxiarch) on a specific campaign is not widely attested; as Lambert, ‘Dedication’, 244 observes, IG II2 1155, honouring the taxiarch and his tribe, is the only extant inscribed decree relating ‘directly and explicitly to services connected with a military campaign, as opposed to more general duties for the defence of Attica’. We might reasonably take the view that rewards for individual valour on the battlefield were either not normally ratified by the people or, if they were, were not inscribed. I am grateful to Stephen Lambert and Jason Crowley for discussion of points relevant to this decree. Pseudo-Plutarch’s claim (T2) that this was Aeschines’ second crown may derive from Aeschines’ statement that he was crowned both on the battlefield and on his return to Athens; for this reason it is not held to testify a separate decree of the Athenian people. The Lives of the Attic Orators has a tendency to make two decrees out of one (cf. D200).

Date

349/8, probably early 348 (Sealey, Demosthenes, 140; Burke, ‘Eubulus’, 111).

Bibliography

Brunt, P.A., ‘Euboea in the time of Philip II’, CQ 63 (1969) 245–65. Burke, E., ‘Eubulus, Olynthus, and Euboea’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 114 (1984) 111–20. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The defence of Olynthus’, CQ 12 (1962) 122-40. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Euboea in the late 340s’, Phoenix 32 (1978) 42–67. Christ, M., The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2007) 110. Crowley, J., The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite. Cambridge (2012). Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Leiden (1998). Harris, E., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford and New York (1994) 37–8.

d115 ** probouleuma and decree on the theoric fund 431 Lambert, S.D., ‘Dedication and decrees commemorating military action in 339/8 BC (IG II2 1155)’, ΑΞIΩΝ. Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud, vol. 1, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and N. Papazarkadas. Athens (2015) 233–46. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius and the Suda. Cambridge (2015) 187. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford, 1993, 140–1. Van Wees, H., Greek Warfare. Myths and Realities. London, 2004.

D115 ** Probouleuma and decree concerning the theoric fund Proposer: Apollodoros Pasionos Acharneus (PA 1411; PAA 142545; APF) Date: Spring 348

Literary Context

Theomnestos, synegoros of Apollodoros, in opening his indictment of Stephanos, offers an account of Stephanos’ reckless aggression against Apollodoros in the form of a graphe paranomon against his decree (T1).

432

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Dem.] 59.4–6: Μελλόντων στρατεύεσθαι ὑμῶν πανδημεὶ εἴς τε Εὔβοιαν καὶ Ὄλυνθον, ἔγραψε ψήφισμα ἐν τῇ βουλῇ Ἀπολλόδωρος βουλεύων καὶ ἐξήνεγκε προβούλευμα εἰς τὸν δῆμον, λέγον διαχειροτονῆσαι τὸν δῆμον εἴτε δοκεῖ τὰ περιόντα χρήματα τῆς διοικήσεως στρατιωτικὰ εἶναι εἴτε θεωρικά, κελευόντων μὲν τῶν νόμων, ὅταν πόλεμος ᾖ, τὰ περιόντα χρήματα τῆς διοικήσεως στρατιωτικὰ εἶναι, κύριον δ’ ἡγούμενος δεῖν τὸν δῆμον εἶναι περὶ τῶν αὑτοῦ ὅ τι ἂν βούληται πρᾶξαι, ὀμωμοκὼς δὲ τὰ βέλτιστα βουλεύσειν τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς ὑμεῖς πάντες ἐμαρτυρήσατε ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ. γενομένης γὰρ τῆς διαχειροτονίας, οὐδεὶς ἀντεχειροτόνησεν ὡς οὐ δεῖ τοῖς χρήμασι τούτοις στρατιωτικοῖς χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν ἔτι, ἄν που λόγος γένηται, παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογεῖται ὡς τὰ βέλτιστα εἰπὼν ἄδικα πάθοι. τῷ οὖν ἐξαπατήσαντι τῷ λόγῳ τοὺς δικαστὰς δίκαιον ὀργίζεσθαι, οὐ τοῖς ἐξαπατηθεῖσιν. γραψάμενος γὰρ παρανόμων τὸ ψήφισμα Στέφανος οὑτοσὶ καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, ἐπὶ διαβολῇ ψευδεῖς μάρτυρας παρασχόμενος ὡς ὦφλε τῷ δημοσίῳ ἐκ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν, καὶ ἔξω τῆς γραφῆς πολλὰ κατηγορῶν, εἷλε τὸ ψήφισμα.

Commentary

In 348, Athenian resources were stretched by military expenditure on the missions to Euboia (see DP 58 below) and to Olynthos (see D113 above). Apollodoros maintains that the laws stated that a budgetary surplus would go to the military fund in a time of war (T1). He presents his proposal as perfectly in tune with the current climate: the people were at war (T1) and accordingly, by his account, one would expect the surplus to be military (for detailed discussion of the view that the Athenians prioritised military matters in their spending, see Pritchard, ‘Costing festivals’). While serving as a member of the council of 349/8, Apollodoros proposed – and carried as a probouleuma to the assembly – that the people should decide, by diacheirotonia (a vote on a choice between two proposals or laws: Aeschin. 3.39), whether surplus funds should be used for military purposes or for the theoric fund (T1). A diacheirotonia was presumably undertaken by a double vote (Hansen, ‘Athenian nomothesia’, 93–4), with the people asked first whether they wished the surplus to be used for the theoric fund and then whether they wished for it to be used for military purposes: the people appear to have voted unanimously that the funds be used for military purposes ([Dem.] 59.4–5), but it is less than clear how they voted with respect to the theoric fund. Moreover, the substance of the decree that arose out of the diacheirotonia is unclear. Why did Apollodoros frame his decree as an empowerment of the people to vote on such a matter when, in all likelihood, he wanted the people to vote for military deployment of the fund? Hansen has suggested that Apollodoros

d115 ** probouleuma and decree on the theoric fund 433

T1 You were about to embark on expeditions in full force both to Euboia and to Olynthos when Apollodoros, as a member of the council, proposed a decree in the council and brought forward a preliminary proposal to the people, providing that the people should decide by vote whether the surplus of state funds should be used for military purposes or for the theoric fund. The laws commanded that when there was war, the surplus should be military, but he believed that it was necessary for the people to be sovereign about what it wanted to do with its own resources. He took an oath that he would advise the best things to the people, and you all were witnesses at that point. When it came to the vote, not one of you voted against using the funds for the military fund, and even now, when the issue has arisen, it is generally agreed that the one who spoke the wisest things was treated unjustly. And so it is just to direct your anger towards the one who misled the jurors by his speech, not those who were deceived. For this man, Stephanos, indicted the decree as illegal, and came to the lawcourt, where he introduced false witnesses, alleging that Apollodoros had been a public debtor for 25 years, and made up many allegations irrelevant to the indictment and overruled the decree.

was worried that the Council was about to ignore a law about using the surplus in wartime for military purposes and so proposed his decree as a reminder (Hansen, ‘Theoric fund’). Trevett (Apollodoros, 146) suggests that the proposal, given that it concerned only the surplus, may be seen as a ‘calculated attempt to test the public acceptability of a policy of increasing investment on the military side of things at the expense of the theroic fund’. Harris, Democracy, 133, suggests that the measure was not meant to be an attack on the theoric fund but rather a temporary measure to provide funds at a time of financial emergency. The theoric fund originally subsidised theatre-tickets for the poor, but it was also, in practice, used for public building work: Aeschin. 3.25. On its nature and origins, see Rhodes, Commentary, 514–16, who notes the absence of contemporary evidence for it before the middle of the fourth century; see now Csapo and Wilson, ‘The finance,’ 394–5. According to later sources, it was protected by a law, which may well have been in force at this time (though a scholiast’s note on Demosthenes 1.1 (Dilts 1f), says that it was introduced only after Apollodoros’ proposal), which threatened the death penalty for anyone proposing a decree to transfer its budget to the military fund (Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 1, 5; cf. Dem. 3.12). As many scholars have observed, it is odd that there are no reports that Stephanos pointed to these pieces of legislation in his attack on Apollodoros’ proposal. In their detailed discussion of the problems with the sources for the legislation surrounding the surplus and the theoric fund, Kapparis, Apollodoros,

434

inventory a2

174-8 and Carey Apollodoros, 152-6 suggest the co-existence of contradictory laws (one of which stated that the surplus should go to the military in wartime, and another that it should go to the theoric fund but without making explicit that this should happen in times of peace). On this, a range of different views have been put forward: Harris, Democracy, 122, is sceptical about the authenticity of a law which forbade proposals about the theoric fund being used for military purposes and suggests that it was lawful to allow the surplus to go to military funds; Hansen, ‘Theoric fund’ and Trevett, Apollodoros, 144-5, suggest that the administrative surplus of T1 was quite separate from the annual allocation to the theoric fund; MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 234, maintains that there was a law which obstructed the transfer of money from the theoric to the military fund. Rhodes suggests that, given that the surplus would normally go to the theoric fund, Apollodoros’ proposal was ‘equivalent to a straightforward proposal that surplus monies should henceforth be diverted to the stratiotic fund’; Apollodoros may have done this in the hope that he would avoid personal liability for the proposal, but Stephanos’ successful indictment demonstrates that this was unsuccessful (Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 50 n. 1). Whatever the legislative situation, the subjects of the surplus and the theoric fund were clearly emotive, as shown in T1: in 343 Demosthenes (19.291) claimed that Euboulos threatened the people that they would have to pay eisphora and make the theoric fund stratiotic if they did not accept Philokrates’ decree on peace with Philip in 346. Earlier on, in the Olynthiac speeches, as Kapparis, Apollodoros, 175 points out, Demosthenes was reluctant to propose the transfer of money from the theoric to the military fund (Dem. 1.19–20) and appears to suggest, in the first place, the initiation of the process of nomothesia to revoke the law on the theoric fund (Dem. 3.10–13, 31–4). However, the decree was attacked after it had been put to the vote and, according to Theomnestos, Apollodoros was indicted on the grounds of the allegation that he was a debtor and had, therefore, proposed a decree contrary to law; consequently the decree was overruled (T1; Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 18). Carey (Apollodoros, 152–7) suggests that Stephanos’ prosecution may have rested on the assertion that his decree was unconstitutional on the basis that it contradicted the laws concerning the surplus; as Harris, Democracy, 132 has observed, it would be reasonable to expect Theomnestos’ account to make Apollodoros’ decree look less controversial than it really was. Rhodes identifies this passage as an example of an open probouleuma, according to which the council would place a subject on the agenda of the assembly without any particular course of action: Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 58. As he observes, however, it was ‘not genuinely open: surplus moneys did at this time go to the theoric fund, so that Apollodorus’ invitation to the demos

d115 ** probouleuma and decree on the theoric fund 435 to decide between the two alternatives was equivalent to a straightforward proposal that surplus moneys should be henceforth be diverted to the stratiotic fund.’ For Demosthenes’ proposal to transfer all funds (beyond the year’s surplus) to the stratiotic fund, which may well have been a more drastic measure, see D164 below. This is the sole decree associated with Apollodoros, but for his other political activity, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’ and Trevett, Apollodoros, 124­–54.

Date

Spring 348 (T1; Trevett, Apollodoros, 138).

Bibliography

Carey, C., Apollodoros Against Neaira, [Demosthenes] 59. Greek Orators IV. Warminster (1992). Csapo, E. and Wilson, P., ‘The finance and organisation of the Athenian theatre in the time of Eubulus and Lycurgus’ in Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, ed. E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, J.R. Green, P. Wilson. Berlin (2014) 392–424 at 394–5. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974). Hansen, M.H., ‘The theoric fund and the graphe paranomon against Apollodorus’, GRBS 17 (1976) 235–46. Hansen, M.H., ‘Athenian nomothesia in the fourth century BC and Demosthenes’ speech against Leptines’, C&M 32 (1980) 87–104. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, E.M., Democracy and the Rule of Law. Oxford (2006) 129–39. Kapparis, K.A., Apollodoros ‘Against Neaira’ [D. 59]. Berlin (1999). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009). Pritchard. D., ‘Costing festivals and war: spending priorities of the Athenian democracy’, Historia 61 (2012) 18–65. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981). Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992).

D116 Decree dispatching envoys across Greece Proposer: Euboulos Spintharou Probalisios (PA 5369; PAA 428495) Date: 348/7

Literary Context

Demosthenes’ account of the decree which sent out envoys (TT 1, 2) is offered as part of his attempt to associate Aeschines and his allies with the Athenians’ unsuccessful policies in the run-up to the Peace of Philokrates.

Texts

T1  Dem. 19.10: Ἔχων Ἴσχανδρον τὸν Νεοπτολέμου δευτεραγωνιστήν, προσιὼν μὲν τῇ βουλῇ, προσιὼν δὲ τῷ δήμῳ περὶ τούτων, καὶ πείσας ὑμᾶς πανταχοῖ πρέσβεις πέμψαι τοὺς συνάξοντας δεῦρο τοὺς βουλευσομένους περὶ τοῦ πρὸς Φίλιππον πολέμου. T2  Dem. 19.303–4: Τίς γάρ ἐσθ’ ὁ τὸν Ἴσχανδρον προσάγων ὑμῖν τὸ κατ’ ἀρχάς, ὃν παρὰ τῶν ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ φίλων τῇ πόλει δεῦρ’ ἥκειν ἔφη; τίς ὁ συσκευάζεσθαι τὴν Ἑλλάδα καὶ Πελοπόννησον Φίλιππον βοῶν, ὑμᾶς δὲ καθεύδειν; τίς ὁ τοὺς μακροὺς καὶ καλοὺς λόγους ἐκείνους δημηγορῶν, καὶ τὸ Μιλτιάδου καὶ Θεμιστοκλέους ψήφισμα ἀναγιγνώσκων καὶ τὸν ἐν τῷ τῆς Ἀγλαύρου τῶν ἐφήβων ὅρκον; οὐχ οὗτος; τίς ὁ πείσας ὑμᾶς μόνον οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλατταν πρεσβείας πέμπειν, ὡς ἐπιβουλευομένης μὲν ὑπὸ Φιλίππου τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ὑμῖν δὲ προσῆκον προορᾶν ταῦτα καὶ μὴ προΐεσθαι τὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων; οὐχ ὁ μὲν γράφων τὸ ψήφισμα Εὔβουλος ἦν, ὁ δὲ πρεσβεύων εἰς Πελοπόννησον Αἰσχίνης οὑτοσί;

Commentary

MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 208, reconstructs the scenario: Philip was attempting to gain influence in Arcadia through bribery and other means; Aeschines heard this from the actor Ischandros (T1), who had been on tour there. Therefore, bringing Ischandros with him, he convinced the Athenians that they needed to propose a decree that ambassadors should be sent out ‘almost to the Red Sea’ to invite cities to send envoys to Athens (T2). We can then 436

d116 decree dispatching envoys across greece

437

T1  Having Ischandros, the supporting actor of Neoptolemos, with him, he approached the council and went before the people, persuading you to send ambassadors in every direction to convene meetings here concerning the war with Philip.

T2 Who was it that, at the start of matters, brought Ischandros in front of you, who said that he had come here from friends of the city in Arcadia? And who was it that called out that Philip was bringing together Greece and the Peloponnese while you were sound asleep? And who made these long, elegant speeches, reading out the decree of Miltiades and Themistocles and the oath of the ephebes in the sanctuary of Aglauros? Wasn’t it him? And who persuaded you to send out ambassadors almost to the Red Sea, alleging that Philip was plotting against Greece, (and said) that it was necessary for you to be aware of this and not to abandon the affairs of the Greeks? And wasn’t it Euboulos who proposed the decree and this man Aeschines who travelled to the Peloponnese as ambassador?

presume that Euboulos (T2) proposed the decree at the assembly. Cawkwell, ‘Aeschines’, 427, raises the possibility that the decree of Euboulos was inspired by a proposal amongst the Arcadians to make alliance with Philip. It seems from Demosthenes’ words that Aeschines persuaded the council that the decree was appropriate, but its proposer is later revealed as Euboulos (T2). Euboulos is associated with two other decrees of the people: one recalling Xenophon (see

438

inventory a2

D101 above), and another concerning Philip (see D218 below). For his other political activity, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, and for his career and policy, including the view that he was a key opponent of Demosthenes, controller of Athenian finances who sought to isolate Philip II of Macedon, see Cawkwell, ‘Eubulus’. Aeschines was among the ambassadors sent out to invite cities to send envoys; he made a speech in Megalopolis to the Arcadian assembly of Ten Thousand denouncing corruption, but failed to lure any Greek city to send representatives to Athens (Dem. 19.11; Aeschin. 2.79). Diodorus Siculus offers an impression of the kind of advice the Athenians may have offered to other cities at the time: he says that they urged them to guard their independence and to punish those citizens who were intent on treason, while promising that they would support them (D.S. 16.54.1). Accordingly, the mission was a failure: it did not persuade any states to join in an alliance against Philip. For a list of the other envoys, see Develin, AO, 319.

Date

348/7, probably soon after the fall of Olynthos in the summer/autumn of 348 (MacDowell, Demosthenes 209; Harris, Aeschines, 156–61); or 347/6 (Develin, AO, 320, following Cawkwell, ‘Aeschines’, who placed the embassy in early 346: for refutation of this view, see Harris, Aeschines, 159).

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates’, REG 73 (1960) 416–38. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Eubulus’, JHS 83 (1963) 47–63. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 156–61. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000).

D117 Decision to send envoys to Philip (presumably by decree) Proposer: Phrynon Diognetou Rhamnousios (PA 15032; PAA 966010) Date: 348/7, probably late Summer 348

Literary Context

In his account of the run-up to the peace negotiations with Philip, which he claimed would be lucid and intelligible (Aeschin. 2.11), Aeschines (T1) describes how an embassy was sent to Philip. The later author of the hypothesis to Demosthenes 19 (T2) offers the story too.

439

440

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Aeschin 2.12: Οὐ πολλῷ δ’ ὕστερον χρόνῳ Φρύνων ὁ Ῥαμνούσιος ἑάλω ὑπὸ λῃστῶν ἐν ταῖς σπονδαῖς ταῖς Ὀλυμπιακαῖς, ὡς αὐτὸς ᾐτιᾶτο· ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐπανῆλθε δεῦρο λυτρωθείς, ἐδεῖτο ὑμῶν πρεσβευτὴν αὑτῷ πρὸς Φίλιππον ἑλέσθαι, ἵνα, εἴ πως δύναιτο, ἀπολάβοι τὰ λύτρα. πεισθέντες δ’ ὑμεῖς εἵλεσθ’ αὐτῷ Κτησιφῶντα πρεσβευτήν. T2  Hypothesis to Demosthenes 19, 2, para 3: Φρύνων τις Ἀθηναῖος ἀπιὼν Ὀλυμπίασιν ἀγωνισόμενος ἢ θεασόμενος, ἐκρατήθη ὑπό τινων στρατιωτῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου ἐν ἱερομηνίᾳ καὶ ἀφῃρέθη πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς Ἀθήνας παρεκάλει τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, ἵνα χειροτονήσωσιν αὐτὸν πρεσβευτήν, ὅπως ἀπελθὼν πρὸς Φίλιππον λάβῃ ἅπερ ἀφῃρέθη.

Commentary

Aeschines (T1) tells us that Phrynon was captured by pirates (or robbers) at the time of the Olympic truce and that once he had been ransomed and had come home, he ‘asked you’ (i.e. the people) to choose an envoy to go to Philip on his behalf so that he might recover his ransom money or, according to the writer of the hypothesis, the things of which he was deprived (T2). The Athenians were persuaded and sent Ktesiphon; it seems likely that the decision was made by an Athenian decree (T1: ‘Πεισθέντες δ’ ὑμεῖς’). Phrynon later served on an embassy with Philokrates and Aeschines (Aeschin. 2.8; Dem. 19.189); Demosthenes alleged that he even sent his young son to Philip in Macedonia (Dem. 19.230). It is clear that he was attacked at the time of the Olympic truce of 348/7, while travelling to the games either as a spectator or participant (T2). Given that he requested that an ambassador be sent to Philip to reclaim the ransom money, it appears that the kidnappers (or bandits) were identified as Macedonian. The writer of the hypothesis (T2) offers the detail that he was attacked by soldiers of Philip (this is rejected by Dillon, ‘Phrynon’, 253, as a detail added later; Dillon suggests instead they were ‘brigands’ or ‘buccaneers’) and that he was travelling to Olympia. As Harris, Aeschines, 48, points out, the Athenians were in a win–win situation: ‘Even if Ctesiphon failed, Philip’s refusal [to hand over the ransom] could be exploited as effective propaganda to the rest of the Greeks. The Athenians could point to the violation of the holy truce by the Macedonian pirates and Philip’s tacit approval of their sacrilege by spurning Phrynon’s request. What better proof that Philip was a sacrilegious barbarian, whom no pious Greek should trust?’

d117 decision to send envoys to philip

441

T1 Not much later (than the receipt of envoys from Euboia), Phrynon of Rhamnous was captured by robbers, during the Olympic truce, according to his complaint. And when he arrived back here after being ransomed, he requested that you choose an envoy to go to Philip on his behalf, so that if it were possible, he might recover the ransom. You were persuaded and selected Ktesiphon as envoy on his behalf. T2 Phrynon an Athenian went to Olympia as a contestant or a spectator and was captured by some soldiers of Philip during the sacred month and was deprived of all his possessions. And on coming (back) to Athens he urged the Athenians to elect him ambassador so that he might go to Philip and reclaim the things of which he was deprived.

Ktesiphon was the ambassador sent on Phrynon’s behalf (see D118 below, for honours granted to him), and he reported on the matters and announced that Philip wanted to make peace (Aeschin. 2.14); this led to Philokrates’ proposal that Philip should be allowed to send envoys concerning peace (Aeschin, 2.13; see D121 below). Dillon, ‘Phrynon’, argues that, given that Philip was suing for peace in the aftermath of the Olynthian war and that Phrynon was a later member of the peace embassy, it seems likely that the Macedonians were persuaded to send compensation; Harris (Aeschines, 48) takes the view that Philip would have compensated Phrynon with the intention of paving the way for peace (see, however, the view of Badian and Heskel, ‘Aeschines’, 267).

Date

348/7, after the fall of Olynthos. The decree was passed probably later than the summer of 348, as the Olympic games of that year ended on August 1: see Badian and Heskel, ‘Aeschines’, 269, who suggest that the decree may have come much later in the year 348/7.

Bibliography

Badian E. and Heskel, J., ‘Aeschines 2.12–18: a study in rhetoric and chronology’, Phoenix 41 (1987) 264–71. Dillon, M.P.J., ‘Phrynon of Rhamnous and the Macedonian pirates: the political significance of sacred truces’, Historia 44 (1995) 250–4. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994).

D118 Honours for Ktesiphon Proposer: Unknown Date: Late Summer/Autumn 348/7

Literary Context

In his account of the run-up to the peace negotiations with Philip, which he claimed would be ‘lucid and intelligible’ (Aeschin. 2.11), Aeschines (T1) describes the Athenian reaction to Ktesiphon’s embassy to Philip (see D117 above). The point that Aeschines wants to make is that neither Demosthenes nor anyone else spoke in opposition to the honours and, therefore, that they were implicated in the processes that led to the Peace of Philokrates.

Text

T1  Aeschin. 2.13: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐπανῆκε δεῦρ’ ἀπὸ τῆς πρεσβείας ὁ Κτησιφῶν, ἀπήγγειλε πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐπέμφθη, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις, ὅτι φαίη Φίλιππος ἄκων μὲν πολεμῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, βούλεσθαι δὲ καὶ νῦν ἀπαλλαγῆναι τοῦ πολέμου. εἰπόντος δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ Κτησιφῶντος, καὶ πολλήν τινα ἐξαγγείλαντος πρὸς τούτοις φιλανθρωπίαν, καὶ τοῦ δήμου σφόδρα ἀποδεξαμένου καὶ τὸν Κτησιφῶντα ἐπαινέσαντος, ἀντειπόντος δ’ οὐδενός. (For continuation of this passage, see D121 T1 below).

Commentary

According to Aeschines’ account of the run-up to the peace negotiations with Philip, Ktesiphon was honoured on his return from Philip (to whom he had been sent in order to seek compensation for the ransom demanded for Phrynon: see D117 above). Aeschines does not describe it as a psephisma, but the claim that the demos praised him (‘τοῦ δήμου … τὸν Κτησιφῶντα ἐπαινέσαντος’) is good evidence for a decree of the Athenian assembly; see Introduction section 2 above. This passage is a reasonable piece of evidence for the possibility that Philip had been willing to listen to peace overtures with the Athenians: see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.329. Gauthier (Les cités grecques, 77–104) and Kralli (‘Athens’), have suggested that honorific tendencies (and in particular the tendency to honour returning 442

d118 honours for ktesiphon

443

T1 When Ktesiphon had returned here from his mission, he made an announcement before you about those matters for which he was sent, and additionally, he announced to you that Philip had said that he had gone to war with you unwillingly and even at that point had wanted to curtail the war. When Ktesiphon had said this, and spoke additionally of the great kindness (of Philip), the people eagerly accepted his report and praised Ktesiphon, and no-one spoke in opposition.

ambassadors) in the second half of the fourth century may be seen as part of a positive reappraisal of the role of politicians and ambassadors at a time when Athens’ military strength had faded. Demosthenes suggested that the Athenian council customarily honoured ambassadors, on their return to Athens, with an invitation to dine at the Prytaneion (Dem. 19.31). As Lambert (Inscribed Athenian, 5 note 5) notes, this invitation may have had a practical side: it allowed envoys to partake in the hospitality offered in Athens to foreign diplomats. There is a rash of literary evidence for the practice in the 340s: Aristodemos (347/6: Aeschin. 2.17 = D124); those returning from Pella (347/6: Aeschin. 2.46, 53; Dem. 19.234 = D128); the embassy led by Aristodemos to Magnesia (343/2: Aeschin. 3.83 = D146). For the epigraphical references (mostly incidental), see P. Low, ‘Athenian foreign policy,’ 77 note 39. Pace Gauthier and

444

inventory a2

Kralli, it is perhaps not so much the case that ambassadorial activity was being rewarded more frequently, but rather that the persuasive ability of minor politicians gave prominence to the bestowal of honours. However, as Lambert (Inscribed Athenian, 5 note 5) and Low (‘Athenian foreign policy’, 81) observe, the fact that much of the epigraphical evidence suggests that the honouring was an incidental afterthought added to inscribed versions of other decrees means that the demos may not always have ratified the decrees of the council honouring returning ambassadors. Harris (‘Applying the law’, 105 note 6) suggests that this is an example of an honorific decree awarding praise of conduct but without a crown. But on other occasions where returning ambassadors are praised they also receive a crown (and maintenance at the prytaneion): see DD 124, 128. It may be possible that the honorand, Ktesiphon, travelled with Aeschines and Demosthenes in the embassy of 347/6 to Philip. This Ktesiphon is identified by Harpokration (s.v. Κτησιφῶν) as the proposer of the controversial honours for Demosthenes (see D179 below) but, given that there is evidence neither for patronymic nor demotic, this identification is not certain; indeed the Suda (s.v. Κτησιφῶν) casts doubt on the identification.

Date

348/7. For discussion of the chronological problems of the events described by Aeschines in this passage, see Badian and Heskel, ‘Aeschines’.

Bibliography

Badian E. and Heskel, J., ‘Aeschines 2.12–18: a study in rhetoric and chronology’, Phoenix 41 (1987) 264–71. Gauthier, P., Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs. BCH Suppl. 12. Athens and Paris (1985). Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 329. Harris, E.M., ‘Applying the law about the award of crowns to magistrates (Aeschin. 3.9-31; Dem. 18.113–117): epigraphic evidence for the legal arguments at the trial of Ctesiphon’, ZPE 202 (2017) 105–17. Kralli, I., ‘Athens and her leading citizens in the early Hellenistic period (338–261 BC): the evidence of the decrees awarding the highest honours’, Archaiognosia 10 (1998-9) 133–61. Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2012). Low, P.A., ‘Athenian foreign policy and the quest for stability’ in Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy, ed. G. Herman. Stuttgart (2011) 67–86.

D119 Decree censuring those who had betrayed Olynthos Proposer: Unknown Date: 348/7

Literary Context

As a way of demonstrating Athenian severity towards traitors, Demosthenes approvingly had this decree read out to the court in 343, shortly before he referred his audience to the stele of Arthmios (Dem. 19.270–1).

445

446

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 19.267–8: Καὶ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὑπερφυὲς εἴη, εἰ κατὰ μὲν τῶν Ὀλυνθίους προδόντων πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ ἐψηφίσασθε, τοὺς δὲ παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς ἀδικοῦντας μὴ κολάζοντες φαίνοισθε. λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ περὶ τῶν Ὀλυνθίων. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.   Ταῦθ’ ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὀρθῶς καὶ καλῶς πᾶσιν Ἕλλησι καὶ βαρβάροις δοκεῖτε ἐψηφίσθαι κατ’ ἀνδρῶν προδοτῶν καὶ θεοῖς ἐχθρῶν.

Commentary

No details of the decree are known (as MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 318 observes), but it appears to have outlined punishments and/or sanctions against those who had betrayed Olynthos (cf. D.S. 16.53.1–3, where Euthykrates and Lasthenes are identified as traitors; the same men are named by Demosthenes in this speech and also in his Third Olynthiac: Dem. 8.40; 19.265, 342). Given that Olynthos was out of Athenian hands at this point, and that those who had betrayed it may have been looked after by Philip, it is hard to see how Athenian provisions against them would have been effective (compare the punishments of exile and confiscation of property declared against those who had opposed the Athenians at Ioulis in RO 39 (= IG II2 111) of 363/2). But the provisions may have included the withdrawal of honours from the likes of Apollonides (see D109 above). At probably the same time, however, the Athenians passed decrees in favour of other Olynthians (see, for instance, D120), presumably those who had taken up arms against Philip.

Date

348/7, probably soon after the fall of Olynthos (summer of 348).

Bibliography

MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 318.

d120 decree honouring olynthians

447

T1 And it would be monstrous if you appeared not to punish those among you who do unjust things, since you voted many terrible things against those who betrayed the Olynthians. Read the decree concerning the Olynthians. DECREE.  Men of the jury! These actions, voting against men who are treacherous and hostile to the gods, are considered upright and fine by all the Greeks and barbarians.

D120 Decree honouring Olynthians Proposer: Unknown Date: 348/7

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned in passing by ancient lexicographers (TT 1, 2).

448

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Harpokration, s.v. ‘ἰσοτελής καὶ ἰσοτέλεια’ (citing Theophrastos, Nomoi, book 11): Οὖτος δέ φησιν ὡς ἐνιαχοῦ καὶ πόλεσιν ὅλαις ἐψηφίζοντο τὴν ἰσοτέλειαν Ἀθηναῖοι ὥσπερ Ὀλυνθίοις τε καὶ Θηβαίοις.  ἀτέλειαν codd.; ἰσοτέλειαν Bekker, von Wilamowitz. T2  Suda, s.v. ‘Κάρανος’ (Adler kappa 356): Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ τοὺς περισωθέντας πολίτας ἐποιήσαντο.

Commentary

Suda (T2) claims that the Athenians gave the refugees from Olynthos Athenian citizenship; this is contradicted by Harpokration’s statement (T1, citing Theophrastos) that the Athenians voted ateleia (or, as the persuasive textual emendation suggests, given the title of the entry, isoteleia) to some cities, such as those of the Olynthians and the Thebans. A very fragmentary inscribed decree, IG II3 1 503, concerning a vote about ateleia from the metic tax (lines 5, 8–9) was thought by Wilhelm (see apparatus on IG II2 211) to be related to this award for Olynthians, but the latest edition has abandoned these restorations, with Lambert (apparatus on IG II3 1 503) pointing out that there are many occasions attested in the middle of the fourth century when fugitives appealed to the Athenians. On the substance of isoteleia, which is rarely attested in the classical epigraphical record (though see, e.g., IG II3 1 363), see Henry, Honours, 246–9; Harpokration’s entry says (in the lines preceding the lines quoted at T1) that it was granted to individual metics who were thought worthy. Views of what isoteleia (a privilege granted to non-citizens) entailed vary: Whitehead, Ideology, 11–13, takes the view that it constituted exemption from the metic tax at the very least, but that it may well have brought legal rights as well as military and financial privileges or fiscal equality of some sort. For the award to the Thebans, see below, DP 77 below. Osborne, Naturalization, X12, casts doubt upon the Suda’s claim that the refugees from Olynthos were made Athenian citizens; it is plausible to think that they may have given some form of privilege like isoteleia. Demades’ proposal of honours for Euthykrates of Olynthos may also be relevant to the policy of honouring Olynthians who had fallen out of favour with the regime at home: see D177 below.

d121 allowing philip to send a herald & ambassadors

449

T   1 Isoteleis. He (sc. Theophrastos) says also that on occasion the Athenians decreed ateleia to whole cities, such as the Olynthians and the Thebans.

T2 The Athenians made those who escaped with their lives (from Olynthos) citizens.

Date

348/7, probably soon after the fall of Olynthos to Philip (summer of 348).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA. Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983) 246–9. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols in 3. Brussels (1981–3) X12. Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge (1977) 11–13.

D121 Decree allowing Philip to send a herald and ambassadors Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 145 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 348/7

Literary Context

In his account of the run-up to the peace negotiations with Philip, which he claimed would be ‘lucid and intelligible’ (Aeschin. 2.11), Aeschines (T1) describes Philokrates’ proposal to accept a mission from Philip and Demosthenes’ defence of it. According to Aeschines, Demosthenes also boasted of his support for the decree when he was at Pella as ambassador on the Second Embassy (Aeschin. 2.108–9): he wanted to make a case that Demosthenes had advocated

450

inventory a2

elements of the policy that led up to the Peace of Philokrates and the betrayal of the Phokians. The decree, and Demosthenes’ support of it, is mentioned also in the Against Ktesiphon (Aeschin. 3.62), where Aeschines makes a case for Demosthenes’ activities being contrary to the interests of the Athenian people.

Text

T1 Aeschin. 2.13–14: Ἐνταῦθα ἤδη δίδωσι ψήφισμα Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος, καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἅπας ὁμογνωμονῶν ἐχειροτόνησεν, ἐξεῖναι Φιλίππῳ δεῦρο κήρυκα καὶ πρέσβεις πέμπειν ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης. πρότερον μὲν γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτ’ ἐκωλύετο ὑπό τινων, οἷς ἦν τοῦτ’ ἐπιμελές, ὡς αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα ἔδειξεν. γράφονται γὰρ οὗτοι παρανόμων τὸ ψήφισμα, Λυκῖνον ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν ἐπιγραψάμενοι, καὶ τίμημα ἑκατὸν τάλαντα. καὶ μετὰ ταῦτ’ εἰσῄει ἡ γραφὴ εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, ἀρρώστως δ’ ἔχων ὁ Φιλοκράτης ἐκάλεσεν αὐτῷ συνήγορον Δημοσθένην, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐμέ. παρελθὼν δ’ ὁ μισοφίλιππος Δημοσθένης, κατέτριψε τὴν ἡμέραν ἀπολογούμενος· καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον ἀποφεύγει Φιλοκράτης, ὁ δὲ γραψάμενος τὸ πέμπτον μέρος τῶν ψήφων οὐ μεταλαμβάνει. καὶ ταῦθ’ ὑμεῖς ἅπαντες ἴστε.

Commentary

Philokrates proposed to allow Philip to send a herald and ambassadors to appeal for peace. This was passed unanimously by the people (perhaps the news of the fall of Olynthos and Philip’s possession of Athenian prisoners (Aeschin. 2.100) played a role in persuading the Athenians to accept such an approach), and, although the decree was attacked in a graphe paranomon under the name of Lykinos, it appears to have been upheld by the court (T1; cf. Aeschin. 2.108 and 3.62; see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 17). This decree of Philokrates ‘allowing’ Philip (‘ἐξεῖναι Φιλίππῳ’) to send to Athens a herald and ambassadors in order to appeal for peace was passed after (a) ambassadors from Euboia came and told the Athenians that Philip had asked them to inform the Athenians that he wished to come to terms and be at peace with them; and (b) after the people sent (by decree: see D117 above) Ktesiphon to Philip to talk about recovering ransom money taken by pirates (Aeschin. 2.12–13). Of course, if dispatched to Philip, the decree would have approximated to an invitation to him to send ambassadors to Athens. It is not clear that Philip took up the offer, and contemporaneous developments suggest that the Athenians concentrated on building an anti-Macedonian alliance: Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.330. Philokrates is associated with eight decrees of the assembly: see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

d121 allowing philip to send a herald & ambassadors 451

T1  Then Philokrates Hagnousios offered a decree, and the people, agreeing with it unanimously, voted to allow Philip to send here a herald and ambassadors on behalf of peace. Previously this was the very thing which was prevented by certain men who made it their concern to stand in its way, and this was just what happened. For they attacked the decree as unconstitutional, adding the name of Lykinos to the prosecution, and a penalty of 100 Talents. And some time later the case came to court; Philokrates was ill, and he called on Demosthenes as his advocate, not me. And Demosthenes, the Philip-hater, came forward, and spent the whole day making a case for the defence; in the end, Philokrates was acquitted, and the prosecutor failed to take a fifth of the votes. But all of you know these things already.

Date

348/7, probably soon after the fall of Olynthos (summer of 348). It may have elaborated upon Euboulos’ decree inviting envoys from across the Greek world. However, Badian and Heskel, ‘Aeschines’, 268, place it later in 348/7.

Bibliography

Badian E. and Heskel, J., ‘Aeschines 2.12–18: a study in rhetoric and chronology’, Phoenix 41 (1987) 264–71. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 330. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 17. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.

D122 Decree concerning the export of weapons to Philip Proposer: Timarchos Arizelou Sphettios (PA 13636; PAA 884310) Date: 347/6

Literary Context

Demosthenes describes and has read out one of Timarchos’ decrees (T1) in order to demonstrate that Aeschines, in destroying the career of Timarchos on a charge of sexual misconduct, did not intend to make the Athenians wiser.

Text

T1 Dem. 19.285–7: Ἵνα τοίνυν εἰδῆθ’ ὅτι καὶ τοῦτον ἀπώλεσεν, {τὸν Τίμαρχον,} οὐ μὰ Δί’ οὐχὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων παίδων, ὅπως ἔσονται σώφρονες, προορῶν (εἰσὶ γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ νῦν σώφρονες· μὴ γὰρ οὕτω γένοιτο κακῶς τῇ πόλει ὥστε Ἀφοβήτου καὶ Αἰσχίνου σωφρονιστῶν δεηθῆναι τοὺς νεωτέρους), ἀλλ’ ὅτι βουλεύων ἔγραψεν, ἄν τις ὡς Φίλιππον ὅπλα ἄγων ἁλῷ ἢ σκεύη τριηρικά, θάνατον εἶναι τὴν ζημίαν. σημεῖον δέ· πόσον γὰρ ἐδημηγόρει χρόνον Τίμαρχος; πολύν. οὐκοῦν τοῦτον ἦν Αἰσχίνης ἅπαντα ἐν τῇ πόλει, καὶ οὐδεπώποτε ἠγανάκτησεν οὐδὲ δεινὸν ἡγήσατο εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα, εἰ ὁ τοιοῦτος λέγει, ἕως εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἐλθὼν ἑαυτὸν ἐμίσθωσεν· λέγε δή μοι τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν αὐτὸ τὸ τοῦ Τιμάρχου. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.   Ὁ μὲν τοίνυν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν γράψας μὴ ἄγειν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ πρὸς Φίλιππον ὅπλα, εἰ δὲ μή, θανάτῳ ζημιοῦσθαι, ἀπόλωλε καὶ ὕβρισται· ὁ δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων συμμάχων ὅπλα ἐκείνῳ παραδοὺς οὑτοσὶ κατηγόρει, καὶ περὶ πορνείας ἔλεγεν, ὦ γῆ καὶ θεοί, δυοῖν μὲν κηδεσταῖν παρεστηκότοιν.

Commentary

T1 is the sole testimonium for this decree, which appears to have imposed the death penalty for anyone attempting to take weapons during wartime to Philip (Demosthenes had the decree read out and in his paraphrase of it he added 452

d122 the export of weapons to philip

453

T1 So that you might know that he (Aeschines) destroyed Timarchos, not, by Zeus, so that our children would become wise (for, men of Athens, they already are wise enough for me to hope that the city will not be in such a bad state that it is necessary to make use of Aphobetos and Aeschines as moral guides), but rather because, when he (Timarchos) was a councillor, he proposed that anyone who was caught bringing arms or trierarchical equipment to Philip would be punished with death. This much is clear: how long was Timarchos a public speaker? A very long time. Accordingly, Aeschines was in the city during all that time, and he never made a complaint nor did he think it a terrible thing if this man spoke publicly, that is, until he went to Macedonia and hired himself out. So please obtain and read out this decree of Timarchos. DECREE.  Well then, it is he who proposed on your behalf that no one should bring arms to Philip in the time of war, and that if they did, they should be punished with death, who is himself destroyed and insulted; meanwhile, the one who handed over the weapons of your allies to Philip, and talked about prostitution with his two brothers-in-law while they stood around, was the prosecutor here. By the land and the Gods!

the condition ‘in wartime’ (‘ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ’: 19.287)); Demosthenes claims that Timarchos proposed it when he was a member of the council (in 347/6: cf. Aeschin. 1.80). The decree, an apparently unparalleled restriction on Athenian

454

inventory a2

behaviour, is the clearest possible indication that, at this stage, the boule and demos realised the magnitude of the threat from Philip. The Hypothesis to Aeschin. 1 says that Timarchos was the proposer of more than 100 decrees. One other decree is known, of the same year, concerning public works on the Pnyx (Aeschin. 1.81 = D138); for this and his other political activity, see Fisher, Aeschines, 20–3. As Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 60 note 1 notes, the testimonium suggests that this decree may have consisted of a probouleumatic decree that was straightforwardly accepted by the assembly. It may well have forbidden the taking of arms specifically to Philip, suggesting that it was was hardly a general, permanent rule, and therefore was the subject of a decree rather than a law (cf. Hansen, Athenian Ecclesia, 189–91). Prohibition concerning military activity is paralleled in a decree now dated to 348 or 343, which banned individuals from marching against Eretria (IG II3 1 399 (= RO 69) line 10). The decree is clearly a reflection of the Athenian fear about the onset of the Macedonians; this may have been exacerbated by the renewal of Macedonian naval operations and the perceived threat to Athenian settlers on Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros (Aeschin. 2.72–3; cf. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.331). Moreover, as Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.332 points out, it is likely that the decree was passed specifically because there were Greeks and Athenians who were supplying Philip with arms and naval gear: the military requirements of the Macedonians for helmets, shields and the like had clearly outstripped their ability to produce them.

Date

Timarchos was a member of the boule twice: once in 361/0 (Aeschin. 1.109) and in 347/6 (Aeschin. 1.80). This decree must, therefore, date to 347/6.

Bibliography

Fisher, N.R.E., Aeschines Against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford (2001). Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 331–2. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983), 179–206. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 328–9. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972).

D123 Decree concerning mobilisation in response to a Phokian appeal Proposer: Unknown Date: Gamelion/Anthesterion 346

Literary Context

As a response to Demosthenes’ claim that he betrayed the Phokians, Aeschines (T1) offered an account of the causes of their downfall: among them was the Phokians’ failure to keep promises to the Athenians, including one that had been enshrined in an Athenian decree. As Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.333 points out, Aeschines was keen to demonstrate that the Phokians were both weak and unreliable; but Diodorus Siculus (16.56.3–5) adds the view that the Phokian generals were also prone to corruption.

455

456

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 2.132–3: Ἡ μὲν γὰρ Θετταλῶν καὶ Φιλίππου στρατεία πρόδηλος ἦν, οὐ πολλῷ δὲ χρόνῳ πρότερον ἢ τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰρήνην γενέσθαι, πρέσβεις πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἦλθον ἐκ Φωκέων, βοηθεῖν αὑτοῖς κελεύοντες, καὶ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι παραδώσειν Ἀλπωνὸν καὶ Θρόνιον καὶ Νίκαιαν, τὰ τῶν παρόδων τῶν εἰς Πύλας χωρία κύρια. ψηφισαμένων δ’ ὑμῶν παραδοῦναι Προξένῳ τῷ στρατηγῷ τοὺς Φωκέας ταῦτα τὰ χωρία, καὶ πεντήκοντα πληροῦν τριήρεις, καὶ τοὺς μέχρι τετταράκοντα ἔτη γεγονότας ἐξιέναι, ἀντὶ τοῦ παραδοῦναι τὰ χωρία Προξένῳ, ἔδησαν οἱ τύραννοι τοὺς πρέσβεις τοὺς ἐπαγγειλαμένους ὑμῖν παραδώσειν τὰ φυλακτήρια.

Commentary

The pressure that Philip was exerting on the Phokians forms the background to this decree: it was made in response to an appeal made by the Phokian generals, who had recently deposed the tyrant Phalaikos (D.S. 16.56.2–3). Aeschines says that when Philip’s attack was imminent, Phokian ambassadors came to Athens asking for aid and offering to hand over certain posts (the Lokrian cities Alponos, Thronion and Nikaia, on the location of which see Buckler, Philip II, 118–19) which controlled the roads to Thermopylai (T1). In response, the Athenians passed a decree which said that the Phokians should hand over these posts to their general Proxenos, that they (the Athenians) should man 50 triremes and that citizens up to the age of forty years should take part in the expedition (T1). However, the Phokians never handed over the posts, possibly because certain leaders (perhaps including the sidelined Phalaikos, acting probably out of self-interest) resisted the pledge (T1; D.S. 16.59.2). Cawkwell, ‘Peace’, 428–30, argues that the Phokian policy (including also their refusal to hand over Thermopylai to the Spartans: Aeschin 2.133) was significant in leading the Athenians to making peace with Philip and abandoning the Phokians; on the weakness of the Phokians and the disintegration of the Phokian koinon at this time, see Unte, ‘Die Phoker’. It is unclear how much of the expedition was dispatched, but it is likely that the Phokians would have dismissed any Athenian forces which arrived when they heard the Athenian terms. Doubts about the expedition are mentioned also by Aeschines, who claimed that Demosthenes attacked him by asking, when they were together on a mission to Philip, whether he pinned his hopes on these 50 triremes which would never be manned (Aeschin. 2.36–7). As Buckler, Philip II, 119–20 note 10, observes, the Athenian reaction was slow but was at least enough to offer some initial opposition to Philip at Thermopylai.

d123 decree concerning mobilisation

457

T1 For the campaign of the Thessalians and of Philip became manifest not much before peace was agreed with you, and ambassadors arrived at Athens from Phokis, calling on you to help them, and promising to hand over Alponos, Thronion and Nikaia, the most important lands which guarded the entrance to Thermopylai. And then you decreed that the Phokians should hand over these places to the general Proxenos, that 50 triremes should be manned, and that there should be an expedition undertaken of men less than forty years of age; but instead of handing over the lands to Proxenos, the Phokian tyrants imprisoned their ambassadors who had made promises to you to hand over the fortifications.

On mobilisation by age class, see also D106 (= Dem. 3.4: up to the age of forty-five) and D199 (= D.S. 18.10.2: up to the age of forty).

Date

Gamelion/Anthesterion 346: see McInerney, The Folds, 223.

Bibliography

Buckler, J., Philip II and the Sacred War: Mnemosyne Supplement 109. Leiden (1989) 118–19. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Aeschines and the Peace of Philocrates’, REG 73 (1960) 416–38. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 333. McInerney, J., The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis. Austin (1999) 223. Unte, W., ‘Die Phoker und der Philokrates frieden’, Hermes 115 (1987) 411–29.

D124 Decree praising Aristodemos

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF) Date: 347/6

Literary Context

In his account of the run-up to the peace negotiations with Philip, which he claimed would be ‘lucid and intelligible’ (Aeschin. 2.11), Aeschines (T1) describes a decree in praise of Aristodemos. In particular, he implicates Demosthenes in the run-up to the peace, pointing out that he proposed honours for this envoy who had announced Philip’s goodwill to Athens. He aims to demonstrate that Demosthenes and Philokrates, not he himself, were responsible for the commencement of the proceedings that led to the peace (Aeschin. 2.20).

Texts

T1  Aeschin. 2.17: Τελευταῖον δ’ εἰς τὴν βουλὴν εἰσελθὼν Δημοκράτης ὁ Ἀφιδναῖος, ἔπεισε τὴν βουλὴν ἀνακαλέσασθαι τὸν Ἀριστόδημον· εἷς δὲ τῶν βουλευτῶν ἦν Δημοσθένης ὁ ἐμὸς κατήγορος. παρελθὼν δ’ ὁ Ἀριστόδημος, πολλήν τινα εὔνοιαν ἀπήγγειλε τοῦ Φιλίππου πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ προσέθηκεν ὅτι καὶ σύμμαχος βούλοιτο τῇ πόλει γενέσθαι. καὶ ταῦτ’ οὐκ ἐν τῇ βουλῇ μόνον εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ. κἀνταῦθ’ οὐδὲν ἀντεῖπε Δημοσθένης, ἀλλὰ καὶ στεφανῶσαι τὸν Ἀριστόδημον ἔγραψε. T2 Aeschin. 2.19: Καὶ ὅτι ταῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, λαβέ μοι τὰ ψηφίσματα, καὶ τὴν ἐκμαρτυρίαν ἀνάγνωθι τὴν Ἀριστοδήμου, καὶ κάλει πρὸς οὓς ἐξεμαρτύρησεν, ἵν’ εἰδῶσιν οἱ δικασταὶ τίς ὁ [τοῦ] Φιλοκράτους ἑταῖρος, καὶ τίς ὁ τὰς δωρεὰς Ἀριστοδήμῳ φάσκων πείσειν δοῦναι τὸν δῆμον. Ψηφίσματα. Ἐκμαρτυρία.

Commentary

Aristodemos, a naturalised Athenian citizen (Osborne, Naturalization, PT 134) who was later a member of the First Embassy to Philip, had been sent to Philip to plead for the restoration of Athenians captured at Olynthos (see DP 59 below = Aeschin. 2.15). Demokrates of Aphidna (T1) persuaded the council to allow his return to Athens; although his report to the council was delayed, 458

d124 decree praising aristodemos

459

T1 Finally Demokrates of Aphidna went before the council and persuaded its members to recall Aristodemos. Among the council-members was Demosthenes, my accuser! When Aristodemos returned, he announced the immense goodwill of Philip towards our city, and added also that he (Philip) wanted to become an ally to the Athenians. And he said such things not only to the council, but also to the people. And Demosthenes did not say anything in opposition; instead, he proposed to crown Aristodemos. T2  And to show that this is the truth, get for me the decrees, and read the witness-statement of Aristodemos, and call the witnesses in front of whom it was made, so that the jurors might know who was the collaborator of Philokrates, and who, by making a speech, persuaded the people to make awards for Aristodemos. Decrees. Deposition.

he appears to have ensured the release of Iatrokles, an Athenian captured by the Macedonians at Olynthos (Aeschin. 2.16). As T1 reports, Demosthenes proposed honours for Aristodemos, who reported on the goodwill of Philip. The text of Aeschines (T2) suggests that the decree was read out in the court in 343, and confirms that it was a decree of the people (‘τὰς δωρεὰς Ἀριστοδήμῳ …

460

inventory a2

πείσειν δοῦναι τὸν δῆμον’). For the praise, by probouleumatic decree, of the people of the members of the First Embassy to Philip, see D128 below; for the praise of other ambassadors, see DD 118, 146. Griffith offers an intriguing interpretation of this decree, suggesting that Philip, when he saw that the Phokians had failed to hand over the positions in Central Greece to the Athenians (see D123 above), decided to use Aristodemos to disseminate the announcement that he wished to make peace and hoped for an alliance with them (T1); he takes the view that Aristodemos and Neoptolemos were important informants and intermediaries ‘who could advise him on the state of feeling in Athens’ (Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.330). Aristodemos was presented by Demosthenes as a supporter of peace with Philip (19.12) and as a thespian underling of Aeschines (19.246), and was later a member of the First Embassy to Philip: see D125 below.

Date

347/6. Although Aristodemos was dispatched in late 348, it appears to have been the case that on his return he delayed his report by up to a year: Aeschin. 2.15 with Sealey, Demosthenes, 144.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 330. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 144–5.

D125 Decree dispatching ambassadors to Philip (the ‘First Embassy’) Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 1459 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 347/6

Literary Context

Aeschines (TT 1, 2) offers this account of Philokrates’ proposal as a way of demonstrating that the proceedings that led to the Peace of Philokrates were not upon his own initiative but rather those of Philokrates and Demosthenes (cf. Aeschin. 2.20).

461

462

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 2.18: Ῥηθέντων δὲ τούτων, ψήφισμα ἔγραψεν ὁ Φιλοκράτης ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις πρὸς Φίλιππον ἄνδρας δέκα, οἵτινες διαλέξονται Φιλίππῳ περὶ εἰρήνης καὶ τῶν κοινῇ συμφερόντων Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Φιλίππῳ. χειροτονουμένων δὲ τῶν δέκα πρέσβεων, ἐγὼ μὲν προεβλήθην ὑπὸ Ναυσικλέους, Δημοσθένης δ’ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ Φιλοκράτους, ὁ νυνὶ Φιλοκράτους κατηγορῶν. T2 Aeschin. 3.63: Νικᾷ γὰρ ἕτερον ψήφισμα Φιλοκράτης ἐν ᾧ κελεύει ἑλέσθαι δέκα πρέσβεις, οἵτινες ἀφικόμενοι ὡς Φίλιππον ἀξιώσουσιν αὐτὸν δεῦρο πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορας πέμπειν ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης.

Commentary

Philokrates proposed that the Athenians elect ten men as ambassadors to go to Philip and ask him to send ambassadors with plenipotentiary powers to negotiate peace and matters of interest to him (TT 1, 2). The passage suggests that the nomination and election of the ten ambassadors took place probably at the same meeting of the assembly and may have been recorded on the written version of the decree (cf. IG II2 43 (= RO 23) lines 72–7). For the original invitation to Philip to send ambassadors, see D121 above. Aeschines claims that Demosthenes, as a member of the council, supported this motion of Philokrates, and got himself elected as ambassador. Aeschines also says that the proposal was that the ambassadors should discuss both the question of peace and the common interests of the two parties (T2). At 2.19, Aeschines asked the secretary to read this decree aloud. For Aristodemos, a member of the embassy, see D124 above; Develin, AO, 319, lists the envoys. Philokrates is associated with 8 decrees of the assembly: see Volume 2, Appendix 1. This decree appears to have been followed up by Demosthenes’ proposal of a decree of the council (of which he was a member in 347/6), which said that the Athenians would elect envoys to plead with the cities, at which the actor Aristodemos was under contract to perform, not to fine him for cancelling on the grounds of being an envoy (Aeschin. 2.19: ‘ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις, ἐν αἷς ἔδει τὸν Ἀριστόδημον ἀγωνίζεσθαι, οἵτινες ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ παραιτήσονται τὰς ζημίας’; see BD 3). The text of Aeschin. 2.19 suggests that this decree of the council was read in the court in 343, but there is no indication that it was ratified by the people (given the supplementary nature of the proposal, this may not have been viewed as necessary). Harris, Aeschines, 55–6, analyses the background and the personnel of the embassy; he notes that, given the Athenian failure to create an alliance of Greek states against Philip (cf. Euboulos’ decree, D116 above) and Phalaikos’ refusal to

d125 decree dispatching ambassadors to philip

463

T1 When these things had been said, Philokrates proposed a decree that ten men be selected as ambassadors to Philip, who would discuss with Philip the matter of peace and the common benefits of the Athenians and Philip. And when the ten ambassadors had been elected, I was nominated by Nausikles, whereas Demosthenes was nominated by Philokrates himself, the man whom he is now prosecuting. T2 Philokrates then passed a second decree, in which he ordered that ten ambassadors be chosen who, on going to Philip, would ask him to send here ambassadors with full powers to negotiate about peace.

hand over key strongholds in Central Greece (see D123 above), Athenian influence in northern Greece was reliant ‘on the ability of these ambassadors to persuade Philip’. This goes some way to explaining not only why as many as ten ambassadors were selected, but also the spectrum of views its delegates represented. We should note also that Philip was threatening Athenian settlements in the Chersonese and northern Aegean (Aeschin 2.70–3). For a very full account of the embassy and its reception at Pella, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.336–40. The envoys are collectively known, by Demosthenes (19.234) and in modern scholarship, as the First Embassy, and set out from Athens in early 346; they returned in late Anthesterion/early Elaphebolion: see MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 3–6; Sealey, Demosthenes, 145–6; Harris, Aeschines, 57–70. Aeschin. 2.22–39 offers a detailed account of their negotiations, aspects of which are contradicted in Plu. Dem. 16: see Harris, Aeschines, 59. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.336 writes: ‘this board of ambassadors on their two missions to Macedonia became the most famous embassy known to us in ancient history.’ He takes the view that the Athenian people needed peace urgently, though they perhaps never realised quite how much they needed it.

Date

347/6. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.336, suggests March 346.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 336–40. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 55–62. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 3–4. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 145–6.

D126 Decree granting a truce for Philip’s envoys Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6

Literary Context

As part of his argument that Demosthenes was intimately involved in the negotiations surrounding the Peace of Philokrates after the return of the First Embassy in 347/6 (D125), Aeschines (T3) argues that Demosthenes, ‘a eulogist of the peace’, alone of the councillors proposed a decree granting a truce for Philip’s envoys and herald. Demosthenes’ proposal is held up also to demonstrate Demosthenes’ and Philokrates’ role in bringing the Macedonian ambassadors to Athens (Aeschin. 2.53–4; T1). Aeschines claims that Demosthenes himself read it out when serving as ambassador on the Second Embassy at Pella, as a way of demonstrating his previous services to Philip (T2). Knowledge of this proposal welcoming the Macedonians was turned against Demosthenes also by Dinarchus (1.28).

Texts

T1 Aeschin 2.53: ‘Eγὼ δὲ ψήφισμα γράψω καὶ τῷ κήρυκι σπείσασθαι τῷ παρὰ Φιλίππου ἥκοντι, καὶ τοῖς μέλλουσι παρ’ αὐτοῦ δεῦρο ἰέναι πρέσβεσι …’ (for further quotation, see D127 T1 below). T2 Aeschin. 2.109: Δεύτερον δὲ ὑπανέγνω τὸ ψήφισμα ὃ γεγραφὼς αὐτὸς ἦν, σπείσασθαι τῷ κήρυκι καὶ τῇ παρὰ Φιλίππου πρεσβείᾳ. T3 Aeschin. 3.63: Κἀκεῖθεν ἐπανήκων ἐπαινέτης ἦν τῆς εἰρήνης, καὶ ταὐτὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις πρέσβεσιν ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ μόνος τῶν βουλευτῶν ἔγραψε σπείσασθαι τῷ κήρυκι τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου καὶ τοῖς πρέσβεσιν, ἀκόλουθα γράφων Φιλοκράτει· ὁ μέν γε τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκε τοῦ δεῦρο κήρυκα καὶ πρέσβεις πέμπεσθαι, ὁ δὲ τῇ πρεσβείᾳ σπένδεται.  

464

d126 decree granting a truce for philip’s envoys

465

T1 (Quoting Demosthenes at the assembly) ‘I shall propose a decree to declare a truce for the herald coming from Philip, and for the ambassadors who will come here in the future …’ T2 Second he read out the decree which he had proposed himself, (which) granted a truce for the herald and embassy coming from Philip. T3 On returning here, he (Demosthenes) was full of praise for the peace and he announced the same report as the other ambassadors; he was the only one of the councillors to propose a truce for the herald from Philip and his ambassadors, making this proposal as a follow-on from that of Philokrates (see D121 above): for one had granted permission to Philip to send his (Philip’s) herald and ambassadors here, and the other created a truce for the embassy.

466

Commentary

inventory a2

After the Athenian First Embassy had left Pella, Philip prepared the dispatch of a herald and embassy to Athens: this arrived on Elaphebolion 9th or a few days later (Aeschin. 3.68 with Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 279). This decree, and the ones that follow (DD 127, 128 below) appear to have been a reaction to the impending arrival of this mission and were proposed at the assembly as probouleumata of the council on the occasion of the report of the Athenian First Embassy. They appear to have become decrees of the people (TT 1, 2). A truce was required because Athens was at war with Philip (Harris, Aeschines, 64 with 195–6 note 4). The text of Aeschines 2.54 suggests that the decree was read in the court in 343. Dinarchus (1.28) claims that Demosthenes hired a carriage for the Macedonian envoys who came to Athens with Antipater and, by welcoming them, introduced to Athens the flattery of the Macedonians (Din. 1.28: ‘ζεύγη τοῖς πρέσβεσιν ἐμισθώσατο τοῖς μετ’ Ἀντιπάτρου δεῦρ’ ἐλθοῦσιν, ἀναλαμβάνων αὐτοὺς καὶ τὸ κολακεύειν τοὺς Μακεδόνας πρῶτος εἰς τὴν πόλιν εἰσάγων’). Aeschines in 330 claimed that, for their return journey, he hired three pairs of mules for the ambassadors, and escorted them as far as Thebes, making the city a laughing-stock (Aeschin. 3.76: ‘ὅτ’ ἀπῄεσαν, ἐμισθώσατο αὐτοῖς τρία ζεύγη ὀρεικὰ καὶ προὔπεμψεν εἰς Θήβας, καταγέλαστον τὴν πόλιν ποιῶν’; cf. 2.110–12). Aeschines may have exaggerated the significance of this: Worthington (A Historical Commentary, 176–7) suggests that providing a safe passage for visiting envoys was a normal part of the diplomatic process. These measures may have been part of a later decree of the council (see BD 5). Demosthenes (19.235) defended his treatment of the ambassadors, acknowledging that he entertained them handsomely in order to outdo the hospitality of the Macedonians. The decree of the people appears to have been followed up, probably on Elaphebolion 4-7, 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos, ’ 278), by a decree of Demosthenes at the council which proposed that Philip’s ambassadors be assigned seats at the theatre for the Dionysia (Aeschin. 2.55: see BD 5). Elsewhere, Aeschines (2.110–12) claims that the decree granted proedria to them and lists other special privileges he had offered them, including the placing of cushions and the provision of night-guards and dinner (cf. 3.76; Dem. 18.28). As things turned out, the Macedonian ambassadors were delayed and were unable to take their seats at the Dionysia (Aeschin. 3.67–8). Aeschines attacks Demosthenes’ measures as flattery; in 330, Demosthenes (19.234–6) defended his proposal. The award of proedria may have been the Athenian response to the prestige of the Macedonian ambassadors, since the envoys included Antipater and Parmenion, two of Philip’s closest associates: Yunis, Demosthenes: On the Crown, 126.

d127 decree organising meetings of the assembly

467

Date

Late Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4, 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 278).

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1995) 64, 66–7. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 176–7. Yunis, H., Demosthenes: On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 126.

D127 Decree organising meetings of the assembly Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) claimed that Demosthenes proposed this decree on his return from the First Embasssy at Pella. He did so in order to demonstrate that Demosthenes and Philokrates co-operated in the organisation of peace with Philip (Aeschin. 2.54, 3.63) and to claim that by the timing of the meeting of the assembly he prevented those Athenian ambassadors who had been sent out to the other Greek states (Aeschin. 3.58; see DP 59bis) from the chance of participating in discussion of the peace (Aeschin. 3.67).

468

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 2.53: ‘... καὶ τοὺς πρυτάνεις, ἐπειδὰν ἥκωσιν οἱ πρέσβεις, ἐκκλησίαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας ποιεῖν μὴ μόνον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ συμμαχίας’. T2  Aeschin. 2.110: Ἔπειθ’ ἕτερον ἐπήγετο ψήφισμα, τὸ καὶ περὶ συμμαχίας βουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον.

Commentary

This decree, proposed by Demosthenes when he addressed the assembly after the arrival of the First Embassy in Athens (Aeschin. 2.51–4) was made in anticipation of the arrival of Philip’s ambassadors (see D121 above, preparing safe passage for them). It ordered the prytaneis to summon the assembly on two consecutive days for discussion of both peace and alliance; accordingly, its provisions ensured both the two-day meeting of the assembly and the discussion of both peace and alliance (cf. Aeschin. 2.110). Moreover, as Harris, Aeschines, 66–7 suggests, it ensured also that a discussion on peace and alliance be held as soon as possible. The decree was read out to the jurors (Aeschin. 2.54); it was probably passed and carried: Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’, 275; cf. Harris, Democracy, 114 with note 46. This decree is described by Aeschines as one proposed in the assembly (Aeschin. 2.51–4). Yet it appears to have been the case that decrees of the council could summon a meeting of the people at the assembly: see see BD 1 (= Xen. Hell. 6.5.33). Indeed, in anticipation of the arrival of the Macedonian ambassadors at Athens, the Athenians attempted to fix the meeting times of the assembly through decrees of the council: (a) First, Demosthenes’ proposal of the boule, probably of Elaphebolion 4–7, 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’, 278), which suggested a meeting of the assembly to take place on Elaphebolion 8 (BD 6a = Aeschin. 2.66–7); this was the day of sacrifice to Asklepios and the first day of that deity’s festival. Demosthenes, Aeschines claimed, arranged this meeting just in case Philip’s ambassadors had reached Athens, so that the people might hastily deliberate on their relations with Philip (Aeschin. 2.67). Aeschines’ criticism, therefore, was that it rushed through the negotiations with Philip, and prevented Athenian co-operation with the other Greeks (Aeschin. 2.67). Demosthenes, according to Aeschines, defended himself by saying that by fixing the dates, he was attempting to hinder those who were trying to block the peace (Aeschin. 2.110; 3.76). As Harris (Democracy, 94) points out, Aeschines refers to Demosthenes’ suggestion only as a proposal

d127 decree organising meetings of the assembly

469

T1 (Quoting Demosthenes’ proposals at the assembly) ‘ ... and the prytaneis, when the ambassadors (sc. of Philip) arrive, are to convene a two-day session of the assembly discussing not only peace but also alliance’. T2 (Citing Demosthenes’ account of his activity, spoken at Pella during the Second Embassy) Then he brought up another decree, the one for the people to deliberate also about alliance.

(‘γράφει ψήφισμα’), and says nothing about whether this decree was actually passed. (b) Second, Demosthenes’ decree of the boule of Elaphebolion 9 or a few days later, 347/6 (Harris, Aeschines, 68; Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’, 279), which called for the prytaneis to summon the ecclesia on two successive days after the Dionysia (on Elaphebolion 18th–19th), to deliberate both about peace and alliance and to do so without waiting for the return of Athenian envoys from the Greek cities (BD 6b = Aeschin. 2.61, 68). Aeschines (2.61) claimed that this had the effect of convening an assembly before ambassadors from other Greek states had arrived. Before reading out the decree to the audience, he claimed also that it prescribed that the meeting on the first day would consist of deliberation, but on the second day that it would put the question of peace and alliance to vote, without giving opportunity for debate (Aeschin. 2.65). Later in the same speech he described the decree as the one which ensured ‘the people’s discussion of peace to appointed days’ (‘τὸ περὶ τοῦ βουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης ἐν τακταῖς ἡμέραις’: Aeschin. 2.109); Aeschines claims that Demosthenes did this so that he could force through his version of the peace – one which was identical to that of Philokrates (Aeschin. 2.68). Later, in 330, Aeschines claimed that the effect of Demosthenes’ decrees was to initiate negotiations without awaiting the return of the Athenian envoys who had been sent out to the Greek states, to make alliance with Philip while urging Athens’ allies on to war against him, and to exclude Kersobleptes, the king of Thrace, from the oaths of the peace and alliance (Aeschin. 3.64–5; cf. 68).

Date

Late Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4, 347/6: Harris, Aeschines, 66 (‘around Anthesterion 30’); Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 278, with modifications of Demosthenes’ decrees of the council in the following days.

inventory a2

470

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1995) 67–9. Harris, E.M., Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2006).

D128 Decree honouring Athenian envoys on the First Embassy

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6

Literary Context

The decree is reported by Aeschines (TT 1, 2), as part of his claim that Demosthenes was deeply involved in the Peace of Philokrates alongside Philokrates himself (cf. Aeschin. 2.54); Demosthenes (T3) also mentions the decree, claiming that it was customary to make such a proposal. MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 406, holds this up as an example of apostrophe, with Demosthenes turning directly to address his opponent ‘as if challenging him to deny or refute what is being said’.

Texts

T1 Aeschin 2.45–6: Ὡς γὰρ δεῦρ’ ἤλθομεν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βουλὴν ἐπὶ κεφαλαίων τὴν πρεσβείαν ἀπηγγείλαμεν, καὶ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀπέδομεν τὴν παρὰ Φιλίππου, ἐπαινέτης ἦν ἡμῶν Δημοσθένης, καὶ τὴν Ἑστίαν ἐπώμοσε τὴν βουλαίαν συγχαίρειν τῇ πόλει, ὅτι τοιούτους ἄνδρας ἐπὶ τὴν πρεσβείαν ἐξέπεμψεν, οἳ καὶ τοῖς λόγοις καὶ τῇ πίστει [λέγοντες] ἦσαν ἄξιοι τῆς πόλεως. ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ δὲ εἶπέ τι τοιοῦτον, ὡς οὐ ψευσαίμην τὰς τῶν ἑλομένων με ἐπὶ τὴν πρεσβείαν ἐλπίδας. τέλος δὲ πάντων· ἔγραψε γὰρ ἡμᾶς στεφανῶσαι θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ ἕκαστον εὐνοίας ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον, καὶ καλέσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἰς αὔριον. ὅτι δ’ οὐδὲν ψεῦδος εἴρηκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, λαβέτω μοι τὸ ψήφισμα ὁ γραμματεύς, καὶ τὰς τῶν συμπρέσβεων μαρτυρίας ἀναγνώτω. Ψήφισμα. Μαρτυρίαι.

d128 decree honouring athenian envoys

471

T1 Upon our return here, then, we made a summary report on the mission to the council, and we handed over a letter from Philip. Demosthenes was the one praising us, and he swore by Hestia that he had joined in the jubilation of the city because it had sent such men out on an embassy, who in their words and trustworthiness were worthy of the city. He even said about me something to the effect that I had not let down the hopes of those who had selected me for the embassy. Last of all, he proposed a decree to crown each of us with a crown of foliage for the sake of our loyalty towards the people, and he called us to dinner at the prytaneion on the next day. So that (it is clear) that I have spoken no falsehood to you, let the secretary fetch the decree for me, and let him read out the depositions of our fellow envoys. Decree. Testimonies.

472

inventory a2

T2 Aeschin. 2.53: ... ‘καὶ τοὺς πρυτάνεις, ἐπειδὰν ἥκωσιν οἱ πρέσβεις, ἐκκλησίαν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας ποιεῖν μὴ μόνον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ συμμαχίας, καὶ τοὺς πρέσβεις ἡμᾶς, εἰ δοκοῦμεν ἄξιοι εἶναι, ἐπαινέσαι καὶ καλέσαι ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον εἰς αὔριον’. T3  Dem. 19.234: Φέρε δὴ περὶ τῆς ἑστιάσεως καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος εἴπω· μικροῦ γε, ἃ μάλιστά μ’ ἔδει πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰπεῖν, παρῆλθον. τῆς πρώτης ἐκείνης πρεσβείας γράφων τὸ προβούλευμα ἐγὼ καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐν αἷς ἐμέλλετε βουλεύεσθαι περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης, οὐδενὸς οὔτε λόγου πω παρὰ τούτων οὔτ’ ἀδικήματος ὄντος φανεροῦ, τὸ νόμιμον {ἔθος} ποιῶν, καὶ ἐπῄνεσα τούτους καὶ εἰς πρυτανεῖον ἐκάλεσα.

Commentary

This decree was proposed as a probouleuma at the council by Demosthenes on the return of the First Athenian Embassy from Pella and ratified at the assembly (T3); at the same time, Demosthenes proposed a truce for the ambassadors from Philip (D126 above) and organised a meeting of the ecclesia (see D127 above). The decree honoured the returning Athenians who were sent out on the embassy, which was probably customary practice (Dem. 19.31; see also DD 118, 124 for awards of praise to returning ambassadors): Demosthenes moved that each of them be crowned with a garland of wild olive ‘because of their loyalty to the people’ (‘εὐνοίας ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον’: T1); T2 and T3 mention ‘praise’ and an invitation to the prytaneion. The text of Aeschines 2.46 suggests that the decree was read in the court in 343 (T1). The scholion on Aeschines 2.46 (Dilts 105) says that this decree of Demosthenes was a decree of the boule, but it is likely that it was ratified at the assembly. Cook, ‘Athenian terms of civic praise’, has argued that the term eunoia, a non-martial term of approbation, was one which Demosthenes championed in the aftermath of Chaironea, while Aeschines cast suspicion upon it: here we see it at an earlier juncture. Veligianni-Terzi notes that eunoia is attested epigraphically, for non-Athenians, as a term of approbation only rarely before the second half of the fourth century (Wertbegriffe, 218–19, 274–6; see IG I3 113 (c. 410) line 17, IG I3 125 (405/4) line 29; cf. Whitehead, ‘Cardinal’, 52–4). T1 preserves the earliest evidence for its use in honorific decrees for Athenians, and so it is just possible that Demosthenes is being innovative in his description of the honours. For the use of the term eunoia in oratorical argument, by Isocrates and in Demosthenes’ symbouleutic oratory, see de Romilly, ‘Eunoia’, esp. 100. Henry (Honours, 1) has stated that ‘praise’ or ‘commendation’ was the most widespread

d128 decree honouring athenian envoys

473

T2 (Quoting Demosthenes’ proposals) ‘ ... and the prytaneis, when the ambassadors [sc. of Philip] arrive, are to convene a two-day session of the assembly discussing not only about peace but also about alliance, and to praise and call to dinner at the prytaneion tomorrow us the ambassadors, if we are deemed worthy’. T3 Let me talk now about the dining and the decree; in fact I almost forgot what it was I needed to say to you most of all. When I proposed the recommendation for the First Embassy, which I did again in front of the people at the assembly when you were about to deliberate about the peace, I carried out the customary thing: I praised them and invited them to the prytaneion because up to this time there was no speech nor any clear wrongdoing carried out.

of all honours; it was always expressed by ἐπαινέσαι (plus dative or accusative). However, Olivier Gengler (‘ἔπαινος’; ‘Praise and honour’) suggests that praise was expressed through the community’s vote and that it should be viewed as a reflection of a process rather than as a separate award. Demosthenes (T3) was happy to acknowledge that he proposed honours for the First Embassy, but did not want to be associated with any proposal to honour a Second Embassy (for the decision to send it, its orders and dispatch see DP 59ter, D133, BD 7). Aeschin. 2.121 claims that Demosthenes alone proposed the honours for the Second Embassy on its return to Athens and invited it to dinner; this is contradicted by Demosthenes 19.31 and 34, claiming that the consequence of his report (apengelia) on the activity of the embassy was that, unprecedentedly, the council did not offer the returning ambassadors a vote of thanks or an invitation to dine at the prytaneion. Demosthenes maintains that a probouleuma was made by someone in response to his report (19.31); he had it read out to the court but offers no clues as to its content. He maintains that it bestowed no praise on the embassy and that, at any rate, it was not read out to the assembly (19.34–5). In all likelihood, the council put forward a non-committal probouleuma for discussion of the matter on the embassy’s return, given that they were aware of the level of disagreement among the ambassadors about policy towards Philip: see Harris, Aeschines, 91. For the political activity of Demosthenes, a prolific proposer of decrees, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 41–3 and Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4, 347/6: Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 278.

474

Bibliography

inventory a2

Cook, B., ‘Athenian terms of civic praise in the 330s: Aeschines vs. Demosthenes’, GRBS 49 (2009) 31–52. Gengler, O., ‘ἔπαινος, louange’ in Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, vol. 3, eds. C. Ampolo, U. Fantasia and L. Porciani. Pisa (2015) 160–70. Gengler, O., ‘Praise and honour’ in The Politics of Honour in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire, eds. A. Heller and O. van Nijf. Leiden (2017) 31–58. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1995) 67–9, 91. Henry A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009). Romilly, J. de, ‘Eunoia in Isocrates or the political importance of creating goodwill’, JHS 78 (1958) 92–101. Veligianni-Terzi, C., Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassischen Zeit. Stuttgart (1997). Whitehead, D., ‘Cardinal virtues: the language of public approbation in democratic Athens’, C&M 44 (1993) 37–75.

D129 Decree dispatching Antiochos to an Athenian general Proposer: Kephisophon Kallibiou Paianieus (PA 8417; PAA 569315; APF) Date: Anthesterion or Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6

Literary Context

Aeschines mentions this decree as part of his portrayal of the emergency situation that the people faced at the time when they were discussing peace with Philip (T1); he uses the decree, at this point in his speech, as a way of deflecting the blame for the conditions of the Peace of Philokrates from the envoys to its armed leaders.

475

476

inventory a2

Text

T1  Aeschin. 2.73: Οὕτω δ’ ἦν σφαλερὰ καὶ ἐπικίνδυνα τὰ πράγματα ὥστε ἠναγκάσθη γράψαι ψήφισμα Κηφισοφῶν ὁ Παιανιεύς, εἷς τῶν φίλων καὶ ἑταίρων τῶν Χάρητος, ἐκπλεῖν τὴν ταχίστην Ἀντίοχον τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπηρετικῶν, καὶ ζητεῖν τὸν στρατηγὸν τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ δυνάμει τεταγμένον, κἂν ἐντύχῃ που, φράζειν ὅτι θαυμάζει ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων εἰ Φίλιππος μὲν ἐπὶ Χερρόνησον τὴν Ἀθηναίων πορεύεται, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ οὐδὲ τὸν στρατηγὸν ἴσασιν οὐδὲ τὴν δύναμιν, ἣν ἐξέπεμψαν, ὅπου ἐστίν. ὅτι δ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀκούσατε τοῦ ψηφίσματος, καὶ ἀναμνήσθητε τοῦ πολέμου, καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην τοὺς [τῶν πολέμων] ἡγεμόνας, ἀλλὰ μὴ τοὺς πρέσβεις, ἀπαιτεῖτε. Ψήφισμα.

Commentary

Aeschines claims that Kephisophon, a friend of Chares, was compelled to propose (‘ἠναγκάσθη γράψαι ψήφισμα’) that Antiochos, the commander of the dispatch boats, should sail immediately to send warning to the general that Philip was on the way to the Chersonese and that the Athenians did not know the fate of their own force (T1). The sense or mode of this compulsion is unclear, but it is a likely reflection of the emergency situation faced by the Athenians at the time. Aeschines had the decree read out in the lawcourts in 343 (T1). Kephisophon is associated with four decrees of the people, of which this is the earliest: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 34–72.

Date

Anthesterion or Elaphebolion 1–4: Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’, 278; Athenian Ecclesia, 45–6.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia I:. A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306.

d130 decree for peace and alliance with philip

477

T1 Things were so precarious and dangerous that Kephisophon of Paiania, one of the friends and accomplices of Chares, was forced to propose a decree that Antiochos, the commander of the dispatch-boats, should set sail quickly and should seek out the general commanding our forces, and, if he found him anywhere, should tell him that the Athenian people were amazed to discover that while Philip was advancing to the Chersonese, territory of the Athenians, they themselves did not know the location of the general or his force that they had sent out. To demonstrate that I speak the truth, listen to the decree, remember the war and blame the peace on your commanders, not on your envoys. Decree.

D130 Decree for peace and alliance with Philip, the ‘Peace of Philokrates’ Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 14599 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 19th Elaphebolion 347/6

Literary Context

Philokrates’ decree making peace and alliance with Philip achieved high fame in the literary record chiefly owing to its infamy: while many prominent Athenians, Demosthenes among them (MacDowell, Demosthenes. On the False Embassy, 2–4), had supported the making of peace with Philip, within a month of it being made Philip had marched against Athens’ allies in Thrace and had forced the Phokians to capitulate (it therefore became clear at Athens that the exclusion of the Phokians from the provisions of the Peace had been a mistake); shortly afterwards, Philip seized the island of Halonnesos, a possession of Athens. In 343/2, Demosthenes launched a prosecution of Aeschines on the charge that he and Philokrates had been bribed when on an ambassadorial mission in Macedonia: Demosthenes’ prosecution speech survives in the shape of Demosthenes 19 (for quotations of which see TT 9, 10, 11, 12), and the corresponding defence speech is preserved in Aeschin. 3 (T1; cf. T13). Passing references to the provisions of the Peace are made in other near-contemporary Attic oratory, in particular [Demosthenes] 7, a speech made by Hegesippos, which

478

inventory a2

responded to Philip’s offer to hand over Halonnesos but without acknowledging that it was an Athenian possession (TT 3, 4, 5, 6; cf. TT 14, 15). For the debate about Halonnesos, see D144 below.

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 3.54: Τοῦτον δ’ ἀφορίζεται τῇ [γενομένῃ] εἰρήνῃ καὶ συμμαχίᾳ ἣν Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος ἔγραψε καὶ αὐτὸς οὗτος μετ’ ἐκείνου, ὡς ἐγὼ δείξω. T2  Aeschin. 2.68: Ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Δημοσθένην ἐπιδείξασθαι παρακαθήμενον ψήφισμα [γεγραμμένον] ἑαυτῷ, ἐφ’ ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο Δημοσθένους ὄνομα, καὶ ἀνακοινοῦσθαι αὐτὸν αὑτῷ, εἰ δῷ [τῷ γραμματεῖ] τοῖς προέδροις ἐπιψηφίσαι, καὶ εἶναι, ἐφ’ οἷς τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν ἔγραψε ποιεῖσθαι, ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς, ἐφ’ οἷσπερ καὶ Φιλοκράτης ἐγεγράφει. T3  [Dem.] 7.18: Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐπανορθώσεως τῆς εἰρήνης, ἣν ἔδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ παρ’ ἐκείνου πεμφθέντες ἐπανορθώσασθαι, ὅτι ἐπηνωρθωσάμεθα, ὃ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὁμολογεῖται δίκαιον εἶναι, ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν, ἀμφισβητεῖ μὴ δεδωκέναι μηδὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις ταῦτ’ εἰρηκέναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, οὐδὲν ἀλλ’ ἢ πεπεισμένος ὑπὸ τούτων, οἷς χρῆται φίλοις, ὡς ὑμεῖς οὐ μνημονεύετε τὰ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ εἰρημένα. T4  [Dem.] 7.24: Τὸ γὰρ ψήφισμα τὸ Φιλοκράτους, καθ’ ὃ ὑμεῖς ἀπώλλυτε Ἀμφίπολιν, ἐναντίον ἦν τοῖς προτέροις ψηφίσμασι, καθ’ ἃ ὑμεῖς ἐκτήσασθε ταύτην τὴν χώραν. T5  [Dem.] 7.26: Φησὶ δ’ Ἀμφίπολιν ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι· ὑμᾶς γὰρ ψηφίσασθαι ἐκείνου εἶναι, ὅτ’ ἐψηφίζεσθε ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἃ εἶχεν. ὑμεῖς δὲ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα τοῦτ’ ἐψηφίσασθε, οὐ μέντοι γε ἐκείνου εἶναι Ἀμφίπολιν· ἔστι γὰρ ἔχειν καὶ τἀλλότρια, καὶ οὐχ ἅπαντες οἱ ἔχοντες τὰ αὑτῶν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλὰ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀλλότρια κέκτηνται· ὥστε τοῦτό γε τὸ σοφὸν αὐτῷ ἠλίθιόν ἐστιν. T6  [Dem.] 7.31: Ἡγούμενοι καὶ δίκαιον τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον, μὴ μόνον ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους τοὺς ἡμετέρους καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους τοὺς ἐκείνου ἄγειν τὴν εἰρήνην, τοὺς δὲ μήτε ἡμετέρους ὄντας μήτε Φιλίππου συμμάχους ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπόλλυσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτοις διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν εἰρήνην ὑπάρχειν σωτηρίαν, καὶ τῷ ὄντι εἰρήνην ἄγειν ἡμᾶς καταθεμένους τὰ ὅπλα.

d130 decree for peace and alliance with philip

479

T1 He (Demosthenes) marks out this (period of time) by reference to the peace and alliance which Philokrates of Hagnous proposed and which he himself advocated, as I shall demonstrate.

T2  At that assembly Demosthenes, sitting beside the witness, showed him a decree, over which the name of Demosthenes was written; and he conferred with him as to whether he should give it to the proedroi to put it to the vote. According to the proposal, peace and alliance were to be made according to the same terms that Philokrates had also proposed. T3  Concerning the modification of the Peace, which those ambassadors sent by Philip gave to us to amend, we proposed a change to the effect that each party would keep possession of its own possessions, a thing which is agreed to be just by all men; he disputes that his ambassadors granted it and even that they had spoken to you about it. As such, he has been persuaded by those friends that he uses that you remember nothing of the things that were spoken in the assembly. T4 For the decree of Philokrates, according to which you lost Amphipolis, was contrary to previous decrees, according to which you claimed possession of this land.

T5 He claims that Amphipolis is his own: for you decreed that it was his when you voted that each would keep what they possessed. While you did indeed pass this decree, you did not however (vote) that Amphipolis would be his. Indeed, it is one thing to ‘hold’ the possessions of another, but not all holders hold the things that are their own, but in fact many also have possession of things that belong to others: accordingly, this clever point is quite stupid. T6 We held it to be just and humane that the peace should hold not only for ourselves and our allies, and that of Philip and his, while those who were neither allies of us nor of Philip were left to be destroyed by the more powerful; (we believed) that there should be security for them also according to your peace, and that we should hold a real peace, laying down our weapons.

480

inventory a2

T7 [Dem.] 12.22: Πολλάκις γὰρ ἐμοῦ γράφοντος ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς, ἐγνώκατε δικαίως ἔχειν ἡμᾶς, τότε μὲν ποιησάμενοι τὴν εἰρήνην ἔχοντος ἐμοῦ τὴν πόλιν, κᾆτα συμμαχίαν ἐπὶ ταῖς αὐταῖς ὁμολογίαις. T8  Dem. 18.21: Ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος εἰπὼν καὶ μνησθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης Ἀριστόδημος ἦν ὁ ὑποκριτής, ὁ δ’ ἐκδεξάμενος καὶ γράψας καὶ ἑαυτὸν μετὰ τούτου μισθώσας ἐπὶ ταῦτα Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος, ὁ σός, Αἰσχίνη, κοινωνός, οὐχ ὁ ἐμός, οὐδ’ ἂν σὺ διαρραγῇς ψευδόμενος, οἱ δὲ συνειπόντες ὅτου δήποτε εἵνεκα (ἐῶ γὰρ τοῦτό γ’ ἐν τῷ παρόντι) Εὔβουλος καὶ Κηφισοφῶν· ἐγὼ δ’ οὐδὲν οὐδαμοῦ. T9 Dem. 19.47–9: Σκέψασθε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ δίδωσι γράψας μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Φιλοκράτης· ἀκοῦσαι μὲν γὰρ οὑτωσὶ παγκάλως ἔχει· ἐπειδὰν δὲ τοὺς καιροὺς συλλογίσηταί τις ἐφ’ ὧν ἐγράφη, καὶ τὰς ὑποσχέσεις ἃς οὗτος ὑπισχνεῖτο τότε, οὐδὲν ἄλλο φανήσονται πλὴν παραδόντες Φιλίππῳ καὶ Θηβαίοις Φωκέας, μόνον οὐκ ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δήσαντες. Λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.   Ὁρᾶτ’,  ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸ ψήφισμα, ὅσων ἐπαίνων καὶ ὅσης εὐφημίας μεστόν ἐστι, καὶ ‘τὴν εἰρήνην εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἥνπερ Φιλίππῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις, καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν’, καὶ ‘ἐπαινέσαι δὲ Φίλιππον, ὅτι ἐπαγγέλλεται τὰ δίκαια ποιήσειν’. ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν ἐκεῖνός γε ἐπηγγέλλετο, ἀλλὰ τοσούτου γ’ ἔδει ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι ὥστε οὐδ’ εἰδέναι φησὶ τί ἂν ποιῶν ὑμῖν χαρίσαιτο. ἀλλ’ οὗτος ἦν ὁ λέγων ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑπισχνούμενος. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς παρὰ τούτου λόγους ὡρμηκότας λαβὼν ὑμᾶς ὁ Φιλοκράτης ἐγγράφει τοῦτ’ εἰς τὸ ψήφισμα, ‘ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιῶσι Φωκεῖς ἃ δεῖ καὶ παραδιδῶσι τοῖς Ἀμφικτύοσιν τὸ ἱερόν, ὅτι βοηθήσει ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων ἐπὶ τοὺς διακωλύοντας ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι.’

T10 Dem. 19.57: Ἡ μὲν τοίνυν εἰρήνη Ἐλαφηβολιῶνος ἐνάτῃ ἐπὶ δέκα ἐγένετο. T11  Dem. 19.87: Ταῦτα τότ’ ἐψηφίζεσθ’ ὑμεῖς διὰ τούτους, οὐκ ἐπὶ ταύταις ταῖς ἐλπίσιν οὔτε κατ’ ἀρχὰς ποιησάμενοι τὴν εἰρήνην καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν, οὔθ’ ὕστερον ἐγγράψαι πεισθέντες ‘αὐτὴν ‘καὶ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις’, ἀλλ’ ὡς θαυμάσι’ ἡλίκα πεισόμενοι διὰ τούτους ἀγαθά. T12  Dem. 19.143–4: Τῇ πόλει μὲν τοίνυν ἀφεστηκέναι μὲν ἁπάντων καὶ τῶν κτημάτων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων, ὀμωμοκέναι δὲ Φιλίππῳ, κἂν ἄλλος τις ἴῃ ποτ’ ἐπ’ αὐτὰ βουλόμενος σῴζειν, ὑμᾶς κωλύσειν καὶ τὸν μὲν ὑμῖν βουλόμενον παραδοῦναι ἐχθρὸν ἡγήσεσθαι καὶ πολέμιον, τὸν δ’ ἀπεστερηκότα σύμμαχον καὶ φίλον. ταῦτα γάρ ἐσθ’ ἃ συνεῖπε μὲν Αἰσχίνης οὑτοσί, ἔγραψε δ’ ὁ τούτου συνεργὸς Φιλοκράτης· καὶ κρατοῦντος ἐμοῦ τὴν προτέραν ἡμέραν, καὶ

d130 decree for peace and alliance with philip

481

T7  On many occasions I wrote letters to you about it (Amphipolis), and you acknowledged that it was justly in our possession by making, at that point, a peace when I held the city, and then concluded an alliance on these same/very terms (?). T8 But the first one to speak and give heed to peace was Aristodemos the actor, and the one who followed it up and made a proposal and, with him (Aeschines), became a hired agent of him (Philip) was Philokrates of Hagnous, your ally, Aeschines, not mine, though you are torn apart from lying. Their co-supporters in this matter (I leave aside mention of this for the moment) were Euboulos and Kephisophon. I played no part at all. T9 Consider the decree, the one which Philokrates drafted and gave out after these affairs. For it sounds completely fine, but whenever someone bears in mind the time at which it was drafted, and the promises which he made then, it will become clear that they did nothing other than surrender the Phokians to Philip and the Thebans, doing all but delivering them in chains. Read the decree. DECREE.  See, men of Athens, the decree, which is so full of praise and such good sayings, even (says) ‘there is to be the same peace and alliance as the one with Philip also for his descendants’, and ‘praise Philip, because he promises to do just things’. But he did not promise anything, and so far was he from being required to make an offer that he says he does not know what he can do to oblige you. But it was this man, (Aeschines), who spoke and made promises on his behalf, and Philokrates, when he found you urging these proposals, took the opportunity to add to the decree the following: ‘and if ever the Phokians fail to do what is necessary and hand over the shrine to the Amphiktyons, the Athenian people will send aid against those who are preventing this from happening.’

T10 The Peace was made on Elaphebolion 19th. T11 These were the things you voted for because of them; it was not with such hopes that you either made the initial peace and alliance or were later persuaded to add to this (the phrase) ‘also for his descendants’. You did this in the hope that you would win amazing benefits because of them. T12  Accordingly, the city is deprived of all of its possessions and allies and has sworn an oath with Philip, that if anyone ever makes an attempt to restore them, you will prevent them and will regard the one wanting to hand them over to you as an enemy and hostile, and the one depriving you as an ally and a friend. These are the measures that Aeschines here supported, and that his colleague Philokrates, proposed. While I had the upper hand on the first day, and had persuaded you to

482

inventory a2

πεπεικότος ὑμᾶς τὸ τῶν συμμάχων δόγμα κυρῶσαι καὶ καλέσαι τοὺς πρέσβεις τοὺς τοῦ Φιλίππου, ἐκκρούσας οὗτος εἰς τὴν ὑστεραίαν τὴν Φιλοκράτους γνώμην ἔπεισεν ἑλέσθαι, ἐν ᾗ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ πόλλ’ ἄλλ’ ἔτι τούτων δεινότερα ἐστὶ γεγραμμένα. T13 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaios 11, p. 272 9–p. 273 8 (= Philochorus, FGrH328 F55a): Μετὰ τὴν Ὀλυνθίων ἅλωσιν ἄρχοντος Θεμιστοκλέους συνθῆκαι Φιλίππῳ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους ἐγένοντο περὶ φιλίας καὶ συμμαχίας· αὗται διέμειναν ἑπταετῆ χρόνον ἄχρι Νικομάχου· … ἔπειτα διεξελθών, ὅσα τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ὁ Φίλιππος ἐνεκάλει διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ταῦτα πάλιν κατὰ λέξιν ἐπιτίθησιν· ‘ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἀκούσας τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ Δημοσθένους παρακαλέσαντος αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ ψηφίσματα γράψαντος ἐχειροτόνησε τὴν μὲν στήλην καθελεῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήνης καὶ συμμαχίας σταθεῖσαν, ναῦς δὲ πληροῦν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐνεργεῖν τὰ τοῦ πολέμου.’ T14 Scholion on Demosthenes 7.18 (Dilts 28): Ὁ Φιλοκράτης ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι γέγραφεν· ‘ἑκατέρους ἃ ἒχουσι’. T15  Scholiast on Dem. 7.24 (Dilts 32): Τὸ γὰρ Φιλοκράτους ψήφισμα εἶχεν· ἑκατέρους ἃ ἔχουσιν ἔχειν· εἶχε δὲ Ἀμφίπολιν ὁ Φίλιππος. T16  Scholiast on Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 182): Ἐγέγραπτο ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις μὴ ἀφιστάναι τοὺς ἀλλήλων συμμάχους.

Commentary

The Athenians and Philip had been at war with each other, on and off, since the capture of Amphipolis in 357 (on which, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.351–6). But after the dispatch of Athenian forces to Thermopylai in 352 (see DP 53 below), the two parties became involved in negotiations to make peace (see DD 117, 121, 125, 126). On 18th Elaphebolion, the assembly met to discuss the possibilities: one was the proposal raised at the synedrion of the Athenian Confederacy, that there should be a Common Peace which any state could join provided they did so within three months (Aeschin. 3.69–70; though Kersobleptes’ later appeal that he be included in the peace was rejected (Aeschin. 2.82-90, 3.73–4 (= D131); Dem. 19.174, 181)); on the other hand, there was the proposal of Philokrates, that a peace be made which would exclude the Phokians and Halians, later tweaked, after debate at the assembly, to specify that it was instead limited to ‘the Athenians and their allies’ (Dem. 19.159). Philokrates’ proposal reflected

d130 decree for peace and alliance with philip

483

make the dogma (decision) of the allies authoritative and to call up Philip’s ambassadors, he adjourned matters until the next day and he persuaded you to choose Philokrates’ proposal, in which these things and some yet more awful measures are written. T13 During the archonship of Themistokles (347/6), after Olynthos had been taken, there came about an agreement between Philip and the Athenians concerning friendship and alliance. This remained in place for seven years until the archonship of Nikomachos (341/0 BC) … Later he (Philochorus), in his account of the claims which Philip made about the Athenians in a letter, adds this following entry: ‘The people, on hearing the letter and (listening) to the exhortations of Demosthenes, who was driving them to war, and who, as his decrees proposed, voted to pull down the stele which was standing concerning the peace and alliance with Philip, to man ships and to put other measures in place for war.’ T14 Philokrates wrote in his decree: ‘each party is to keep possession of that which they have.’ T15 The decree of Philokrates had this provision: each party is to keep possession of that which they have; and so (?) Philip held Amphipolis. T16 It was written in the treaties not to cause the allies of the other parties to revolt.

probably Philip’s insistence that these communities and Kersobleptes be excluded from the treaty (Efstathiou, ‘The “Peace of Philocrates”’). While Demosthenes and Aeschines attempt to blame each other for supporting the decree of the Peace, there is no firm reason to believe that they misquote it. Therefore, a number of phrases used in the decree are recoverable from the literary sources (for a useful collection of the sources for the treaty, adjustments made to it, its reception, and relevant bibliography down to 1960, see Bengtson, SVA 329). The basic elements are clear: it provided for peace and alliance (TT 1, 11) or friendship and alliance (T13) with Philip; it was sworn by the Athenians and their allies (‘Ἀθηναίους καὶ τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους’: Dem. 19.159, 278). It is notable that the Peace was made with an individual rather than a community (see also D134 below), though earlier alliances with single rulers and their associates are known (e.g. IG II2 127, an alliance with Thracian rulers). The Peace, perhaps in a form amended under pressure from Philip’s envoys, appears to have recognised

484

inventory a2

the right of the parties to claim land that they held at that moment (TT 14–15: ‘ἑκατέρους ἃ ἔχουσιν ἔχειν’; cf. TT 3, 5). The consequences of this clause were significant: Hegesippos (TT 4, 5), the spurious letter of Philip to the Athenians (T7) and Demosthenes, in On the Peace, suggest that this effectively handed Amphipolis (see D64 above) to Philip (Dem. 5.25), and contradicted the decrees (presumably fifth-century ones: Trevett, Demosthenes, 122 note 35) that gave the Athenians possession of Amphipolis. However, the same clause may well have, on the surface of things, secured certain possessions for the Athenians. Demosthenes (19.78) suggests that it should have made the Chersonese safe for them; on the basis of this, MacDowell, Demosthenes On the False, 241, suggests that the Peace contained a clause which said that Philip would not attack the Chersonese (cf. Aeschin. 2.82). In [Demosthenes] 7.18 (= T3; cf. D140), the speaker protests at this situation, claiming that the Athenians proposed an emendation which was more just, that each party should keep possession of its possessions (‘ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’). The peace appears to have had a clause about laying down weapons (T6). Philokrates’ proposal introduced symmachia with Philip alongside the peace (e.g. TT 1, 2, 13; Aeschin. 2.61). In this sense, it went further than the proposal of the synedrion of Athens’ allies, which excluded the mention of alliance and allowed any state who so wished to add its name within three months to the stone stele bearing the peace treaty (Aeschin. 3.69–70). But ultimately the ­synedrion bound itself to accept the decree of the people (Aeschin. 2.60). There are other possible provisions, including a sworn promise to Philip that if anyone at any time attempted to recover Athens’ lost territories, the Athenians would prevent him (T12). It may be the case that the Peace included a clause about hostility to pirates ([Dem] 7.14 and 12.2; for hostility to pirates in Athenian decrees, see D207 below). The view of Demosthenes was that the treaty meant that the Athenians relinquished all their possessions and allies (Dem. 19.143). Indeed, the subject of the fate of the Phokians, the Halians and Kersobleptes is the crux of Demosthenes’ speech: he blamed Aeschines and Philokrates for the betrayal of them. The crucial phrase πλὴν Ἁλέων καὶ Φωκέων (‘except the Halians and Phokians’), though it was, according to Demosthenes, proposed by Philokrates, may well have been omitted from the final decree (Dem. 19.159); indeed, the express exclusion of named parties is unattested elsewhere in Athenian alliances (Harris, Aeschines, 71). However, one commentator claims that the oath of the alliance specifically excluded these parties: ‘σπένδομαι ᾽Αθηναίοις καὶ ᾽Αθηναίων συμμάχοις, χωρὶς Ἁλέων καὶ Φωκέων’ (Hypothesis 7 to Dem. 19); indeed, Demosthenes claimed that Aeschines and Philokrates secretly reinserted the exclusion clause when the oaths were sworn (Dem. 19.44) and that they also excluded them from the treaty and

d130 decree for peace and alliance with philip

485

wrote up the Kardians as allies of Philip (Dem 19.174: it is not clear from this passage how exactly Philip’s allies were registered). The view, on the other hand, that the Phokians were not explicitly excluded from the treaty, and that Demosthenes’ claims were unsubstantiated, is outlined in more detail by Harris, Aeschines, 71; however, McInerney, Folds, 220–5, argues that effectively, regardless of the wording of the treaty, the Phokians were de facto excluded from its provisions. Essentially, given that these parties were not members of the Second Athenian Confederacy, they would have been excluded from those counted as ‘allies’ (for the emphasis on the allies of both parties, see T6). As MacDowell, Demosthenes: On the False Embassy, 276–7 argues, it is more likely that the exclusion of the three parties, rather than being explicitly part of the Peace, was a consequence of the fact that no oaths were sworn by their representatives because they were absent from the swearing (cf. D131 = Aeschin. 3.74). For the provision ratified at the assembly on 25th Elaphebolion, which requested that allies should swear the oaths and effectively excluded Kersobleptes from the peace, see D131 below. Aeschines claims that when Demosthenes sent out an embassy to negotiate with the Magnesians and Thessalians in 343/2 (= D146), this was contrary to the Peace (Aeschin. 3.83). There is no reason to advocate the view that the Peace contained provisions against the dispatch of embassies; rather, it may have been the case that the goal of the dispatch, to drum up anti-Philip sentiment, contradicted the spirit of the Peace and alliance. The scholiast (T16) here offers enlightenment, suggesting that it was forbidden for parties to encourage the allies of the other to rise in revolt. The alliance appears to have been amended probably after the return of the Second Embassy on 13th Skirophorion (see D134); this included the following provisions: (a) the arrangement that it continued with Philip’s descendants: Demosthenes presents this as a source of bitter disappointment to the Phokians (TT 9, 11; Dem. 19.54, 56); this is treated as a separate decree at D134; (b) after the return of the Second Embassy, a provision was introduced that, if the Phokians were to fail to surrender the temple of Apollo, the Athenians would send a force against those who were preventing this from happening (T9; see D134 below). For a further amendment to the Peace (proposed in 344/3) which, ineffectively, maintained that each side should keep what was theirs (‘ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’) and attempted to make a common peace out of the treaty, see D140 below. For problems in the reconstruction of the debates that took place on 18th and 19th Elaphebolion, see Efstathiou, ‘The “Peace of Philocrates”’. The Peace of

486

inventory a2

Philokrates was ratified by a decree of the assembly on 19th Elaphebolion 347/6 (T10); as Griffith (History of Macedonia, 2.341) points out, the Athenians were reluctant to accept a damaging peace but were persuaded to do so by Euboulos, who reminded them that the alternative was war (cf. Dem. 19.291). The next step was to have it ratified by Philip, which necessitated the dispatch of the Second Embassy (Dem. 19.154–6, 18.25–31; for the instructions given to the Second Embassy, see D133 below; for its dispatch, see BD 7). Philip eventually agreed to the treaty at Pella (Dem. 18.32) in the month of Skirophorion. After the realisation that the Peace of Philokrates with Philip had had disasterous consequences, both Aeschines and Demosthenes blamed each other for its instigation. Demosthenes (T8), claimed that the first man to raise the question of peace with Philip had been Aristodemos, but that the one who moved the resolution was Philokrates, supported by Aeschines, Euboulos and Kephisophon. On the other hand, Aeschines (T1) claimed that Demosthenes had been an associate of Philokrates and had been the author of a decree which bore terms identical to those of the Peace of Philokrates (T2), though it is unclear whether or not this was put to the vote. The truth is probably unknowable, but it seems likely that neither Aeschines nor Demosthenes did much to oppose the settlement when it was being made. Philokrates is associated with eight decrees of the assembly: see Volume 2, Appendix 1. It seems highly likely that the decree was written up on stone. Philochorus (T13) says that the people in 341/0 voted to destroy the stele which was set up regarding the peace and alliance with Philip; [Dem.] 12.8 (on which, see D204 below) talks also of the names of Teres and Kersobleptes being left off the stelai of the Peace. Aeschin. 3.70 also mentions a stele of the Peace, to which, according to a resolution of the allies of the Athenians, any Greek state could add its name.

Date

19th Elaphebolion 347/6 (TT 10, 13).

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA, 329. Efstathiou, A., ‘The “Peace of Philocrates”: the assemblies of 18th and 19th Elaphebolion 346 BC. Studying history through rhetoric’, Historia 53 (2004) 385–407, esp. 390–401. Griffith, G.T., in N. G .L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 328–47. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 70–5. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 1–14.

d131 decree on the swearing of oaths

487

MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009). McInerney, J., The Folds of Parnassos: Land and Ethnicity in Ancient Phokis. Austin (1999) 219–26. Trevett, J., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011).

D131 Decree on the swearing of oaths of the ‘Peace of Philokrates’ Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 14599 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) pins the blame for the disastrous Peace of Philokrates on Philokrates and Demosthenes, alleging that they collaborated to exclude Athens’ Thracian ally, Kersobleptes (cf. D132), from the Peace.

488

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.73­–5: Εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν τῇ ἕκτῃ προκαθεζόμενος βουλευτὴς ὢν ἐκ παρασκευῆς, ἔκδοτον Κερσοβλέπτην μετὰ Φιλοκράτους ἐποίησε. λανθάνει γὰρ ὁ μὲν Φιλοκράτης ἐν ψηφίσματι μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων [γραμμάτων] παρεγγράψας, ὁ δ’ ἐπιψηφίσας, Δημοσθένης, ἐν ᾧ γέγραπται ‘ἀποδοῦναι δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους τοῖς πρέσβεσι τοῖς παρὰ Φιλίππου ἐν τῇδε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοὺς συνέδρους τῶν συμμάχων’. παρὰ δὲ Κερσοβλέπτου σύνεδρος οὐκ ἐκάθητο· γράψας δὴ τοὺς συνεδρεύοντας ὀμνύναι, τὸν Κερσοβλέπτην οὐ συνεδρεύοντα ἐξέκλῃσε τῶν ὅρκων. ὅτι δ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀνάγνωθί μοι τίς ἦν ὁ ταῦτα γράψας, καὶ τίς ὁ ταῦτα ἐπιψηφίσας. Ψήφισμα.

Commentary

After the decree of Philokrates concerning peace and alliance with Philip was agreed in the Athenian assembly on 19th Elaphebolion (see D130 above), the Athenians had to ensure that their allies accepted it. The synedrion of the allies had previously proposed a common peace, which any Greek state might join within three months (Aeschin. 3.69–70), but this option was rejected by the Athenians. On 25th Elaphebolion, Philokrates passed a decree that called for the allied synedrion to put the treaty to the vote (T1). Aeschines claimed that Philokrates, with the help of Demosthenes, put this motion to the Athenian assembly, slipping in the provision that the members of the allied synod were to give their oaths to Philip’s ambassadors. If this was as Aeschines claimed, it would have effectively excluded Athenian allies who were non-members of the Confederacy from the peace: this meant the exclusion and consequent vulnerability of the Halians, Phokians and Kersobleptes. Aeschines’ claim (T1), that Demosthenes plotted with Philokrates to exclude Kersobleptes from the treaty, is challenged by Harris, Aeschines, 75–6: he was not included as he was not a member of the synedrion of the Second Athenian Confederacy. Aleximachos’ proposal, that the representatives from Kersobleptes be allowed to join with the other allies in swearing the oaths (Aeschin. 2.83, 85), may well have been rejected: see the discussion at D132 below. Effectively, however, the Athenians accepted that, in order to create alliance with Philip, they would be forced to abandon their treaty with Kersobleptes. Aeschines had the decree read out to the court in 330 (T1). Philokrates is associated with eight decrees of the assembly: see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

d132 * proposal on kersobleptes’ oaths

489

T1 Seated at the assembly on the 25th (Elaphebolion), being a councillor by artifice, he (Demosthenes) betrayed Kersobleptes with the assistance of Philokrates. For Philokrates unobserved slipped a clause into the decree that he had proposed, and Demosthenes put to the vote along with others, to the effect that ‘On this day the representatives (synedroi) of the allies are to give their oaths to the ambassadors from Philip’. But there sat no representative from Kersobleptes; and so, in providing that those who sat at the meeting (of the Confederacy) were to swear the oath, Kersobleptes, because he did not sit, did not partake in the oaths. Read out the decree, to show that I tell the truth about who it was that proposed these motions, and who put them to the vote. Decree.

Date

25th Elaphebolion 347/6 (T1).

Bibliography

Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 74–5.

D132 * Proposal to allow Kersobleptes to give oaths to Philip Proposer: Aleximachos Charinou Pelex (PA 545; PAA 120375) Date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6

Literary Context

As part of his allegation that Demosthenes was to blame for the abandonment of Athens’ ally Kersobleptes (cf. D131), Aeschines (T1) claims that Demosthenes tried – and failed – to prevent Aleximachos’ motion from being put to the vote.

490

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 2.83–5: Ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Κριτόβουλος ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς εἶπε παρελθὼν ὅτι πέμψειε μὲν αὑτὸν Κερσοβλέπτης, ἀξιοίη δὲ ἀποδοῦναι τοὺς ὅρκους τοῖς Φιλίππου πρέσβεσι, καὶ συναναγραφῆναι Κερσοβλέπτην ἐν τοῖς ὑμετέροις συμμάχοις. ῥηθέντων δὲ τῶν λόγων τούτων, Ἀλεξίμαχος ὁ Πήληξ δίδωσιν ἀναγνῶναι ψήφισμα τοῖς προέδροις, ἐν ᾧ ἐγέγραπτο ἀποδοῦναι τοὺς ὅρκους Φιλίππῳ μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων συμμάχων τὸν ἥκοντα παρὰ Κερσοβλέπτου. ἀναγνωσθέντος δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματος, καὶ ταῦτα οἶμαι πάντας ὑμᾶς μνημονεύειν, ἀναστὰς ἐκ τῶν προέδρων Δημοσθένης, οὐκ ἔφη τὸ ψήφισμα ἐπιψηφιεῖν, οὐδὲ λύσειν τὴν πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήνην, οὐδὲ γιγνώσκειν τῶν συμμάχων τοὺς ὥσπερ συνεφαπτομένους τοῖς σπένδουσι τῶν ἱερῶν· ἀποδοθῆναι γὰρ περὶ τούτων ἑτέραν ἐκκλησίαν. βοώντων δὲ ὑμῶν καὶ τοὺς προέδρους ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα καλούντων, οὕτως ἄκοντος αὐτοῦ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐπεψηφίσθη. ὅτι δ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, κάλει μοι τὸν γράψαντα τὸ ψήφισμα Ἀλεξίμαχον καὶ τοὺς συμπροέδρους τοὺς Δημοσθένους, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἀνάγνωθι.

Commentary

The swearing of the oaths of the Peace of Philokrates initially excluded those of Athens’ allies that were not members of the Confederacy: this effectively meant that the Thracian kingdom of Athens’ ally, Kersobleptes (see DD 83, 131 above), was outside the terms of the Peace. After the Athenians had accepted the terms of the peace (D130), during the period between the 19th and 25th of Elaphebolion, Philip marched out against Thrace, capturing Hieron Oros on the Hellespont by the 24th (Aeschin 2.82, 90) having kept his promise that he would not set foot on the Chersonese while the Athenians were still deliberating about the peace (Aeschin. 2.82; cf. Dem. 19.78). It is clear that Kersobleptes was shaken by this development and needed Athenian support to resist Philip. At the assembly on the 25th of Elaphebolion, Kritoboulos of Lampsakos, a representative of Kersobleptes, appealed to the Athenian assembly that Kersobleptes be allowed to give an oath to Philip’s ambassadors and that he should be enrolled among the Athenian allies (Aeschin. 2.83); Aleximachos’ proposal supported this appeal. The issue had arisen owing to the fact that Kersobleptes was not represented in the synedrion of the Athenian Confederacy, and so he was not included in the provisions of the decree of 25th Elaphebolion (see D131 = Aeschin. 3.74 above) which arranged that members of the synedrion swore the peace with Philip. When the motion had been read, Aeschines claims that Demosthenes, one of the proedroi, refused to put the motion to the vote, on the grounds that it would upset the peace with Philip. The text of Philip’s Letter to the Athenians ([Dem.] 12.8) suggests that the Athenians indeed abandoned Kersobleptes;

d132 * proposal on kersobleptes’ oaths

491

T1 At that assembly, Kritoboulos the Lampsakene, on coming forward, said that Kersobleptes had sent him, asking that he be permitted to give his oaths to the ambassadors of Philip, and requesting that Kersobleptes be enrolled alongside your allies. When these words were spoken, Aleximachos of Pelex gave to the proedroi a decree to read, in which it was written that the one coming from Kersobleptes should give oaths to Philip with the other allies. When the decree was read out, and I believe that you all remember this, Demosthenes stood up from among the proedroi and refused to put the decree to the vote, saying that he would not undo the peace with Philip, and that he did not recognise as allies those who joined only just at the moment that the libations for the sacred matters were being poured; for this opportunity had been presented at a previous assembly. When you gave a shout and ordered the proedroi to the platform, the motion was put to the vote against his will. To show that I speak the truth, bring here the proposer of the decree, Aleximachos, and the fellow-proedroi with Demosthenes, and read out the testimony.

Demosthenes (19.174), on the other hand, blamed Aeschines and Philokrates for excluding Kersobleptes. There is no reason to believe that the decree was actually passed, though modern scholars disagree about the matter: MacDowell (On the False Embassy, 276) believes that the wording of Aeschines 2.86, ‘ἐψηφισμένου δὲ τοῦ δήμου’ (‘when the people voted’), can only mean that the people had voted in favour of the proposal, but his logic is not persuasive; Harris (Aeschines, 74–6) argues, by reference to [Dem.] 12, that the decree was rejected by the people; Sealey (Demosthenes, 148) takes the same view, as does de Ste Croix, Origins, 105. As Edward Harris (pers. comm.) points out, it is curious that Aeschines does not read out the decree but instead provides a witness statement on it.

Date

25th Elaphebolion 347/6; cf. Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’ 280.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 74–6. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993). Ste Croix, G.E.M. de, Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London (1972) 105.

D133 Decree containing instructions for the ‘Second Embassy’ to Philip Proposer: Unknown Date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6

Literary Context

Mentions of this decree are made in Aeschines’ and Demosthenes’ accounts of the Second Embassy sent to Pella, which was charged with obtaining oaths from Philip.

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 2.97–8: πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ δέκα πρέσβεων ὄντων, ἑνδεκάτου δὲ τοῦ συμπεμφθέντος ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν συμμάχων, οὐδεὶς αὐτῷ συσσιτεῖν, ὅτ’ ἐξῇμεν ἐπὶ τὴν ὑστέραν πρεσβείαν, ἤθελεν, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς, ὅπου δυνατὸν ἦν, εἰς ταὐτὸν πανδοκεῖον καταλύειν, ὁρῶντες αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρεσβείᾳ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ἐπιβεβουλευκότα. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης ὁδοῦ οὐκ ἐγένετο μνεία· οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦθ’ ἡμῖν προσέταττεν, ἀλλ’ ἀπολαβεῖν μόνον τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ ἄλλ’ ἄττα … T2  Aeschin. 2.101: Ὡς δ’ ἦμεν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ συνήλθομεν εἰς ταὐτὸν καὶ Φίλιππον ἐκ Θρᾴκης παρόντα κατειλήφεμεν, ἀνεγνώσθη μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καθ’ ὃ ἐπρεσβεύομεν, καὶ τὰ προστεταγμένα ἡμῖν πρὸς τῷ τοὺς ὅρκους ἀπολαβεῖν συνηριθμούμεθα. T3  Aeschin. 2.104: Πάρεισι μὲν γὰρ Θηβαίων, ἥκουσι δὲ Λακεδαιμονίων πρέσβεις, ἀφίγμεθα δ’ ἡμεῖς ἔχοντες τοῦ δήμου ψήφισμα, ἐν ᾧ γέγραπται ‘πράττειν δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις καὶ ἄλλ’ ὅ τι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν·’ ἅπαντες δὲ οἱ Ἕλληνες πρὸς τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι βλέπουσιν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡγεῖτο ὁ δῆμος αὑτῷ καλῶς ἔχειν ἐξενεγκεῖν μετὰ παρρησίας [ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι] πρὸς Φίλιππον, Θηβαίων μὲν περιελεῖν τὴν ὕβριν, Βοιωτῶν δὲ ἀναστῆσαι τὰ τείχη, ταῦτ’ ἂν ἠξίωσεν ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι· νῦν δὲ αὑτοῖς μὲν κατέλιπον τὴν εἰς τὸ ἀφανὲς ἀναφοράν, ἂν μὴ πείθωσιν, ἐν ἡμῖν δὲ ἀποκινδυνεύειν ᾠήθησαν δεῖν.

492

d133 decree containing instructions for envoys

493

T1  First of all, of the ten ambassadors (or eleven, including the one who was sent with us from among the allies), no one was willing to sit and eat with him (Demosthenes), when we went out on the Second Embassy, nor, on the way, to even stay with him in the same hostel, whenever it was possible, seeing that on the previous embassy he had conspired against everyone else. Nothing was said about making the journey along the Thracian coast; the decree did not order this, but only to receive the oaths and certain other things ... T2  When we arrived at Macedonia, and found that Philip had returned from Thrace, we held a meeting with him; the decree according to which we were acting as ambassadors was read out, and we undertook our duties according to your instructions, in addition to receiving the oaths. T3  For (ambassadors) from the Thebans are here, and ambassadors from the Lakedaimonians have come, and we have arrived bearing the decree of the people in which it is written: ‘the ambassadors are to negotiate also any other good thing which is in their power,’ All the Greeks are watching to see what will happen. And so if the people had now decided to speak with frankness (in the decree) to Philip, urging him to reprimand the Thebans for their arrogance and to reconstruct the city walls of the Boiotians, they would have made this request in the decree. But as things are, in their vagueness they left for themselves an excuse, in case they might not persuade him, and thought it necessary for us to take the risk.

494

inventory a2

T4 Dem. 19.278: Οὗτοι δ’ οὐ παρὰ τὰ γράμματα; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘Ἀθηναίοις καὶ τοῖς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχοις’, οὗτοι δὲ Φωκέας ἐκσπόνδους ἀπέφηναν; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘τοὺς ἄρχοντας ὁρκοῦν τοὺς ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν’, οὗτοι δ’, οὓς Φίλιππος αὐτοῖς προσέπεμψε, τούτους ὥρκισαν; οὐ τὸ μὲν ψήφισμα ‘οὐδαμοῦ μόνους ἐντυγχάνειν Φιλίππῳ’, οὗτοι δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπαύσαντο ἰδίᾳ χρηματίζοντες; καὶ ἠλέγχθησάν τινες αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ βουλῇ οὐ τἀληθῆ ἀπαγγέλλοντες.

Commentary

As Philip’s envoys at Athens were able to receive the oath from Athens and its allies, but were not authorised to take it on behalf of Philip, the Athenians were required to appoint a Second Embassy to go to Pella for ratification of the oaths (Aeschin. 3.73). At some point between Elaphebolion 19th and 24th, the Athenians made a decree to send this Second Embassy (DP 59ter; cf. Dem. 19.161, 174); appointment of envoys was made by a show of hands (the normal practice for electing ambassadors), perhaps at the assembly or the council (Aeschin. 2.82, 97; Dem. 19.17). Demosthenes urged them to go speedily to the Hellespont and not to abandon, nor to allow Philip to seize, any Athenian strongholds (Dem. 19.150); we might infer that the decree sending out the ambassadors evidently did not say anything about the route to be taken (T1). The passages of Aeschines (TT 1–3) indicate the openness of the decree outlining their orders: receiving oaths (cf. also Aeschin. 2.91, 98; Dem. 19.161) and doing whatever good was in their power. For other examples of the clause that ambassadors should do things of benefit, see Thuc. 6.8.2 and Mosley, Envoys, 25. This is paralleled in the epigraphical record: in IG II2 43 lines 74-5, envoys are to be sent to Thebes ‘[ο]ἵτινες πείσοσι Θηβαίοις ὅ[τ]ι ἂν δύνω[ν]ται ἀγαθόν’ (‘who are to persuade the Thebans of whatever good they can’); we might ­compare also the honours for the Spartocids, IG II3 1 298 lines 63–5, which talk about deeming magistrates to have done their duty if they do what good they can to the sons of Leukon (‘οὓς δ’ ἂν ἀπογράψωσιν, εἶνα[ι ἐν τῶι] τ[ε]ταγμένωι ποιοῦντας ἀγαθὸν ὅ τι [ἂν δύνω]νται τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς Λεύκωνος’). In T4, Demosthenes complains that the envoys acted in a spirit contrary to the psephisma, presumably the one arranging for the Second Embassy. They had been ordered to administer oaths to officials in a number of cities, but had failed to do so on their way to Pella, spending three months travelling there and receiving 1,000 drachmai in expenses (19.158). The discussion in T4 is part of his comparison of the behaviour of these ambassadors with that of Epikrates who, earlier in the fourth century, was executed for his behaviour when on a mission (D27 = Dem. 19.277).

d133 decree containing instructions for envoys

495

T4 Didn’t these men behave contrary to the words of the decree? Didn’t the decree say ‘For the Athenians and their allies’, yet they proclaimed that the Phokians were excluded from the treaty? And didn’t the decree say ‘The magistrates in the cities are to swear it’, but they swore in only those cities where Philip dispatched them? And didn’t the decree say ‘Not one person is to meet with Philip alone’, but they hold continuous meetings with Philip in private? And some of them were convicted in the council for making reports which were not truthful.

For a detailed account of the Second Embassy, see Harris, Aeschines, 78–94. Harris raises the possibility that the ambassadors were charged also with the recovery of Athenian prisoners (cf. Aeschin. 2.103). Demosthenes states that his intention was that the oath might be taken while Athens’ Thracian allies held strongholds in Thrace (Dem. 18.27–8); accordingly, he suggested it was in Philip’s interest to waste as much time as possible before the administration of the oaths (Dem. 19.164). Aeschines countered this by claiming that Demosthenes’ decision to send the ambassadors out at such an early stage meant that Kersobleptes was excluded from the treaty (Aeschin. 2.92). It seems to have been the case that the embassy did not leave immediately after the decree of the people was passed: just over a week later (on 3rd Mounichion: Aeschin. 2.91–2), Demosthenes proposed a decree at the council – he did so at that venue because there remained no further opportunities for meetings of the assembly to take place (Dem 19.154)  – to the effect that the Second Embassy should set out immediately with a view to finding Philip and swearing the oath without delay (Aeschin. 2.91: Dem. 18.27; see BD 7). Demosthenes offered in a decree of the council a further detail, saying that the envoys were to sail immediately, and that the general Proxenos was to convey them to any place where Philip might be (Dem. 19.154). That decree was read out by Aeschines and Demosthenes in 343 (Aeschin. 2.91; Dem. 19.154), but, as Demosthenes observes, not in their dispute in 330 (Dem. 18.27–8); Aeschines attacks the decree for not giving precise directives about the journey along the Thracian coast. The decree of 3rd Mounichion is never described in our sources as a decree of the people and, therefore, may never have been ratified as such. Thus we classify it as a decree of the council (BD 7). Aeschines (2.121) associates Demosthenes with praise bestowed on the Second Embassy upon its return to Athens but Demosthenes denies this (19.31, 34). In all likelihood, the council put forward a non-committal probouleuma about the reception of the ambassadors upon their return to Athens: they were

496

inventory a2

surely aware of the level of disagreement between ambassadors about policy towards Philip (see Harris, Aeschines, 91; see Commentary on D128 above).

Date

Elaphebolion 25, 347/6: Aeschin. 3.73; Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’, 280.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Mosley, D.J., Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece. Historia Einzelschriften 22. Wiesbaden (1973).

D134 Decree praising Philip, extending the peace to posterity and inserting a clause against the Phokians Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 14599 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 16th Skirophorion 347/6, after the return of the ‘Second Embassy’

Literary Context

In his account of this decree, Demosthenes (T1) places the blame for the destruction of Phokis at the feet of Philokrates.

497

498

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 19.47–9: Σκέψασθε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ δίδωσι γράψας μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Φιλοκράτης· ἀκοῦσαι μὲν γὰρ οὑτωσὶ παγκάλως ἔχει· ἐπειδὰν δὲ τοὺς καιροὺς συλλογίσηταί τις ἐφ’ ὧν ἐγράφη, καὶ τὰς ὑποσχέσεις ἃς οὗτος ὑπισχνεῖτο τότε, οὐδὲν ἄλλο φανήσονται πλὴν παραδόντες Φιλίππῳ καὶ Θηβαίοις Φωκέας, μόνον οὐκ ὀπίσω τὼ χεῖρε δήσαντες. Λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.   Ὁρᾶτ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὸ ψήφισμα, ὅσων ἐπαίνων καὶ ὅσης εὐφημίας μεστόν ἐστι, καὶ ‘τὴν εἰρήνην εἶναι τὴν αὐτὴν ἥνπερ Φιλίππῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις, καὶ τὴν συμμαχίαν’, καὶ ‘ἐπαινέσαι δὲ Φίλιππον, ὅτι ἐπαγγέλλεται τὰ δίκαια ποιήσειν.’ ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν ἐκεῖνός γε ἐπηγγέλλετο, ἀλλὰ τοσούτου γ’ ἔδει ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι ὥστ’ οὐδ’ εἰδέναι φησὶ τί ἂν ποιῶν ὑμῖν χαρίσαιτο. ἀλλ’ οὗτος ἦν ὁ λέγων ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑπισχνούμενος. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς παρὰ τούτου λόγους ὡρμηκότας λαβὼν ὑμᾶς ὁ Φιλοκράτης ἐγγράφει τοῦτ’ εἰς τὸ ψήφισμα, ‘ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ποιῶσι Φωκεῖς ἃ δεῖ καὶ παραδιδῶσι τοῖς Ἀμφικτύοσιν τὸ ἱερόν, ὅτι βοηθήσει ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων ἐπὶ τοὺς διακωλύοντας ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι.’

Commentary

Philokrates’ decree appears to have consisted of two elements: first, that which praised Philip and extended the peace treaty to his descendants; second, an additional clause that said that the Phokians would be coerced if they refused to hand over the shrine at Delphi. Demosthenes thought that the latter provision was particularly shameful (cf. Dem. 6.31; 19.55, 87, 313). The awards of proxeny status (IG II2 86, 172, II3 1 324) and citizenship (IG II2 448) are securely attested as hereditary honours; extension of peace or alliance to descendants of a dynast is, on the other hand, unattested in contemporary inscribed Athenian decrees. Yet a parallel is provided by the fact that the Athenians were regularly prepared to make alliances for all time with other poleis or communities (e.g. Agora XVI 34 line 3). The Athenians were clearly willing to go to some lengths to impress Philip: later on in the speech, Demosthenes claims that the Athenians hoped that offering honours to Philip would win benefits for themselves (Dem. 19.87). These amendments appear to have been made at the same time as honours were granted to Philip in return for his just dealings (Dem. 19.48: ‘ἐπαινέσαι δὲ Φίλιππον, ὅτι ἐπαγγέλλεται τὰ δίκαια ποιήσειν’). We might compare the praise offered for this pledge to that granted to a Tyrian because he ‘ἐπαγ[γέλλεται σ]ιτ[ηγήσει]ν Ἀθήναζε’ (‘promises to bring grain to Athens’: IG II3 1 468 lines 5–6). This decree, essentially an extension of the original Peace (D130), was made on Skirophorion 16th, after the return of the Second Embassy (Dem. 19.57–8). Modern scholarship offers different interpretations of Demosthenes’

d134 decree praising philip, extending the peace

499

T1 Consider the decree, the one which Philokrates drafted and gave out after these affairs. For it sounds completely fine, but whenever someone bears in mind the time at which it was drafted, and the promises which he made then, it will become clear that they did nothing other than surrender the Phokians to Philip and the Thebans, doing all but delivering them in chains. Read the decree. DECREE.  See, men of Athens, the decree, which is so full of praise and such good sayings, even (says) ‘there is to be the same peace and alliance as the one with Philip also for his descendants’, and ‘praise Philip, because he promises to do just things’, But he did not promise anything, and so far was he from being required to make an offer that he says he does not know what he can do to oblige you. But it was this man, (Aeschines), who spoke and made promises on his behalf, and Philokrates, when he found you urging these proposals, took the opportunity to add to the decree the following: ‘and if ever the Phokians fail to do what is necessary and hand over the shrine to the Amphiktyons, the Athenian people will send aid against those who are preventing this from happening.’

presentation of the amendment as an abandonment of Phokis: MacDowell, Demosthenes, On The False, 227, makes an important point: ‘when Philokrates proposed this decree in the summer of 346 the Amphictyonic council was not in session. Thus the point of Demosthenes’ complaint is that the decree can only mean that the Phokians are to surrender Delphi to those of the Amphictyonic peoples who were in that area at the time, namely Philip’s allies.’ Harris, Aeschines, 94, takes the view that the amendment was relatively mild, leaving the Phokians in control of their armed forces and the territory they controlled at home and in Boiotia: ‘the decree in no way amounted to an abandonment of the Phocians ... Demosthenes thus completely misrepresents the effect of this decree, and his interpretation of its consequences should not be accepted.’ Philokrates is associated with eight decrees of the assembly: see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

Skirophorion 16th 347/6 (after the return of the Second Embassy (Dem. 19.57–8)).

Bibliography

Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 94. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 227.

D135 Decree ordering the evacuation of the Attic countryside, the celebration of a festival of Herakles, and the restoration of fortifications Proposer: Kallisthenes (PA 8090; PAA 559815) Date: 27th Skirophorion 346

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) claims that Kallisthenes’ decree, according to which the Athenians brought their wives and children in from the country, and ordered the festival of Herakles to be celebrated within the city walls, demonstrated how orators who collaborated with Philip could mislead the people. He later adds, in explaining that this decree was a reaction to the announcement of the destruction of Phokis, that the Athenians also voted to reinstate the frontier fortresses and to fortify the Piraeus at this time (T2). Demosthenes suggests that Aeschines and Philokrates were essentially responsible for the evacuation, which prevented the customary religious celebrations, because they were to blame for Philip being in a position to threaten Attica; Kallisthenes’ role is passed over without comment. Aeschines too (2.139, 3.80) holds up the evacuation as a result of the Peace of Philokrates, though he adds nothing to our understanding of the decree’s content. The decree is mentioned also in the On the Crown, as part of Demosthenes’ account of events after Philip’s seizure of Thrace (18.37): Demosthenes asked the audience whether they expected such developments when they made the Peace, suggesting that such were the promises of Philip’s hireling Aeschines (18.38).

Texts

T1  Dem. 19.86: Λέγε δὴ τὸ ψήφισμα λαβὼν τὸ τοῦ Διοφάντου καὶ τὸ τοῦ Καλλισθένους, ἵν’ εἰδῆτε ὅτι, ὅτε μὲν τὰ δέοντ’ ἐποιεῖτε, θυσιῶν καὶ ἐπαίνων ἠξιοῦσθε παρ’ ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ἐπειδὴ δ’ ὑπὸ τούτων παρεκρούσθητε, παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν κατεκομίζεσθε καὶ τὰ Ἡράκλεια ἐντὸς τείχους θύειν ἐψηφίζεσθε, εἰρήνης οὔσης. ὃ καὶ θαυμάζω, εἰ τὸν μηδὲ τοὺς θεούς, καθ’ ὃ πάτριον ἦν, τιμᾶσθαι ποιήσαντα, τοῦτον ἀτιμώρητον ἀφήσετε. λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. 500

d135 decree ordering evacuation

501

T1 Take and read the decree of Diophantos (see D105 above) and that of Kallisthenes, so that you might know that, when you did your duty, you were thought worthy of acts of sacrifice and of praise, both at Athens and among other peoples; but when you were led astray by these men, you brought in your children and women from the countryside and you voted to make the sacrifices to Herakles within the city walls, even while there was peace. And I wonder if you will allow men who prevent even the established honouring of the gods to go without punishment. Read the decree. DECREE.

502

inventory a2

T2 Dem. 19.125: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀπωλώλεσαν οἱ Φωκεῖς ὕστερον ἡμέραις πέντε ἢ ἕξ, καὶ τέλος εἶχε τὸ μίσθωμα ὥσπερ ἂν ἄλλο τι τούτῳ, καὶ ὁ Δερκύλος ἐκ τῆς Χαλκίδος ἧκεν ἀναστρέψας καὶ ἀπήγγειλεν ὑμῖν ἐκκλησιάζουσιν ἐν Πειραιεῖ ὅτι Φωκεῖς ἀπολώλασι, καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ταῦτ’ ἀκούσαντες εἰκότως κἀκείνοις συνήχθεσθε καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐξεπέπληχθε, καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν κατακομίζειν ἐψηφίζεσθε καὶ τὰ φρούρα ἐπισκευάζειν καὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ τειχίζειν καὶ τὰ Ἡράκλει’ ἐν ἄστει θύειν …

Commentary

The Phokians surrendered to Philip on Skirophorion 23rd. Their cities are said to have been dismantled and converted into villages, and they were also ordered to pay 60 Talents a year as reparations to the Delphic Amphictyony (D.S. 16.60.2; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.454). Derkylos informed the Athenians of such developments at an assembly meeting in Piraeus on his return from the Third Embassy (T2); it was at this assembly that the Athenians, realising the imminent threat of Philip, enacted these precautions against a possible invasion of Attica. On the Third Embassy, see DP 60 below. It seems to be the case that the Athenians actually did bring in their property within the walls of the city: Demosthenes (18.37) mentions this happening in On the Crown in his discussion of the results of the Peace of Philokrates; he appears to have twice read the decree out in court (Dem. 19.86 and 18.37–8). A document purporting to be Kallisthenes’ decree also appears at Dem. 18.37– 8; it adds certain details, like a (probably false) demotic and patronymic for Kallisthenes, and the penalties for disobeying the order forbidding Athenians from spending the night in the country, and the precise area to be evacuated. See, for the widely accepted view that the document at Dem. 18.37–8 is a later fabrication, Canevaro, Documents, 246–8. The phrase ‘παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν κατακομίζειν’ (‘to bring in the children and women from the country’: Dem. 19.86 and 19.125), is one that resembles the words to be found in Lycurgus’ report of Hypereides’ decree after the battle of Chaironeia: see D167b = Lycurg. 1.16 below. Disregarding the spurious document at Dem. 18.37–8, the provisions of the decree seem to be as follows: to bring in children and women from the country (TT 1, 2), to celebrate the festival of Herakles within the walls (TT 1, 2) when there was peace (T1), to reinstate the frontier fortresses and to fortify the Piraeus (T2); Aeschines also referred to a clause which stated that property was to be brought in from the fields (Aeschin. 2.139, 3.80). The evacuation of Attica is known from other times of crisis: see Ober, Fortress Attica, 55–6. Hypereides appears to have decreed that the Athenians

d135 decree ordering evacuation

503

T2  Then, five or six days later, when the Phokians had been destroyed, and, as would be expected, Aeschines’ wages finally stopped, and Derkylos had returned from Chalkis and had informed you, at the assembly meeting in Piraeus, that the Phokians had been destroyed, and you, Athenian men, hearing this had been filled with indignation on their behalf and with alarm on your own, and had resolved to bring in from the countryside the children and women and to repair the frontier fortresses and to fortify the Piraeus, and to make the sacrifices to Herakles in the city …

send their women and children to the city after Chaironeia in 338 (D167b); evacuations happened also in the immediate years which followed: in 335 (D.S. 17.4.6; Arr. An. 1.10.2: see D183 below); and perhaps also in 322 ([Demades] On the Twelve Years 14, for which there is no decisive indication that it was effected by a decree of the people). Given the popularity of festivals related to Herakles and the Herakleidai in the Attic countryside (see Jameson, ‘The family of Herakles’), it is no surprise that the evacuation of Attica necessitated special arrangments for its celebration. There were several festivals of Herakles in Attica, and MacDowell (Demosthenes: On the False Embassy, 244–5, offering further relevant bibliography on Herakles-cults) suggests that the decree mentioned here referred to the celebration at Kynosarges. MacDowell notes also that the Herakleia were held during Metageitnion, which was the second month after this decree was passed. What this suggests is that Kallisthenes anticipated that the evacuation of Attica would last for a number of months. The walls of Piraeus had been rebuilt in the 390s, and it is plausible that further work was done after 346 in pursuit of Kallisthenes’ provisions (Garland, Piraeus, 165; Rankov, ‘Piraeus,’ 477). The extent to which this decree was decried is probably a consequence of the fact that it soon emerged that the panic of Skirophorion 27th gave way to the realisation that Philip was not about to attack Athens: Harris, Aeschines, 101. The proposer of the decree, Kallisthenes, is thought to have been a proposer of one other decree of the people, an alliance with the Thracians Ketriporis, Lyppeios, and Grabos in 356/5 (IG II2 127 line 7); at some point after 336 he was also the defendant in an eisangelia: Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 118. He may have been the recipient of a crown: see discussion at D244 below.

Date

Skirophorion 27th 347/6. Dem. 19.125 says the decree was held when Derkylos returned from Chalkis and announced Philip’s destruction of Phokis; Dem.

inventory a2

504

19.60 confirms the date of this assembly, held at Piraeus to discuss dockyard business. The date of Maimakterion 21st, given in the false document at Dem. 18.37, is irreconcilable with these indications and is likely to be a fabrication: Canevaro, Documents, 246–8.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 243–8. Garland, R., The Piraeus from the Fifth to the First Century BC. London (1985) 165. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia. Odense (1975) no. 118. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 101. Jameson, M., ‘The family of Herakles in Attica’ in Herakles and Hercules: Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity, eds. L. Rawlings and H. Bowden. Swansea (2005) 15–35. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 244–5. Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 BC. Leiden (1985) 55–6. Rankov, B., ‘Piraeus’ in Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. D.J. Blackman and B. Rankov. Oxford (2013) 420–88.

D136 Decree honouring Phokion

Proposer: Meidias Meidiou Anagyrasios (PA 9720; PAA 637275; APF) Date: 24th Gamelion 346/5, or later in the 340s

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned in Plutarch’s account of Hypereides’ political career.

Text

T1 [Plu.] X Or. 850b: Γραψάμενος δὲ καὶ τὴν Φωκίωνος δωρεάν, ἣν εἶπε Μειδίας Μειδίου Ἀναγυράσιος ἐπὶ Ξενίου ἄρχοντος, Γαμηλιῶνος ἑβδόμῃ φθίνοντος, ἡττήθη.

d136 decree honouring phokion

505

T1 On indicting an award for Phokion, which Meidias son of Meidias of Anagyrous had proposed on the 24th day of Gamelion, during the archonship of Xenias, he (Hypereides) was defeated.

506

inventory a2

Commentary

Plutarch (T1) says that the honours were unsuccessfully attacked by Hypereides, and that the award, about which no details are offered, was proposed (εἶπε) in the (unknown) archonship of Xenias, on Gamelion 24th. The possibility of emending the name of the archon to ‘Archias’ (346/5), leads Fowler (Plutarch’s Moralia, 445 note c) to suggest that the proposal for Phokion may have had some connection with his service at the battle of Tamynai in spring 348. Tritle, Phocion, 150, however, rules this out on the basis that Phokion’s expedition deposed Ploutarchos the tyrant of Eretria, a friend of Meidias’ family (Plu. Phoc. 13.7), and so honours proposed by a member of that family is not the likely context of the decree here. This Meidias is sometimes identified (e.g. by Gehrke, Phokion 1 note 4) as Meidias, opponent of Demosthenes in speech 21 (PA 9719 = PAA 637270); however, it is likely that the proposer was the son of Demosthenes’ enemy, who may well have been politically active by the late 340s; as Tritle (Phocion, 215) suggests, ‘enacting honours for Phokion would be politically innocent for a young man, though the act surely conveyed a partisan message’. Rivalry between Hypereides and Phokion is otherwise not well attested, though there are reports of a difference in policy at the time of the Lamian War: Tritle, Phocion, 125–6. Moreover, Plutarch’s report (Phoc. 4) that Glaukippos, the son of Hypereides, made a speech in which he collected countless bad things to say about him may reflect this rivalry; Gehrke, Phokion 1 note 4 suggests that he was the author of the speech challenging Meidias’ proposal.

Date

Gamelion 24th 346/5. The archon mentioned in T1, Xenias, is not known; it is possible that the source has confused it with the archonship of Archias (346/5: see above, commentary; however, for a date in the late 340s, see Tritle, Phocion, 150–1 and 214–15 (summarised in the Commentary above)). As Hansen (The Sovereignty, 41) points out, the terminus ante quem for the graphe paranomon brought against the decree is the death of Hypereides in 322.

Bibliography

Fowler, H.N., Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. 10. Cambridge, MA and London (1936). Gehrke, H.-J., Phokion: Studien zur Erfassung seiner historischen Gestalt. Zetemata 64. Munich (1976). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 41. Tritle, L., Phocion the Good. New York (1988) 150–1, 214–15.

D137 Decree associated with the scrutiny of the citizen-body Proposer: Demophilos (PA 3664; PAA 320855) Date: 346/5

Literary Context

Aeschines (TT 1, 2) points to the example of Demophilos’ measure as a way of impressing upon the jury his view that Timarchos was unworthy of citizen-rights. Dem. 57, Against Euboulides, was written for a certain Euxitheos, who was appealing against his exclusion from the citizen-body on the basis of this legislation, and Libanius’ hypothesis (T4) to the speech offers a view of the background to the case.

507

508

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Aeschin 1.77: Γεγόνασι διαψηφίσεις ἐν τοῖς δήμοις, καὶ ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ψῆφον δέδωκε περὶ τοῦ σώματος, ὅστις Ἀθηναῖος ὄντως ἐστὶ καὶ ὅστις μή. T2  Aeschin. 1.86: Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐμνήσθην τῶν διαψηφίσεων καὶ τῶν Δημοφίλου πολιτευμάτων, βούλομαί τι καὶ ἄλλο παράδειγμα περὶ τούτων εἰπεῖν. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος ἀνὴρ καὶ πρότερόν τι τοιοῦτον πολίτευμα ἐπολιτεύσατο. ᾐτιάσατό τινας εἶναι οἳ ἄρα ἐνεχείρουν συνδεκάζειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τἆλλα δικαστήρια, ὥσπερ καὶ νυνὶ Νικόστρατος. T3  Harpokration, s. v. ‘Διαψήφισις’: ἰδίως λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς δήμοις ἐξετάσεων, ἅς γίγνονται περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν δημοτευομένων, εἰ τῶι ὄντι πολίτης καὶ δημότης ἐστὶν ἢ παρεγγέγραπται ξένος ὤν· Αἰσχίνης Κατὰ Τιμάρχου [1.77]. ἐντελέστατα δὲ διείλεκται περὶ τῶν διαψηφίσεων, ὡς γεγόνασιν ἐπὶ ᾽Αρχίου ἄρχοντος, ᾽Ανδροτίων ἐν τῆι ᾽Ατθίδι [FGrH324 F52] καὶ Φιλόχορος ἐν ς¯ τῆς ᾽Ατθίδος [FGrH328 F52]. T4 Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 57: Γράφεται νόμος παρ᾽ ᾽Αθηναίοις γενέσθαι ζήτησιν πάντων τῶν ἐγγεγραμμένων τοῖς ληξιαρχικοῖς γραμματείοις, εἴτε γνήσιοι πολῖταί εἰσιν εἴτε μή, τοὺς δὲ μὴ γεγονότας ἐξ ἀστοῦ καὶ ἐξ ἀστῆς ἐξαλείφεσθαι· διαψηφίζεσθαι δὲ περὶ πάντων τοὺς δημότας, καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀποψηφισθέντας καὶ ἐμμείναντας τῆι ψήφωι τῶν δημοτῶν ἐξαληλίφθαι καὶ εἶναι μετοίκους, τοῖς δὲ βουλομένοις ἔφεσιν εἰς τοὺς δικαστὰς δεδόσθαι, κἂν μὲν ἁλῶσι καὶ παρὰ τῶι δικαστηρίωι, πεπρᾶσθαι, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἀποφύγωσιν, εἶναι πολίτας. T5  Scholion on Aeschin. 1.77 (Dilts 169b): Δημόφιλος δέ τις εἰσηγήσατο διαψηφίσεις τῶν ἀστῶν ἐν τοῖς δήμοις, ὥστε τοὺς δημότας περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἀναγραφομένων διδόναι ψῆφον ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀστός, μηδενὸς κατηγοροῦντος μηδὲ ἀπολογουμένου, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς συνιστορήσεως, καὶ ἴσχυον αἱ διαψηφίσεις τῶν δημοτῶν.

Commentary

Accounts of the period of history between the fall of the Pisistratid tyranny and Cleisthenes’ reforms point to a scrutiny of citizens in 510/09 (Ath. Pol. 13.5: for discussion, see Harding, Androtion, 176; Lape, Race, 199–200, emphasising the possibility of anti-Pisistratid machinations). As Fisher (Aeschines, 62) observes, a complete revision of the citizen lists held by the demes may have taken place also

d137 decree associated with the scrutiny

509

T1 There have been votes (concerning the registration of citizens: T3) in the demes, and each of you has submitted a vote about an individual person, (determining) who is genuinely an Athenian and who is not. T2 Since I have made mention of the votes (on citizen registration) and the political administration of Demophilos, I wish to speak to you about another example. For this man (Demophilos) had previously administered another such method: he made accusations that some people were trying to bribe members of the ecclesia and the courts too, just as Nikostratos now (claims). T3  Diapsephisis: Specifically it refers to the scrutinies in the demes, which are undertaken concerning each of those who are demesmen, (to discover) whether he is in reality a citizen and a demesmen or if, being a foreigner, he has been illegally registered: Aeschines, Against Timarchos (1.77). The most complete description of the process and how it was administered at the time of the archon, Archias, is to be found in Androtion in his Atthis and Philochorus in book 6 of his Atthis. T4 There is a law among the Athenians that there is to be an examination of all those who have been registered in the lexiarchic lists, to see whether or not they are legitimate citizens. Those who were not born from a citizen-father and a citizen-mother are to have their names erased; the demesmen are to vote about everyone, and those who have been rejected and abide by the vote of the demesmen are to be erased and are to be metics, while those who want to make an appeal are to be handed over to the jurors, and if they are found guilty also in the lawcourt, they are to be sold (into slavery); if they are acquitted, they are to be citizens. T5 A certain Demophilos introduced a vote of citizens in the demes, so that demesmen could cast a vote about each one who had been registered (to determine) who was a citizen; no one could be accused nor make a defence, but (the decision was to be made) out of personal knowledge, and the votes of the demesmen were final.

in 445/4, but this could conceivably have been not a general diapsephisis, but rather a number of prosecutions related to breaches of citizenship rules (Philochorus, FGrH 328, F119); Lape (Race, 200–2) explores the possible motivations of the fifth-century scrutiny, suggesting that there was a general effort to restrict the numbers of individuals who were able to share in the perks of citizenship.

510

inventory a2

For much of the fourth century, the monitoring of the citizen-body was undertaken mainly in the demes (though in the procedure described at Ath. Pol. 42.1–2, both demesmen and the council appear to have been involved in the monitoring of the enrolment of ephebes; the account is broadly followed by Kierstead, ‘Associations’). According to the testimonia for this decree (TT 1–5), the Athenian demos appears to have ordered the demes to carry out a general scrutiny of the citizen-body in 346/5; Diller, cited by Jacoby (A Commentary, 161), took the view that this transformed practice in the demes, making it ‘universal, uniform and compulsory’. Aeschines (TT 1, 2) mentions a ballot (explained by T3 as concerning citizen lists) proposed by Demophilos. He states also that Demophilos brought in a measure (politeuma) in which he accused certain people of attempted bribery (T2); it is unclear, however, whether a politeuma is the same thing as a psephisma (note that Dem. 18.302 (= D151 T1) talks about Demosthenes’ politeumata and psephismata, but there is nothing to say that the two are mutually exclusive). T5 builds upon Aeschines’ statement to say that Demophilos introduced a revision of lists of the citizens in the demes, so that the demesmen might vote about those registered. The existence of a speech supporting Euxitheos’ appeal against a decision of the scrutiny (Dem. 57: on the speaker’s rejection by the demesmen, see especially 57.6; 57.26 refers to a procedure whereby deme members had to swear over a sacrificed animal and declare the point at which a register was lost), and the assertions made in Libanius’ Hypothesis to Dem. 57 (T4), would appear to suggest that there were indeed appeals against the decisions made. As Whitehead (Demes, 108) observes, the process must have entailed ‘meetings of very varying duration, depending upon the size of the deme’. Harpokration, s.v. Diapsephisis (T3) says that the most complete description of the revision, as it took place in 346/5, was that of Androtion and Philochorus (see FGrH, 324, F52; 328, F52). Harding (Androtion, 175) explores the relationship of this decree to the law quoted by Ath. Pol. 42.1, which says that all eighteen-year-olds were scrutinised in the demes and at the council (some of the same ground is covered in the law mentioned by Libanius: T4; on this passage, see Kierstead, ‘Associations’). It is necessary to ask why there was a need for a scrutiny by decree if the law on the procedure, quoted by Ath. Pol. 42.1 and T4, was in place: (a) We would expect a one-off vetting of the citizen body to be initiated by a decree of the assembly; a general tightening-up of procedures would have been undertaken by way of a law; (b) Specifically, Fisher (Aeschines, 62) suggests that the need for this scrutiny arose out of a concern that ‘money or illicit sexual liaisons were responsible

d137 decree associated with the scrutiny

511

for filling the demes illegitimately with metics, slaves, and sons of hetairai’, but that the process may have done damage in allowing political rivals to renew pre-existing feuds (cf. Dem. 57). A related view is that of Lape, Race, 203–4, who suggests that Demophilos’ measure was ‘explicitly motivated by perceived violations of the system’ (a view solidly based upon the testimonia of Dem. 57.49 and Aeschin. 2.71, 76, 173, where speakers expresses exasperation at those who had forced their way into the demes), and suggests that a substantial number of individuals lost their citizen-rights in the process of the review; Whitehead (Demes, 89) suggests that distrust of the demes’ procedures may have been the motivating factor; Develin (‘Euboulides’ Office,’ 78) too offers the view that irregularities at the stage of registration may well have necessitated the process; Fantasia and Carusi (Revisioni) place the decree in the context of wider political tensions of the era; (c) Demophilos’ measure might have been motivated by those who wanted to settle old scores against political rivals, such as those between Euxitheos and his enemies: see Blok, Citizenship, 5–12, summarising the arguments that Euxitheos put up in support of his claims about his right to citizenship. Alternatively, we could take the view that the procedure of Ath. Pol. 42.1 and the law of T4 were introduced in the period between Demophilos’ proposal and the composition of the Athenaion Politeia or, indeed, as Diller and Jacoby suggested, that the law was introduced as part of the provisions of Demophilos’ decree. But we should also bear in mind the general disinclination of the author of the Ath. Pol. to discuss developments in terms of decrees: the author evidently feels on safer ground when drawing upon the knowledge of laws. None of the testimonia (TT 1–5) explicitly label this measure as a decree, but its association with the political nonentity Demophilos suggests that the procedure may have been initiated by a decree rather than a law. Indeed, while it seems to have been the case generally that the Athenians enacted provisions concerning citizenship with nomoi, there are attestations of other Athenian decrees concerning qualification to citizenship: see above, DD 5, 14. Demophilos is not otherwise connected with political activity, though Aeschines associates him, along with a certain Nikostratos, with accusations against those who were attempting to bribe Athenians at the lawcourts and assembly (T2). Fisher (Aeschines, 214) suggests that ‘this Demophilos liked to appear as a rigorous defender of democratic procedures against corruption’; Jacoby (A Commentary, 162) took the view that he was ‘one of those well-meaning and short-sighted persons who expect[ed] from such measures a purge of public life and a spiritual renaissance of the people of the kind Isocrates demanded in general phrases’.

512

inventory a2

Date

346/5 (T3).

Bibliography

Blok, J., Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2017) 5–13. Develin, R., ‘Euboulides’ office and the diapsephisis of 346/5 BC’, C&M42 (1991) 75–9. Fantasia, U. and Carusi, C., ‘Revisioni e contrl delle liste dei cittadini : la diapsephisis ateniese del 346/5 a.C.’ in Poleis e Politeiai : esperienze politische, tradizioni letterarie, progetti costitutionali. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Storia Greca, Torino, 29 maggio–31 maggio 2002, ed. S. Cataldi. Alessandria (2004) 187–216. Fisher, N., Aeschines Against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford (2011). Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis: The Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford (1994) 175–8. Jacoby, F., A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athens, vol. 1: text (FGrH IIIb). Leiden (1954) 157–62. Kierstead, J., ‘Associations and institutions in Athenian citizenship procedures’, CQ 67 (2017) 444–59. Lape, S., Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy. Cambridge (2010) 199–216. Whitehead, D., The Demes of Attica 508/7– ca. 250 BC. Princeton (1986) 88–9, 105–9, 296–301.

D138 Decree concerning public works on the Pnyx Hill Proposer: Timarchos Arizelou Sphettios (PA 13636; PAA 884310) Date: 346/5

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) reports the Areopagite Autolykos’ speech against Timarchos’ decree, and the assembly’s reaction to his double-entendres as a way of supporting his allegations about Timarchos’ sexual behaviour (Aeschin 1.81–5). Interestingly, Aeschines did not attempt to criticise the substance of Timarchos’ decree, but wanted to remind the audience of the people’s reaction to a speech made against the decree.

513

514

inventory a2

Text

T1. Aeschin. 1.81: καὶ τὰ μὲν πολλὰ καὶ παλαιὰ ἐάσω, τὰ δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ γενόμενα, ὅτε ἐγὼ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ταύτην Τιμάρχῳ ἐπήγγειλα, ταῦθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀναμνῆσαι βούλομαι. τῆς γὰρ βουλῆς τῆς ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ πρόσοδον ποιουμένης πρὸς τὸν δῆμον κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ οὗτος εἰρήκει περὶ τῶν οἰκήσεων τῶν ἐν τῇ Πυκνί, ἦν μὲν ὁ τὸν λόγον λέγων ἐκ τῶν Ἀρεοπαγιτῶν Αὐτόλυκος, καλῶς νὴ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν Ἀπόλλω καὶ σεμνῶς καὶ ἀξίως ἐκείνου τοῦ συνεδρίου βεβιωκώς.

Commentary

Aeschines claims that Timarchos introduced a decree ‘about the dwelling-houses on the Pnyx’ (T1). The Areopagus appears to have intervened on the subject of the decree; members of that council appeared at the assembly, including Autolykos, who spoke against the decree. It is hard to say why the Areopagus was involved with this decree; certainly it was, at this time, becoming more involved in public affairs. Wallace (The Areopagus, 120–1; cf. 194 note 48) argues against the suggestion that the Areopagus had a specific role related to building regulations; it is plausible that individual members may have seen their status as justifying indignation at someone with Timarchos’ reputation proposing a decree. The intervention may constitute an early example of apophasis, a process by which the Areopagus could report on a particular matter on either its own initiative or that of the assembly (see D195 Commentary below). T1 gives away little about the content of the decree. Aeschines’ report of Autolykos’ speech against the proposal places emphasis on those aspects of it that were laughed at by the assembly as double-entendres or comic innuendo: these include the desolateness (ἐρημία: Aeschin. 1.82; note that Thucydides’ description of the occupation of desolate areas during the Archidamian war suggests that they were, as Papazarkadas, Sacred, 217, claims, ‘unoccupied areas with no, or merely a vague, ownership status’) of the area of the Pnyx, the mentions of ‘quiet’ and ‘little expense’ (‘ἡσυχία’, ‘μικρὸν ἀνάλωμα’: 1.83), and ‘building plots’ and ‘cisterns’ (‘οἰκοπέδα’, ‘λάκκοι’: 1.84). Some or all of these words may have been parts of the original decree (it may, for instance, have been a decree which drew upon a limited budget), or Autolykos may have introduced them in his speech. As Bouchet (‘Rire’) has argued on the basis of this section of the speech, not even Areopagites were shy of using humour as a tool of argumentation. There is some evidence for bigger and smaller residences close to the entrances to the Pnyx and between the Pnyx Hill and the Hill of the Nymphs (see Lauter-Bufe and Lauter, ‘Wohnhauser’; Travlos, Bildlexikon, s. v. Oikia),

d138 decree concerning public works

515

T1 I will leave out the many things which happened long ago, but I want to remind you of what happened at that assembly, when I proclaimed this (prosecution) against Timarchos. When the Areopagus council appeared before the assembly in relation to the decree which this Timarchos had made about the dwelling-houses on the Pnyx, it was Autolykos, a member of the Areopagos council, who made the speech, a man who, by Zeus and Apollo, had lived his life with honour, with piety and was worthy of that institution.

and these may be related to this decree. The discussion of ‘little expense’ with respect to the decree may suggest that Timarchos’ proposals were relatively modest, but, as Fisher (Aeschines, 218) claims, the decree may have been an element of more radical proposals, related to initial stages of a Lycurgan-era programme associated with the reconstruction of the Pnyx at the time. Thompson, ‘The Pnyx’, suggested that the debate summarised in T1 might have related to the buying-up of private properties in preparation for substantial public works. While Athenian decrees are rarely attested to have directly interfered in the deployment of land (probably because even public land was largely owned by sub-polis units rather than the polis as such: see Papazarkadas, Sacred, 99–162), Timarchos’ decree perhaps echoes Xenophon’s suggestion (Poroi, 2.6), that the Athenians should attempt to make money out of vacant sites by allowing applicants to build houses, thereby attracting new and richer residents to particular areas; for recent discussion on the relationship between the Poroi and Athenian policy, see Papazarkadas, Sacred, 65–6 note 216. Timarchos was said (Aeschin. 1 Hypothesis) to have introduced more than one hundred decrees; apart from this one, the only one that is attested is that which he proposed, as a councillor, in 347/6, concerning the export of weapons to Philip (see D122 above); see Fisher, Aeschines, 20–3, noting also his other political activity.

Date

346/5. Aeschines alleges that Timarchos made this proposal at the same time as he (Aeschines) summoned him for dokimasia at the assembly, which was during the year that he was councillor (346/5).

Bibliography

Bouchet, C., ‘Rire devant l’Aréopague (Eschine, I, 84)’, Ktema 35 (2010) 315–28. Fisher, N., Aeschines Against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford (2011) 217–19.

inventory a2

516

Lauter-Bufe, H. and Lauter, H., ‘Wohnhäuser und Stadtsviertel des klassischen Athen’, Ath. Mitt. 85 (1971) 109–24. Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford (2011). Travlos, J., Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Athen. Tübingen (1971) s.v. oikia. Thompson, H., ‘The Pnyx in models’ in Studies in Attic Epigraphy and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool, ed. H. Thompson. Princeton (1992) 133–47. Wallace, R., The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore (1989) 120–1.

D139 Decree proposing an embassy to the Peloponnese

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113-15) Date: 344

Literary Context

Complaining that Aeschines recalls some of his acts, but forgets others, Demosthenes boasts about a string of proposals (see DD 148a, 154, 155 below) which he claims helped in the resistance to Philip, including proposing the embassy to the Peloponnese when Philip attempted to get a footing there.

Text

T1 Dem. 18.79: Τὴν εἰς Πελοπόννησον πρεσβείαν ἔγραψα, ὅτε πρῶτον ἐκεῖνος εἰς Πελοπόννησον παρεδύετο.

Commentary

This embassy was probably proposed as a reaction to Philip’s dispatch of money and troops to Messene and Argos (Sealey, Demosthenes, 170–1): see Dem. 6.15–27 for Demosthenes’ claims about the things he said when at Messene and Argos. The embassy to the Peloponnese was probably the first of Demosthenes’ attempts to bring the Peloponnesians into the anti-Philip alliance before Chaironeia; for the possibility of other missions before Chaironeia,

d139 decree proposing an embassy

517

T1 I proposed that an embassy should go to the Peloponnese, when he first crept in there.

see Sealey, Demosthenes, 170–1. Demosthenes offered an account of his discussions with the Messenians and Argives in the Second Philippic: Dem. 6.19–20. There is a possibility, however, that the proposal of sending ambassadors to the Peloponnese should actually be connected with a mission that led to the formation of alliances with several communities, including the Achaians, the Arkadians associated with Mantineia, the Argives, the Messenians and the Megalopolitans (Scholion on Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 182) (= D149 T2), with Jacoby

518

inventory a2

on Philochorus, FGrH 328 F158). It seems right to associate these with a physically extant fragment of an alliance with the Messenians (IG II3 1 308): see D149 Commentary below. Demosthenes is also associated with a decree rewarding ambassadors who returned from Thessaly and Magnesia: see D146. Demosthenes is attested as a highly prolific proposer of decrees: for his proposals, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

344. Sealey, Demosthenes, 170–1; Yunis, Demosthenes, 147, 155.

Bibliography

Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1994) 170–1. Yunis, H., Demosthenes: On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 147, 155.

D140 Decree in response to Philip’s ambassador concerning amendments to the peace Proposer: Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus (PA 6351; PAA 481555; APF) Date: 344/3

Literary Context

[Dem.] 7, a speech usually attributed to Hegesippos (Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 7), responded to a letter from Philip brought to Athens by ambassadors in 343/2 (MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 344 with [Dem.] 7.1). It was in this letter that amendments to the Peace of Philokrates (for which, see D130 above) were raised and Philip offered to give Halonnesos to Athens but not to recognise their right to it ([Dem.] 7.2–8). These passages (TT 1, 2) appear to refer to a proposal of 344/3 made by Hegesippos to make amendments to the Peace: the point he is making is that Philip should restore former Athenian territories to the ownership of the Athenian people, rather than merely letting the Athenians have possession of them. On the speech, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 177–8; Davies, ‘Hegesippos’, 13–14; MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 343–6.

519

520

inventory a2

Texts

T1 [Dem.] 7.18–19: Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐπανορθώσεως τῆς εἰρήνης, ἣν ἔδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου πεμφθέντες ἐπανορθώσασθαι, ὅτι ἐπηνωρθωσάμεθα, ὃ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ὁμολογεῖται δίκαιον εἶναι, ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν, ἀμφισβητεῖ μὴ δεδωκέναι μηδὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις ταῦτ᾽ εἰρηκέναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, οὐδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ πεπεισμένος ὑπὸ τούτων, οἷς χρῆται φίλοις, ὡς ὑμεῖς οὐ μνημονεύετε τὰ ἐν τῷ δήμῳ εἰρημένα. μόνον δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ οἷόν τε ὑμῖν ἐστιν ἀμνημονῆσαι· ἐν γὰρ τῇ αὐτῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ οἱ πρέσβεις ὑμῖν οἱ παρ᾽ ἐκείνου ἥκοντες διελέγοντο καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐγράφη. ὥστ᾽ οὐχ οἷόν τε, παραχρῆμα τῶν λόγων εἰρημένων καὶ εὐθὺς τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἐπαναγιγνωσκομένου, τὴν καταψευδομένην γνώμην τῶν πρέσβεων, ταύτην ὑμᾶς χειροτονῆσαι· ὥστε τοῦτο μὲν οὐ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐπέσταλκεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἠκούσατε, περὶ τούτων ἀποκρινάμενοι τὴν γνώμην ἀπεστείλατε. T2 [Dem.] 7.25: Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν παράνομον ἦν τὸ ψήφισμα, τὸ τοῦ Φιλοκράτους, καὶ οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ ἦν τὸν τὰ ἔννομα γράφοντα ταὐτὰ τῷ παρανόμῳ ψηφίσματι γράφειν. ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς προτέροις ψηφίσμασι, τοῖς οὖσιν ἐννόμοις καὶ σῴζουσι τὴν ὑμετέραν χώραν, ταὐτὰ γράφων ἔννομά τ᾽ ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξήλεγχον τὸν Φίλιππον, ὅτι ἐξηπάτα ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐκ ἐπανορθώσασθαι ἐβούλετο τὴν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν λέγοντας ἀπίστους καταστῆσαι.

Commentary

Concerned by the Athenians’ contact with the other Greek states through envoys (e.g. the Peloponnesian communities: see D139 above), Philip, in early 344/3, sent to Athens an embassy, with the orator Python of Byzantion, proposing a revision (epanorthosis) of the Peace of Philokrates. The initiative for making precise proposals, however, was left to the Athenians. It is plausible to think that the revision may have offered solutions more favourable to the Athenians concerning cities of Thrace or the boundaries of Athenian territory in the Chersonese: see [Dem.] 7.20, 23; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.489; Harding, Didymos, 86; Sealey, Demosthenes, 172. The decree under discussion here, alleges the speaker, embodied Athens’ claims to take ownership of those former territories; the speaker claims (T1) that the terms were agreed in front of Philip’s ambassadors, but Trevett, Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17, 120 note 29, suggests that this is implausible. Indeed, it appears to be the case that Philip’s ambassadors offered make a gift of the island of Halonnesos to the Athenians but without recognising it as Athenian property ([Dem.] 7.2), an offer which provoked Hegesippos’ speech. On Halonnesos, its significance as a stopping-off point for movement between Central Greece and the Hellespont, and its role

d140 decree in response to philip’s ambassador

521

T1  Concerning the modification of the Peace, which those ambassadors sent by Philip gave to us to amend, we proposed a change that each party would possess its own possessions, a thing which is agreed to be just by all men; he disputes that his ambassadors had granted it (and) that they had spoken to you about it. As such, he has been persuaded by those friends that he uses that you remember nothing of the things that were spoken in the assembly. However, this is the sort of thing which you are not able to forget, since it was at that very assembly that both the ambassadors who had come from him spoke and the decree was proposed. Therefore, it is not possible that you voted a decree which falsified the proposals of the ambassadors, since the reading of the decree followed immediately after the speeches. Accordingly, it is not against me but against you that he has made this allegation, that you sent off your decisions about matters which you had not heard anything about. T2 Therefore, this decree of Philokrates was illegal, and it was not possible to frame a legal proposal which adhered to this illegal decree. Drafting a legal decree according to those previous decrees, which were constitutional and maintained your territory, I convicted Philip of trying to trick you and wishing not to amend the peace, but to discredit those who speak in your interest.

as a bone of contention between Philip and Athens, see [Dem.] 7.2 and Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.510–16. The content of this decree of Hegesippos is uncertain, but the remark that it corresponded to previous decrees which ‘maintained your territory’ (‘σῴζουσι τὴν ὑμετέραν χώραν’: T2) suggests that it contradicted a clause of the Peace of Philokrates, by which the Athenians allowed Philip to keep whatever land he held, including territories that they claimed to be their own (see D130, TT 3, 4, 5, 14, 15 above). Elsewhere in the same speech ([Dem.] 7.18, 23–9), Hegesippos refers to the following amendment to the peace: ‘ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’ (‘that each side should retain its own possessions’). It was a principle that allowed states to make claims about their rightful ownership of land that was not in their possession. The phrase is translated by Rhodes, ‘Making,’ 24–7, as ‘having what belongs to one by right’, taking the view that the phrase was one which was in use by the fifth century and suggesting that the principle may have been written into the Common Peace of autumn 371 (see D52 above); however, the amendment appears to have been denied by Philip (T1). A scholiast’s note on Dem. 19.161 (Dilts 340) suggests that such an amendment was made

522

inventory a2

by a decree of the assembly (‘τὸ δέ γε ψήφισμα τοῦ Φιλοκράτους ὃ ἔγραψεν ἑκατέρους ἔχειν ἃ ἔχουσι· τὸ δὲ τοῦ δήμου, ἔνθα διωρθώσαντο ἕκαστον ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ’). It is clear that what lay behind this was the Athenian desire to reclaim Amphipolis, Potidaia, and other places that had been lost and handed over to Philip as a consequence of the Peace of Philokrates. For a similar argument about Athenian possession of Amphipolis, see Aeschin. 2.32–3. As things turned out, the decree proposing amendments under discussion had no impact, as Philip would not return Amphipolis or other northern cities to the Athenians (Sealey, Demosthenes, 173; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.351– 6). Nor do the Athenians appear to have retaken Halonnesos: Aeschines (3.83) claims that Demosthenes forbade the Athenians from accepting Halonnesos, unless it he explicitly acknowledged that he was ‘giving it back’ rather than ‘giving’ it to them. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.491–2, took the view that the Athenian proposal was totally unrealistic. For a further proposed amendment to the Peace of Philokrates, that it should be converted into a Common Peace (koine eirene), see D141 below. Hegesippos is connected with the proposal of five other decrees (see Volume 2, Appendix 1), and other political activity, including bringing a graphe paranomon and an eisangelia: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 47. For his political career, see Fisher, Aeschines, 203–4; Davies, ‘Hegesippos’, placing emphasis on Hegesippos’ attempts to ‘vindicate the validity of decrees and treaties and international law’ (14). Relevant to this proposal is the fact that he was a vehement opponent of Philip, a defender of Athenian territories abroad (see his prosecution of Kallippos’ decree on the Kardian cleruchy, D208 below), and opponent of the Peace of Philocrates (Dem. 19.72–4 with Davies ‘Hegesippos’, 20).

Date 344/3.

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: an underrated politician’ in S.D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour, in Honour of Nick Fisher. Swansea, (2011) 11–23. Fisher, N., Aeschines Against Timarchos: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford (2011). Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 510–16. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.

d141 proposal concerning the peace

523

Harding, P., Didymos: On Demosthenes. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 343–6. Rhodes, P.J., ‘Making and breaking treaties in the Greek world’ in War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, eds. P. de Souza and J. France. Cambridge (2008) 6–27 at 24–7. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993). Trevett, J., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011) 113–28.

D141 Proposal concerning amendments to the Peace of Philokrates Proposer: Unknown Date: 344/3

Literary Context See D140 above.

524

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Dem.] 7.30–1: Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἐπανορθώματος, ὃ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῇ εἰρήνῃ ἐπανορθοῦσθε, τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας, ὅσοι μὴ κοινωνοῦσι τῆς εἰρήνης, ἐλευθέρους καὶ αὐτονόμους εἶναι, καὶ ἐάν τις ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς στρατεύῃ, βοηθεῖν τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας τῆς εἰρήνης, ἡγούμενοι καὶ δίκαιον τοῦτο καὶ φιλάνθρωπον, μὴ μόνον ἡμᾶς καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους τοὺς ἡμετέρους καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους τοὺς ἐκείνου ἄγειν τὴν εἰρήνην, τοὺς δὲ μήτε ἡμετέρους ὄντας μήτε Φιλίππου συμμάχους ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπόλλυσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτοις διὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν εἰρήνην ὑπάρχειν σωτηρίαν, καὶ τῷ ὄντι εἰρήνην ἄγειν ἡμᾶς καταθεμένους τὰ ὅπλα.

Commentary

In response to Philip’s embassies of 344/3, the Athenians appear to have proposed two rectifications to the Peace of Philokrates (Sealey, Demosthenes, 172 with 307–8 note 35). One was that each side should keep its own possessions (see D140 above), the other (T1) was that there should be a Common Peace: according to Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.490, this would have been a stabilisation of the status quo. The idea that a Common Peace should be made with Philip was nothing new, and it appears to have been under discussion among Athens’ allies in the Second Athenian Confederacy, and was discussed at the Athenian assembly on Elaphebolion 18–19 347/6 (see D130 Commentary above, but the Athenians instead preferred Philokrates’ proposal of a bilateral treaty with Philip (Aeschin. 3.68–71; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 96–7). T1 suggests that a proposal was under discussion at the assembly, but it is far from certain how the people voted on it. Philip’s reaction to the proposal is unclear, but the initiative appears to have fizzled out (Jehne, Koine Eirene, 132). Ryder offers the view that Philip’s opponents were actually anxious to avoid making a Common Peace treaty, which led them to introduce the proposal that each should hold its own possessions (cf. D140), which was unpalatable to Philip (Ryder, Koine Eirene, 101).

Date 344/3.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 489–95. Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungs­ bemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschriften 63. Stuttgart (1994).

d142 decree calling on the greeks

525

T1 Concerning the other amendment which you are making to the Peace, that those other Greeks who do not share in the Peace should be free and autonomous and that, if ever any one marches against them, those who have signed up to the Peace should go to their aid, you considered that it would be just and humane that the Peace should apply not only to us and our allies and to Philip and his allies (while those who are allies of neither side lie in the middle and are liable to be destroyed by a greater power), but rather that there should be security for them too through your Peace, and that we should lay down our arms and observe a real peace.

Ryder, T. T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965). Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1994).

D142 Decree calling on the Greeks to rally against the Great King Proposer: Unknown Date: 344/3?

Literary Context

In a document that purports to be a letter sent by Philip to the Athenians, Philip refers to the duplicity of the Athenians who, after calling on the Greeks to make common cause against the King of Persia, sent an embassy to him (see DP 66 below). On the authenticity of the letter, see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 366, suggesting that it is ‘reasonable to accept’ that it is a genuine text of Philip’s letter to the Athenians; for the view that it was written by an Isocratean ‘speech writer’ penning it in the supposed style of a Macedonian king: see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.714–15.

526

inventory a2

Text

T1 [Dem.] 12.6: Χωρὶς τοίνυν εἰς τοῦτο παρανομίας ἀφῖχθε καὶ δυσμενείας ὥστε καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πέρσην πρέσβεις ἀπεστάλκατε πείσοντας αὐτὸν ἐμοὶ πολεμεῖν· ὃ μάλιστα ἄν τις θαυμάσειεν. πρὸ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν Αἴγυπτον καὶ Φοινίκην ἐψηφίσασθε, ἂν ἐκεῖνός τι νεωτερίζῃ, παρακαλεῖν ὁμοίως ἐμὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας ἅπαντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

Commentary

This decree appears to have proposed that all of the Greeks take up arms against the Persian King should he stir up trouble (T1): this provision has some resonance with the Athenian response to Persian ambassadors in 344/3, which was that they would continue to have friendship with the Great King as long as he did not attack Greek cities (Didymos, Demosthenes col. 8.20–3; for discussion of the possibility that this response was made on the basis of a proposal of Androtion, see Harding, Androtion, 178–80; see DP 61 below). Philip, however, presenting himself as a Greek in this passage, describes the decree as if it named him specifically in the call to arms. As Sealey (Demosthenes, 174) suggests, the resolution probably did not refer to Philip specifically but said ‘all the Greeks’. The question of the authenticity of this decree hinges on that of the text within which it is preserved; MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 366, takes the view that the text genuinely represents a communication of Philip. While the decree appears to be in harmony with Isocrates’ proposal in the Philippos of 346, that Philip should lead a campaign against the barbarians (Philippos, 16), we should be cautious: it is quite clear that neither Philip nor the Greeks at this time intended to march against the Persians (see Harris, Aeschines, 109).

Date

Perhaps 344/3, with two possible contexts: either (a) during the Athenians’ negotiations with Philip; or (b) at the time when the Athenians responded to Persian ambassadors on the matter of continuing friendship with the Great King, which they did so on the condition that he did not attack the Greek cities (Didymos, Demosthenes, col. 8.8–23 = FGrH 328 F157; 324 F53; see DP 61).

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 714–16. Harding, P., Androtion and the Atthis: The Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford (1994) 178–80. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 109.

d143 decree concerning an intervention at megara 527

T1 What’s more, you have reached such a pitch of lawlessness and hostility that you have even dispatched ambassadors to the Persian King persuading him to make war against me. This is the most amazing thing! For before the King captured Egypt and Phoenicia, you voted to call upon me and all the other Greeks on equal terms to rally against him if he were to use forcible measures.

MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 366. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 174.

D143 Decree concerning an intervention at Megara Proposer: Phokion Phokou Potamios (?) (PA 15076; PAA 967590; APF) or Unknown Date: 344/3

Literary Context

This episode (T1) is mentioned in an account of Phokion’s activity and spirited resistance to the growth of Philip’s power.

528

inventory a2

Text

T1 Plu. Phoc. 15.1–2: Τῶν δὲ Μεγαρέων ἐπικαλουμένων κρύφα, φοβούμενος ὁ Φωκίων τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς μὴ προαισθόμενοι φθάσωσι τὴν βοήθειαν, ἐκκλησίαν συνήγαγεν ἕωθεν, καὶ προσαγγείλας τὰ παρὰ τῶν Μεγαρέων τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, ὡς ἐπεψηφίσαντο, τῇ σάλπιγγι σημήνας εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἦγεν αὐτοὺς τὰ ὅπλα λαβόντας. δεξαμένων δὲ τῶν Μεγαρέων προθύμως τήν τε Νίσαιαν ἐτείχισε, καὶ διὰ μέσου σκέλη δύο πρὸς τὸ ἐπίνειον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄστεος ἐνέβαλε, καὶ συνῆψε τῇ θαλάττῃ τήν πόλιν, ὥστε τῶν κατὰ γῆν πολεμίων ὀλίγον ἤδη φροντίζουσαν ἐξηρτῆσθαι τῶν Ἀθηναίων.

Commentary

Plutarch (T1) says that, on this occasion, Phokion called an assembly and announced to the Athenians an appeal for help which had been sent by the Megarians; the same source reports that a decree was then put to the vote (‘ὡς ἐπεψηφίσαντο’: Phoc. 16.1). Demosthenes (19.294–5, 334) provides the context for the appeal of the Megarian faction to the Athenians: two Megarians, Perillos and Ptoiodoros (Dem. 18.295 adds the name of Helixos) were engaged in negotiations with Philip, perhaps with a view to setting up a pro-Philip government. We may, therefore, presume that those Megarians who were worried about the onset of Philip or the prominence of pro-Philip politicians made this appeal to the Athenians. The internal affairs at Megara serve as a reminder that there were those in Greece who welcomed Philip, perhaps as a counterbalance to Athenian power (for Philip’s efforts to win influence in the context of a political crisis at Megara, and its failure, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.496–9). For discussion from a Megarian perspective, see Legon, Megara, 289–94; for the construction of the Megarian Long Walls of the 340s, an ‘incomplete Greek response to more powerful methods of attack’, see Conwell, Connecting, 146. According to the decree (T1), which may well have been a proposal of Phokion, the Athenians went under arms to Megara, Nisaia was enclosed with a wall, and Long Walls were built for the Megarians: Phokion’s force was met, apparently, without resistance. In the years that followed, the Megarians appear to have become closer to Athens and the anti-Macedonian coalition: see Legon, Megara, 294. Phokion is possibly associated with one other decree, that dispatching forces to the Hellespont of 340/39 (D157). Plutarch’s description of the political process behind the decree is simplistic (on occasions when an extra assembly was called, some consultation of the council or sitting prytaneis would have been necessary), but there is no reason to doubt the possibility that this force was sent by decree. For the possibility that extra meetings of the assembly per prytany could be called, see Harris,

d143 decree concerning an intervention at megara 529

T1 Once the Megarians made a secret appeal Phokion, fearing that the Boiotians might discover it and send help before the Athenians, called an assembly early in the morning, and announced the message from the Megarians to the Athenians. Once they had put a decree to the vote, the trumpeter gave the signal and he (Phokion) led them straightaway, bearing arms, from the assembly. The Megarians received him eagerly; he fortified Nisaia, and he constructed two Long Walls from the city down to the sea-port, and connected the city with the sea, so that they would not worry about enemies coming by land and would be connected with the Athenians.

Democracy, 81–120; against this view, Hansen (‘Ekklesia’, 306) expresses the opinion that after 355 ‘there was a bar on the number of meetings, and that the system did not allow to have more than four meetings per prytany’ but that they could plausibly have held an emergency meeting in contradiction of their own rules if they needed to do so. For the Athenian alliance with the Megarians and other Greek cities, which may (or may not) have predated this alliance, see D149 = Dem. 18.237.

Date

344/3. For discussion of the date, see Tritle, Phocion, 90. Griffith, History of Macedonia, II.497, puts it later, ‘in the third quarter of the year 343’.

Bibliography

Conwell, D.H., Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls. Leiden and Boston (2008) 146. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 497–504. Hansen, M.H., ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306. Harris, E.M., Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens: Essays on Law, Society, and Politics. Oxford (2006) 81–120. Legon, R.P., Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 BC. Ithaca (1981) 289–94. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 175. Tritle, L., Phocion the Good. New York (1988) 90–1.

D144 Proposal to respond to Philip’s letter and to the speeches of ambassadors Proposer: Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus (PA 6351; PAA 481555; APF) Date: 344/3

Literary Context

Philip had said that he would give the island of Halonnesos (on which, see DD 130, 140 above) to the Athenians but, after they insisted that it was their property, said he would not return it to them: see Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 7. T1 is the closing section of the speech On Halonnesos, in which Hegesippos ends his reply to Philip with a proposal.

Text

T1 [Dem.] 7.46: Ὑπόλοιπόν μοί ἐστιν ἔτι πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν εὖ ἔχουσαν καὶ τοὺς λόγους τῶν πρέσβεων γράψαι τὴν ἀπόκρισιν, ἣν ἡγοῦμαι δικαίαν τ’ εἶναι καὶ συμφέρουσαν ὑμῖν.

Commentary

The speaker of [Dem.] 7, identified by Libanius as Hegesippos (Hypothesis to Demosthenes 7, 2–4; cf. MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 343–6), replied to Philip’s letter and the speeches of his ambassadors. Hegesippos presented his proposal as one in accordance with justice and Athenian interests. However, as the speech breaks off at this point, it is impossible to be confident about the content of this response, or whether it took the shape of a decree. The content of the speech may, however, be used to make reasonable guesses about its substance: it may have refused the offer of Halonnesos as a gift from Philip’s own property (2), made proposals about clearing the sea of pirates (14; cf. [Dem.] 12.2), proposed that each side should retain its own possessions (18, 35), concerned the treatment of captives (38), or initiated arbitration over the question of the possession of the cities of the Chersonese (43). The fact that Hegesippos appears to have been vehement about resistance to Philip (see Davies, ‘Hegesippos’) suggests that it would have advocated Athenian resistance to Philip. 530

d144 proposal to respond to philip’s letter

531

T1  It remains for me to then, in reponse to this fine letter and the speeches of the ambassadors, propose an answer, which I believe to be both just and in your interests.

Date

343/2 (Harris, Aeschines, 170–1).

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: an underrated politician’ in Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour, in Honour of Nick Fisher. Swansea (2011) 11–23. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1995) 170–1. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 343–6. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 177–9.

D145 Decree concerning the execution of Anaxinos of Oreos

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 343 or later

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) claims that Demosthenes arranged the arrest of Anaxinos as a way of distracting the demos when Aeschines was on the point of impeaching him (Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 110). Aeschines goes on to make much of the fact that Demosthenes had contrived the arrest of his own guest-friend, someone with whom he had shared a table, and proposed the murder of his host; Demosthenes’ defence, which Aeschines claimed shocked the citizens and foreigners who heard it, was that he valued the city more than the table of his host (Aeschin 3.224; cf. Herman, Ritualized, 66; on the rhetoric of commensality in Demosthenic oratory, see Hobden, ‘Symposion’). Demosthenes (18.137) made corresponding accusations about his close relationship with Anaxinos of Oreos. Plutarch (T2) mentions the decree in a series of anecdotes about Demosthenes’ activity.

Texts

T1  Aeschin. 3.223–4: Οὐ τὸ τελευταῖον εἰσαγγέλλεσθαι μέλλων ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, τὴν Ἀναξίνου σύλληψιν τοῦ Ὠρείτου κατεσκεύασας, τοῦ τὰ ἀγοράσματα Ὀλυμπιάδι ἀγοράζοντος; καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δὶς στρεβλώσας τῇ σαυτοῦ χειρί, ἔγραψας αὐτὸν θανάτῳ ζημιῶσαι, καὶ παρὰ τῷ αὐτῷ ἐν Ὠρεῷ κατήγου, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς τραπέζης ἔφαγες καὶ ἔπιες καὶ ἔσπεισας, καὶ τὴν δεξιὰν ἐνέβαλες ἄνδρα φίλον καὶ ξένον ποιούμενος, [καὶ] τοῦτον ἀπέκτεινας. T2  [Plu.] X Or. 848a: Ἀναξίλαν δέ τινα Ὠρείτην, ξένον αὐτοῦ γεγονότα, συλλαβὼν ἐβασάνιζεν ὡς κατάσκοπον, οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἐξειπόντα ἐψηφίσατο τοῖς ἕνδεκα παραδοῦναι.

532

d145 decree concerning anaxinos of oreos

533

T1 And finally, when you were on the point of being impeached by me, did you not contrive the arrest of Anaxinos of Oreos, who was making purchases for Olympias? And with your own hand you twice tortured this man, and proposed that he be punished with death, the one who had hosted you in Oreos, and you killed this man with whom you ate, drank, and poured libations from the same table, and whose right hand you clasped, making him a friend and a guest-friend. T2 Having arrested him, he put to torture Anaxilas (sic) of Oreos, who had been a guest-friend of his, and on extracting nothing from him he made a decree to hand him over to the Eleven.

534

inventory a2

Commentary

Aeschines (T1) claims that in 343, when Demosthenes was on the point of being impeached by him, Demosthenes had Anaxinos of Oreos arrested, who was ‘doing shopping for Olympias’ (the mother of Alexander), twice tortured him and proposed that he be punished with death. [Plutarch] (T2) suggests that Anaxinos (calling him Anaxilas) had been a guest-friend of Demosthenes, and that the decree to hand him over to the Eleven (for execution) was proposed after he would admit nothing under torture. Demosthenes (18.137) added that he was caught in a secret meeting with Aeschines. Lewis, News, 29, suggests that Aeschines’ relationship with Anaxinos would have provided him with information about Oreos (Aeschin. 3.103–5), such as the Oreans’ award of money to Demosthenes. As Carey, Aeschines, 240 note 255, observes, ‘Anaxinus may well have been engaged in purchasing for Olympias, but it would be surprising if the opportunity to gather information on Athens was passed over.’ Hansen (Eisangelia, no. 111), observing that the treatment of Anaxinos appears to have been initiated by a decree passed in the assembly, counts the trial of Anaxinos as a case of impeachment (eisangelia); the other possibility is that he was subject to apophasis (an investigation leading to impeachment; see D195 below). This current collection of decrees in literary texts does not attempt to count all the evidence for decrees that led to eisangeliai trials (see, however, Inventory C II 5.1 below); however, the uncertainty about the process and Plutarch’s description of Demosthenes making a decree to hand him over to the Eleven (T2) leads me to include it in this collection of decrees.

Date

343 or later. As Hansen, Eisangelia, 103 points out, the terminus post quem is Python’s embassy to Athens in 344/3 (Dem 18.136); the terminus ante quem is the outbreak of war against Philip in 340 (Dem. 18.139).

Bibliography

Carey, C., Aeschines. Austin (2000) 240. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) 103. Herman, G., Ritualized Friendship in the Greek City. Cambridge (1987) 66. Hobden, F., ‘Symposion and the rhetorics of commensality in Demosthenes 19, On the False Embassy’ in Rollenbilder in der athenischen Demokratie: Medien, Gruppen, Räume im politischen und sozialen System. Beiträge zu einem interdisciplinären Kolloquium in Freiburg i. Br., 24.–25. November 2006, eds. C. Mann, M. Haake and R. van den Hoff. Wiesbaden (2009) 71–87. Lewis, S., News and Society in the Greek Polis. London (1992) 29.

d146 the crowning of an embassy

535

D146 The crowning of an embassy

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF pp. 113–15) Date: 343/2

Literary Context

In his account of those acts of Demosthenes which caused disturbance and war for Athens, Aeschines (T1) offers the example of the crowning of Aristodemos’ embassy. His point was that Demosthenes’ crowning supported the kind of meddling which would provoke war with Philip.

536

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.83: Καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον στεφανώσας τοὺς μετὰ Ἀριστοδήμου εἰς Θετταλίαν καὶ Μαγνησίαν παρὰ τὰς τῆς εἰρήνης συνθήκας πρεσβεύσαντας, τὴν μὲν εἰρήνην διέλυσε, τὴν δὲ συμφορὰν καὶ τὸν πόλεμον κατεσκεύασεν.

Commentary

Demosthenes proposed to crown the embassy led by Aristodemos to Thessaly and Magnesia (presumably the one put at 343/2 by the scholiast to Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 181: see DP 65 below). The scholiast to Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 182), claims that the aim was to provoke the Thessalians and Magnesians into causing trouble for Philip (for Philip’s attempts to get them under his thumb, and his promise to hand over Magnesia to the Thessalians, see Dem. 2.7; for his re-organisation of Thessalian government in the period 344–2 into a tetrarchy, see Harding, From the End, no. 87; generally, on his control of Thessaly, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.523–44). Demosthenes, in the Second Philippic, made claims about the Thessalians being disillusioned with Philip’s rule (Dem. 6.22). As early as 349/8, he had urged the Athenians to send embassies to them (Dem. 2.11) as a way of encouraging revolt. The scholiast to Aeschin 3.83 Dilts 182 (D130 T16), explains that the mission was ‘contrary to the provisions of the Peace (of Philokrates)’ (‘παρὰ τὰς τῆς εἰρήνης συνθήκας’), by saying that it was written in the treaty that the parties would not encourage each others’ allies to revolt. The Athenians were unsuccesful in their attempts to win over the Thessalians, or to take advantage of the existence of conflicted factions: the Thessalians were dominated by the Macedonians and the Aleuads were driven out by Philip: Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.526; Tracy, ‘The Thessalians’, 30. Aristodemos, an actor, probably a naturalised Metapontine (Osborne, Naturalisation, PT 134), was sent as ambassador to Philip after the fall of Olynthos in 348/7 (Aeschin. 2.15), and again in 347/6 as many as three times: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 37, s.v. Aristodemos. He had previously been crowned for his ambassadorial activity in 347: see D124 above. For discussion of the award of crowns to ambassadors in this era, see D118, Commentary above. For the proposals of Demosthenes, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

343/2 (Scholiast to Aeschin 3.83, Dilts 181).

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 523–44.

d147 decree of alliance with chalkis

537

T1 And finally by crowning those on the embassy with Aristodemos to Thessaly and Magnesia, contrary to the provisions of the Peace, he put an end to the Peace and furnished disaster and war.

Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 113. Tracy, S.V., ‘The Thessalians and Athenians from the Persian Wars to the Lamian War’ in Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, eds. A. Tamis, C.J. Mackie and S.G. Byrne. Athens (2010) 24–32.

D147 Decree of alliance with Chalkis

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 343/2 or 342/1

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) quotes this decree to support the allegation that Demosthenes surrendered opportunities that the city had: in particular, he claims that Demosthenes missed the chance of bringing the Chalkidians back into the synedrion of the Second Athenian Confederacy. Demosthenes did not reply to Aeschines’ accusation that he had taken bribes from Kallias of Chalkis to make this alliance (Aeschin. 3.91), but claimed in response that Aeschines was working on behalf of the tyrants of Eretria, who were themselves the representatives of Philip (Dem. 18.81–2). In the act of contrasting his own activities with those of Aeschines, Demosthenes referred also to his proposals of friendship and alliance with the Euboians at 18.302 (cf. D151 T1 below), which could be a reference to the alliance at T1.

538

inventory a2

Text

T1  Aeschin. 3.92–3: Ὁ μισοτύραννος Δημοσθένης, ὡς αὐτὸς προσποιεῖται, ὅν φησι Κτησιφῶν ‘τὰ βέλτιστα λέγειν’, ἀπέδοτο μὲν τοὺς καιροὺς τοὺς τῆς πόλεως, ἔγραψε δ’ ἐν τῇ συμμαχίᾳ βοηθεῖν ἡμᾶς Χαλκιδεῦσι, ῥῆμα μόνον ἀντικαταλλαξάμενος ἀντὶ τούτων, εὐφημίας ἕνεκα προσγράψας καὶ Χαλκιδέας βοηθεῖν, ‘ἐάν τις ἴῃ ἐπ’ Ἀθηναίους’·  τὰς δὲ συνεδρίας καὶ τὰς συντάξεις, ἐξ ὧν ἰσχύσειν ὁ πόλεμος ἤμελλεν, ἄρδην ἀπέδοτο, καλλίστοις ὀνόμασιν αἰσχίστας πράξεις γράφων, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ προσβιβάζων ὑμᾶς, τὰς μὲν βοηθείας ὡς δεῖ τὴν πόλιν πρότερον ποιεῖσθαι τοῖς ἀεὶ δεομένοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων, τὰς δὲ συμμαχίας ὑστέρας μετὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας. ἵνα δ᾽ εὖ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω, λαβέ μοι τὴν Καλλίᾳ γραφεῖσαν [καὶ τὴν] συμμαχίαν. ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισμα. Ψήφισμα.

Commentary

Kallias of Chalkis had been involved in freeing Euboia from the tyrant, Ploutarchos (who was at points supported by the Athenians: see DP 58; D114), in 348 (Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.547), and had apparently worked as a friend of Philip (Aeschin. 3.86); this made him unpopular with many in Athens. However, by the late 340s, according to Aeschines, Kallias conceived a plan to revive the federation of the Euboian cities with a council at Chalkis (Wallace, The Euboian, 16–20; Knoepfler, ‘The Euboian’ 159, 166). Initially, he sought support from the Thebans and Philip, but fell out with them (Aeschin. 3.89–90). Concerned about the looming power of the Thebans and Macedonians, probably in 343, he sent envoys to Athens (Aeschin. 3.91); Aeschines alleges that he bribed Demosthenes to make an alliance, which would at the same time allow the Chalkidians to remain outside the Athenian confederacy (Aeschin. 3.91). Aeschines appears to allude to the alliance also at 3.84, referring to it as an agreement with the Euboians, and sarcastically repeating Demosthenes’ claim that it fortified Athenian territory ‘with walls of copper and steel’. Demosthenes appears to have seen the potential in making an alliance with Kallias in the war against the Macedonians and seems to have accepted his idea of a Euboian Confederacy; the alliance meant that the Athenians and the Chalkidians were required to assist one another if anyone marched against them (T1), but it appears also to have agreed both that the Euboians would remain outside the Second Athenian Confederacy and that their cities would no longer pay money to the Athenians but to a Euboian Confederacy (Aeschin. 3.94). However, as Harris, Aeschines, 120, points out, the Athenians lost the financial income of the Euboian cities not from the diplomatic efforts of Demosthenes, but effectively as a result of military defeat back in 348: ‘he [Demosthenes] knew that the only way Kallias could rally the Euboians behind the leadership of Chalkis was to

d147 decree of alliance with chalkis

539

T1 Demosthenes, that hater of tyrants, as he makes himself out to be, whom Ktesiphon says ‘speaks the best things’, gave up the opportunities of the city, when he proposed in an alliance for us to send help to the Chalkidians, stating in return for this a mere phrase adding, to make it sound good, that the Chalkidians are to send help ‘if ever anyone goes against the Athenians’; but the membership (of the synod) and its contributions, from which there would be strength in the upcoming war, he surrendered totally, proposing the most shameful deeds with the fairest words, and leading you on with the claim that it was necessary for the city to send help always to those other Greeks who need it, and to make alliances after doing good deeds. So that you might see that I tell the truth, take for me the alliance proposed with Kallias. Read the decree. Decree.

support them to defend the independence of the island from outside interference.’ Indeed, as Carey, Aeschines, 196, note 103, points out, Aeschines’ claim that Demosthenes missed the opportunity to restore the Confederacy distorted the reality of the time, when the terms of the alliance with Chalkis were probably the best outcome that the Athenians could possibly have hoped for. For Philip’s interest in Euboia, and the observation that its disunity made it ‘an interventionists’ paradise even by Greek standards’, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.501–4. On the history of the Euboian League in this era, see Wallace, The Euboian, 8–27; Knoepfler ‘The Euboian’, 166–9. The relationship between this alliance and that with the Chalkidians before the liberation of Oreos during Skirophorion 342/1 (mentioned by Philochorus, F159 in Didymos col. 1.15) is problematic (see D153 below). Cawkwell (‘Demosthenes’, 210–13; Philip, 56–66) separates the two, suggesting that Aeschines 3.91–3 refers to a decree of 343/2 whereas Didymos’ decree can be dated to Skirophorion 342/1; Brunt (‘Euboea,’ 255–9) and Griffith (History of Macedonia, 2.545–52), however, believe the two to be the same. For testimonia relating to Kallias, see Osborne, Naturalization, T73; Osborne, Commentary on T73 believes that the Athenians made a grant of citizenship to Kallias and his brother, Taurosthenes, at the same time as the alliance was made, but places the award in the period 341 to 330: see D231 below. The decree was read out to the audience in the lawcourt (T1).

Date

343/2 (Cawkwell, ‘Demosthenes’, 210–13; Philip, 56–66), or 342/1 (Brunt, ‘Euboea’, 255–9 and Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.545–52); cf. Sealey, Demosthenes, 262–4.

inventory a2

540

Bibliography

Brunt, P.A., ‘Euboea in the time of Philip II’, CQ 63 (1969) 245–65. Carey, C., Aeschines, Austin (2000) 196. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Demosthenes’ policy after the Peace of Philocrates’, CQ 13 (1963) 120– 38, 200–13. Cawkwell, G.L., Philip of Macedon. London (1978). Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 545–52. Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford (1994) 120. Knoepfler, D., ‘The Euboian League  – an “irregular” koinon?’ in Federalism in Greek Antiquity, eds. H. Beck and P. Funke. Cambridge (2015) 158–78. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T73. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 262–4. Wallace, W.P., The Euboian League and its Coinage. New York (1956) 8–27.

D148a Dispatch of ambassadors to Euboia Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 343/2

Literary Context

In a passage of his speech On the Crown, Demosthenes boasts about a string of proposals that he claims helped in the resistance to Philip; among them is this embassy to Euboia, which he claims he proposed when Philip was encroaching on Athenian interests (for other examples, see DD 139 above, 154, 155 below).

Text

T1 Dem. 18.79: Ἔγραψα … εἶτα τὴν εἰς Εὔβοιαν, ἡνίκ’ Εὐβοίας ἥπτετο.

d148a dispatch of ambassadors to euboia

T1 I proposed ... (an embassy) to Euboia, when he (Philip) was attacking it.

541

542

inventory a2

Commentary

Despite Demosthenes’ claims, the embassy mentioned here may well have had limited impact: as Harding, Didymos, 104, suggests, it may have been the one spurned by the Eretrians who then went over to the tyrant Kleitarchos (Dem. 9.66), in which case it should be dated to 343/2. Harding believes that Demosthenes was referring to the same embassy as that referred to by Aeschin. 3.100: see D148b below.

Date

343/2 (Sealey, Demosthenes, 260, 264).

Bibliography

Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006) 104. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 259–64.

D148b (= 148a?) Decree for ambassadors to go to Eretria and Oreos Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 343/2 or Summer 341

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) presents a one-sided account of Demosthenes’ proposals for ambassadors to be dispatched to Eretria and Oreos: he offers it as an example of Demosthenes’ hyperbolic style but also uses it to maintain the view that his policy was a failure. He goes on to claim that Demosthenes had taken bribes from the tyrants of Eretria and Chalkis in proposing the decree; meanwhile, when the people of Oreos offered to set up a bronze statue of Demosthenes in their city, and he declined, they paid off Demosthenes by mortgaging their public revenue (Aeschin. 3.103–5). The claim that the decree was ‘longer than the Iliad’, as Deborah Kamen points out, has some resonance with the claim in Aristophanes, Clouds 1018–19, that the student of the Wrong Argument will come out with, among other things, a ‘ψήφισμα μακρόν’: in Classical Athens, wordiness in the drafting of decrees was met with criticism (for discussion see Volume 2, Chapter 2.5.1). The decree was read out to the people in court in 330 (Aeschin. 3.100).

543

544

inventory a2

Text

T1  Aeschin. 3.100–102: Ταῦτα δ᾽ εἰπὼν δίδωσιν ἀναγνῶναι ψήφισμα τῷ γραμματεῖ μακρότερον μὲν τῆς Ἰλιάδος, κενότερον δὲ τῶν λόγων οὓς εἴωθε λέγειν, καὶ τοῦ βίου ὃν βεβίωκε, μεστὸν δ᾽ ἐλπίδων οὐκ ἐσομένων καὶ στρατοπέδων οὐδέποτε συλλεγησομένων. ἀπαγαγὼν δ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἄπωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ κλέμματος καὶ ἀνακρεμάσας ἀπὸ τῶν ἐλπίδων, ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἤδη συστρέψας γράφει [καὶ κελεύει] ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις εἰς Ἐρέτριαν, οἵτινες δεήσονται τῶν Ἐρετριέων, (πάνυ γὰρ ἔδει δεηθῆναι) μηκέτι διδόναι τὴν σύνταξιν ὑμῖν, τὰ πέντε τάλαντα, ἀλλὰ Καλλίᾳ, καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρους [αἱρεῖσθαι] εἰς Ὠρεόν [πρὸς τοὺς Ὠρείτας πρέσβεις] οἵτινες δεήσονται τὸν αὐτὸν Ἀθηναίοις καὶ φίλον καὶ ἐχθρὸν νομίζειν. ἔπειτα ἀναφαίνεται παρ᾽ ἅπαντ᾽ ὢν ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι πρὸς τῷ κλέμματι, γράψας καὶ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα τοὺς πρέσβεις ἀξιοῦν τοὺς Ὠρείτας μὴ ὑμῖν, ἀλλὰ Καλλίᾳ διδόναι. ὅτι δ᾽ ἀληθῆ λέγω, ἀφελὼν τὸν κόμπον καὶ τὰς τριήρεις καὶ τὴν ἀλαζονείαν ἀνάγνωθι· τοῦ κλέμματος ἅψαι, ὃ ὑφείλετο ὁ μιαρὸς καὶ ἀνόσιος ἄνθρωπος, ὅν φησι Κτησιφῶν ἐν τῷδε τῷ ψηφίσματι ‘διατελεῖν λέγοντα καὶ πράττοντα τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων’. Ψήφισμα.  Οὐκοῦν τὰς μὲν τριήρεις καὶ τὴν πεζὴν στρατιὰν καὶ τὴν πανσέληνον καὶ τοὺς συνέδρους λόγῳ ἠκούσατε, τὰς δὲ συντάξεις τῶν συμμάχων, τὰ δέκα τάλαντα, ἔργῳ ἀπωλέσατε.

Commentary

Aeschines’ account of the decree leaves little doubt that it selected ambassadors to travel to the Euboian cities, both Eretria and Oreos. Aeschines (T1) suggests that the decree may have diverted the tribute (syntaxis) of 5 Talents from both the people of Eretria and Oreos towards the Euboian Confederacy (on which, see D147 Commentary above) rather than the Athenians. However, his hyperbolic description of the decree as ‘longer than the Iliad’ and his references to an expeditionary force, triremes, and the full moon, leave some doubt as to the precise extent and content of the decree. It appears to be the case that Athens’ alliance with the Chalkidians (see D147 above) of 343/2 or 342/1 included an agreement that the states of Euboia would no longer pay money to the treasury of the Second Athenian Confederacy, but that they would contribute instead to the Euboian Confederacy (D147 T1; see also Aeschin. 3.94): this seems to be one of the provisions of Demosthenes’ decree sending an embassy to the Eretrians and people of Oreos. It may have preceded the Athenian campaign against the Euboian tyrants in the summer of 341 (see D155 below). Alternatively, Harding, Didymos, 104, believes that this embassy should be associated with the one that Demosthenes (9.66) says was

d148b (= 148a?) decree for ambassadors

545

T1 When he had said this, he gave to the secretary a decree to read out; though longer than the Iliad, it was more empty than the speeches which he is accustomed to speaking and the life that he has lived: it was full of hopes that would not be realised and of armies which would never be mustered. And after distracting you from his fraud and raising up your hopes, he then makes a decree proposing the selection of ambassadors to Eretria, who would ask the Eretrians (indeed they needed to be asked) no longer to give their five Talent contribution to you, but to Kallias; (he decreed) that other ambassadors were to be sent to Oreos, who would beg the city to consider the friends and enemies of the Athenians theirs. Then he demonstrated that throughout the whole of the decree his intention was loot, proposing in addition that the envoys should ask the people of Oreos to give the five Talents not to us but to Kallias. To show that I am telling the truth, read out specifically the theft perpetrated by this vile and wicked man – the one who Ktesiphon says in his decree ‘consistently speaks and does the best things for the people of Athens’  – leaving aside the pomp and the triremes and pretence. Decree.  And so while you have heard about the triremes, the infantry expedition, the full moon and the congress as his ideal, the reality is that you have lost the contributions of the allies and the ten Talents.

rejected by the Eretrians in the context of the rise of the tyrant Kleitarchos in 343/2 (see D148a above). Aeschines (3.102–3) goes on to claim that Demosthenes was paid three Talents for making this motion: a Talent from Chalkis, paid by Kallias, one from Eretria, paid by the tyrant Kleitarchos, and one from Oreos; the latter example is proved, he alleges, by the accounts of democratic Oreos (Aeschin. 3.103–105). Oreos (on which see Kalcyk, ‘Histiaea’) was a member of the Second Athenian Confederacy for much of the fourth century; for Athenian intervention there in 378/7 see DP 23. Its support of the Athenians, however, dissipated during the period of the pro-Philip tyrant Philistides (Dem. 9.33, 59), probably c. 343–1; he was overthrown in a joint Athenian–Chalkidian attack during the summer of 341: see Didymos, On Demosthenes, col 1 lines 17–18. For its democratic form of government, restored by the Athenians in 341, see Robinson, Democracy, 175–6.

Date

343/2 or summer 341.

inventory a2

546

Bibliography

Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006) 104. Kalcyk, H., ‘Histiaea’ in Brill’s New Pauly, eds. H. Cancik, H. Schneider and M. Landfester. English trans. ed. C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry, 13 vols. Leiden (2002–14) 6.402 Robinson, E.W., Democracy Beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge (2011) 175–6. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 259–64.

D149 Alliances with Achaians and others (presumably by decree) Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Around 343/2 (and later)

Literary Context

As a way of defending his policy and Ktesiphon’s honorific decree for him, Demosthenes (T1) boasts about his record of creating positive alliances for the Athenians.

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.237: Ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἐκ τοιούτων ἐλαττωμάτων ἐγὼ συμμάχους μὲν ὑμῖν ἐποίησα Εὐβοέας, Ἀχαιούς, Κορινθίους, Θηβαίους, Μεγαρέας, Λευκαδίους, Κερκυραίους, ἀφ᾽ ὧν μύριοι μὲν καὶ πεντακισχίλιοι ξένοι, δισχίλιοι δ᾽ ἱππεῖς ἄνευ τῶν πολιτικῶν δυνάμεων συνήχθησαν· χρημάτων δ᾽ ὅσων ἐδυνήθην ἐγὼ πλείστων συντέλειαν ἐποίησα. T2 Scholion on Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 181, 182): Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ Πυθοδότου ἄρχοντος … ἔπεμψαν πολλαχοῦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρεσβείας περὶ συμμαχίας … ἐγένοντο μὲν οὖν αὐτοῖς τότε σύμμαχοι Ἀχαιοί, Ἀρκάδες οἱ μετὰ Μαντινέων, Ἀργεῖοι, Μεγαλοπολῖται, Μεσσήνιοι.

d149 alliances with achaians and others

547

T1 But despite all of these disadvantages, I made alliances for you with the Euboians, the Achaians, the Corinthians, the Thebans, the Megarians, the Leukadians, the Corcyreans, from whom there were assembled troops amounting to 15,000 mercenaries and 2,000 cavalry, not counting their citizen-soldiery; I also obtained from them the biggest contribution of money that I was able. T2  ‘In the archonship of Pythodotos the Athenians … sent envoys to many parts of Greece (to talk) about alliance… and so at that point the Achaians, the Arcadians associated with the Mantineians, the Argives, the Megalopolitans, and the Messenians became allies with them.

548

inventory a2

Commentary

T1 suggests that Demosthenes was connected with these alliances and the levy of forces, and that he may have been the proposer of some or all of them. However, Demosthenes’ vagueness leaves this nothing more than a possibility, and it is likely that some of the alliances were made over a number of years down to the immediate period before Chaironeia: for the view that Demosthenes was responsible for creating a league of Greek states, see Harding, From the End, no. 93 (= document in [Plut.], X Or. 851b). Demosthenes’ claims tie together with the evidence of a scholiast on Aeschines 3.83 (T2 = Harding, From the End, no. 89a), which says that in the archonship of Pythodotos (343/2) the Athenians sent ambassadors to many Greek states (see DP 65), and there came about alliances with Achaians, those Arkadians associated with the Mantineians, Argives, Megalopolitans, and Messenians (cf. IG II3 1 308, a fragmentary alliance with the Messenians of the tenth prytany of the year). Indeed, Demosthenes’ involvement in these alliances is underlined by the testimonia which suggest that probably in 344/3, Demosthenes went to the Peloponnese as a way of rallying assistance against Philip: Dem. 6.19–20; 18.79 = D139. The fact that the only epigraphically extant decree of Demosthenes is a proxeny decree, sometimes thought to be for three Megarians (IG II3 1 312), may speculatively be associated with his diplomatic dealings with that city. For Athenian alliances with the Euboians, see DD 147, 153; with the Thebans, see D163, though an earlier alliance is plausible too; with Megara, see Bengtson, SVA 332 (dated around 343); with the Leukadians and Corcyreans, which may have come about after Philip threatened them in 342, see Dem. 9.34; no alliance is otherwise known with the Corinthians. It is almost certain that these alliances would have been made by decree, but it is unclear whether they were made by separate decrees. Demosthenes certainly exaggerates the significance of these alliances: as Sealey, Demosthenes, 177 points out, in the war that led to Chaironeia, most of these states remained neutral and only the Achaians fought against Philip. Plutarch (Dem. 17.4–5) relates that Demosthenes contributed towards bringing Greek states into alliance; not only does he give the same list of communities with which the Athenians made alliances, but he reports the same figures as T1 for the size of his force; the document in [Plu.] X Or. 851b gives a different number (10,000 foot soldiers and 1,000 cavalry). The precise nature of this alliance is, however, obscure.

Date

Of the alliances listed at T2 that with the Messenians can be dated to late 343/2 (IG II3 1 308 lines 1–2: ‘during the tenth prytany’).

d150 decree on athenian settlers at the chersonese 549

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA, 337. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 113, 117. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 177.

D150 Decree on Athenian settlers at the Chersonese Proposer: ?Polykrates son of Polykrates (PA 12027; PAA 779315) Date: 343/2 or later

Literary Context

The author of [Dem.] 12, Philip’s Letter, posing as Philip (see D142 Literary Context above), defends his decision to escort his fleet’s movement to the Hellespont with a land force.

550

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Dem.] 12.16: Εἰς τοῦτο δὲ προβεβήκαμεν ἔχθρας ὥστε βουλόμενος ταῖς ναυσὶν εἰς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον παραβαλεῖν ἠναγκάσθην αὐτὰς παραπέμψαι διὰ Χερρονήσου τῇ στρατιᾷ, τῶν μὲν κληρούχων κατὰ τὸ Πολυκράτους δόγμα πολεμούντων ἡμῖν, ὑμῶν δὲ τοιαῦτα ψηφιζομένων, τοῦ δὲ στρατηγοῦ Βυζαντίους τε παρακαλοῦντος καὶ διαγγέλλοντος πρὸς ἅπαντας ὅτι πολεμεῖν αὐτῷ προστάττετε, ἂν καιρὸν λάβῃ.

Commentary

In 353/2 after Kersobleptes the son of Kotys had handed over the cities on the Chersonese (the modern Gallipoli peninsula: see Loukoupoulou, ‘Thracian Chersonesos,’ 904–5) to the Athenians with the exception of Kardia, the Athenians dispatched settlers there (see DP 52 = D.S. 16.34.4; IG II2 1613 lines 297–8; Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 23–31; for a further cleruchy, see DP 63). Inspired by a history of Athenian settlement on the Chersonese which stretched back to the late sixth century (see Loukoupoulou, ‘Thracian Chersonese’, ­904–5), the Athenians sent settlers again in 343/2: see Hypothesis to Dem. 8.1–5  = DP  63. Tensions between Athenian and Macedonian interests in the area were high: Kersobleptes’ defeat at the hands of Philip after the Peace of Philokrates (which led to his son being taken hostage at Philip’s court (Aeschin. 2.81) and again in 342 (D.S. 16.71.1–2) endangered Athenian interests. Athenian territorial claims about the Chersonese were long-term considerations of the Athenians: Dem. 9.16. T1 refers to a dogma of Polykrates, which called for Athenian cleruchs at the Hellespont to make war on Philip’s forces there. This is the sole testimonium for the decree (although Dem. 8.6 makes reference to unspecificed decrees concerning Athenian possessions threatened by Philip), and different views of it have been expressed. For example, Vince (Demosthenes I, 344), suggests that Polykrates was the author of a decree by which colonists had been sent out; the text of T1, however, suggests that this was not the decree which had sent out the settlers. There are also strong indications that the Athenians reinforced their cleruchy on the Chersonese in the late 340s perhaps with the movements associated with Diopeithes (see DP 63 and 64 and Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 28–9 and 73–4), but it seems more likely that Polykrates’ decree may have aimed to mobilise Athenian settlers in the region against Philip, who was threatening Athenian interests in the area at the time (see Dem. 18.301-2 = D151 above). The relation of the dogma to the phrase ‘ὑμῶν δὲ τοιαῦτα ψηφιζομένων’ is unclear: the phrase seems to refer to the Athenians passing additional decrees hostile to

d150 decree on athenian settlers at the chersonese 551

T1  Hostility between us has come to such a level that, when I intended to cross the Hellespont with my fleet, I was forced to send my army as an escort through the Chersonese, since your cleruchs were making war on us in accordance with the decree (dogma) of Polykrates, you were proposing decrees of a similar kind, and your general was urging on the Byzantians and announcing to all hearers that you were ordering him to make war on me, were he to get the opportunity.

Philip. Such Athenian movements should be understood as closely related to an alliance with the Byzantians of spring 341: see D151 below. For further Athenian intervention on the Chersonese, see D158 and Commentary below. Athenian decrees are not usually referred to as dogmata; the phrase may plausibly be a reference to a decree of the synedrion of the Second Athenian Confederacy or even a decree of the cleruchs themselves. Chankowski, ‘Le terme’, pointing to Aeschin. 3.42, has recently made a case that the term dogma might be used as a synonym for psephisma; for other examples of the term definitely or possibly referring to an Athenian decree, see D22 T1 = FGrH 328 F40a; D48 T1 = Xen. Hell. 6.2.2; D53 T1 = Xen. Hell. 6.5.1–3. Xenophon uses the term once to refer to a decree of the boule (6.5.33) as dogmata (on Xenophon’s documentary terminology, see Bearzot, ‘The use of documents’). For an example of the term dogma used to refer to a decision of the allies, see D130 T2. For the view that the decree here is probably one of the Athenian people, see Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 163. On the other hand, this use of the term dogma may be another of the idiosyncratic features of its author. For the view that it was written by an Isocratean ‘speech writer’ penning it in the supposed style of a Macedonian king, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.714–15. For the view that it was a genuine text of a letter of Philip, see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 363–6. The author of [Dem.] 12 associates the name of Polykrates with the dogma; a certain Polykrates son of Polykrates (perhaps known also from a bouleutic catalogue (Agora XV 36 line 18)) proposed honours for Orontes in 349/8 (IG II3 1 295 line 2), and may well be the proposer of this, but certainty is impossible. For discussion of this individual, see Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 387.

Date

343/2 (if Polykrates’ decree was in fact the dispatch of a cleruchy: Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 28); or later, if this can be related to Philip’s aggression. The date of 341 for [Dem.] 12 provides a likely terminus ante quem.

552

Bibliography

inventory a2

Bearzot, C., ‘The use of documents in Xenophon’s Hellenica’ in Between Thucydides and Polybius: The Golden Age of Greek Historiography, ed. G. Parmeggiani. Cambridge, MA, (2014) 89–114. Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC: Mnemosyne Supplement 145. Leiden and New York (1995) 28, 387. Chankowski, A., ‘Le terme δόγμα comme synonyme du terme ψήφισμα: à propos du décret de la tribu Akamantis SEG 23 (1968), n° 78, l. 1–12 (Reinmuth, Eph. Inscr. 1, l. 1–12), du décret de Latmos SEG 47 (1997), n° 1563 et du décret de Nagidos SEG 39 (1989), n° 1426, l. 19–56’, ZPE 195 (1995) 91–8. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 714–15. Loukoupoulou, L., ‘Thracian Chersonesos’ in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, eds. M.H. Hansen and T.-H. Nielsen. Oxford (2004) 900–11. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 363–6. Vince, J.H., Demosthenes, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA and London (1930) 344–5.

D151 Alliance with Byzantians

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF) Date: Spring 341?

Literary Context

In the final comparison made in the On the Crown speech between his own conduct and that of Aeschines, Demosthenes presents, succinctly, a series of policies that he himself proposed.

553

554

inventory a2

Text

T1  Dem. 18.301–2: Τί χρῆν τὸν εὔνουν πολίτην ποιεῖν, τί τὸν μετὰ πάσης προνοίας καὶ προθυμίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος πολιτευόμενον; οὐκ ἐκ μὲν θαλάττης τὴν Εὔβοιαν προβαλέσθαι πρὸ τῆς Ἀττικῆς, ἐκ δὲ τῆς μεσογείας τὴν Βοιωτίαν, ἐκ δὲ τῶν πρὸς Πελοπόννησον τόπων τοὺς ὁμόρους ταύτῃ; οὐ τὴν σιτοπομπίαν, ὅπως παρὰ πᾶσαν φιλίαν ἄχρι τοῦ Πειραιῶς κομισθήσεται, προϊδέσθαι; καὶ τὰ μὲν σῶσαι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ἐκπέμποντα βοηθείας καὶ λέγοντα καὶ γράφοντα τοιαῦτα, τὴν Προκόννησον, τὴν Χερρόνησον, τὴν Τένεδον, τὰ δ’ ὅπως οἰκεῖα καὶ σύμμαχ’ ὑπάρξει πρᾶξαι, τὸ Βυζάντιον, τὴν Ἄβυδον, τὴν Εὔβοιαν; καὶ τῶν μὲν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ὑπαρχουσῶν δυνάμεων τὰς μεγίστας ἀφελεῖν, ὧν δ’ ἐνέλειπε τῇ πόλει, ταῦτα προσθεῖναι; ταῦτα τοίνυν ἅπαντα πέπρακται τοῖς ἐμοῖς ψηφίσμασι καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πολιτεύμασιν.

Commentary

As Demosthenes makes clear, Byzantion was an essential city in securing the Athenian grain supply, but it was also important owing to Athenian political presence in the area; for discussion of its location, see von Bredow, ‘Byzantium’. According to Xenophon, Thrasyboulos changed its political regime to a democracy so that it would be aligned with the Athenians (Xen. Hell. 4.8.27); however, the Byzantians revolted at the time of the Social War (D.S. 16.7.3). For the Athenians’ unsuccessful plan to besiege the city, see D.S. 16.21.2–4. By early 341, Demosthenes in his Third Philippic was encouraging the Athenians to make preparations to take action (Dem. 9.19), to dispatch embassies across Greece (Dem. 9.71–2), and to send funds to those in the Chersonese (9.73). At the same time the Athenians had begun to make overtures to the Byzantians since they were aware of Philip’s threats to the area. The testimonium for Polykrates’ dogma (for which see D150 above), suggests that the Athenians may have been urging the Byzantians to resist Philip before the alliance was made. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.563, citing Dem 8.14 and 9.35, suggests that it took several months for the Byzantians (who were still the allies of Philip in summer 341) to accept the Athenian proposals. But the alliance was an important one as the Byzantians resisted Philip’s siege in 340/39: D.S. 16.75.2–76.4. For Demosthenes’ proposed alliance with the Euboians, see D147 above; for that with Abydos, see D152 below.

d152 alliance with the abydians

555

T1 What was necessary for the right-minded citizen politician to do, what was best for the one who with all possible foresight and energy and justice was proposing policy on behalf of his fatherland? Surely it was to protect Attica on the sea by Euboia, on the mainland by Boiotia, and at the places facing towards the Peloponnese by our neighbours in that region? And wasn’t it to ensure the passage of grain so that it would be brought in along friendly coasts as far as Piraeus, and to preserve, by resolutions and speeches dispatching aid, those places which were already well-disposed towards us, that is Prokonnesos, the Chersonese, and Tenedos, and to secure the friendship and alliance of places such as Byzantion, Abydos and Euboia? And wasn’t it to deprive the enemy of their most important resources, and to preserve the things that our city had? All these things have been accomplished by my decrees and my political measures!

Date

Proposed in spring 341 (Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.563 note 4).

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 563. Von Bredow, I., ‘Byzantium’ in Brill’s New Pauly, eds. H. Cancik, H. Schneider and M. Landfester. English trans. ed. C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry. Leiden, (2002–14) 2.846–58.

D152 Alliance with the Abydians Proposer: Demosthenes Date: Spring 341?

Literary Context See D151 above.

556

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 18.301–2: see D151 above.

Commentary

The context for this alliance, which is alluded to only briefly, is hard to know, but it is plausible to think that it was proposed around the time of the Athenian alliance with the Byzantians (see D151 above). Abydos, a city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont, opposite Sestos on the Thracian Chersonese, was a member of the Athenian empire until its revolt in 411 (Thuc. 8.61–2) and appears to have been under Persian rule until the time of Alexander the Great: see Mitchell, OCD, s. v. Abydos. For its strategic importance (located at the narrowest part of the Hellespont, and with the safest harbour on the Hellespont), which meant that armies travelling between Asia and Europe frequently passed through it, see Schwertheim, ‘Abydus’.

Date

Possibly in the spring of 341, around the time of the Athenian alliance with the Byzantians (see D151 above).

Bibliography

Mitchell, S., ‘Abydos’ in Oxford Classical Dictionary. 4th ed, eds. S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth and E. Eidinow. Oxford (2012) 1–2. Schwertheim, E., ‘Abydus’ in Brill’s New Pauly, eds. H. Cancik, H. Schneider and M. Landfester. English trans. eds. C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry. Leiden, (2002–14) 1.38.

D153 Alliance with the Chalkidians Proposer: Unknown Date: Spring/Summer 341

Literary Context

Didymus, in his commentary on Demosthenes’ Third Philippic (speech 9), quotes a fragment of Philochorus; in T1 I have followed Jacoby’s text.

557

558

inventory a2

Text

T1 Didymos, On Demosthenes col. 1.13–18 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F159); here I follow Jacoby’s text:   Καὶ τὰ παρὰ Φιλο]χόρωι μαρτυρεῖ. π̣ε̣ ρ̣ὶ̣ μὲν γὰρ τῆς̣ π̣[ρ]ὸ̣ ς̣ [Ὠρεὸν ἐξελθ]ούσης βοηθείας προθεὶς ‘ἄρχοντα Σωσ̣[ι]γ̣έ[νη’ φησὶ τα]ῦτα· ‘καὶ συμμαχί̣ α̣ν̣ Ἀθηναῖοι̣ πρὸς Χα̣ λ̣ κ̣ ι̣ δ̣ε̣ ῖ̣ ς̣ ἐ̣ π̣ο̣ι̣ [ήσαντο, καὶ] ἠ̣λευθέρωσαν Ὠ̣ρ̣ [ί]τας μετὰ Χαλκιδέων μ̣ η̣νὸς [Σκιροφορ]ιῶνος (?), Κηφισοφῶντος στρατηγοῦν̣τ̣ ο̣ ς̣, καὶ Φι[λιστίδ]ης̣ ὁ τύραννος ἐτελεύτησε.’

Commentary

T1 dates the expedition that followed the alliance to the archonship of Sosigenes 342/1 in the month Skirophorion, i.e. the summer of 341. Some have identified the alliance of T1 with Demosthenes’ proposal of alliance with Chalkis of 343/2 (Aeschin. 3.91-3; see D147); others view it as a renewal of that alliance: see Harding, Didymos, 105. It is likely that the alliance referred to in T1 was made before the Athenian expeditions to overthrow the pro-Philip tyrants of Oreos (see D154 below) and Eretria (see D155 below).

Date

Skirophorion, 341 (T1).

Bibliography

Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 116. Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006) 105. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time. A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 260-1.

d154 proposal for an expedition to oreos

559

T1 [To these statements, Philo]choros bears witness. For concerning the expeditionary force [that went out] to [Oreos], under the heading ‘the archon (was) Sos[i]ge[nes]’, [he says] this: ‘and the Athenians made an alliance with the Chalkidians and they liberated the [O]reitans with the Chalkidians in the month of [Skirophor]ion. Kephisophon was the general; and Phi[listid]es the tyrant died.’

D154 Proposal for an expedition to Oreos Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Summer 341

Literary Context

In a passage of his speech On the Crown, Demosthenes boasts of a string of proposals, including the one for this expedition, which he claims helped in the resistance to Philip (for other examples, see DD 139, 148a, 155). Didymos (T2: Jacoby’s text) adds details, while Charax of Pergamon, of the 2nd century AD, discusses the event in relation to his notes on Oreos (T3).

560

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.79: Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν εἰς Πελοπόννησον πρεσβείαν ἔγραψα … εἶτα τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ὠρεὸν ἔξοδον, οὐκέτι πρεσβείαν, καὶ τὴν εἰς Ἐρέτριαν, ἐπειδὴ τυράννους ἐκεῖνος ἐν ταύταις ταῖς πόλεσιν κατέστησεν. T2 Didymos, Demosthenes col. 1.13–18 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F159): here I follow Jacoby’s text:  Καὶ τὰ παρὰ Φιλο]χόρωι μαρτυρεῖ. π̣ε̣ ρ̣ ὶ̣ μὲν γὰρ τῆ̣ς̣ π̣[ρ]ὸ̣ς̣ [Ὠρεὸν ἐξελθ]ούσης βοηθείας προθεὶς ‘ἄρχοντα Σωσ̣[ι]γ̣έ[νη’ φησὶ τα]ῦτα· ‘καὶ συμμαχί̣ α̣ ν̣ Ἀθηναῖοι̣ πρὸς Χα̣λ̣ κ̣ι̣ δ̣ε̣ ῖ̣ ς̣ ἐ̣ π̣ο̣ι̣ [ήσαντο, καὶ] ἠ̣λευθέρωσαν Ὠ̣ρ̣ [ί]τας μετὰ Χαλκιδέων μ̣ηνὸς [Σκιροφορ]ιῶνος (?), Κηφισοφῶντος στρατηγοῦν̣τ̣ ο̣ ς̣, καὶ Φι[λιστίδ]ης̣ ὁ τύραννος ἐτελεύτησε.’ T3 Stephanos of Byzantium, Ethnika, s.v. ‘᾽Ωρεός’ (= BNJ 103 F19):   ᾽Ωρεός· ... μέμνηται τοῦ ἐθνικοῦ καὶ Χάραξ ἐν Χρονικῶν –ς ‘᾽Αθηναῖοι ἅμα Χαλκιδεῦσι τοῖς ἐν Εὐβοίαι καὶ Μεγαρεῦσι στρατεύσαντες εἰς ᾽Ωρεὸν Φιλιστίδην τὸν τύραννον ἀπέκτειναν καὶ ᾽Ωρείτας ἠλευθέρωσαν.’

Commentary

The Athenians, with Phokion’s help, commenced a string of interventions in Euboia in the early 340s in support of Ploutarchos of Eretria (DP 58). Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.501, discussing Philip’s interventions across Greece in 343, notes that Euboia, as it lacked powerful cities ‘was an interventionist’s paradise even by Greek standards’. It is likely that Philip’s intervention at Oreos used the pretext of civil strife, and it is possible that he deployed a mercenary force there (Dem. 9.12, 59, 61; 18.71); he may well have supported or even installed the ‘tyrant’ Philistides (on whom, see D148b Commentary above). If we follow Demosthenes’ order of exposition (T1), this campaign (and the one against Eretria: see D155 below) came after the embassy/embassies to Euboia (see D148a–b above). Philochorus (T2) notes the success of the campaigns in Skirophorion 342/1, and, as in T3, that Philistides the tyrant was killed; the general, Kephisophon, may well have crossed from his station at Skiathos (Sealey, Demosthenes, 262). Both Philochorus (T2) and the second-century AD author Charax (T3), claim that the Chalkidians accompanied the Athenians. T3 adds the claim that the Megarians too supported the Athenians. However, this claim is credible, given Demosthenes’ efforts to create an anti-Philip alliance (see above, Dem. 18.301–2 = D151).

d154 proposal for an expedition to oreos

561

T1 I began by proposing the embassy to the Peloponnese … then the expedition – not an embassy – to Oreos, and then (the expedition) to Eretria, when he (Philip) had established tyrants in the cities. T2 [To these statements, Philo]choros bears witness. For concerning the expeditionary force [that went out] to [Oreos], under the heading ‘the archon (was) Sos[i]ge[nes]’, [he says] this: ‘and the Athenians made an alliance with the Chalikidians and they liberated the [O]reitans with the Chalkidians in the month of [Skirophor]ion. Kephisophon was the general; and Phi[listid]es the tyrant died.’

T3 Oreos … is mentioned in the 6th book of Charax’s Chronika: ‘The Athenians with the Chalkidians in Euboia and the Megarians launched an expedition to Oreos and they killed Philistides the tyrant and liberated the Oreitans.’

Date

Summer of 341 (T2); but for a view putting the intervention in 342, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 263.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 546–8. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 116. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 260–1. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 155.

D155 Decree dispatching an expedition to Eretria Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Summer 341

Literary Context

In a passage of his speech On the Crown, Demosthenes boasts of a string of proposals, including the one for this expedition, which he claims helped in the resistance to Philip (for other examples, see DD 139, 148a, 154). Didymos (T2: Jacoby’s text) cites Philochorus’ mention of the expedition, which is also referred to in the narrative of Diodorus (T3). Finally, Plutarch (T4) mentions the expedition in his account of Demosthenes’ attempts to rouse Athenian resistance to Philip.

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.79: Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν εἰς Πελοπόννησον πρεσβείαν ἔγραψα … εἶτα τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ὠρεὸν ἔξοδον, οὐκέτι πρεσβείαν, καὶ τὴν εἰς Ἐρέτριαν, ἐπειδὴ τυράννους ἐκεῖνος ἐν ταύταις ταῖς πόλεσιν κατέστησεν. T2 Didymus, Demosthenes, col. 1.18–25 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F160): here I follow Jacoby’s text:   Περὶ δὲ τῆς εἰς Ἐ̣ ρ̣έ̣ τρ̣ ι̣ αν (scil. βοηθείας) [πάλιν ὁ αὐ]τὸς προθεὶς ἄρχοντα Νικόμαχόν φησιν οὕτως· ‘ἐπὶ τού[του οἱ Ἀθ]ηναῖοι διέβησαν εἰς Ἐρέτριαν Φωκίωνος στρατη[γοῦντος, καὶ] κατάξοντες τὸν δῆμον ἐπολιόρκουν Κλείταρχον, [ὃς πρό]τερον μὲν ἀντιστασιώτης ἦν Πλουτάρχου καὶ δι̣ ε̣ [πολι]τεύετο πρὸς αὐτόν, ἐκείνου δ’ ἐκπεσόντος ἐτυράν[νησε· τ]ότε δὲ ἐκπολιορκήσαντες αὐτὸν Ἀθηναῖοι τῶι δή[μωι] τὴν πόλιν ἀπέδωκαν.’ T3  D.S. 16.74.1: Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Φωκίων μὲν ὁ Ἀθηναῖος κατεπολέμησε Κλείταρχον τὸν Ἐρετρίας τύραννον καθεσταμένον ὑπὸ Φιλίππου. T4  Plu. Dem. 17.1: Τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων ἐγειρομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ Δημοσθένους, πρῶτον μὲν εἰς Εὔβοιαν ἐξώρμησε τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, καταδεδουλωμένην ὑπὸ τῶν τυράννων Φιλίππῳ, καὶ διαβάντες, ἐκείνου τὸ ψήφισμα γράψαντος, ἐξήλασαν τοὺς Μακεδόνας. 562

d155 decree dispatching an expedition to eretria

563

T1 I began by proposing the embassy to the Peloponnese … then the expedition – not an embassy – to Oreos, and then (the expedition) to Eretria, when he (Philip) had established tyrants in the cities. T2  And this same author (i.e. Philochorus) says more about the expedition to Eretria during the archonship of Nikomachos (341/0): ‘In the archonship of this man, [the Ath]enians crossed over to Eretria with Phokion as their general, and, aiming to restore the power of the people, they besieged Kleitarchos, who had been previously a rival of Ploutarchos, and had pursued policies in opposition to him; but he became tyrant after he (i.e. Ploutarchos) was expelled. The Athenians at that time, having overcome him by siege, gave the city back to the people.’

T3 In this year [the archonship of Nikomachos, that is 341/0], Phokion of Athens made war against Kleitarchos the tyrant of Eretria who had been established by Philip. T4 Once the Athenians had been roused by Demosthenes, he urged the Athenians first to invade Euboia, which had been brought into subjection to Philip by tyrants; and once he had enacted a decree, they crossed over and expelled the Macedonians.

564

inventory a2

Commentary

The Athenians, with Phokion’s help, commenced a string of interventions in Euboia in the early 340s in support of Ploutarchos (DP 58). Kleitarchos had overthrown Ploutarchos during the course of that decade (T1), perhaps with the aid of Philip (Dem. 18.71) and Kallias, prompting the Athenians to intervene against him. Demosthenes (18.81–3) claimed that the tyrants of Oreos and Eretria, Philistides and Kleitarchos, were not only allies of Philip but also friends of Aeschines, and that their ambassadors enjoyed his hospitality. If we follow Demosthenes’ order of exposition (T1), this was the second of two expeditions to Eretria in summer 341 (the first was against Oreos: D154), which followed an embassy there (D148b). Harding, Didymos, 107, offers an explanation for the two separate expeditions, suggesting, on the basis of Didymos, that whereas the Chalkidians were connected with the liberation of Oreos, they were not involved in Phokion’s campaign against Eretria. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.549, takes the view that this was a well-conceived expedition, in term of its role in resisting Macedonian power. The Athenians appear to have been successful in overthrowing the tyrants of Eretria: Philochorus (T2) notes the success of the campaign in 341/0, and additionally, a scholiast’s note on Aeschin. 3.103 adds that the Athenians were successful in overthrowing Kleitarchos and in installing a democracy at Eretria. Demosthenes (18.87) makes the claim that Philip was driven out of Euboia by Athenian arms, his policy, and his decrees. But as Griffith observes, Aeschines’ claim (3.91) that the armies of the Macedonians and Thebans were on the move against the Eretrians is belied by the fact that Philip did not take any action when the Athenians moved against Kleitarchos. After the overthrow of Kleitarchos, it seems likely that a pro-Athenian regime, perhaps a democracy, was installed: the legislation against tyranny that the Eretrians introduced at around 340 appears to have made resistance to a tyrannical usurper obligatory, and to have offered incentives to those who took up arms: see Knoepfler, ‘Loi d’Érétrie’; SEG LI 1105; Teegarden, Death, 57–83. It is likely that this is the context within which the Athenians made a treaty with the Eretrians, in which the Eretrians pledged to adhere to the alliance of the Athenians and to come to their aid were their territory invaded: see IG II3 1 412.

Date

Summer of 341 (T2, suggesting that it was undertaken right at the start of 341/0); but for a view putting the intervention in 342, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 263.

d156 decree honouring demosthenes

565

Bibliography

Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 116–17. Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006) 106–8. Knoepfler, D., ‘Loi d’Érétrie contre la tyrannie et l’oligarchie (première partie)’, BCH 125.1 (2001) 195–238. Knoepfler, D., ‘Loi d’Érétrie contre la tyrannie et l’oligarchie (deuxième partie)’, BCH 126.1 (2002) 149–204. Teegarden, D.A., Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle against Tyranny. Princeton (2013) 57–83.

D156 Decree honouring Demosthenes

Proposer: Aristonikos Nikophanous Anagyrasios (PA 2025; PAA 174070) Date: Late 341/Early 340

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1), speaking in support of Ktesiphon’s decree granting him a crown (for which see D179 below), offers an account of his political activity before Chaironeia. He claims that Aristonikos’ decree of honours, which essentially acts as a precedent to support his claim that he is worthy of those granted by Ktesiphon, rewarded his contribution at an earlier point. Demosthenes’ claim that this same decree specified also that the honours were to be announced at the theatre of Dionysos supports his challenge to Aeschines’ allegation that Ktesiphon’s decree was illegal (cf. Aeschin. 3.32–48); he backed his argument further by his citation of a law which permitted the announcement of honours at the theatre if the ecclesia voted to allow it: Dem. 18.120–1 (see Harris, ‘Law’, 142, for the widely accepted view that Demosthenes was citing the law accurately here). Mention is made of the decree at the end of [Plutarch]’s account of Demosthenes’ life in his Lives of the Ten Orators (T2).

566

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Dem. 18.83: Στεφανωσάντων τοίνυν ὑμῶν ἐμὲ ἐπὶ τούτοις τότε, καὶ γράψαντος Ἀριστονίκου τὰς αὐτὰς συλλαβὰς ἅσπερ οὑτοσὶ Κτησιφῶν νῦν γέγραφε, καὶ ἀναρρηθέντος ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τοῦ στεφάνου, καὶ δευτέρου κηρύγματος ἤδη μοι τούτου γιγνομένου, οὔτ᾽ ἀντεῖπεν Αἰσχίνης παρὼν οὔτε τὸν εἰπόντ᾽ ἐγράψατο. καί μοι λέγε καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα λαβών. Ψήφισμα. T2 [Plu.] X Or. 848d: πρῶτος δ᾽ ἔγραψε στεφανωθῆναι αὐτὸν χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ Ἀριστόνικος, Νικοφάνους Ἀναγυράσιος, ὑπωμόσατο δὲ Διώνδας.

Commentary

This was the first of three honorific decrees (for the others, see DD 166a–b, 179) passed in Athens for Demosthenes during his lifetime (note also the posthumous honours promosed by his nephew, Demochares: [Plu.] X Or. 850f–1c with Shear, ‘Writing past’). The proposal appears to have been made in recognition of his efforts to resist Philip especially in Euboia (‘ἐπὶ τούτοις τότε’, referring back to his previously-described ventures there) and to create a Greek coalition against him. Demosthenes was proud of boasting that his resolutions had been carried out and claimed that they had driven Philip away from Euboia (Dem. 18.86–7). Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.566, takes the view that the crown awarded to Demosthenes was a clear expression of a sentiment that the Athenians were interested in maintaining peace with Philip. Demosthenes (T1; cf. 18.223) says that the terms of Aristonikos’ decree were the same as those in Ktesiphon’s decree (‘Ἀριστονίκου τὰς αὐτὰς συλλαβὰς ἅσπερ οὑτοσὶ Κτησιφῶν νῦν γέγραφε’), and that both were proclaimed in the theatre of Dionysos (‘καὶ ἀναρρηθέντος ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τοῦ στεφάνου’); it is likely that both granted a gold crown (T2). The award of gold crowns was relatively well known in Athens, though the earliest extant inscribed decree awarding a gold crown to an Athenian honorand is IG II3 1 306 A7 of 343/2; see also Henry, Honours and Privileges, 22–4. The phrase ‘τὰ ἄριστα πράττειν τῇ πόλει’ (‘doing the best things for the city’: Dem. 18.86) is also likely to be a quotation from Aristonikos’ decree: Yunis, Demosthenes, 157. T2 says that the proposal was indicted by Diondas, but is probably confused: Diondas’ graphe paranomon, initiated in 338 but brought to court in 334, was directed against the proposals of Hypereides and Demomeles to crown Demosthenes (Dem. 18.222–3; Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 26; Horváth, Der ‘Neue Hypereides’, 1–23; cf. Rhodes, ‘Hypereides’, pointing to a date in May– June 334).

d156 decree honouring demosthenes

567

T1 You bestowed a crown upon me for my services at that time (i.e. in Euboia), when Aristonikos made the same proposal as this man Ktesiphon has now made, and the crown was proclaimed in the theatre, which means this is the second time that there has come about this announcement for me; yet, Ktesiphon did not speak against the decree even though he was present, nor did he indict the proposer. And so please take and read out this decree for me. Decree. T2 Aristonikos son of Nikophanes of Anagyrous was the first to propose that he be crowned with a golden crown, but Diondas prevented it by prosecution under oath.

Some versions of Demosthenes 18.84 include a document purporting to be a version of the decree under consideration here. It would not have been a difficult task, for a Hellenistic scholar familiar with the language of Athenian honorific decrees, to fabricate such a largely formulaic decree as this. There is no reason to doubt the reality of Aristonikos’ decree; however, the document that purports to be a text of it should not be treated as an authentic record. There are some strange aspects: the patronymic of archons is not usually mentioned in dating formulae; the dating of Gamelion 338/7 is impossible (see discussion in Date, below); the mention of an agonothetes is anachronistic; the mention of the proposer at the foot of the decree is not attested in securely genuine texts. For a full analysis of the document, see Canevaro, The Documents, 258–60, suggesting that the author of the document drew upon knowledge of Aeschines’ and Demosthenes’ speeches. This is the sole attested political activity of Aristonikos, whose name is provided by [Plutarch] (T2).

Date

Late 341/early 340. Yunis, Demosthenes, 157, suggests that the condition of proclamation at the Dionysia necessarily dates this to the spring of 340. A later date is possible, suggests Canevaro, Documents, 258; but Gamelion 338/7, the date given to the document at Dem. 18.84, is impossible, for it post-dates the battle of Chaironeia (which itself provoked the decree of Ktesiphon, in support of which Demosthenes cites Aristonikos’ decree as a precedent). If the decree is to be associated with Demosthenes’ successes in Euboia, as Sealey, Demosthenes, 185, 260–4, suggests, a date in late 341/early 340 is more plausible. Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.566, suggests Febuary/March 340.

568

Bibliography

inventory a2

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 255–60. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 566. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 36. Harris, E.M., ‘Law and oratory’ in Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. I. Worthington. London and New York (1994) 130–50. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983), 22–4. Horváth, L., Der ‘Neue Hypereides’: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin, Munich and Boston (2014). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Hyperides’ Against Diondas: two problems’, BICS 52 (2009) 223–8. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 185. Shear, J., ‘Writing past and present in Hellenistic Athens: the honours for Demosthenes’ in Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, eds. I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff and F. Stroth. Berlin and Boston (2017). Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 157.

D157 Dispatch of forces to the Hellespont (probably by decree) Proposer: Phokion Phokou Potamios (?) (PA 15076; PAA 967590; APF) or Unknown Date: 340/39

Literary Context

Plutarch, in his biography of Phokion, claims that the dispatch of Phokion to the Hellespont led to a transformation in Athenian fortunes there (T1) and the expulsion of Philip from the Hellespont (Plu. Phoc. 14.5). This was a follow up to the dispatch of Chares in 340 (see DP 67 below).

569

570

inventory a2

Text

T1  Plu. Phoc. 14.3: ἀναστὰς ὁ Φωκίων εἶπεν ὅτι δεῖ μὴ τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν ὀργίζεσθαι τῶν συμμάχων, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπιστουμένοις τῶν στρατηγῶν, ‘οὗτοι γὰρ ὑμᾶς ποιοῦσι φοβεροὺς καὶ τοῖς χωρὶς ὑμῶν σώζεσθαι μὴ δυναμένοις.’ κινηθεὶς οὖν ὁ δῆμος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου καὶ μεταπεσών, ἐκέλευεν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἑτέραν προσλαβόντα δύναμιν βοηθεῖν τοῖς συμμάχοις εἰς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον· ὃ μεγίστην ῥοπὴν ἐποίησε πρὸς τὸ σωθῆναι τὸ Βυζάντιον.

Commentary

Plutarch reports that Chares’ expedition (DP 67) did little to help the Athenians retake Byzantion, and it was not until Phokion persuaded them to send another expedition that they did so (T1). Given Plutarch’s claims about the effectiveness of this force in driving Philip from Byzantion, the expedition should be seen in the context of Athenian efforts against him in late 340. As Tritle argues, this passage suggests that Phokion played a major role in the formulation of foreign policy at the time and led the Athenians to increase their aid to Byzantion, which was crucial for its resistance to Philip (Tritle, Phocion, 109–10; D.S. 16.77.1–2). On the importance of Byzantion to the Athenians, see D151 Commentary. The text ‘κινηθεὶς οὖν ὁ δῆμος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου καὶ μεταπεσών, ἐκέλευεν αὐτόν’ is suggestive of a decree of the people supported by Phokion, but this is not expressed explicitly. For the other political activity of Phokion, see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’ 63 who, though he is said to have regularly addressed the assembly (Plut. Phoc. 7.5–6), is associated with only one other decree: a dispatch of forces to Megara in 344/3 (D143 above). Plutarch places the expedition before that which went to Megara (Plu. Phoc. 15; cf. D143 above), but it is likely to have come about as a consequence of Philip’s invasion of the Chersonese ([Dem.] 12.16), probably in 341/0: Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.571.

Date

340/39.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 571. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72 at 63. Tritle, L., Phocion the Good. New York (1988) 109–10.

d158 proposal to dispatch forces to byzantion

571

T1 Phokion stood up in the assembly and said that it was necessary not to be angry at those allies who were distrustful of them, but at the generals who showed themselves to be untrustworthy: ‘for these’, he said, ‘make you feared even by those whom can be saved only by you.’ And so the people were persuaded by this speech and changed their minds and ordered him to take another force and go himself to help the allies at the Hellespont; this was the force that did most to secure Byzantion.

D158 Proposal to dispatch forces to Byzantion, the Chersonese and other places Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113-15) Date: Late Summer 340

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in listing those initiatives which he claims earned him recognition from the Athenians, offers an account of expeditions that he proposed in the middle of 340 (T1, 2). It is quite possible that Demosthenes alluded to these proposals also when he talked about sending aid to places such as Prokonnesos, Chersonese and Tenedos at 18.302, at which point in the de Corona speech he was drawing a final contrast between his conduct and that of Aeschines.

572

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.80 Μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἅπαντας ἀπέστειλα, καθ᾽ οὓς Χερρόνησος ἐσώθη καὶ Βυζάντιον καὶ πάντες οἱ σύμμαχοι. T2 Dem. 18.88: Ἀλλὰ τίς ἦν ὁ βοηθήσας τοῖς Βυζαντίοις καὶ σώσας αὐτούς; τίς ὁ κωλύσας τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον ἀλλοτριωθῆναι κατ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους; ὑμεῖς, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι. τὸ δ᾽ ὑμεῖς ὅταν λέγω, τὴν πόλιν λέγω. τίς δ᾽ ὁ τῇ πόλει λέγων καὶ γράφων καὶ πράττων καὶ ἁπλῶς ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὰ πράγματα ἀφειδῶς δούς; ἐγώ.

Commentary

Demosthenes (18.87) maintains that after Philip was driven out of Euboia (by Demosthenes’ own policy), he (Philip) attempted a second plan of attack, aiming, by advancing towards Thrace and claiming the Byzantians as their allies, to get control of the grain-trade routes. In doing so, he was following a policy deployed at earlier points by enemies of the Athenians, such as the Spartan Lysander in 405 (Garnsey, Famine, 89–149). Philip had made alliances with Byzantion (Dem. 9.34, 18.87) and Perinthos (Scholion on Aeschin. 2.81 (Dilts 178b)). But his relations with these towns appear to have deteriorated and their revolt led to his intervention in spring 340 (D.S. 16.74.2); Philip’s ‘Letter’ to the Athenians ([Demosthenes] 12) purports to justify this intervention; for a description of the siege, see D.S. 16.74.2–76.3 and Sealey, Demosthenes, 186– 90). According to Diodorus, Philip started by besieging Perinthos (probably in July 340: Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.551), and the Byzantians’ aid to the Perinthians led him to make an attack on Byzantion (D.S. 16. 73.1–76.4). Demosthenes – who had in the Third Philippic at the assembly suggested that the Athenians support their forces in the Chersonese (Dem. 9.73) – proposed a decree to take action, an expedition which Demosthenes maintained would secure the supply of grain to Athens (18.88-9), thus averting a food crisis, and also would bring distinction to the city (18.80: ‘ἐξ ὧν ὑμῖν μὲν τὰ κάλλιστα, ἔπαινοι, δόξαι, τιμαί, στέφανοι, χάριτες παρὰ τῶν εὖ πεπονθότων ὑπῆρχον’ (cf. 89–90, 93)). For the view that Demosthenes’ decree played a role in provoking war with Philip, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.563. Demosthenes’ claim that Philip was aiming to control the grain-shipping route was enunciated also in another speech of the late 340s, On the Chersonese (Dem. 8.14). But Demosthenes was certainly not pioneering in the attention he was paying to the region: indeed, there is evidence for Athenian activity in the area in the late 340s in the form of settlers sent out and the activity of

d158 proposal to dispatch forces to byzantion

573

T1 After these things (sc. the expeditions to Euboia: DD 154, 155), I dispatched all the expeditions through which the Chersonese, Byzantion, and all the cities were rescued from him. T2 But who was it who was sending aid to the Byzantians and saving them? Who prevented the Hellespont being taken by others at that time? You did, Athenian men. When I say ‘you’, I mean the city. But who was it who advised the city, moved the resolution, and did things and simply devoted himself to this business? I did.

Diopeithes (see D150 above; see DP 52, 63 below), the dispatch of Chares (see DP 67 below) and the expedition supported by Phokion (see D157 above). Epigraphical evidence suggests that the Athenians were promoting good relations with cities on the Thracian Chersonese: a decree of the seventh prytany of 341/0 (i.e. early 340) grants privileges to the Elaiousians, including the right of possessing their own territory ‘so that they may live with the Athenians in the Chersonese’ (IG II3 1 309 (= RO 71)): this was an award which, according to the decree, the people had voted already for the Chersonites (lines 10–11). The next year the Athenians honoured the people of Tenedos, the island close to the Aegean side of the Hellespont, who may have offered shelter or financial support to the Athenians (IG II3 1 313 (= RO 72) lines 14–15). Philip’s siege of Byzantion in summer 340 was unsuccessful; his seizure of an Athenian grain convoy led the Athenians to annul the Peace of Philokrates (FGrH 328 F55, 162; see D159 below). Plutarch too mentions that Demosthenes came to the aid of Byzantion and the Perinthians, persuading the demos to forget the wrongs they had done to Athens during the Social War of 357–55 (Plu. Dem. 17.2). Philip withdrew his forces in spring 339, but the pre-Chaironeia peace treaty mentioned by Diodorus Siculus is nowhere else substantiated (D.S. 16.74.2)

Date

Late summer 340: Sealey, Demosthenes, 187–90. It is quite likely that these dispatches were made before the mobilisation against Philip (see D159 below) but, alternatively, it is equally plausible that they were made as part of the Athenian war-effort against Philip. Demosthenes, perhaps deliberately, presents them as individual decrees, dispatched by expedition, rather than an out-and-out declaration of war (cf. D159 below): we would expect Demosthenes not to boast about the declaration of a war which troubled the Athenians, but rather to highlight

inventory a2

574

aspects of his policy that were successful. It is quite possible, therefore, that we have, in DD 158 and 159, the same decree presented in two different ways.

Bibliography

Garnsey, P., Famine and Food-Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge (1988) 89–149. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 566–81. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 187–90.

D159 Decree of mobilisation against Philip Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 340/39

Literary Context

Whereas Demosthenes, defending his policy against Philip, specified those locations to which his decrees had dispatched forces (see D158 above), his enemy Aeschines (T1) puts the decree which initiated hostility with Philip in far blunter terms, describing it as a proposal of war (T1); later sources (TT 2–4), including those which cite Philochorus (TT 3–4), describe a decree by which the Athenians would effectively destroy the stele of the peace of Philokrates, man a fleet, and prepare for war.

Texts

T1 Aeschines 3.55: ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος ῥήτωρ ἔγραψε τὸν πόλεμον. T2 D.S. 16.77.2: Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Φιλίππου Βυζάντιον πολιορκοῦντος Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν ἔκριναν τὸν Φίλιππον λελυκέναι τὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς συντεθεῖσαν εἰρήνην· εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ δύναμιν ναυτικὴν ἀξιόλογον ἐξέπεμψαν βοηθήσουσαν τοῖς Βυζαντίοις.

d159 decree of mobilisation against philip

575

T1 This very same man himself proposed war. T2 During this year [the archonship of Theophrastos, 340/39], the Athenians, since Philip was besieging Byzantion, judged that Philip had broken the peace agreed with them; immediately they dispatched a significant naval force for the purpose of helping the Byzantians.

576

inventory a2

T3 Dionysius of Halicarnassus To Ammaios. 11 p. 273 1-8 (= FGrH 328 F55a): Ἔπειτα διεξελθών, ὅσα τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις ὁ Φίλιππος ἐνεκάλει διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ταῦτα πάλιν κατὰ λέξιν ἐπιτίθησιν· ‘ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἀκούσας τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ Δημοσθένους παρακαλέσαντος αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ ψηφίσματα γράψαντος ἐχειροτόνησε τὴν μὲν στήλην καθελεῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήνης καὶ συμμαχίας σταθεῖσαν, ναῦς δὲ πληροῦν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἐνεργεῖν τὰ τοῦ πολέμου.’ T4  Didymos, Demosthenes, col. 1 line 67–col. 2 line 2 Harding: (= FGrH 328 F55b): Οὐ γ(ὰρ) ἂν δήπου ταῦτ’ ἔλεγε[ν], εἰ λελυκ[ότες τὴν εἰ]ρήν(ην) ἐτύγχανον Ἀθην[αῖο]ι. ὅτι μ(ὲν) [ο(ὖν) ἐπὶ Θεοφράστο]υ τοῦ μ(ετὰ) Νικόμαχον ἄ[ρ]ξαντος [αἱ σ(υν)θῆκαι ἐλύ]θησαν, ἀρκέσει Φιλ[ό]χορος ἐκ[φανῶς διὰ τῆς] ἕκτης γράφ(ων) οὕ(τως)· ‘Ὁ δ(ὲ) δῆμος ἀκούσας τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, Δημοσθένους π(αρα) καλέσαντος αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον κ(αὶ) ψήφισμα γράψαντος, ἐχειροτόνησαν τὴν μ(ὲν) στήλ(ην) καθελεῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς πρὸς Φίλιππον εἰρήν(ης) κ(αὶ) συμμαχίας σταθεῖσαν, ναῦς δ(ὲ) πληροῦν κ(αὶ) ἐνεργεῖν τὰ τοῦ πολέμου.’

Commentary

There is some debate about the exact ignition-point of this stage of the conflict between Philip and Athens: Didymos (col. 10 line 34–col. 11 line 5) says that Philip seized Athenian grain-merchants’ ships stationed at Hieron in 341/0; according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Amm. 11 p. 272), quoting Philochorus (FGrH 328 F53–4), Philip in 340/39 launched an attack on Perinthos and then Byzantion. The seizure of grain-ships appears to be the background to Demosthenes urging the Athenians to war (for Demosthenes’ claims about his policy, see Dem. 18.72), though Diodorus offers the alternative view that the siege of Byzantion was already underway by the time the Athenians dispatched their fleet (T2; for discussion, see Harding, Didymos, 211). The Athenians, according to their decree, decided to destroy the stele of the peace of Philokrates, to man a fleet, and to put themselves on a wartime footing (TT 2–4). As Jacoby (A Commentary, 331) observes, ‘ναῦς πληροῦν’ ‘is the technical term for the mobilisation of the fleet’; he suggests that the total of 120 Athenian ships at the siege of Byzantion offered in the document attributed to the Byzantians at Demosthenes 18.90 offers an accurate impression of the total force there; though the document is generally agreed be a later fabrication (Canevaro, The Documents, 262–5), its creator might have been drawing on factual evidence. Plutarch (Dem. 17.3) took the view that Demosthenes played a vital role in unifying the Greeks against Philip, and this decree – including the dramatic pledge to destroy the stele – may have been instrumental in this process. For a detailed account of Philip’s sieges of Perinthos and Byzantion and the Athenian reaction to it, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.566–81; on the politics and conflict of 339/8, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.585–603.

d159 decree of mobilisation against philip

577

T3  Then, after giving an account of all those charges which Philip had brought against the Athenians in his letter to them, he (Philochorus) adds, word-for-word, ‘The people, on hearing the letter, and when Demosthenes had urged them to go to war and had proposed his decree, voted to pull down the stele which had been set up about the peace and alliance with Philip, to man ships, and to set themselves on a war-footing in other respects.’ T4 [Now] as to the fact that (it was) in the archonship of [Theophrasto]s, the archon after Nikomachos, [that the treaty] was broken, it will clearly suffice (to quote) Phil[o]choros, who writes as follows [in his] sixth (book): ‘When [the] People had heard [the letter], after Demosthenes had exhorted [them to] war and had proposed the motion, they voted to destroy the stele, [the one that] had been set up [regarding the] peace and alliance with Philip, [to man] a fleet [and] to put in motion preparations for war.’ (trans. Harding, Didymos, 51, adapted).

The destruction of a stele to mark the dissolution of an alliance is a wellknown practice in ancient Greece: see Bolmarcich and cf., e.g., IG II2 116. Alonso (‘War, peace’, 218) emphasises the importance of such acts as declarations of war. For the decrees of Demosthenes, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

340/39 (the date given by Philochorus, ap. Didymos col. 1 line 66–col. 2 line 2 = FGrH328 F55b), probably late summer.

Bibliography

Alonso, V., ‘War, peace and international law in ancient Greece’ in War and Peace in the Ancient World, ed. K. Raaflaub. Oxford (2007) 206–25. Bolmarcich, S., ‘The afterlife of a treaty’, CQ 57 (2007) 477–89. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 262–5. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 566–603. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 118–20. Harding, P., Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006) 114, 210–12. Jacoby, F., A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athens, vol. 1: text (FGrH IIIb). Leiden (1954) 331. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 187–90.

D160 Decree appointing nomothetai

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 340

Literary Context

Demosthenes, in 330, accounting for his earlier public actions, boasts of the public benefit of his law on the naval boards (Dem. 18.102). This law appears to have been enacted during a session of nomothetai which was called together by a decree of Demosthenes (T1).

Text

T1  Dem. 18.105: Καί μοι λέγε πρῶτον μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καθ᾽ ὃ εἰσῆλθον τὴν γραφήν … Ψήφισμα.

Commentary

It seems likely that according to the terms of the decree referred to in T1 and read out by Demosthenes in the court in 330, Demosthenes proposed that nomothetai be summoned to deliberate about a new trierarchic law (referred to at Dem. 18.102). Recent work by Canevaro has shed light upon the process of nomothesia (law-making) in fourth-century Athens. There were several stages: the procedure was initiated at the assembly with a vote (essentially, that is, a decree) on whether new proposals could be introduced; proposed laws were posted at the eponymoi and were read out at meetings of the assembly; contradictory laws had to be repealed; in the third meeting after the preliminary vote the assembly established nomothetai and chose sunegoroi to defend the laws: see Canevaro, ‘Nomothesia’, especially 158; for the view that the nomothetai were the demos assembled in law-making mode, see Canevaro and Esu, ‘Extreme democracy’. The idea that the introduction of a new law presupposed a decree of the assembly ordering the establishment of nomothetai is the orthodox view: Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia, 175 and some ancient texts make it clear that a meeting of the nomothetai was arranged by decree of the assembly (Dem. 24.26–8 = D93 T1); other sources (Dem. 3.10 and Aeschin. 3.39), however, indicate that the assembly was involved in convening them but without mentioning a decree. This 578

d160 decree appointing nomothetai

579

T1  And please read the … decree, against which they launched the indictment. Decree.

inventory aims not to collect every example of a likely point at which a decree was passed to call the nomothetai together, but only those which are expressly described as a decree in the ancient texts (e.g. DD 93 and 160). For examples of new laws instituted in the fourth century, see Inventory B2.6. For a list of Athenian laws attested in Attic oratory, see Harris, The Rule of Law, 359–77. As for this particular law, Demosthenes describes it as compelling the wealthy to make a just contribution to naval funding, put an end to the unjust treatment of the poor, and ensure that naval preparations would be made on time (Dem. 18.102). Aeschines mentions Demosthenes’ law in an attack on his behaviour as epistates of naval matters (Aeschin. 3.222). Harpokration, s.v. ‘συμμορία’, mentions the law and portrays it as Demosthenes’ reaction to the richest defrauding the city by spending only small sums; he describes the law as providing that the three hundred richest citizens (the heads of the taxation groups (symmoriai)) should be trierarchs. For detailed discussion of the ways in which the law attempted to concentrate the obligation on the rich, see Gabrielsen, Financing, 209–13, noting that while it concentrated the financial burden upon the three hundred, they were not the exclusive financiers of the fleet. Given that it targeted the rich, it is unsurprising that the legislation was

580

inventory a2

met with the objection that it was unconsititutional from a small group of citizens (Dem. 18.103; see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 25): however, this objection was supported not even by one-fifth of the jurors and it was upheld. An alternative view of the content of the decree referred to at T1 is that of Yunis, Demosthenes, 172, who suggests that it may have been a decree designed to ‘force a judicial decision on the proposed law’ after it had been placed in abeyance (that is, until the graphe paranomon proceedings were completed) by the hypomosia mentioned at 18.103. Some texts of the speech contain a document which purports to be that of the decree of Demosthenes introducing the law: while it bears the title of ‘Decree’, the document presents itself as a law which amends a previous law on the syndicates (synteleiai) for the trierarchy. It is surely not authentic: see Canevaro, The Documents, 267–71.

Date

340 (Dem. 18.102).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., ‘Nomothesia in Classical Athens: what sources should we believe?’, CQ 63 (2013) 139–60. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 267–71. Canevaro, M. and Esu, A., ‘Extreme democracy and mixed constitution in theory and practice: nomophylakia and fourth-century nomothesia in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia’ 105–45 in C. Bearzot, M. Canevaro, T. Gargiulo and E. Poddighe (eds.), Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia: Aristotle e Ps. Senofonte. Milan (2018). Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations. Baltimore and London (1994) 209–13. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 36. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983) 174–5. Harris, E.M., The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. Oxford (2013) 359–77. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001).

D161 Decree concerning the attendance of the Athenian representatives at the meetings of the Delphian Amphictyony

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Autumn 340 or Spring 339

Literary Context

In his attack of 330 on the honours proposed for Demosthenes, Aeschines (T1) alleges that Demosthenes, taking advantage of an inexperienced councillor, had a decree passed at the council and then at the assembly which had the effect of excluding the Athenians from partaking in the Amphictyonic expedition against the Amphissans. This, he argues, allowed Philip to take up the de facto leadership of the Amphictyonic mission. This counters Demosthenes’ claim that Aeschines was in league with Philip, and was cooking up charges against the Amphissans so as to offer him a pretext to invade central Greece: for evaluation and rejection of Demosthenes’ claim, see Harris, Aeschines, 128–30.

581

582

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.125–8: Τοῦ δόγματος τούτου ἀποδοθέντος ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία, καὶ τὰς πράξεις ἡμῶν ἀποδεξαμένου τοῦ δήμου, καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἁπάσης προαιρουμένης εὐσεβεῖν, καὶ Δημοσθένους ὑπὲρ τοῦ μεσεγγυήματος τοῦ ἐξ Ἀμφίσσης ἀντιλέγοντος, καὶ ἐμοῦ φανερῶς ἐναντίον ὑμῶν ἐξελέγχοντος, ἐπειδὴ ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ τὴν πόλιν ἅνθρωπος οὐκ ἐδύνατο σφῆλαι, εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον καὶ μεταστησάμενος τοὺς ἰδιώτας, ἐκφέρεται προβούλευμα εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, προσλαβὼν τὴν τοῦ γράψαντος ἀπειρίαν· τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία διεπράξατο ἐπιψηφισθῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι δήμου ψήφισμα, ἐπ᾽ ἀναστάσει τῆς ἐκκλησίας , ἀπεληλυθότος ἐμοῦ (οὐ γὰρ ἄν ποτε ἐπέτρεψα) καὶ τῶν πολλῶν διαφειμένων· οὗ τὸ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι, ‘τὸν ἱερομνήμονα’, φησί, ‘τὸν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τοὺς πυλαγόρους τοὺς ἀεὶ πυλαγοροῦντας πορεύεσθαι εἰς Πύλας καὶ εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐν τοῖς τεταγμένοις χρόνοις ὑπὸ τῶν προγόνων’, εὐπρεπῶς γε τῷ ὀνόματι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἔργῳ αἰσχρῶς· κωλύει γὰρ εἰς τὸν σύλλογον τὸν ἐν Πύλαις ἀπαντᾶν, ὃς ἐξ ἀνάγκης πρὸ τοῦ καθήκοντος ἔμελλε χρόνου γίγνεσθαι. καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ ψηφίσματι πολὺ καὶ σαφέστερον καὶ πικρότερον [πρόσταγμα] γράφει, ‘τὸν ἱερομνήμονα’, φησί, ‘τὸν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τοὺς πυλαγόρους τοὺς ἀεὶ πυλαγοροῦντας μὴ μετέχειν τοῖς ἐκεῖσε συλλεγομένοις μήτε λόγου μήτε ἔργου μήτε δόγματος μήτε πράξεως μηδεμιᾶς.’ τὸ δὲ μὴ μετέχειν τί ἐστι; πότερα τἀληθὲς εἴπω, ἢ τὸ ἥδιστον ἀκοῦσαι; τἀληθὲς ἐρῶ· τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἡδονὴν λεγόμενον οὑτωσὶ τὴν πόλιν διατέθηκεν. οὐκ ἐᾷ μεμνῆσθαι τῶν ὅρκων, οὓς ἡμῶν ὤμοσαν οἱ πρόγονοι, οὐδὲ τῆς ἀρᾶς, οὐδὲ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ μαντείας. ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, κατεμείναμεν διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι Ἀμφικτύονες συνελέγησαν εἰς Πύλας πλὴν μιᾶς πόλεως, ἧς ἐγὼ οὔτ᾽ ἂν τοὔνομα εἴποιμι, μήθ᾽ αἱ συμφοραὶ παραπλήσιοι γένοιντο αὐτῆς μηδενὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων.

Commentary

According to Aeschines, at the meeting of the Amphictyons at Delphi in either autumn 340 or spring 339, the Lokrians of Amphissa brought a charge of sacrilege against the Athenians (Aeschin. 3.116). Aeschines, who was an Athenian pylagoras but had taken the place of the Athenian hieromnemon (the synedrion of the Amphictyony was made up of twenty-four hieromnemones, two from each of the twelve tribes represented at the Amphictyony; the Athenians held one of the two Ionian seats; the pylagorai were their advisers) who had fallen ill, persuaded the Amphictyons instead to punish the Amphissans for their sacrilegious cultivation of the Krisaian plain (Aeschin. 3.116–24): this resulted in the decree (dogma) of the Amphictyons against them, which is mentioned at the start of T1, arranging for an extraordinary meeting of the Amphictyons at

d161 decree concerning the amphictyony

583

T1  The decree [sc. the dogma of the Amphictyons against the Amphissans] was received by us at the council and then at the assembly, the people approved our deeds, and the whole city was about to make a pious decision, but Demosthenes spoke against it, motivated by the money that he had taken from Amphissa. I clearly exposed him before you, and so he was not able to frustrate the city by open means; accordingly he went to the bouleuterion and expelled the non-members, and brought a preliminary motion to the assembly, taking advantage of the inexperience of the proposer. And he got this same proposal put to the vote at the assembly and made a decree of the people when the meeting was on the point of breaking up, that is when I had left (for I would never have allowed it to pass) and most of those present had dispersed. Its substance is as follows: ‘The Athenian hieromnemon and the pylagorai are to make their way to Thermopylai and Delphi at the times appointed by our ancestors’, which seems appropriate in sound, but is in fact shameful. For it prevents attendance at the extraordinary meeting at Thermopylai, which from necessity was to be held before the regular meeting. And furthermore in the same decree it states, much more clearly and sharply that ‘the Athenian hieromnemon and the pylagorai in office shall take part with those meeting there neither in word nor in deed nor in decree, nor in any act at all’. What does this not participating mean? Shall I tell you the truth, or something that is pleasant to hear? I shall tell you the truth. For the habit of saying nice things is what has put the city in this position. It meant that you were not able to remember your oaths, which your ancestors swore, nor your prayers, nor the oracle of the god. And so we, Athenian men, remained at home because of this decree, while the other Amphictyons went together to Thermopylai (with the exception of one city, the name of which I shall not mention; may the disasters which have befallen her befall no other Greek!).

Thermopylai at which they would make a resolution against the Amphissans. Aeschines (T1) claimed that Demosthenes, at a closed meeting of the council in Athens, contrived a probouleuma, taking advantage of an inexperienced councillor, and got it put it to the vote as its proposer at the assembly, which had the effect of the Athenians not taking part in the extraordinary meeting at which the Amphictyons would decide to launch an expedition against the Amphissans. While it is impossible to be certain about what lay behind Demosthenes’ policy, it seems that he was eager to disengage the Athenians from the dispute: he later argued that the war on the Amphissans was the one which brought Philip into central Greece (18.143). In the courts of 330, Demosthenes’ counter-argument

584

inventory a2

was that Aeschines, far from aiming to defend the Athenians against the allegations of the Amphissans, had in fact been bribed by Philip to create upheaval which would allow him to invade central Greece (Dem. 18.149–59); it is perhaps significant that in his account he made no mention of the decree described at T1. For an account of the background to these matters, known in modern scholarship as the Fourth Sacred War, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.585–8; Harris, Aeschines, 126–30; Sánchez, L’ Amphictionie, 227–35. Griffith (History of Macedonia, 2.587) points out that Demosthenes would have persuaded the Athenians to stay away from the meeting on the grounds that to participate in this would be to run the risk of making the Theban allies of the Amphissans hostile to the Athenians. Aeschines appears to offer verbatim quotations of the Athenian decree, to the effect that the hieromnemon of the Athenians, and the pylagorai who were at the time in office, would go to Thermopylai and Delphi at the times appointed by the Athenians’ ancestors (T1: ‘τὸν ἱερομνήμονα … τὸν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τοὺς πυλαγόρους τοὺς ἀεὶ πυλαγοροῦντας πορεύεσθαι εἰς Πύλας καὶ εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐν τοῖς τεταγμένοις χρόνοις ὑπὸ τῶν προγόνων’). He added also that the decree included the provision that the Athenian officers ‘would take no part with those assembled there, in word or deed or decree, or in any act whatsoever’ (T1: ‘τὸν ἱερομνήμονα … τὸν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τοὺς πυλαγόρους τοὺς ἀεὶ πυλαγοροῦντας μὴ μετέχειν τοῖς ἐκεῖσε συλλεγομένοις μήτε λόγου μήτε ἔργου μήτε δόγματος μήτε πράξεως μηδεμιᾶς’). Demosthenes appears to have contrived the decree, by getting a member of the boule who was inexperienced in public affairs to make the a probouleuma at a closed meeting of the council (Aeschin. 3.125); this took place after the expulsion of idiotai, that is, non-members of the council who were present; see, for other examples of closed meetings of the council, Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 40. Aeschines’ description suggests that anyone who was not a member of the council and who wanted to secure the enactment of a probouleumatic decree would ‘have to find a member of the council willing either to embody his proposal in a specific probouleuma’, as Demosthenes appears to have done in this case, ‘or to refer him and his proposal to the assembly in an open probouleuma’ (Rhodes with Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States, 13 note 13). The council, on this occasion, appears to have made a definite proposal, which was ratified by the people when it was put in front of them (Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 59–60). Carey (Aeschines, 206 note 136), however, observes that Aeschines was unable to substantiate the allegations he made about Demosthenes having his decree passed surreptitiously while in the pay of the Amphissans, and suggests that Demosthenes had won the people round to his point of view. Aeschines’ account makes it likely but not certain that Demosthenes was the proposer of the decree at the assembly, even if he sought assistance from among the bouleutai for creating the probouleuma.

d162 decree about marching to eleusis

585

Date

Autumn 340 (Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.717–19) or spring 339 (Aeschin. 3.115 with Wankel, ‘Bemerkungen’, 159–66 and Harris, Aeschines, 206 note 5); for comprehensive bibliography, Sánchez, L’ Amphictionie, 228 with notes 33–5.

Bibliography

Carey, C., Aeschines. Austin (2000) 206. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979), 585–8, 717–19. Harris, E., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford and New York (1994) 126–30. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972) 40, 59–60. Rhodes, P.J., with Lewis, D.M., The Decrees of the Greek States. Oxford (1997) 13 note 13. Sánchez, P., L’ Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: recherches sur son rôle historique des origines au IIe siècle de notre ère. Historia Einzelschriften 148. Stuttgart (2002) 227–35. Wankel, H., ‘Bemerkungen zur delphischen Amphiktyonie im 4. Jh. und zum 4. Heiligen Krieg’, ZPE 42 (1981) 153–66.

D162 Decree about marching to Eleusis and sending envoys to Thebes

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 339/8

Literary Context

Defending his record in his support of Ktesiphon’s proposal to crown him in 330, Demosthenes accounts for his activity in the aftermath of the fall of Elateia to Philip. His report of the news to the council, and his proposals at the assembly as to how Athens should react (Dem. 18.169–80), are regarded by MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 370, as ‘the climax of his whole career’. Diodorus Siculus’ account of these events (T4) looks very pro-Demosthenic, and may even derive from familiarity with the text of de Corona.

586

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.177: Ἔπειτ’ ἐξελθόντας Ἐλευσῖνάδε τοὺς ἐν ἡλικίᾳ καὶ τοὺς ἱππέας δεῖξαι πᾶσιν ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ὄντας ἵνα τοῖς ἐν Θήβαις φρονοῦσι τὰ ὑμέτερα ἐξ ἴσου γένηται τὸ παρρησιάζεσθαι περὶ τῶν δικαίων, ἰδοῦσιν ὅτι, ὥσπερ τοῖς πωλοῦσι Φιλίππῳ τὴν πατρίδα πάρεσθ᾽ ἡ βοηθήσουσα δύναμις ἐν Ἐλατείᾳ, οὕτω τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἀγωνίζεσθαι βουλομένοις ὑπάρχεθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἕτοιμοι καὶ βοηθήσετε, ἐάν τις ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἴῃ. T2 Dem. 18.178: Μετὰ ταῦτα χειροτονῆσαι κελεύω δέκα πρέσβεις, καὶ ποιῆσαι τούτους κυρίους μετὰ τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ τοῦ πότε δεῖ βαδίζειν ἐκεῖσε καὶ τῆς ἐξόδου. T3  Dem. 18.179: Ταῦτα καὶ παραπλήσια τούτοις εἰπὼν κατέβην. συνεπαινεσάντων δὲ πάντων καὶ οὐδενὸς εἰπόντος ἐναντίον οὐδέν, οὐκ εἶπον μὲν ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔγραψα δέ, οὐδ᾽ ἔγραψα μέν, οὐκ ἐπρέσβευσα δέ, οὐδ᾽ ἐπρέσβευσα μέν, οὐκ ἔπεισα δὲ Θηβαίους, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἄχρι τῆς τελευτῆς διεξῆλθον, καὶ ἔδωκα ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν ἁπλῶς εἰς τοὺς περιεστηκότας τῇ πόλει κινδύνους. καί μοι φέρε τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ τότε γενόμενον. T4  D.S. 16.84.5: Ἀπορίας οὖν μεγάλης οὔσης καὶ καταπλήξεως ἀπέβλεπε τὸ πλῆθος ἐπὶ τὸν Δημοσθένην. ὁ δὲ καταβὰς καὶ τὸν δῆμον παρακαλέσας θαρρεῖν ἀπεφαίνετο δεῖν παραχρῆμα πρέσβεις ἀποστέλλειν εἰς τὰς Θήβας καὶ παρακαλεῖν τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς κοινῇ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἀγῶνα τίθεσθαι· πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς ἄλλους συμμάχους ὁ καιρὸς οὐ συνεχώρει πέμπειν πρεσβείας περὶ τῆς συμμαχίας.

Commentary

Probably in winter 340/39, the Thebans expelled the Macedonian garrison from Nikaia in eastern Lokris; the Macedonian response was, by late 339, to launch an attack upon, and capture, Elateia (Trevett, ‘Demosthenes’, 196; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.589–95; Didymos, Demosthenes col. 11.37–51 = FGrH328 F56b). Upon its fall, there was alarm at both Thebes and Athens: Elateia was two days’ march to the borders of Attica, or three through Boiotia (D.S. 16.84.5; Griffth, History of Macedonia, 2.589); after they had heard the news, the Athenian council reported matters to the assembly (Dem. 18.169–70), and Demosthenes made a speech containing these proposals (TT 1–3). They appear to consist of two parts: first that all men of military age and the cavalry should march out to Eleusis (T1); the hope, as it is presented here by Demosthenes, was that Athenian

d162 decree about marching to eleusis

587

T1 Then let all men of military age and the cavalry march out to Eleusis so that you show to everyone that you are under arms and so that there might be reassurance for those who represent your interests in Thebes that they are able to speak freely about important matters. For they would know that, just as those who have sold their homeland to Philip have the prospect of support by the force at Elateia, in the same way you are ready also to help to struggle on behalf of freedom for those wanting it, if ever anyone attacks them. T2 Afterwards, I order you to select ten ambassadors, and to grant them the authority, together with the generals, to decide when it is necessary to march out there (sc. Thebes) and on the conduct of the campaign. T3 When I had spoken these words, or something like them, I left the platform. And everyone applauded my words and no one opposed. It is not the case that I spoke, but did not propose, nor that I proposed but did not act as ambassador, nor that I travelled as ambassador but did not persuade the Thebans, but from the beginning until the end I pursued matters, and I devoted myself to you completely in the face of perils that were upon our city. And bring me the decree that came about then. T4  When there was great perplexity and dismay in the city, the masses looked towards Demosthenes. He came down and urged the people to rally and instructed them that it was necessary to straightaway send ambassadors to Thebes and to urge the Boiotians in common to make a struggle for freedom; there was no time to send ambassadors to the other allies concerning alliance.

partisans at Thebes would know that the Athenians were able to come to their aid in the event of an attack by Philip. Second, it provided that the Athenians should appoint ten ambassadors to determine the time of the march to Thebes and the conduct of the campaign (T2). The dispatch of ambassadors under Demosthenes was mentioned also by Philochorus (Didymos, Demosthenes, col. 11.37–51 = FGrH 328 F56b). It is clear that the Athenians were approaching the Thebans as a way of securing an alliance that would bolster their own chances of resisting Philip: Mosley, ‘Athens’ alliance’. The sources suggest also that the policy was at least in part influenced by Demosthenes: he was the proxenos of the Thebans at Athens (Plu. Dem. 18.1); for his pro-Theban position and the alliance with them, see Trevett, ‘Demosthenes’, and D163 below.

588

inventory a2

Demosthenes’ account in the On the Crown suggests that after making these proposals he then went on to give advice about negotiations with the Thebans; he emphasises that he served as an ambassador (Dem. 18.179; D.S. 16.84.5–85.1); Diodorus is wrong to suggest that Demosthenes went alone on the embassy; Demosthenes’ figure of ten ambassadors (T2) is credible; Plutarch, in his account of the assembly, suggests that Demosthenes was sent with others, perhaps as the leader of the embassy (Plu. Dem. 18.1). Plutarch cites Theopompus as evidence that the dynamis of Demosthenes roused the Thebans’ philotimia to unite against Philip (Plu. Dem. 18.3); this is a view that may be derivative of Demosthenes’ presentation of the ambassadors as prevailing on the Thebans and persuading them to make alliance (Dem. 18.214–15); for a different view, that it was the threat of an Athenian force that led to the Thebans accepting alliance, see Guth,‘Rhetoric’, and D163 below. Yunis, Demosthenes, 209 makes an important point about Demosthenes’ words ‘χειροτονῆσαι κελεύω δέκα πρέσβεις, καὶ ποιῆσαι τούτους κυρίους μετὰ τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ τοῦ πότε δεῖ βαδίζειν ἐκεῖσε καὶ τῆς ἐξόδου’ (T2), observing that ‘these specific technical points were most likely taken verbatim from the decree that was to be read out in a moment … By creating a seamless connection between his advice and the demos’ decree, Demosthenes would demonstrate his absolute control’: by this line of interpretation, the words of Demosthenes offer an interesting deployment of verbatim quotation with the intention of demonstrating resonance with, and knowledge of, Athenian decrees. The document appearing in sections 181–7 of the de Corona, apparently pertaining to the declaration of war with Philip, the dispatch of ambassadors to Thebes and the alliance, and allegedly read out at the assembly, is exceptionally long for a decree of this era, and is generally not treated as authentic: Canevaro, The Documents, 310–18.

Date

Late 339 or early 338, after the capture of Elateia: Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.589–95.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 310–18. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 589–95. Guth, D., ‘Rhetoric and historical narrative: the Theban–Athenian alliance of 339 BCE’, Historia 63 (2014), 151–65. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 370–1.

d163 decree of alliance with the thebans

589

Mosley, D., ‘Athens’ alliance with Thebes, 339 BC’, Historia 20 (1971) 508–10 Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 190. Trevett, J., ‘Demosthenes and Thebes’, Historia 48 (1999) 184–202. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001).

D163 Decree of alliance with the Thebans Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Spring 339

Literary Context

In his attack on Demosthenes’ enemy Diondas, Hypereides (T1) suggests that the Athenian dispatch of forces to Thebes (D162 above) was what led to the Theban–Athenian alliance; Aeschines, in his attack on Demosthenes’ policy, maintained both that the alliance was unjust and unequal (T2) and that it essentially handed over leadership of the Greek alliance to the Thebans (T3).

590

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Hypereides, Against Diondas, 1 Horváth: Ἐπειδὴ ταῦ(τα) ἠκούσατε παρ’ ἡμῶν, Ἐλευσινόθεν εἰς Θήβας ἐπορεύεσεσθε· οὕτως δὲ πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἰκείως̣ κ̣ αὶ φιλανθρώπως διετέθητε, ὥστ ̣ ’ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν εἰσεληλυθότες αὐτοὶ εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τὰς οἰκί̣ α̣ς̣ ἐ̣ π̣ὶ̣ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας τὸ στρατόπεδον ὑμῶν ̣ ὑπεδέξαντο· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐδέν πω παρ’ ἐκείνων εἰληφότες βέβαιον, τὴν δύναμιν ἐκεῖσε Φιλίππου πλησίον ὄντ(ος) ἀπεστείλατε· καὶ τότε μὲν ὁ Φίλιππ(ος) ἀπιὼν ὤιχετο οὐδὲν ὦν ἠβούλετο διαπραξάμενος· ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ Θηβαῖοι ἐπανελθόντες τάχιστα τὰς συμμαχίας ἐπεκυρώσαμεν. T2  Aeschin. 3.106: Δημοσθένης ἀπώλεσε τὰς τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῆς πόλεως πράξεις, ἀσεβήσας μὲν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐν Δελφοῖς, ἄδικον δὲ καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἴσην τὴν πρὸς Θηβαίους συμμαχίαν γράψας. T3  Aeschin. 3.142–3: Πρῶτον μὲν συνέπεισε τὸν δῆμον μηκέτι βουλεύεσθαι ἐπὶ τίσι δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν συμμαχίαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγαπᾶν μόνον εἰ γίγνεται, τοῦτο δὲ προλαβὼν ἔκδοτον μὲν τὴν Βοιωτίαν ἅπασαν ἐποίησε Θηβαίοις, γράψας ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι, ‘ἐάν τις ἀφιστῆται πόλις ἀπὸ Θηβαίων, βοηθεῖν Ἀθηναίους Βοιωτοῖς τοῖς ἐν Θήβαις,’ τοῖς ὀνόμασι κλέπτων καὶ μεταφέρων τὰ πράγματα, ὥσπερ εἴωθεν, ὡς τοὺς Βοιωτοὺς ἔργῳ κακῶς πάσχοντας τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων σύνθεσιν τῶν Δημοσθένους ἀγαπήσοντας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μᾶλλον ἐφ᾽ οἷς κακῶς ἐπεπόνθεσαν ἀγανακτήσοντας· δεύτερον δὲ τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἀναλωμάτων τὰ μὲν δύο μέρη ὑμῖν ἀνέθηκεν, οἷς ἦσαν ἀπωτέρω οἱ κίνδυνοι, τὸ δὲ τρίτον μέρος Θηβαίοις, δωροδοκῶν ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστοις τούτων, καὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν τὴν μὲν κατὰ θάλατταν ἐποίησε κοινήν, τὸ δ᾽ ἀνάλωμα ἴδιον ὑμέτερον, τὴν δὲ κατὰ γῆν, εἰ μὴ δεῖ ληρεῖν, ἄρδην φέρων ἀνέθηκε Θηβαίοις, ὥστε παρὰ τὸν γενόμενον πόλεμον μὴ κύριον γενέσθαι Στρατοκλέα τὸν ὑμέτερον στρατηγὸν βουλεύσασθαι περὶ τῆς τῶν στρατιωτῶν σωτηρίας. T4  D.S. 16.85.1: Τοῦ δὲ δήμου τὸν λόγον ἀποδεξαμένου καὶ τοῦ περὶ τῆς πρεσβείας ψηφίσματος ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους γραφέντος ὁ μὲν δῆμος ἐζήτει τὸν δυνατώτατον εἰπεῖν· ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης ὑπήκουσε προθύμως πρὸς τὴν χρείαν. τέλος δ’ ὀξέως πρεσβεύσας καὶ πείσας ἐπανῆλθεν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας. ὁ δὲ δῆμος τῇ τῶν Βοιωτῶν συμμαχίᾳ διπλασάσας τὴν προϋπάρχουσαν δύναμιν ἀνεθάρρησε ταῖς ἐλπίσιν.

d163 decree of alliance with the thebans

591

T1 When you heard this from us, you travelled from Eleusis to Thebes; and you were so well disposed and friendly towards each other that they received your army into their city and their houses in the presence of their wives and children. And you, though you had not yet received any firm assurances from them, sent your force there while Philip was close at hand; and at that point Philip went off, without achieving any of his goals. We and the Thebans came back and rapidly confirmed the alliance. (trans. Carey et al.).

T2 Demosthenes utterly ruined the affairs of the Greeks and their cities by being impious towards the shrine at Delphi and also by making an unjust and in no sense equal alliance. T3 First he persuaded the people to no longer deliberate about the terms of alliance, but to be happy just for it being made, and having made this point he handed over all of Boiotia to the Thebans, writing in his decree ‘if any city revolts from the Thebans, the Athenians are to assist the Boiotians in Thebes’, cheating with words and changing the facts, just as he is accustomed to do; as though, when the Boiotians were suffering badly they would be happy with Demosthenes’ verbal platitudes, rather than resentful about the things that they had suffered; second, he charged to your account two thirds of the cost of the expedition, you for whom the risks were smaller, but only a third part to the Thebans (he had taken bribes about these things). The leadership by sea he caused to be common, while the expenses were to be yours alone, while the command by land, unless we are to talk nonsense, he took and gave completely to the Thebans, so that, in the war that followed, Stratokles the general had no authority to deliberate on the safety of his troops.

T4  When the people had accepted the argument and the decree concerning the embassy had been drafted by Demosthenes, the people searched for the most persuasive of speakers; Demosthenes keenly answered the appeal, and he at last served as an ambassador with vigour and, on persuading the Thebans, returned to Athens. The people, having doubled their strength as it stood through the alliance with the Boiotians, now recovered their hope.

592

inventory a2

Commentary

Hypereides, in his Against Diondas (T1), set out the critical situation faced by the Greek states in the aftermath of Philip’s capture of Elateia: either the Thebans would make alliance with Philip and invade Athens with him or that the Athenians would fight Philip unaided. In contrast to T1, Demosthenes, in his defence speech of 330, placed great emphasis on the role that he himself played in creating a unified front with the Thebans before Chaironeia (Dem. 18.209–15); Demosthenes’ view is followed by Trevett, ‘Demosthenes’. But as Guth, ‘Rhetoric’, 152 points out, ‘Hyperides points to the Athenians’ quick march to Thebes as the real reason the Thebans accepted the alliance’; later sources, however, like Diodorus (T4 and 16.84.5), Dionysius (Amm. 11) and Plutarch (Dem. 18.2) tend to follow Demosthenes’ emphasis on the role of the ambassadors. Unsurprisingly, Aeschines too underplayed the role of Demosthenes in the rallying of Greek forces (Aeschin. 3.140). There were four main provisions criticised by Aeschines (T2), summarised by Mosley, ‘Athens’ alliance’, 508: ‘(1) If any Boeotian city seceded from Thebes the Athenians were to render assistance to Thebes. (2) The Athenians were to bear two-thirds of the cost of the war and the Thebans only one-third although the danger was remoter from Athens than from Thebes. (3) The Athenians were to share the command by sea while they bore the entire cost of such operations. (4) The Thebans were granted the overall and undivided command by land.’ Mosley argues that Demosthenes, given the urgency of the situation, was justified in offering concessions to the Thebans about their control of the Boiotians; moreover, Aeschines’ one-sided description of the agreement in all likelihood skated over the assurances of mutual assistance; the division of military command was known from other alliances (see IG II2 112, D56 = Xen. Hell. 7.1.1–2; cf. Xen. Hell. 7.5.3); and that the apportionment of financial contributions reflected the Athenians’ greater ability to pay. The allegation against Demosthenes that the Athenians contributed far more by land and sea to the war than did the Thebans in this alliance appears to have been made by Diondas in his attack on the earlier honours for Demosthenes proposed by Hypereides and Demomeles: ‘we contributed twice as much as the Thebans to the war, in money and horses and infantry’ (Hypereides, Against Diondas, 12–13 Horváth). Diodorus’ view of the alliance is much more positive, and notes that the Athenians had doubled their armed forces through the alliance (T4).

Date

Spring 338, after the fall of Elateia, but before the battle of Chaironeia.

d164 ** decree for the transfer of revenues

593

Bibliography

Bengtson, SVA 345. Carey, C., Edwards, M., Farkas, Z., Herrman, J., Horváth, Mayer, G., Mézáros, T., Rhodes, P.J. and Tchernetska, N., ‘Fragments of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes palimpsest’, ZPE 165 (2008) 1–19. Guth, D., ‘Rhetoric and historical narrative: the Theban–Athenian alliance of 339 BCE’, Historia 63 (2014) 151–65. Horváth, L., Der ‘Neue Hypereides’: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin, Munich and Boston (2014). Mosley, D., ‘Athens’ alliance with Thebes, 339 BC’, Historia 20 (1971) 508–10. Trevett, J., ‘Demosthenes and Thebes’, Historia 48 (1999) 184–202.

D164 ** Decree for the transfer of revenues to the stratiotic fund Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 339/8

Literary Context

Challenging the view that certain speeches of Demosthenes were inspired by the Rhetoric of Aristotle, Dionysius of Halicarnassus draws upon Philochorus as a way of establishing a chronology of the early years of Philip’s war against the Greeks. The decree appears to have been recorded by Philochorus as part of his account of the events of 339/8.

594

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, To Ammaios, 11 p. 273 12–17 (= FGrH 328 F56a): Λυσιμαχίδης ᾽Αχαρνεύς· ἐπὶ τούτου τὰ μὲν ἔργα τὰ περὶ τοὺς νεωσοίκους καὶ τὴν σκευοθήκην ἀνεβάλοντο διὰ τὸν πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς Φίλιππον, τὰ δὲ χρήματα ἐψηφίσαντο πάντ᾽ εἶναι στρατιωτικά, Δημοσθένους γράψαντος.

Commentary

Philochorus is said by Dionysius (T1) to have claimed that in 339/8 the Athenians, on the motion of Demosthenes, set aside the work related to the shipsheds and the arsenal (presumably that of Philon, which was commenced in 347/6: IG II2 1668) owing to the distraction of the war against Philip and decreed that all funds should be designated for military purposes (that is, to be deemed ‘stratiotic’). The passage is rather vague about the precise provisions of the decree; moreover, the interpretation of the ‘stratiotic’ fund is controversial: Rhodes’ view is that from the 370s, all surplus was deemed ‘stratiotic’, but that after the creation of the theoric fund in the 350s, it became stratiotic only in times of emergency (Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 105–7, 235–40). Demosthenes’ decree, however, suggests that all money (τὰ χρήματα πάντα) be used for military purposes, and is in that sense an extreme measure designed to cope with the threat that Athens faced from Philip. It is not clear from T1 whether Demosthenes’ arrangements would have cut into the allocation of money for particular purposes, or whether it simply redirected the surplus from the theoric fund to the stratiotic fund. Demosthenes expressed concern about the Athenian deployment of her military funds: in the First Olynthiac of 349, he had criticised the Athenians for using her stratiotic funds for pleasure rather than military purposes (Dem. 1.19–20). This did not, however, amount to a criticism of the use of public monies to subsidise theatre tickets, which would have been unpopular and politically controversial: in the Fourth Philippic he advocated a view that the theoric fund could actually strengthen the polis in general ([Dem.] 10.36). For a socio-political interpretation of Demosthenes’ words on this subject, see Harris, Democracy, 121–39, suggesting that the theoric funds, as they bestowed material benefits upon the poor, were vital to the functioning of the polis. However, the proposal under consideration may have been controversial because it would have implied that the surplus of the theoric fund could have been transferred to the military budget; this appears to have been at odds with Libanius’ claim, in the hypothesis to the First Olynthiac, that it was illegal to propose that money in the theoric fund be paid for military purposes, E. Harris, Democracy, 121–3, however, is highly sceptical about the authenticity of Libanius’ law, and suggests that it was permissible for the money to be converted to military uses; see D115 above.

d164 ** decree for the transfer of revenues

595

T1 Lysimachides of Acharnai. During the archonship of this man they abandoned the works on the shipsheds and the arsenal because of the war against Philip, and they voted, on the proposal of Demosthenes, that all funds be military.

The assembly certainly had the power to make decrees about the deployment of public monies: in 349/8 or earlier, Apollodoros of Acharnai proposed a decree that the people should decide by voting whether the surplus of the budget be used for military purposes or as a theatre-allowance (see D115 above). The decree was attacked on the basis of Stephanos’ claim that it breached a law that said that in times of war the surplus would go towards the military fund (Dem 59.4); the decree was overruled by graphe paranomon: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 18. The fact that the war against Philip led the Athenians to halt work on the shipsheds highlights one way in which the upheaval of the threat had disrupted public organisation at Athens: shipsheds were highly important to Athenian organisation and were a source of great pride: see Blackman, ‘Classical and Hellenistic sheds.’ As Rhodes, ‘The organization’, 200, suggests, we might reasonably presume that surpluses reverted to the theoric fund after the battle of Chaironeia and Philip’s settlement.

Date

339/8, presumably in the emergency between the fall of Elateia and the battle of Chaironeia (T1).

Bibliography

Blackman, D.J., ‘Classical and Hellenistic sheds’ in Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. D.J. Blackman and B. Rankov. Cambridge (2013) 16–29. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 120–1. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 34. Harris, E.M., Democracy and the Rule of Law. Oxford (2006) 121–39. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Rhodes, P.J., ‘The organization of Athenian public finance’, G&R 60 (2013) 203–31.

D165 Decree celebrating military success Proposer: Unknown Date: Winter 339/8

Literary Context

Demosthenes, as a way of dismissing Aeschines as an enemy of the community, alleges that he did not take part in public sacrifices and processions for the gods which celebrated the outcome of two early engagements during winter 339/8 with Philip.

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.216: Ἐφ’ οἷς παρὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων ὑμῖν ἐγίγνοντο ἔπαινοι, παρὰ δ’ ὑμῶν θυσίαι καὶ πομπαὶ τοῖς θεοῖς. T2  Dem. 18.217-18: Λέγε δὴ καὶ ταῦτα τὰ ψηφίσματά μοι. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑΤΑ ΘΥΣΙΩΝ. Οὐκοῦν ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν θυσίαις ἦμεν τότε.

Commentary

These decrees celebrated with procession and sacrifices to the gods the outcome of two battles against Philip, ‘a battle by the river, and the winter battle’ (Dem. 18.216). As Yunis, Demosthenes, 231 observes, the battle by the river, presumably the Kephisos, probably took place at the ruins of Parapotamioi in Phokis (Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.591); he follows Kirchner’s view that the battles may be related to honours (of the council and the tribe Kekropis) for an Athenian taxiarch in 339/8 (IG II2 1155; see now Lambert, ‘Dedication’). For discussion of sacrifice and celebrations for victorious battles, see D105 above, the decree of Diophantos, with Pritchett, Greek State, III.186–9). This is not the only point at which Demosthenes appropriates the praise received by the city and the sacrifices and processions the people offered to the gods for their successes: he does so also at 18.86. As Kavoulaki, ‘Observations’, 146, notes, processions (prosodoi, pompai) were ‘on a par with sacrifices’, and were sometimes mentioned in the same contexts as exhibitions of piety.

596

d165 decree celebrating military success

597

T1 For these things, praises were made for you (the people) by other communities, and were acknowledged by yourselves with sacrifices and processions for the gods. T2 Read, then, these decrees. DECREES OF SACRIFICES. And so you were then involved in sacrifices.

Date

Winter 339/8.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979). Kavoulaki, A., ‘Observations on the meaning and practice of Greek pompe (procession)’ in Current Approaches to Religion in Ancient Greece. Papers Presented at a Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 17–19 April, 2008, eds. M. Haysom and J. Wallensten. Stockholm, (2011) 135–50. Lambert, S.D., ‘Dedication and decrees commemorating military action in 339/8 BC (IG II2 1155)’, ΑΞIΩΝ: Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud, vol. 1, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and N. Papazarkadas. Athens (2015) 233–46. Pritchett, W.K., Greek State at War, vol. 3. Berkeley (1979). Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 231.

D166a Decree of honours for Demosthenes Proposer: Demomeles Demonos Paianieus (PA 3554; PAA 317410; APF) Date: Early Summer 338

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1) introduced discussion of Demomeles’ decree in his defence of Ktesiphon’s honours in 330 on the basis of the claim that it exhibited the same wording and phrasing (‘τὰς αὐτὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ ταὐτὰ ῥήματ’ ἔχει ἅπερ πρότερον’) as those proposed by Aristonikos (D156) and by Ktesiphon (D179: Dem. 18.222–4). Aeschines, accordingly, might have prosecuted Demomeles, its proposer and Hypereides, (cf. D166b) with more reason than Ktesiphon, who was able to refer to these precedents (Dem. 18.223).

Texts

T1  Dem. 18.222–3: Εἰς ταῦτα κατέστησε Φίλιππον ἡ ἐμὴ πολιτεία, Αἰσχίνη· ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἐκεῖνος ἀφῆκε, πολλοὺς καὶ θρασεῖς τὰ πρὸ τούτων τῇ πόλει λόγους ἐπαιρόμενος. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν δικαίως ἐστεφανούμην ὑπὸ τουτωνί, καὶ σὺ παρὼν οὐκ ἀντέλεγες, ὁ δὲ γραψάμενος Διώνδας τὸ μέρος τῶν ψήφων οὐκ ἔλαβεν. καί μοι λέγε ταῦτα τὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ ἀποπεφευγότα, ὑπὸ τούτου δ᾽ οὐδὲ γραφέντα. Ψηφίσματα. Ταυτὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τὰς αὐτὰς συλλαβὰς καὶ ταὐτὰ ῥήματ᾽ ἔχει ἅπερ πρότερον μὲν Ἀριστόνικος, νῦν δὲ Κτησιφῶν γέγραφεν οὑτοσί. καὶ ταῦτ᾽ Αἰσχίνης οὔτ᾽ ἐδίωξεν αὐτὸς οὔτε τῷ γραψαμένῳ συγκατηγόρησεν. καίτοι τότε τὸν Δημομέλη τὸν ταῦτα γράφοντα καὶ τὸν Ὑπερείδην, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ μου νῦν κατηγορεῖ, μᾶλλον ἂν εἰκότως ἢ τόνδ᾽ ἐδίωκεν. T2 [Plu.] X Or. 845f–6a: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν ἐπισκευὴν τῆς πόλεως τῇ ἐπιμελείᾳ προσελθὼν καὶ τῶν τειχῶν ἐπιμελη τὴς χειροτονηθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας εἰσήνεγκε τὸ ἀναλωθὲν ἀργύριον, μνᾶς ἑκατόν· ἐπέδωκε δὲ καὶ θεωροῖς μυρίας· τριήρους τ’ ἐπιβὰς περιέπλευσε τοὺς συμμάχους ἀργυρολογῶν. ἐφ’ οἷς πολλάκις ἐστεφανώθη, πρότερον μὲν ὑπὸ Δημομελοῦς Ἀριστονίκου Ὑπερείδου χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ, τελευταῖον δ’ ὑπὸ Κτησιφῶντος.

598

d166a decree of honours for demosthenes

599

T1 My policy had put Philip in this position, Aeschines; and this was the voice he used, he who had previously deployed many words with vigour against the city. And because of these things I was justly crowned by the people, but you, even though you were present, did not speak against it, and Diondas, who prosecuted the proposal, did not take the fifth-share of the ballots. Please read the decrees which were then acquitted, and which were not indicted by him. Decrees. These decrees, men of Athens, contain the same words and phrases as those which Aristonikos [see D156 above] proposed, and which now Ktesiphon has proposed [see D179 below]. Aeschines himself did not prosecute them, nor did he support the one who prosecuted them. And if he speaks the truth currently, he might have prosecuted Demomeles, the proposer, and Hypereides, with more grounds than Ktesiphon. T2  After that [sc. speaking the epitaphios logos after Chaironeia], he turned his attention to the improvement of the city and, on being elected commissioner of the walls, he made payments out of his own money, amounting to 100 mnai; he gave also a thousand drachmai for sacred envoys, and he made a journey in a trireme to the allies for the purpose of collecting money. For all these things he was crowned many times, having been crowned at an earlier point by Demomeles, Aristonikos and Hypereides with a gold crown, and finally by Ktesiphon.

600

inventory a2

T3 [Plu.] X Or. 848f: Ἔγραψε καὶ Δημοσθένει τιμάς, καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὑπὸ Διώνδα παρανόμων γραφέντος ἀπέφυγε.

Commentary

Demomeles appears to have proposed an honorific crown (probably a gold one: T2) for Demosthenes, his paternal cousin. This is the second of three times that the Athenian assembly is known to have voted honours for Demosthenes during his lifetime: the others are D156 and D179. Diondas attacked the decree by graphe paranomon, but Demosthenes (T1) alleges that Aeschines failed to support this unsuccessful prosecution. If we believe that Demosthenes himself was the speaker of the speech On the Trierarchic Crown, he appears to have been awarded an honorific crown in early 360/59 (see Dem. 51.1, 4 (= D76 TT 1, 2)), but probably this was the result of his victory in a trierarchic preparation competition and was bestowed by a treasurer appointed by the people to do so. The role of Hypereides in the decree is unclear from T1, which could be read to suggest that he was also the proposer of the decree. Hansen (The Sovereignty, no. 26) suggests that one man (out of Demomeles and Hypereides) proposed the original proposal to crown him with a golden crown while the other added a rider that it be announced in the theatre: this is the view followed here (see D166b below). For a possible attestation of Lykourgos and Aristonikos acting as joint proposers, see IG II2 1623 lines 276–85. Demosthenes (T1) ordered this to be read out in the court in 330, but no document pertaining to the proposal is preserved. Hypereides’ speech which opposed Diondas’ graphe paranomon is attested by a number of passing references (Carey et al, ‘Fragments’, 2 note 12) but now also fragments from the Archimedes Palimpsest (Horváth, Der Neue Hypereides). It appears to date to early 334 or later: Horváth, ‘Hyperidea’ and Der Neue Hypereides places the trial of Diondas’ graphe paranomon in January–March 334, but Rhodes, ‘Hypereides’ argues for May–June of the same year. In the extant sections of the speech, Hypereides made a case for the justification of the honours by reference to the Athenians’ effort to secure an alliance with the Thebans (Hyp. Ag. Diondas 1–3 Horváth), and so it may well be the case that the reward was prompted by Demosthenes’ role in making this alliance, whether as ambassador (D162) or proposer of a force to march to Eleusis (D163). Demosthenes (18.216) also refers to a battle by a river (possibly the Kephisos beside the ruins of Parapotamioi in Phokis: Yunis, Demosthenes, 231 and Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.591) and a winter battle (Dem. 18.216), which may well have had victorious outcomes for the Athenians: as Kirchner suggested, epigraphically preserved honours of 339/8 of the council and tribe

d166a decree of honours for demosthenes

601

T3 And he also proposed honours for Demosthenes, and he was acquitted when the decree was prosecuted for illegality by Diondas.

Kekropis for an Athenian taxiarch may refer to these battles (IG II2 1155; see now Lambert, ‘Dedication’): we may presume that these were victorious encounters for the Athenians and Thebans against Philip and provide an alternative context for the proposal of the honours. The justifications of honorific decrees of [Plutarch] at T2 clearly refer to Demosthenes’ post-Chaironeia activities, and therefore apply only to Ktesiphon’s decree (see D179 below). Proposal of this decree, and defence of it against Diondas’ prosecution, is the only attested political activity of Demomeles: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory,’ 41.

Date

Early summer 338. We can place the honours after the alliance with Thebes (which is discussed extensively in Hypereides’ support of the decree: Against Diondas 1–6 Horváth) but before the battle of Chaironeia (Hypereides claims that Diondas is attacking decrees made before this battle: Hyp. Ag. Diondas 2–3 Horváth).

Bibliography

Carey, C., Edwards, M., Farkas, Z., Herrman, J., Horváth, Mayer, G., Mézáros, T., Rhodes, P.J. and Tchernetska, N., ‘Fragments of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes palimpsest’, ZPE 165 (2008) 1–19. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979). Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) 36. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72. Horváth, L., ‘Dating Hyperides’ Against Diondas’, ZPE 166 (2008) 27–34 Horváth, L., ‘Hyperidea’, BICS 52 (2009) 187–97. Horváth, L., Der Neue Hypereides: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin (2014). Lambert, S.D., ‘Dedication and decrees commemorating military action in 339/8 BC (IG II2 1155)’, ΑΞIΩΝ: Studies in Honor of Ronald S. Stroud, vol.1, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and N. Papazarkadas. Athens (2015) 233–46. Rhodes, P.J., ‘Hypereides’ Against Diondas: two problems’, BICS 52 (2009) 223–6. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 231.

D166b Modification of honours for Demosthenes? Proposer: Hypereides Glaukippou Kollyteus (PA 13912; PAA 902110; APF) Date: Early Summer 338 or later

Literary Context See D166a above.

Text

See D166a above.

Commentary

Demosthenes (18.223 = D166a T1) associates Hypereides with Demomeles’ decree honouring him; [Plutarch] (X Or. 848f) thinks of him as the proposer of honours attacked by Diondas, and at 846a has him as the proposer of a golden crown. It is plausible to think that Hypereides may have proposed a rider to Demomeles’ decree, perhaps specifying that it should be announced in the theatre.

Date

Early summer 338 or later (see D166a above).

Bibliography

See D166a above.

602

D167 a–c Emergency measures after Chaironeia Proposer: Hypereides Glaukippou Kollyteus (PA 13912; PAA 902110; APF) Date: Late Summer 338/7

In the aftermath of Athens’ defeat at Chaironeia (for a detailed account see Griffith, History, 2.596–603), Hypereides proposed measures which made arrangements in the case of Philip embarking upon a march on Attica. These emergency proposals are here discussed as if they were three separate decrees (referred to as (a), (b) and (c)), but they may well represent separate elements of a single decree.

(a)* Decree proposing that slaves, aliens, and disenfranchised slaves be enfranchised

Literary Context

This controversial proposal was held up by Lycurgus as an indication of the depth of disaster that the Athenians faced in the aftermath of defeat at Chaironeia (T1). The graphe paranomon brought against the decree by Aristogeiton (TT 3, 7) and/or Diondas (T2) is mentioned in a number of oratorical contexts and by [Plutarch] (T6) and Suda (T7). The words of Hypereides in defence of his proposal were cited by later rhetoricians such as Rutilius Lupus, who appears to have regarded Hypereides as an authority (T5, a discussion of paromologia (concessions made to an adversary in the course of strengthening one’s own argument); see Brooks, De figuris; cf. Apsines 1.75). Dio Chrysostom (T4) mentions the episode in a discussion of ways in which slaves obtained freedom.

603

604

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Lycurg. 1.41: Μάλιστ’ ἄν τις ἤλγησεν καὶ ἐδάκρυσεν ἐπὶ ταῖς τῆς πόλεως συμφοραῖς, ἡνίχ’ ὁρᾶν ἦν τὸν δῆμον ψηφισάμενον τοὺς μὲν δούλους ἐλευθέρους, τοὺς δὲ ξένους Ἀθηναίους, τοὺς δ’ ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους· ὃς πρότερον ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτόχθων εἶναι καὶ ἐλεύθερος ἐσεμνύνετο. T2 Hypereides, Against Diondas, 28 Horváth: Ἀλλ’ ὅμως̣ ἐμοῦ κ̣α̣τηγόρει, ὅτι τοὺς δούλους τοὺς συναγωνιουμένους τῶι δήμωι ἔγραψα ἐλευθέρους εἶναι ὑπὲρ ὧν πολ[λάκις ἔλεγον, ὅτι οὐκ ἐγὼ τὸ ψήφισμα ἔγραψα, ἡ δ’ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχη]. T3  [Dem.] 26.11: Ὅτε γὰρ Ὑπερείδης ἔγραψε, τῶν περὶ Χαιρώνειαν ἀτυχημάτων τοῖς Ἕλλησι γενομένων, καὶ τῆς πόλεως ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐδαφῶν εἰς κίνδυνον μέγιστον κατακεκλειμένης, εἶναι τοὺς ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους, ἵν’ ὁμονοοῦντες ἅπαντες ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας προθύμως ἀγωνίζωνται, ἐάν τις κίνδυνος τηλικοῦτος καταλαμβάνῃ τὴν πόλιν, τούτου τοῦ ψηφίσματος γραφὴν παρανόμων ἀπενέγκας ἠγωνίζετο ἐν τῷ δικαστηρίῳ. T4  Dio Chrysostom, 15.21: Ὅπως Ἀθηναίων ψηφισαμένων μετὰ τὴν ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχην τοὺς συμπολεμήσοντας οἰκέτας ἐλευθέρους εἶναι, εἰ προὔβη ὁ πόλεμος, ἀλλὰ μὴ διελύσατο θᾶττον ὁ Φίλιππος πρὸς αὐτούς, πολλοὶ ἂν τῶν Ἀθήνησιν οἰκετῶν ἢ μικροῦ πάντες ἐλεύθεροι ἦσαν, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου ἕκαστος ἀφεθείς. T5 Rutilius Lupus, On Figures, 1.19 (Halm, Rhetores Latini minores): Quid a me saepius his verbis de meo officio requiris? Scripsisti, ut servis libertas detur? Scripsi, ne liberi servitutem experirentur. Scripsisti, ut exules restituerentur? Scripsi, ut ne quis exilio afficeretur. Leges igitur, quae prohibebant haec, non legebas? Non poteram, propterea quod litteris earum arma Macedonum opposita officiebant. T6  [Plu.] X Or. 848f–9a: Κριθεὶς δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀριστογείτονος παρανόμων ἐπὶ τῷ γράψαι μετὰ Χαιρώνειαν τοὺς μετοίκους πολίτας ποιήσασθαι τοὺς δὲ δούλους ἐλευθέρους, ἱερὰ δὲ καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ ἀποθέσθαι, ἀπέφυγεν. αἰτιωμένων δέ τινων αὐτὸν ὡς παριδόντα πολλοὺς νόμους ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι ‘ἐπεσκότει’ ἔφη ‘μοι τὰ Μακεδόνων ὅπλα. οὐκ ἐγὼ τὸ ψήφισμα ἔγραψα ἡ δ’ ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχη’.

d167 a–c emergency measures after chaironeia

605

T1 Someone would certainly be aggrieved and would weep over the disasters that had befallen the city when seeing the people vote that the slaves be made free, the foreigners be made Athenians, and the disenfranchised be enfranchised; such was the condition of the people that once had taken pride in being indigenous and free. T2 But he [sc. Diondas] nevertheless prosecuted me, because I proposed a decree that those slaves who fought with the people be free, a matter upon which he spoke many times, [?however, I did not propose the decree, but the battle of Chaironeia did so]. T3  At the time of the disasters at Chaironeia, when the foundations of the city were threatened with the most extreme dangers, when Hypereides proposed that the disenfranchised should be enfranchised, so that everyone might unite and struggle with zeal for freedom if any such dangers should threaten the city, he [sc. Aristogeiton] indicted the decree as illegal and contested the case in the court.

T4 Just as, in the aftermath of the battle at Chaironeia, when the Athenians voted to make free those slaves who would help them in the war, had the war had gone on and had Philip not reconciled with them quickly, many, or perhaps even most, of the slaves of the Athenians would have become free without being liberated individually by their masters. T5 Why do you persist in putting these questions to me about my time of office: ‘Did you propose that slaves should be free?’ I did propose it; to prevent free men from experiencing slavery. ‘Did you propose that exiles be restored?’ I did; so that none should suffer by being exiled. ‘Then did you not read the laws forbidding such proposals?’ I could not do so, because the Macedonian arms before me blotted out their letters. (trans. Burtt, Minor Attic Orators, 575) T6 On being brought to trial by Aristogeiton for proposing illegally after the battle of Chaironeia that metics be made citizens and slaves be made free, and to put the sacred objects, the children and women at Piraeus for safe keeping, he was acquitted. And when some people blamed him for overlooking many laws in this decree, he replied ‘the Macedonian shields cast a shadow over my eyes. And the battle of Chaironeia, not I, proposed the decree’.

606

inventory a2

T7  Suda, s.v ‘Ἀπεψηφίσατο’ (Adler, alpha,3111): Ὑπερίδης ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἀριστογείτονα· ὅπως πρῶτον μὲν μυριάδας πλείους ἢ ιε, τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀργυρείων καὶ τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην χώραν· ἔπειτα τοὺς ὀφείλοντας τῷ δημοσίῳ καὶ τοὺς ἀτίμους καὶ τοὺς ἀπεψηφισμένους καὶ τοὺς ἀποίκους.

Commentary

The most secure and contemporary testimonia of a decree proposing that slaves, aliens, and disenfranchised citizens be enfranchised are: (a) Lycurgus (T1), mentioning a decree in which the people voted that the slaves be released, that aliens should become Athenians and the disenfranchised regain rights; and (b) Hypereides’ Against Diondas (T2), in which Hypereides acknowledges that he proposed a decree that the slaves who were ready to fight in Athenian interests should be free. [Demosthenes] 26 (T3; for the view that this is a genuine speech of a supporting speaker, see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 312– 13; Dinter, ‘The Gods, 282; for the view against this, see Harris, Demosthenes, 193–7) mentions that Hypereides proposed that disenfranchised citizens should be reinstated to struggle on behalf of liberty; Dio Chrysostom (T4) says that the Athenians decreed that slaves who would help them in war would be free; Rutilius Lupus (T5) has Hypereides acknowledging that he proposed that slaves should be free and that exiles should be restored; [Plutarch] (T6) says that he proposed a decree to grant citizenship to metics and to free the slaves; the Suda (T7), purporting to quote Hypereides’ defence speech, preserves a figure for the slaves and the detail that public debtors were to be freed, but the mention of ‘colonists’ (apoikoi) is probably erroneous, and may perhaps be amended as ‘metics’ (metoikoi). See also Apsines 1.75, saying that the proposal enfranchised the disenfranchised. Overall, therefore, the testimonia for this decree attest to it ordering the liberation of slaves (but it did not go as far as offering them citizenship), the arming of newly enfranchised foreigners and metics and the reinstatement of those disenfranchised or struck off the roll of citizens (apepsephismenoi) so that they would perform military duties on behalf of the state. The latter proposal proved controversial: Diondas (T2; not Aristogeiton, as TT 3, 6 and 7: Harris, Demosthenes 232 note 145) launched an unsuccessful graphe paranomon against the decree but Hypereides was acquitted (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 27). Nevertheless, there is no explicit testimony to prove that any of the provisions within Hypereides’ decree were actually carried out, and Dio Chrysostom (15.21 = T4) suggests that the decree never took effect owing to the conclusion of peace with Philip. The proposal obviously gave rise to controversy, so much so that Hypereides appears to have defended it by maintaining that it was a decree forced out of

d167 a–c emergency measures after chaironeia

607

T7 ‘Voted off ’. Hyperides in the [speech] Against Aristogeiton [writes]: ‘that in the first place more than 150,000 [slaves], the ones in the silver mines and those in the rest of Attica; then the public debtors and the disfranchised and the voted-off men and the colonists [sc. should all be mobilised]’. (trans. Suda on line)

necessity (TT 2, 5, 6). The proposal to reinstate the disenfranchised was radical, though there are parallels: And. 1.107 (cf. Volume 2, Chapter 5.4.2) says that exiles were restored and disenfranchised citizens reinstated before the battle of Marathon, and that exiles were returned to Athens after the surrender to Sparta in 404 (And. 1.80). Promises of citizenship were made to metics and slaves in mid 406 to those who had manned the ships during the campaign that led up to the battle at Arginousai (Xen. Hell. 1.6.24; D.S. 13.97.1; Osborne, Naturalization, T10); cf. Whitehead, Ideology, 153–4, calling it a ‘revolutionary cliché’. At the same time, the fact that Hypereides made such a proposal suggests the potential fluidity of the rights and duties of different status-groups in Athens: Kamen, Status, 83 While Cohen argues that the decree allowed some metics to temporarily enjoy citizen status (Cohen, Athenian Nation, 70), the controversy of Hypereides’ motion may have led it to be rejected: Hansen’s account is that ‘Aristogeiton lodged an objection under oath immediately after the passing of the decree with the result that the decree was immediately suspended, to be tried only after the war had ended’ (The Sovereignty, 36). On the other hand, Osborne (Naturalization, T10 and T67 Commentary) suggests that ‘in the event the failure of Philip to march on Athens after Chaironeia made it unnecessary to put Hypereides’ proposal into effect, though this did not deter Aristogeiton from persisting with a graphe paranomon’; [Plutarch] says that Hypereides was acquitted (T6). T6 suggests that Aristogeiton’s indictment extended to Hypereides’ proposal to place sacred objects, women and children in Piraeus for safe keeping; there is no evidence for this having taken place, but see D167b below, for Lycurgus’ view that there was a proposal, among other things, to bring in the women and children from the countryside. Interestingly, in his prosecution of Leokrates, Lycurgus claimed that his opponent went as far as evacuating his property and ancestral cult images from Athens (Lycurg. 1.38). Athenian anxiety about the safety of their women, children, and property and the consideration of the Piraeus as a safe haven is suggested also in a decree in which priests and religious officials of cults at Piraeus, who had made sacrifices ‘for the health and preservation of the Athenian boule and demos and of the children and women

608

inventory a2

and other possessions of the Athenians’ received honours (IG II3 1 416 lines 13–16): this inscription is dated to the period c. 340–30, but as Lambert, AIO Commentary suggests, it is just possible that it dates from the era immediately after Chaironeia when the Athenians were worried about the possibility of a Macedonian invasion.

(b) Decree to evacuate women and children from the countryside to within the walls and empowering the generals

Literary Context

The decree is mentioned by Lycurgus (T1) in his description of the emergency situation after the battle of Chaironeia; Leokrates ignored the provisions that it involved.

Text

T1 Lycurg. 1.16: Γεγενημένης γὰρ τῆς ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχης, καὶ συνδραμόντων ἁπάντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, ἐψηφίσατο ὁ δῆμος παῖδας μὲν καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν εἰς τὰ τείχη κατακομίζειν, τοὺς δὲ στρατηγοὺς τάττειν εἰς τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν οἰκούντων Ἀθήνησι, καθ’ ὅ τι ἂν αὐτοῖς δοκῇ.

Commentary

Lycurgus (T1) is the source for a decree evacuating women and children from Attica and also empowering the generals to make appointments in the interest of its defence. [Plu.] X Or. 848f–9a (D167a T6 above) also mentions placing sacred objects, women and children in Piraeus for safe keeping (‘ἱερὰ δὲ καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ ἀποθέσθαι’); the same source suggests that this measure was the object of Aristogeiton’s unsuccessful graphe paranomon. The evacuation of women and children from Attica has parallels (see Ober, Fortress, 55–6); Kallisthenes’ decree of 346 proposed that the Athenians bring their women, children and their equipment into places of safety: see D135 above; evacuations happened also in 335 (D.S. 17.4.6; Arr. An. 1.10.2) and 322 ([Demades] On the Twelve Years 14, though without reference to this as an evacuation sanctioned by the assembly). The phrase παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν κατακομίζειν is also known, almost verbatim, from Kallisthenes’ decree (see above) of 346: Dem. 19.86 and 19.125.

d167 a–c emergency measures after chaironeia

609

T1 After the battle at Chaironeia had taken place, and you all ran to the assembly place, the people voted that the women and children be brought in from the countryside to within the city walls, and that the generals should appoint any Athenians or any of the residents of Attica to roles in the defence of the Athenians as they saw fit.

(c) Decree providing that the boule of 500 should go to the Piraeus

Literary Context

Lycurgus had the decree read out (T1) as a way of heightening the judges’ sense of outrage at the behaviour of Leokrates, who had fled the city as it was preparing for a Macedonian invasion in the aftermath of the defeat at Chaironeia. Rutilius Lupus (T2) quotes the passages in his discussion of paromologia (concessions made to an adversary in the course of strengthening one’s own argument).

610

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Lycurg. 1.36–7: Καί μοι λαβὲ τὸ ψήφισμα, γραμματεῦ, τὸ Ὑπερείδου καὶ ἀναγίγνωσκε. Ψήφισμα. Ἀκούετε τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὦ ἄνδρες, ὅτι τὴν βουλὴν τοὺς πεντακοσίους καταβαίνειν εἰς Πειραιᾶ χρηματιοῦσαν περὶ φυλακῆς τοῦ Πειραιέως ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἔδοξε, καὶ πράττειν διεσκευασμένην ὅ τι ἂν δοκῇ τῷ δήμῳ συμφέρον εἶναι. T2  Rutilius Lupus, On Figures, 2.12: Nam disputandi aut suadendi est aliud idoneum tempus: cum quidem adversarius armatus praesto est, resistendum est huic non verbis sed armis.

Commentary

Lycurgus cites this decree, having it read to the court (Lycurg. 1.36), probably because the arming of the bouleutai constituted a reversal of the usual exemption of councillors from military service. The duty of the council does, however, appear here to have been primarily to consult on the way in which the Piraeus was to be defended; this was nothing out of the ordinary, as it was a responsibility of the council ‘to ensure that all the necessary equipment, both human and inanimate, was available for fighting a war’ (Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 114); its concern with Athenian naval preparation (Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 112–23) meant that meeting at Piraeus was entirely appropriate for the council. There is nothing firm to suggest that Aristogeiton’s indictment of Hypereides extended to this particular part of the decree(s). Hypereides’ later defence of this proposal was that it was part of his resistance of Philip with arms not words (T2). For other decrees of Hypereides, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

Late summer 338, after the battle of Chaironeia (which took place on 9th Metageitnion 338/7 BC: Plu. Cam. 19.5).

Bibliography

Brooks, E., De figuris sententiarum et elocutionem. Leiden (1970). Burtt, J.O., Minor Attic Orators, II. Cambridge, MA (1953) 575–7. Cohen, E.E., The Athenian Nation. Princeton (2000) 70. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 596–603.

d167 a–c emergency measures after chaironeia

611

T1 And please take the decree of Hypereides, secretary, and read it out. Decree.

Hear that the decree, judges, said that the council of five hundred was to go down to the Piraeus, armed, to consult on its defence, and to be ready to act in whatever way seemed of advantage to the people.

T2 For there is another time for debate and counsel; but when an opponent carrying weapons approaches he must be resisted and not with words but with force of arms.

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 27. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Kamen, D., Status in Classical Athens. Princeton (2013) 83. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 312–13. Martin, G., ‘The Gods in the Athenian assembly’ in E. Eidinow, J. Kindt and R. Osborne (eds.), Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion. Cambridge (2016) 281–300. Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 BC. Leiden (1985) 55–6. Poddighe, E., ‘I termini giuridici del decreto di Iperide sulla concessione di privilege in cambio della disponibilità a combattere per Atene’, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Cagliari, NS 21 (2003) 43–68. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972) 112–23. Whitehead, D., The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge (1977) 153–4.

D168 Decree against deserters Proposer: Unknown Date: Late Summer 338/7

Literary Context

Lycurgus mentions this decree as part of his case against Leokrates; it is the third explanation that he offers in sections 52–4 of the speech for the impeachment of his opponent by the process of eisangelia.

Text

T1  Lycurg. 1.53: Ἔτι δὲ ὁ δῆμος, δεινὸν ἡγησάμενος εἶναι τὸ γιγνόμενον, ἐψηφίσατο ἐνόχους εἶναι τῇ προδοσίᾳ τοὺς φεύγοντας τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος κίνδυνον, ἀξίους εἶναι νομίζων τῆς ἐσχάτης τιμωρίας.

Commentary

Hansen, Eisangelia, 108, suggested that this decree empowered the Areopagus council to introduce punishments against those who had fled Athens at the time of the battle of Chaironeia, a practice mentioned at Lycurg. 1.52. As Wallace, The Areopagus, 118 points out, the decree of the people would have provided legal justification for the Areopagus’ controversial executions of those who had fled Athens. Sullivan, ‘Demosthenes’, 133 challenges this view, warning against the conflation of this decree with Demosthenes’ legislation on the Areopagus (on which see D214 below). She suggests that the current decree may even have been motivated by the Areopagus’ abuse of its powers: its immediate impact, she argues, was to bring fugitives to trial in the lawcourts within the terms of the law on eisangelia, thus appropriating the power to execute those accused as cowards for the lawcourts and removing it from the Areopagus. The interpretation offered in the hypothesis to the speech, which says that after the battle of Chaironeia the Athenian demos introduced a decree which forbade anyone from leaving the city or evacuating their children and wives, is probably an over-simplification of a decree which made them liable to prosecution for prodosia (treason). Hypereides mentions a law which ordered that anyone who had emigrated during wartime should be denounced and arrested were they to return 612

d168 decree against deserters

613

T1 The people, holding what was happening to be awful, voted that those who were fleeing the danger in which their homeland found itself were to be held responsible for treason, thinking them to be worthy of the extreme punishment.

to Athens (Hyp. Athenog. 29; see D175 below); this legislation is likely to be distinct from the decree under discussion: as Whitehead (Hypereides, 335–6) points out, it was referred to as a nomos and applied probably only to metics. This law and the decree at T1 are specific instances of a broader pressure on individuals to remain within the community within which they resided at times of crisis; see Liddel, Civic Obligation, 297–9. It is likely, as Hansen, Eisangelia, 108 points out, that Leokrates probably fled the city before this decree was proposed.

Date

Late summer 338, after the battle of Chaironeia (9th Metageitnion: Plut. Camillus 19.5).

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) 108. Liddel, P., Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens. Oxford (2007) 297–9. Sullivan, J., ‘Demosthenes’ Areopagus legislation  – yet again’, CQ 53 (2003) 130–4 at 133.

inventory a2

614

Wallace, R., The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore (1989) 118. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 335–6.

D169 Decree(s) for military improvements Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Summer 338

Literary Context

In the course of his defence of Ktesiphon’s honours for him, Demosthenes (T1) offers an account of those measures which he proposed after the battle of Chaironeia. Aeschines (3.236 = D179 T3) joked that Ktesiphon, in his proposal of honours for Demosthenes, cited a decree about the digging of ditches.

Text

T1 Dem. 18.248: Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν μάχην εὐθὺς ὁ δῆμος, εἰδὼς καὶ ἑορακὼς πάντα ὅσα ἔπραττον ἐγώ, ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς δεινοῖς καὶ φοβεροῖς ἐμβεβηκώς, ἡνίκα οὐδ’ ἀγνωμονῆσαί τι θαυμαστὸν ἦν τοὺς πολλοὺς πρὸς ἐμέ, πρῶτον μὲν περὶ σωτηρίας τῆς πόλεως τὰς ἐμὰς γνώμας ἐχειροτόνει, καὶ πάνθ’ ὅσα τῆς φυλακῆς ἕνεκ’ ἐπράττετο, ἡ διάταξις τῶν φυλάκων, αἱ τάφροι, τὰ εἰς τὰ τείχη χρήματα, διὰ τῶν ἐμῶν ψηφισμάτων ἐγίγνετο.

Commentary

After the defeat at Chaironeia, the Athenian assembly’s reaction to the threat of Philip was expressed through its decrees: one aspect of the response was reflected in Hypereides’ emergency measures (see D167a–c above); another was in the decree about the treatment of those who had fled the city (see D168 above); Demosthenes in this decree (or decrees: T1) made proposals about the security and protection of the city. No firm chronology is apparent from his description of the proposals, but he leads us to take the view that they were undertaken shortly after the battle of Chaironeia.

d169 decree(s) for military improvements

615

T1  Immediately after the battle, the people knew full well all of my doings, and suffered from the awful events of the time; at this point it would not have been surprising if most citizens had been hostile to me, but first of all they voted for my proposal about the security of the city and then those things for the sake of protection, that is the organisation of the guards, the ditches, the funds for the walls: these came about through my decrees.

Demosthenes went on to claim that he was elected by the people to the position of commissioner of the grain supply (σιτώνης: 18.248) and that he put to sea for the sake of acquiring grain; he added that he was put on trial every day for a period after making these proposals (Dem. 18.249), but that he was acquitted with his proposers not taking even a one-fifth part of the votes (Dem. 18.250). Contrarily, Aeschines (3.159) claimed that the Athenians would not let resolutions that were passed bear Demosthenes’ name, and that some of them bore the name of Nausikles: Worthington, Commentary 246, suggests

616

inventory a2

that Aeschines’ claim was a rhetorical falsification. For discussion, see D223 below. There survives an inscribed version of the law making arrangements for the repair of the walls of Piraeus, perhaps of this year: see IG II3 1 429 lines 1–45. As Lambert suggests, Commentary on Attic Inscriptions Online IG II3 1 429, it was enacted as a law probably on the grounds that it made adjustments to the Athenians’ financial arrangements: it may well have been the case that the requirements of the decree proposed by Demosthenes (D169) led to the initiation of the law-making process. The repair of the walls in the aftermath of Chaironeia is mentioned by other literary sources: see Demosthenes 18.299–300, Aeschin 3.27 (describing Demosthenes as a commissioner of the walls), 236 and Lycurg. 1.144. See also D176, on the organisation of the repair of the walls. For work at the Piraeus, with particular emphasis on shipsheds, see Rankov, ‘Piraeus,’ 477. Demosthenes’ decree on military preparations may have been part of, or separate from, the decrees organising the duties of other citizens and dispatching embassies read by Dinarchus (1.78–80: see D170 below). It may have been around this time that the Athenians called up for military service all those who were over the age of 50 years: Lycurg. 1.39: see DP 72 below.

Date

Late summer 338, after the battle of Chaironeia (9th Metageitnion: Plu. Camillus 19.5).

Bibliography

Lambert, Commentary on IG II3 1 429: Attic Inscriptions Online, https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII 31/429. Rankov, B., ‘Piraeus’ in Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, eds. D.J. Blackman and B. Rankov. Cambridge (2013) 420–88. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 199. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 246.

D170 Decree concerning the dispatch of embassies and the organisation of citizens Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late Summer 338

Literary Context

Dinarchus (T1) introduced discussion of Demosthenes’ decree after the battle of Chaironeia as a way of launching a wider attack on his conduct after the defeat (Din. 1.80–82).

617

inventory a2

618

Text

T1 Din. 1.78–80: Ἀκούσατ’ ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι κἀκείνου τοῦ ψηφίσματος τοῦ γραφέντος ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους, ὃ τεταραγμένης τῆς πόλεως μετὰ τὴν ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ μάχην ἔγραψεν ὁ δημοτικὸς οὗτος, καὶ τῆς μαντείας τῆς ἐλθούσης ἐκ Δωδώνης παρὰ τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Δωδωναίου· σαφῶς γὰρ ὑμῖν πάλαι προείρηκε φυλάττεσθαι τοὺς ἡγεμόνας καὶ τοὺς συμβούλους. λέγε τὴν μαντείαν πρῶτον. ΜΑΝΤΕΙΑ.

Λέγε δὴ τὸ καλὸν ψήφισμα τούτου. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. Δημοτικός γ’ ὁ διατάττων ἑαυτὸν μέν, ἐπειδὴ ἀνδρεῖος καὶ εὔψυχός ἐστιν, ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις μένειν, οὓς δ’ ἂν οὗτος ἀποδοκιμάσῃ τῶν πολιτῶν, ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργ’ ἀπιέναι, καὶ ἐάν τι ἄλλο τούτῳ δόξῃ ἐπιτήδειον εἶναι, τοῦτο ποιεῖν. λέγε τὰ λοιπά. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ Ἀκούετ’ ἄνδρες δικασταί. ἀπιέναι φησὶ {τὸ ψήφισμα} τὰς ᾑρημένας πρεσβείας. ἐπειδὴ ἤκουσε μετὰ τὴν μάχην τὴν ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ Φίλιππον εἰς τὴν χώραν ἡμῶν μέλλειν εἰσβάλλειν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν πρεσβευτὴν κατασκευάσας, ἵν’ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀποδραίη, συσκευασάμενος τῆς διοικήσεως ὀκτὼ τάλαντα, οὐδὲν φροντίσας τῆς τότε παρούσης ἀπορίας, ἡνίχ’ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπεδίδοσαν εἰς τὴν ὑμετέραν σωτηρίαν.

Commentary

Dinarchus (T1) claimed that after the battle of Chaironeia, Demosthenes proposed the dispatch of embassies and had himself sent out of the city. Dinarchus perhaps hoped that his audience would interpret Demosthenes’ departure from the city as a breach of the decree declaring those citizens who had left the city to be traitors (see D168 above), but he does not make this strategy explicit. It is quite possible that the embassy, among other places, may have appealed to the communities on Andros, Keos, Troizen and Epidauros (in other words those within easy reach of Athens) for help, if we can believe Lycurgus 1.42 (though it is highly likely that the relatively low geopolitical significance of the communities listed there suggests a rhetorical exaggeration aimed at magnifying the desperation of the Athenians’ plight). For the envoys of this year, see Develin, AO 344. Dinarchus’ description of the further particulars of the provision is obscure: the idea that in this decree Demosthenes ordered citizens who had been rejected, presumably from military service, to go off to their work or to do other things that they thought useful, may have been part of a scrutiny that was applied during the extraordinary call-up of those over the age of 50 (Lycurg. 1.39: see DP 72 below). While it might reflect a mitigation of the fear that Philip would invade Attica, and for that reason should be placed after Hypereides’ proposals (see D167a–c above), it is not right to think of this as a proposal of

d170 decree concerning the dispatch of embassies

619

T1 Athenians, listen to that decree proposed by Demosthenes, which, when the city was in upheaval after the battle of Chaironeia, this populist politician proposed, and listen also to the oracle coming from Dodona from Dodonian Zeus; for clearly it advised you to be on guard against your leaders and advisers. Read the oracle first. ORACLE. Read now that fine decree of his. DECREE. What a populist politician is he who arranges for himself, being manly and courageous, to remain under arms, while those of the citizens whom he has rejected on scrutiny, are to go off to their work, and are to do anything that seems to him to be useful. Read the rest. DECREE. Listen, judges. The decree says that the chosen embassies are to be sent out. When, after the battle of Chaironeia, he heard that Philip intended to invade our land, he got himself made ambassador, so he could get out of the city, and after gathering together eight Talents, he went off, thinking nothing of the state of perplexity then suffered by the city, at a point when everyone else was contributing money from their own funds to secure your protection.

demobilisation. The relationship of the decree to the equally obscure oracle from Dodona with which Dinarchus contrasts it (T1) and cites elsewhere (Din. 1.98; possibly also Dem. 18.253 and 19.297–9) is also opaque; it may have warned the Athenians about associates of Philip (cf. Dem. 19.299), and may reflect an Athenian consultation of the oracle seeking advice about their political situation; it is, however, too fanciful to associate it with a fragmentary lead tablet of the mid fourth-century BC from Dodona written in a Thessalian dialect which mentions the ‘plots of Philip’ (see Parker, ‘Seeking advice’, 76).

Date

Late summer 338, after the battle of Chaironeia (9th Metageitnion: Plu. Cam. 19.5); it should surely be placed after Hypereides’ proposals (D167a–c).

Bibliography

Parker, R.C.T., ‘Seeking advice from Zeus at Dodona’, G&R6 3 (2016) 69–90. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 198–9. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 246–8.

D171 Decree proposing peace and alliance with Philip Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263, PAA 306085; APF) Date: Autumn 338

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1), boasting of his own achievements in justification of Ktesiphon’s honorific decree for him, pointed out that the Athenians appointed him, not Demades (with whom he associates the making of peace with Philip), to speak the epitaphios; the speaker of Demades’ On the Twelve Years (T2; on which see now Dmitriev, Commentary on BNJ 227 F59) cited the peace as part of his defence of Demades’ career, claiming that Demades proposed the peace, honours for Philip, and thereby assured for the Athenians the return of her captive citizens, the corpses of her dead, and the territory of Oropos, while emphasising that his options were compromised by the strength of Philip. T3 derives from Diodorus’ narrative of these years.

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.285: ... οὐδὲ Δημάδην, ἄρτι πεποιηκότα τὴν εἰρήνην. T2  [Demad.] On the Twelve Years 9–10: Ἔγραψα τὴν εἰρήνην, ὁμολογῶ. ἔγραψα καὶ Φιλίππῳ τιμάς, οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι. δισχιλίους γὰρ αἰχμαλώτους ἄνευ λύτρων καὶ χίλια πολιτῶν σώματα χωρὶς κήρυκος καὶ τὸν Ὠρωπὸν ἄνευ πρεσβείας λαβὼν ὑμῖν ταῦτ’ ἔγραψα. ἐπείληπτο δὲ τῆς γραφούσης χειρὸς οὐχ ἡ δωροδοκία τῶν Μακεδόνων, ὡς οὗτοι πλαττόμενοι λέγουσιν, ἀλλ’ ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἡ χρεία καὶ τὸ τῆς πατρίδος συμφέρον καὶ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως φιλανθρωπία. T3 D.S. 16.87.3 (BNJ 227 T43): Τέλος δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ Δημάδου καθομιληθέντα ταῖς Ἀττικαῖς χάρισι πάντας ἀπολῦσαι τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἄνευ λύτρων, καθόλου δ’ ἀποθέμενον τὴν ἐκ τῆς νίκης ὑπερηφανίαν πρέσβεις ἀποστεῖλαι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ συνθέσθαι πρὸς αὐτοὺς φιλίαν τε καὶ συμμαχίαν.

620

d171 decree proposing peace and alliance with philip 621

T1 … nor Demades, who had just then made the peace. T2  I proposed the peace, I acknowledge that. I also proposed honours to Philip (see D180 below), I don’t deny that. By making these proposals I obtained for you 2000 prisoners without paying ransom, 1000 Athenian dead, obtaining them without herald, and I also obtained Oropos without the dispatch of an embassy. And in obtaining these terms my hand was constrained not by bribes of the Macedonians, as those making accusations allege falsely, but by the point in time, necessity and the interest of the fatherland and the generosity of the king. T3 Finally, addressed by Demades with Attic grace, he then released all of those prisoners taken, without a ransom, and, completely disposing of the arrogance of victory, he sent ambassadors to the people of the Athenians and arranged with them both friendship and alliance.

622

inventory a2

T4 Suda, s.v. ‘Δημάδης’ (delta 415 Adler): ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ψήφισμα τῷ Φιλίππῳ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὑπακούειν.

Commentary

These testimonia and those of D172 reflect a strong ancient tradition, which had its roots in the reality, that the Athenian politician Demades was instrumental in the establishment of the post-Chaironeia settlement with Philip. Its nature is much discussed in the sources: the Suda’s view of the peace (T4) is that it made the Greeks subservient to Philip; this vague testimonium could perhaps refer to Demades’ decree to accept the terms of the League of Corinth: see D17 below. Contrarily, the view of Diodorus (T3) and [Demades] (T2) was that Philip’s terms were generous. The sources offer varying accounts of the details of the settlement: Pausanias (1.25.3) says that Philip deprived the Athenians of the islands and put an end to their naval confederacy, that he handed Oropos over to them (Paus. 1.34.1), and that the peace did not make the Athenians subservient to Philip (Paus. 7.10.5). For the view, however, that Oropos was handed over to the Athenians by Alexander the Great at around 335, see Knoepfler, Décrets, 371–89, Commentary on D238 and Lambert, Inscribed Athenian, 26. Other sources too assert that Philip allowed the Athenians to maintain possession of the island of Samos (Plu. Alex. 28.1; D.S. 18.56.7) which they had held since the 360s (D65); also Salamis, Skyros, Lemnos and Imbros remained in Athenian hands ([Arist.], Ath. Pol. 61.6, 62.2; on these arrangements, see Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 12–17); the administration of Delos was also left to the Athenians: IG II2 1652 lines 20–8. Athens’ island possessions do not appear, therefore, to have been an issue after Chaironeia. As Griffith, History, 2.607 points out, there is no evidence on the fate of the Thracian Chersonese and the Athenian settlers there: ‘no Athenian connection with the Chersonese is ever recorded again from this time on, and the generally held view, that Athens lost it by this treaty, undoubtedly must be right’; Cargill, Athenian, 30, acknowledges that certainty is impossible. The peace effectively marked the end of the Athenian naval confederacy, as Pausanias 1.25.3 suggests; this happened probably not on the direct orders of Philip but rather as a consequence of the Athenians being enrolled in the League of Corinth. Diodorus’ account (T3), adding the detail of friendship and alliance, suggests that the treaty between Athens and Philip was bilateral, and that Philip’s treaty with the Boiotians, involving the imposition of a garrison in Boiotia, was less favourable; of course, the Athenians had had philia and summachia with him since 346 (see D134 above); Roebuck (‘The settlements’, 89) raises the

d171 decree proposing peace and alliance with philip 623 T4 Demades. He proposed a decree that the Greeks would be subservient to Philip.

possibility that other states too may have made individual treaties with Philip; the same view is followed by Sealey, Demosthenes, 199–200. For detailed discussion of the peace treaty, see Griffith, History 2.605–23, noting at 606 that ‘Athens was dealt with as a defeated enemy, but not as a conquered one. Philip never entered Athens, and her political organisation was left unaffected in the treaty’. For the possibility that an inscribed treaty (RO 76 = IG II3 1 318) refers to this bilateral agreement, see Worthington, ‘IG II2 236’. Athens’ participation in a Common Peace and her involvement in the League of Corinth are treated separately in this collection: see D172 below. Involvement in the agreement of peace with Philip appears to have marked Demades’ entry into the forefront of public life: after Chaironeia, as a prisoner in Macedonia, he certainly played a role in the negotiation of peace with Philip, persuading him to return Athenian captives without ransom and their wardead; Philip had him released and sent to Athens as a negotiator: D.S. 16.87.1–3 (= BNJ 227 F1 + T43); for other accounts of the first encounter between Philip and Demades see BNJ 227 FF 2, 3, 53 (= Suda s.v. ‘Δημάδης’). See now Dmitriev, Biographical Essay on BNJ 227; Brun, L’ orateur, 115. This is the earliest-attested decree with which he is associated, but clearly not his first involvement in public life: see Dmitriev, Biographical Essay. For his decrees, see Dmitriev’s Commentary on BNJ 227 T38 and Volume 2, Appendix 1. He was a controversial politician with a reputation for making illegal proposals: D.S. 18.18.1–3; Plu. Phoc. 26.1–3; Plu. Mor. 810c.

Date

Autumn 338, after the battle of Chaironeia, but also after the emergency measures (see D167a–c, etc.).

Bibliography

Brun, P., L’orateur Démade: essai d’histoire et d’historiographie. Paris (2000). Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC: Mnemosyne Supplement 145. Leiden and New York (1995) 12–17, 30. Dmitriev, V., Biographical Essay on BNJ 227 Demades; Commentary on BNJ 227 T43 [= D.S. 16.87.3 = T 3]. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 604–23.

inventory a2

624

Knoepfler, D., Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté [Eretria, 11]. Lausanne (2001) 371–89. Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2012). Roebuck, C., ‘The settlements of Philip II in 338 BC’, CPh 43 (1948) 73–92. Schmitt, SVA 402. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 199. Worthington, I., ‘IG II2 236 and Philip’s common peace of 337’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea (2009) 213–23.

D172 Decree relating to the common peace and Athenian membership of the League of Corinth Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: Autumn 338

Literary Context

The decree according to which the Athenians accepted this peace is mentioned in Plutarch’s account of Phokion’s reaction to it (T1) and in the second of the Suda’s three entries on Demades (T2).

Texts:

T1  Plu. Phoc. 16.4–5: Ὁ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἄλλην τοῦ Φιλίππου πολιτείαν καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν ᾤετο δεῖν προσδέχεσθαι· Δημάδου δὲ γράψαντος ὅπως ἡ πόλις μετέχοι τῆς κοινῆς εἰρήνης καὶ τοῦ συνεδρίου τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, οὐκ εἴα πρὸ τοῦ γνῶναι, τίνα Φίλιππος αὑτῷ γενέσθαι παρὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀξιώσει· κρατηθεὶς δὲ τῇ γνώμῃ διὰ τὸν καιρόν, ὡς εὐθὺς ἑώρα τοὺς Ἀθηναίους μεταμελομένους ὅτι καὶ τριήρεις ἔδει παρέχειν τῷ Φιλίππῳ καὶ ἱππεῖς, ‘ταῦτα’, ἔφη, ‘φοβούμενος ἠναντιούμην’. T2  See D171 T4 above.

d172 decree relating to the common peace

625

T1 He [sc. Phokion] believed that it was necessary to accept the policy and generosity of Philip; but when Demades proposed that the city should take part in the common peace and the congress with the other Greeks, Phokion did not allow it before they found out what Philip would require from the Greeks; but his view was overcome owing to the situation, and just when he saw the Athenians repenting their decision because they were obliged to send horsemen and triremes to Philip, he said, ‘this is what I feared, when I spoke against it’.

626

Commentary

inventory a2

The view taken here of the post-Chaironeia settlement is that Philip first made treaties with individual states (e.g. D171, with the Athenians) before bringing them together, after one or two meetings at Corinth (D.S. 16.89, Justin 9.5.1–3), to create a multilateral peace treaty; this was the agreement behind the League of Corinth. There are two testimonia which suggest that the acceptance of peace was carried out through a decree of the Athenians: according to Plutarch (T1), Demades and Phokion offered contradictory advice. Later, when Phokion’s cautious line had been ignored and Philip was requesting triremes and horsemen, he eventually urged the Athenians to go along with the terms of the agreement they had made (Plu. Phoc. 16.5). The Suda (T2) puts a negative spin on the agreement, claiming that Demades’ decree meant that the Athenians should comply with Philip. Given the subordinate position in which the Athenians at this point found themselves, we cannot assume that all the details of the League of Corinth were ratified at the Athenian assembly. For that reason I have included as testimonia only those passages which give explicit mention of a decree; for a fuller account of the testimonia, see Schmitt, SVA 403. For an overview of the legal details, see Ryder, Koine Eirene, 150–62; Griffith, History, 2.623–46; RO 76 = see IG II3 1 318; Jehne, Koine Eirene, 152–97). Griffith, History, 2.623–6 offers a detailed analysis, suggesting that, in terms of its design, it aimed to draw Greek support for Philip’s campaign into Persia. As Sealey observes, the League of Corinth was a tool by which Philip imposed his power and forced the Greek states to acquiesce: Sealey, Demosthenes, 200. For an overview of the League of Corinth and its political mechanisms, see Smarczyk, ‘The Hellenic Leagues’, 453–8, emphasising its role in underwriting Philip’s control of Greece while maintaining the rhetoric of freedom and autonomy of Greek states. Details of the organisation of the League of Corinth derive from a number of literary sources (and in particular [Demosthenes] 17, which may well have distorted certain aspects of the organisation to exaggerate its claim that Alexander had broken its terms; on its authenticity see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 377–81; for the view that the author was Hypereides, see Horváth, ‘Bermerkungen’). The literary sources suggest that Philip held the position of hegemon (Dem. 18.201; Plyb. 9.33.7); the mission of the League was war against the Persians, led by Philip (Aeschin. 3.132). Participants swore oaths ([Dem.] 17.2, 6); the agreement pledged that the Greeks were to be free and autonomous (17.8); it guaranteed aspects of constitutional stability ([Dem.] 17.10, 15, 16)  – except if they were ruled by tyrants ([Dem.] 17.7). Individual states were represented in a synedrion (17.15); there was provision for military

d172 decree relating to the common peace

627

action against those who broke the treaty ([Dem.] 17.6, 10, 19), but, as RO p. 377 observes, there was no mention of the term symmachia. There was assurance also of the freedom of the seas ([Dem.] 17.19). Diodorus’ very compressed account, at 16.89, places the convention at Corinth in the next archon year, 337/6; that author emphasises Philip’s desire to take revenge upon the Persians and claims that the Greeks, at the meeting, chose him as strategos autokrator and started to accumulate supplies for the march against the Persians. On problems with Diodorus’ account, see Ryder, Koine Eirene, 154. For the fragments found at Athens of an inscription relating to the treaty see IG II3 1 318 (= RO 76). The inscribed fragments do not contain the decree by which the Athenians accepted the alliance, but fragment (a) contains the oath that the Athenians swore to Philip, according to which they pledged not to break the agreement, not to take up arms against those abiding by the oaths, not to overthrow the kingdom of Philip and his descendants, not to make constitutional changes in any state, not to contradict the agreements, and not to allow others to do so; they were required also to march in support of anyone wronged by those breaching the agreements and against those whom the council and hegemon had deemed to have acted contrary to the terms of the peace. Fragment (b) contains a list pertaining to some sort of (military?) obligation; while it is too fragmentary for certainty about what allies were required to send, it may reflect the suggestion in T1 that the Athenians were required to send horsemen and triremes to Philip. Worthington, ‘IG II2 236’ suggests the possibility that the inscription refers to a bilateral peace treaty between Athens and Philip concluding the war between them (that is, our D171). Philip, during his leadership of the League, probably made periodic appeals to Greek states for military support: for one such appeal by Philip, and the allegation that Diondas came forward as a volunteer and took public money for such an expedition that never in fact took place, see Hypereides, Against Diondas 27 Horváth; Horváth, Der ‘Neue Hypereides,’ 161 suggests that Diondas did this not because of political sympathy for Philip, but rather to earn money as a mercenary. T1 implies that acceptance of partaking in the common peace and the synedrion of the League of Corinth was the proposal of Demades; for the other decrees he proposed, see Volume 2, Appendix 1. The treaty was renewed in 336 (see D188 below; SVA 403 II) and again in 319 (see SVA 403 III).

Date

Autumn 338, after the battle of Chaironeia; for discussion of the date and the chronology of the League, see Horváth, Der Neue Hypereides, 50–61.

628

Bibliography

inventory a2

Dmitriev, S., ‘Text, Translation and Commentary on 227 Demades’ in I. Worthington (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby. Electronic Publication. Dmitriev, S., The Greek Slogan of Freedom and Early Roman Politics in Greece. Oxford and New York (2011) 73–8 Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 623–46. Horváth, L., ‘Bermerkungen zur Rede XVII im Corpus Demosthenicum. Hypereides als Verfasser(?)’, Wiener Studien Beiheft 36 (2014) 73–80. Horváth, L., Der ‘Neue Hypereides’: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin, Munich, Boston (2014). Jehne, M., Koine Eirene; Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungs­ bemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.. Hermes, Einzelschriften 63. Stuttgart (1994). RO, GHI, 76. Ryder, T. T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) 31–3. Schmitt, SVA 402 d, 403 I. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 200. Smarczyk, B., ‘The Hellenic Leagues of late Classical and Hellenistic times’ in Federalism in Greek Antiquity, eds. H. Beck and P. Funke. Cambridge (2015) 452–70. Worthington, I., ‘IG II2 236 and Philip’s Common Peace of 337’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea (2009) 213–23.

D173 Award of citizenship for Antipater Proposer: (?) Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: Gamelion 338 (?)

Literary Context

Harpokration (T1) reports that a claim about the granting of proxeny-decrees was made by Hypereides recorded in his speech ‘Against Demades’. See also D178 below.

629

630

inventory a2

Text

T1  (= D178) Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀλκίμαχος’ … ἕτερος δέ ἐστιν Ἀλκίμαχος Μακεδὼν, οὗ μνημονεύει Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημάδου οὕτως ‘Ἀλκίμαχον καὶ Ἀντίπατρον Ἀθηναίους καὶ προξένους ἐποιησάμεθα.’

Commentary

The main reason for associating this decree with Demades is that, according to Harpokration (T1), Hypereides mentioned the rewards for Antipater in a speech made against Demades. A separate fragmentary decree, IG II3 1 484, mentions Antipater and other friends of the king who were honoured by the Athenians. The inscription has been dated between 338 and 318; Bosworth has suggested that it dates to the aftermath of the defeat of Athens at the battle of Krannon on 7 August 322: SEG XLVII 128; Lambert (in his edition of IG II3 1 484) suggests the period between 324 and 322/1. However, much of the substance of the inscription has been lost, and there is no strong reason to connect it with the literary testimonium. As with the honours for Alkimachos (see D178 below), the quotation of Hypereides leaves some problems, as proxeny and citizenship were never granted in direct combination in classical Athens. Osborne (Naturalization, T70) discusses the possibilities (perhaps one man got the proxeny and the other citizenship) and suggests that it is likely either that Hypereides is speaking loosely (cf. Din 1.45), ‘so as to give the impression that honours were showered on the two men’, or that he refers to honorific progression from the award of proxeny-status to that of citizenship. The usual view, then, is that Antipater received citizenship and Alkimachos the role of proxeny. The award was made to Antipater presumably after he had come to Athens as an ambassador with Alexander (Justin 9.4.5) to bring the terms of peace and the corpses of the Athenian dead (Polyb. 5.10.4). This was, therefore, something of a diplomatic gesture, and marked Athenian gratitude for the relatively lenient treatment that they had received. Griffith, History, 2.609–10, offers an interesting perspective: ‘though the honours paid to Philip and Alexander at Athens at this time (and to Antipater and Alkimachos) are not to be taken as reflecting any genuine affection or admiration of the demos for great Macedonians, there is no reason to doubt that the return of the prisoners and the dead was appreciated, and that the character of the treaty [sc. that between Athens and Macedon] came as a great relief.’ This was one of a number of awards made by Athenians for Macedonians in the aftermath of Chaironeia. See also DD 174, 180, 182.

d174 award of citizenship for alexander the great

631

T1  Alkimachos … the other is Alkimachos of Macedon, of whom Hypereides makes mention in his Against Demades, thus: ‘We made Alkimachos and Antipater Athenians and proxenoi’.

Date

Autumn 338, after the battle of Chaironeia? A number of dates are possible, but it is quite plausible that the decree should be dated, as Osborne (Naturalization, T70), to 338, when Antipater accompanied Alexander to Athens (Justin 9.4.5; Plyb. 5.10.4) to bring the peace terms and return the bones of the Athenian dead.

Bibliography

Baynham, E., ‘Antipater and Athens’ in The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C.: Proceedings of an International Conference: Athens, May 24–26, 2001. Oxford (2003) 23–9. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 609–10. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T70.

D174 Award of citizenship for Alexander the Great (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: Autumn 338

Literary Context

A later commentator on Aelius Aristeides’ Panathenaikos mentions this decree of the Athenians.

632

inventory a2

Text

T1 Scholion on Aristeides Panathenaikos 178, 16 (Dindorf): Καταπολεμήσαντος Ἀθηναίους ἐν Χερωνείᾳ Φιλίππου, πρέσβεις παρ’ αὐτοῦ Ἀθήναζε ἦλθον περὶ εἰρήνης… ὅθεν ἡ πόλις ἐδέξατο, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, Ἀλέξανδρον, εἰς πολίτας ἀνέγραψεν.

Commentary

Alexander was one of those together with Antipater (Justin 9.4.5) bringing peace terms to Athens and announcing the return of the bones of the Athenian war-dead; the city made him a citizen (T1). Arrian (Anabasis, 1.1.3) indicates that after he had quelled trouble from the Athenians after the death of Philip in 336 (on which, see Griffith, History, 2.675–91), the Athenians granted to him ‘even greater honours than his father Philip’, but the precise nature of these awards is unclear (for the awards granted to Philip, see D180 below). Pausanias (1.9.4: see D180 T3 below) refers to a statue of Alexander, probably close to the Odeion, and this is treated by Kotsidu as simultaneous with this award of citizenship (Kotsidu, Time, no. 3), but it may in fact refer to a statue erected in 324 (D197). There is an epigraphical reference to an Athenian crown for Alexander at IG II2 1496 lines 51–4, which may well refer to awards granted by the League of Corinth after his victory in Cilicia in 333: D.S. 17.48.6 (Kotsidu, Time, no. 4); Hypereides’ (Phil. Fr. VIII Jensen) reference to the necessity of repaying charis to Alexander ‘on account of those who died’ may also be read as an allusion to the awards for the Macedonian.

Date

Autumn 338, after the battle of Chaironeia (T1); Kotsidu, Time, nos. 3, 4 dates it to 337/6.

Bibliography

Kotsidu, H, Time kai Doxa: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Berlin (2000) nos. 3, 4. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T69.

d175 decree granting citizenship

633

T1 When Philip had defeated the Athenians at Chaironeia, ambassadors from him (Philip) came to Athens concerning peace; … whence the city received them, and enrolled his son, Alexander, into the citizen-body.

D175 Decree granting citizenship to the Troizenians Proposer: Unknown Date: Autumn 338

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned in the context of Hypereides’ portrayal of Athenogenes’ character (T1): the claim is made that Athenogenes had betrayed the Troizenians, who had made him a citizen, had granted honours to the Athenians and had been themselves made citizens.

634

inventory a2

Text

T1 Hyp. Athenog. 31–3: Ὃς οὕτω πονηρός ἐστι καὶ πανταχοῦ ὅμοιος, ὥστε καὶ εἰς Τροιζῆν̣α ἐλθὼν καὶ ποιησαμένων αὐτὸν Τροιζηνίων πολίτην ὑποπεσὼν Μνησίαν τ[ὸ]ν Ἀργεῖον καὶ ὑπ’ ἐκείνου κατασ[τα]θεὶς [ἄρχω] ν ἐξέβαλεν τοὺς πολίτας ἐκ τῆς [πόλ]ε̣ ως, ὡς ὑμῖν αὐτοὶ μαρτυρήσουσιν· ἐ]ν̣θ̣ άδε γὰρ φεύγουσιν. καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν ὦ ἄνδρ[ε]ς δικασταὶ ἐκπ[ε]σόντας αὐτοὺς ὑ̣ πεδέξασ̣θε, καὶ πολίτας ἐποιήσασθε, καὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἀγαθῶν πάντ̣ ω̣ν μετέδοτε, ἀπομνημονεύσαντες τὴν εὐεργεσίαν τ[ὴ]ν πρὸς τὸν βάρβαρον δι’ ἐτῶν πλει̣ [ό]νω̣ν̣ ἢ π̣ε̣ ντήκοντα κ[αὶ] ἑκατόν, καὶ οἰόμ̣ ε̣ ν̣οι [δεῖ̣ ν̣ ] τοὺς ἐν τοῖς κινδύνοις ὑμῖν χ[ρ]ησίμους γενομένους, τούτο[υ]ς ἀτυχοῦντ̣ [ας π̣]ε̣ ρι[ποιηθῆναι] ὑφ’ ὑμῶν. οὗτος δὲ ὁ μιαρός, [ὁ̣] ἀφεὶς [ὑμᾶς κἀ]κε̣ ῖ̣ ἐγγραφ[ε̣ ί]ς, ο̣ὔτε τῆς πολ[ι]τεί[α̣ς οὔτε τοῦ ἤθο̣]υς τῆς̣ [π]όλεως [ο̣]ὐδὲ̣ ν [ἐ]πετ̣ή̣ [δευεν ἄξι]ο̣ ν, ἄλ[λ’ οὕτ̣ ]ως ὠμῶς τοῖς ὑ̣π̣ο[δεξαμένοις α̣]ὐτὸν [ἐχρ]ήσατο, ὥστε [μ]ε̣ τ̣ α .........τ̣ ο̣ ἐν τῆι ἐκκλησία[ι ...... ............ κ̣α̣ τὰ τοῦτ̣ [ο] ........ι (one line is missing) ραν δεδ̣[ι̣ ὼ̣ς .....]ιν κ̣ α̣ τέ̣ φ̣[υ̣ γ]εν. καὶ ταῦτα ὅτι ἀ̣λη̣ θῆ λέ[γω, ἀνα]γ ̣νώσεται ὑμῖν πρῶτον μὲν τὸν νό[μ̣ ]ον, [ὃς̣ ] οὐκ ἐᾶι τοὺς μετοίκους ἐξοι[κεῖ]ν ἐ[ν τῶι π]ο̣λέμωι, ἔπειτα τὴν Τροιζη[νίων] μαρ[τυ]ρίαν, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὸ τῶν [Τ̣ ρο̣ ιζηνίω̣]ν ψήφισμα, ὃ ἐψηφίσατ̣ [ο τῆι πόλει τῆ̣ ι̣ ὑμ̣ ]ετέραι, δι’ ὃ ὑμεῖς αὐτοὺς [ὑπέδεξασθε] καὶ [π̣]ολίτας ἐποιήσασθε. ἀνά[γνωθι]. [ΝΟΜΟΣ] ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. [ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ].

Commentary

After the battle at Chaironeia, there was civil upheaval at Troizen which resulted in the city falling under the control of Mnesias of Argos, allegedly a pro-Macedonian (Dem. 18.295). Hypereides claims that Athenogenes, a metic from Egypt, left Athens for Troizen just before Chaironeia and gave assistance to Mnesias in expelling citizens. Hypereides (T1) presents the Athenian decree as an award of citizenship for those Troizenians sent into exile by Mnesias. Indeed, the award may have been primarily directed at political refugees who had resisted the rule of Mnesias and/or Philip’s settlement. Osborne (Naturalization, T72) suggests that Hypereides misinterpreted the decree and exaggerated the extent of the award of citizenship: as they did for the Akarnanians in 338/7 (IG II3 1 216 lines 21–8), the Athenians may well have made a grant of citizenship to the leaders of a political group while granting to their followers something that amounted to isoteleia (equality of financial obligations). However, for other awards to exiles en masse, see, for instance, D120 above for the Olynthians. As Whitehead, Hypereides, 342 observes, the making

d175 decree granting citizenship

635

T1 This fellow is so wicked in everything that he does that on arriving at Troizen and being made a citizen, he offered his services to Mnesias of Argos; then, on being put into office by him he expelled citizens from the city, who will offer testimony, since they are here as exiles. And you, judges, accepted them when they arrived and made them citizens, and you have awarded them a share in all your good things, recalling their kindness in the fight against the barbarian more than 150 years ago, and believing it to be necessary to rescue from misfortune those who had done services on your behalf. But this wicked man, who had left you and had been registered as a citizen there, did nothing worthy of the constitution or the character of that city, but he treated those who had accepted him with such cruelty that afterwards …. the-at-the-assembly … According to this … [one line is vacant] … he fled. And to show that I speak the truth, the law will be read to you, the one that forbids metics from leaving the city, then the witness-statement of the Troizenians, and in addition the decree of the Troizenians, which was decreed by their city for you, according to which you in return accepted them and made them citizens. Read! LAW, STATEMENT. DECREE.

of a grant of agatha panta (cf. T1: καὶ τῶν ὑμετέρων ἀγαθῶν πάντ̣ ω̣ν μετέδοτε) is not paralleled in Attic epigraphy, and is therefore probably not documentary language, but is Hypereides’ gloss; the verb μεταδίδωμι is known, however, in association with the sharing of citizenship (cf. Lys. 25.3, Ar. Pol. 1306a25–6). Hypereides adds also that the award was inspired by the Athenian memory of events in 480, when the Athenians evacuated their women and children to Troizen before the battle of Salamis. This account included a (real or imaginary) Troizenian decree for the Athenians; Plutarch, Them. 10.5, claims that such a decree was enacted, by a certain Nikagoras, to support the Athenian refugees at public expense; for a now-lost inscribed version of this decree – probably a Hellenistic fabrication  – see Whitehead, Hypereides, 342–3, with bibliography. The mythical connection between the two communities through Theseus’ grandfather, Pittheus, may well have been invoked both in 480 and in 338. Athenian relations with the Troizenians are attested earlier in the fourth century in the shape of a fragmentary decree pertaining to an agreement between the two communities of the period 390–70: Agora XVI 35.

636

inventory a2

Hypereides’ perspective on this decree, is, therefore, influenced by a sense of Athens’ past: on the ‘past connectivity’ of some Athenian decrees of this era, see Lambert, ‘Connecting’, esp. 234–5 and IG II3 1 216, esp. lines 15–20. It appears to be the case that the orator asked not for the Athenian decree, but instead for the Troizenian decree to be read out at the lawcourt.

Date

Autumn 338, after the battle of Chaironeia.

Bibliography

Lambert, S.D., ‘Connecting with the past in Lykourgan Athens’ in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, eds. L. Foxhall, H.-J.Gehrke and N. Luraghi. Stuttgart (2010) 225–38. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T72. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 339–46.

D176 Decree prescribing meetings of the tribes for the repair of the walls Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF pp. 113–15) Date: 29th Thargelion 338/7

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) held up this decree as evidence that Demosthenes held the office of commissioner for works on the walls when Ktesiphon made his proposal: this supported his argument that the proposal, to crown someone who had not rendered accounts, was illegal (cf. 3.31).

637

638

inventory a2

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.27: Ὡς τοίνυν καὶ τὴν τῶν τειχοποιῶν ἀρχὴν ἦρχεν, ὅθ’ οὗτος τὸ ψήφισμα ἔγραψε, καὶ τὰ δημόσια χρήματα διεχείριζε, καὶ ἐπιβολὰς ἐπέβαλλε, καθάπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἄρχοντες, καὶ δικαστηρίων ἡγεμονίας ἐλάμβανε, τούτων ὑμῖν αὐτὸν Δημοσθένην μάρτυρα [καὶ Κτησιφῶντα] παρέξομαι. ἐπὶ γὰρ Χαιρώνδου ἄρχοντος, θαργηλιῶνος μηνὸς δευτέρᾳ φθίνοντος, ἐκκλησίας οὔσης ἔγραψε Δημοσθένης ἀγορὰν ποιῆσαι τῶν φυλῶν σκιροφοριῶνος δευτέρᾳ ἱσταμένου καὶ τρίτῃ, καὶ ἐπέταξεν ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι ἑκάστης τῶν φυλῶν ἑλέσθαι τοὺς ἐπιμελησομένους τῶν ἔργων ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη καὶ ταμίας, καὶ μάλα ὀρθῶς, ἵν’ ἡ πόλις ἔχοι ὑπεύθυνα σώματα, παρ’ ὧν ἔμελλε τῶν ἀνηλωμένων λόγον ἀπολήψεσθαι. Καί μοι λέγε τὸ ψήφισμα. Ψήφισμα.

Commentary

Demosthenes had made proposals about the organisation of guards and the construction of ditches and walls after the defeat at Chaironeia (see D169 above = Dem. 18.248). The current decree (T1) may well have followed up his earlier proposals, and made arrangements for setting the works in motion; it made provision for the tribes to appoint commissioners and treasurers for the works: Demosthenes appears to have organised this work among the tribes as part of his role as Commissioner of the Walls (τειχοποιός). The responsibility assigned to the tribes for appointing their own commissioners of the walls and treasurers suggests that they were given some fiscal responsibility for the constructions; furthermore, Aeschines suggests that the digging of trenches could have been assigned to them (Aeschin. 3.30). A remark in Harpokration’s Lexikon attributed to Philochorus suggests that teichopoioi were arranged by tribal boards (Harpokration, s. v. Hermes; FGrH 328 F40b: ‘Philochorus in the fifth book of the Atthis says that the nine archons dedicated a Hermes for (?with?) the tribes beside the city gate’); Jones, Public Organization, 47, takes the view that they were selected by tribe. As Jones observes, Associations, 163, the proposal that tribal meetings be called on successive days suggests a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary meetings of tribal assemblies. Moreover, the decree shows one way in which the way in which a state decree could regulate the activity of the tribes (Jones, Associations, 40).

Date

Penultimate day of Thargelion 338/7 (T1).

d177 decree awarding proxeny-status

639

T1 And what is more, to demonstrate that he held the office of the Commissioner of the Walls when he (Ktesiphon) proposed this decree, and that he was handling public money and imposing fines, just as other officials, and was able to preside in court, I shall present you with Demosthenes himself as my witness. For during the archonship of Chaironides, on the 29th of Thargelion, at a meeting of the assembly, Demosthenes proposed to convene tribal assemblies on the second and third days of Skirophorion, and he ensured in his decree that each of the tribes would appoint commissioners of the works on the walls, and treasurers, and absolutely rightly, so that the city might have individuals with personal responsibility from whom it could receive accounts of what was spent. Read the decree. Decree.

Bibliography

Jones, N.F., Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study. Philadelphia (1987) 47. Jones, N.F.,The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. Oxford (1999).

D177 Decree awarding proxeny-status to Euthykrates of Olynthos Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: 338–336

Literary Context

Johannes Logothetes (T1), Apsines (T2) and Longinus (T3) mention this decree to substantiate the view that Hypereides was using a technique called recapitulation (anakephalosis) in this speech as a mode of argumentation; Johannes suggests that Hypereides used a technique specifically called fabrication (plasma) in order to construct a parodic version of Demades’ decree. These passages appear to derive from knowledge of a now lost speech of Hypereides

640

inventory a2

(FF 76–80 Jensen), in which Hypereides mocked Demades’ decree and argued that Euthykrates had betrayed Greek interests. The Suda’s knowledge of this decree (TT 4, 5) may well have been based on that of these later literary critics or on independent sources on Demades that were at the author’s disposal.

Texts

T1 Hypereides F76b Jensen (Johannes, ad Hermog. περὶ μεθόδου δεινότητος): Εἰ τἀληθῆ Δημάδης ἐβούλετο περὶ Εὐθυκράτους εἰπεῖν τοιοῦτον αὐτὸν ἔδει ψήφισμα γράψαι … δι’ ἣν Εὐθυκράτην πρόξενον ἐποίησεν. ἐγὼ τὰ πεπραγμένα αὐτῷ, ἐπιγράψας τὸ τούτου ὄνομα, ἀναγνώσομαι. (καὶ πλάττεται τοιοῦτον ψήφισμα.) Δημάδης Δημέου Παιανιεὺς εἶπεν· ‘ἐπειδὴ Εὐθυκράτης προὔδωκε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα Ὄλυνθον καὶ αἴτιος ἐγένετο τὰς πόλεις τῶν Χαλκιδέων οὔσας τετταράκοντα ἀναστάτους γενέσθαι’ (καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς). T2  Hypereides F76a Jensen (cf. Apsines, Art of Rhetoric, 10.9 (Dilts and Kennedy)): Ἔτι δὲ ἀναμνήσομεν διὰ ψηφίσματος εἰσφορᾶς, ὡς Ὑπ. ψηφίσματος κατηγορῶν ὑπὸ Δημάδου γραφέντος, πρόξενον Εὐθυκράτην εἶναι γράψαντος, αὐτὸς εἰσφέρει ψήφισμα, δι’ οὗ ποιεῖται τὴν ἀνακεφαλαίωσιν τῶν εἰρημένων· ‘ἃ μὲν γὰρ οὗτος φησίν εἰσκεκόμικεν, οὐκ ἔχει τὰς ἀληθεῖς αἰτίας τῆς προξενίας· ἐγὼ δέ, εἰ δεῖ πρόξενον ὑμῖν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι, δι’ ἃ τούτου τεύξεται γράψας εἰσφέρω. ἔπειτα τὸ ψήφισμα εἰσφέρει· δεδόχθαι γάρ φησιν αὐτὸν εἶναι πρόξενον, ὅτι τὰ Φιλίππῳ συμφέροντα καὶ λέγει καὶ ποιεῖ, ὅτι γενόμενος ἵππαρχος τοὺς Ὀλυνθίων ἱππέας προὔδωκε Φιλίππῳ, ὅτι τοῦτο πράξας αἴτιος τοῦ Χαλκιδέων ὑπῆρξεν ὀλέθρου, ὅτι ἁλούσης Ὀλύνθου τιμητὴς ἐγένετο τῶν αἰχμαλώτων, ὅτι ἀντέπραξε τῇ πόλει περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Δηλίων, ὅτι τῆς πόλεως περὶ Χαιρώνειαν ἡττηθείσης οὔτε ἔθαψε τῶν τεθνεώτων τινὰς οὔτε τῶν ἁλόντων οὐδένα ἐλύσατο.’ διὰ τούτων κεφαλαιωδῶς ἀναμιμνῄσκει τῶν παρ’ ὅλην τὴν κατηγορίαν εἰρημένων κατ’ αὐτοῦ. T3  Longinus, On Invention (Chr. Walz, Rhetores graeci 9 (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1836), 547, 1–19): Ἔτι ἀναμνήσομεν διὰ ψηφίσματος εἰσφορᾶς, ὡς ὁ Ὑπερίδης κατηγορῶν ψηφίσματος ὑπὸ Δημάδου γραφέντος, τὸ πρόξενον Εὐθυκράτην εἶναι γράψαντος αὐτοῦ, εἰσφέρει ψήφισμα δι’ οὗ ποιεῖται τὴν ἀνακεφαλαίωσιν τῶν εἰρημένων· ‘ἃ μὲν γὰρ οὗτος, φησὶν, εἰσκεκόμικεν, οὐκ ἔχει τὰς ἀληθεῖς αἰτίας τῆς προξενίας, ἐγὼ δέ εἰ ἔστι πρόξενον ὑμῶν αὐτῶν γενέσθαι, διὰ τούτων τεύξεται γράψας εἰσφέρων. ἔπειτα τὸ ψήφισμα εἰσφέρει· δεδεῖχθαι γάρ φησι πρόξενον αὐτὸν εἶναι, διότι τὰ Φιλίππῳ συμφέροντα καὶ πράττει καὶ λέγει, ὅτι γενόμενος ἵππαρχος τοὺς Ὀλυνθίων ἱππέας προὔδωκε Φιλίππῳ, ὅτι τοῦτο πράξας αἴτιος τοῦ Χαλκιδέων ὑπῆρξεν ὀλέθρου, ὅτι

d177 decree awarding proxeny-status

641

T1 Had Demades wished to speak the truth about Euthykrates, he should have proposed a decree such as the following ... On account of which he made Euthykrates a proxenos. I shall draw up a record of the things that he has done, adding his name, and I shall read it to you. (And such a decree is fabricated). ‘Demades, son of Demeas, of the deme of Paiania, proposed that, whereas Euthykrates betrayed his own homeland of Olynthos too and was responsible for the destruction of forty cities of the Chalkidians’ (and so forth).

T2 Furthermore, we shall make a reminder by reciting a decree, as did Hypereides, when prosecuting the decree proposed by Demades, that Euthykrates was to be a proxenos, himself recited a decree, through which he carried out a recapitulation of the things said: ‘The arguments which he (Demades) has brought forward do not give the true explanation of the proxeny-award. If it is necessary for Euthykrates to be your proxenos, I shall submit to you an account of the services for which this is his reward: that he he has spoken and acted in the interests of Philip, that on becoming cavalry commander he betrayed the Olynthian cavalry to Philip and on account of this he was responsible for the destruction of the Chalkidians; that, when Olynthos had been captured, he assessed the prices of the prisoners; that he acted in opposition to the interests of the city concerning the sanctuary at Delos, that when the city had been defeated at Chaironeia, he neither buried any of the dead nor did he ransom any of the prisoners.’ Accordingly, he (Hypereides) reminds us, heading-by-heading, what was said in the whole speech made against him (Demades).

T3 We shall also make a reminder by reciting a decree, as Hypereides, prosecuting the decree proposed by Demades, that Euthykrates was to be a proxenos, himself recited a decree, through which he carried out a recapitulation of the things said: ‘The arguments, which he (Demades) has brought forward, do not give the true explanation of the proxeny-award. If it is necessary for Euthykrates to be your proxenos, I shall submit to you an account of the services for which this is his reward: that he has spoken and acted in the interests of Philip, that on becoming cavalry commander he betrayed the Olynthian cavalry to Philip and on account of this he was responsible for the destruction of the Chalkidians; that, when Olynthos had been captured, he assessed the prices of the prisoners; that he acted in opposition to the interests of the city concerning the sanctuary at Delos, that when the city had

642

inventory a2

ἁλούσης Ὀλύνθου τιμητὴς ἐγένετο τῶν αἰχμαλώτων, ὅτι ἀντέπραξε τῇ πόλει ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Δηλίων, ὅτι τῆς πόλεως περὶ Χαιρώνειαν ἡττηθείσης οὔτε ἔθαψε τῶν τεθνεώτων τινὰς, οὔτε τῶν ἁλόντων οὐδένα ἐῤῥύσατο’· διὰ τοῦτο κεφαλαιωδῶς ἀναμιμνήσκει τῶν παρ’ ὅλην τὴν κατηγορίαν εἰρημένων κατ’ αὐτοῦ. T4  Suda, s. v. ‘Δημάδης’ (delta 415 Adler): Οὗτος Δημοσθένει λέγοντι ὑπὲρ Ὀλυνθίων ἀντέλεγεν, Εὐθυκράτη δὲ τὸν Ὀλύνθιον, ἀτιμωθέντα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις, ἐψηφίσατο ἐπίτιμον εἶναι καὶ πρόξενον Ἀθηναίοις. T5  Suda, s.v. ‘Πρόξενος’ (pi 2539 Adler): Ὁ δὲ Εὐθυκράτη ἀτιμωθέντα παρὰ Ἀθηναίοις ἐψηφίσατο ἐπίτιμον εἶναι καὶ πρόξενον Ἀθηναίων.

Commentary

Euthykrates, along with the other Olynthians, may well have been offered citizenship or ateleia by the Athenians when their city was taken by Philip in 348 (see D120 above and Dem. 19.267–8), but these appear to have been rescinded (cf. T4, T5) when he was held responsible (TT 1, 2, 3), along with Lasthenes, for betraying Olynthos to Philip (D.S. 16.53.2; Dem. 8.40, 19.265; cf. 9.66). Later, Euthykrates may have been discarded by Philip, and, turning to the Athenians, did them favours (Dem. 8.40, 18.48); at this point, in all likelihood, Demades proposed that he be made a proxenos, and also that the previous awards be restored. An alternative view of the atimia of Euthykrates (T5) is that of Dmitriev, BNJ 227 T124 Commentary, who suggests, on the basis of detailed discussion, that atimia could imply the right of anybody to kill Euthykrates were he to set foot on Athenian soil (cf. the sentence imposed on Taurosthenes of Chalkis: Din. 1.44). See now Dmitriev, ‘Athenian ἀτιμία’, but against the view that atimia left a person unprotected by the law, see Joyce, ‘Atimia’. Brun raises the possibility that Euthykrates may be the honorand of the fragmentarily preserved inscribed fragmentary decree proposed by Demades in honour of [--os-] son of Andromenes (IG II3 1 322: Brun L’orateur 67–8), but the identification is speculative, and not supported in Lambert’s edition of the text. For the possibility that T1 betrays a ‘sensitivity to Demades’ decree-making style’, see Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws, 164 note 22. Interestingly, Hypereides’ attacks on Demades’ decree parodied it by producing a mock decree (T1): in a fragment sometimes associated with this decree, Hypereides argued that an honorific decree would be more appropriately

d177 decree awarding proxeny-status

643

been defeated at Chaironeia, he neither buried any of the dead nor did he set free any of the prisoners.’ Accordingly, he (Hypereides) reminds us heading-by-heading what was said in the whole speech made against him (Demades).

T4 Demades. This man spoke against Demosthenes when he made his speech in support of the Olynthians, and he proposed that Euthykrates of Olynthos, who had been disenfranchised by the Athenians, should have his status restored and should be a proxenos of the Athenians. T5 Proxenos. He (Demades) proposed that Euthykrates, who had been punished with atimia by the Athenians, be granted his status and should be a proxenos of the Athenians.

erected among the refuse at the crossroads rather than in a temple (Hypereides F79 Jensen). [Plu.] Moralia 810c–d says Hypereides’ speech against Demades was full of abuse. Indeed, Hypereides claimed elsewhere (5 Against Demosthenes 25) that Demades (and Demosthenes) made money from proposing honorific decrees and grants of proxenia. The outcome of the graphe paranomon is unknown (see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 28), but it may be one of the several occasions upon which Demades is said to have been been convicted for introducing illegal measures (D.S. 18.18.2 (three times); cf. Suda, s. v. ‘Δημάδης’ (twice); Plu. Phoc. 26.2 (seven times)). For Demades’ decrees, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

The decree has been placed, in line with the date of the speech of Hypereides against Demades, between 338 and 336 (i.e. at some point between the battle of Chaironeia and the death of Philip) by Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 28, Brun, L’orateur, 67–8, Engels, Studien, 136–42 and others: see Dmitriev BNJ 227 TT 7, 92 Commentary. Worthington places the decree in the period between the Peace of Philokrates and the death of Philip (that is between 346 and 338: Worthington, ‘The Context’, 92).

Bibliography

Brun, P., L’ orateur Démade: essai d’histoire et d’historiographie. Paris, 2000, 67–8. Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on Demades of Athens: BNJ 227 TT 7, 92, FF 53, 124.

inventory a2

644

Dilts, M.R. and Kennedy, G.A., Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire: Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric, Attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara. Leiden and Boston (1997). Dmitriev, S., ‘Athenian ἀτιμία and legislation against tyranny and subversion’, CQ 65 (2015) 35–50. Engels, J., Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides: Athen in der Epoche der Lykurgischen Reformen und des makedonischen Universalreiches, 2nd ed. Munich (1993) 136–42. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 28. Joyce, C., ‘Atimia and outlawry in archaic and classical Greece’, Polis 35 (2018) 33–60. Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2018). Worthington, I., ‘The context of [Demades’] On Twelve Years’, CQ 41 (1991) 90–5.

D178 Decree awarding proxeny-status to Alkimachos Proposer: Demades (?) Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263, APF) Date: Gamelion 337/6

Literary Context

Harpokration (T1) reports that a claim about the granting of proxeny-decrees was made by Hypereides recorded in his speech ‘Against Demades’. See also D173 above.

Text

T1  (= D173) Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀλκίμαχος’: ‘… ἕτερος δέ ἐστιν Ἀλκίμαχος Μακεδὼν, οὗ μνημονεύει Ὑπερείδης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημάδου οὕτως ‘Ἀλκίμαχον καὶ Ἀντίπατρον Ἀθηναίους καὶ προξένους ἐποιησάμεθα’.

d178 decree awarding proxeny-status to alkimachos 645

T1 The other is Alkimachos of Macedon, of whom Hypereides makes mention in his Against Demades, thus: ‘We made Alkimachos and Antipater Athenians and proxenoi.’

646

inventory a2

Commentary

Harpokration (T1) reports that Hypereides recorded in his speech Against Demades that the Athenians made Alkimachos and Antipater Athenians and proxenoi. The fact that, according to Harpokration, Hypereides mentioned the rewards for Alkimachos in a speech against Demades, is the main reason for associating this decree with Demades. Alkimachos (son of Agathokles of Pella: see Berve, Alexanderreich, II.23 no. 47) was a Macedonian general who was sent to Asia Minor by Alexander with the aim of establishing democracies (Arrian, Anabasis, 1.18.1–2); his eunoia and philia towards the demos of Ios were acknowledged on an honorific decree for his son (IG XII 5 1001 lines 9–10). An alternative possibility, though, is that the honorand may be instead Alkimachos of Apollonia, awarded citizenship in 319 BC (IG II3 1 391; Osborne, Naturalization, D37; see now SEG XXXVI 159; XXXIII 91). Hypereides’ claim that Alkimachos (and Antipater: D173) were made Athenian citizens and proxenoi is problematic, for, as Osborne (T70 Commentary) observes, citizenship and proxeny appear not usually to have been awarded in direct combination in Athens. See Commentary on D173. The usual view, then, is that Antipater received citizenship and Alkimachos the role of proxeny. There is some evidence for an inscribed copy of this decree: IG II3 1 319, a fragmentary decree with relief for a certain Ἀλκιμα[χ---] (line 2) was found on the acropolis in 1838. The left corner of the relief is preserved, and depicts the lower part of a seated figure which has been identified as Athena (Lawton no. 37). For the proposals of Demades, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

SEG XXXII 78 reports Hansen’s suggestion of [Γαμηλιῶνος πέμπτ]ηι [ἱσταμένου· for lines 6–7; Lambert retains [Γαμηλιῶνος ….]ηι. The epigraphic fragment, therefore, allows us to date the decree tentatively to Gamelion of the archonship of Phrynichos (337/6 BC), perhaps (as Hansen), the 5th of that month.

Bibliography

Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. Munich (1926), 2.23 no. 47. Lawton, C., Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens. Oxford (1995) no. 37. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T71 Commentary.

D179 * Honours for Demosthenes Proposer: Ktesiphon (PA 8894; PAA 587570) Date: Winter 337/6

Literary Context

Aeschines’ speech which attacked Ktesiphon’s proposal honouring Demosthenes is extant (Aeschin. 3), as is Demosthenes’ reply (Dem. 18). Aeschines had Ktesiphon’s decree read out in court (3.33); he claimed the illegality of its provisions for announcement at the theatre (T1, 2) and that it had proposed the illegal crowning of a magistrate before he had rendered his accounts (Aeschin. 3.9–31, esp. 12). In addition to the legal arguments, Aeschines argued that Demosthenes was not worthy of being crowned (Aeschin. 3.148, 152, 200): he challenged also the idea that Demosthenes had acted and spoken in the interests of the city (T2); he claimed astonishment at the possibility that Ktesiphon would point to Demosthenes’ work on the construction of moats to ward off threats which Demosthenes had himself brought on Athens (T3). Demosthenes pointed to the precedent of Aristonikos’ decree (T4; D156), and had the decree read out to demonstrate that he was honoured for his private donations (T5) rather than for his performance as an official.

647

648

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 3.34: Ἀκούετε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ὅτι ὁ μὲν νομοθέτης κελεύει ἐν τῷ δήμῳ ἐν Πυκνὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀνακηρύττειν τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου στεφανούμενον, ‘ἄλλοθι δὲ μηδαμοῦ’, Κτησιφῶν δὲ ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, οὐ τοὺς νόμους μόνον ὑπερβάς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν τόπον μετενεγκών, οὐδὲ ἐκκλησιαζόντων Ἀθηναίων, ἀλλὰ τραγῳδῶν γιγνομένων καινῶν, οὐδ’ ἐναντίον τοῦ δήμου, ἀλλ’ ἐναντίον τῶν Ἑλλήνων, ἵν’ ἡμῖν συνειδῶσιν οἷον ἄνδρα τιμῶμεν. T2 Aeschin. 3.49: Ἔστι δὲ ὑπόλοιπόν μοι μέρος τῆς κατηγορίας ἐφ’ ᾧ μάλιστα σπουδάζω· τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡ πρόφασις δι’ ἣν αὐτὸν ἀξιοῖ στεφανοῦσθαι. λέγει γὰρ οὕτως ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι· ‘καὶ τὸν κήρυκα ἀναγορεύειν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὅτι στεφανοῖ αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος ὁ [τῶν] Ἀθηναίων ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ ἀνδραγαθίας’, καὶ τὸ μέγιστον· ‘ὅτι διατελεῖ καὶ λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ.’ T3  Aeschin 3.236–7: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ λέξεις, ὅθεν τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἐποιήσω, ὅτι τὰς τάφρους τὰς περὶ τὰ τείχη καλῶς ἐτάφρευσε, θαυμάζω σου. … εἰ δὲ ἥξεις ἐπὶ τὸ δεύτερον μέρος τοῦ ψηφίσματος, ἐν ᾧ τετόλμηκας γράφειν ὡς ἔστιν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, καὶ ‘διατελεῖ λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων’, ἀφελὼν τὴν ἀλαζονείαν καὶ τὸν κόμπον τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἅψαι τῶν ἔργων, ἐπίδειξον ἡμῖν ὅ τι λέγεις. T4  Demosthenes 18.83: Στεφανωσάντων τοίνυν ὑμῶν ἐμὲ ἐπὶ τούτοις τότε, καὶ γράψαντος Ἀριστονίκου τὰς αὐτὰς συλλαβὰς ἅσπερ οὑτοσὶ Κτησιφῶν νῦν γέγραφε, καὶ ἀναρρηθέντος ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ τοῦ στεφάνου, {καὶ δευτέρου κηρύγματος ἤδη μοι τούτου γιγνομένου}, οὔτ᾽ ἀντεῖπεν Αἰσχίνης παρὼν οὔτε τὸν εἰπόντ᾽ ἐγράψατο. καί μοι λέγε καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμα λαβών. T5  Dem. 18.113: Οὗτος συκοφαντῶν, ὅτι ἐπὶ τῷ θεωρικῷ τότε ὢν ἐπέδωκα τὰ χρήματα, ‘ἐπῄνεσεν αὐτόν’ φησίν ‘ὑπεύθυνον ὄντα’. οὐ περὶ τούτων γε οὐδενὸς ὧν ὑπεύθυνος ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ οἷς ἐπέδωκα, ὦ συκοφάντα. ‘ἀλλὰ καὶ τειχοποιὸς ἦσθα’. καὶ διά γε τοῦτο ὀρθῶς ἐπῃνούμην, ὅτι τἀνηλωμένκα ἔδωκα καὶ οὐκ ἐλογιζόμην. T6 [Plu.] X Or. 845f–6a: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν ἐπισκευὴν τῆς πόλεως τῇ ἐπιμελείᾳ προσελθὼν καὶ τῶν τειχῶν ἐπιμελη τὴς χειροτονηθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας εἰσήνεγκε τὸ ἀναλωθὲν ἀργύριον, μνᾶς ἑκατόν· ἐπέδωκε δὲ καὶ θεωροῖς μυρίας· τριήρους τ’ ἐπιβὰς περιέπλευσε τοὺς συμμάχους ἀργυρολογῶν. ἐφ’ οἷς πολλάκις ἐστεφανώθη, πρότερον μὲν ὑπὸ Δημομελοῦς Ἀριστονίκου Ὑπερείδου χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ, τελευταῖον δ’ ὑπὸ Κτησιφῶντος·

d179 * honours for demosthenes

649

T1 You hear, Athenian men, how the lawgiver orders that the man crowned by the people be proclaimed at the meeting of the people on the Pnyx, ‘and nowhere else’, but Ktesiphon crowns him in the theatre, where he disregards the laws but also changes the place; not when the Athenians are meeting as an assembly, but when the tragedies are going on; not in front of the people, but in front of the Greeks, so that they might know what kind of man we honour. T2 I lay greatest emphasis on the remaining part of my accusation: this is the pretext upon the basis of which he says that the crown is worthy. For he speaks thus in the decree: ‘And the herald is to announce in the theatre to the Greeks that the Athenian people crowns him for the sake of virtue and goodness’, and, worse still, ‘because he continuously speaks and does the best things for the people.’

T3  If, Ktesiphon, you will pronounce that which you placed at the start of your decree, that he dug ditches around the walls well, I am amazed at you ... If you turn to the second part of the decree, in which you have dared to write that he is a good man and ‘constantly speaks and does what is best for the Athenian people’, omit the false pretence and the pomp of your decree, deal with real acts and show us what you mean. T4 You bestowed a crown upon me for my services at that time, when Aristonikos made the same proposal as Ktesiphon has now made, and the award was proclaimed in the theatre, which means this is the second time that there has come about this announcement for me; but yet Ktesiphon did not speak against the decree even though he was present, nor did he indict the proposer. And so please take and read this decree. T5 This man, this sycophant, because, when I was manager of the theoric fund I made donations of my own, says ‘he (Ktesiphon) praised him before he had rendered his accounts’. Indeed, but the praise did not concern anything for which I was subject to account, you sycophant, but only my private gifts. ‘But also you were a commissioner for the walls’, he says. Yes, for that reason I was correctly praised, because I made donations and did not charge them to the public account. T6 After that [sc. giving the epitaphios after Chaironeia], he turned to his attention to the improvement of the city and on being elected commissioner of the walls he made payments out of his own money, amounting to 100 mnai; he gave also a thousand drachmai for sacred envoys, and he made a journey in a trireme to the allies for the purpose of collecting money. For all these things he was crowned on several occasions, having been crowned at an earlier point by Demomeles, Aristonikos and Hypereides with a gold crown, and finally by Ktesiphon.

650

Commentary

inventory a2

Ktesiphon’s proposal was one of the crowns proposed for Demosthenes during his political career: for the others, see T6 and DD 156 and 166. The indictment of this decree, made by Aeschines (and Diodotos: see [Plu.] X Or. 846a), after it had been carried in the council but before ratification in the assembly (cf. Dem. 18.9, 53 and 118-19, where it is described as a preliminary proposal (probouleuma)) is probably the fourth century’s most famous case of graphe paranomon; for some reason, it did not come to the lawcourts until 330: for details of the case, see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 30. The speeches pertaining to the case provide the evidence for the contents of the decree (TT 1–5), and formed probably also the basis of [Plutarch]’s knowledge of the decree and its indictment. It is possible to recover several propositions made by Ktesiphon from the speech of Aeschines, in which the decree appears to have been read out (Aeschin. 3.33): that the award of (a golden: Aeschin. 3.10, 53, 147, 187; T6) crown was to be announced in the theatre when the tragedies were being performed (T1; cf. Dem. 18.119), that the herald was to announce there to the Greeks that the demos of the Athenians crowned him for the sake of his virtue and uprightness (T2), that he was a good man (T3) and that he was crowned because he continuously spoke and did good things for the demos (‘ὅτι διατελεῖ καὶ λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ’: T2, 3 cf. Aeschin. 3.101; Dem. 18.87) and for his digging of ditches around the walls (T3). As Canevaro, Documents, 285 observes, the expressions at TT 1–3 are widely attested in Athenian inscriptions from the late fourth century (Henry, Honours, 7–11, 42–4; Veligianni-Terzi, Wertbegriffe, 200–2, 213–16, 217–18, 270–2, 282). The digging of ditches around the walls appears to have taken place right after the battle of Chaironeia when the Athenians were expecting a Macedonian invasion (Lycurg. 1.44), and was emphasised in Aeschines’ account of Ktesiphon’s decree (T3): for Demosthenes’ decree proposing measures for the protection of Athens, see D169 above. But it may be the case that Aeschines – who, after all, made the speech only in 330, seven years after the indictment was initiated – is underplaying Demosthenes’ contribution, by emphasising the digging of ditches rather than the construction of walls (for Demosthenes’ proposals on wall-building, see D169 above). Demosthenes (T5) urged his audience to connect Ktesiphon’s proposal with the financial donations made when an administrator of the theoric fund and a wall-commissioner, which presumably came a little later in 337. The precise sum of his donations is unknown, but Aeschines 3.17 says that Demosthenes made claims about the gift of 100 mnai in connection with wall-building.

d179 * honours for demosthenes

651

Demosthenes had the decree read out in court (Dem. 18.118); a document purporting to be the decree itself is inserted in the text. The document offers more details (such as Ktesiphon’s otherwise unknown patronymic and demotic, and other details of Demosthenes’ euergesiai), but the incorrect archon date, along with other oddities, strongly suggest that it is bogus: see Canevaro, The Decrees, 283–90. As Canevaro suggests, Pseudo-Plutarch’s account (T6) is probably a paraphrase drawn from this document. Harris (‘Applying the law’ 105) elucidates the three charges made by Aeschines in his indictment: ‘First Aeschines (3.9–31) charged that Ktesiphon had violated the law forbidding the award of a crown to a magistrate who had not yet passed the examination of his conduct (εὔθυναι) after his term of office by proposing a crown for Demosthenes when the latter was still serving as a magistrate and had not yet undergone this examination. Second, Aeschines (3.32–48) charged that the proposal violated the law about the announcement of awards in the assembly. Third, he charged that Ktesiphon’s proposal contained false statements, which violated the rule against placing false statements in laws and decrees (3.49).’ In order to overcome Aeschines’ first charge, that he had broken the law against being crowned before he had rendered his accounts, Demosthenes maintained both that he was rewarded not for his performance over the course of his term of office but specifically for making donations of money out of his own means for the construction work (Dem. 18.111–18); furthermore, he defended his record across his career as a whole; as Harris, ‘Law and oratory,’ 145 points out, he maintained that Ktesiphon’s decree was not one in praise of his performance as teichopoios or as administrator of the theoric fund, but ‘it was an award for a series of public services and contained a general commendation for his consistent devotion to the welfare of Athens’. Demosthenes pointed to examples of others who had received crowns on account of their generosity to the Athenians while in office (Dem. 18.114). Harris’ arguments in support of the legality of Ktesiphon’s decree are strong (though not universally accepted: MacDowell, Demosthenes, 388) and are developed further in subsequent publications (Harris, The Rule of Law, 225–33; Harris, ‘Applying the law’), but as Carey, Aeschines, 161 points out, Ktesiphon’s decree was vulnerable given that it evidently praised Demosthenes for what he had done as teichopoios (cf. T6) and especially because ‘it is difficult to separate the donation from the office as neatly as Demosthenes does’. One possible objection to Harris’ position is raised by MacDowell and Aviles (MacDowell, Demosthenes, 388 note 20; Aviles, ‘“Arguing”’, 38–9): that the statutory provision ‘ἀρχὴν ὑπεύθυνον μὴ στεφανοῦν’ could refer not to ‘term of office’ but to an individual ‘magistrate’; however, as Aviles acknowledges, it is not provable that this restriction was ever imposed literally and it is plausible even to think that departures from the

652

inventory a2

most literal interpretations of the law were acceptable in Athenian legal culture. Harris’ response to MacDowell’s objection is as follows: ‘if one believes that the term arche must refer to a magistrate, one could still interpret the law in two ways. It could forbid the award of a crown either for anyone while serving as a magistrate or for a magistrate for his performance of duties as a magistrate. Aeschines adopts the first interpretation, Demosthenes the second’ (Harris, The Rule of Law, 227 note 42). In his response to the second charge, Demosthenes was able to cite a law which effectively permitted the announcement of honours in the theatre had it been sanctioned by the people or council (Dem. 18.120–1); Aeschines had shown awareness of this law, but argued that it applied mostly to the case of honours granted by foreign communities (Aeschin. 3.41–8, esp. 46). As, among others, Aviles, ‘“Arguing”’, 35–6, observes, Aeschines’ interpretation is unpersuasive (cf. also Canevaro, The Documents, 290–5, assessing the content of the law discussed at 18.120–1) and his quotation of the law selective; indeed, Demosthenes was able to emphasise the civic importance of proclamation at the theatre during the Dionysia (Dem. 18.120; its significance is highlighted also by recent scholarship: see Ceccarelli, ‘Contexts’, 102 and Hanink, Lycurgan, 112–25). Demosthenes’ response to the third charge consists of his assertion over the course of his speech that he had continuously spoken the best things and acted in the interests of the people. Given the weakness of his arguments and the strength of those of his opponent, it is hardly surprising that Aeschines’ indictment was unsuccessful; he failed to gain a one-fifth part of the votes ([Plu.] X Or. 840d, 846a), was fined and fled to Rhodes. The probouleuma was upheld, but it is unclear whether it was enacted as a decree of the assembly: by the time of the trial, it had been time-barred (a probouleuma was live only one year after its enactment at the council: Dem. 23.79–80). Ktesiphon is not known to have proposed any other decree. This Ktesiphon is identifed by Harpokration (s.v. ‘Κτησιφῶν’) as the same one who travelled with Aeschines and Demosthenes in the embassy of 347/6. This may be the same person as the honorand of D118. However, given that there is no evidence for patronymic nor demotic, this identification is not certain; indeed the Suda (s.v. ‘Κτησιφῶν’) casts doubt on the identification.

Date

Winter 337/6 (after the proposal to repair the walls of Thargelion 337, and while Demosthenes was teichopoios and treasurer of the theoric fund: Aeschin. 3.27); Aeschines initiated the indictment before Philip’s death in June 336 (Aeschin. 2.19)

d179 * honours for philip

Bibliography

653

Aviles, D., ‘“Arguing against the law”: non-literal interpretation in Attic forensic ­oratory’, Dike 14 (2011), 19-42 at 34–9. Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 283–90. Carey, C., Aeschines. Austin (2000) 161. Ceccarelli, P., ‘Contexts of tragedy: on the place of tragedy in the civic and cultural life of the Greek poleis’ in Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages, eds. I. Gildenhard and M. Revermann. Berlin (2012) 99–150 Hanink, J., Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge (2014). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 30. Harris, E.M., ‘Law and Oratory’ in Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. I. Worthington. London and New York (1994) 130–50. Harris, E.M., The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. Oxford (2013). Harris, E.M., ‘Applying the law about the award of crowns to magistrates (Aeschin. 3.9–31; Dem. 18.113–117): epigraphic evidence for the legal arguments at the trial of Ctesiphon’, ZPE 202 (2017) 105–17. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983) 22–4. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009). Veligianni-Terzi, C., Wertbegriffe in den attischen Ehrendekreten der klassischen Zeit. Stuttgart (1997). Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 8–12.

D180 Decree granting honours (statue, citizenship, and crown) for Philip of Macedon Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: Summer 337 (and Summer 336)

Literary Context

In a work, which purports to be Demades’ defence of his career over the course of twelve years, [Demades] (T1) defends his proposals to make peace and to honour Philip. The speech, though it is generally thought to be a later fabrication, is nevertheless viewed as a source of historical information: see Dmitriev, Commentary on BNJ 227 F59. References to this proposal appear also in a number of other literary contexts: Diodorus’ account of the wedding of Philip’s daughter, Cleopatra (T2), Pausanias’ account of Athenian statues (T3), Plutarch’s account of Demosthenes’ activity and the decline in Athenian morals after Chaironeia (T4), and Apsines’ (T5) mention that the decree honouring Philip is an example of a proposal made out of necessity.

Texts

T1 [Demades], On the Twelve Years, 9–10: Χιλίων Ἀθηναίων ταφὴ μαρτυρεῖ μοι κηδευθεῖσα ταῖς τῶν ἐναντίων χερσίν, ἃς ἀντὶ πολεμίων φιλίας ἐποίησα τοῖς ἀποθανοῦσιν. ἐνταῦθα ἐπιστὰς τοῖς πράγμασιν ἔγραψα τὴν εἰρήνην, ὁμολογῶ. ἔγραψα καὶ Φιλίππῳ τιμάς, οὐκ ἀρνοῦμαι. δισχιλίους γὰρ αἰχμαλώτους ἄνευ λύτρων καὶ χίλια πολιτῶν σώματα χωρὶς κήρυκος καὶ τὸν Ὠρωπὸν ἄνευ πρεσβείας λαβὼν ὑμῖν ταῦτ’ ἔγραψα. ἐπείληπτο δὲ τῆς γραφούσης χειρὸς οὐχ ἡ δωροδοκία τῶν Μακεδόνων, ὡς οὗτοι πλαττόμενοι λέγουσιν, ἀλλ’ ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἡ χρεία καὶ τὸ τῆς πατρίδος συμφέρον καὶ ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως φιλανθρωπία.

T2  D.S. 16.92.1–2: Τέλος δὲ πολλῶν πανταχόθεν πρὸς τὴν πανήγυριν συρρεόντων καὶ τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ γάμων συντελουμένων ἐν Αἰγέαις τῆς Μακεδονίας οὐ μόνον κατ’ ἄνδρα τῶν ἐπιφανῶν ἐστεφάνωσαν αὐτὸν χρυσοῖς στεφάνοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀξιολόγων πόλεων αἱ πλείους, ἐν αἷς ἦν καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἀθηναίων. ἀναγορευομένου δὲ τοῦ στεφάνου τούτου διὰ τοῦ κήρυκος τὸ 654

d180 decree granting honours for philip

655

T1 The burial of a thousand Athenians is my witness, which was carried out by the hands of our very enemies — the hands which I won over from animosity to friendship towards the dead. Then, having become prominent in public life, I proposed the peace, I acknowledge that. And I proposed honours for Philip, which I do not deny. By making these proposals, I acquired for you the return of 2,000 prisoners without paying ransom, the corpses of 1,000 Athenian dead, obtaining them without herald and also Oropos without the dispatch of an embassy. And in procuring these terms my hand was constrained not by bribes of the Macedonians, as those making accusations allege falsely, but by the point in time, necessity, the interest of the homeland and the generosity of the king. T2 At last huge numbers gathered from everywhere to the festival, while the games and the marriage-ceremonies were celebrated at Aigeai in Macedonia; not only did invididual notables crown him with golden crowns, but most of the important cities as well, including Athens. As this award was being announced by the herald, he said finally that if anyone plotting against Philip were to flee to Athens for refuge, he would be handed over.

656

inventory a2

τελευταῖον εἶπεν, ἄν τις ἐπιβουλεύσας Φιλίππῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ καταφύγῃ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους, παραδόσιμον εἶναι τοῦτον. T3 Pausanias 1.9.4: Μετὰ δὲ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους Φίλιππός τε καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Φιλίππου κεῖνται· τούτοις μείζονα ὑπῆρχέ πως ἢ ἄλλου πάρεργα εἶναι λόγου. τοῖς μὲν οὖν ἀπ’ Αἰγύπτου τιμῇ τε ἀληθεῖ καὶ εὐεργέταις οὖσι γεγόνασιν αἱ δωρεαί, Φιλίππῳ δὲ καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ κολακείᾳ μᾶλλον ἐς αὐτοὺς τοῦ πλήθους, ἐπεὶ καὶ Λυσίμαχον οὐκ εὐνοίᾳ τοσοῦτον ὡς ἐς τὰ παρόντα χρήσιμον νομίζοντες ἀνέθηκαν. T4  Plu. Dem. 22.4: Ἐγὼ δ’ ὡς μὲν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ βασιλέως, ἡμέρως οὕτω καὶ φιλανθρώπως ἐν οἷς εὐτύχησε χρησαμένου πταίσασιν αὐτοῖς, στεφανηφορεῖν καλῶς εἶχε καὶ θύειν, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιμι· πρὸς γὰρ τῷ νεμεσητῷ καὶ ἀγεννές, ζῶντα μὲν τιμᾶν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι πολίτην, πεσόντος δ’ ὑφ’ ἑτέρου μὴ φέρειν τὴν χαρὰν μετρίως, ἀλλ’ ἐπισκιρτᾶν τῷ νεκρῷ καὶ παιωνίζειν, ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς ἀνδραγαθήσαντας. T5  Apsines, Art of Rhetoric 1.19: Ἔγραψεν ὁ Δημάδης τρισκαιδέκατον θεὸν νομίζειν τὸν Φίλιππον· ἀντειπὼν ὁ Δημοσθένης ἡττήθη· καὶ γράφει καὶ νεὼν ἱδρύσασθαι Φιλίππῳ.

Commentary

[Demades] 1.9–10 claims that his proposal (‘ἔγραψα καὶ Φιλίππῳ τιμάς’) was made in the interests of Athens and had the effect of gaining 2,000 captives free of ransom, the bones of the Athenian dead, and possession of Oropos, without necessitating the dispatch of an embassy; Diodorus (16.87.3) also associates the release of Athenian prisoners with Demades (see D171 T3). The precise relationship between Philip’s lenient settlement with the Athenians and their honours for him is unclear: Osborne (Naturalization, T68 Commentary) suggests that the rewards were ‘an indication of the great relief felt in Athens over Philip’s merciful treatment of the city, not a return for positive benefaction’, whereas [Demades] presents them as the bargaining chip which guaranteed the favourable settlement; Pausanias offers the view that the honours were made because Philip was favourable to the Athenians (1.9.4). For the debate – probably irresolvable – about whether Demades’ proposal to make peace (see D171 above) and honour Philip constituted one or two different decrees, see Dmitriev, Commentary on BNJ 227 T49 (= D.S. 18.18.1–3). Worthington (‘The context’, 92) suggests that Demades was indicted by graphe

d180 decree granting honours for philip

657

T3 Beyond the (statues) of the Egyptians stand both Philip and Alexander the son of Philip. The events of their lives are greater than befits being mere digressions of another story. Therefore, while the honours to the Egyptians were given out of true respect because they had been benefactors, those to Philip and Alexander were given rather out of flattery shown by the people, since they had also set up a statue of Lysimachos not so much out of goodwill but because they considered him useful at the time. T4 I cannot bring myself to say that it was an honourable thing (for the Athenians) to wear crowns and to sacrifice to the gods upon the death of a king who succeeded in sharing in your suffering in such a humane and civilised way at this time: this was provocative of nemesis, and it was a sordid thing to honour him while he was alive and make him a citizen but when he had been killed by the hand of someone, to express boundless joy, and to jump on the corpse and to sing paians, just as if they themselves had achieved valour. T5 Demades proposed that Philip be recognised as a thirteenth God; Demosthenes spoke against this and was defeated; he now proposes that a temple be constructed for Philip.

paranomon for having proposed both peace and honours for Philip, but Dmitriev (Commentary BNJ 227 T49) makes the observation that it is unlikely that Demades was indicted for making peace with Philip. The Athenians had already praised Philip in 346 (see D134 above) and had granted honours to his son Alexander in 338 (D174). What was the substance of the honours of 337? Whereas [Demades] (T1) talks vaguely about honours, and Diodorus about a crown announced at Aigeai (T2), Plutarch claims that he was made a citizen (T4; see Osborne, Naturalization, T68); T3 suggests that a statue of him was set up at Athens (probably close to the Odeion). Diodorus Siculus (T2) says that the award of a golden crown was announced by a herald and ended with the declaration that ‘that if anyone plotting against Philip were to flee to Athens for refuge, he would be handed over’: the language of the clause is unparalleled, but for another kind of a protective decree, see Dem. 23.91 (a decree protecting Charidemos and threatening any person or city who protects his assassin: D94). Kotsidu (Time, nos. 1 and 2) treats the awards of a golden crown (T2) as a separate, slightly later, honour of summer 336.

658

inventory a2

Later traditions (TT 4, 5; cf. also Dio Chrysostom 37.41.2–7), however, connect Demades’ proposal with sacred honours, but these are gener­ ally thought of as fabrications: Habicht, Divine Honors, 9; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.692 note 2; Dmitriev, BNJ 227 T93. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria, Protreptikos, 4.54.5 says that the Athenians, after Chaironeia, introduced a law to worship Philip (nomothetountes proskunein). Fredricksmeyer (whilst maintaining that at Athens Philip did indeed receive divine honours) suggests that the later testimonia (e.g. T5) proposing that Philip be treated as a ‘thirteenth God’ constitute a confused amalgamation of the traditions that (a) Demades proposed that Alexander be recognised as a thirteenth Olympian (Ael. VH 5.12; see D197 below); and (b) that at Aigeai Philip exhibited his statue as if he were the thirteenth God (D.S. 16.95. 1). See Fredricksmeyer, ‘Divine’, esp. n. 56; for another expression of the view that Demades did indeed propose divine honours for Philip, arguing from the parallel award for Alexander, see Squillace, ‘Filippo,’ 44–5. Apsines’ claim (T5) that a shrine for Philip was proposed may well be based on Aeschines’ allegation (Aeschin. 3.160 = D182) that a shrine to Pausanias, Philip’s assassin, was proposed. If we believe that the Athenians set up a statue for Philip (T3), which does not necessarily imply divine honours, its afterlife (cf. T3) may not have been a happy one: Dio Chrysostom (37.41.2–7) says that the Athenians poured urine over it, presumably after his death.

Date

The context of the decree and its consequences claimed by [Demades] (T1) suggest that the decree was proposed in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Chaironeia, and this view is supported by Squillace, ‘Filippo’; however, Diodorus Siculus’ description (T2) suggests that it was announced at, and presumably proposed shortly before, the assassination of Philip at his daughter’s wedding which took place in the summer of 336 (Plu. Alex. 16.2). Kotsidu offers a solution to the problem by suggesting that the awards were made at two separate points: the award of citizenship and a statue was made in summer 337 and the crown was granted in summer 336.

Bibliography

Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 229 T93, F59. Fredricksmeyer, E.A., ‘Divine honors for Philip II’, TAPA 109 (1979) 39–61. Habicht, C., Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities: The Early Cases, trans. J.N. Dillon. Ann Arbor (2017) 9. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith (eds.), A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979).

d181 honours for proedroi

659

Kotsidu, H., Time kai Doxa: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Berlin (2000) nos. 1 and 2. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T69. Squillace, G., ‘Filippo triskaidekatos theos nella proposta di Demade del 338 a.C.’, Miscellanea di studi storici, Dipartimento di Storia, Università degli Studi della Calabria 11 (1998–2001 [2002]) 30–46. Worthington, I., ‘The context of [Demades’] On the Twelve Years’, CQ 41 (1991) 90–5.

D181 Honours for proedroi Proposer: Philippides (PA 14351; PAA 928850) Date: 336/5

Literary Context

Hypereides (in the speech Against Philippides) was the synegoros in the indictment of Philippides by graphe paranomon for proposing honours for the nine proedroi who were presiding on the day on which honours for certain Macedonians were passed (T1).

660

inventory a2

Text

T1 Hyp. Phil. 4–6: Γραφὴ πα[ρα]νόμων ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ [ἧς τ]ὴν ψῆφον μέλλετε [φέρ]ειν. τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα τὸ κρινόμενον ἔπαινος προέδρων. ὅτι δὲ προσήκει τοὺς προέδρους κατὰ τοὺς νόμους προεδρεύειν, οὗτοιδὲ παρὰ τοὺς νόμους προηδρεύκασιν, αὐτῶν τῶν νόμων ἠκούετε ἀναγιγνωσκομένων. τὸ λοιπὸν ἤδη ἐστὶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν· δείξετε γὰρ πότερα τοὺς παράνομα γράφοντας τ[ιμ]ωρήσεσθε, ἢ τὰς τοῖς εὐ[εργέ]ταις ἀποδεδειγμένας [τι]μὰς ταύτας δώσετε [το]ῖς ἐναντία τοῖς νόμοι[ς πρ]οεδρεύουσιν, καὶ ταῦτα ὀμωμοκότες κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ψηφιεῖσθαι. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ᾽ ἐξαπατηθῆναι ὑμῖν ἔνεστιν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου αὐτῶν, ἂν φῶσιν ἀναγκαῖα εἶνα[ι τ]ῷ δήμῳ τὰ περὶ τῶν ἐπ[αί]νων ψηφίζεσθαι το[ὺς γ]ὰρ προέδρους οὐκ ἔνεστιν εἰπεῖν ὡς ἀνάγκη τις ἦν στεφανῶσαι. πρὸ[ς δ]ὲ τούτοις αὐτὸς ὑμῖν ο[ὗ]τος ῥᾳδίαν πεποίηκ[εν] τὴν γνῶσιν· ἔγραψεν γ[ὰρ] ὧν ἕνεκα ἐστεφάνω[σε]ν τοὺς προέδρους, δι[κα]ιοσύνης τε τῆς εἰς τὸν δ[ῆμ]ον τὸν Ἀθηναίων κα[ὶ δι]ότι κατὰ τοὺς νόμο[υς π]ροηδρεύκασιν.

Commentary:

From 379/8, the proedroi were charged with the chairmanship of meetings of the council and assembly; nine were selected by lot from the 450 councillors not serving as prytaneis at the time; they held office for a day: see [Aristotle] Ath. Pol. 44.2; Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 25–8, Hansen, Athenian Assembly, 38–9 and Ryan, ‘The date’. They were responsible for ensuring that the agenda of the assembly, drawn up by the prytaneis, was implemented; they decided what proposals were put to the vote after the debate (Aeschin. 2.84; Dem. 22.5, 9; cf. D130 T2; D132 T1) and could be held responsible for illegal procedure (Dem. 24.50): see Canevaro, ‘Majority rule’. T1 suggests that the nine proedroi who were presiding on the day on which honours for certain Macedonians were passed themselves were honoured by a decree of Philippides. Hypereides denies that the people were compelled to pass the honours, in other words, it is unlikely that the proedroi were customarily honoured; indeed, this is the only secure example of proedroi being honoured, though IG II3 1 476 of the 320s may be restored to this effect: Whitehead, Hypereides, 54. We get some sense of the wording of the decree from Hypereides’ paraphrase of it: ‘ἔγραψεν γ[ὰρ] ὧν ἕνεκα ἐστεφάνω[σε]ν τοὺς προέδρους, δι[κα  ]ιοσύνης τε τῆς εἰς τὸν δ[ῆμ ]ον τὸν Ἀθηναίων,   κα[ὶ   δι]ότι κατὰ τοὺς νόμο[υ  ς π]ροηδρεύκασιν’ (Hyp. Ag. Phil. 6 = T1); Whitehead suggests that the first element ‘at least is in essence so documentarily authentic as to be tantamount to quotation’: Whitehead, Hypereides, 58, citing as parallels

d181 honours for proedroi

661

T1 The case about which you are about to cast your votes is one concerned with an indictment against illegal proposals. The decree being judged is a vote of praise for the proedroi. You have heard from the laws being read out, that it is necessary for the proedroi to preside in accordance with the laws, but these men have presided contrary to them. And so everything else is up to you: you will show whether you intend to punish those who make illegal proposals, or whether you will give honours usually reserved for benefactors to those who make illegal proposals; you will vote on this having sworn to vote according to the laws. There is an argument upon which they might draw, that it is obligatory for the people to vote on proposals to do with praise. But that will not deceive you if they make this case, for it is not possible to say that anyone forced you to crown the proedroi. In addition, the proposer has made the verdict easy, for he proposed that the proedroi were to be crowned for the sake of their uprightness to the Athenian people and because they presided in accordance with the laws.

(of individuals being honoured for behaviour according to the laws) IG II2 1140.10–12, IG II3 1 323 line 14, 327 lines 34–5. As Whitehead, Hypereides, 57 says, we do not know whether Philippides proposed crowns of olive or gold for the proedroi. For other crowns in the literary record, see, Appendix 2 below. As Lambert points out in the online commentary on IG II3 4 57 (https://www.atticinscriptions.com), a dedication (of Euktemonides, perhaps a hieropoios at Eleusis) of 357/6 is ‘the earliest datable dedication by an Athenian official in which it is stated explicitly that he had been crowned by the Council and People’, though, as Lambert points out, ‘crowns dedicated by boards of officials are recorded in inventories of the treasurers of Athena earlier than this’: for the syllogeis tou demou of 370/69 and 368/7 BC dedicating crowns to Athena, see IG II2 1425 lines 126 and 225; cf. IG II3 4 72 of 351/0.

Date

Summer 336 or earlier. The honours were proposed on the day that certain Macedonians were praised. The exact date is unknown, but the honours may have been proposed before the Athenians heard of the death of Philip (they had not heard of Philip’s death in the tenth prytany, probably Skirophorion 337/6: IG II3 1 322). Hypereides’ indictment may have come after the Athenians heard the news: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 32.

inventory a2

662

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., ‘Majority rule vs consensus: the practice of deliberation in the Greek poleis’ in Ancient History and Contemporary Social Science, eds. M. Canevaro, A. Erskine, B. Gray and J. Ober. Edinburgh (2018) 101–56. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 32. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford (1987) 38–9. Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972) 25–8. Ryan, F.X., ‘The date of the institution of the proedroi’, JHS 115 (1995) 167–8. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 52–8.

D182 Honours for Pausanias

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) or Unknown Date: Late 337/6 to early 336/5

Literary Context

As part of his account of Demosthenes’ hypocrisy and cowardice, Aeschines (T1) offers details of his proposals after hearing of Philip’s death; the episode is mentioned also by Plutarch (T2).

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.160: Ἐπειδὴ δ’ ἐτελεύτησε μὲν Φίλιππος, Ἀλέξανδρος δ’ εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν κατέστη, πάλιν αὖ τερατευόμενος ἱερὰ μὲν ἱδρύσατο Παυσανίου, εἰς αἰτίαν δὲ εὐαγγελίων θυσίας τὴν βουλὴν κατέστησεν. T2 Plu. Dem. 22.1:  Ἔγνω μὲν οὖν κρύφα τὴν τοῦ Φιλίππου τελευτὴν ὁ Δημοσθένης, προκαταλαμβάνων δὲ τὸ θαρρύνειν ἐπὶ τὰ μέλλοντα τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, προῆλθε φαιδρὸς εἰς τὴν βουλήν, ὡς ὄναρ ἑωρακὼς ἀφ’ οὗ τι μέγα προσδοκᾶν Ἀθηναίοις ἀγαθόν· καὶ μετ’ οὐ πολὺ παρῆσαν οἱ τὸν Φιλίππου θάνατον ἀπαγγέλλοντες. εὐθὺς οὖν ἔθυον εὐαγγέλια καὶ στεφανοῦν ἐψηφίσαντο Παυσανίαν.

d182 honours for pausanias

663

T1 And when Philip died, and Alexander had come to power, again Demosthenes put on airs and established a shrine for Pausanias, and he was responsible for the council making sacrifices for the good news.

T2 Demosthenes had some secret knowledge of the death of Philip, and as a way of

inspiring the Athenians with bravery for the future events, he came into the council beaming with joy, saying that he had seen a dream from which the Athenians were about to expect some good news; and not much later messengers came to Athens with news of the death of Philip, and immediately they sacrificed for the good news and they voted to crown Pausanias.

664

inventory a2

Commentary

At Athens at least, the death of Philip appears to have been met with celebrations, despite the fact that he had been previously honoured by the Athenians (for their pledge to extradite assassins of Philip, see D.S. 16.92.1-2 = D180 T2; for pledges to maintain loyalty to Philip which the Athenians appear to have sworn according to the League of Corinth, see RO 76 lines 2-22). The institutional basis of these celebrations is far from certain: Aeschines (T1) suggests that Demosthenes founded a shrine to Pausanias the assassin of Philip II and involved the council in making sacrifices celebrating the news: it is likely but not certain that the institution of a shrine necessitated a decree of the assembly. It appears also from T1 that Demosthenes may have been involved in a decision of the council to sacrifice because of the good news: Rhodes (Athenian Boule, 81) suggests that this was an example of a case where a decision of the council ‘committed Athens to another bout of aggressive nationalism’. Plutarch’s (T2) report of the decree is rather different, saying that it there was a crown for Pausanias, rather than a shrine, but mentions the sacrifice for the good news; Plutarch, in his biography of Phokion, mentions Phokion’s opposition only to the sacrifice for good news (Plu. Phoc. 16.6). Given that he was killed immediately after the assassination (D.S. 16.94.4), it is perhaps plausible to believe that the Athenians instituted a shrine for Pausanias. On the assassination of Philip, see D.S. 16.93.3-94.4 with Badian, ‘The death’; Carney, ‘Regicide’; Develin, ‘The murder’; Frears, ‘Pausanias’; on its historiographical reception, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.675-91. The assassination of Philip appears to have inspired acts of resistance elsewhere in Greece (Aetolia, Thebes, Ambracia: Sealey, Demosthenes, 202).

Date

After the Athenians had heard of Philip’s death, mid-336. The fact that they had not heard of Philip’s death in the tenth prytany, probably Skirophorion 337/6 (IG II3 1 322) places the decree at the beginning of 336/5.

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘The death of Philip II’, Phoenix 17 (1963) 244–50. Carney, E., ‘Regicide in Macedonia’, La Parola del Passato 211 (1983) 260–72. Develin, R., ‘The murder of Philip II’, Antichthon 15 (1981) 86–99. Frears, J.R., ‘Pausanias, the Assassin of Philip II’, Athenaeum 53 (1975) 11–35. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 675-91. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 202.

D183 Decree calling for the Athenians to evacuate Attica, repair walls and send envoys to Alexander Proposer: Unknown Date: 335/4

Literary Context

Diodorus (T1) mentions this development as a response to the Macedonian movements against the Thebans undertaken soon after Alexander succeeded Philip.

665

666

inventory a2

Text

T1 D.S. 17.4.6: Καθ’ ὃν δὴ χρόνον Ἀθηναῖοι πυθόμενοι τὴν εἰς Βοιωτίαν πάροδον τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς προϋπαρχούσης καταφρονήσεως ἀπέστησαν· ἡ γὰρ ὀξύτης τοῦ νεανίσκου καὶ ἡ διὰ τῶν πράξεων ἐνέργεια τοὺς ἀλλοτριοφρονοῦντας μεγάλως ἐξέπληττεν. διόπερ Ἀθηναῖοι τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς χώρας ἐψηφίσαντο κατακομίζειν, τῶν δὲ τειχῶν τὴν ἐνδεχομένην ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι. πρὸς δὲ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον πρέσβεις ἐξαπέστειλαν, ἀξιοῦντες συγγνώμην ἔχειν, εἰ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν μὴ ταχέως συγχωροῦσιν.

Commentary

This measure appears to have been undertaken as a response – partially at least out of fear  – to a Macedonian show of strength in Boiotia. Diodorus goes on to say that Demosthenes was included as one of the envoys, but turned back. These ambassadors may well be distinct from those that the Athenians dispatched to Macedonia after the destruction of Thebes (Arr. An. 1.10.2: see D185 below). The decision of the Athenians to bring in their property from the city was a more limited measure than the evacuations voted in 346 and 336, which decreed the removal also of women and children: see DD 135, 167b above. [Demades], On the Twelve Years, 14 mentions that the countryside was crowded into the city, but gives no indication as to whether this was an officially sanctioned evacuation. Arrian, An. 1.10.2 (see D185 below) says that the Athenians decided to evacuate the countryside after the destruction of Thebes; it is possible that either Arrian or Diodorus (T1) transposed the evacuation forwards or backwards by a few months.



d183 decree calling for evacuation

667

T1 At this time the Athenians discovered that the king had passed into Boiotia, and they curtailed their previous disregard of him. The sharpness of the young man and his energy and action undermined the confidence of those who opposed him. Accordingly, the Athenians voted to bring in their property from the countryside, to ensure that the walls were repaired, and also to send out envoys to Alexander, apologising for not recognising his leadership more quickly.

Date 335/4.

Bibliography

Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 BC. Leiden (1985) 55–6. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 202.

D184 Alliance with the Thebans and preparations for war

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 335/4

Literary Context

Aeschines, undermining Demosthenes’ talk about his role in creating an alliance with Thebes, alleges that it was engineered through bribery (T1). The alliance is mentioned also in Plutarch’s account of Demosthenes’ activity at the time of the revolt of Thebes.

Texts

T1  Aeschin. 3.239: Ὁ δὲ κομίζων ἦν τὸ χρυσίον καιρὸς καὶ φόβος καὶ χρεία συμμάχων. Τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν Θηβαίων συμμαχίαν ἐξειργάσατο. T2 Plu. Dem. 23.1: Αἱ δὲ πόλεις, πάλιν τοῦ Δημοσθένους ἀναρριπίζοντος αὐτάς, συνίσταντο, καὶ Θηβαῖοι μὲν ἐπέθεντο τῇ φρουρᾷ καὶ πολλοὺς ἀνεῖλον, ὅπλα τοῦ Δημοσθένους αὐτοῖς συμπαρασκευάσαντος, Ἀθηναῖοι δ’ ὡς πολεμήσοντες μετ’ αὐτῶν παρεσκευάζοντο.

Commentary

In 335/4, on hearing that Philip was dead, Demosthenes advocated a policy of resisting the Macedonians by siding with the Theban revolt (Plut. Dem. 23; D.S. 17.3.2); T1 indicates that the Athenians made a treaty of alliance with the Thebans (cf. Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.57–9). To this testimonium, we might add Diodorus Siculus’ comment that the Thebans appealed to the Athenians for help in their revolt of 335/4 and received a gift of weapons from Demosthenes in return (D.S. 17.8.5). Whereas an alliance must have been made by a decree of the Athenians (T1), there is no clear indication as to whether the preparations made by the Athenians to send aid to Thebes were implemented by a decree of the demos or not, but it is quite plausible to think that they were; Sealey, Demosthenes, 203, however, suggests caution, arguing that it is unlikely that the Athenians would have voted to go to war. There is evidence for 668

d184 alliance with the thebans

669

T1 The opportunity and fear and need of allies was what brought the gold. And the same gold brought about the alliance with Thebes. T2 The cities of Greece, stirred up by Demosthenes, assembled together again, and the Thebans, to whom Demosthenes had sent arms, attacked the garrison and killed many of them. At this point Athenians made preparations to go to war together with them.

disagreement about policy in Athens at the time: Plutarch adds the detail that Phokion opposed the advice of Demosthenes to side with the Thebans (Plu. Phoc. 17.1); Demosthenes’ inclination towards Thebes may be seen as an expression of his pro-Theban policy, on which see Trevett, ‘Demosthenes’. Aeschines dismissed the alliance as a betrayal of Athenian interests (Aeschin. 2.141). Other Greek communities, including the Arkadians, Argives, and Eleians, also made alliances with the Thebans (D.S. 17.8.56). Athenian support, however, for the Theban revolt soon fell away (Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.60) and the Theban revolt soon collapsed; Thebes was crushed (on Alexander’s treatment of the Theban revolt, see Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.56–66) and Demades appears to have taken the initiative in restoring Athenian relations with the Macedonians (see D185 below).

inventory a2

670

Date 335/4.

Bibliography

Hammond. N. in Hammond, N and Walbank, F., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford (1988) 56–66. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 203. Trevett, J., ‘Demosthenes and Thebes’, Historia 48 (1999) 184–202.

D185 Decree for the election of ten ambassadors to be sent to Alexander Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: 15th–23rd Boedromion 335/4

Literary Context

The decree to dispatch ambassadors to Alexander is mentioned by Arrian (T1) in his account of the Greek city-states’ reaction to the crushing of the Theban revolt.

Text

T1  Arr. An. 1.10.2–3: Ἀθηναῖοι δέ, μυστηρίων τῶν μεγάλων ἀγομένων ὡς ἧκόν τινες τῶν Θηβαίων ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργου, τὰ μὲν μυστήρια ἐκπλαγέντες ἐξέλιπον, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐσκευαγώγουν ἐς τὴν πόλιν. ὁ δῆμος δὲ ἐς ἐκκλησίαν συνελθὼν Δημάδου γράψαντος δέκα πρέσβεις ἐκ πάντων Ἀθηναίων ἐπιλεξάμενος πέμπει παρὰ Ἀλέξανδρον, οὕστινας ἐπιτηδειοτάτους Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἐγίγνωσκον, ὅτι τε σῶος ἐξ Ἰλλυριῶν καὶ Τριβαλλῶν ἐπανῆλθε χαίρειν τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων οὐκ ἐν καιρῷ ἀπαγγελοῦντας καὶ ὅτι Θηβαίους τοῦ νεωτερισμοῦ ἐτιμωρήσατο.

d185 decree for the election of ambassadors

671

T1 The Athenians, when there arrived certain Thebans fleeing from this development at the time of the celebration of the Great Mysteries, curtailed the Mysteries out of shock, and brought from the countryside all their property into the city. The people gathered at the assembly and Demades passed a decree that ten ambassadors, who were known to be particularly friendly to Alexander, were to be chosen from all Athenians and were to be sent to Alexander, in order to announce to him – in a rather untimely fashion – that the Athenian people were rejoicing at his safe return from the land of the Illyrians and Triballians, and at the fact that he had punished the Thebans for their revolt.

672

inventory a2

Commentary

After Demosthenes’ initial proposals to support the revolt of Thebes (see D184 above), the news reached Athens, at the time of the celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries, that the Thebans had been defeated and their city razed (see Hammond and Walbank, History of Macedonia, III.62). Demades advocated a change of policy, which took the form of the proposal of peace (see D188 below) and the decree to send ambassadors to express the Athenians’ delight at his safe return and the punishment of the Thebans. These congratulations were dispatched probably after the rumour that Alexander had been killed during the expedition against the Triballians had dissipated (see [Demades], On the Twelve Years; Arrian, An. 1.7.2–3). The dispatch of the Athenian embassy, coming after the destruction of Thebes, is probably distinct from that which the Athenians sent asking forgiveness for the belated recognition of his leadership (D.S. 17.4.6: see D183 above). Arrian (Anabasis 1.10.3–4) went on to say that Alexander’s reply was to demand that the Athenians surrender a number of statesmen whom he held responsible for the revolt of Thebes; for analysis of the different versions of the list of statesmen, see Bosworth, Historical Commentary, 93–5, and D186 below (the Athenian reply to the demand). The passage mentions also an evacuation of Athens, which may well have been the second of that year (see D183 above); alternatively, our sources may have transposed the evacuation before or after the razing of Thebes.

Date

15th–23rd Boedromion (=September/October) 335/4, at the time of the celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries: T1 says that the Athenians cut back the celebration of the Great Mysteries and then voted the evacuation.

Bibliography

Bosworth, A.B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 1. Oxford and New York (1980) 93–5. Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 227 T52. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 203.

D186 Decree responding to Alexander’s demands for statesmen Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: 335/4

Literary Context

In his account of the aftermath of the destruction of Thebes, Diodorus (T1) writes about Alexander’s demand that the Athenians surrender those political leaders who had opposed his interests. Some advised that the men demanded should be handed over, but this advice was rejected (T1); Plutarch’s reference to the decree (T2) is part of his account of Phokion’s political activity in the aftermath of the crushing of the Theban revolt.

673

674

inventory a2

Texts

T1  D.S. 17.15.3: Δημοσθένους δὲ λόγον πεφροντισμένον διελθόντος ὁ δῆμος εἰς συμπάθειαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν προαχθεὶς φανερὸς ἦν σώζειν βουλόμενος τοὺς ἄνδρας. ἐπὶ τελευτῆς δὲ Δημάδης, πεπεισμένος ὑπὸ τῶν περὶ Δημοσθένην, ὥς φασι, πέντε ταλάντοις ἀργυρίου, συνεβούλευε μὲν σώζειν τοὺς κινδυνεύοντας, παρανέγνω δὲ ψήφισμα γεγραμμένον φιλοτέχνως· περιεῖχε γὰρ παραίτησιν τῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ κολάζειν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, ἂν ὦσιν ἄξιοι τιμωρίας. ὁ μὲν οὖν δῆμος ἀποδεξάμενος τὴν ἐπίνοιαν τοῦ Δημάδου τό τε ψήφισμα ἐκύρωσε καὶ τὸν Δημάδην μεθ’ ἑτέρων ἀπέστειλε πρεσβευτὴν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, δοὺς ἐντολὴν καὶ περὶ τῶν Θηβαίων φυγάδων ἀξιῶσαι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον συγχωρῆσαι τῷ δήμῳ τοὺς πεφευγότας Θηβαίους ὑποδέχεσθαι. ὁ δὲ Δημάδης πρεσβεύσας καὶ τῇ τοῦ λόγου δεινότητι πάντα κατεργασάμενος ἔπεισε τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἀπολῦσαι τοὺς ἄνδρας τῶν ἐγκλημάτων καὶ τἄλλα πάντα συγχωρῆσαι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις. T2 Plu. Phoc. 17.5-6: Τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον ψήφισμα λέγεται Ἀλέξανδρον ὡς ἔλαβε ῥῖψαι, καὶ φυγεῖν ἀποστραφέντα τοὺς πρέσβεις· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐδέξατο κομισθὲν ὑπὸ Φωκίωνος, τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀκούων ὅτι καὶ Φίλιππος ἐθαύμαζε τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον, καὶ οὐ μόνον τὴν ἔντευξιν ὑπέμεινεν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν δέησιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συμβουλεύοντος ἤκουσε.

Commentary

After his destruction of Thebes, upon the arrival of an embassy from Athens (see D185 above), Alexander demanded that the Athenians surrender a number of statesmen (including Demosthenes, Lycurgus, Hypereides, Charidemos and others; figures between eight and ten are attested: Ar. An. 1.10.4; D.S. 17.15.1, Plu. Dem. 23.3; Phoc. 17.2; Dem. 18.322; Paus. 7.10.10) who had pursued a policy of resistance. For discussion of the list, see Bosworth, Historical Commentary, 93–5; Lintott, Commentary, 70–1 suggests that Plutarch’s list of eight (Demosthenes, Polyeuktos, Ephialtes, Lycurgus, Moirokles, Demon, Kallisthenes, Charidemos) is the most plausible; additionally, Hypereides and Chares appear in the list of Arrian and Suda (s.v. Antipatros, confusingly, which purports to relate to the Lamian War). Diodorus says earlier (17.15.2) that Phokion urged the Athenians to surrender the men, but adds that they rejected Phokion’s advice, and in turn took up the policy of Demades (T3), which was to reply to Alexander requesting sympathy and pledging to punish those statesman who had acted in breach of the laws. According to Diodorus, Demades’ artfully framed (φιλοτέχνως) decree dispatched a delegation to Alexander, in which he himself made a plea

d186 decree responding to alexander’s demands

675

T1 When Demosthenes delivered a carefully prepared speech, the people were carried away with sympathy for the men and they showed a clear desire to save them. Finally, Demades, who is said to have been acting under the influence of a bribe of five silver Talents from the supporters of Demosthenes, advised them to save the men whose lives were endangered, and read a craftily worded decree. Contained in it were a plea on behalf of the men and a pledge to punish them according to the laws, if they were worthy of punishment. The people approved the advice of Demades, passed the decree and they sent an embassy including Demades among others to the king, instructing him to make a plea on behalf of the Theban fugitives that he might allow the Athenian people to provide a refuge for them. Acting as ambassador, Demades achieved all his objectives through the eloquence of his words and he persuaded Alexander to absolve the men from the accusations made against them and to go along with everything else for the Athenians.

T2  It is said that when Alexander received the first decree, he cast it down and walked away from the ambassadors with his face turned away; but the second one, as it was conveyed by Phokion, he accepted, because he heard from some older men that Philip admired this man, and he not only agreed to meet him and to hear his appeal, but he even listened to him as an adviser.

for the statesmen and offered refuge for the Theban fugitives, should Alexander be willing to free them (T1). Plutarch (Dem. 23.5) shares Diodorus’ view that Demades’ motivation was a five-Talent bribe received from the men demanded by Alexander (see also Plu. Mor. 126d, [Plu.] X Or. 841e, 846c–d, 847c, 848e). According to Diodorus, Demades’ decree appears to have resolved the situation faced by Athens, and in the end, Charidemos alone was forced into exile by Alexander (Arr. An. 1.10.6). Plutarch’s accounts of these events add other aspects to the story, including Demosthenes’ advice to the people not to comply with Alexander’s demand (Plu. Dem. 23.4), which appears to have enraged Alexander (Plu. Phoc. 17.4); Plutarch (Plu. Phoc. 17, omitting Demades from his account of the story) says that Phokion urged the Athenians to surrender their men while supplicating and trying to persuade the Macedonian to change his mind; Phokion persuaded Alexander to turn his attention to a war against the barbarians when he personally brought what he describes as a second decree with him (T2); Plutarch’s account in his Life of Phokion is rather garbled and anecdotal, and for that reason I have taken the view that Demades was the sole proposer of a

inventory a2

676

decree in this situation, and have not attempted to account for the view set out in Plutarch’s Phokion that the Athenians dispatched two separate decrees to the Macedonians: see Volume 2, Appendix 2 X1.

Date

335/4, after the surrender of Thebes.

Bibliography

Bosworth, A.B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 1. Oxford and New York (1980) 93–5. Dmitriev, S., Text, Commentary and Translation on BNJ 227 T48. Lintott, A., Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero. Oxford (2013) 70–1.

D187 Decree granting statue and sitesis to Demades

Proposer: Kephisodotos (not in PA; PAA 567485) Date: 336/5

Literary Context

Dinarchus (T1) introduced the decree as an example of the type which Demosthenes failed to indict, and which he should have done had he in fact been – as he claimed – the protector of the people.

Text

T1 Din. 1.101: Εἰσήγγελκας τὸν παρὰ τὰ τοῦ δήμου ψηφίσμα καὶ τοὺς νόμους πολλὰ διαπεπραγμένον; οὐδεπώποτε, ἀλλὰ περιεῖδες αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ χαλκοῦν σταθέντα καὶ τῆς ἐν πρυτανείῳ σιτήσεως κεκοινωνηκότα τοῖς Ἁρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος ἀπογόνοις.

d187 decree granting statue and sitesis

677

T1  Have you (sc. Demosthenes) impeached this man who has acted contrary to many decrees and laws of the people? Never, but you let him have a bronze statue set up in the agora and to share upkeep with the descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton.

678

inventory a2

Commentary

On sitesis, the privilege of obtaining meals at the prytaneion, see Henry, Honours, 275–8; Osborne, ‘Entertainment’; MacDowell, ‘Hereditary’. The grant of this award to Demades – which he would have shared with the descendants of the tyrannicides – was tantamount to holding him up as a defender of democracy. A number of motivations have been suggested for the honours: Harris points to Demades’ role in securing the peace with Philip after the defeat at Chaironeia or alternatively that of the settlement of 335 (Harris, Dinarchus, 213; for extensive discussion of his role in the diplomacy of the era, see Brun, L’ orateur Démade, 80–3, 141). On the award of statues, see Oliver, ‘Space’ and D25 Commentary. Plutarch (Mor. 820e) joked that the statues of Demades were later melted down into chamber-pots: it is likely, then, that the honours may have been withdrawn perhaps even while he was still alive: see Dmitriev, Commentary on BNJ 227 T69. This decree was unsuccessfully indicted by a graphe paranomon of Polyeuktos: see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 31; cf. 36. Four fragments of Lycurgus’ speech (he spoke as a synegoros for Polyeuktos) against Kephisodotos on the honours for Demades are preserved (Lycurg. FF. 57–60 Conomis); of these, that which is referred to in the Lexicon Patmense, s.v. Ἡκατόμπεδον, 159–60 (= Lycurg. F. 58 Conomis) enables us to identify the proposer as Kephisodotos, on whom see Volume 2, Appendix 1: he is not normally identified with the better-known Kephisodotos of Acharnai. Polyeuktos’ speech against the decree appears to have been extant at the time of Apsines, who, discussing Polyeuktos’ use of vivid description (hypotyposis), quotes passages from his speech against Demades, in which he parodied the form of the bronze statue (Apsines 10.6; see also Longinus, On Invention (Walz, Rhetores graeci, 9, 544, 21–545, 11)). This decree appears to have been held up as an example of a bad decree: Lycurgus appears to have argued that the achievements of Pericles dwarfed those of Demades, though the former was crowned with a wreath merely of foliage (‘Περικλῆς δὲ ὁ Σάμον καὶ Εὔβοιαν καὶ Αἴγιναν ἑλὼν, καὶ τὰ Προπύλαια καὶ τὸ Ὠδεῖον καὶ τὸ Ἑκατόμπεδον οἰκοδομήσας, καὶ μύρια τάλαντα ἀργυρίου εἰς τὴν Ἀκρόπολιν ἀνενεγκὼν, θαλλοῦ στεφάνῳ ἐστεφανώθη’: F. 58 Conomis). Habicht comments on the conflict between Demades and Lycurgus, noting that after a period of co-operation between the two, including passing decrees at the same session of the assembly, ‘the tensions between leading politicians, smoldering below the surface, became evident’ (Habicht, Athens, 18)

Date

336/5. Hansen (The Sovereignty, p. 39) suggests that the honorary decree must have been passed in connection with one of Demades’ four embassies to secure peace for Athens: these took place in 338, 336, 335 and 322. 322 may be excluded,

d188 proposal of peace with alexander

679

since Lycurgus died in 324, and Polyeuktos’ allegations (Apsines 10.6) about Demades’ conduct at the battle of Chaironeia make 338 unlikely. Consequently he suggests that the decree must have been passed in 336 or 335. For other possible dates, see Dmitriev, Commentary on BNJ 227 T30.

Bibliography

Brun, P., L’ orateur Démade: essai d’histoire et d’historiographie. Paris (2000) 80–3, 141. Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 227 T30. Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997) 18. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 31 and no. 36 with note 1. Harris, E.M. in Cooper, C., Harris, E.M., and Worthington, I., Dinarchus, Hypereides and Lycurgus. Austin (2001) 212–13. Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983) 275–8. MacDowell, D.M., ‘Hereditary sitesis in fourth-century Athens’, ZPE 162 (2007) 111–13. Oliver, G.J., ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees in Athens’ in Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, eds. P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff. Cambridge (2007), 181–204. Osborne, M.J., ‘Entertainment in the prytaneion at Athens’, ZPE 41 (1981) 153–70.

D188 Proposal of peace with Alexander Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: 335/4?

Literary Context

In defence of Demades’ political career, the speaker of [Demades], On the Twleve Years claims that, in opposition to Demosthenes and others, he proposed to make peace with the Macedonians after they had advanced against Thebes.

680

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Demades], On the Twelve Years 14–15: Ἐνταῦθ’ ὁμοίως Δημοσθένης μὲν ἐκύρωσε πόλεμον, καλὴν μὲν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν οὐ σωτήριον δὲ τοῖς ἔργοις συμβουλίαν εἰσηγησάμενος τοῖς πολίταις· ὡς δὲ πλησίον ἔστη τῆς Ἀττικῆς ὁ πολέμιος, ἡ χώρα δὲ εἰς τὴν πόλιν κατεκλείετο, καὶ τὸ περιμάχητον καὶ θαυμαζόμενον ὑπὸ πάντων ἄστυ βοῶν καὶ προβάτων ὥσπερ ἔπαυλις [καὶ τῶν βοσκημάτων] ἐπληροῦτο, βοηθείας δ’ οὐδαμόθεν ἦν ἐλπίς, ἔγραψα τὴν εἰρήνην. ὁμολογῶ, καὶ φημὶ καλῶς καὶ συμφερόντως πεπρᾶχθαι τοῦτο.

Commentary

[Demades] (T1) claims that, against Demosthenes’ advice, he urged the Athenians to make, or perhaps renew, peace with the Macedonians. Dmitriev, BNJ 227 F59 suggests that this passage is likely to be confused, as ‘Athens was not in a state of war against Macedonia at that time’. One view, then, is that this passage refers back to Demades’ proposal to make peace with Macedonia after the battle of Chaironeia (see D171 above) or misrepresents a general proposal to maintain peace with Macedonia at the time of the Theban revolt against Alexander. However, epigraphical evidence (IG II3 1 443) may also provide testimony to the renewal of a multilateral treaty between Macedon and the Greek states; legible provisions concern the provision of troops. Indeed, it is highly likely that organisation and membership of the League of Corinth (see D172 above) was renewed in 335/4: a scholiast’s note on Demosthenes 18.89 (Dilts 159) talks of an Athenian peace with Alexander which agreed that they should be autonomous and without tribute, but subordinate by land and sea; see also SVA 403, pp. 7–10. For other possible terms of such a renewal, see the (spurious) speech known as [Demosthenes] 17 On the Treaty with Alexander (Horváth, ‘Bermerkungen’ suggests that it may be a speech of Hypereides; for further discussion, see D192 Literary Context below), noting oaths (2), pledges concerning constitutional stability (4, 10) and pledges for action against those who break them (6), freedom and independence for Greeks (8), rules against civil upheaval (15), the intervention of exiles (16), the freedom of the seas (19, 26) and freedom of harbours (28). Despite the renewal of the peace, the reality of the situation was that the Athenians were essentially subservient to Macedonian power: probably in 335/4, as Diodorus says, at a meeting at Corinth, Alexander had himself made strategos autokrator of the Greeks and undertook to march against Persia (17.4.9). Diodorus mentions a pledge between Attalos and the Athenians according to which the Athenians would undertake joint action against Alexander (17.5.1).

d189 statue for epikrates (presumably by decree)

681

T1 Demosthenes then also proposed war, offering to the citizens advice which was fine on the surface but in fact did not offer salvation. As the enemy was close to Attica, the country was confined to the city, and its centre, one which was said to be much prized and admired by all, was filled full of cows and sheep [and pigs] just like a village, and there was no hope from anywhere; that was when I proposed peace. I acknowledge this, and I say that I did this well and expediently.

Date

335/4? [Demades] places this after the Athenians decided to evacuate Athens (see D183 above), but the chronology is very uncertain, and it may well refer to another historical episode.

Bibliography

Harding, P.A., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 102. Horváth, L., ‘Bermerkungen zur Rede XVII im Corpus Demosthenicum: Hypereides als Verfasser(?)’, Wiener Studien Beiheft 36 (2014) 73–80. Schmitt, SVA 403 II, pp. 7–10.

D189 Statue for Epikrates (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: 335/4

Literary Context

Harpokration (T1) cites Lycurgus’ mention of Epikrates in his speech On the Administration. Harris, Dinarchus, 208, suggests that this speech ‘appears to have been a defence of Lycurgus’ management of Athenian finances and may have been delivered when he rendered his accounts for one of his terms as financial administrator.’

682

inventory a2

Text

T1 Harpokration, s. v. ‘Ἐπικράτης’ … ἕτερος δ’ ἐστὶν Ἐπικράτης οὗ μνημονεύει Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ περὶ διοικήσεως, λέγων ὡς χαλκοῦς ἐστάθη διὰ τὸν νόμον τὸν περὶ τῶν ἐφήβων.

Commentary

According to T1, Epikrates was granted a bronze statue in recognition of his proposal of a law about the organisation of the ephebic institution. For the dating of this law to 335/4, and its conversion ‘into a period of full-time national service for all young citizens (except the unfit and the thetes)’, see Rhodes, Commentary, 494–5. Chankowski (‘L’ éphébie athénienne’) suggests that the office of kosmetes precedes Epikrates’ reform, and that his law concerned the financing of the service and enabled wider participation across the whole spectrum of citizens; for the view that the ephebic training system was a development of the early fourth century, see Chankowski, L’éphébie, 150–2. Epikrates, the honorand, is connected with a decree of the people concerning establishment of nomothetai in 354/3 (Dem. 24.27 = D93 T1) and also a law concerning the financing of a festival: Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 45; Volume 2, Appendix 1. For the award of statues in Athens during the fourth century and later, see Oliver, ‘Space’. It is highly likely that the setting up of a statue in recognition of legislative contribution was underscored by a decree of the people, even if T1 does not explicitly say so. The alternative is that Epikrates’ statue was set up by family members; on this practice, see Himmelmann, Die private Bildnisweihung.

Date

As Epikrates’ law is placed usually at 335/4 (Rhodes, Commentary, 494–5), it seems likely that the decree, in recognition of his contribution, was made in that year or shortly afterwards.

Bibliography

Chankowski, A.S., L’éphébie hellénistique: étude d’une institution civique dans les cités grecques des îles de la Mer Égée et de l’Asie Mineure. Paris (2010). Chankowski, A.S., ‘L’ éphébie athénienne antérieure à la réforme d’Epikratès: à propos de Reinmuth, Eph.Inscr. 1 et de la chronologie des premières inscriptions éphébiques’, BCH 138 (2014) 15–78. Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.

d190 honours for diotimos

683

T1 Epikrates: There is another Epikrates whom Lycurgus mentions in his speech On Administration, saying that a bronze statue of him was set up on account of his law about the ephebes.

Himmelmann, N., Die private Bildnisweihung bei den Griechen. Duesseldorf (2001). Oliver, G.J., ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees in Athens’ in Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, eds. P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff. Cambridge (2007) 181–204. Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 494–5.

D190 Honours for Diotimos

Proposer: Lycurgus Lykophronos Boutades (PA 9251 + 9247; PAA 611335; APF) Date: 338/7 or 334/3

Literary Context

As part of his argument that he was legitimately crowned before offering up his accounts, Demosthenes (T1) points to other examples of individuals who had been crowned for services to the Athenians while liable to audit. For the other examples, see DD 228, 229, 230 below.

684

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 18.114: ... εἶθ’ ὅτε τὰς ἀσπίδας Διότιμος ἔδωκε καὶ πάλιν Χαρίδημος, ἐστεφανοῦντο. T2 [Plu.] X. Or. 844a: Ἐψηφίσατο δὲ καὶ Διοτίμῳ Διοπείθους Εὐωνυμεῖ τιμὰς ἐπὶ Κτησικλέους ἄρχοντος.

Commentary

For the decree for Charidemos (cf. T1), see D229 below. T1 suggests that Diotimos was rewarded for having made a gift of shields; T2 preserves the proposer and archon-date (that is, 334/3) of what might be the same decree. The connection with Lycurgus and that date is made more plausible by the fact that Diotimos is attested to have led an expedition against pirates in 335/4 (IG II2 1623 lines 276–85) following a proposal by Lycurgus; indeed, IG II3 1 336, a proposal of Lycurgus, was restored by Schweigert with Diotimos’ name (SEG XXI 276 lines 11–12: ‘περὶ ὧ[ν Διότιμος ὁ στρατ]ηγὸς λέ[γει’, a restoration not followed in Lambert’s edition); it is too fragmentary to offer certain epigraphical verification of the honours for Diotimos, but not implausible that the stone contained a decree proposed after the receipt of Diotimos’ report. Diotimos was a general also in 338/7 and 337/6, on the first occasion as a joint office holder with Charidemos; as Canevaro (Documents, 281) suggests, this makes it plausible that the gift of shields was a joint one made in 338/7. Indeed, honours for Diotimos are mentioned in an inventory of crowns dedicated in 338/7 (IG II2 1496 lines 22–4); Christ (Bad Citizen, 106 and note 44) suggests that this donation may have been made after the rout at Charioneia, when many hoplites are said to have lost their shields. Overall, then, while it is plausible that T1 and T2 refer to a single decree proposed in 334/3, it is just as possible that Demosthenes (T1) refers to an award for Diotimos in 338/7. Demosthenes (18.115) appears to have had the actual words of the decrees read out in the court. However, the document that appears in some manuscripts of the de Corona contains inauthentic material and is a later fabrication: see Canevaro, Documents, 279–83.

Date

338/7 or 334/3.

d191 decree concerning grain-ships

685

T1 … then again, when Diotimos made a donation of shields, and, on another occasion, Charidemos did so, they were crowned. T2 He (sc. Lycurgus) decreed honours for Diotimos son of Diopeithes of Euonymon during the archonship of Ktesikles.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 279–83. Christ, M., The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge (2007) 106.

D191 Decree reacting to the Macedonian seizure of grain-ships Proposer: Unknown Date: 333/2 or later

Literary Context

[Demosthenes] 17 (on which speech, suggesting that it is a composition of an unknown politician of c. 331, see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 377–81; for the possibility that the author was Hypereides, see D192 Literary Context below) consists largely of the author’s complaints about the Macedonians’ disregard of the terms of their peace treaty with the Athenians: at 17.19 the speaker claims that the treaty provided that the signatories were entitled to sail the seas without hindrance, and that anyone who breaks this would be treated as hostile to the peace. Contrary to these provisions, the Macedonians had forced Athenian ships to put in at Tenedos (an island on the Aegean side at the mouth of the Hellespont), which was the cause of the dispatch of Menestheus (T1).

686

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Dem.] 17.20: Οὐκοῦν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐναργέστατα ἑοράκατε τοῦθ’ ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων γεγενημένον· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπεροψίας ἦλθον ὥστε εἰς Τένεδον ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου πλοῖα κατήγαγον, καὶ σκευωρούμενοι περὶ αὐτὰ οὐ πρότερον ἀνεῖσαν, πρὶν ὑμεῖς ἐψηφίσασθε τριήρεις ἑκατὸν πληροῦν καὶ καθέλκειν εὐθὺς τότε, καὶ στρατηγὸν ἐπ’ αὐταῖς ἐτάξατε Μενεσθέα.

Commentary

It is clear that the emergence of Macedonian power around the Hellespont made the Athenians worry about the security of their grain supply. The fact that the Athenians decided to send a substantial force – consisting of 100 triremes – indicates the gravity of the incident referred to in T1. One view, then, would see Macedonian interference as barefaced aggression. Cawkwell, ‘A note’, argues, however, that the author of this speech misrepresents the motivation of Macedonian interference: instead, he suggests, the Macedonians, fearful of Persian naval forces and aware of their own naval shortcomings, forced the Athenians to provide an escort for their own grain-ships. An alternative view is that the Macedonians had repeatedly sent requests for warships from the Athenians, and that this was a way of pressing the Athenians into dispatching them (see Rutishauser, Athens and Cyclades, 202); the possibility emerges, then, that, contrary to the interpretation offered by the speaker of T1, the ships sent by the Athenians were intended as assistance to the Macedonians, rather than as a reaction to them.

d191 decree reacting to the macedonian

687

T1  So, men of Athens, you have very clearly seen this very thing done by the Macedonians; for they have reached such a pitch of arrogance that they drove all of our vessels coming from Pontos to Tenedos, and they made schemes about this and did not stop until you voted to fill 100 triremes and to launch them immediately and appointed Menestheus as general in charge of them.

Date

333/2, as Develin, AO, 383. Cawkwell, ‘A note’ suggests 332.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘A note on Ps. Demosthenes 17.20’, Phoenix 15 (1961) 74–8. Develin, R., AO, 383. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 377–81. Rutishauser, B., Athens and the Cyclades: Economic Strategies 540–314 BC. Oxford (2012) 202. Trevett, J.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011) 297 note 38.

D192 *† Proposal of war on Alexander Proposer: Unknown Date: 333/2 or later

Literary Context

[Demosthenes] 17, which purports to be a symbouleutic speech, is either a later forgery (of the third century BC: see Trevett, Demosthenes, 288) or a speech made by an unknown contemporary orator (possibly Hypereides, as is suggested in Libanius’ introduction to the speech: see Horváth; other suggestions include Demochares or Hegesippos: see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 377–81). It ends with the proposal (T1) that the Athenians declare war on the transgressors (that is, the Macedonians who had interfered with the passage of grain-ships from the Black Sea) ‘as the agreement commands’.

Text

T1 [Dem.] 17.30: Ἐὰν οὖν κελεύητε, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, γράψω, καθάπερ αἱ συνθῆκαι κελεύουσι, πολεμεῖν τοῖς παραβεβηκόσιν.

Commentary

Interpretations of T1 have varied: Vince (Demosthenes, 463) says that, given Alexander’s power, ‘the proposal that Athens should declare war on him would have been too absurd even for one blinded by anti-Macedonian prejudice’; MacDowell calls it ‘hardly realistic’ (MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 380), but its strategic implausibility does not rule out the possibility of such a proposal being made. The closing words of the speech (T1) amount not to a straightforward proposal of a decree, but rather a future conditional, which envisages that the orator will propose war if the people bid him to do so. However, given that the hostility of such an invitation is in tune with the tone of the speech, it is reasonable to consider it as amounting to a proposal. Indeed, if we envisage with Sealey, Demosthenes, 206–7, 240, that the speech dates to the time of Agis’ revolt (on which, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 205–7), it is not implausible to think that there may have been some in Athens at this time who would have advocated a similar

688

d192 *† proposal of war on alexander

689

T1 If you order me to do so, I shall now propose that, as the agreement commands, we make war on the transgressors.

policy of revolt; indeed, there are attestations of contemporaneous complaints also in a speech by Hypereides about Alexander’s behaviour (3 Eux. 19–20). But, as things turned out, the Athenians failed to join Agis’ revolt in 331: Habicht takes the view that, though a motion was passed to support the uprising, Demades stood in the way of such an operation (Habicht, Athens, 20–1; [Plu.] Mor. 818e). In other words, the proposal was almost certainly rejected. For an interpretation of a fragmentary document relief which may attest to diplomatic contact between Athens and Sparta at the end of the 330s, see Lambert, AIUK Papers (online publication) 3.2.

Date

Probably after 333/2 (cf. [Dem.] 17.20, see above). The context of speech 17 is debated; Cawkwell, ‘A note’ and Sealey, Demosthenes, 240, suggests it was given during the rising of Agis in 331. Will (‘Zur Datierung’), however, suggests 333.

inventory a2

690

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘A note on Ps. Demosthenes 17.20’, Phoenix 15 (1961) 74–8. Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D.L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997) 20–1. Horváth, L., ‘Bermerkungen zur Rede XVII im Corpus Demosthenicum: Hypereides als Verfasser(?)’, Wiener Studien Beiheft 36 (2014) 73–80. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 377–81. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 240. Trevett, J.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011) 286–300. Vince, J.H., Demosthenes I. Cambridge, MA and London (1930) 463. Will, E., ‘Zur Datierung der Rede Ps.-Demosthenes XVII’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 125 (1982) 202–31.

D193 The detention of Harpalos

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Early Summer 324

Literary Context

There survive speeches of both Dinarchus and Hypereides against Demosthenes accusing him of stealing the money that Harpalos, Alexander’s treasurer, brought with him when he came to Athens, and they make associated claims about the motives behind his decree detaining Harpalos (TT 1–5). Plutarch (T6) mentions the decree in the context of his biography of Demosthenes, and suggests that he proposed it after initially having advised against the admittance of Harpalos to the city, his mind changed by a bribe (cf. Plu. Dem. 25.3).

Texts

T1  Din. 1.68: Τί δ’ ἐάν  – τιθῶμεν γὰρ ταῦτα  – ἐὰν κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ Δημοσθένους ἀπαιτῇ πέμψας ἡμᾶς Ἀλέξανδρος τὸ χρυσίον τὸ κομισθὲν εἰς τὴν χώραν ὑφ’ Ἁρπάλου.

d193 the detention of harpalos

691

T1 What then – let us envisage this – if Alexander, in consequence of the decree of Demosthenes, sends a dispatch to us asking for the gold which was brought into our land by Harpalos?

692

inventory a2

T2 Din. 1.70: Ἢ πολεμεῖν μὲν οὐ γράψεις, ἀποδιδόναι δὲ κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ὑπὸ σοῦ ψήφισμα κελεύεις Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τὸ κεκομισμένον χρυσίον; T3 Din. 1.89: Ἔγραψεν αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ δήμῳ Δημοσθένης, ὡς δηλονότι δικαίου τοῦ πράγματος ὄντος, φυλάττειν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τὰ εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἀφικόμενα μεθ’ Ἁρπάλου χρήματα. T4 Hyp. Dem. col. 8-9: [Τότε παρελθὼν Δημ]οσθένης [διεξῆλθεν] μ̣α̣κ̣ρὸν [λόγον, φά̣]σ̣κων οὔτε [τοῖς παρ]ὰ Φιλοξέ[νου ἐλθο]ῦσι καλῶς [ἔχειν τὸν]̣ Ἅρπαλον [ἐγδοῦναι τ̣]ὴν πόλιν [οὔτε δεῖν] αἰτίαν οὐ[δεμίαν τ]ῶι δήμωι [δι’ ἐκεῖνο]ν παρ’ Ἀ[λεξάνδρο]υ καταλείπεσθαι, ἀσφαλέστατον δ’ εἶναι τ̣[ῆι πόλει] τά τε χρήματα [καὶ τὸν] ἄνδρα φυλάτ[τειν] καὶ ἀναφέρει[ν τὰ χρή]ματα ἅπα[ντα] ε̣ἰ̣ς̣ [τὴν] ἀκρόπολιν ἃ [ἦ]λθ[εν] ἔχων Ἅρπαλος εἰ[ς τὴν] Ἀττικήν ἐν τῇ αὔρι[ον] ἡμέραι, Ἅρπαλο[ν δ’ ἤ]δη ἀποδεῖξαι τὰ [χρή]ματα, ὁπόσα ἐστ[ίν]. T5 Hyp. Dem. col. 12: Σὺ δ’ ὁ τῶι ψηφίσματι τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ τὴν φυλακὴν καταστήσας καὶ οὔτ’ ἐγλειπομένην ἐπανορθῶν οὔτε καταλυθείσης τοὺς αἰτίους κρίνας, προῖκα δηλονότ[ι] τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον τεταμίευσαι; T6 [Plu.] X Or. 846a–b: Ὕστερον δ’ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν στρατευομένου καὶ φυγόντος Ἁρπάλου μετὰ χρημάτων εἰς Ἀθήνας, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἐκώλυσεν αὐτὸν εἰσδεχθῆναι· ἐπειδὴ δ’ εἰσέπλευσε, λαβὼν Δαρεικοὺς χιλίους μετετάξατο· βουλομένων τ’ Ἀθηναίων Ἀντιπάτρῳ παραδοῦναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀντεῖπεν, ἔγραψέ τ’ ἀποθέσθαι τὰ χρήματα εἰς ἀκρόπολιν μηδὲ τῷ δήμῳ τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἰπόντα.

Commentary

In 324 BC, Harpalos, a Macedonian financial manager, who had some years previously been made a citizen of Athens (see D243 below), attempted to flee to Athens; initially the Athenians refused him entry (T6), perhaps concerned at the danger of annoying Alexander, but, as Blackwell, In the Absence, 15 suggests, the Athenians were probably uncertain about how best to treat him. It is possible that the Athenians gave Philokles the task of ensuring that Harpalos did not sail into Piraeus (alternatively, as general, Philokles may have volunteered himself into this undertaking: Din. 3.1). Eventually he found his way into Athens, perhaps as a suppliant (D.S. 17.108.7; Plu. Dem. 25.1–2; on the episode, see Badian, ‘Harpalus’; Worthington, ‘The chronology’; Bosworth,

d193 the detention of harpalos

693

T2  Or maybe you will not propose war but rather advise us to give back to Alexander – according to the terms of your decree – the gold brought here? T3 Demosthenes himself proposed it at the assembly, demonstrating that it was a just step to take, that we should guard for Alexander the money which Harpalos had brought into Attica. T4 At that point Demosthenes came forward and made a long speech in which he alleged that it was not right to hand over Harpalos to the envoys from Philoxenos [the envoy of Alexander], and that Alexander must not be left with any reason for complaint against the people, and the safest thing for the city was to guard the money and the man himself, and to bring up all of the money to the acropolis on the next day, while Harpalos should himself declare at that point the amount of the money. T5 You, in your decree, established a guard for Harpalos, but when it relaxed its vigilance you did not try to rectify this, nor did you prosecute those responsible for its abandonment. No doubt we are to take it that your stewardship during this crisis came free of charge? T6 At a subsequent point, when Alexander was on the march in Asia and Harpalos had fled with money to Athens, at first Demosthenes prevented him from being admitted to the city; but when he had sailed in, he changed his mind after receiving 1,000 Darics. And when the Athenians wanted to hand him over to Antipater he spoke against it, and he proposed that he should deposit the money on the acropolis, without even telling the people the amount of money.

Conquest, 215–20; Habicht, Athens, 30–5; Blackwell, In the Absence, 1–5, 11–14). After he was accepted, envoys arrived from Macedonia requesting his surrender (T4; D.S. 17.108.7; Badian, ‘Harpalus,’ 36–7; Blackwell, In the Absence, 17–31; Worthington, ‘Harpalus,’ 47–8). Consequently, the Athenians passed the decree which detained him and his money on the acropolis (T4). According to Hypereides (Dem. col. 9–10) the money amounted to 700 Talents. Harpalos was able to escape, and the Athenians soon discovered that half or just less than half of his money was missing ([Plu.] X Or. 846b): Demosthenes was accused of siphoning it away (see D194 T1 below), and Dinarchus (TT 1–3) and Hypereides (TT 4–5) were among those ten prosecutors appointed to bring charges against him.

694

inventory a2

The prosecution speeches made against Demosthenes are the main source for the content of Demosthenes’ decree, but they place different emphases: Dinarchus (TT 1–3) suggests that the decree arranged for the safeguarding of the money and made it available for Alexander to reclaim (on the basis of which Worthington, Commentary, 45 note 18 suggests that the decree also dispatched an embassy to Alexander seeking his advice); otherwise Dinarchus  highlighted the potentially damaging implications of the decree, were Alexander to demand the return of the money (Din. 1.69–70). Hypereides emphasised that the decree placed the money on the acropolis, that Harpalos (rather than Demosthenes: Whitehead, Hypereides, 391–2) should declare the amount of money, and that he should be put under guard there (TT 4–5), while T6 also highlights the deposit of the money on the acropolis (where, as Whitehead, Hypereides, 391 notes, it would have become the responsibility of the treasurers of Athena). Whitehead, Hypereides, 391, suggests that Hypereides’ ‘ἐν τῇ αὔρι[ον ἡμέραι]’ of T4 may be a quotation from the actual decree, given that it resembles the formula of honorific invitations to entertainment at the prytaneion ‘εἰς αὔριον’: it indicates the urgency of the proposal; accordingly, it may well be the case that T4 draw on the text of the decree. There are different modern interpretations of the motivation behind Demosthenes’ decree. Bosworth, Conquest, 216, who observes that the act of allowing Harpalos to enter Athens would have been provocative to Alexander, proposes that the sole motivation for Demosthenes’ proposal to admit him was bribery (cf. T6; Plu. Dem. 25). But Worthington (Commentary, 45) suggests that the arrest of Harpalos effected by this decree  – and Demosthenes’ U-turn  – may well have been an attempt to avoid displeasing Alexander or even to keep Harpalos as a potential bargaining counter: the Athenians were, after all, at this time facing up to the consequences of Alexander’s Exiles Decree. Blackwell, In the Absence, 140–4, observes that Demosthenes’ argument against handing Harpalos over to the Macedonians (T6) did not constitute an attempt to defy Alexander, but sought the city’s advantage, exploiting the rifts in Macedonian leadership (the return of Harpalos was demanded by three separate parties: Antipater, Olympias and Philoxenos), without the risk of incurring Alexander’s anger. In all likelihood, the Athenians soon realised that admitting him was a mistake, and they did not prevent him from fleeing Athens (cf. T5).

Date

June or July 324 (see Blackwell, In the Absence, 15).

d194 decree investigating politicians

695

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81 (1961) 16–43. Blackwell, C., In the Absence of Alexander: Harpalus and the Failure of Macedonian Authority. New York (1999). Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 120. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 390–2, 397–8. Worthington, I., ‘The chronology of the Harpalus affair’, Symbolae Osloenses 61 (1986) 63–76. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 45–8, 231–4.

D194 Decree investigating which politicians had accepted money from Harpalos Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 324

Literary Context

This decree is mentioned in the context of Dinarchus’ account (T1) of how Demosthenes came to be accused of accepting money from Harpalos.

696

inventory a2

Text

T1 Din. 1.4: Ψηφισαμένου γὰρ τοῦ δήμου δίκαιον ψήφισμα, καὶ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν βουλομένων εὑρεῖν, τίνες εἰσὶ τῶν ῥητόρων οἱ τολμήσαντες ἐπὶ διαβολῇ καὶ κινδύνῳ τῆς πόλεως χρήματα παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ψηφίσματι γράψαντος ὦ Δημόσθενες σοῦ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, ζητεῖν τὴν βουλὴν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτῇ πάτριόν ἐστιν, εἴ τινες εἰλήφασι παρ’ Ἁρπάλου χρυσίον, ζητεῖ ἡ βουλή.

Commentary

T1 indicates that the Athenians passed a decree of the people investigating which orators had accepted money from Harpalos: Dinarchus calls it a ‘just decree’ (‘δίκαιον ψήφισμα’: T1). His positive (or ironic) attitude towards this decree suggests that it should be distinguished from Demosthenes’ decree, mentioned later in the paragraph, instructing the Areopagus to investigate the affair (see D195 below). It is difficult to identify the process that was put into motion. Alternatively, the suggestion of Worthington, Historical Commentary, 128 is that this was the decree of the assembly ‘which officially instigated the Areopagus’ investigation into the affair’. For the background to this investigation (Harpalos’ escape from Athens and the realisation that half of his 700 Talents was missing from the acropolis), see D193 Commentary above.

Date

Summer 324. In terms of chronology, the current decree must have come after Demosthenes’ decree arresting Harpalos (see D193 above), but appears to have preceded or been simultaneous with Demosthenes’ decree proposing that the Areopagus lead the investigation (see D195 below).

Bibliography

Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 128–9.

d194 decree investigating politicians

697

T1 When the people had voted a just decree, and when all of the citizens wanted to know who of the orators was bold enough to accept money from Harpalos to the detriment and the danger of the city, and when in addition, you, Demosthenes, and many others had proposed a decree that the (Areopagus) Council, according to its ancestral right, should investigate if anyone had taken gold from Harpalos, the Areopagus embarked upon its enquiry.

D195 Instruction to the Areopagus to investigate the Harpalos affair

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: August 324

Literary Context

Having been selected to be prosecutors in the case against Demosthenes (for the other prosecutors, see Worthington, Historical Commentary, 52–3), Dinarchus (TT 1–5) and Hypereides (TT 6, 7) quote a decree of Demosthenes relating to the inquiry about the lost money, and maintain that he essentially convicted himself through his proposal of this decree; Dinarchus (T3) sets this decree alongside Demosthenes’ decree empowering the Areopagus (see D214 below) as a way of demonstrating how Demosthenes had condemned himself.

Texts

T1 Din. 1.4: Ψηφισαμένου γὰρ τοῦ δήμου δίκαιον ψήφισμα, καὶ πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν βουλομένων εὑρεῖν, τίνες εἰσὶ τῶν ῥητόρων οἱ τολμήσαντες ἐπὶ διαβολῇ καὶ κινδύνῳ τῆς πόλεως χρήματα παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ψηφίσματι γράψαντος ὦ Δημόσθενες σοῦ καὶ ἑτέρων πολλῶν, ζητεῖν τὴν βουλὴν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτῇ πάτριόν ἐστιν, εἴ τινες εἰλήφασι παρ’ Ἁρπάλου χρυσίον, ζητεῖ ἡ βουλή. T2 Din. 1.8: Διὰ τί οὖν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ συνεχώρεις ὦ Δημόσθενες, ἐὰν ἀποφήνῃ σ’ ἡ βουλή, θάνατον ἑαυτῷ τὴν ζημίαν; καὶ διὰ τί πολλοὺς ἀνῄρηκας σὺ ταῖς τῆς βουλῆς ἰσχυριζόμενος ἀποφάσεσιν; T3 Din. 1.82–4: Λέγε δὴ καὶ τὸ περὶ τῆς ζητήσεως τῶν χρημάτων ψήφισμα, ἃ ἔγραψε Δημοσθένης τῇ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλῇ περὶ αὑτοῦ τε καὶ ὑμῶν, ἵνα παρ’ ἄλληλα θεωρήσαντες εἰδῆτε τὴν Δημοσθένους ἀπόνοιαν. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.

Ἔγραψας σὺ τοῦτο Δημόσθενες; ἔγραψας· οὐκ ἔστιν ἀντειπεῖν. ἐγένεθ’ ἡ βουλὴ κυρία σοῦ προστάξαντος; ἐγένετο. τεθνᾶσι τῶν πολιτῶν ἄνδρες; τεθνᾶσι. κύριον ἦν τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα κατ’ ἐκείνων; ἀδύνατον ἀντειπεῖν. Λέγε δὴ πάλιν ὃ Δημοσθένης κατὰ Δημοσθένους ἔγραψε. προσέχετ’ ὦ ἄνδρες. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.

698

d195 instruction to the areopagus

699

T1 When the people had voted a just decree, and when all of the citizens wanted to know who of the orators was bold enough to accept money from Harpalos to the detriment and the danger of the city, and when in addition, you, Demosthenes, and many others had proposed a decree that the (Areopagus) Council, according to its ancestral right, should investigate if anyone had taken gold from Harpalos, the Areopagus embarked upon its enquiry. T2 Why, O Demosthenes, did you agree, if the Areopagus were to report against you, to the death penalty? And why have you destroyed many others by making the findings of the Areopagus authoritative? T3 Read now the …. and also the decree concerning the money, which Demosthenes proposed for the Areopagus and which concerned both himself and also you, so that you might see, by setting them side-by-side, the desperation of Demosthenes. DECREE. Didn’t you propose this, Demosthenes? You did; it is not possible to claim otherwise. Did the Areopagus became powerful on your motion? It did. Have citizens died as a result of this? Indeed they have! For didn’t your decree hand them over? It is impossible to argue otherwise. Read again then the decree which Demosthenes proposed against himself. Please pay attention, men. DECREE.

700

inventory a2

Ἡ βουλὴ εὕρηκε Δημοσθένην. τί δεῖ πολλῶν λόγων; ἀποπέφαγκεν ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι. τὸ μὲν τοίνυν δίκαιον ἦν ὑφ’ἑαυτοῦ κεκριμένον εὐθὺς ἀποθνῄσκειν. T4  Din. 1.86: Ἐπέτρεψεν {ὁ} αὐτὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τῷ συνεδρίῳ τούτῳ κρῖναι περὶ αὑτοῦ, μάρτυρας ὑμᾶς πεποιημένος. ἔθετο συνθήκας μετὰ τοῦ δήμου, γράψας τὸ ψήφισμα καθ’ ἑαυτοῦ, παρὰ τὴν Μητέρα τῶν θεῶν, ἣ πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι δικαίων φύλαξ τῇ πόλει καθέστηκε. διὸ καὶ οὐχ ὅσιον ὑμῖν ἐστι ταύτας ἀκύρους ποιεῖν, οὐδὲ τοὺς θεοὺς ὀμωμοκόσι περὶ ταύτης τῆς κρίσεως ταῖς αὐτῶν τῶν θεῶν πράξεσιν ἐναντίαν τὴν ψῆφον ἐνεγκεῖν. T5 Din 2.23: Οὐκ ἴσθ’ ὅτι … καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦ δήμου, τὸ ζητεῖν τὴν βουλὴν περὶ τούτων τῶν χρημάτων προστάττον, οὐδὲ τοὺς κεκομικότας τὸ χρυσίον εἰς τὴν χώραν ὁμολογεῖν πεποίηκε; T6  Hyp. Dem. col. 2: Ταῦτα σ̣ [ὺ ἔ]ξαρνο̣ ς ἐγένου μὴ λαβεῖν, καὶ πρόκλησιν γ̣ ρ̣ [ά]ψας ἐν ψηφίσματι προσήνεγκας τῶι δήμωι, ἐπιτρέπων ὑπὲρ ὧν τὴν αἰτίαν ἔσχες τῇ βουλῇ τῇ ἐξ Ἀρείου πά[γου].

T7  Hyp. Dem. col. 34: Οἱ δ’ [ἀν]τ̣[ὶ] τοῦ ἀποδόντες ἃ ἔλαβον ἀπηλλάχθαι τιμωρίας καθ’ αὑτῶν καὶ ητήσεις ἔγραφον. T8 Plu. Dem. 26.1–2: Ὁ δὲ Δημοσθένης … εἰσήνεγκε ψήφισμα, τὴν ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴν ἐξετάσαι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνῃ δόξαντας ἀδικεῖν δοῦναι δίκην. ἐν δὲ πρώτοις αὐτοῦ τῆς βουλῆς καταψηφισαμένης, εἰσῆλθε μὲν εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, ὀφλὼν δὲ πεντήκοντα ταλάντων δίκην καὶ παραδοθεὶς εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον.

Commentary

Demosthenes, who had earlier in his career made a decree empowering the Areopagus against lawbreakers (here, T3 = D214; Wallace, ‘Investigations’), proposed that Harpalos be detained and his money safeguarded on the Athenian acropolis (see D193 above). But when Harpalos had escaped from Athens, it became clear that half of the 700 Talents he had brought with him was missing: next, Demosthenes was accused of taking bribes as a motivation for proposing his decree granting entry to the Macedonian (Hyp. Dem. col. 10–11; [Plu.] X Or. 846b–c). Then the people voted a decree to launch an investigation (see D194 T1 above) and at this point, Demosthenes proposed that the Areopagus

d195 instruction to the areopagus

701

The council found Demosthenes guilty. What more is there need to say? It has reported on him. Justice, accordingly, demanded that having been found guilty, he should immediately be put to death. T4 He himself, at the assembly, instructed that council to make a judgement about his case, making you his witnesses. He made a compact with the people, proposing a decree against himself to be lodged with the Mother of the Gods, who is the guardian of all the written pledges in the city. And so it would be impious for you to make these agreements inauthoritative or, after taking an oath to the gods about this trial, to cast a vote which did not conform with the actions of the gods themselves. T5 Don’t you know that … the decree of the people, the one ordering the Areopagus to make an enquiry about this money, has deterred those who brought gold into the land from admitting what they have done? T6 You denied having accepted [sc. the twenty Talents] and you proposed a challenge in the form of a decree, entrusting the council of the Areopagus on behalf of those things of which you were accused. T7 Instead of returning what they had taken and putting things behind them, they proposed punishments and enquiries against themselves. T8 Demosthenes ... introduced a decree that the Areopagus council should pursue the matter and that those who were found guilty should be brought to trial. But he was among the first condemned by the council, and came to court for a trial, where he was fined 50 drachmai and he was sent to prison.

Council investigate who it was had taken money from Harpalos, ‘according to its right’. According to the claims of his accusers, Dinarchus and Hypereides, Demosthenes’ decree proposed that the Areopagus investigate who had taken money from Harpalos (TT 1-7), and that if he (Demosthenes) be found guilty of embezzlement, he would submit to the death penalty (TT 2, 3). According to T4, the decree was to be lodged at the Metroon; in this era, this was probably standard practice: see, for bibliography, Worthington, Commentary, 257–8 and Sickinger, Public, 118–22, 148, 245–6.

702

inventory a2

In the report (apophasis) which emerged, some six months after the decree (Din. 1.45: Taylor, ‘Bribery,’ 63 suggests the delay was caused by the Areopagus council’s attempt to make political capital from the situation), the Areopagus put forward a list of indictments, specifying how much each suspect had received (Din. 1.4, Hyp. Dem. col. 6); public prosecutors were elected in the assembly (Hyp. Dem. 38). This report resulted in the bringing of the accusation against Demosthenes, Philokles and Aristogeiton: Demosthenes (even though he had proposed the death penalty if he were found guilty: Din. 1.8, 61), was fined fifty Talents (he was sent to prison in lieu of the fine, but fled from Athens: Plu. Dem. 26.1–2); Philokles was exiled (Dem. Ep. 3.31; Hansen, Eisangelia, 42–3). Others appear to have been implicated but are not named in our sources (Hyp. Dem. col 34; cf. Worthington, Historical Commentary, 54–5). Dinarchus claims that others died in consequence of Demosthenes’ decree (Din. 1.62 and 83): as Worthington, Historical Commentary, 161–2 suggests, they may plausibly be identified as the guardians of the treasure on the acropolis. The Areopagus’ decision to implicate Demosthenes demonstrates that even if Badian (‘Harpalus’, 33) was right to suggest that he had hoped to win favour of the Areopagus, Demosthenes was wrong to believe that this would have exonerated him. MacDowell, The Law, 190, offers a succinct view of the procedure that led to the Areopagus’ apophasis: ‘if the ekklesia considered that there was reason to think that some crime had been committed but that there was not enough evidence for a trial, the matter could be referred to the Areopagus for investigation’; the Areopagus would then report back to the ecclesia, which would decide, probably by decree, whether anyone should be prosecuted and would pass a decree specifying the details of the trial (cf. Hansen, Eisangelia, 39-40). The procedure of apophasis could be introduced either – as it was in this case (T8) – by a decree of the people (known as apophasis kata prostaxin) or by the Areopagites upon their own initiative: Din. 1.50. For extensive discussion of the procedure, see Carawan, ‘Apophasis’, 124–40, but cf. Wallace, Areopagus, 115–19, 176–8 and Wallace, ‘“Investigations”,’ 587, making a case against the idea that there would have been a general enabling decree which initiated the procedure. The Harpalos affair is the only well documented example of apophasis by decree, as Carawan, ‘Apophasis,’ 133 notes. For other possible, but not certain, examples, see Hansen, Eisangelia, nos. 111, 113, 127. For Demosthenes’ extension of the powers, probably in the 340s, of the Areopagus, see D213 below.

Date

August 324: Blackwell, In the Absence, 16; Worthington, ‘The Chronology’, 66.

d196 decree concerning harpalos’ money

703

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘Harpalus’, JHS 81 (1961) 16–43. Blackwell, C., In the Absence of Alexander: Harpalus and the Failure of Macedonian Authority. New York (1999). Carawan, E., ‘Apophasis and eisangelia: the role of the Areopagus in Athenian political trials’, GRBS 26 (1985) 115–40. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975). MacDowell, D.M., The Law in Classical Athens. Oxford (1978). Sickinger, J.P., Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. Chapel Hill and London (1999) 118–22, 148, 245–6. Taylor, C., ‘Bribery in Athenian politics. Part 1: accusations, allegations, and slander’, G&R 48 (2001) 53–66 at 63. Wallace, R.W., The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore (1989). Wallace, R.W., ‘“Investigations and reports” by the Areopagus council and Demosthenes’ Areiopagos decree’ in Polis & Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, eds. P. FlenstedJensen, T.-H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 581–96. Worthington, I., ‘The chronology of the Harpalus affair’, Symbolae Osloenses 61 (1986) 63–76. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 45–8, 231–4.

D196 Decree concerning Harpalos’ money Proposer: Philokles Phormionos Eroiades (PA 14521 + 14541; PAA 935990; APF) Date: August 324 or shortly after

Literary Context

Dinarchus (TT 1, 2) draws on Philokles’ decree concerning Harpalos and the report (possibly of the Areopagus) which arose from it as a way of asserting his guilt and the necessity of punishing him.

704

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Din 3.2: Γράψας καθ’ ἑαυτοῦ ψήφισμα καὶ θανάτου τιμησάμενος ἐὰν εἰλήφ[ῃ] τι τῶν χρημάτων ὧν Ἅρπαλος εἰς τὴν χώραν ἐκόμισεν. T2  Din. 3.5: Ἐγὼ δ’ ὦ ἄνδρες, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθῆ λέγειν—δεῖ δέ—, οὐ{δὲ} τὰς ἀποφάσεις οἶμαι νῦν κρίνεσθαι, πότερον ἀληθεῖς εἰσιν ἢ ψευδεῖς αἱ κατὰ Φιλοκλέους γεγενημέναι, ἀλλὰ περὶ μόνης τῆς τιμωρίας ὑμᾶς δεῖν τῆς ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι γεγραμμένης δικάσαι νῦν, πότερα δεῖ χρημάτων τιμῆσαι τῷ τηλικαῦτ’ ἠδικηκότι τὴν πόλιν, ἢ θανάτῳ ζημιώσαντας, ὥσπερ οὗτος ἔγραψεν ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι καθ’ αὑτοῦ, {ἢ} δημεῦσαι τὴν οὐσίαν τὴν ἐκ τοιούτων λημμάτων συνειλεγμένην.

Commentary

Philokles was among those with charged with admitting Harpalos to the city and accepting his money (Din. Phil. 1–4; Din. 1.89 with Worthington, Historical Commentary, 315). It appears from Dinarchus (TT 1) that Philokles, like Demosthenes (see D195 above), had proposed a decree which effectively condemned him to the death penalty if found guilty of accepting Harpalos’ money. Worthington (Historical Commentary, 317) suggests that others made similar proposals, perhaps to deflect suspicion away from themselves. It may well be that Philokles’ decree, just as Demosthenes’ did, made arrangements for an enquiry (apophasis) by the Areopagus: Hansen, Eisangelia, p. 39. Philokles was exiled for his part in the scandal (Dem. Ep. 3.31); for details on his career before, and possibly after, the trial, see Worthington, Historical Commentary, 315–16, Worthington, ‘Thoughts,’ and Goldstein, Letters, 276–81.

Date

August 324 or shortly after.

Bibliography

Goldstein, J.A., The Letters of Demosthenes. New York (1968) 276–81. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) 39. Worthington, I., ‘Thoughts on the identity of Deinarchus’ Philocles’, ZPE 79 (1989) 80–2. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992).

d196 decree concerning harpalos’ money

705

T1 He proposed a decree against himself imposing the death penalty if he had taken any of the money which Harpalos had brought into the land. T2 Men of Athens, I believe, if I am to speak the truth, as I am obliged, that it is not necessary to judge if the reports concerning Philokles are true or not, but rather that it is necessary for you to make judgement about the punishment as it is set out in the decree, whether it is necessary for you to fine a man who has done such great wrongs to the city, or punish him with the death penalty, just as it sets out in his decree concerning this matter, confiscating the property which he has taken from such unjust gain.

D197 ** The deification of Alexander and award of an honorific statue Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: Autumn 324

Literary Context

Hypereides (T1 and T2) brings up the subject of Demosthenes’ ambivalence towards Demades’ proposal about the deification of Alexander in the context of his attack on Demosthenes’ role in the Harpalos affair. The reaction to the proposal of Demades also looms large in later texts commenting on the character of the Athenians (TT 3, 4; cf. also Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 7.2 ext. 13 = BNJ 227 F7).

Texts

T1 Hyp. Dem. col. 30 Jensen: Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀναβάλοιτο τὸ ἀ̣ποφῆναι ἡ βουλή, οὔπω φάσκουσα εὑρηκέ̣ναι, τότ’ ἐν τῷ δήμωι συγχωρῶν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος [εἶναι εἰ βούλ]οιτο. T2  Hyp. Dem. col. 31 Jensen: στῆσαι εἰκό[να Ἀλεξάν]δρου βασιλ̣[έως ἀνι]κήτ[ου] τοῦ θε[οῦ ... T3  Ael. VH, 5.12: Οὐ δύναμαι δὲ Ἀθηναίων μὴ οὐ φιλεῖν ταῦτα. ἐκκλησίας οὔσης Ἀθηναίοις παρελθὼν ὁ Δημάδης ἐψηφίσατο θεὸν τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον τρισκαιδέκατον. τῆς δὲ ἀσεβείας ὁ δῆμος τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μὴ ἐνεγκών, ζημίαν ἐτιμήσαντο τῷ Δημάδῃ ταλάντων ἑκατόν, ὅτι θνητὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ὄντα ἐνέγραψε τοῖς Ὀλυμπίοις. T4 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 6.251b: Θαυμάζω δὲ ἔγωγε τῶν Ἀθηναίων πῶς τοῦτον μὲν ἄκριτον εἴασαν, Δημάδην δὲ δέκα ταλάντοις ἐζημίωσαν, ὅτι θεὸν εἰσηγήσατο Ἀλέξανδρον, καὶ Τιμαγόραν δ’ἀπέκτειναν, ὅτι πρεσβεύων ὡς βασιλέα προσεκύνησεν αὐτόν.

706

d197 ** the deification of alexander

707

T1 When the Areopagus delayed its report, alleging that it had not yet come to a decision on the matter, you (sc. Demosthenes) acknowledged in the assembly that Alexander might also be the son of both Poseidon and Zeus if he so wished. T2 To set up a statue of Alexander the king and invincible god.

T3 I am not able to dislike this deed of the Athenians: when the assembly was being held, Demades came forward and decreed that Alexander was the thirteenth god. But as the people were not able to bear such an impiety, they imposed a fine of 100 Talents on Demades, for he enrolled the mortal Alexander among the Olympians. T4 I am amazed that the Athenians allowed such a thing to go untried, for they fined Demades 10 Talents because he introduced a proposal to treat Alexander as a god, and they killed Timagoras, because he practised proskynesis before the king when acting as ambassador.

708

Commentary

inventory a2

Alexander had already been granted Athenian citizenship in 338 (D174), and the current decree represents an extension of awards made to him. Pausanias (1.9.4: see D180 T3 above) refers to a statue of Alexander, probably close to the Odeion; it is likely this statue was set up at the same time as his deification (T2). Hypereides, in his funeral speech (6.21) complained about sacrifices being made to men, images and statues and the construction of temples in honour of mortals; he held up such practices as indicative of the neglect of the Gods consequent on Macedonian dominance. It is quite plausible that, in doing so, he was criticising the assembly’s decision to accept the view that Alexander was a deity. Passages of Hypereides refer to the acceptance by the Athenians at the assembly that Alexander could be recognised as the son of Poseidon and Zeus if he so wished (εἰ βούλοιτο: T1) and that a statue would be set up to him as a god (T2). Later sources suggest that Demades (TT 3, 4) made a proposal that Alexander was the thirteenth god (T3) and be treated as a god (T4). The first passage of Hypereides (T1) suggests the possibility that Alexander either was requesting the deification and expresses also Hypereides’ contemptuous attitude towards the proposal. As Cawkwell, ‘Deification’, has argued, there is little reason to believe that Alexander demanded that he be made a god, though he declared himself son of Ammon; the question of whether Alexander proposed that the mainland Greeks recognise him thus is controversial: see Worthington, Historical Commentary, 263; Bosworth, Conquest, 288–9. There are plausible reasons why the Athenians would have come up with such a proposal by themselves: they may well have wanted to distract Alexander from implementing the Exiles Decree (Worthington, ‘The context’, 93–4; Engels, Studien, 296) which had implications for the fate of Athenian cleruchs on Samos (Brun, L’orateur, 104–5), or it may be the case that they were simply trying to minimise the risk of Macedonian aggression towards Athens (Squillace, ‘Filippo,’ 44–5). What was the reaction among the Athenians to the proposal? The proposal was bound to be a controversial one, as before this time, little if any cult activity had been paid towards the living at Athens (Parker, Athenian Religion, 256–7), though Demades was associated in some sources with a proposal to make the father of Alexander, Philip II, the thirteenth god (see D180 T5 above; cf. Squillace, ‘Filippo’). Dinarchus alleged that Demosthenes at one time made a proposal forbidding anyone to believe in any other than the accepted gods but also advised the people against disputing the divine honours (Din. 1.94: see D198 T1 below) but, as Worthington, Commentary, 264, points out, he may be unfairly misrepresenting his opponent. Indeed, according to Polybius (12.12b3),

d197 ** the deification of alexander

709

Demosthenes and other orators (including Lycurgus ([Plu.] X Or. 842d) and Pytheas (Plu. Mor. 804b)) did in fact oppose these divine honours. Yet his opponents allege also that Demosthenes approved of recognising Alexander as son of both Poseidon and Zeus (T1) and theos aniketos (T2: an ‘undefeated god’; as Shane Wallace points out to me, Alexander was frequently described as aniketos in the (later) sources: see Whitehead, Hypereides, 459–60). As things turned out, Demades’ opponents rallied in opposition to the proposal, and he was indicted for unconstitutionally proposing that Alexander be recognised as thirteenth god (see Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 41); the sources differ on the amount he was fined, but the 10 Talents of Athenaios (T4) is more plausible than Aelian’s (T3) 100. Lycurgus may have been a critic of the proposal ([Plu.] X Or. 842d); Pytheas spoke in opposition too (Plu. Mor. 804b; cf. Plyb. 12.12b.3). Opposition to the proposal, however, may have emerged only after a lapse of some months, perhaps shortly after the death of Alexander in June 323: Brun, L’ orateur, 106–7 points out that there is no evidence that any Athenian objected to it at the point of proposal. Some have taken the view that the proposal ultimately resulted in the prosecution of Demades on charges of impiety: see, e.g., Mari, ‘Macedonians’, 86; Habicht, Divine Honors, 159–60. It is important, however, to note that none of our sources say that the proposal was passed, and even if it were, it seems to have been successfully indicted (TT 3–4; Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 41). On the other hand it has been widely asserted that Alexander did indeed receive divine veneration at Athens through a decree of the assembly: Engels, Studien, 295–9; Mikalson, Religion, 47; Habicht, Divine Honors, 20–6, 183–7 (withdrawing his earlier suggestion that there was a joint cult of Alexander and Hephaistion). The claim of Diogenes Laertius (6.63), that Alexander received the title ‘Dionysos’ and then asked to be called ‘Sarapis’ is not supported by other sources.

Date

Autumn 324: Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 41; discussion of the deification was evidently going on while the Areopagus was preparing its report on the fate of the money of Harpalos (T1).

Bibliography

Badian, E., ‘The deification of Alexander the Great’ in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, ed. H. Dell. Thessaloniki (1981) 54­–63 (repr. E. Badian, Collected Papers on Alexander the Great. London and New York (2012) 244–81). Bosworth, A.B., Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge and New York (1988) 288–9. Brun, P., L’ orateur Démade: essai d’histoire et d’historiographie. Paris (2000) 104­–5.

710

inventory a2

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The deification of Alexander the Great: a note’ in Ventures into Greek History, ed. I. Worthington. Oxford (1994) 293–306. Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 227 T8. Engels, J., Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides: Athen in der Epoche der Lykurgischen Reformen und des makedonischen Universalreiches, 2nd ed. Munich (1993) 287–308. Habicht, C., Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities: The Early Cases, trans. J.N. Dillon. Ann Arbor (2017) 20–6, 159–60, 184–6. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 41. Kotsidu, H., Time kai Doxa: Ehrungen für hellenistische Herrscher im griechischen Mutterland und in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der archäologischen Denkmäler. Berlin (2000) no. 6. Mari, M., ‘Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hellenistic Athens: reflections on ἀσέβεια’ in The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C.: Proceedings of an International Conference: Athens, May 24–26 2001, eds. O. Palagia and S.V Tracy. Oxford (2003) 82–92. Mikalson, J., Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley (1998) 47. Parker, R.C.T., Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford (1996) 256–8. Squillace, G., ‘Filippo triskaidekatos theos nella proposta di Demade del 338 a.C.’, Miscellanea di studi storici, Dipartimento di Storia, Università degli Studi della Calabria 11 (1998–2001 [2002]) 31–46. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 455–60. Worthington, I., ‘The context of [Demades’] On Twelve Years’, CQ 41 (1991) 90–5. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 263–4.

D198 *(?) Proposal that only established deities be worshipped Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 324/3

Literary Context

Dinarchus (T1) asserts Demosthenes’ hypocrisy, claiming that at one point he made a proposal forbidding anyone to believe in any but the accepted gods, but at another time said that the people must not question the grant of divine honours to Alexander (cf. D197 above).

711

712

inventory a2

Text

T1  Din. 1.94: Καὶ τοτὲ μὲν γράφων καὶ ἀπαγορεύων μηδένα νομίζειν ἄλλον θεὸν ἢ τοὺς παραδεδομένους, τοτὲ δὲ λέγων ὡς οὐ δεῖ τὸν δῆμον ἀμφισβητεῖν τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ τιμῶν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ.

Commentary

This decree may plausibly have constituted Demosthenes’ initial reaction to Demades’ proposal (see D197 above) that Alexander be worshipped as a god. Demosthenes’ opposition soon relented (cf. T1), and the proposal was soon forgotten (cf. Hyp. Dem. Col. 31). For this view of Demosthenes’ grudging acceptance of Demades’ decree, see Whitehead, Hypereides, 456 and Worthington, Historical Commentary, 263­–4, suggesting that Dinarchus was misrepresenting Demosthenes as acquiescing with Demades’ decree. It is plausible, though, that the current decree could have been proposed by Demosthenes in response to an earlier proposal that Philip or Alexander be treated as a god (see DD 179, 196 above). It is not known whether the decree was passed or not.

Date

324/3, before Demosthenes went into exile in late spring 323.

Bibliography

Engels, J., Studien zur politischen Biographie des Hypereides: Athen in der Epoche der Lykurgischen Reformen und des makedonischen Universalreiches. 2nd ed. Munich (1993) 287–308. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 456. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 262–5.

d198 *(?) proposal on established deities

713

T1 On one occasion he made a proposal forbidding anyone from believing in any deity other than those widely accepted, but on another said that it was not necessary for the people to dispute the deification of Alexander.

D199 Decree proposing war against Macedon Proposer: Unknown Date: Summer 323

Literary Context

As part of his praise of Athenian valour in his history, Diodorus (T1) presents the Athenian decision to ignite the revolt that began the Lamian War (known at the time as the Hellenic War: see Ashton, ‘The Lamian war’). The story of the decree contributes towards Diodorus’ narrative of the downfall of Athens. It is plausible that the account, drawing on the work of Hieronymos, may ultimately have derived from Athenian public records: K. Rosen, ‘Political documents,’ 41.

Text

T1  D.S. 18.10.2–5: Εὐθὺς οὖν οἱ μὲν ῥήτορες τὰς τῶν δημοτικῶν ὁρμὰς σωματοποιοῦντες ἔγραψαν ψήφισμα τῆς κοινῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας φροντίσαι τὸν δῆμον καὶ τὰς μὲν φρουρουμένας πόλεις ἐλευθερῶσαι, ναῦς δὲ παρασκευάσαι τετρήρεις μὲν τεσσαράκοντα, τριήρεις δὲ διακοσίας, στρατεύσασθαι δὲ πάντας Ἀθηναίους τοὺς μέχρι ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα καὶ τρεῖς μὲν φυλὰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν παραφυλάττειν, τὰς δ’ ἑπτὰ πρὸς τὰς ὑπερορίους στρατείας ἑτοίμους εἶναι. ἐκπέμψαι δὲ καὶ πρέσβεις τοὺς ἐπελευσομένους τὰς Ἑλληνίδας πόλεις καὶ διδάξοντας ὅτι καὶ πρότερον μὲν ὁ δῆμος, τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶσαν κοινὴν εἶναι πατρίδα κρίνων τῶν Ἑλλήνων, τοὺς ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ στρατευσαμένους βαρβάρους ἠμύνατο κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ νῦν οἴεται δεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων σωτηρίας καὶ σώμασι καὶ χρήμασι καὶ ναυσὶ προκινδυνεύειν. κυρωθέντος δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματος προχειρότερον ἢ συνέφερεν οἱ μὲν συνέσει διαφέροντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἔφασαν τὸν δῆμον τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὰ μὲν πρὸς εὐδοξίαν εὖ βεβουλεῦσθαι, τοῦ δὲ συμφέροντος διημαρτηκέναι· προεξανίστασθαι γὰρ αὐτὸν τῶν καιρῶν καὶ πρὸς ἀνικήτους καὶ μεγάλας δυνάμεις ἐπιβάλλεσθαι διακινδυνεύειν μηδεμιᾶς ἀνάγκης κατεπειγούσης καὶ φρονήσει δοκοῦντα διαφέρειν μηδὲ ταῖς περιβοήτοις τῶν Θηβαίων συμφοραῖς νενουθετῆσθαι. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τῶν πρέσβεων ἐπιπορευομένων τὰς πόλεις καὶ τῇ συνήθει τῶν λόγων δεινότητι παρορμώντων πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον αἱ πλεῖσται μὲν συνέθεντο τὴν συμμα χίαν, αἱ μὲν κατ’ ἔθνος, αἱ δὲ κατὰ πόλιν.

714

d199 decree proposing war against macedon

715

T1 And so immediately the orators embodied the wishes of the people by proposing a decree that the people should assume responsibility for the common freedom of the Greeks and free the cities that were garrisoned, and that they should prepare 40 quadriremes and 200 triremes; that all Athenians up to the age of forty should be enrolled; that three tribes should have the responsibility of guarding Attica, while the other seven should be ready for expeditions beyond the borders of Attica. And ambassadors were to be sent to the Greek cities to tell them that in past times the Athenian people, judging that all Greece was the common land of the Greeks, had fought by sea those barbarians who had invaded Greece for the sake of enslavement and now also believed it was necessary to risk lives and money and ships on behalf of the common safety of the Greeks. When this decree had been ratified more easily than was sensible, those of the Greeks who were superior in comprehension said that the Athenian people had counselled well for the glory of the Greeks but they were mistaken in terms of what was expedient; for they had risen up before it was the right time to do so, and with no great force behind them were envisaging meeting forces that were great and undefeated, and though they had a great reputation for excellent judgement, they had learned nothing from the famous disasters of the Thebans. But, regardless, as the ambassadors visited the cities and roused them with their awesome speeches for war, most of the Greeks signed up for the alliance, some by tribe, others by city.

716

Commentary

inventory a2

For the initial Athenian reaction to news of the Exiles Decree and Alexander’s death, see DP 86 T1 and 2 below (= D.S. 18.9). In Diodorus’ account, the Athenian assembly, upon hearing of Alexander’s death, was divided between those who advised that no action be taken and those who urged armed revolt against the Macedonian hegemony (D.S. 18.10.1; for Athenian alliances and political divisions at the time, see Habicht, Athens, 36). Diodorus (T1) then goes on to give a detailed account of the decree that was passed; it deals both with Athenian military and diplomatic preparations; it expresses the aim to free Greek cities of Macedonian garrisons by supporting uprisings. As Blackwell, In the Absence, 31 observes, the decision was a reaction to the news of Alexander’s death. For analysis of causes of the war, emphasising the ongoing Athenian aspiration for freedom, while recognising the opportunity offered by the death of Alexander, see Poddighe, Nel Segno, 12–18. Indeed the stated ambition of the war appears to have been to liberate Greece; the Athenian ambassadors sent to the Greek cities were to emphasise the rhetoric of libertion from barbaroi, emphasising the Athenian contribution to the Persian Wars: such an appeal appears also in the third-century alliance between Athens and Sparta which foreshadowed the Chremonidean war (IG II3 1 912 lines 7–13). This account suggests that the ambassadors were charged in this decree with deploying a rhetoric which emphasised Athenian resistance to enslavement in the past and attempted to revive patriotic rhetoric associated with the Persian wars; as Luraghi (‘Stairway’, 29) writes, its proposers ‘were looking at the past, and deploying it in skillful ways for their political purposes. The potentially threatening implications of what amounted in fact to a bid for Panhellenic leadership were neutralized by insisting on the supposedly traditional altruistic motivations of the Athenians … they were recasting the ancient glories of the city into a mission for the present.’ The call-up of citizens under forty years of age, amounting to half of the forty-two year-classes expected to fight for the city, is paralleled by that of 347/6 (D123 = Aeschin. 2.132-3); it was, however, not as ambitious as that of 352/1 (D106 = Dem. 3.4), which called up Athenians to the age of forty-five) or that of the aftermath of the defeat at Chaironeia, which called up even the ­over-fifties (DP 72). Diodorus goes on to say that the Athenians contributed 50,000 ­citizens as infantry, 500 cavalry and 2000 mercenaries (D.S. 18.11.3: see DP 88 below). The naval muster was ambitious; in reality, however, the Athenians may have struggled to man 200 ships: on the discrepancy between the Athenian navy and her ability to man it, see Morrison, ‘Athenian’. Even after the end of conscription by tribal katalogoi in the early fourth century BC (see Christ, ‘Conscription’), the brigading of men by tribe was standard Athenian practice: see Tritle, Phocion, 79 with Dem. 39.17; Crowley, Psychology, 28.

d199 decree proposing war against macedon

717

Ober, Fortress Attica, 219 observes that the allocation of three tribal contingents to the protection of Attica reflects Athenian determination to defend her land, and was a decision that paid dividends: Phokion was able to use these forces to resist the invasion of Mikion at Rhamnous (Plu. Phoc. 25.1–2). As Jason Crowley observes (pers. comm.), the division of labour between the defence of Attica and external expeditions is an interesting reflection on that implied at Ath. Pol. 61.1, where the responsibility of the generals is divided between those concerned with the defence of the countryside and Piraeus and those who have responsibility for expeditions abroad. For the manning of ships by tribes, see Jordan, Athenian Navy, 225–30. This decree, Diodorus says, was ratified more promptly than was wise (D.S. 18.10.4, ‘before it was the right time to do so’): perhaps he intends to prepare the reader for the defeat of the Athenians in the Lamian War (D.S. 18.18.6). In what follows this passage, Diodorus goes to some length to portray the Lamian war as a panhellenic struggle. For the alliances between Greek states at this time, see Schmitt, Der Lamische Krieg, 85–103, Diodorus Siculus 18.11.1–2 (cf. IG II3 1 378, IG II2 467), Harding, From the End no. 123; Habicht, Athens, 37 note 2. Worthington, ‘IG II2 370,, suggests a date of 323/2 for the Athenian alliance with the Aetolians. Demosthenes is said to have encouraged other Greek states to rise up in revolt (Plu. Dem. 27.1–2). Athenian rhetoric of the period appears to have emphasised the Athenian role in fomenting revolt (Hyp. Ep. 3). The early phases of the war in winter 323/2 culminated with early successes and Antipater being placed under siege at Lamia, but the Athenian general Leosthenes was killed (D.S. 18.9.2–13.6; Paus. 1.25.3–5); ultimately, however, the Athenian navy was overcome by Kleitos and the Greeks were defeated near Krannon (D.S. 18.14.4–15.9, 16.4–17.8; Habicht, Athens, 36–42).

Date

Late summer 323: Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.108.

Bibliography

Ashton, N.G., ‘The Lamian War – stat magni nominis umbra’, JHS 104 (1984) 152–7. Blackwell, C., In the Absence of Alexander. Harpalus and the Failure of Macedonian Authority. New York (1999). Christ, M.C., ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, CQ 51 (2001) 398–422. Crowley, J., The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite. Cambridge (2012). Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997) 36–7. Hammond. N. in Hammond, N. and Walbank, F., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford (1988) 108. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) no. 123.

inventory a2

718

Jordan, B., The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (1975) 225­–30. Luraghi, N., ‘Stairway to heaven: the politics of memory in early Hellenistic Athens’ in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, eds. M. Canevaro and B. Gray. Oxford (2018) 21–43. Morrison, J.S., ‘Athenian sea-power in 323/2 BC: dream and reality’, JHS 107 (1987) 88–97. Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier 404–322 BC. Leiden (1985) 219. Poddighe, E., Nel Segno di Antipatro: l’eclissi della democrazie ateniese dal 323/2 al 319/8 a. C. Rome (2002) 12–18. Rosen, K., ‘Political documents in Hieronymus of Cardia (323–302 BC)’, Acta Classica 10 (1967) 41–94. Schmitt, O., Der Lamische Krieg. Bonn (1992). Tritle, L., Phocion the Good. New York (1988) 79. Worthington, I., ‘IG II2 370 and the date of the Athenian alliance with Aetolia’, ZPE 57 (1984), 139–44.

D200a–b Decrees recalling Demosthenes and remitting his debt Proposer: Demon Demomelous Paianieus (PA 3736; PAA 322730; APF) Date: Summer 323/2 (Midsummer 322)

Literary Context

The recall of Demosthenes is mentioned in biographical accounts (TT 1, 2) of his life.

Texts

T1  Plu. Dem. 27.6: Ἐφ’ οἷς ἡσθεὶς ὁ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος ψηφίζεται τῷ Δημοσθένει κάθοδον. τὸ μὲν οὖν ψήφισμα Δήμων ὁ Παιανιεύς, ἀνεψιὸς ὢν Δημοσθένους, εἰσήνεγκεν· ἐπέμφθη δὲ τριήρης ἐπ’ αὐτὸν εἰς Αἴγιναν.

d200a–b decrees recalling demosthenes

719

T1  The Athenian people, delighted at his conduct, voted for the return of Demosthenes. Demon of Paiania, the cousin of Demosthenes, introduced the decree; a trireme was dispatched to him at Aegina.

720

inventory a2

T2  [Plu.] X Or. 846c­–d: Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον τῶν Ἀθηναίων Πολύευκτον πεμψάντων πρεσβευτὴν πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀρκάδων, ὥστ’ ἀποστῆσαι αὐτοὺς τῆς τῶν Μακεδόνων συμμαχίας, καὶ τοῦ Πολυεύκτου πεῖσαι μὴ δυναμένου, ἐπιφανεὶς Δημοσθένης καὶ συνειπὼν ἔπεισεν. ἐφ’ ᾧ θαυμασθεὶς μετὰ χρόνον τινὰ κάθοδον εὕρατο, ψηφίσματος γραφέντος τριήρους ἀποσταλείσης. τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων ψηφισαμένων οἷς ὤφειλε τριάκοντα ῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν βωμὸν τοῦ σωτῆρος Διὸς ἐν Πειραιεῖ καὶ ἀφεῖσθαι, τοῦτο γράψαντος τὸ ψήφισμα Δήμωνος Παιανιέως, ὃς ἦν ἀνεψιὸς αὐτῷ, πάλιν ἐπὶ τούτοις ἦν πολιτευόμενος.

Commentary

Demosthenes had gone into exile, probably in late spring 323 (MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 412–13; Worthington, ‘The chronology’, 69 suggesting late March to early April) as a result of the verdict drawn against him after the Areopagus’ investigation of the Harpalos affair: he had been unable to pay the fine imposed upon him ([Plu.] X Or. 845b); see D195 above. Both sources (T1 with Plu. Dem. 27.1–5, T2) agree that the recall of Demosthenes was a consequence of his decision to associate with an ambassadorial mission sent by the Athenians (see DP 87 below), helping them persuade cities to join in the alliance of Greeks against the Macedonians after the death of Alexander. But there are discrepancies: Plutarch (T1) associates Demosthenes’ cousin, Demon, with the decree to recall Demosthenes, and goes on to say (Dem. 27.7–8) that as it was not lawful to write off a debt, they paid Demosthenes the sum (there said to be 50 Talents; this was the debt arising from the fine imposed upon him for his alleged role in the Harpalos affair: see D195 above) to adorn the altar of Zeus Soter. [Plutarch] (T2), on the other hand, suggests that there were two separate decrees: one which dispatched a trireme to bring him; another granting him 30 Talents to adorn the altar of Zeus Soter in order to absolve him from debt. The Lives of the Attic Orators has a tendency to make two decrees out of one (cf. D114), and so I have treated these passages as evidence for two parts of a single decree of the assembly. The recall of Demosthenes is mentioned also by Justin 13.5.10­–11. On the festival of Zeus Soter, which seems to have become important during the late fourth century, see Parker, Athenian Religion, 238­–41 and Lintott, Commentary, 77; the procession in honour of Zeus Soter at Piraeus was normally overseen by the eponymous archon ([Ar.] Ath. Pol. 56.5). For the physical manifestation of the cults of Athena Soteira and Zeus Soter in the 330s, see Hintzen-Bohlen, Die Kulturpolitik, 18. Given that Pausanias comments that the precinct of Zeus Soter and Athena Soteira was the thing most worth seeing at

d200a–b decrees recalling demosthenes

721

T2  After this time the Athenians dispatched Polyeuktos as ambassador to the confederacy of the Arkadians in order to detach them from alliance with the Macedonians. When Polyeuktos was not able to persuade them, Demosthenes appeared and contributed to the effort and won them over. He was admired for this and after a while he was permitted to return: a decree was passed to dispatch a trireme to bring him. Then the Athenians decreed, on the proposal of his cousin Demon of Paiania, that he should be granted the 30 Talents he owed to decorate the altar of Zeus Soter at Piraeus, and released him from his debt; accordingly, he was able to return to public life.

Piraeus (1.1.3), one might surmise that it appears to have attracted considerable investment. This is the sole decree connected with Demon, the cousin of Demosthenes. Roisman and Worthington (Lives of the Attic Orators, 232) suggest the fact that it was left to Demosthenes’ cousin rather than his sons to propose his recall supports the hypothesis that his sons were not viewed as legitimate citizens.

Date

323/2. The festival of Zeus Soter occurred on the last day of the year (Lysias 26.6), so we can deduce that Demosthenes was recalled right at the end of 323/22, that is midsummer 322.

Bibliography

Hintzen-Bohlen, B., Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg: Die Denkmäler- und Bauprojekete im Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. Berlin (1997). MacDowell, D., M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 413–23. Parker, R.C.T., Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford (1996) 238–41. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius and the Suda. Cambridge (2015) 232. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 216. Worthington, I., ‘The chronology of the Harpalus affair’, Symbolae Osloenses 61 (1986) 63–76.

inventory a2

722

D201 Dispatch of envoys to Antipater Proposer: Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) Date: After Metageitnion 322/1

Literary Context

Plutarch (T1) mentions this decree in his account of the aftermath of the battle of Krannon.

Texts

T1  Plu. Phoc. 26.3–5: Δημάδης δὲ μηθὲν μέρος ὧν ὤφειλε χρημάτων ἐπὶ ταῖς καταδίκαις ἐκτεῖσαι τῇ πόλει δυνάμενος  – ἡλώκει γὰρ ἑπτὰ γραφὰς παρανόμων, καὶ γεγονὼς ἄτιμος ἐξείργετο τοῦ λέγειν  – , ἄδειαν εὑρόμενος τότε γράφει ψήφισμα, [καὶ] πέμπειν πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης πρέσβεις αὐτοκράτορας. φοβουμένου δὲ τοῦ δήμου καὶ καλοῦντος Φωκίωνα καὶ μόνῳ πιστεύειν ἐκείνῳ λέγοντος, ‘ἀλλ’ εἴγ’ ἐπιστευόμην’ εἶπεν ‘ἐγὼ συμβουλεύων ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἂν νῦν ἐβουλευόμεθα περὶ πραγμάτων τοιούτων.’ οὕτω δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἐπικυρωθέντος, ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον, ἐν τῇ Καδμείᾳ στρατοπεδεύοντα καὶ παρασκευαζόμενον εὐθὺς εἰς τὴν Ἀττικὴν βαδίζειν, καὶ τοῦτο πρῶτον ᾐτεῖτο, μένοντα κατὰ χώραν ποιήσασθαι τὰς διαλύσεις.

Commentary

Diodorus Siculus 18.18.1 says that after the battle of Krannon, the Athenians asked Demades to go to Antipater to sue for peace; he responded to this call only when he had been restored to full rights by the people: D.S. 18.18.2. Plutarch offers a similar account, attributing the decree sending out ambassadors to Antipater to Demades (T1). According to Diodorus, Demades, Phokion and others were dispatched (D.S. 18.18.3); according to Plutarch, Phokion was sent, along with other ambassadors including Xenokrates (Plu. Phoc. 27.2); [Plutarch] (X Or. 847d) mentions Demochares in the context of addressing Antipater, so it seems likely that he too went on this mission. Antipater appears to have demanded unconditional surrender from the ambassadors (DS 18.18.3: for the humiliating terms imposed by Antipater, including the installation of a garrison at Mounichia, the surrender of anti-Macedonian politicians, and

d201 dispatch of envoys to antipater

723

T1 Demades, though he was unable to pay any part of the money which he had been fined by the city (for he had been convicted seven times of introducing illegal measures, had lost his civic rights, and was banned from speaking in public), was awarded immunity, and he proposed a decree to send out plenipotentiary ambassadors to Antipater to discuss peace. But the people were fearful and called upon Phokion, trusting only him as the speaker. Phokion replied as follows: ‘had I been trusted when I offered you advice, we would not be discussing such matters.’ And when the decree was passed, he was sent off to Antipater, who was camped on the Kadmeia and was preparing immediately to march on Attica. This was the first request that Phokion made, that Antipater should remain in the place where he was and accept the treaty.

the changes imposed upon the Athenian political system, see Habicht, Athens, 40–1; Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.114–15; cf. Plu. Phoc. 26.7–27.5; D.S. 18.18.4–6). The people were in no position to resist, and were forced to grant Antipater the discretion to act with authority over the city: see DP 89 below (= D.S. 18.18.3). A tradition hostile to Demades (Paus. 7.10.4) says that he encouraged Antipater to have no pity on the Athenians and encouraged him to install a garrison in Athens (see Dmitriev, Commentary on Demades BNJ 227 T74, arguing instead that Demades advocated a conciliatory stance, aiming not to provoke Antipater in any way).

Date

After the Greek defeat at Krannon, Metageitnion 322 BC (Plu. Dem. 28.1).

inventory a2

724

Bbliography

Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 227 T74. Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997) 40-1. Hammond. N. in Hammond, N and Walbank, F., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford (1988) 114–15.

D202 Decree imposing death or exile on anti-Macedonian politicians

Proposer: Possibly Demades Demeou Paianieus (PA 3263; PAA 306085; APF) or Phokion Phokou Potamios (PA 15076; PAA 967590; APF)? Date: Metageitnion–Boedromion 322/1

Literary Context

Accounts of the punishment of anti-Macedonian Athenian politicians loom large in accounts of their lives (TT 1, 3, 4) and also in historical narratives of the period (T2).

Texts

T1 Cornelius Nepos, Phocion, 2.1–2 (= Demades BNJ 227 T46): Idem cum prope ad annum octogesimum prospera pervenisset fortuna, extremis temporibus magnum in odium pervenit suorum civium, primo quod cum Demade de urbe tradenda Antipatro consenserat eiusque consilio Demosthenes cum ceteris, qui bene de re publica meriti existimabantur, populi scito in exsilium erant expulsi. T2 Arrian FGrH 156 F9.13 = Demades BNJ 227 T118: Ἐν δὲ τῷ ἕκτῳ διαλαμβάνει ὅπως ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν οἱ ἀμφὶ Δημοσθένην καὶ Ὑπερείδην ἔφυγον, Ἀριστόνικός τε ὁ Μαραθώνιος καὶ Ἱμεραῖος ὁ Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως ἀδελφός, τὰ μὲν πρῶτα εἰς Αἴγιναν· ἐκεῖ δὲ διαγόντων θάνατον αὐτῶν κατέγνω τὸ Ἀθηναίων πλῆθος εἰπόντος Δημάδου, καὶ Ἀντίπατρος εἰς ἔργον ἤγαγε τὸ ψήφισμα.

d202 decree on anti-macedonian politicians

725

T1 Fortune had continued to be kind to him (sc. Phokion) close to his eightieth year, but at the very end of his life he became hugely unpopular among his own citizens. For in the first place, he worked with Demades to offer up the city to Antipater and it was through his advice that Demosthenes, and others, who were thought to merit the admiration of their community, were sent into exile by decree of the people. T2 In the sixth (book), he (sc. Arrian) describes how Demosthenes and Hypereides and their supporters, both Aristonikos of Marathon and Himeraios the brother of Demetrios of Phaleron fled from Athens. Initially they went to Aegina; while they stayed there, the Athenian people condemned them to death on the motion of Demades, and Antipater imposed the decree.

726

inventory a2

T3 Plu. Dem. 28.2 (= Demades BNJ 227 T59): Ὡς Ἀντίπατρος καὶ Κρατερὸς ἠγγέλλοντο προσιόντες ἐπὶ τὰς Ἀθήνας, οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Δημοσθένην φθάσαντες ὑπεξῆλθον ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, ὁ δὲ δῆμος αὐτῶν θάνατον κατέγνω Δημάδου γράψαντος. ἄλλων δ’ἀλλαχοῦ διασπαρέντων, ὁ Ἀντίπατρος περιέπεμπε τοὺς συλλαμβάνοντας, ὧν ἦν ἡγεμὼν Ἀρχίας ὁ κληθεὶς Φυγαδοθήρας. T4 [Plu.] X Or. 849c: Οὐ μόνον γὰρ κελεῦσαι αὐτοὺς φυγεῖν, ἀλλὰ μηδ’ ἐν τῇ οἰκείᾳ ταφῆναι. T5 Suda, s.v. ‘Ἀντιπάτρος’ (alpha 2703 Adler): ὅτι τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὰς Ἀθήνας Ἀντιπάτρῳ τῷ Μακεδόνι παραδόντων, ἐν δέει ὄντες οἱ δημαγωγοὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐπανάστασιν τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐπάραντες, μὴ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἐνέγκωσιν, ἔφυγον. οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι θανάτῳ ἐρήμην τούτους κατεδίκασαν, ὧν ἦν Δημοσθένης ὁ ῥήτωρ καὶ Ὑπερίδης καὶ Ἱμεραῖος, τὴν τοῦ θανάτου εἰσήγησιν εἰσενεγκόντος.

Commentary

According to the peace terms which he agreed with Demades and Phokion, Antipater had full discretion to deal with the Athenians as he saw fit (Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.114–15; Lintott, Commentary, 77). In addition to the disenfranchisement of the poorer citizens of Athens (D.S. 18.18.1–5; Plu. Phoc. 27.5–28.7) and the installation of a garrison, they were to hand over Demosthenes and Hypereides (Plu. Phoc. 27.3–4) who had already fled from Athens (Plu. Phoc. 26.1–3). The sources offer various perspectives on the Athenian reaction to these terms, and these are brought together in the current entry: Nepos (T1) suggests that Phokion led the people to send Demosthenes and others into exile; Arrian and Plutarch (TT 2–3) suggest that Demades proposed a decree sentencing them to death. [Plutarch] (T4) adds the detail that the decree of exile forbade even Hypereides’ burial inside Athens. The contradictions in the testimonia about the penalty are relatively unimportant given that, as Tritle, Phocion, 131 and 206 note 54 points out, a decree of exile amounted essentially to a death penalty as, in exile during this period, Athenian politicians were vulnerable and liable to persecution by Antipater. As things turned out, Demosthenes died in exile by suicide soon after (Plu. Dem. 30), but Hypereides died under torture, captured by Antipater’s forces ([Plu.] X Or. 849 b­–c). The view that Demades was responsible for the death of Demosthenes has been widely followed by modern scholarship (e.g. Habicht, Athens, 40–1).

d202 decree on anti-macedonian politicians

727

T3  As Antipater and Krateros were announced to be bearing down on Athens, Demosthenes and his followers managed to escape from the city before they arrived, and the people, on the proposal of Demades, passed a sentence of death upon them. As they dispersed themselves to different places, Antipater dispatched his soldiers to arrest them, under the command of Arkhias the so-called exile-hunter. T4 For not only did it (sc. the decree of the Athenians) order that he be exiled, but also that he not be buried at home. T5 Antipatros: [It is said] that when the Athenians surrendered Athens to Antipater the Macedonian, the demagogues, having urged the Athenians to revolt, were afraid that they would lay the blame upon them and fled. The Athenians condemned them to death in their absence. Among them were Demosthenes the orator and Hyperides and Himeraios, the proposal for death having been introduced. (trans. Suda on line, adapted)

 However, Dmitriev (Commentary on BNJ 227 T118 and Biographical Commentary) argues that this was a product of the later tradition about him as a traitor and the polar opposite of Demosthenes, and that Demades did not in fact propose the decree of exile.

Date

After the Greek defeat at Krannon, Metageitnion 322, but before the Macedonian occupation of Mounichia in Boedromion (Plu. Dem. 28.1).

Bibliography

Dmitriev, S., Text, Translation and Commentary on BNJ 227 T46 and 118. Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997) 40–1. Hammond. N. in Hammond, N and Walbank, F., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford (1988) 114–15. Lintott, A., Plutarch: Demosthenes and Cicero. Oxford (2013) 77. Tritle, L., Phocion the Good. New York (1988) 131, 206.

Decrees of Uncertain Date of the Period 352/1–322/1 D203 Award of citizenship for Antiphanes son of Stephanos/Demophanes Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) (?) Date: 388 and 330

Literary Context

This award gets a passing mention in an anonymous work on comedy.

Text

T1  Anonymi de Comoedia 12 (Kaibel p. 9): Ἀντιφάνης μὲν οὖν Στεφάνου Ἀθηναῖος, καὶ ἤρξατο διδάσκειν μετὰ τὴν ϟηʹ Ὀλυμπιάδα. καί φασιν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ Θεσσαλίας ἐκ Λαρίσσης, παρεγγραφῆναι δὲ εἰς τὴν Ἀθηναίων πολιτείαν ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους. γενέσθαι δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτὸν εὐφυέστατον εἰς τὸ γράφειν καὶ δραματοποιεῖν. ἐτελεύτησε δὲ ἐν Χίῳ καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας μετηνέχθη.

Commentary

T1 says that Antiphanes the comic poet was made a citizen by Demosthenes, and the suggestion is that the award was made in recognition of his talent. But there are problems with this passage: Suda, s.v. ‘Ἀντίφανης’ (Adler alpha,2735) offers the alternative patronymic Demophanes for the playwright, an alternative mother (Oinoe), suggests that he was born a Smyrnaian, a Rhodian, or a Kean, and that he died on Keos. For discussion of potential chronological problems, see ‘Date’ below and Osborne T79 Commentary. While the idea that Demosthenes was the proposer of this decree is chronologically plausible, Osborne doubts this on the grounds that ‘Demosthenes’ known proposals of citizenship were for statesmen and financiers, and it is perhaps difficult to see him praising a poet whose comments were not always exactly friendly to some of his well known proteges’. At the same time we should remember that some famous politicians like Demades and Lycurgus were proposers of honorific decrees 728

d203 award of citizenship for antiphanes

729

T1 And so Antiphanes the son of Stephanos was an Athenian and he began to produce after the 98th Olympiad (388). And it is said that he was born from Thessalia or Larissa, but was enrolled into the Athenian citizenship by Demosthenes. They say that he was most naturally inclined at writing and dramatic competition. He died at Chios and his bones were transferred to Athens.

(crowns, isoteleia, and proxeny awards, but not citizenship) for theatrical people: for a complete study of such decrees in fourth-century Athens, see Lambert, ‘Polis and theatre’, and Hanink, Lycurgan, 106–12, 183–8; on the statue for Astydamas, see D222. Public recognition of dramatists demonstrates the importance of theatrical activity to Athenian identity in the second half of the fourth century.

Date

388–30: for discussion of the dating, see Osborne T79 Commentary: while T1 claims that he began to produce in the 98th Olympiad, that is 388, the fact that a poet of the same name is connected with a play which postdates 306 led Capps (see Osborne T79 Commentary) to emend the text of T1 (and that of the Suda) so that Antiphanes was born in the 98th Olympiad and to have produced his first play during the 103rd (368).

inventory a2

730

Bibliography

Hanink, J., Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge (2014). Lambert, S.D., ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens: the honorific decrees’ in Μικρός Ιερομνήμων: Μελέτες εις Μνήμνη Michael H. Jameson, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya. Athens (2008) 53–85. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols in 3. Brussels (1981–3), T79 Commentary.

D204 Award of citizenship for Teres of Thrace Proposer: Unknown Date: 359-343

Literary Context

On the authenticity of ‘Philip’s Letter’ (T1), which purports to have been sent by Philip to the Athenian boule and demos ([Dem] 12.1), see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 366, suggesting that it is a genuine text of Philip’s letter to the Athenians. For the view that it is a fabrication of an ‘Isocratean’ author, see D142 Literary Context above. This decree is mentioned as an example of Athenian duplicity; it demonstrates how, according to the author of the letter, the Athenians drew out the connotations of honorary citizenship in their diplomacy despite the fact that they had abandoned Kersobleptes by excluding him from the Peace of Philokrates (cf. DD 130–2 above).

Text

T1  [Dem.] 12.8–9: Ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ γράφετε ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν ἐμοὶ προστάττοντες Τήρην καὶ Κερσοβλέπτην ἐᾶν Θρᾴκης ἄρχειν, ὡς ὄντας Ἀθηναίους. ἐγὼ δὲ τούτους οὔτε τῶν περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης συνθηκῶν οἶδα μετασχόντας ὑμῖν οὔτ’ ἐν ταῖς στήλαις ἀναγεγραμμένους οὔτ’ Ἀθηναίους ὄντας, ἀλλὰ Τήρην μὲν μετ’ ἐμοῦ στρατευόμενον ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς, Κερσοβλέπτην δὲ τοῖς παρ’ ἐμοῦ πρεσβευταῖς ἰδίᾳ μὲν τοὺς ὅρκους ὀμόσαι προθυμούμενον, κωλυθέντα δ’ ὑπὸ τῶν ὑμετέρων στρατηγῶν ἀποφαινόντων αὐτὸν Ἀθηναίων ἐχθρόν. καίτοι πῶς ἐστὶ τοῦτ’ ἴσον ἢ δίκαιον, ὅταν μὲν ὑμῖν συμφέρῃ, πολέμιον εἶναι φάσκειν αὐτὸν τῆς πόλεως, ὅταν δ’ ἐμὲ συκοφαντεῖν βούλησθε, πολίτην ἀποδείκνυσθαι τὸν αὐτὸν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν.

d204 award of citizenship for teres of thrace

731

T1 But in addition to the other things, you tell me in your decrees to leave Teres and Kersobleptes to rule over Thrace, as they are Athenian citizens. But I know that they neither shared in the agreements with you concerning peace, nor are they written up on the inscriptions nor are they Athenians; instead, Teres marched together with me against you, while Kersobleptes told my envoys in person that he was keen to swear oaths, but he was prevented by your generals who announced that he was an enemy of the Athenians. And yet how is it that this is either right or just for you to state, when it suits you, that he is an enemy of the city, but to declare that he is a citizen of Athens when you want to make vexatious allegations against me?

732

inventory a2

Commentary

Teres the son of Amadokos probably was the successor to his brother (named also Amadokos: see Harpokration, s.v. Amadokos) as the king of central Thrace in the early 340s, but was expelled from his kingdom in 342; we do not know what happened to him and his son: Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.557. The history of his reign, unlike that of is father, is still more obscure than that of his predecessors (Archibald, Odrysian, 216–24), but it seems likely that the Athenians bestowed the award as a way of developing good relations (on Athenian interests in Thracian region, see DD 29, 30 Commentary). Demosthenes notes that the Thracian kings – Berisades, Amadokos and Kersobleptes – had courted the Athenians probably in the early 350s (e.g. Dem. 23.9–10), and all three were represented in the inscribed version of the alliance with Athens in 357 (IG II2 126 = RO 47). It is possible that the Athenians granted Teres citizenship at a later point, perhaps when he had become king. On the citizenship award for Kersobleptes of the early 350s, see D74 above. T1 says that Athenian decrees order Philip to leave Thrace to the rule of Teres and Kersobleptes on the basis of the claim that they are Athenians. This offers an interesting perspective not only into the way in which such awards may have been invoked by the Athenians in the rhetoric of inter-state politics (despite the fact that they had failed to include Kersobleptes in the Peace of Philokrates: DD 130–2), but also the critique. But of course the uncertain authenticity of this text (see Literary Context above) means that we cannot take it for granted that this speech offers a window into the things that were put forward by Philip himself.

Date

359–43. For discussion of the likely date, see Osborne, T65. The decree for Kersobleptes can be placed in the early 350s (see D74 above).

Bibliography

Archibald, Z., The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked. Oxford (2008) 216–24. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 557. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 366. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T65.

D205 Decree concerning the contribution of the Ainians to the Athenian naval confederacy Proposer: Thoukydides (PA 7256; PAA 515410) Date: 357–340

Literary Context

In a speech in support of an endeixis (see Hansen, Apagoge, no. 25) against his father’s enemy (Theokrines), Epichares claimed (Dem. 58.36) that his opponent would argue that he had brought the action against him (Theokrines) to prevent him from pursuing the graphe paranomon he had initiated against Thoukydides’ decree mentioned at T1 and against Demosthenes’ decree at D206 T1 (= Dem. 58.36); Epichares argues, on the other hand, that the question of whether the decrees remain in place or not matters nothing to the case. Epichares attempts to portray Theokrines as a sycophant, who attacks decrees in the hope that he will be bought off by their proposers.

733

734

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 58.37–8: Τούτων τῶν ψηφισμάτων, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἢ μενόντων κατὰ χώραν ἢ ἁλόντων (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔμοιγε διαφέρει) τί ἡ πόλις κερδαίνει ἢ βλάπτεται; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν οἶμαι. τοὺς γὰρ Αἰνίους φασὶν οὐδὲ προσέχειν τῇ πόλει, τοῦτο δὲ γεγονέναι διὰ Θεοκρίνην τουτονί. συκοφαντούμενοι γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς χρόνοις ὑπὸ τούτου, ἐν οἷς οἱ μὲν ἐφιλίππιζον, οἱ δ’ ἠττίκιζον αὐτῶν, καὶ πυνθανόμενοι γεγράφθαι τὸ ψήφισμα παρανόμων ὃ Χαρῖνος πρότερον ἐγράψατο, τοῦτο τὸ περὶ τῆς συντάξεως, ὃ Θουκυδίδης εἶπε, καὶ πέρας τῶν πραγμάτων οὐδὲν γιγνόμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν δῆμον συγχωροῦντα τὴν σύνταξιν διδόναι τοὺς Αἰνίους ὅσην Χάρητι τῷ στρατηγῷ συνεχώρησαν, τοῦτον δὲ τὸν μιαρὸν παραδεξάμενον Χαρίνῳ τῷ προδότῃ ταὐτὰ πράττειν, ὅπερ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς, τοῦτ’ ἔπραξαν· εἵλοντο γὰρ τῶν παρόντων κακῶν τὰ ἐλάχιστα. καίτοι τί χρὴ νομίζειν αὐτοὺς πάσχειν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνθάδε γραφομένων, οἷς ἦν αἱρετώτερον φρουρὰν ὑποδέχεσθαι καὶ βαρβάρων ἀκούειν, ὑμῶν ἀποστάντας;

Commentary

The decree appears to have set out that the Ainians, among the original members of the Second Athenian Confederacy, were pay to the Athenian naval confederacy a specific contribution (syntaxis) which they had allegedly agreed with the Athenian general Chares: T1. For the history of the city, located on the coast of Thrace at the mouth of the Hebros river, in the context of Odrysian expansionism down to the 360s and its eventual capitulation to the Macedonians in 342, see Loukopoulou, ‘Thrace’, 876. The Athenian imposition of a syntaxis on the allies in their confederacy is well known from 373 at the latest (Theophrastus FGrH 115 F98 = Harding, From the End, 36): see, for instance, RO 52, where it is described as being imposed in accordance with the resolution of the allies at lines 11–12; cf. RO 72 lines 26–7. Cargill’s view of these contributions is that their amount would have been negotiated between the Athenians and the allies; his view of the text at T1 is that it suggests that ‘alterations in a League member’s rate of contribution could always be made in special circumstances’ (Cargill, The Second, 124–7 at 127). Dreher takes the view that the final decision about the amount of the contribution was in the hands of the synedrion of the league, but that adjustments could be made by the Athenian assembly: see Dreher, Hegemon, 59, 88, with discussion of the contribution of Ainos at 57–9. On the other hand, Cawkwell, ‘Notes on the failure’, 51, takes the view that by the 350s and 360s an annually extracted syntaxis was giving

d205 decree concerning contributions

735

T1 Regardless as to whether these decrees, men of the jury, remain in place or are annulled (it makes no difference to me at least), what does the city gain or how is it harmed? I believe that it makes no difference. For they say that the Ainians pay no attention to our city and that this situation has arisen because of this man Theokrines. For they were victims of his sycophancy at a time when some of them were taking the side of Philip and others were taking your side. But when they found out that the decree – the one concerning the contribution that Thoukydides had proposed – had once more been indicted as unconstitutional (the one which Charinos had indicted earlier) and that no closure was being reached in the matter, but that the people were in agreement with the Ainians that they should pay the sum that they had agreed to with the general Chares, and they found out that this awful man was intending to carry on the same course as Charinos the traitor, they did what was necessary: they chose the least of the evils which faced them. Yet what must we imagine the men of Ainos were suffering at the hands of those Athenians who were preparing indictments, when they preferred to accept a garrison and be subservient to barbarians and to revolt from you? rise to resentment among the allies. What T1 strongly suggests is that the amounts appear to have been set – or proposed – by decree of the Athenian people; the role of the allied synedrion in setting the amount – pace Cargill – is unclear. Epichares’ argument – that the indictment of the decree led the Ainians to revolt from the Athenians  – suggests that Chares’ settlement appeared equitable to them: presumably it was the case that Chares, in his capacity as a general, had made an informal agreement with them about how much they were to pay, and this had later been ratified at the assembly as a decree proposed by Thoukydides. After it had been passed by the assembly, the decree was attacked with a graphe paranomon by Charinos and the prosecution was pursued by Theokrines (Dem. 58.23, 36–8; Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 21); the result of the trial is unknown but the claim in T1 that the people were in agreement with the Ainians that they should pay the amount agreed with Chares might be read to suggest the decree was upheld (‘τὸν μὲν δῆμον συγχωροῦντα τὴν σύνταξιν διδόναι τοὺς Αἰνίους ὅσην Χάρητι τῷ στρατηγῷ συνεχώρησαν’). This speaker connects this prosecution with the revolt of the Ainians to Philip, and he claims that it made the Ainians have no regard for the Athenian polis. The same Theokrines also indicted Demosthenes for a separate unconstitutional proposal also concerning the Ainians (see D206 below).

736

inventory a2

The proposer, Thoukydides, cannot be securely identified with any other individual Athenian.

Date

This decree should be placed at some point between 357 and 340: Hansen (The Sovereignty, 35) suggests that the date of the speech may be related to Philip’s Thracian expedition in 342 (cf. Dem. 58.36). It is quite possible that the original agreement with the Ainians was made during one of the years that Chares was general (Develin, AO, p. 450), but the agreement may have been ratified as a decree by the people some years later.

Bibliography

Cargill, J., The Second Athenian League: Empire or Free Alliance? Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (1981) 124–7 Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Notes on the failure of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, JHS 101 (1981) 40–55. Dreher, M., Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York (1995) 41–89. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 21. Hansen, M.H., Apagoge, endeixis and ephegesis against kakourgoi, atimou and pheugontes: A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century BC. Odense (1976) no. 25. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 36. Loukopoulou, L., ‘Thrace from Strymon to Nestos’ in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation, eds. M.H. Hansen and T.-H. Nielsen. Oxford (2004) 875–7.

D206 Decree of unknown content

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 353–340

Literary Context See D205 above.

737

738

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 58.36: Οὗτος τοίνυν αὐτίκα φήσει διὰ τοῦτο τὴν ἔνδειξιν καθ’ αὑτοῦ γεγονέναι, ἵνα Δημοσθένει μὴ ἐπεξέλθῃ τὴν γραφὴν ἣν ἐγράψατ’ αὐτόν, μηδὲ Θουκυδίδῃ· δεινὸς γάρ ἐστι ψεύσασθαι καὶ μηδὲν ὑγιὲς εἰπεῖν. T2  Dem. 58.37: Τούτων τῶν ψηφισμάτων, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἢ μενόντων κατὰ χώραν ἢ ἁλόντων (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔμοιγε διαφέρει) τί ἡ πόλις κερδαίνει ἢ βλάπτεται;

Commentary

This decree, the content of which is not specified, was indicted by Theokrines (Dem. 58.36, 43). It was mentioned in the attempt of the speaker, Epichares, to portray Theokrines as a sycophant who attacks decrees in the hope that he will be bought off by their proposers. According to Hansen’s interpretation (The Sovereignty, no. 22) of these passages, Theokrines attacked both Demosthenes and Thoukydides (T1); he appears to have attacked Thoukydides on the grounds of the claim that he proposed an illegal decree (Dem. 58.36: see D204 above), and it is plausible to think that he used the same device to attack Demosthenes (T2). As Hansen (The Sovereignty, 35) observes, ‘the only thing we know about the decree is that presumably it was proposed in connection with Thoukydides’ decree on the Ainians’ contribution to the naval confederacy’. We may tentatively identify the Demosthenes who proposed this decree with Demosthenes the famous politician, one of the most frequently attested proposers of decrees (see Volume 2, Appendix 1).

Date

Some point between 357 and 340: Hansen suggests (The Sovereignty, 35) that it may be related to Philip’s Thracian expedition in 342 (cf. Dem. 58.36), but may also be related to Thoukydides’ decree on the syntaxis (see D205 above). The fact that Epichares alleges that Demosthenes was abusing Aeschines when the case was brought against him (Dem. 58.43) perhaps indicates a date after the Peace of Philokrates (D13), when their rivalry was reaching new peaks.

d207 decree against those who threaten merchants 739

T1 He will say straightaway that this criminal information has been brought against him so that he could not go ahead with the indictment that he brought against Demosthenes, nor the one he brought against Thoukydides. T2 Were these decrees, men of the jury, to stand in place or be annulled, (for it makes no difference to me), what would the city gain or how will it be harmed?

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 22.

D207 Decree against those who threaten merchants Proposer: Moirokles Eleusinios (?) (PA 1040 + 10401; PAA 658480) Date: 357–340

Literary Context

In his case against Theokrines (see D205 Literary Context above), Epichares attacks Moirokles, the supporter of Theokrines, and claims that he is contradicting his own decree through his support of Theokrines.

740

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Dem. 58.5–4: Μοιροκλῆς τοίνυν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὁ τὸ ψήφισμα γράψας κατὰ τῶν τοὺς ἐμπόρους ἀδικούντων, καὶ πείσας οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους φυλακήν τινα τῶν κακουργούντων ποιήσασθαι, οὐκ αἰσχυνεῖται αὐτίκα μάλα λέγων ὑπὲρ Θεοκρίνου ἐναντία τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ψηφίσμασιν, ἀλλὰ τολμήσει πείθειν ὑμᾶς ὡς χρὴ τὸν οὕτως φανερῶς ἐξεληλεγμένον φάσεις ποιούμενον ἀδίκους κατὰ τῶν ἐμπόρων ἀφεῖναι καὶ μὴ τιμωρήσασθαι, ὥσπερ ἕνεκα τούτου γράψας καθαρὰν εἶναι τὴν θάλατταν, ἵνα σωθέντες οἱ πλέοντες ἐκ τοῦ πελάγους ἐν τῷ λιμένι χρήματα τούτοις ἀποτίνωσιν, ἢ διαφέρον τι τοῖς ἐμπόροις, ἂν μακρὸν διαφυγόντες πλοῦν Θεοκρίνῃ περιπέσωσιν. T2  Dem. 58.56: Οὐ γὰρ δήπου Μηλίους μέν, ὦ Μοιρόκλεις, κατὰ τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα δέκα τάλαντα νῦν εἰσεπράξαμεν, ὅτι τοὺς λῃστὰς ὑπεδέξαντο, τουτονὶ δ᾽ ἀφήσομεν, ὃς καὶ τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα καὶ τοὺς νόμους, δι᾽ οὓς οἰκοῦμεν τὴν πόλιν, παραβέβηκεν.

Commentary

Demosthenes says that Moirokles proposed a decree against those who injured merchants and persuaded also the Athenian allies to organise a stronghold (phylake) against the wrongdoers (T1). The speaker’s view of the decree is that it claimed to sweep the seas clear of pirates but his parody of it leads the audience to imagine that it had the result of exacting money for Theokrines and his friends (T1); it appears to have introduced fines against those who gave harbourage to pirates (T2). Athenian measures against pirates are attested at later points in the second half of the fourth century: inspired probably by the insecurity of the grain supply, the Athenians established a stronghold against pirates by a decree of Lycurgus (mentioned in a naval list of 334/3 BC: IG II2 1623 lines 277–86); a stronghold against ‘Etruscans’ is mentioned in Kephisophon’s decree of 325/4 sending a colony to the Adriatic (IG II2 1629 lines 221–2 = IG II3 1 370 lines 52–3); these developments may reasonably be associated with the fragments of Hypereides’ speech On the Outpost Against the Etruscans (FF 166–7 Jensen). At an earlier stage, Philip appears to have proposed to the Athenians that they join his force against them ([Dem.] 7.14), a passage which suggests that the Athenians still believed that the policing of the seas was their prerogative in the late 340s. Lambert suggests that IG II3 1 414 of c. 340, which mentions [M]oirok[les] in line 6, honoured an allied community which had taken measures against pirates in accordance with this decree: see Inscribed Athenian, 155. Such measures may suggest that the Athenians suffered from growth in piratical activity in the period after the Social War (see de Souza, Piracy, 39, Cawkwell, ‘Notes’, 48 and, collecting references to piracy in the fourth century, Dreher, Hegemon, 277 note 5).

d207 decree against those who threaten merchants 741

T1 Moirokles, judges, who proposed the decree against those who commit crimes against merchants, and who persuaded not only you but also your allies to organise a guard force against those who do wrong, will not be ashamed to speak straight away on behalf of Theokrines in contradiction of his own decree. In fact he will even dare to persuade you that it is necessary not to punish but to acquit a man who is demonstrably proven to have brought false denunciations against the merchants; as if his proposal that the sea be swept clean had no other motivation than that those who make it safely across the sea might pay up money to these people in the harbour, or as if the merchants would benefit, after making it through a long voyage, from falling into the hands of Theokrines. T2 For surely, Moirokles, we are not now going to fine the Melians ten Talents, as your decree provides, because they gave harbourage to pirates, while allowing this man to go free, when he has transgressed both your decree and the laws by which we administer the city?

At the same time we cannot rule out the possibility that Moirokles’ decree was aimed not so much against the threat of piracy to merchants, but rather against the enemies of the Athenian state, such as Philip, whose naval power was growing. Moirokles, the proposer of this decree, was one of those eight politicians that Alexander demanded should be handed over to him: (Plu. Dem. 23 (see D186 above)) and was said to have been one of those who had taken money in the Harpalos affair. Epichares’ parody of the decree as one which would make money for ‘these people in the harbour’ points to the financial implications of these fines; for the view that Moirokles had financial interests, see MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 333–4. T1 (‘πείσας οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους’) suggests that Moirokles’ decree was also made into a decree of the allies binding on all members of the Athenian confederacy. For an example of the allies deciding to adopt a psephisma of the Athenian allies as a dogma of its own, see Aeschin. 2.60. Epichares orders the secretary to ‘read the stele’ at 58.56, but from the context, in which Epichares talks about laws immediately before and after this command, it seems that he is not referring to a stele of the decree, but rather to one bearing laws of relevance to the case.

Date

This decree may be placed at some point between 357 and 340: Hansen, The Sovereignty, 35 suggests that the date of the speech may be related to Philip’s Thracian expedition in 342 (cf. Dem. 58.36), and MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 293, suggests ‘within a year or two of 340’.

inventory a2

742

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Notes on the failure of the Second Athenian Confederacy’, JHS 101 (1981) 40–55. Dreher, M., Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York (1995) 277. Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1-322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2012) 153–6. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 35. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 333–4. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 293. de Souza, P., Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World. Cambridge (1999).

D208 Decree concerning property in Kardia Proposer: Kallippos Paianieus (PA 8078; PAA 559430) Date: 357–340

Literary Context

As part of his argument that the Athenians should accept Halonnesos only if Philip ‘gave it back’, Hegesippos (the author of this speech: see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 344 with Libanius, Hypothesis to Demosthenes 7) alleges (T1) that the Kardians made claims about the ownership of property inhabited by Athenians on the basis of (accurate) knowledge of a decree proposed by Kallippos.

Texts

T1 [Dem.] 7.42–3: Διαφέρονται δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, σκέψασθε εἰ περὶ μικροῦ. ἑαυτῶν φασι τὴν χώραν οὖσαν οἰκεῖν καὶ οὐχ ὑμετέραν, καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑμέτερα εἶναι ἐγκτήματα ὡς ἐν ἀλλοτρίᾳ, τὰ δὲ ἑαυτῶν κτήματα ὡς ἐν οἰκείᾳ, καὶ ταῦθ’ ὑμέτερον πολίτην γράψαι ἐν ψηφίσματι, Κάλλιππον Παιανιέα. καὶ τοῦτό γ’ ἀληθῆ λέγουσιν· ἔγραψε γάρ, καὶ ἐμοῦ γ’ αὐτὸν γραψαμένου παρανόμων γραφὴν ὑμεῖς ἀπεψηφίσασθε· τοιγάρτοι ἀμφισβητήσιμον ὑμῖν τὴν χώραν κατεσκεύακεν.

d208 decree concerning property in kardia

743

T1 They are indeed at odds with you, and so you need to consider whether it concerns a trifle. For they say that the land where they live is their own and not yours, and that what you hold does not belong to you, because it is located in the territory of another, whereas what they hold is their own property, as it is in their land. They say that a fellow-citizen of yours, Kallippos of Paiania, proposed this in a decree. And he indeed proposed this, when I indicted him on a charge of proposing an illegal decree, upon which you acquitted him; in this way he brought your claim into dispute.

744

inventory a2

T2  Libanius, Hypothesis to Demosthenes 7, 5: Κατὰ Καλλίππου γὰρ τοῦ Παιανιέως φησὶν ὁ τὸν λόγον γεγραφὼς ἀπενηνοχέναι γραφὴν παρανόμων, φαίνεται δὲ οὐχ ὁ Δημοσθένης, ἀλλ’ ὁ Ἡγήσιππος τὴν κατὰ τοῦ Καλλίππου γραφὴν ἐνστησάμενος.

Commentary

As Hegesippos refers to Kallippos’ decree only in passing, certainty about its content is impossible, but it appears to have allowed some Kardians who live ‘outside the Agora’ to make claims about their sovereignty over land on which Athenians lived (and presumably claimed as their property). The decree was enacted, in all likelihood, as a response to hostility between the Kardians and Athenians settled in the Chersonese (cf. Dem. 23.169). As Cargill observes, Athenian orators could make exaggerated claims about the extent of Athenian territorial property, and claimed the whole of the Chersonese peninsula was their own (Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 25). For Athenian possessions on the Thracian Chersonese, see Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 23–31. According to Demosthenes, the Peace of Philokrates registered the Kardians as allies of Philip (Dem. 19.174). Hegesippos claims that he indicted it by graphe paranomon, but it appears to have been upheld by the court: Hansen, The Sovereignty, 11. Hegesippos’ indictment of Kallippos is generally in tune with his concern for Athenian influence abroad (see, e.g., IG II3 1 399; cf. Davies, ‘Hegesippos’, 15). This is the sole decree attributed to Kallippos.

Date

Some point between 357 and 340: Hansen (The Sovereignty, 35) suggests that the date of the speech may be related to Philip’s Thracian expedition in 342 (cf. Dem. 58.36).

Bibliography

Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC: Mnemosyne Supplement 145. Leiden, New York and Cologne (1995) 23–31. Davies, J.K., ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: an underrated politician’ in S. D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour, in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S.D. Lambert. Swansea, (2011) 11–23. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 39. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 340.

d208 decree concerning property in kardia

745

T2 The composer of the speech says that he proposed a graphe paranomon against Kallippos, and it is clear that it was Hegesippos not Demosthenes who set this in motion.

D209 ** Decree awarding sitesis to Charidemos Proposer: Father of Epichares Cholleides (APF, pp. 58–9) Date: 357–340

Literary Context

In his case against Theokrines (on which, see D205 Literary Context above), Epichares, son of the decree’s proposer, claims that his opponent, Theokrines, indicted the decree proposed on the grounds that it would have forced Charidemos  – named in the decree as the son of Ischomachos (his natural father) – to return to his natural father’s home, and would have ruled out the possibility of him inheriting the property of his adoptive father. Epichares denied this. Epichares’ father’s opponents are reported to have claimed that the man behind this plot was Polyeuktos, who was married to the boy’s mother, and was aiming to claim the inheritance for himself. For this view of the decree and its indictment, see Roisman, The Rhetoric, 116–17, citing alternative views at note 46.

Text

T1 Dem. 58.30–1: Τοῦ γὰρ πατρὸς κατηγορῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτε τὴν τῶν παρανόμων αὐτὸν ἐδίωκε γραφήν, ἔλεγεν ὡς ἐπιβεβουλευμένος ὁ παῖς εἴη περὶ οὗ τὸ ψήφισμα γεγραμμένον ἦν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν σίτησιν ἔγραψεν Χαριδήμῳ ὁ πατὴρ τῷ Ἰσχομάχου υἱῷ, λέγων ὡς, ἐὰν ἐπανέλθῃ εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον ὁ παῖς, ἀπολωλεκὼς ἔσται τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν ἣν Αἰσχύλος ὁ ποιησάμενος αὐτὸν υἱὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ, ψευδόμενος· οὐδενὶ γὰρ πώποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τοῦτο τῶν εἰσποιηθέντων συνέβη. καὶ τούτων πάντων αἴτιον ἔφη Πολύευκτον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν μητέρα τοῦ παιδός, βουλόμενον ἔχειν αὐτὸν τὴν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐσίαν. ὀργισθέντων δὲ τῶν δικαστῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ νομισάντων αὐτὸ μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι, τῷ δὲ ὄντι τὸν παῖδα μέλλειν ἀποστερεῖσθαι τῶν χρημάτων, τῷ μὲν πατρὶ δέκα ταλάντων ἐτίμησαν ὡς μετὰ Πολυεύκτου ταῦτα πράττοντι, τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐπίστευσαν ὡς δὴ βοηθήσαντι τῷ παιδί.

746

d209 ** decree awarding sitesis to charidemos

747

T1 When he prosecuted him for making an unconstitutional proposal, in the accusation he brought against my father, he said that a conspiracy had been formed against the boy who was the subject of the decree, according to which it was promised that Charidemos, son of Ischomachos, be awarded free meals. For he [sc. Theokrines] alleged that, if the boy were to return to his father’s home, he would lose all the estate that his adoptive father, Aischylos, had given to him. This was a lie, and no such thing has ever taken place to an adopted person. He claimed also that Polyeuktos, the husband of the boy’s mother, was responsible for all of this, because he wanted to take some of the boy’s property. The judges were indignant at the things that were said, and though they held the decree in itself and the gift to be legal, they thought the boy would be deprived of his property. And so they fined my father ten Talents as being in concert with Polyeuktos, and they thought that Theokrines was actually helping the boy.

748

Commentary

inventory a2

Epichares’ (speaker of Demosthenes 58) description of what is at stake is rather obscure, and so it is useful to outline the situation (the course of events is reconstructed by MacDowell, ‘Hereditary sitesis,’ 102–3): a certain Ischomachos died, leaving behind a widow and at least two sons, including Charidemos. Charidemos  – probably a younger or the youngest son  – was adopted by Aischylos (Dem. 58.31) and Charidemos’ mother married Polyeuktos (Dem. 58.31), taking care of his property until he came of age. Aischylos then disappeared (perhaps he died) and the speaker’s father (whose name is not known) proposed a decree granting Charidemos sitesis which, he claims, would have had the effect of returning the boy to his paternal family (Dem. 58.31). As Charidemos was a mere boy, it is likely that the arrangement was that he would inherit sitesis from his late father, who himself (or one of his ancestors) may have been a recipient. This would have necessitated Charidemos’ return to his ancestral oikos: MacDowell (‘Hereditary sitesis’) suggests that this was done on the grounds that the late Ischomachos’ eldest son(s) may have died, leaving the family without an heir. This decree was attacked by Theokrines on the grounds that the boy would lose his inheritance from Aischylos, and that Polyeuktos was plotting to gain this property (which he would have had as the new guardian of Charidemos). The speaker, Epichares, suggests that Theokrines misled the audience when he said that the return of a son to his father’s house would mean that the adoptive father would lose his inheritance. As MacDowell (‘Hereditary sitesis’, 103) notes, ‘at first sight this assertion appears to be simply false: all the jurors would have known that a boy could not be legally the son of two fathers simultaneously’. Bers, moreover (Demosthenes, 140 note 35), points out that the speaker’s claim is contradicted by Dem. 44.21–3; Rubinstein, Adoption, 60 with note 90 is agnostic but notes the ten Talent fine (a severe but paralleled penalty: see D210 and 211 below) imposed on the proposer, suggesting that the jury was convinced that Epichares’ father was plotting something. Moreover, Davies, APF, p. 7 points out that ‘since Polyeuktos as husband of the boy’s mother would presumably have become the boy’s guardian, Theokrines’ allegations are entirely credible’. As for the argument made by Epichares’ father, as MacDowell (‘Hereditary sitesis’, 103) notes, to have any hope of convincing them, he must have argued that a boy transferred from one oikos to another ‘was not required to give up the property of the oikos which he left, if he had a right to inherit it in some other way. If that is correct, we can infer that Aischylos, besides being Charidemos’ adopted father, also had a natural relationship to him; he may, for example, have been the brother of Charidemos’ mother.’

d209 ** decree awarding sitesis to charidemos

749

If Theokrines’ allegations were based in fact, they offer an interesting view of the deployment of an honorific decree (or, as Rubinstein suggests, Litigation, 96 with note 53, an honorific rider to a decree) as a way of pursuing personal interests. However, it is important to note that the decree was made for Charidemos the son of Ischomachos the general: the pretext of the proposal may well have been to honour the son of a prominent Athenian or to pass on the honours granted to his father; indeed, for the view that there may have been a political motivation behind Theokrines’ opposition to the decree, see Osborne, ‘Law in action’, 48–9. In terms of its content, the measures appear to have been unexceptional, containing a provision for free meals in the prytaneion (T1: see see Henry, Honours, 275–8). The decree was overruled by the courts, even though, as Epichares claims, the jurymen thought that its provisions were legal: see Hansen, The Sovereignty nos. 23, 35. The decree should not be identified with the decree for the son of the mercenary general Charidemos at Dem. 18.114: see D229 below.

Date

Some point between 357 and 340: on the date of the speech, see D207 Date above.

Bibliography

Bers, V., Demosthenes. Speeches 50–59. Austin (2003). Cox, C.A., Household Interests: Property, Marriage Strategies, and Family Dynamics in Ancient Athens. Princeton (1998) 90. Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 6–7. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) 35 no. 23. Henry, A., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees. Hildesheim, Zurich and New York (1983) 275–8. Osborne, R.G., ‘Law in action in classical Athens’, JHS 105 (1985) 40–58, at 48–9. MacDowell, D.M., ‘Hereditary sitesis in fourth-century Athens’, ZPE 162 (2007) 111–13. Roisman, J., The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Classical Athens. Berkeley (1995) 116–17. Rubinstein, L., Adoption in IV. Century Athens. Copenhagen (1993) 60. Rubinstein, L., Litigation and Cooperation: Supporting Speakers in the Courts of Classical Athens. Historia Einzelschriften 147. Stuttgart (2000) 96.

D210 Decree of unknown content Proposer: Skiton (PAA 824360) Date: Before 347

Literary Context

Demosthenes (T1), in his argument that the Athenians should punish Meidias, mentions this proposer as an example of a man punished by the Athenians for making an unconstitutional proposal. Demosthenes draws upon this example and that of Smikros (see D211 below) to support the claim that the Athenians punish offenders for slighter offences than those for which Meidias is being tried.

Text

T1  Dem. 21.182–3: Ὑμεῖς δ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, Σμίκρῳ δέκα ταλάντων ἐτιμήσατε καὶ Σκίτωνι τοσούτων ἑτέρων, δόξαντι παράνομα γράφειν, καὶ οὔτε παιδί’ οὔτε φίλους οὔτε συγγενεῖς οὔθ’ ὁντινοῦν ἠλεήσατε τῶν παρόντων ἐκείνοις. μὴ τοίνυν, ἐὰν μὲν εἴπῃ τις παράνομα, οὕτως ὀργιζόμενοι φαίνεσθε, ἐὰν δὲ ποιῇ, μὴ λέγῃ, πράως διάκεισθε.

Commentary

Nothing more is known about this decree or its proposer, other than the fact that the decree was overruled by the court, and that Skiton was fined ten Talents. Demosthenes may have felt able to draw freely upon this example because of its obscurity. Skiton is not otherwise known, but the suggestion of Davies, APF, p. 489 that the name is a corrupted version of ‘Skipon’ is ruled out by Lambert’s new edition of the inscription listing those who had contributed to the eutaxia liturgy in 333/2 or 332/1: IG II3 1 550 line 21, reading Ἐπι̣τ̣έλ̣η̣ς (cf. IG II2 417 line 20, reading Σκ[ί]π[ω]ν). The obscurity of this person makes Demosthenes’ claim that he received a fine of a massive ten Talents difficult to believe (cf. D211 below).

Date

Before 347; Demosthenes 21 was a speech composed in the aftermath of a conflict that flared up at the Dionysia of 349/8 and, though it was never delivered, provides a terminus ante quem for the decree. 750

d210 decree of unknown content

751

T1  You, Athenian men, fined Smikros ten Talents and Skiton the same amount, when they were convicted of making illegal proposals, and you pitied neither them nor their children, their friends, their relatives, nor anyone else who appeared on their behalf. Given that you show such anger when someone makes unconstitutional proposals, do not treat with sympathy him who actually does something rather than saying it.

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 489. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 19.

D211 Decree of unknown content Proposer: Smikros (PAA 825720; ?of Acharnai: APF 12758?) Date: Before 347

Literary Context See D210 above.

Text

See D210 above.

Commentary

Nothing more is known about this decree or its proposer, other than the fact that it was overruled by the court, and that Smikros was fined ten Talents. Demosthenes may have felt able to draw freely upon this example because of its obscurity. The name Smikros is otherwise attested (LGPN, s.v.), and appears in the inscription listing those who had contributed to the eutaxia liturgy in 333/2 or 332/1 (IG II3 1 550 line 23), but certain identification with any of those individuals is impossible. The obscurity of this person makes Demosthenes’ claim that he received a fine of a massive ten Talents difficult to believe (cf. D211 below) but, given that he was a member of the propertied classes, not impossible.

Date

Before 347; see D210 above.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 20.

752

D212 Decree for the people of Tenedos Proposer: Antimedon (PA 1134; PAA 1134) Date: Before 340

Literary Context

The speaker of Demosthenes 58, Epichares (see D205 above), alleges that Theokrines was a sycophant, and points to his receipt of a bribe concerning Antimedon’s decree of the Tenedians.

753

754

inventory a2

Text

T1  Dem. 58.35: Κάλει μοι Ἀριστόμαχον Κριτοδήμου Ἀλωπεκῆθεν. οὗτος γὰρ ἔδωκεν, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐν τῇ τούτου οἰκίᾳ ἐδόθη τρί᾽ ἡμίμναια τούτῳ τῷ ἀδωροδοκήτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὃ Ἀντιμέδων ἔγραψε τοῖς Τενεδίοις.

Commentary

According to T1, Antimedon proposed a decree for the people of Tenedos (τοῖς Τενεδίοις). Demosthenes claims that a certain Aristomachos paid a bribe of 1 ½  mnai to the defendant Theokrines in a case concerning the decree. The context of this testimonium suggests that Theokrines accepted a bribe in return perhaps for not challenging, or withdrawing an indictment of, Antimedon’s decree. Tenedos, an island situated 20 km southwest of the entrance to the Hellespont, appears to have been important to Athenian interests in its area: in 333/2 the Macedonians had forced Athenian grain-ships to dock at Tenedos, which elicited a response from the Athenians ([Dem.] 17.20: see D192 above). The location of the island meant that it offered shelter to those approaching the Hellespont from Greece. Rutishauser, ‘Island strategies’, has demonstrated how the Tenedians took advantage of their importance to the Athenian grainroute, achieving an influential position in the Second Athenian League and then a position of regional economic and political importance in the period 350–330; for their contribution to the Athenian confederacy, see Dreher, Hegemon, 44–5; for Athenian–Tenedian relations, see Constantakopoulou, Dance, 39. IG II3 1 313 (= RO 72) is an Athenian honorific decree for the Tenedians and Aratos of Tenedos, which may have been granted in response to some kind of financial or military assistance in lifting the siege of Byzantion in 339 (DS 16.77.2); moreover, a second decree, predating the battle of Chaironeia, for the Tenedians, Aratos, and his brothers is also known (IG II3 1 401). These decrees demonstrate the value of Tenedos to the Athenians. On the fame and desirability of Tenedos more generally, see Barnes, ‘The ferries’. Overall, therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that T1 refers to another honorific decree, or some other form of benefit which the Athenians bestowed upon the Tenedians in return for their co-operation with Athenian interests. But a context of any time within that of the Social War to about 340 (see Date below) is plausible for such a decree. This is the only decree associated with Antimedon.

d212 decree for the people of tenedos

755

T1 Call, please, Aristomachos the son of Kritodemos, of Alopeke, for he is the one who gave, or rather the one in whose house was given, the 1 ½ mnai to this man who does not accept bribes, concerning the decree for the Tenedians which Antimedon proposed.

Date

Before 340: the source for this decree, Demosthenes 58, must be put before Athens’ final war with Philip and therefore this decree must be dated to some point in between. See D205 above.

Bibliography

Barnes, C., ‘The ferries of Tenedos’, Historia 55 (2006) 167–77. Constantakopoulou, C., The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire. Oxford 2007. Dreher, M., Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York (1995) 44–5. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 24. Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R.G., Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323. Oxford (2003) no. 72. Rutishauser, B., ‘Island strategies: the case of Tenedos’, REA 103 (2001) 197–204.

D213 Decree formulating policy against Philip Proposer: Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios (PA 1459 + 14576; PAA 937530) Date: 346–343

Literary Context

Demosthenes (18.69–70, T1) argued that he did not bear sole responsibility for formulating Athenian policy against Philip of Macedon in the run-up to Chaironeia; decrees were proposed by Diopeithes, Aristophon, Euboulos (Dem. 18.70), Philokrates, Hegesippos, Kephisiphon, and others (Dem. 18.75).

Text

T1 Dem. 18.75: Τοῦτο μὲν τοίνυν τὸ ψήφισμα Εὔβουλος ἔγραψεν, οὐκ ἐγώ, τὸ δ’ ἐφεξῆς Ἀριστοφῶν, εἶθ’ Ἡγήσιππος, εἶτ’ Ἀριστοφῶν πάλιν, εἶτα Φιλοκράτης, εἶτα Κηφισοφῶν, εἶτα πάντες· ἐγὼ δ’ οὐδὲν περὶ τούτων. λέγε.

Commentary

The decree of Philokrates mentioned here appears to have been one of a series proposed at some point between the agreement of the Peace of Philokrates and (in this case) the end of Philokrates’ career in 343; the point that Demosthenes wanted to make by piling up these examples was that a number of politicians were responsible for the opposition to Philip. Given that Philokrates’ proposals (of which up to nine others are known: see Volume 2, Appendix 1) tended towards appeasement (see MacDowell, Demosthenes. On the False, 207), it would be no surprise if this policy was followed in this decree; however, we can do no more than speculate about its content. For more on this series of decrees and the possible subject of Diopeithes’ decree, see below DD 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220).

Date

Between the Peace of Philokrates and exile of Philokrates (346–43).

756

d213 decree formulating policy against philip

757

T1 Euboulos proposed this decree, not I, and the following were those of Aristophon, then Hegesippos, then Aristophon again, then Philokrates, then Kephisophon, then everyone else. I was not involved. Read.

Bibliography

MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000) 207.

D214 Decree granting powers to the Areopagus Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 340s or later

Literary Context

Dinarchus (T1) introduces this decree in his attack on Demosthenes, arguing that his hypocrisy is illustrated by the fact that he had proposed to increase the powers of the Areopagus while attempting in his own case to ignore its verdict (Din. 1.63). At T2 (= 1.83), Dinarchus sets this decree next to Demosthenes’ decree for the investigation of Harpalos’ money, to argue that Demosthenes all but condemned himself.

Texts

T1 Din. 1.62–3: Ἀλλὰ μὴν πρότερον ἔγραψας σὺ {ὦ} Δημόσθενες κατὰ πάντων τούτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων κυρίαν εἶναι τὴν ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου βουλὴν κολάσαι τὸν παρὰ τοὺς νόμους πλημμελοῦντα, χρωμένην τοῖς πατρ[ί]οις νόμοις· καὶ παρέδωκας σὺ καὶ ἐνεχείρισας τὴν πόλιν ἅπασαν ταύτῃ, ἣν αὐτίκα φήσεις ὀλιγαρχικὴν εἶναι· καὶ τεθνᾶσι κατὰ τὸ σὸν ψήφισμα δύο τῶν πολιτῶν, πατὴρ καὶ υἱός, παραδοθέντες τῷ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀρύγματι; … κατὰ δὲ σαυτοῦ καὶ ταῦτα γράψας αὐτὸς τὸ ψήφισμ᾽ ἀκυροῖς; καὶ ποῦ ταῦτα δίκαια ἢ νόμιμά ἐστι; T2 See D195 T3 above.

Commentary

The decree under consideration here is Demosthenes’ decree which empowered the Areopagus. T1 suggests that this council had the power to exile or execute anyone who had done something illegal, and this power to execute is re-iterated at 1.83. The extent of the powers it was granted is controversial: some (e.g. Rhodes, ‘Judicial procedures’, 313; Wallace, ‘“Investigations”’, 585) have suggested that in this passage Dinarchus exaggerated the power of the Areopagus. One interpretation of the decree is that it gave to the Areopagus the power of launching investigations into individual behaviour and submitting of reports (apophaseis) to the assembly of incriminating evidence (e.g. Worthington, 758

d214 decree granting powers to the areopagus

759

T1 And yet in former times you, Demosthenes, proposed that the Areopagus council should have authority over all these men and over all of the Athenians to punish anyone who broke the laws, making use of ancestral laws, and handing over and surrendering the whole city to this body which you will now immediately allege is oligarchic. And according to the terms of your decree, two citizens have been put to death, a father and son, who were handed over to the administrator of the pit. … After having proposed such treatment for yourself, are you not making the decree invalid? And surely this is neither just nor lawful?

Historical Commentary, 228 and Sullivan, ‘Demosthenes’), though this view has been convincingly challenged by Wallace, ‘“Investigations”’, 587, arguing that investigations would be launched on the basis of ad hoc decrees of the assembly. Carawan takes the view that this decree gave to the Areopagus the power of apophasis specifically against its own members (Carawan, ‘Apophasis’, 127–36). Another view of the decree is that it empowered the Areopagus to initiate procedures of impeachment against individuals: Wallace, Areopagus, 115–19, 176–7, but note the objections of MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 372 note 76.

760

inventory a2

What we can surmise is that the decree appears to have empowered the Areopagus to initiate actions against criminal behaviour, and Wallace’s view is that it aimed to empower the Areopagus as a bulwark against those Athenians who represented Macedonian interests (‘“Investigations”’, 589–90). Other sources too (Lycurg. Leocr. 52; Aeschin. 3.252) suggest that the decree empowered it to impose the death penalty. It should be added, however, that one would expect legal reform usually to be undertaken by way of law rather than decree; it is likely, then, that Demosthenes’ decree granted powers to the Areopagus relevant to a specific investigation, perhaps concerning those accused of betraying the Athenians’ interests. As Hansen, ‘Solonian democracy’, 91–2, 94–5 points out, Demosthenes’ measure was perceived by some as a return to ancient laws. Worthington, Historical Commentary, 226 observes that most of the verdicts imposed by the Areopagus appear to have generally been in support of Demosthenes’ interests, and so it is plausible to think that he had empowered the Areopagus in the hope that he would be acquitted.

Date

346–40 (Wallace, ‘“Investigations”’) or 338 (Hansen, Athenian Ecclesia, 179–205). One of Hansen’s reasons for dating this decree to the aftermath of Chaironeia was its ‘general’ nature: he argues that only a crisis of such magnitude as that precipitated by Athens’ defeat at Chaironeia would have given rise to a decree (rather than a law) being used to introduce a measure of general application. Wallace suggests that the decree was proposed by Demosthenes in the period 346–40 as a way of deploying the vehemently anti-Macedonian Areopagus council in his own interests. Sealey, Demosthenes, 186 places the decree in the late 340s.

Bibliography

Carawan, E., ‘Apophasis and eisangelia: the role of the Areopagus in Athenian political trials’, GRBS 26 (1985) 115–40. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983) 179–205. Hansen, M.H., ‘Solonian democracy in fourth-century Athens’, Classica et Mediaevalia 40 (1989) 799. Rhodes, P.J., ‘Judicial procedures in fourth-century Athens: improvement or simply change?’ in Die athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., ed. W. Eder. Stuttgart (1995) 303–19 Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993) 186. Sullivan, J., ‘Demosthenes’ Areopagus legislation – yet again’, CQ 53 (2003) 130–4. Wallace, R., The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore (1989).

dd 215–216 two (?) decrees against philip

761

Wallace, R., ‘“Investigations and reports” by the Areopagus council and Demosthenes’ Areopagus decree’ in Polis and Politics, Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 581–95. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 226–8.

DD 215–216 Two (?) decrees against Philip Proposer: Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus (PA 2108; PAA 176170; APF) Date: 346–338

Literary Context

Demosthenes (TT 1, 2) emphasised that it was not he alone who was responsible for formulating Athenian policy towards Philip of Macedon in the run-up to Chaironeia; decrees were proposed by Diopeithes (Dem. 18.69), Euboulos and Aristophon (TT 1, 2, noting that Aristophon made two proposals), Hegesippos, Philokrates and Kephisophon (Dem. 18.75). In mentioning the wide spectrum of politicians (ranging from the vehemently anti-Philip Hegesippos to the discredited Philokrates), Demosthenes is implying that the majority of politicallyactive individuals joined in the hostile front against Philip. As Canevaro, The Documents, 253–5 points out, while the decrees to which he referred may have been hostile to Philip, Demosthenes himself was the one who annulled the Peace of Philokrates and declared war on Philip (D.H. Ad Amm. 1.11.3–5; Didymos col. 1.66–2.2 = FGrH 328 F53–5b; Plu. Phoc. 1.2 = D158).

762

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Dem. 18.69–70: Λοιπὸν τοίνυν ἦν καὶ ἀναγκαῖον ἅμα πᾶσιν οἷς ἐκεῖνος ἔπραττεν ἀδικῶν ὑμᾶς ἐναντιοῦσθαι δικαίως. τοῦτ’ ἐποιεῖτε μὲν ὑμεῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰκότως καὶ προσηκόντως, ἔγραφον δὲ καὶ συνεβούλευον καὶ ἐγὼ καθ’ οὓς ἐπολιτευόμην χρόνους. ὁμολογῶ. ἀλλὰ τί ἐχρῆν με ποιεῖν; ἤδη γάρ σ’ ἐρωτῶ πάντα τἄλλ’ ἀφείς, Ἀμφίπολιν, Πύδναν, Ποτείδαιαν, Ἁλόννησον· οὐδενὸς τού των μέμνημαι· Σέρριον δὲ καὶ Δορίσκον καὶ τὴν Πεπαρήθου πόρθησιν καὶ ὅσ’ ἄλλ’ ἡ πόλις ἠδικεῖτο, οὐδ’ εἰ γέγονεν οἶδα. καίτοι σύ γ’ ἔφησθά με ταῦτα λέγοντ’ εἰς ἔχθραν ἐμβαλεῖν τουτουσί, Εὐβούλου καὶ Ἀριστοφῶντος καὶ Διοπείθους τῶν περὶ τούτων ψηφισμάτων ὄντων, οὐκ ἐμῶν, ὦ λέγων εὐχερῶς ὅ τι ἂν βουληθῇς. T2 Dem. 18.75: see D213 above.

Commentary

Demosthenes’ argument in these two passages, which twice mention decrees of Aristophon (T1, 2), suggests that these decrees addressed disputes about a number of territories: those of Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaia (for Philip’s conquest of these three, see the detailed discussion in Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.351–7, 361–2 and Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 22–3), Halonnesos, Serrion, Doriskos, and Peparethos. It is hard to be certain about the substance of Antiphon’s decrees, though we may reasonably suggest that they concerned the sending out of ambassadors or naval expeditions, perhaps as a response to Philip’s seizure of grain-ships in the Bosporos, which led the Athenians to annul the Peace of Philokrates (Dem. 18.73; FGrH 328 F55, 162). Aristophon was an opponent to peace with Philip in 346 on the grounds that it implied surrendering Athens’ claim to Amphipolis, and therefore it is plausible to think that he took an anti-Macedonian position at this juncture (FGrH 115 F166); he was associated with a denouement with the Thebans (Dem. 18.165) but, given that policy was particularly fluid at this point in Athenian history, we can only speculate about the content of his decree. On his long political career, see Whitehead, ‘The political career’: he is associated with a total of twelve decrees on a wide range of topics (see Volume 2, Appendix 1); the latest attested was an honorific decree for the Kephallenians or Lampsakenes IG II3 1 307 of 343/2. The fact that he was a prolific proposer of decrees is reflected also in the saying that he had been acquitted on a charge of graphe paranomon on seventy-five occasions (Aeschin. 3.194).

dd 215–216 two (?) decrees against philip

763

T1 And surely the last resort, in fact the necessary thing, was to justly oppose every wrong which he committed against you. You did this right from the start, reasonably and appropriately, and I made decrees and I advised just in the way in which I have acted as a politician for a long time. That much I agree. But what else should I have done? For I ask you now, putting aside all other affairs – Amphipolis, Pydna, Potidaia, Halonnesos – I leave them to one side. As for Serrion, and Doriskos, and the destruction of Peparethos, and all the other things in which the city was wronged, I take no notice of them whatsoever. But yet you alleged that by my words I embroiled the citizens in hostility, even though Euboulos, Aristophon, and Diopeithes moved the decrees, not I, Aeschines, who say whatever suits you.

Date

Between the Peace of Philokrates and the battle of Chaironeia (346–38).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 253–5. Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC: Mnemosyne Supplement 145. Leiden and New York (1995) 22–3. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 351–62. Whitehead, D., ‘The political career of Aristophon’, Classical Philology 81 (1986) 313–19.

D217 Decree proposing policy against Philip Proposer: Diopeithes Diopeithous Sphettios (PA 4328; PA 36395; APF) Date: 346–338

Literary Context

See DD 215–216 above.

Text

See DD 215–216 T1.

Commentary

On the series of decrees mentioned in this testimonium, see above, DD 213, 215–216. The content of this decree is unknown; the complaint about Diopeithes’ attack on Thrace made by the author purporting to be Philip [Dem.] 12.3 may be relevant, but may well be associated with a homonymous (Diopeithes Diphilou Sounieus) general who is also attested to have undertaken money-raising activity in northern Greece (Dem. 8.21–3). For the view that the military activities of Diopeithes made war with Philip more likely, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.563. Alternatively, the proposer of T1 may be identified with Diopeithes Diopeithous Sphettios, the proposer of an amendment to honours for Dioskourides of Abdera (IG II3 1 302 lines 32–5).

Date

Between the Peace of Philokrates and the battle of Chaironeia (346–38).

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 563.

764

D218 Decree proposing policy against Philip Proposer: Euboulos Spintharou Probalisios (PA 5369; PAA 428495) Date: 346–338

Literary Context

See DD 213, 215–216 above.

765

766

inventory a2

Text

See DD 215–216 T1.

Commentary

For more on this series of decrees and the possible subject of Euboulos’ decree, see DD 213, 215–216 above. A document appears at Dem. 18.73–4, which purports to be a decree of Euboulos concerning the Athenian response to the Macedonians’ capture of Leodamas and twenty ships. However, the demotic and patronymic of Euboulos are incorrect, and its alleged eponymous archon (Neokles) is unknown; it is certainly a forgery; the content of Euboulos’ decree remains unknown. See Canevaro, The Decrees, 249–53, pointing out also that its substance is implausible and inconsistent with other information. Euboulos was the proposer of two other decrees: see DD 101 and 116 above (and possibly also D98): for evaluations of his career and significance, see Oliver, ‘Before’ and Cawkwell, ‘Eubulus’; Csapo and Wilson, ‘The finance’, 394–407, 423. As well as being the initiator of financial and other reform, and an opponent of peace with Philip in 348 (Theopompus FGrH 115 F166), he is said to have been a supporter of the Peace of Philokrates (Dem. 18.21) and an advocate of rapprochement between Athens and Thebes (18.165).

Date

The fabricator of the inserted document certainly implies a date after 340 for Euboulos’ decree, given that Philip’s seizure of grain shipments is mentioned; the date, like the content, of Euboulos’ decree remains unknown, though it must fall in the era between the Peace of Philokrates and the battle of Chaironeia.

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 249–53. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Eubulus’, JHS 83 (1963) 47–63. Csapo, E. and Wilson, P., ‘The finance and organisation of the Athenian theatre in the time of Eubulus and Lycurgus’ in Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, eds. E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, J.R. Green and P. Wilson. Berlin (2014) 392–424 at 394–407, 423. Oliver, G.J., ‘Before “Lycurgan Athens”: the origins of change’ in Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes: autour du politique dans la cité classique, eds. V. Azoulay and P. Ismard. Paris (2011) 119–31.

D219 Decree proposing policy against Philip Proposer: Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus (PA 6351; PAA 481555; APF) Date: 346–338

Literary Context See D213 above.

767

768

inventory a2

Text

See D213 above.

Commentary

For more on this series of decrees and the possible subject of Hegesippos’ decree, see DD 213, 215–216 above. It is not clear whether the decree is one of those mentioned in the speech often attributed to Hegesippos (Dem. 7.23–6, 46; see DD 140, 144 above). Hegesippos is connected with the proposal of five other decrees (see Volume 2, Appendix 1), and other political activity, including bringing a graphe paranomon and an eisangelia: see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory’, 47. For his political career, see Fisher, Aeschines, 203–4; Davies, ‘Hegesippos’. Relevant to our view of this proposal is the fact that he was a vehement opponent of Philip, a defender of Athenian territories abroad (cf. his prosecution of Kallippos’ decree on the Kardian cleruchy: D208 above) and his opposition to the Peace of Philokrates (Dem. 19.72–4 with Davies ‘Hegesippos’ 20).

Date

Between 346 and 338.

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., ‘Hegesippos of Sounion: an underrated politician’, in S. D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour, in Honour of Nick Fisher. Swansea, (2011) 11–23. Fisher, N., Aeschines Against Timarchos Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford (2011). Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988),’ in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.

D220 Decree proposing policy against Philip Proposer: Kephisophon Kallibiou Paianieus (PA 8417; PAA 569315; APF) Date: 346–338

Literary Context See D213 above.

769

770

inventory a2

Text:

See D213 above.

Commentary

The proposer is likely to be Kephisophon Kallibiou Paianieus, who is attested to have been the proposer of two other decrees and one rider: see ‘Updated inventory’, 52. Demosthenes claimed that he spoke at the assembly in support of Philokrates’ peace proposals, alongside Euboulos (Dem. 18.21), so it is plausible to think that his proposals concerned the peace. For more discussion of the possible content of this decree, see DD 215–216 above.

Date

Between 346 and 338.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988),’ in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.

D221 Honours for Euboulos Proposer: Unknown Date: Before 343 or 343–330

Literary Context

The sole evidence for this decree is Harpokration’s and Eusebius’ reference to a speech of Hypereides entitled ‘On the Awards for Euboulos’ (περὶ τῶν Εὐβούλου δωρεῶν: see Harpokration s.v. ‘Ἑρμαῖ’, ‘Εὔβουλος’, and ‘πεντηκοστή’; Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 10.3.15.1). For the texts, which tell us nothing about the content of the decree, see Hypereides FF 107–9 Jensen. The testimonium of Harpokration (F108) suggests that the speech mentioned the pentekoste tax; a Scholiast on Aeschines 2.8 (Dilts 23) says that Hypereides made the speech after Euboulos’ death.

771

772

inventory a2

Texts

See Literary Context above.

Commentary

Euboulos was an important Athenian politician in the 350s and 340s and is thought to have established power by establishing control of the theoric fund; after 346 he advocated Greek unity against the Macedonians. Harpokration (s. v. Euboulos) describes him as ‘ἐπιφανέστατος, ἐπιμελής τε καὶ φιλόπονος’. His political allies included Aeschines, Phokion and Meidias, but it would be pointless to try to speculate on the proposer of his honours. Euboulos was the proposer of at least three decrees: see DD 101, 116, 218 above (and possibly also D98). For evaluations of his career and significance, see D218 above. On his career, see Cawkwell, ‘Eubulus’; for an assessment of his significance as an initiator of medium-term change, see Oliver, ‘Before’.

Date

According to one view, the dating of the decree may be determined by the date of Euboulos’ death: Aeschines 2.8 suggests that he was still alive in 343, but Demosthenes 18.162 implies he was dead by 330. However, given that the Scholion on Aeschines 2.8 (Dilts 23) says that Hypereides made his speech about the honours after Euboulos had died, it is plausible, but not provable, that the award was granted posthumously.

Bibliography

Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Eubulus’, JHS 83, 47–63. Jensen, C., Hyperidis Orationes sex cum ceterarum fragmentis. Leipzig (1917); repr. Stuttgart (1963) 133. Oliver, G.J., ‘Before “Lycurgan Athens”: the origins of change’ in Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes: autour du politique dans la cité classique, eds. V. Azoulay and P. Ismard. Paris (2011) 119–31.

D222 Statue for Astydamas Proposer: Unknown Date: After 340

Literary Context

Diogenes (T1) offers this notice of Astydamas’ honours in the course of his biography of Socrates, as part of a list of injustices that the Athenians had committed. The Suda (T2) and Zenobios (T3) offer the story in an account of Astydamas’ epigram: after being granted the statue, Astydamas composed a verse to be inscribed on its base, but it was rejected by the Athenians owing to its boastfulness.

773

774

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Diogenes Laertius 2.43: ... καὶ Ἀστυδάμαντα πρότερον τῶν περὶ Αἰσχύλον ἐτίμησαν εἰκόνι χαλκῇ. T2 Suda, s.v. ‘σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς, ὥσπερ Ἀστυδάμας ποτέ’ (sigma 161 Adler = Snell TrGF 60 T2a): Ἀστυδάμᾳ τῷ Μορσίμου εὐημερήσαντι ἐπὶ τραγῳδίας διδασκαλίᾳ Παρθενοπαίου, δοθῆναι ὑπ’ Ἀθηναίων εἰκόνος ἀνάθεσιν ἐν θεάτρῳ. τὸν δὲ εἰς αὑτὸν ἐπίγραμμα ποιῆσαι ἀλαζονικὸν τοῦτο· ‘εἴθ’ ἐγὼ ἐν κείνοις γενόμην, ἢ κεῖνοι ἅμ’ ἡμῖν, οἳ γλώσσης τερπνῆς πρῶτα δοκοῦσι φέρειν· ὡς ἐπ’ ἀληθείας ἐκρίθην ἀφεθεὶς παράμιλλος· νῦν δὲ χρόνῳ παρέχουσ’, οἷς φθόνος οὐχ ἕπεται.’ διὰ γοῦν τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν ἀλαζονείαν παραιτήσασθαι τὴν ἐπιγραφήν. καὶ παροιμία παρὰ τοῖς κωμικοῖς ἐγένετο, ὡς παρὰ Φιλήμονι. λέγεται δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἀποκοπὴν τὸ σαυτὴν ἐπαίνεις. T3  Zenobios 5.100 (Snell TrGF 60 T2b): ‘σεαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς, ὥσπερ Ἀστυδάμας, γύναι.’  Ἀστυδάμας γὰρ ὁ Μορσίμου εὐημερήσας ἐν τῇ ὑποκρίσει Παρθενοπαίου ἐψηφίσθη εἰκόνος ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἀξιωθῆναι. γράψας οὖν αὐτὸς ἐπίγραμμα ὁ ᾽Αστυδάμας ἔπαινον ἑαυτοῦ ἔχον ἀνήνεγκεν ἐπὶ τὴν βουλὴν· οἱ δὲ ἐψηφίσαντο ὡς ἐπαχθὲς αὐτὸ μηκέτι ἐπιγραφῆναι.

Commentary

Astydamas the Younger (for his fifth-century father (Astydamas son of Morsimos), see Snell TrGF 59 TT 1, 2 and Date below) was a prolific and highly-successful dramatist, associated with a probably exaggerated figure of 240 works and 12 or 15 victories in the tragic competitions (Suda, sigma, 4265 Adler = Snell TrGF T1). According to these testimonia (TT 1–3), he was granted by the Athenians (TT 1, 2) a statue after his victory with the Parthenopaios, and this was to be set up at the theatre (TT 2, 3). He appears to have claimed the right to propose an epigram which he wanted inscribed on its base, but this was rejected as too boastful (T2), perhaps by the Athenian council (T3). Accordingly, his boastfulness became proverbial owing to its ridicule by comic contemporaries such as Philemon (T2). For discussion of the implications of the fact that he had a statue before Lycurgus’ legislation setting up statues of the fifth-century tragedians ([Plu.] X Or. 841 f, describing it as a nomos), see Hanink, Lycurgan Athens, 183–8; Scodel, ‘Lycurgus’, 149 suggests that the setting up of the statue may have led Lycurgus to perceive a need to commemorate the fifth-century tragedians more visibly. An inscribed base (IG II2 3775) from the theatre of Dionysos bears the inscribed name ‘Ἀστυ[δάμας]’, and is usually associated with the episode: see Goette, ‘Die Basis’. As Papastamati-von Moock (‘The theatre’, 30) observes, ‘the position chosen for it [sc. the statue of Astydamas] was very likely the most

d222 statue for astydamas

775

T1 … and they honoured Astydamas with a bronze statue before they honoured (the tragedians) of Aischylos’ days. T2  You praise yourself, just as Astydamas did once: For on the occasion of his success in the tragic competitions with the Parthenopaios, Astydamas the son of Morsimos was given a statue set up in the theatre by the Athenians. Thereupon he composed this boastful epigram for himself: ‘If only I had lived in their time, or they in ours, those men who appear to carry off the first prize in elegance of speech, then I would be judged on the basis of truth, being their competitor; but as things stand, they, who envy does not follow, have time on their side.’ And so the inscription was rejected on account of its boastfulness. Accordingly it became proverbial among the comedians, such as in the work of Philemon. It is spoken also in an abbreviated form: ‘you praise yourself.’ T3  ‘You praise yourself, just like Astydamas, woman.’ For Astydamas the son of Morsimos, on the occasion of the performance of his Parthenopaios, was voted worthy of a statue in the theatre. On this occasion Astydamas composed an epigram praising himself and passed it to the council. They voted that, as it was offensive, it could no longer be inscribed.

prominent possible: it was visible from practically the whole of the theatre’; she suggests that the incorporation of the base into the coping of the retaining wall ‘indicates an apparent compromise between the poet’s need for self-promotion … and the retention of a distinguished morphological element of the theatre’. The setting up of a statue in such a prominent location echoes Astydamas’ statement of his central role in the culture and self-image of Athens, and the Athenians’ acceptance of it (for discussion of other fourth-century awards for dramatists, see D203 above: citizenship for Antiphanes). Page, Further Greek, 33 notes that the sources for the epigram are all late and, therefore, to accept its authenticity ‘would be an act of blind faith’ (cf. Hanink, Lycurgan, 187–8); it is, however, quite plausible, especially given the epigraphical evidence, to maintain that a decree of the Athenian people lay behind this episode.

Date

The testimonia associate the award with the reception of Astydamas’ Parthenopaios, which is dated to 341/0 BC (IG II2 2320 lines 22–3), so the award was made in that year or shortly after. The attribution by TT 1 and 2 of the statue and epigram to Astydamas, son of Morsimos, that is our Astydamas’ father (cf. Snell TrGF 59) is probably erroneous: see Page, Further Greek, 33.

inventory a2

776

Bibliography

Goette, H.R., ‘Die Basis des Astydamas im sogenanneten Lykurgischen DionysosTheater zu Athen’, AK 42 (1999) 21–5. Hanink, J., Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge (2014). 182–8, 198. Page, D.L., Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge (1981) 33–4. Papastamati-von Moock, C. ‘The theatre of Dionysius Eleuthereus in Athens: new data and observations on its “Lycurgan” phase’ in Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, eds. E. Csapo, H.-R. Goette, J. R. Green and P. J. Wilson. Berlin and Boston (2014) 15–76. Scodel, R., ‘Lycurgus and the state text of tragedy’ in Politics of Orality, ed. C. Cooper. Mnemosyne Supplement 280. Leiden and Boston (2007) 129–54. Snell, B., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1 (1986) Göttingen: no. 60 (Astydamas II).

D223 Decree of unknown content Proposer: ?Nausikles Klearchou Oethen (PA 10552; PAA 701680; APF) Date: After 338

Literary Context

In his speech challenging Demosthenes’ entitlement to an honorific crown, Aeschines describes the behaviour of Demosthenes in the aftermath of Chaironeia, claiming the people would not allow him to propose decrees in his own name.

Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.159: Καὶ παριὼν ἡμιθνὴς ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα, εἰρηνοφύλακα ὑμᾶς αὑτὸν ἐκέλευε χειροτονεῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ [κατὰ μὲν τοὺς πρώτους χρόνους] οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα εἰᾶτε τὸ Δημοσθένους ἐπιγράφειν ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ Ναυσικλεῖ τοῦτο προσετάττετε· νυνὶ δ’ ἤδη καὶ στεφανοῦσθαι ἀξιοῖ.

d223 decree of unknown content

777

T1  He proceeded, half dead, to the speaker’s platform, and urged you to elect him as ‘guardian of the peace’; at that time you would not even allow decrees to bear the name of Demosthenes, and assigned this role to Nausikles; but now he (Demosthenes) dares to demand a crown!

778

Commentary

inventory a2

There is some controversy about the interpretation of this passage: the traditional view (see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 373) is that the name of Nausikles was inserted as the proposer of this (τοῦτο) decree; an alternative and convincing view (see Harris, ‘Demosthenes’) is that τοῦτο (‘this role’) refers back to the appointment of a ‘guardian of the peace’ (that is, the Athenian representative at the League of Corinth). Worthington, Commentary 246, suggests that Aeschines’ claim is anyway a rhetorical falsification. Plutarch (Dem. 21.3) states that Demosthenes ensured that, in the aftermath of Chaironeia, he had his friends’ rather than his own name put at the top of his decrees: however, as Harris (‘Demosthenes’, 380) observes, Plutarch is not an independent witness and may have based his interpretation upon the ambiguity of this passage of Aeschines. The traditional view of the passage, then, is that the people were so angry with Demosthenes in the aftermath of Chaironeia that they would not allow him to propose decrees; accordingly, his political allies proposed Demosthenes’ policies in his name. Harris, however, adds the further objection that there are difficulties in accepting Nausikles’ political alignment with Demosthenes, not least that Nausikles appears to have been an ally of Aeschines at times: he proposed the election of Aeschines as an envoy to Philip in 347/6 BC (Aeschin. 2.18); in 343, he acted as synegoros of Aeschines (Aeschin. 2.184, where he is one of those described as a philos). [Plu]. X Or. 844f–5a, on the other hand, associates him with Demosthenes and Hypereides. As Carey (Aeschines, 100 note 29) observes, at some point Nausikles may have moved into a more stridently anti-Macedonian political grouping, which would have made his proposal acceptable to the people; but it might also have made him more acceptable as a ‘guardian of the peace’. If we take the view that Nausikles did propose a decree on behalf of Demosthenes, it may have pertained to Athenian negotiations with the Macedonians or alternatively Athenian relations with other city-states; alternatively, it may concern military preparations: indeed, Nausikles is known to have proposed a decree concerning naval equipment (IG II2 1623 line 313). Nausikles appears to have been a relatively successful commander of the Athenian force sent to Thermopylai to stop Philip in 352: see D.S. 16.37.3; the Athenian force prevented Philip from passing (16.38.2) and Diophantos’ decree offered thanks to the gods (Dem. 19.86 with scholiast = D105). On the honours proposed for Nausikles, in recognition of his donations, see Dem. 18.114 = D228. For another example of rhetorically loaded claims about ‘ghost-proposers’, compare Stephanos Antidoridou Eroiades, who, according to Apollodoros

dd224–225 ** challenges to two proposals

779

([Dem.] 59.43 = D239 with Commentary), let his name be inserted into others’ proposals in return for money. Hansen collects references to the practice of politicians persuading or paying others to propose decrees on behalf of themselves: Athenian Ecclesia II, p. 97 note 12, pointing to Dem. 20.132; 23.146–7, 201; 24.66, 201–3; 25.40–1; [Dem.] 59.43; Aeschin. 3.125, 252, so the slander is a fairly common one.

Date

After the battle of Chaironeia.

Bibliography

Carey, C., Aeschines. Austin (2000) 100 note 29; 218 note 174. Hansen, M.H., (ed.), The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989). Harris, E.M., ‘Demosthenes loses a friend and Nausicles gains a position: a prosopographical note on Athenian politics after Chaeronea’, Historia 43 (1994) 378–84. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 373. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 246.

DD224–225 ** Challenges to two proposals of unknown content Proposer: Philippides (PA 14351; PAA 928850) Date: Before 336

Literary Context

Hypereides speech 4 Against Philippides supports the indictment of Philippides for unconstitutionally proposing an honorific decree (see D181 above). In that speech he pointed out along the way that Philippides had twice been convicted of making unconstitutional proposals, and that this should not lead the jurors to acquit him (T1): a third conviction by graphe paranomon would have led to Philippides being deprived of citizen rights.

inventory a2

780

Text

T1  Hyp. Phil. 11: Κα̣ὶ ἂ̣[ν] ἄρα λέγῃ τις ἀνα̣βὰς ὡς δὶς ἥλωκεν πρ̣ότερον παρανόμων, [κ]αὶ διὰ τοῦτο φῇ δεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀ̣ποψηφίσασθαι, τοὐναντ̣[ί]ον ποιεῖτε κατ’ ἀμφότερα.

Commentary

As Whitehead, Hypereides, 69 notes, there is no reason to doubt the claim made by Hypereides; it is scarcely hyperbolic when compared to the (probably exaggerated) claim that Aristophon had been acquitted for making unconstitutional proposals on 75 occasions (Aeschin. 3.194). However, we can know nothing of the content of the decrees, which were overruled through the process of graphe paranomon. Philippides is associated also with proposing honours for the proedroi of 336/5: see D181 above.

Date

Before 336 (predating Hyp. 4. Ag. Phil.).

Bibliography

Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 69.

D226 † Decree on water-pipes (?)

Proposer: Stephanos (PA 12879; PAA 833430) Date: After 335

Literary Context

This decree is known only through the fragments of Dinarchus’ speech supporting its indictment, and is transmitted in Dionysius’ list of his public speeches (T1) and an entry in Harpokration’s Lexicon.

Texts

T1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Din. 10, p. 312, 1–3: Κατὰ Στεφάνου παρανόμων· ὑπάρχει τοῦ νόμου δεδωκότος, ὦ ἄνδρες ...

d226 † decree on water-pipes (?)

781

T1 And were someone to come forward saying that, as he has twice been convicted for making illegal proposals, and for that reason you should acquit him, you should do the opposite, for two reasons.

T1 Against Stephanos, for illegal proposals: ‘since the law grants it, gentlemen, it is established ...’

782

inventory a2

T2  Harpokration, s. v. ‘Παιανιεῖς καὶ Παιονίδαι’: κατὰ Στεφάνου περὶ τοῦ ὀχετοῦ.

Commentary

The subject of the decree, the water-supply, is suggested by the combination of Dionysius’ attribution of a speech to Dinarchus against an illegal proposal of Stephanos (T1) and Harpokration’s reference to a speech entitled Against Stephanos on the water pipe (T2); the identification is made more likely by another entry in Harpokration’s lexicon reading: ‘For the places are covered with shoal-water: Dinarchus in the Against Stephanos’ (‘Ὑποκυδεῖς γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τόποι: Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Στεφάνου’). It seems likely, therefore, that Dinarchus indicted a proposal of Stephanos concerning the water-supply. For the possibility that renovation work related to the Athenian water-supply was undertaken in the 330s, see Sallares, The Ecology, 392–3 with 500 note 5; Oliver, ‘War, the Athenian State’, 284; and also Camp, ‘The Water Supply. ’ On the water-supply at Athens, see also Crouch, Water, 255–80, 293–6. By the 330s, the overseer of the springs (ho epi tas krenas) was one of those magistrates selected by vote: [Ar.] Ath. Pol. 43.1; in 333/2, Pythias of Alopeke was honoured for his work in this office and specifically for building a new spring by the sanctuary of Ammon and repairing the one at the Amphiareion in Oropos. The management of water and springs appears to have been a significant concern at the Amphiareion: for work on a flood-drain there in the period between 335 and 322, undertaken at the time of the Athenian administration, see I.Oropos 292.

Date

After 335, the date of Dinarchus’ arrival in Athens.

Bibliography

Camp, J. McK., ‘The Water Supply of Ancient Athens from 3000 to 86 BC’, PhD dissertation. Princeton (1978). Crouch, D.P., Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities. New York and Oxford (1993) 255–80, 293–6. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 33. Oliver, G.J., ‘The Athenian State Under Threat: Politics and Food Supply, 307 to 229 BC’, PhD dissertation. Oxford (1995) 284. Sallares, R., The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World. London (1991) 392–3 with 500 note 5.

d226 † decree on water-pipes (?) T2 Paianieis and Paionidai: ‘Against Stephanos on the water-pipe.’

783

D227 Bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros, and Gorgippos, the tyrants from the Bosporos, and possible alliance Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF pp. 113–15) Date: Later than 344/3

Literary Context

In his speech against Demosthenes, Dinarchus alleges that Demosthenes took bribes in return for proposing laws and decrees (T1), suggesting that he put his own interests above those of the Athenians. Dinarchus made the claim that the honorands were tyrants in an attempt to turn the jury against Demosthenes.

Text

T1  Din. 1.41–3: Ἀπὸ ποίων ψηφισμάτων οὗτος ἢ ποίων νόμων οὐκ εἴληφεν ἀργύριον; εἴπατέ μοι πρὸς Διὸς ὦ ἄνδρες, προῖκα τοῦτον οἴεσθε γράψαι Διφίλῳ τὴν ἐν πρυτανείῳ σίτησιν καὶ τὴν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀναθησομένην εἰκόνα; ἢ τὸ ποιῆσαι πολίτας ὑμ[ετέρου]ς Χαιρέφιλον καὶ Φείδωνα καὶ Πάμφιλον καὶ Φ[εί]διππον, ἢ πάλιν Ἐπιγένην καὶ Κόνωνα τοὺς τραπεζίτας; ἢ τὸ χαλκοῦς ἐν ἀγορᾷ στῆσαι [Παι]ρισάδην καὶ Σάτυρον καὶ Γόργιππον τοὺς [ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου] τυράννους, παρ’ ὧν αὐτῷ χίλιοι μέδιμνοι τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ πυρῶν ἀποστέλλονται, τῷ οὐδ’ ὅποι καταφύγῃ αὐτίκα φήσοντι εἶναι;

Commentary

The Athenian history of honouring the Spartokid kings of the Bosporos went back to the fifth century: see Osborne, Naturalization, T21; the Athenians were interested in securing their supply of grain and in negotiating favourable trading terms with the rulers of the area (Dem. 20.29–30; Engen, Honor, 103–18). They had honoured Satyros and Leukon in the early fourth century (DD 28, 39). 784

d227 bronze statues in the agora of pairisades

785

T1 Are there any decrees or any laws which have not brought him money? Would you tell me, men of the jury, do you believe that he proposed that there should be upkeep at the prytaneion and a statue set up in the agora for Diphilos as a present? Or that he made Chairephilos, Pheidon, Pamphilos, Pheidippos, and even Epigenes and Konon the bankers citizens as a present? Or to set up bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros, and Gorgippos, the tyrants from the Bosporos, from whom he receives a thousand medimnoi of wheat per year, this man who will straightaway allege that there is nowhere for him to flee?

In 347/6, a decree proposed by Androtion honoured Spart0k0s II and Pairisades, who were co-rulers of the kingdom, with a renewal of citizenship given to their father Leukon and crowns (IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64) lines 22–5); the individuals mentioned in T1 include Pairisades (T1 is Conomis’ text, which follows Thalheim’s amendment of βιρισάδην to [Παι]ρισάδην) and his sons

786

inventory a2

Satyros and Gorgippos, who never came to the throne. Pairisades took over the throne when Spartokos II died in 344/3 and held it until 309 (Worthington, A Historical Commentary, 205; D.S. 20.22). Epigraphical evidence constitutes further evidence of these honours: IG II2 653 (of 285/4) passed in honour of Spartokos III (nephew of Satyros and Gorgippos) states that the Athenians had honoured his ancestors with Athenian citizenship, statues in the agora and at the port and other rights (lines 13–16, 41): presumably these were the awards summarised at T1; the inscription adds also that there had been a defensive alliance too (lines 17–20, and this may have been part of Demosthenes’ decree: see Burstein, ‘IG II2 653’); however, the kings may not have received sitesis and proedria: for recipients of bronze statues without these awards, see Engen, Honor, 355 note 56 and Henry, Honours, 294–5 and 306 note 26. Burstein (‘IG II2 653’) has argued that Demosthenes was particularly closely involved in maintaining good relations with the kings of the Bosporos; cf. Aeschin 3.171–2, alleging that Demosthenes had blood links with the area; see also Moreno, Feeding, 166–7, 220–2, 252–6. The allegation that opposing politicians took bribes in return for proposing decrees is a common one: see, e.g. Aeschin. 3.244 and DD 231, 234, 235 below.

Date

After 344/3, when Pairisades came to the throne; Burstein, ‘IG II2 653’, followed by Engen, suggests c. 327, pointing to Pairisades’ declaration, mentioned by [Dem.] 34.36, of 327 BC (cf. Isager and Hansen, Aspects, 169), that grain exported to Athens was to be free from taxation: Burstein suggests that this marked a revival of Athenian–Bosporan relations, which had deteriorated since the 340s.

Bibliography

Burstein, S., ‘IG II2 653, Demosthenes and Athenian relations with Bosporus in the fourth century BC’, Historia 27 (1978) 428–36. Engen, D.T., Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415-307. Michigan (2010). Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). Isager, S. and Hansen, M.H., Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century BC. Odense (1975). Moreno, A., Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Oxford (2007). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T21. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 205–7.

D228 Honours for Nausikles (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: 338/7–333/2

Literary Context

In support of Ktesiphon’s decree of honours for him, Demosthenes claims that the proposal did not contradict the law forbidding the award of honours for magistrates before their rendering of accounts (euthuna): he maintained that the honours were made in return for donations rather than for service as an office-holder: see D179 above. He held up four examples (for the others, see DD 190, 229, 230) of honorands whom he claims received honours while liable to audit in respect of the office they had held, but not for the services they had rendered (Dem. 18.117). In an interesting turn, decrees are held up as a way of substantiating the idea that normative Athenian honorific practice is based not only upon laws but also values (‘οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἤθεσιν’: T1).

787

788

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dem. 18.114: Ὅτι δ’ οὕτω ταῦτ’ οὐ μόνον ἐν τοῖς νόμοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἤθεσιν ὥρισται, ἐγὼ ῥᾳδίως πολλαχόθεν δείξω. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ Ναυσικλῆς στρατηγῶν ἐφ’ οἷς ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων προεῖτο πολλάκις ἐστεφάνωται ὑφ’ ὑμῶν· εἶθ’ ὅτε τὰς ἀσπίδας Διότιμος ἔδωκε καὶ πάλιν Χαρίδημος, ἐστεφανοῦντο· εἶθ’ οὑτοσὶ Νεοπτόλεμος πολλῶν ἔργων ἐπιστάτης ὤν, ἐφ’ οἷς ἐπέδωκε τετίμηται. σχέτλιον γὰρ ἂν εἴη τοῦτό γε, εἰ τῷ τινα ἀρχὴν ἄρχοντι ἢ διδόναι τῇ πόλει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ ἐξέσται, ἢ τῶν δοθέντων ἀντὶ τοῦ κομίσασθαι χάριν εὐθύνας ὑφέξει.

Commentary

The implication of this passage is that Nausikles, Diotimos and Charidemos were honoured, while acting as generals, for gifts that they made out of their own finances; it is reasonable to deduce that Neoptolemos held another office, but was not one of the generals. Demosthenes appears to have quoted the decrees, asking for them to be read out to the jury (Dem. 18.115); two spurious documents at 18.115–16 purport to represent the decrees for Nausikles and Charidemos and Diotimos; the name of the proposer appears as Kallias of Phrearrios (see LGPN for two individuals of this name); the name of the archon, Demonikos, is bogus and suggests that the documents are later fabrications: see Canevaro, The Decrees, 275–83. However, while the documents are false and the details, including the association with Kallias, are probably misleading, the crowns received by all four (including possibly two for Nausikles) are recorded in an inventory of dedications to Athena (IG II2 1496 lines 22–51); Yunis, Demosthenes, 178 suggests that they were awards for epidoseis made during the aftermath of Chaironeia and the destruction of Thebes. On Nausikles, who was the Athenian commander at Thermopylai in 352, see D223 above and Davies, APF, 396–8.

Date

338/7-333/2 (IG II2 1496 lines 18 and 158).

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 275–9. Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 396–8. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 178.

d228 honours for nausikles

789

T1 I shall show to you easily from many examples how this principle is based not just on the laws, but also on your values. For first there is Nausikles, who was crowned many times for the money he spent from his own finances while serving as a general. Then, again when Diotimos gave shields and again Charidemos, they were crowned. And then there is Neoptolemos, right here, who was honoured for the donations he gave while in charge of several public works. It would be awful if a citizen cannot make private donations to the city because he is holding some office, or that, when he has made them, he should have to undergo audit, instead of receiving a reward.

D229 Honours for Charidemos (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: 338/7–335

Literary Context See D228 above.

Text

See D228 above.

Commentary

See D228 above. The Charidemos rewarded here is likely to have been the naturalised citizen (see D84 above) originally of Oreos on Euboia; here he is rewarded for donating shields while serving as general; he was one of those demanded by Alexander in 335 and was executed in 333 (D.S. 17.30). He appears to have received three crowns: see IG II2 1496 lines 22–52; as a prominent general, probably he received many over the course of his career. On his career generally, see Pritchett, Greek State, II.85–9. Hypereides in the Against Diondas says that Diondas prosecuted a certain Charidemos (according to the more persuasive of alternative interpretations offered by Carey et al., ‘Fragments’, 16 and the translation of Maehler in Horváth, Der ‘Neue Hypereides’, 83) for failing to carry out the deeds for which he received awards (Hyp. Against Diondas 9 Horváth): it is quite possible that the reference is to this Charidemos. Perhaps, then, Charidemos was not as forthcoming with his donations as Demosthenes (D228 T1) suggests!

Date

It is plausible that the award referred to by Demosthenes was granted during the 330s, perhaps at the time of, or in the aftermath of, Chaironeia. But the decree must have come before the destruction of Thebes in 335: see Canevaro, The Documents, 280.

790

d230 honours for neoptolemos

791

Bibliography

Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford (2013) 279–83. Carey, C., Edwards, M., Farkas, Z., Herrman, J., Horváth, L., Mayer, G., Mézáros, T., ‘Fragments of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes palimpsest’, ZPE 165 (2008) 1–19. Horváth, L., Der ‘Neue Hypereides’: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin, Munich and Boston (2014). Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, vol. 2. Berkeley, CA (1974) 85–9.

D230 Honours for Neoptolemos

Proposer: Lycurgus Lykophronos Boutades (PA 9251 + 9247; PAA 611335; APF) Date: 338/7 or later

Literary Context

On Demosthenes’ mention of this decree (T1), see D228 above. [Plutarch]’s reference to it is made in his biographical account of Lycurgus’ activity.

792

inventory a2

Texts

T1 See D228 T1 above. T2 [Plu.] X Or. 843f: Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Νεοπτόλεμον Ἀντικλέους στεφανῶσαι καὶ εἰκόνα ἀναθεῖναι, ὅτι ἐπηγγείλατο χρυσώσειν τὸν βωμὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐν ἀγορᾷ κατὰ τὴν μαντείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

Commentary

On Demosthenes’ citation of this decree, see D228 above. Neoptolemos is the only one of the honorands listed in this passage who does not appear to have served as a general. While identification of the award mentioned in the two sources (TT 1 and 2) as a crown and a statue is plausible, it remains ­hypothetical: it is quite possible that the promise to gild the altar of Apollo was made while he was epistates ‘of many works’ (T1). It is plausible, on the other hand, as Yunis, Demosthenes, 178 suggests, that the award was made in response to a donation made during the aftermath of Chaironeia and the destruction of Thebes. A crown for Neoptolemos, which he dedicated to Athena, is mentioned in an inscription listing dedications to Athena (IG II2 1496 line 43). As Parker, Athenian Religion, 245 suggests, the reference to an oracular pronouncement indicates that the project to gild the altar was conceived, and then Apollo was approached as a way of seeking divine approval. These honours may be seen as one of the ways in which, during this era, Lycurgus and others strove to encourage indivuduals to spend money on public projects: see Hintzel-Bohlen, Die Kulturpolitik, 112–17; Hakkarainen, ‘Private wealth’; Meier, Die Finanzierung, 28–62; Csapo and Wilson, ‘The finance,’ 399– 405, 412–19. For the great wealth (cf. Dem. 21.215) and euergetism of Neoptolemos, see Davies, APF, pp. 399–400; he is connected with the restoration of the temple of Artemis in Melite at around 330, and received honours for this from the deme: SEG XXII 2116 and Hintzel-Bohlen, Die Kulturpolitik, 50–1. The altar of Apollo referred to here may have been the one in the north-west of the agora adjacent to the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios: see Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary, 96–9.

Date

Probably 338/7 or later (cf. IG II2 1496 line 18).

Bibliography

Csapo, E. and Wilson, P., ‘The finance and organisation of the Athenian theatre in the time of Eubulus and Lycurgus’ in Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century BC, eds. E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, J.R. Green, P. and Wilson, P. Berlin (2014) 392–424 at 399–405, 412–19.

d231 proposal of citizenship for kallias

793

T2 He proposed to crown Neoptolemos the son of Antikles and to set up a statue of him, because he had promised to gild the altar of Apollo in the marketplace in accordance with the oracle of the god.

Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 399–400. Hakkarainen, M., ‘Private wealth in the Athenian public sphere during the late classical and the early Hellenistic period’ in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, vol. 6, ed. J. Frösén.  Helsinki (1997) 1–32. Hintzen-Bohlen, B., Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des Lykurg: Die Denkmäler- und Bauprojekete im Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. Berlin (1997). Meier, L., Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in der hellenistischen Polis. Mainz (2012) 28–62. Parker, R.C.T., Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford (1996) 245–6. Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. London (1971) 96–9. Yunis, H., Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge (2001) 178.

D231 Proposal of citizenship for Kallias and Taurosthenes of Chalkis

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 341/0 or early 330s

Literary Context

Aeschines (T1) and Dinarchus (T2) suggest that Demosthenes proposed these awards of citizenship in return for bribes (cf. DD 227, 234, 235, 236); Hypereides (T3) suggests that he treated the honorands as his agents.

794

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Aeschin. 3.85: Ὑμεῖς γάρ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα ἠδικημένοι ὑπὸ Μνησάρχου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως, τοῦ Καλλίου καὶ Ταυροσθένους πατρός, οὓς οὗτος νυνὶ μισθὸν λαβὼν Ἀθηναίους εἶναι τολμᾷ γράφειν. T2 Din. 1.44: ... ἤ τὸ γράψαι Ταυροσθένην Ἀθηναῖον εἶναι τοὺς μὲν αὑτοῦ πολίτας καταδουλωσάμενον, τῆς δ’ Εὐβοίας ὅλης μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Καλλίου προδότην Φιλίππῳ γεγενημένον; ὃν οὐκ ἐῶσιν οἱ νόμοι τῆς Ἀθηναίων χώρας ἐπιβαίνειν, εἰ δὲ μή, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἔνοχον εἶναι κελεύουσιν, οἷσπερ ἄν τις τῶν φευγόντων ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου κατίῃ. καὶ τοῦτον οὗτος ὁ δημοτικὸς ὑμέτερον ἔγραψε πολίτην εἶναι. T3 Hyp. Dem. col. 20: … [ὑπὸ Δη]μ̣οσθένο[υς ἀπο]σ̣ταλείς, παρὰ [δ’ Ὀλυμ]πιάδι Καλλίας ὁ [Χαλ]κιδεύς, ὁ Ταυροσθένους ἀδελφός· τούτους γὰρ ἔγραψε Δημοσθένης Ἀθηναίους εἶναι καὶ χρῆται τούτοις πάντων μάλιστα. καὶ οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν· οὐδέποτε γὰρ οἶμαι ἐπὶ τῶ̣ν αὐτῶν μένω̣ν εἰκότως φί[λους] τοὺς ἀπ’ Εὐρίπου κ[έ] κτηται ̣ .

Commentary

While Dinarchus (T2) suggests that only Taurosthenes of Chalkis was made a citizen, both Aeschines and Hypereides (TT 1, 3) suggest that Demosthenes proposed that both he and his brother Kallias be granted citizenship. Whitehead (Hypereides, 420–1) makes a case against the possibility that the τούτους of T3 refers also to another associate of Demosthenes, Aristion of Plataea or Samos. Both Aeschines and Dinarchus agree on the idea that Demosthenes made these proposals for money, while Hypereides insists that he treated the honorands as his agents. The accounts we have of this decree are, therefore, slanted against Demosthenes, and they underplay the strategic interests there were in establishing good relations with powerful individuals in Euboia, which was important to Athens both in terms of its location on the corn-route to the east and as a buffer against the Macedonians: see Worthington, Historical Commentary, 207. Dinarchus insists that Demosthenes proposed that Taurosthenes (on whom, see Berve, Alexanderreich, II.189, no. 399) be made an Athenian citizen even though he had enslaved his fellow citizens and betrayed Euboia to Philip: this is an exaggeration, though Kallias had sought Macedonian support for an independent Euboian league (Aeschin. 3.89; Wallace, The Euboian, 15–20). By the 340s Kallias had, however, appealed to the Athenians for alliance (see D153 above) and the Athenians accepted, despite the fact that he had been involved

d231 proposal of citizenship for kallias

795

T1  You, Athenian men, suffered many great wrongs at the hands of Mnesarchos of Chalkis, father of Kallias and Taurosthenes, men for whom Demosthenes now dares to propose Athenian citizenship, taking money. T2 … [did he take nothing for] proposing that Taurosthenes be made a citizen; he was the one who had enslaved his fellow citizens and, together with his brother Kallias, had betrayed the whole of Euboia to Philip. This is the very man whom the laws forbid from entering the land of the Athenians; were he to do so, he would be subject to the same penalties as some exile, sentenced by the Areopagus, who had returned. This was the type of person who this populist Demosthenes proposed should be a citizen. T3  … dispatched by Demosthenes, and with Olympias, Kallias the Chalkidian, the brother of Taurosthenes. For Demosthenes proposed that these men be made Athenians and he treats them most of all as his agents. This is no surprise: never stable himself, I suppose that he naturally obtained friends from the Euripos.

in the revolt of Euboia from the Athenians and had been an associate of Philip (see Brunt, ‘Euboia’ and Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.545–54). After Chaironeia, Kallias fled, with Taurosthenes, to Athens (Scholion on Aristeides, Panathenaikos, 178.12 Dindorf; Aeschin. 3.87). It seems to be the case that Demosthenes in particular appears to have believed that the pair were potential bulwarks against Philip: see Aeschin. 3.85–103 and Cawkwell, ‘Demosthenes’ policy’, 201–4. Dinarchus says that Athenian laws forbade Kallias from setting foot on Athenian soil (Din. 1.44). The legalistic basis of Dinarchus’ claim is unclear, but its insinuation is that Kallias could, as a traitor, be indicted for treason: on the treatment of traitors, see Lycurg. 1.127; Lys. 31.26; MacDowell, The Law, 184–6. In another relevant passage, the spurious Letter of Philip claims that Kallias was praised by the Athenians for capturing and selling into slavery merchants sailing into Macedon ([Dem.] 12.5: ‘διὰ ταῦθ’ ὑμεῖς ἐπῃνεῖτ’ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν’: see D232 below). These honours may be separate, or, as Osborne, Naturalization, T73 Commentary suggests, such praise may have been bestowed at the same time as the award of citizenship.

796

inventory a2

Date

Osborne (T73 Commentary) argues that citizenship for Kallias and Taurosthenes, though they are implied to be recent by Aeschines’ ‘νυνί’ (T1), were first voted in 341/0, at around the time of the Athenian alliance with Chalkis (see D153 above). He suggests that while the grants were awarded for the first time in 341/0, the honorands did not implement the award, and that a ‘decree of reaffirmation was necessary and it is to this decree that Aeschines refers’. The decree is dated by others to the 330s, by which time Kallias and other Euboians had fled to Athens (Schol. Aristides Panathenaikos 178.12); Worthington (Historical Commentary, 207–9) suggests a date between 336 and 330.

Bibliography

Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. Munich (1926) 2.189 no. 399. Brunt, P.A., ‘Euboea in the time of Philip II’, CQ 63 (1969) 245–65. Cawkwell, G.L., ‘Demosthenes’ policy after the Peace of Philocrates’, CQ 13 (1963) 120– 38, 200–13. Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 545–54. MacDowell, D.M., The Law in Classical Athens. Oxford (1978) 184–6. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T73. Wallace, W.P., The Euboian League and its Coinage. New York (1956) 8-27. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 420–1. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 207–9

D232 (= 231?) Praise for Kallias of Chalkis Proposer: Unknown Date: 340s/330s

Literary Context

The spurious Letter of Philip offers this decree as an indication of the hypocrisy of Athenian policy. The text purports to be sent by Philip to the Athenian boule and demos ([Dem.] 12.1): see MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 366, suggesting that it is a genuine text of Philip’s letter to the Athenians. For the view that it was written by an Isocratean ‘speech writer’ penning it in the supposed style of a Macedonian king, see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.714–15.

797

798

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Dem.] 12.5: Καλλίας τοίνυν ὁ παρ’ ὑμῶν στρατηγὸς τὰς μὲν πόλεις τὰς ἐν τῷ Παγασίτῃ κόλπῳ κατοικουμένας ἔλαβεν ἁπάσας, ὑμῖν μὲν ἐνόρκους, ἐμοὶ δὲ συμμαχίδας οὔσας, τοὺς δ’ εἰς Μακεδονίαν πλέοντας ἐπώλει πάντας πολεμίους κρίνων· καὶ διὰ ταῦθ’ ὑμεῖς ἐπῃνεῖτ’ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν.

Commentary

The Kallias mentioned here is usually identified with Kallias of Chalkis (Trevett, Demosthenes, 215 note 9). It is quite plausible to think that Kallias of Chalkis was awarded praise at some point by the Athenians for his activity. T1 suggests that he was praised for anti-Macedonian activities, though, as Griffith (History of Macedonia, 2.553–4) points out, the success of Kallias was surely exaggerated. The anti-Macedonian activity of Kallias would best fit in with his policy after he made an alliance with the Athenians in the late 340s (D147) and granted him citizenship (D231); as Osborne suggests, it is plausible that the praise mentioned in T1 might actually have referred to the award of citizenship. For discussion of the context of the awards for Kallias, see D231 above. The remark that he was a general of the Athenians might be taken literally: it is plausible to think that he was appointed general after being granted Athenian citizenship; alternatively it might be taken as a reference to his fighting alongside the Athenians.

Date

Late 340s–330: see D231 above.

Bibliography

Griffith, G.T., in N.G.L. Hammond and G.T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979) 553–4. MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 366. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3), T73 Commentary. Trevett, J., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011) 215 note 9.

d233 challenge to a proposal of unknown content 799

T1 Kallias, your general, took the cities on the Pagasaian Gulf, all of those that were inhabited, which were allies of me but bound by oath to you, and sold as slaves all those who were sailing to Macedonia, thinking them all to be enemies; and for this you praised him in your decrees.

D233 Challenge to a proposal of unknown content Proposer: Lycurgus Lykophronos Boutades (PA 9251 + 9247; PAA 611335; APF) Date: Before mid 330s

Literary Context

Hyperides, in his allegation that Diondas’ political activity went against the interests of the people, offers an account of his vexatious political activity.

800

inventory a2

Text

T1  Hyp. Against Diondas, 9 Horváth: Λυκοῦρ(γον) δὲ οὐ μόνον παρανόμω̣ν̣ ἐδίωξεν ...

Commentary

The context and content of the decree here indicted is impossible to know. Lycurgus proposed many decrees, see Volume 2, Appendix 1, but this is the sole testimonium relating to an indictment against him for making an illegal proposal.

Date

The dates of the speech Against Diondas provide a terminus ante quem for the indictment of Lycurgus and this decree: the speech is placed at January–March 334 by Horváth but May–June of the same year by Rhodes, ‘Hypereides’.

Bibliography

Carey, C., Edwards, M., Farkas, Z., Herrman, J., Horváth, L., Mayer, G., Mézáros, T., Rhodes, P.J. and Tchernetska, N., ‘Fragments of Hyperides’ Against Diondas from the Archimedes palimpsest’, ZPE 165 (2008) 1–19. Horváth, L., ‘Dating Hyperides’ Against Diondas’, ZPE 166 (2008) 27–34. Horváth, L., ‘Hyperidea’, BICS 52 (2009) 187–97. Horváth, L., Der Neue Hypereides: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin (2014). Rhodes, P.J., ‘Hypereides’ Against Diondas: two problems’, BICS 52 (2009) 223–6.

d234 honours for diphilos

801

T1 He not only prosecuted Lycurgus for proposing illegally …

D234 Honours for Diphilos

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 334–324

Literary Context

On Dinarchus’ claims about bribes taken by Demosthenes in return for honours (T1), see D235 Literary Context below. The decree is mentioned also in Dionysius’ account of the speeches of Dinarchus (T2) in a discussion of the authorship of the speech in support of the honours for Diphilos.

802

inventory a2

Texts

T1 Din. 1.43: Εἴπατέ μοι πρὸς Διὸς ὦ ἄνδρες, προῖκα τοῦτον οἴεσθε γράψαι Διφίλῳ τὴν ἐν πρυτανείῳ σίτησιν καὶ τὴν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀναθησομένην εἰκόνα; T2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Dinarchus, 11 p. 315 16–24: Τοῦτον ἐπείσθην ὑπὸ Δημοσθένους γεγράφθαι τὸν λόγον, ὅτι τὰς δωρεὰς ἔγραψεν αὐτῷ Δημοσθένης, ὡς Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ κατὰ Δημοσθένους λόγῳ δεδήλωκε, καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ τέλει λόγου ὁ Δίφιλος Δημοσθένην παρακαλεῖ συνήγορον. ἀπίθανον δὲ οἶμαι εἶναι τὰς μὲν τιμὰς οὕτω γράφειν εὐνοοῦντα τῷ Διφίλῳ τὸν Δημοσθένην, λόγον δὲ παρὰ Δεινάρχου λαβόντα περιιδεῖν.

Commentary

Worthington (Historical Commentary, 202) suggests that the award was the right of sitesis (to dine at state expense for life), the highest Athenian award for an individual citizen (on which, see discussion in D187 Commentary below); he also notes that proedria normally accompanied the award, but was not mentioned in this case. Diphilos (son of Diopeithes of Sounion) may have been the syntrierarch of Hegemone Bausinikou and the proposer of a naval law in 323/2 or earlier (IG II2 1631 line 511; 1632 line 19): see Davies, APF, pp. 167–9.

Date

334–324 (Worthington, Historical Commentary, 202).

Bibliography

Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 167–9. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 202.

d235 decree(s) bestowing citizenship

803

T1 Would you tell me, men of the jury, do you believe that he proposed that there should be upkeep at the prytaneion and a statue set up in the agora for Diphilos as a present? T2  I have been persuaded that this speech was written by Demosthenes himself, given that Demosthenes proposed the honours, as Dinarchus has shown in his speech Against Demosthenes, and because at the end of the speech Diphilos calls upon Demosthenes to speak in his support. I think it is unbelievable that Demosthenes should propose such good things for Diphilos, out of kindness, but to leave the speech for Dinarchus to give.

D235 Decree(s) bestowing citizenship on Chairephilos and sons

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late 330s

Literary Context

In an attack on Demosthenes, Dinarchus alleges that he puts personal profit above the interests of the Athenians by accepting bribes in return for honorific decrees (T1). Reference to the decree parodied by the comedian Alexis is made in the work of Athenaios (T2) in a discussion over a hors d’oeuvre of salted fish (Deipnosophistai, 116a).

804

inventory a2

Texts

T1  Din. 1.43: ἢ τὸ ποιῆσαι πολίτας ὑμετέρους Χαιρέφιλον καὶ Φείδωνα καὶ Πάμφιλον καὶ Φείδιππον, ἢ πάλιν Ἐπιγένην καὶ Κόνωνα τοὺς τραπεζίτας; T2 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 3.119f–120a (= Alexis 77 Arnott): Τοσαύτην δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι σπουδὴν ἐποιοῦντο περὶ τὸ τάριχος ὡς καὶ πολίτας ἀναγράψαι τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου τοῦ ταριχοπώλου υἱούς, ὥς φησιν Ἄλεξις ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ οὕτως·

τοὺς Χαιρεφίλου δ’ υἱεῖς Ἀθηναίους, ὅτι εἰσήγαγεν τάριχος, οὓς καὶ Τιμοκλῆς ἰδὼν ἐπὶ τῶν ἵππων δύο σκόμβρους ἔφη ἐν τοῖς Σατύροις εἶναι.

Commentary

Pheidon, Pamphilos and Pheidippos are attested elsewhere as the sons of Chairephilos, and so it seems that Demosthenes made a proposal for citizenship for Chairephilos together with his sons (Davies, APF, pp. 566–7); the four were, on being made citizens, enrolled into Demosthenes’ deme of Paiania. It is plausible to think that, as a metic, Chairephilos was involved in the fish-trade and that, as Worthington, Historical Commentary, 205 suggests, Dinarchus has singled fish-traders out as a snobbish way of demeaning the value of Demosthenes’ decrees. Indeed, this would be compatible with the fact that there are parallels for jokes about honours associated with fishmongers (for the fishmongers’ decree for Kallimedon the ‘Crayfish’, see Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 3.104d–e = Alexis F57 Arnott, discussed below, Volume 2, Chapter 5.3.2 and Appendix 2 X9). Worthington (Historical Commentary, 203–5) discusses the individuals here, and suggests that Dinarchus’ claim aimed to exploit Athenian paranoia about the granting of citizenship. On the import of mackerel from the Hellespont, Bosporos and Black Sea at this time, see Arnott, Alexis, 214. Osborne (T75) is sceptical about Athenaios’ claim that Chairephilos was associated with the fish trade, suggesting that the naturalisation of him and his sons was a reward for some donation to the state (Davies, APF, p. 566 takes a similar view); Reed, Maritime Traders, 46 note 24 and no. 39 suggests that while the fish trade may have been the original source of his wealth, he turned to banking at some point and had retired from salt-fish trading by the time that the awards were granted. The report that Timokles saw the sons of the honorand on horseback (T2) offered ‘a contrast between the genteel activity of riding and the riders’ alien origins combined with their trading connections’ (see Arnott, Alexis, 213): it was probably a joke about their up-and-coming status, which they owed to

d235 decree(s) bestowing citizenship

805

T1  Or that he made Chairephilos, Pheidon, Pamphilos, Pheidippos, and even Epigenes and Konon the bankers citizens as a present? T2 The Athenians were so keen on salted fish that they enrolled as citizens the sons of Chairephilos the saltfish-monger, according to Alexis in Epidauros, as follows: … (made) the sons of Chairephilos Athenians on account of his import of saltfish. When Timokles saw them on their horses he said that there were two mackerels among the satyrs.

their father’s reward; there is nothing to substantiate the idea that Timokles saw a statue of them on horseback. Translation of ‘ἐν τοῖς Σατύροις’ as ‘among the satyrs’ is one possibility, but it is also possible that it referred to the name of a play by Timokles: see Arnott, Alexis, 212–13. All these honours may be sensibly associated with the food shortages of the early 320s, and it is possible that the proposals were made ostensibly with the aim of rewarding donations made by the honorands (Osborne, Naturalization, T81) or their lending money to the Athenians at favourable rates. For the wealth of the family and Chairephilos sons’ liturgical activity, see APF pp. 566–7, arguing that Chairephilos and the eldest son, Pheidon, died soon after being granted citizenship.

Date

Chairephilos and sons: late 330s (Osborne T75).

Bibliography

Arnott, W.G., Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary. Cambridge (1996) 210–14. Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 566–7. Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) T81. Reed, C.M., Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek World. Cambridge (2003) 46 and no. 39. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 203–4.

D236 Decree(s) bestowing citizenship on two bankers, Konon and Epigenes

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: Late 330s or 320s

Literary Context

For the allegation that Demosthenes made such proposals in the search of gain see, for instance, DD 227, 231, 234, 235 above. As Worthington, Historical Commentary, 205 notes, Dinarchos’ decision to associate Konon and Epigenes explicitly with banking activity (regardless of its reality) may be part of his aim to discredit Demosthenes by arguing that he honoured those involved in professions regarded as demeaning.

Text

T1 Din. 1.43: … ἢ τὸ ποιῆσαι πολίτας ὑμετέρους Χαιρέφιλον καὶ Φείδωνα καὶ Πάμφιλον καὶ Φείδιππον, ἢ πάλιν Ἐπιγένην καὶ Κόνωνα τοὺς τραπεζίτας;

Commentary

Dinarchus (T1) says little about the honorands other than mentioning that they are bankers; we can assume that they were metics in Athens. The Konon mentioned here may the Konon of Paiania who was fined one Talent for claiming theoric money on behalf of his son while he was away from Athens (Hyp. Dem. col. 26; Osborne, Naturalization, T81; cf. Din. 1.56; Worthington, Historical Commentary, 220 is, however, sceptical about the identification). Given that the other honorands mentioned in this passage (Chairephilos and sons: T1) are attested as enrolled into Demosthenes’ deme of Paiania, it is likely that Konon was too. Banking, as Cohen (Athenian Economy, 127–8) observes, was an important concern in the private speeches of Demosthenes, and so his proposal to honour these bankers may well be related to his private business activity. On the importance and nature of banks in fourth-century Athens, see Shipton, ‘The private’. The most famous banker to have been honoured by the Athenians with citizenship was of course Pasion, who was rewarded for making contributions to the state probably in the early 380s (see D42 above; Osborne T30; Davies, APF pp. 806

d236 decree(s) bestowing citizenship

807

T1  … or that he made Chairephilos, Pheidon, Pamphilos, Pheidippos, and even Epigenes and Konon the bankers citizens as a present?

428–42). For other bankers who were honoured by the Athenians, cf. DD 42, 72, 227, 235. See also Cohen, Athenian Economy, 88–9, 102–6, 177–8. An alternative view of the motivation behind these rewards is that Epigenes and Konon were honoured for making donations to the Athenians, perhaps in the 320s during a food-supply crisis: for discussion of the evidence for five separate food-supply crises between 338/7 and 323/2, see Garnsey, Famine, 154–64.

Date

Late 330s or the early 320s (Osborne, Naturalization, T81).

Bibliography

Cohen, E.E., Athenian Economy and Society: A Banking Perspective. Princeton (1992). Davies, J.K., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC. Oxford (1971) 428–42. Garnsey, P., Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge (1988) 154–64.

inventory a2

808

Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3) TT 80, 81. Shipton, K., ‘The private banks in fourth-century BC Athens: a reappraisal’, CQ 47 (1997) 396–422. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 204–5, 220.

D237 ** Decree concerning the punishment of those stealing sacred garments Proposer: Aristogeiton Kydimachou (PA 1775; PAA 168145) Date: 335–330

Literary Context

The speaker of [Demosthenes’] Against Aristogeiton, acting as synegoros for Phanostratos, in the course of blackening the reputation of his rival and explaining why he was disenfranchised, alludes to a decree of his that was deemed illegal; he maintains that Aristogeiton did not face the appropriate punishment in view of the verdict against it. Libanius (T2) offers details on the background to the prosecution. Dionysius of Halicarnassus thought that speech 25 was falsely attributed to Demosthenes (Demosthenes, 57); for discussion, and the conclusion that it is genuinely Demosthenic, see Hansen, Apagoge, 144–52 and MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator, 310–12. The evidence of stichometry and idiosyncracies of the language and legal interpretations of the speech, however, makes it likely that it is a post-classical composition: Harris, Rule of Law, 401; Demosthenes, 195–6. But even if the speech is a later composition, it is still plausible that its author drew upon genuine knowledge of an Athenian decree.

Texts

T1  [Dem.] 25.87: Οὐ γὰρ ὅμοιόν ἐστιν, Ἀριστογεῖτον, οὐδὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ, γράψαντά σε τῶν πολιτῶν τρεῖς ἀκρίτους ἀποκτεῖναι γραφὴν ἁλῶναι παρανόμων καὶ δέον {σε} τεθνάναι {ἐπὶ ταύτῃ} τιμήματος τυχεῖν, καὶ φίλον ἐγγυησάμενον μὴ δύνασθαι ζημίαν ἀπροσδόκητον ἐνεγκεῖν· οὐχ ὅμοιον, οὔ.

d237 ** decree concerning punishment

809

T1  When you, Aristogeiton, were convicted of illegality for having decreed that three citizens should be executed without trial, and you got off with a fine though you should have been put to death, it is completely unlike the case where a man has gone on bail for a friend and then is not able to pay a fine which he was not expecting. No, it’s not at all like that case.

810

inventory a2

T2 Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 25, 2: Ἀριστογείτων γράφει ψήφισμα πρῶτον μὲν ἀπροβούλευτον, ἔπειτα δεινότατον, κελεῦον, ἐὰν μὲν ὁμολογῇ τὰ ἱμάτια ἐξενεγκεῖν, ἀποθανεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτίκα ̣ ἐὰν δὲ ἀρνῆτα, κρίνεσθαι.

Commentary

Libanius (perhaps drawing on a lost speech of Demosthenes’ co-prosecutor of Aristogeiton, Lycurgus, as Gibson, (‘The agenda,’ 182-3) suggests), offers the most detailed account of the episode in the background to this decree: Pythangelos and Skaphon, on seeing Hierokles carrying garments sacred to Artemis which bore the name of their dedicants stitched in gold, denounced him before the prytaneis as a temple robber. The defendant responded that he had been sent by the priestess to bring them to her shrine (Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 25, 1). Hierokles may well have been a relative (perhaps a son, as Worthington, Commentary, 299, suggests) of the priestess of Artemis of Brauron (Din. 2.12), who was presumably responsible for their safekeeping. It was in response to this development that Aristogeiton proposed a decree that was not beforehand discussed by the council (T2). Aristogeiton’s decree appears to have directed that anyone who admitted to having stolen sacred robes be executed without trial, and would be tried only if he denied the charge (T2). The robes may have been items dedicated to Artemis (for examples of such dedications from the 340s, see IG II2 1514 lines 7–38) or perhaps were of a sort that would be presented to a cult statue as part of a ritual: on the significance and use of the peplos of Athena, see Parker, Polytheism, 264– 5, and for the dressing of the cult image of Brauronian Artemis, see Romano, ‘Early Greek’, 131–2. The testimonia present the decree in different ways: [Demosthenes’] account presents it as if it were aimed against three individuals (presumably Hierokles and two others – perhaps including the priestess of Brauronian Artemis: Din. 2.12); Libanius presents it as if it were a general rule. Had it been a general rule, we might have expected the measure to be proposed instead as a law; on the other hand, had it been directed against individuals, given that ad hominem laws were forbidden, we would expect a decree (Hansen, ‘Did the Athenian ecclesia legislate?’, 180 with note 3). Either way, the measure was problematic: execution without trial was controversial, and was associated with the oligarchies of 411 and 404 (see Carawan, ‘Akriton’). The decree was criticised as ‘aprobouleuton’, which suggests that it pertained to a subject that had not been placed on the assembly’s agenda by the council, in contradiction of a basic principle of decree making: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 45.4; Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 52–4, suggests, at 53 ‘perhaps the probouleuma was so

d237 ** decree concerning punishment

811

T2 Aristogeiton proposed a decree that was in the first place not discussed by the council, but was also exceedingly terrible: it ordered that if anyone admitted to stealing the sacred robes, he would be immediately executed, but if he denied it, he would be tried.

worded that it could not be said to cover Aristogeiton’s motion’. Alternatively, it is plausible to think that the decree may have been proposed by Aristogeiton under the heading of ‘sacred matters’ (cf. [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 43.6). There are known two other examples of indictments against decrees for being aprobouleuton: see DD 5, 89, with Hansen, Athenian Assembly, 150 note 238; Rhodes, Commentary, 544; Hansen, The Soevereignty, nos. 4, 12. The decree was indicted by graphe paranomon by Phanostratos, father of Hierokles (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 29); the decree was overruled and Aristogeiton was fined 1000 drachmai (Libanius, Hypothesis to Dem. 25, 2; [Dem.] 25.40, 68, 87; Din. 2.12).

Date

335–30: Hansen, The Sovereignty, 29 note 10; Worthington suggests a date of 332/1: Worthington, Historical Commentary, 298.

Bibliography

Carawan, E., ‘Akriton apokteinai: execution without trial in fourth-century Athens’, GRBS 25 (1984) 111–21. Gibson. C.A., ‘The agenda of Libanius’ hypotheses to Demosthenes’, GRBS 40 (1999) 171–202. Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974). Hansen, M.H., Apagoge, endeixis and ephegesis against kakourgoi, atimoi and pheugontes: A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century BC. Odense (1976) 144–52. Hansen, M.H., ‘Did the Athenian ecclesia legislate?’ in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–83. Copenhagen (1983) 179–206. Hansen, M.H., The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford (1987). Harris, E.M., The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. Oxford (2013) 401. Harris, E.M., Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). MacDowell, D.M., Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford (2009) 310–12. Parker, R.C.T., Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford (1995). Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972). Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981) 544. Romano, I.B., ‘Early Greek cult images and cult practices’ in Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens,

inventory a2

812

26–29 June, 1986, eds. R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. Nordquist. Stockholm (1988) 127–34. Worthington, I., A Historical Commentary on Dinarchus: Rhetoric and Conspiracy in Later Fourth-Century Athens. Ann Arbor (1992) 298.

D238 ** Decree concerning the apportionment of land at Oropos Proposer: Polyeuktos Kydantides (PA 1194 + 1192 + 11927; PAA 778230) Date: After 338/7–335/4

Literary Context

In his synegoros speech for Euxenippos, Hypereides spoke against the impeachment (Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 124) brought against Euxenippos by Polyeuktos. The plaintiff claimed that Euxenippos had made a false report of a dream concerning the apportionment of land at Oropos: this had led him (Polyeuktos) to make a proposal which was attacked, and condemned, as illegal (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 35). The defeat of Polyeuktos’ decree led him to attack Euxenippos by eisangelia.

Text

T1  Hyp. Eux. 14-18: Ὁ δῆμος προσέταξεν Εὐξενίππωι τρίτωι αὐτῶι ἐγκατακλιθῆναι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, οὗτος δὲ κοιμηθεὶς ἐνύπνιόν φησιν ἰδεῖν, ὃ τῶι δήμωι ἀπαγγεῖλαι. τοῦτ’ εἰ μὲν ὑπελάμβανες ἀληθὲς εἶναι, καὶ ὃ εἶδεν ἐν τῶι ὕπνωι τοῦτ’ αὐτὸν ἀπαγγεῖλαι πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, τί καὶ ἀδικεῖ, ἃ ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶι προσέταττε ταῦτ’ ἐξαγγείλας πρὸς Ἀθηναίους; εἰ δέ, ὥσπερ νυνὶ λέγεις, ἡγοῦ αὐτὸν καταψεύσασθαι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ χαριζόμενόν τισι μὴ τἀληθῆ ἀπηγγελκέναι τῶι δήμωι, οὐ ψήφισμα ἐχρῆν σε πρὸς τὸ ἐνύπνιον γράφειν, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ πρότερος ἐμοῦ λέγων εἶπεν, εἰς Δελφοὺς πέμψαντα πυθέσθαι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἀλήθειαν. σὺ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἐποίησας, ψήφισμα δὲ αὐτοτελὲς ἔγραψας κατὰ δυοῖν φυλαῖν οὐ μόνον ἀδικώτατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐναντίον αὐτὸ ἑαυτῶι· δι’ ὅπερ ἥλως παρανόμων, οὐ δι’ Εὐξένιππον.

d238 ** decree concerning land at oropos

813

T1 The people ordered Euxenippos and two others to lie down in the sanctuary; he went to sleep and says that he had a dream which he reported to the people. If you (Polyeuktos) accepted that this was the truth, and that what he saw in his dream was what he reported to the people, what is he guilty of, having communicated, to the Athenians, that which the god instructed him? If, as you now allege, you believed that he had mispresented the god and, as a way of doing a favour to certain people, had made a false report to the people, instead of proposing a decree based on the dream, you ought to have sent to Delphi, as the previous speaker said, to discover the truth from the god. However, you did not do that, but instead you proposed, against two tribes, a decree all of your own, not only most unjust but also self-contradictory. That is what led you to be convicted for illegal proposals; it was not Euxenippos’ fault.

814

inventory a2

Ἐξετάσωμεν δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ τουτονὶ τὸν τρόπον. αἱ φυλαὶ σύνδυο γενόμεναι τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἐν Ὠρωπῶι διείλοντο, τοῦ δήμου αὐταῖς δόντος. τοῦτο τὸ ὄρος ἔλαχεν Ἀκαμαντὶς καὶ Ἱπποθοωντίς. ταύτας τὰς φυλὰς ἔγραψας ἀποδοῦναι τὸ ὄρος τῶι Ἀμφιαράωι καὶ τὴν τιμὴν ὧν ἀπέδοντο, ὡς πρότερον τοὺς ὁριστὰς τοὺς πεντήκοντα ἐξελόντας αὐτὸ τῶι θεῶι καὶ ἀφορίσαντας, καὶ οὐ προσηκόντως τὰς δύο φυλὰς ἐχούσας τὸ ὄρος. μικρὸν δὲ διαλιπὼν ἐν ταὐτῷ ψηφίσματι γράφεις τὰς ὀκτὼ φυλὰς πορίσαι το̣ν δυοῖν φυλαῖν τὰ διάφορα καὶ ἀποδοῦναι, ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐλαττῶνται. καίτοι εἰ μὲν ἴδιον τῶν φυλῶν ἀφῃροῦ τὸ ὄρος, πῶς οὐκ ὀργῆς ἄξιος ; εἰ δὲ μὴ προσηκόντως εἶχον αὐτό, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὄν, διὰ τί τὰς ἄλλας φυλὰς ἔγ[ρ̣]αφες αὐταῖς προσαποδιδόναι ἀργύριον; ἀγαπητὸν γὰρ ἦν αὐταῖς, εἰ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀποδώσουσιν καὶ μὴ προσαποτείσουσι ἀργύριον. ταῦτ’ ἐν τῶι δικαστηρίωι ἐξεταζόμενα οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐδόκει γεγράφθαι, ἀλλὰ κατεψηφίσαντό σου οἱ δικασταί. εἶτ’ εἰ μὲν ἀπέφυγες τὴν γραφήν, οὐκ ἂν κατεψεύσατο οὗτος τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπειδὴ δὲ συνέβη σοι ἁλῶναι, Εὐξένιππον δεῖ ἀπολωλέναι; καὶ σοὶ μὲν τῶι τοιοῦτο ψήφισμα γράψαντι πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι δραχμῶν ἐτιμήθη, τὸν δὲ κατακλιθέντα εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ δήμου κελεύσαντος μηδ’ ἐν τῆι Ἀττικῇ δεῖ τεθάφθαι.

Commentary

When Oropos was awarded to the Athenians in 338 or 335 (for the latter date, see Knoepfler, ‘Adolf,’ 295; ‘Oropos’; Décrets, 372), there followed a period of intense Athenian interest in Oropos and the cult of Amphiaraos: see I.Oropos. 291–3, 295–301; Parker, Athenian Religion, 247. It was probably as a response to this reacquisition that the Athenians appointed boundary-commissioners to set aside part of the new land for Amphiaraos; then they allocated the land at Oropos to pairings of the ten tribes (see DP 74; Papazarkadas, Sacred, 102–3; Papazarkadas, ‘The decree,’ 179–80). It emerged some time later that the portion allocated to the tribal pair Akamantis and Hippothontis had originally been deemed as the sacred property of Amphiaraos. At some point, and perhaps inspired by an enthusiasm for piety towards Amphiaraos (they crowned the deity in 332/1: IG II3 1 349), the Athenian people (presumably by decree: see DP 75 below) gave Euxenippos (who at some point made a dedication at the Amphiareion to Hygieia: I. Orop. 347) and two others the task of sleeping at the sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos, to find out whether the hill in question belonged to the deity or could be allocated to two of the Athenian tribes (Hyp. Eux. 16). Euxenippos then reported to the Athenians, and it was on the basis of this report that, allegedly, Polyeuktos proposed the decree at T1. T1 gives us enough details to be able to know the content of Polyeuktos’ decree: it directed that the two tribes should restore their portion of Oropian

d238 ** decree concerning land at oropos

815

Let us examine the matter in this way. The tribes, grouped in pairs, shared out the hills in Oropos which the people had given them. Akamantis and Hippothontis were allocated this hill. You proposed that these tribes should give back the hill to the god Amphiaraos and the sale price of its produce, as the 50 boundary-commissioners (horistai) had chosen it beforehand and set it aside for the god; accordingly, it was not appropriate for the two tribes to hold the hill. A little further on in the decree, you propose that the eight tribes are to provide compensation to the two tribes and to pay it so that they are not disadvantaged. And so if the hill really belonged to the two tribes and you tried to take it away from them, surely we are entitled to be angry with you? On the other hand, if the hill was held by them improperly – because it was the property of the god – why did you propose that the other tribes offer them money in return? They should have been content with restoring the property of the god without paying a fine. But these measures, when they were scrutinised in the court, were considered to have been enacted inappropriately, and the jurors condemned you. So, had you been acquitted of the charge, there would have been no misrepresentation of the god by Euxenippos here; since it turned out that you were convicted, must he too be ruined? And when you were fined 25 drachmai for having proposed this decree, should the man who lay down in the sanctuary at the people’s behest be deprived of burial in Attica? (translation adapted from Whitehead, Hypereides, 164–5)

land to Amphiaraos ‘as the fifty boundary commissioners [horistai, probably appointed ad hoc: Whitehead, Hypereides, 210] had selected it beforehand and set it aside for the god’; they would also hand over the income from the sale of its produce; they would receive compensation from the other eight tribes. Polyeuktos’ decree was indicted by Euxenippos for illegality (Hansen, The Sovereignty, no. 35). Hypereides (T1) alleged that Polyeuktos’ decree was attacked by Euxenippos because it was unjust and self-contradictory. He says that given Polyeuktos reckoned that Euxenippos had made a false report to the people and misrepresented the god’s message but that instead of sending to Delphi to obtain the god’s word, he framed his own decree. As he did at other points, as Rebecca von Hove suggests in an unpublished paper, Hypereides was juxtaposing human decrees with divine authority. Euxenippos’ indictment was successful and the decree was rescinded (Hyp. Eux 15: ‘ἥλως παρανομών’); Polyeuktos was fined 25 drachmai (Hyp. Eux. 18). Polyeuktos’ response was to prosecute Euxenippos, by way of eisangelia, for having taken bribes to make a report contrary to the interests of the people (Hyp. Eux. 30, 39: see Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 124). As Whitehead, Hypereides, 211 points out, it would be interesting to know how Hypereides came to be so familiar with the content of the decree: if it was attacked after it had been ratified at the assembly, then it is possible that an archival copy may have existed.

816

inventory a2

The denouement of the question about Amphiaraos’ portion of the sacred land is not known, but a tribal decree of Aigeis and Aiantis of c. 330 suggests that disputes about the allocation and/or deployment of the land were ongoing (Agora XVI 84; see Papazarkadas, ‘The decree’). Moreover, another tribal decree, of 303/2, granting honours to an individual taking care of a tribe’s portion of land at Oropos indicates that the dispute continued to at least the end of the fourth century BC (SEG III 117 lines 13–19). This Polyeuktos is associated with only one other decree of the Athenians, concerning some triremes of 326/5 (IG II2 1628 lines 38–9) and should not be identified with the more active Polyeuktos of Sphettos (see Volume 2, Appendix 1).

Date

The eisangelia trial to which Hypereides’ speech responds is dated to the period 330–24 (Hansen, no. 124), but the decree of Polyeuktos may have been proposed shortly after the Athenians were awarded Oropos, in 338 or 335; for the view that Oropos was given by Alexander to the Athenians in 335, see Knoepfler, ‘Adolf,’ 295; ‘Oropos’; Décrets, 372 and Whitehead, Hypereides, 207, arguing against the view that it was a gift of Philip in 338 (cf. [Demades] 1.9).

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 35. Hansen, M.H., Eisangelia: The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Impeachment of Generals and Politicians. Odense (1975) no. 124. Knoepfler, D., ‘Oropos, colonie d’Érétrie’, les dossiers’, Histoire et archéologie 94 (1985) 50–5. Knoepfler, D., ‘Adolf Wilhelm et le péntèteris des Amphiaraia d’Oropos’ in Aristote et Athènes, ed. M. Piérart. Paris (1993) 279–302 at 295. Knoepfler, D., Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté [Eretria, 11]. Lausanne (2001) 371–89. Papazarkadas, N., ‘The decree of Aigeis and Aiantis (Agora I 6793) revisited’ in ΑΤΤΙΚΑ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΙΚΑ: Studies in Honour of Christian Habicht, eds. A.A. Themos and N. Papazarkadas. Athens (2009) 165–81. Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford (2011) 102–6. Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000) 199–215.

D239 Decree(s) of unknown content Proposer: Stephanos Antidoridou Eroiades (PA 12887; PAA 833430) Date: 360s or earlier

Literary Context

In the context of his bitter attack on the personal and public life of his enemy Stephanos (on their rivalry, see Trevett, Apollodoros, 147–50), Apollodoros claims that his early political career was undistinguished, and that, in addition to his sycophancy Stephanos put his name at the top of others’ proposals in return for money. Presumably this would both undermine his reputation as well as forestalling any claims that Stephanos might make about his political contribution on the basis of decrees.

817

818

inventory a2

Text:

T1 [Dem.] 59.43: Οὔδε γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς πολιτείας προσῄει Στεφάνῳ τουτῳὶ ἄξιον λόγου· οὐ γάρ πω ἦν ῥήτωρ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι συκοφάντης τῶν παραβοώντων παρὰ τὸ βῆμα καὶ γραφομένων μισθοῦ καὶ φαινόντων καὶ ἐπιγραφομένων ταῖς ἀλλοτρίαις γνώμαις, ἕως ὑπέπεσε Καλλιστράτῳ τῷ Ἀφιδναίῳ.

Commentary

Stephanos, the great rival of Apollodoros, brought a graphe paranomon against his enemy in 349/8 (Dem. 59.6), was known to have proposed an alliance with the Mytileneans in 347/6 (IG II3 1 299 line 5), and it may well be the same Stephanos who in that year served as an ambassador on the third embassy to Philip (Aeschin. 2.130). He has been associated with not only Kallistratos (T1), but also the more prominent politician Euboulos (Dem. 59.48), but even he had turned against him by the end of the 340s: Trevett, Apollodoros, 149. The association with Kallistratos of Aphidna (T1) is interesting: Kallistratos (on whom, see Sealey, ‘Kallistratos’) is associated with proposing a response to Mytilenean ambassadors in 369/8 BC in the form of an honorific decree (IG II2 107 = RO 31 line 36); it may be more than a coincidence and an indication of his political interests that the epigraphically extant decree of Stephanos makes an alliance with Mytilene (IG II3 1 299). The claim that politicians employed others to ‘ghost-propose’ decrees in their name is known from another instance (see D223 for Nausikles, who, according to one interpretation, proposed on behalf of Demosthenes, but note the alternative explanation of Harris outlined in that commentary). Elsewhere, Aeschines (3.125) claims that Demosthenes prevailed upon inexperienced councillors to get them to propose measures on his behalf; conversely, as Lambert suggests, ordinary Athenians may have made use of ‘the opportunity of their turn on the Council to associate themselves with a “big man”’ (Lambert, ‘The inscribed’ 6). Hansen collects references to the practice of politicians persuading or paying others to propose decrees on behalf of others: Athenian Ecclesia II, p. 97 note 12, pointing to Dem. 20.132; 23.146–7, 201; 24.66, 201–3; 25.40–1; [Dem.] 59.43 = D239; Aeschin 3.159, 252 (to which we can add Athenaios 532c, on Chares’ use of funds): the slander appears to be a fairly common one.

Date

Apollodoros alleges that Stephanos made these proposals early on in his political career. Demosthenes claims that he had his name attached to decrees before he became a follower of Kallistratos; Kallistratos was condemned and exiled in

d240 decree concerning piety

819

T1 For there was nothing much worthy of account in Stephanos’ political career. He wasn’t yet an orator, just one of those sycophants who stands around the speaker’s platform shouting, and takes money in return for indictments and for writing his name on the top of others’ decrees, until he became a follower of Kallistratos of Aphidna.

361 and was executed when he later went into exile (Lycurg. 1.93); the alleged decrees must, then, be dated to the 360s or earlier.

Bibliography

Lambert, S.D., ‘The inscribed version of the decree honouring Lycurgus (IG II2 457 and 3207)’, AIO Papers no. 6 (2015). Sealey, R., ‘Kallistratos of Aphidna and his contemporaries’, Historia 5 (1956) 178–203. Trevett, J., Apollodoros, the Son of Pasion. Oxford (1992) 147–50.

D240 Decree concerning piety Proposer: Lycurgus(?) (PA 925 + 9247; PAA 611335; APF) Date: Before 331

Literary Context

Lycurgus, in his case against Leokrates, reads a decree on piety, which he maintains is important for the Athenians as they were on the point of giving their verdict: he emphasises that the decree will allow him to make his point with brevity.

820

inventory a2

Text

T1 Lycurg. 1.146: Βούλομαι δ’ ἔτι βραχέα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰπὼν καταβῆναι, καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦ δήμου παρασχόμενος, ὃ περὶ εὐσεβείας ἐποιήσατο· χρήσιμον γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐστι τοῖς μέλλουσι τὴν ψῆφον φέρειν. καί μοι λέγε {τὸ} αὐτό. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ. Ἐγὼ τοίνυν {ὑμῖν} μηνύω τὸν ἀφανίζοντα ταῦτα πάντα πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς κυρίους ὄντας κολάσαι, ὑμέτερον δ’ ἐστὶ καὶ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν θεῶν τιμωρήσασθαι Λεωκράτην.

Commentary

Knowledge about the content of the decree is impossible, but, given the context of the citation, it is plausible to think that it outlined punishment for those who had committed impious acts or some other way of encouraging eusebeia; on piety in Lycurgus’ speech and its prominence at the time, see Mari, ‘Macedonians’. It is possible that the proposer was Lycurgus himself, but this is not provable, for Lycurgus attributes it solely to the people. For the other decrees that he proposed in the assembly, see Volume 2, Appendix 1; of particular relevance to his religious interests is his proposal on a priestess (see D241 below); he proposed in the council a decree concerning sacrifice in 329/8: IG II2 1672 line 302; on his religious interests more generally, see Parker, Athenian Religion, 242–53.

Date

Before 331 (Lycurg. 1: for the view that the speech was given in 331, see Harris, ‘Lycurgus’, 159).

Bibliography

Harris, E.M., ‘Lycurgus’ in Worthington, I, Cooper, C. and Harris, E., Dinarchus, Hyperides and Lycurgus. Austin (2001) 155–215 at 159. Mari, M., ‘Macedonians and pro-Macedonians in early Hellenistic Athens: reflections on ἀσέβεια’ in The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C.: Proceedings of an International Conference: Athens, May 24­–26 2001, eds. O. Palagia and S. Tracy. Oxford (2003) 82–92. Parker, R.C.T., Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford (1996) 242–53.

d241 decree on the behaviour of priestesses

821

T1 I wish, as I step down, to speak with brevity and wish to introduce a decree of the people which it made about piety. For it is useful for you who are on the point of casting your ballot. So read it for me. DECREE. And while I make a denunciation, in front of you, of a man who is destroying all such things, it is up to you, who are in a position to check him, to exact punishment upon him both on your own behalf and that of the gods.

D241 Decree on the behaviour of priestesses Proposer: Lycurgus(?) (PA 925 + 9247; PAA 611335; APF) Date: 330s–320s

Literary Context

The passage of Lycurgus, cited by the Suda, under συσσημαίνεσθαι (‘to add a seal’: sigma 1675 Adler), is connected with Lycurgus’ speech On the Priestess. This speech appears to have been related to a charge about the behaviour of a priestess, perhaps related to the euthuna of an office-holder or the investigation of a financial misdemeanour (cf. Aeschin. 3.18; Harris, ‘Lycurgus’, 209 note 18).

822

inventory a2

Text

T1 Lycurg. F31 Conomis (apud Suda, s. v. ‘συσσημαίνεσθαι’): … προστεταγμένον ὑπὸ ψηφίσματος καὶ τὴν ἱέρειαν συσσημαίνεσθαι τὰ γραμματεῖα.

Commentary

According to the Suda (T1), a passage in Lycurgus’ speech On the Priestess says that there was a decree which said that the priestess must add her seal to the registers. As Harris (‘Lycurgus’, 210 note 20) notes, religious officials kept accounts of funds, but in a fifth-century decree (IG I3 52 lines 12–18) also the treasurers appointed by lot joined in affixing the seal to the treasures of Athena. This decree (T1), as well as reflecting Lycurgus’ religious interests (on which see D240 above) reflects also his interests in accountability (cf. Lycurg. 1.66; F6 Conomis). For the powers of the demos over religious office-holders in classical Athens, see Garland ‘Religious authority’, 78–80, highlighting that authority over religious activity was shared out between a number of corporate groups. Connolly, Portrait, 217 emphasises the authority of the priestess suggested by this passage: ‘if priestesses had seals and were officially sanctioned to countersign documents, they must have been invested with at least some level of authority within the bureaucracy of the polis.’ For the other decrees of Lycurgus, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

Unknown; one guess, given that the decree was cited by Lycurgus in a speech made during his period of political activity, is that it was enacted at some point between the early 330s and c. 323.

Bibliography

Connelly, J., Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton (2007). Garland, R., ‘Religious authority in archaic and classical Athens’, ABSA 79 (1984) 75–123. Harris, E.M., ‘Lycurgus’ in Worthington, I, Cooper, C. and Harris, E., Dinarchus, Hyperides and Lycurgus. Austin (2001) 155–218 at 209–10.

d242 proposal of unknown content

823

T1 … it is set out in a decree also that the priestess must add her seal to the registers.

D242 Proposal of unknown content

Proposer: Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus (PA 3597; PAA 318625; APF, pp. 113–15) Date: 353/2–322/3

Literary Context

In his list of speeches attributed to Dinarchus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions a speech made against Demosthenes prosecuting him for having made an illegal proposal.

824

inventory a2

Text

T1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Dinarchus 11 p. 317 2 (= Dinarchus F XLVII Conomis): Κατὰ Δημοσθήνους παρανόμων (title of speech) …

Commentary

The content of the original decree, against which the indictment was made, is not stated. Dionysius suggests that the speech is very different indeed from most speeches of Dinarchus, but does not comment on the report in the catalogue at Pergamon which attributes it to Kallikrates. For other decrees of Demosthenes, see Volume 2, Appendix 1.

Date

Unknown, but during the political career of Demosthenes, that is between c. 352/1 and 323/3.

Bibliography

Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974) no. 37.

d243 citizenship for harpalos

825

T1 Against Demosthenes for illegal measures …

D243 Citizenship for Harpalos (presumably by decree) Proposer: Unknown Date: 330s–320s

Literary Context

Athenaios (T1) quotes the author (‘Python of Katana or King Alexander himself ’) of a miniature satyr play entitled Agen in which it is said that Harpalos sent grain to Athens and became a citizen (‘πολίτην γεγονέναι’). The passage is quoted again at 596a–b.

inventory a2

826

Text

T1 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai, 13.586d (= Snell TrGF 91 F1): Ὁ δὲ γράψας τὸν Ἀγῆνα τὸ σατυρικὸν δραμάτιον, εἴτε Πύθων ἐστὶν ὁ Καταναῖος ἢ αὐτὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀλέξανδρος, φησίν·

καὶ μὴν ἀκούω μυριάδας τὸν Ἅρπαλον αὐτοῖσι τῶν Ἀγῆνος οὐκ ἐλάττονας σίτου παραπέμψαι καὶ πολίτην γεγονέναι.

Commentary

It is quite plausible to believe that Harpalos, Alexander’s treasurer, was made a citizen in recognition of the gifts of grain he made to the Athenians. It seems likely that this happened when he was at the height of his power in the Macedonian court, while he was royal treasurer in the period between 330 and 324. Osborne (Naturalization T82 Commentary) notes that in 324, his appearance on the roll of Athenian citizens must have ‘proved something of an embarrassment to the Athenians when Harpalos arrived before the city hotly pursued by agents of Alexander (and others) seeking his extradition’; see also DD 193, 194, 195 above.

Date

Early 320s, during the years of grain-shortage in Athens (cf. Harding, From the End, 116).

Bibliography

Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. Munich (1926) 2.75–80 no. 143. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985) 116. Snell, B., Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF), vol.1. Göttingen (1986).

d244 honours for kallisthenes

827

T1  The author of the satyr-play Agen, whether it be Python of Katana or King Alexander himself, writes: ‘Indeed, I hear that Harpalos sent them tens of thousands of measures of grain – at least as much as Agen did – and became a citizen.’

D244 Honours for Kallisthenes Proposer: Unknown Date: 340s–324

Literary Context

T1 is preserved in the work of the Lexicon of the Ten Orators of Harpokration. It apparently derives from Lycurgus’ speech On the Administration (= Conomis F19). It is likely that Lycurgus defended his financial record over the course of that speech; as Harris, ‘Lycurgus’, 208 suggests, it may have been given at the point when he rendered his accounts for one of his terms as financial administrator (a post which he held in the 330s and 320s: Hyp. F 118 Jensen). T1, then, may derive from an account of the efficiency of Lycurgus’ financial management of the city (perhaps in a corresponding claim about the large sum of money associated with the honours for Kallisthenes).

828

inventory a2

Text

T1 Harpokration, s. v. ‘στεφανῶν τοὺς νενικηκότας’: … Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς διοικήσεώς φησιν· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Καλλισθένην ἑκατὸν μναῖς ἐστεφανώσατε.

Commentary

The claim that the crown bestowed on Kallisthenes was worth 100 mnai (= 10,000 drachmai) should not be taken literally: the value of a crown ranged in price usually between 300 and 1000 drachmai each: see Henry, Honours and Privileges, 24­–5, though some extravagantly expensive crowns are attested in the Hellenistic period (for crowns worth 200 Talents for Antigonos and Demetrios, see D.S. 20.46.2). The crowns awarded in IG II3 1 306 of 343/2 BC were valued at 500 and 100 drachmai, respectively (lines 7 and 13). It is unlikely that the text is corrupt, since Lycurgus’ point loses its rhetorical value if the amount claimed is not hyperbolic. Perhaps Lycurgus’ claim relates to expenditure on activities (such as expeditions or public works: cf. D135 above) put forward on the initiative of Kallisthenes as a consequence of which he was judged by the people as worthy of honours. But the passage might also be seen in the context of the oratorical criticism of Athenian expenditure on crowns of gold (cf. Aeschin. 3.187; Lycurgus fr. 58 Conomis). This Kallisthenes may possibly be identified with the proposer of decrees concerning a treaty with the kings of Thrace, Paionia and Illyria (IG II2 127 line 7) and perhaps also the proposer of a decree forbidding persons from remaining outside the city of 346 (D135): see (PA 8090; PAA 559815). He was probably also one of the anti-Macedonian politicians demanded by Alexander in 335 (Plu. Alex. 23.3). Alternatively, the honorand may have been a foreigner, perhaps even the court historian of Alexander (for his life and associated testimonia, see BNJ 124), who is said to have delivered the Greeks from great shame by persuading Alexander not to insist on prostration (proskynesis: Plu. Alex. 54). The account of Arrian (Anabasis, 4.10.3–4) in which Kallisthenes praises the Athenians for respecting and harbouring tyrannicides makes this identification appear plausible; elsewhere he is said to have been a flatterer of Alexander (Polyb. 12.12b); indeed, O’Sullivan thinks that he introduced the term ‘undefeated’ (theos aniketos: D197 T2) for Alexander: O’Sullivan, ‘Callisthenes’. The same Kallisthenes was honoured with a crown, together with Aristotle, by the Delphians for his work on the chronology of the Pythian games (SIG3 275; cf Chaniotis, Historie, 293–6) and his fame is demonstrated also by the existence of a statue of him at Rome (Pliny, NH 36.36). Absolute certainty is impossible, but if we take literally

d245 honours for lycurgus

829

T1 Crowning the victors: … Lycurgus in his On the Administration said: ‘But in fact you crowned Kallisthenes with a crown worth 100 mnai.’

Lycurgus’ claims about the cost of the award, the hypothesis that he was a high-profile non-Athenian would appear persuasive.

Date

340s–324.

Bibliography

Chaniotis, A., Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Stuttgart (1988) 293–6. Harris, E.M., ‘Lycurgus’ in Worthington, I, Cooper, C. and Harris, E., Dinarchus, Hyperides and Lycurgus. Austin (2001) 155–218 at 208. Henry, A.S., Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim, New York and Zurich (1983). O’Sullivan, S., ‘Callisthenes and Alexander the Invincible God’ in P. Wheatley and E. Baynham (eds.), East and West in the World Empire of Alexander. Oxford (2015) 35–52.

D245 Honours for Lycurgus Proposer: Unknown Date: 330s–324

Literary Context

Claims about the honours received by Lycurgus are made in T1 as part of the text’s description of Lycurgus’ life and accomplishments.

830

inventory a2

Text

T1  [Plu.] X Or. 843c: Ἐστεφανώθη δ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου πολλάκις καὶ εἰκόνων ἔτυχεν· ἀνάκειται δ’ αὐτοῦ χαλκῆ εἰκὼν ἐν Κεραμεικῷ κατὰ ψήφισμα ἐπ’ Ἀναξικράτους ἄρχοντος· ἐφ’ οὗ ἔλαβε καὶ σίτησιν ἐν πρυτανείῳ αὐτός τε [καὶ] ὁ Λυκοῦργος καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτατος αὐτοῦ τῶν ἐκγόνων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ψήφισμα· ἀποθανόντος δὲ Λυκούργου ὁ πρεσβύτατος τῶν παίδων Λυκόφρων ἠμφισβήτησε τῆς δωρεᾶς.

Commentary

Most of T1 refers to honours received by Lycurgus posthumously in 307/6. However, the claim that Lycurgus was ‘frequently crowned’ by the people suggests that he received awards over the course of his career. Certainty about the date, frequency, and form of such awards is impossible. It is, however, known that he was among those organisers of games for Amphiaraos who received crowns in 329/8 (IG II3 1 355 line 23). Statues of him were known in the Kerameikos ([Plu.] X Or. 852d) and close to the prytaneion (Paus. 1.8.2): see Roisman and Worthington, Lives, 206. For the view that the crowns incised on IG II2 3207 might be associated with decrees honouring Lycurgus during his own lifetime, perhaps after he had completed euthuna after the tenure of financial office, see Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws, 296–304. One of these crowns (crown 10) attests to a decree of the assembly proposed by Theomenes of Oe in honour of Lycurgus. Lambert (Inscribed Athenian Laws, 301) suggests that this decree was proposed in honour of Lycurgus’ financial performance.

Date

330s–324, during the peak of the honorand’s political career.

Bibliography

Lambert, S.D., Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays. Leiden and Boston (2018) 290–304 (first published as AIO Papers 6 (2015)). Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from Pseudo-Plutarch, Photius and the Suda. Cambridge (2015) 206.

d245 honours for lycurgus

831

T1 He was frequently crowned by the people and was granted also statues; in the Kerameikos there is a bronze statue of him set up by decree during the archonship of Anaxikrates (307/6). During that same year, according to the same decree, he and the eldest of his offspring were granted also upkeep at the prytaneion. When Lycurgus died, Lykophron, his eldest son, attempted to claim this award.

Inventory B Checklist: Probable Decrees and Proposals of the Athenian Assembly attested in Literary Sources DP1

Praise and public burial for those who died fighting for democracy; date: 403/2; Lys. 2.66. DP2 Expedition to Eleusis; date: 401/400; Xen. Hell. 2.4.43. DP3 Citizenship for Diokles; date: ca. 400; Suda, s. v. ‘Διοκλῆς’ (delta 1155). DP4 Athenians send cavalrymen to assist Thibron in Asia; date: 399; Xen. Hell. 3.1. DP5 Athenians send a message to Milon; date: 397/6 or winter 395; Hell. Oxy. 6.1–3 (P. Oxy. 842). DP6 Reinforcements for Konon; ambassadors to the Great King; date: c. 395; Hell. Oxy. 7.1. DP7 An embassy to Dionysius of Syracuse; date: 393; Schol. in Arist. Rhet. 106 (line 32–107 line 1) (on Rhet. 1384b16). DP8 Athenians send out ambassadors to Antalkidas; date: 393/2; Xen Hell. 4.8.13. DPP9,10 The demos forbids Iphikrates from launching an assault on Corinth; Chabrias sent out as a replacement; date: 390/89 or 393/2; D.S. 14.92.2. DP11 Athenians send ambassadors to the Lakedaimonians; date: 392/1; Hypothesis to Andocides speech 3, On the Peace (FGrH 328 F149b). DP12 Athenians send out Thrasyboulos with 40 ships; date: spring 390 or winter 391: D.S. 14.94.2; Xen. Hell. 4.8.25. DP13 Athenians send out Agyrrhios; date: 389; Xen. Hell. 4.8.31. DP14 Athenians send out Iphikrates; date: 389; Xen. Hell. 4.8.34. DP15 Athenians send out a force to Aegina; date: c. 389; Xen. Hell. 5.1.2. DP16 Athenians send out reinforcements to Aegina; date: c. 389 or later; Xen. Hell. 5.1.5. DP17 Athenians send out reinforcements to Chabrias at Cyprus; date: c. 389; Xen. Hell. 5.1.10. DP18 The King’s Peace; date: 386; Xen. Hell. 5.1.31.

832

inventory b checklist DP19 DP20 DP21 DP22 DP23 DP24 DP25 DP26 DP27 DP28 DP29

DP30 DP31 DP32 DP33 DP34. DP35 DP36 DP37 DP38 DP39 DP40

833

Recall of Chabrias; dispatch of Iphikrates; date: 380/79; D.S. 15.29.4; Cornelius Nepos, 3.1. Athenians send ambassadors out to the cities; date: 378/7; D.S. 15.28.2. Foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy; date: 378/7; D.S. 15.28.3–4. Gating the Piraeus, fitting out ships, helping the Boiotians; date: 378/7; Xen. Hell. 5.4.34. Dispatch of a force to Euboia; date: 378/7; D.S. 15.30.2. Athenian assistance to the Thebans; date: 378/7; D.S. 15.32.2. A convoy for grain-transit; date: 377/6; D.S. 15.34.3. Athens sends a force of ships to the Peloponnese; date: 375; Xen. Hell. 5.4.63. Alliances; date: 375; Nepos, Timotheus 2.1. Dispatch of ambassadors; Peace of 375/4; date: 375/4, probably Hekatombaion 16th; Xen. Hell. 6.2.1. Athenians publicly consecrate an altar to Peace; date: 375; Didymos, On Demosthenes, col. 7.66-71 (= FGrH 328 F188); Nepos, Timotheus 2.2–3. Dispatch of Ktesikles; date: 374/3; Xen. Hell. 6.2.10; D.S. 15.46.3, 47.3–4. Alliances with Jason of Pherai and Alketas of the Molossi; date: 373/2 or before. Instructions to Iphikrates; date: 374/3; D.S. 16.57.2–3. Athenian orders to Iphikrates; date: 371; Xen. Hell. 6.4.1. Eisphora levy and expedition to help the Lakedaimonians after Leuktra; date: 369/8 or later; Dem. 16.12. Iphikrates’ expedition to Macedonia; date: autumn 368; Aeschin. 2.27. Timotheos sent to Amphipolis and the Chersonese; date: 368–362, perhaps spring 366; Dem. 23.149. Athenians send Timagoras and Leon to see the Great King; date: mid-summer 367; Xen. Hell. 7.1.33. Athenian expedition to Oropos; date: 366; Xen. Hell. 7.4.1. Peace of 366/5; date: 366/5; D.S. 15.76.2–3. Athenian alliance with Perdiccas; date: summer 365; Scholiast on Dem. 2.14 (Dilts 98b).

834

DP41 DP42

inventory b checklist

Athenian expedition against the Thebans; date: 364/3; D.S. 15.79.1. Levy of eisphora and dispatch of troops to Arcadia; date 364/3; Xen. Poroi 3.7. DP43 Athenians sent to Mantineia; date: 363/2; D.S. 15.84.2. DP44 Apollodoros is ordered to take Memnon to replace Autokles; date: June 361; Dem. 50.12. DP45 Athenians come to the assistance of the Peparethians and leave Leosthenes in command of a mission; date 361/0; D.S. 15.95.2. DP46 Chares is sent out as a replacement for Leosthenes; date 361/0; D.S. 15.95.3. DP47 Athens sends cleruchs to Samos; date: 361/0; Scholion on Aeschin. 1.53 (Dilts 121). DP48 Athenians dispatch Mantias as general; date: 360/59; D.S. 16.2.6. DP49 Athens sends out Chares and Chabrias with an army to face the revolt of Chios, Rhodes, Cos and Byzantium; date: 358/7; D.S. 16.7.3. DP50 Relief expedition sent to Euboia and an expedition to the Chersonese with Chares as plenipotentiary; date: 357/6; Dem. 23.173. DP51 Athenians send out expeditions during the Social War; date: 356/5; D.S. 16.21.1. DP52 Cleruchy to the Chersonese; date: 353/2; D.S. 16.34.4. DP53 Expedition to Thermopylai; date: 353/2; D.H. Din. 13 p. 320 4–6 (= FGrH 328 F154). DP54 Cleruchs sent to Samos; date: 352/1: D.H. Din. 13 p. 319 11–13 (= FGrH 328 F154). DP55 Athenians send soldiers to Phayllos the Phokian; date: 352/1; D.S. 16.37.3. DP56 Dispatch of ships with Charidemos; date: Boedromion 351/0; Dem. 3.5. DP57 Citizenship for Aristodemos of Metaponton; date: c. 350; Scholion on Aeschines 2.15 (Dilts 35). DP58 Expedition to Euboia; date: Anthesterion 348; Aeschin. 3.85; Plu. Phoc. 12.1. DP59 Dispatch of ambassadors, including Aristodemos; date: 348/7; Aeschin. 2.15. DP59 bis Dispatch of ambassadors to Greek states; date: late 347 or early 346; Aeschin. 3.58. DP59 ter Decision to dispatch the second embassy to Philip; date: Elaphebolion 19th 346.

inventory b checklist DP60 DP61

DP62 DP63 DP64 DP65 DP66 DP67 DP68 DP69 DP70 DP71 DP72 DP73 DP74 DP75 DP76 DP77 DP78 DP79 DP80 DP81 DP82

835

Dispatch of the third embassy to Philip; date: Skirophorion 16th 346; Dem. 19.121. Response of the Athenians to the ambassadors of the Persians; date: 344/3 (midsummer 344); Didymos, On Demosthenes col. 8 lines 19–23 Harding (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F157; Androtion FGrH 324 F53). Hegesippos sent on embassy to Philip; date: 344/3; Dem. 19.331. Dispatch of settlers to the Chersonese; date 343/2; Hypothesis to Dem. 8, 1–5. Diopeithes makes war upon the Kardians; date 343/2; Dem. 8.6, 9.15. Dispatch of ambassadors; date 343/2; Scholion on Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 181). Embassy to Persia; date: late 340s?; Dem 12 Letter 6. Dispatch of Chares to the Hellespont; date: c. 340; Plu. Phoc. 14.3–4. Peace between Athens and Philip; date: 340; D.S. 16.77.3. Proposal on mission to Delphi; date: 339; Aeschin. 3.130. Athenians dispatch a force to Thebes; date: late 339; Hypereides Against Diondas 1 Horváth; Aeschin. 3.140. Athenians set up an epigram commemorating those who died at Chaironeia; date: 338/7; Dem. 18.289. Call-up after Chaironeia; date: 338/7; Lycurg. 1.39. Hiring out of mercenaries; date: between 338/7 and 330; Aeschin. 3.146. Allocation of Oropos between the tribes; date: after 338/7 or 335; Hyp. Eux. 16. Euxenippos is ordered to carry out an incubation at the Amphiareion; date: 338/7 or 335. Hyp. Euxen. 14. Dispatch of envoys to Persia; date: 335; Arrian, An. 2.15.2. Athens awards isoteleia to Thebans; date: 335; Harpokration, s.v. ‘ἰσοτέλεις’. Athenian ships sent to assist Alexander; date: before 334/3; D.S. 17.22.5. Dispatch of envoys to Alexander; date: 334/3; Arrian, An. 1.29.5–6. Dispatch of Paralos to Alexander; date: 333 or 334; Hypereides Against Diondas 24 Horváth. Dispatch of ambassadors to Alexander; date: 331; Arrian, An. 3.6.2. Dispatch of ambassadors to Kleopatra, daughter of Philip II; date: 330/29; Aeschin. 3.242.

836

DP83 DP84 DP85 DP86 DP87 DP88 DP89 D90

inventory b checklist Citizenship for Amphis of Andros; date: later than 331; Suda, s.v. ‘Ἄμφις’ (alpha 1760). Citizenship for Aristion; date: before 330; Aeschin 3.162; Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀριστίων’ (= Diyllos BNJ 73 F2). Citizenship for Knosion; date: before 330; Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀριστίων’ (= Diyllos BNJ 73 F2). Secret and open instructions to Leosthenes; date: summer 323; Diodorus Siculus 18.9.2, 4. Dispatch of embassy to Arcadia; date: 323; [Plu.] X Or. 846c–d. Dispatch of force to Leosthenes; date: autumn 323; D.S. 18.11.3. Athenians are forced to accept Antipater’s peace-treaty; date: September 322; DS 18.18.3. Citizenship for Palaiphatos; date: c. 350–300; Suda, s.v. ‘Παλαίφατος’ (mu 77).

Inventory B1: Testimonia that can be Identified as Probable Decrees (DP) In this part of the inventory, I gather testimonia for decisions which may have been made on the basis of decrees of the Athenian assembly, but which do not amount to certain evidence for that process. These are counted as Attestation Types 3 and 4 (for the definition of which, see above, Introduction section 2). A significant proportion of the testimonia gathered here refer to military expeditions. As Hamel has demonstrated, the assembly controlled military decision-making: ‘the decision to undertake an expedition was rather made by the Athenians themselves, deliberating in full assembly, who likewise considered questions related to the leadership, troop strength, and funding of proposed campaigns.’1 However, it must also have been the case that military expeditions, or at least adjustments to military expeditions, could be organised on the basis of a decree of the council (e.g. DP 5).2 Indeed, as Hornblower suggests, it is not inconceivable that, at times of crisis, the generals may have been able to call out a force without involvement of the boule or assembly.3 Many of the developments attested in this part of the Inventory corpus contribute to the historical background of the commentaries in Inventories A1 and 2. In these cases, the literary sources are making no claims about these developments being set in motion by a decree of the assembly: accordingly, there is no need for comment on the literary context of the episodes. The role of the Commentary in these entries is purely to clarify the historical context of the incident.

1 Hamel, Athenian Generals, 5. 2 For decrees of the Athenian council, see Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 82–9, 271–5. 3 Hornblower, Commentary, 2.287 on Thuc. 4.90.1.

837

DP1 Praise and public burial for those who died fighting for democracy Text

T1 Lys. 2.66: Ἡ πόλις αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐπένθησε καὶ ἔθαψε δημοσίᾳ, καὶ ἔδωκεν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον τὰς αὐτὰς τιμὰς τοῖς ἀστοῖς.

Commentary

Lysias says that the city awarded the right of official mourning and burial to foreigners who died in Athens assisting the democracy, and that this was equivalent to what they granted to Athenians. It is unclear whether this was a regular kind of treatment for those who died in battle or specific to the context of 403 (Todd, Commentary, 266); if it were an exceptional reward, it may have been introduced by decree of the assembly.

DP2 Expedition to Eleusis Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 2.4.43: Ὑστέρῳ δὲ χρόνῳ ἀκούσαντες ξένους μισθοῦσθαι τοὺς Ἐλευσῖνι, στρατευσάμενοι πανδημεὶ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς τοὺς μὲν στρατηγοὺς αὐτῶν εἰς λόγους ἐλθόντας ἀπέκτειναν, τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις εἰσπέμψαντες τοὺς φίλους καὶ ἀναγκαίους ἔπεισαν συναλλαγῆναι. καὶ ὀμόσαντες ὅρκους ἦ μὴν μὴ μνησικακήσειν, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ὁμοῦ τε πολιτεύονται καὶ τοῖς ὅρκοις ἐμμένει ὁ δῆμος.

838

dp2 expedition to eleusis

839

T1 The polis mourned them and buried them publicly, and gave to them for all time the same honours as those who died in the city.

Date

403/2.

T1 At a later point, on hearing that those at Eleusis were raising mercenaries, they got an army together against them in full force, and killed their generals when they had willingly come to talks. They sent friends and relatives to the others to persuade them to attend the discussions. And because they swore oaths in which they pledged not to remember what had happened in the past, even today they live together and the people sticks to its oaths.

840

inventory b1

Commentary

This important development enabled the reconnection of Eleusis to the city of Athens, probably in summer 401. One might reasonably assume that the launching of an expedition to Eleusis would have required the initiative of the demos in the form of a decree. The episode is referred to also at Ath. Pol. 40.4, which says that the final reconciliation came about during the archonship of Xenainetos, that is 401/00 (cf. Rhodes, Commentary, 480). On the reduction of Eleusis, and its relation to the reconciliation (see D1 above), see Loening, Reconciliation, 59–67, taking the view that the suspension of Eleusinian autonomy was the consequence of a breach of the terms of peace by the oligarchs. Loening (Reconciliation, 26–7), however, opposes the view that this development constituted a separate agreement after the reconciliation with Eleusis. This passage suggests that there was a re-affirmation of the oaths sworn in 403: see D1 above.

DP3 Citizenship for Diokles Text

T1 Suda, s.v. ‘Διοκλῆς’ (delta 1155 Adler). Ἀθηναῖος ἢ Φλιάσιος, ἀρχαῖος κωμικός, σύγχρονος Σαννυρίωνι καὶ Φιλυλλίῳ.

Commentary

Osborne, Naturalization, PT 127, discusses the possibility that Diokles was a Phliasian who was granted Athenian citizenship.

dp3 citizenship for diokles

841

Date

401/400 (Ath. Pol. 40.4).

T1  Diokles. An Athenian or Phliasian, an ancient comedian, contemporary with Sannyrion and Philyllios.

Date

ca. 400 (Osborne, Naturalization, PT 127).

DP4 Athenians send cavalrymen to assist Thibron in Asia Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 3.1.4: ᾘτήσατο δ’ ὁ Θίβρων καὶ παρ’ Ἀθηναίων τριακοσίους ἱππέας, εἰπὼν ὅτι αὐτὸς μισθὸν παρέξει. οἱ δ’ ἔπεμψαν τῶν ἐπὶ τῶν τριάκοντα ἱππευσάντων, νομίζοντες κέρδος τῷ δήμῳ, εἰ ἀποδημοῖεν καὶ ἐναπόλοιντο.

Commentary

Xenophon describes the Spartan request for help in Asia and the Athenian response.

DP5 Athenians send a message to Milon Text

T1  Hell. Oxy. 6.1–3: Ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺ[ς αὐτοὺς χρόνο]υς ἐξέπλευσε τριήρης Ἀθήνηθεν [οὐ μετὰ τῆς τοῦ] δήμου γνώμης, ἦ̣[ν] δ̣ὲ Δημαίν[ετ]ος ὁ κύ̣[ρ]ιο̣ ς α̣ὐ̣τ̣ῆς κοινωσάμενο[ς ἐν] ἀπορήτῳ τ[ῇ β]ουλῇ, ὡς λέγεται, περὶ τοῦ πράγ[ματος] ἐπειδὴ [σ]υν[έσ]τησαν αὐτῷ τ[ῶν] πολιτῶν· σὺν̣ [οἷς] καταβὰς εἰς Πειραιᾶ καὶ καθ[ελκύσας] ναῦν ἐκ τ[ῶ]ν νεωσοίκων ἀναγόμεν[ος ἔπλει πρὸ]ς Κόν[ων]α. θορύβου δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα γε[νομένου,] καὶ τ[ῶν] Ἀθηναίων ἀγανακτούντω[ν ὅσοι γνώ]ριμ[οι κ]αὶ χαρίεντες ἦσαν καὶ λεγ[όντων ὅτι κατα]βα[λοῦ]σι τὴν πόλιν ἄρχοντες πολέ[μου πρὸς Λακ]εδαιμον[ί]ους, καταπλαγέντες οἱ β[ουλευταὶ τὸ]ν θόρυβον συνήγαγον τὸν δῆμον οὐδὲν προσ[π]οιούμενοι μετεσχηκέναι τοῦ πράγματος. συνεληλυθότος δὲ τοῦ πλήθους ἀνιστάμενοι τῶν Ἀθηναίων οἵ τε περὶ Θρασύβουλον καὶ Αἴσιμον καὶ Ἄνυτον ἐδίδασκον αὐτοὺς ὅτι μέγαν αιροῦνται κίνδυνον εἰ μὴ τὴν πόλιν ἀπολύσουσι τῆς αἰτίας. τῶν δὲ Ἀθηναίων οἱ μὲν ἐπεικεῖς καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἔχοντες ἔστεργον τὰ παρόντα, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ δημοτικοὶ τότε μὲν φοβηθέντες ἐπείσθησαν τοῖς συμβουλεύουσι, καὶ πέμψαντες πρὸς Μίλωνα τὸν ἁρμοστὴν 842

dp5 athenians send a message to milon

843

T1  Thibron also requested from the Athenians 300 cavalry, saying that he himself would provide money. They sent some of those who had served as cavalrymen under the Thirty, thinking it would be of benefit to the people if they went abroad and died.

Date 399.

T1 About the same time a trireme sailed out from Athens without the agreement of the people. In charge of it was Demainetos who had, it is said, made a secret agreement with the council concerning this affair, since some of the citizens supported him. With them he went down to Piraeus, launched a ship from the shipsheds and, putting to sea, went on his way to Konon. Thereupon there was a great outcry. Those of the Athenians who were well-born and cultivated were indignant, saying that they would destroy the city by beginning a war with the Spartans. The bouleutai were alarmed by the outcry and called the people together, making out that they had had no share in the affair. When the people were assembled, the party of the Athenians supporting Thrasyboulos, Aisimos, and Anytos got up and instructed them that they risked great danger unless they absolved the city from responsibility. Those of the Athenians who were moderates and men of property were happy with the existing situation; but the majority of the populace, although they were then in a state of fear and, persuaded by those who advised them, sent envoys to Milon, the harmost of Aegina, to tell him how he could punish Demainetos who had not acted with the city’s approval, had previously almost the whole time stirred up matters

844

inventory b1

τὸν Αἰγίνης εἶπο[ν] ὅπως δύ[ν]αται τιμωρεῖσθαι τὸν Δημαί[νε]τον, ὡς ο[ὐ με]τὰ τῆς πόλεως ταῦτα πεποιηκότα· [ἔμ]προσθ[εν δὲ σ]χεδὸν ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον ἐτάρ[ατ]τον τ[ὰ πράγ]ματα καὶ πολλὰ τ[ο]ῖς Λακεδαιμο[νίοι]ς ἀ[ντέπρα]ττον.

Commentary

Demainetos appears to have (presumably manned and) launched a ship, having obtained the agreement of the council without a decree of the people. Konon, at the time, was fighting on behalf of Pharnabazos in the area of the Hellespont against the Spartans (D.S. 14.79.6). Some citizens, according to the fragment, were alarmed that this might lead to the renewal of hostilities with the Spartans. The council called an emergency meeting of the assembly (perhaps by way of a decree of the council itself: see Hansen, Athenian Assembly, 145 note 162); the people were persuaded to make a dispatch to Milon, the harmost of Aegina, and told him to punish Demainetos for sailing without the city’s approval. Rhodes takes the view (Athenian Boule, 40–2) that the council was able to meet in secret when it decided to do so, though it is surely the case that Demainetos could not have expected that his mission would have remained secret for very long: the idea may well have been to secretly reinforce Konon’s fleet. On the problems with envisaging a secret dispatch, see D79 above, though Hornblower, Commentary 3.27–8 suggests that it is a possibility. The fragment offers an interesting reflection of the Oxyrhynchus Historian’s view of the significance of assembly activity: the councillors react to an uproar among the people, call an assembly, and a number of Athenians emphasise the danger of the situation; while some citizens were happy with the situation others were persuaded by the rhetoric of popular leaders, and arrange for the punishment of Demainetos. Strauss (Athens after, 109) criticises the crudeness of the political analysis of the fragment, but at the same time, as Polly Low points out to me, the author’s distinction between different parties is a good deal more nuanced than Xenophon’s claim that the Athenians voted unanimously to send aid to the Thebans in 395 (Xen. Hell. 3.5.10 = D20 T2). As things turned out, Athenian sensitivity about upsetting the Spartans did not last for long: the Athenians allied with Boiotia and went to war with the Spartans in 395 (Strauss, Athens after, 110; see D20). As for Milon, he obeyed his orders and pursued Demainetos, but achieved nothing (Hell. Oxy. 8.1–2).

dp5 athenians send a message to milon

845

and acted much in opposition to the Spartans. (tr. McKechnie and Kern, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, adapted)

Date

397/6 or winter 395. Bruce, Historical Commentary, 66–72 suggests spring 396; Seager, ‘Thrasybulus’, 95 note 2 suggests a date of winter 395 for the debate, followed by Strauss, Athens after, 119 note 73.

DP6 Reinforcements for Konon; ambassadors to the Great King Text

T1 Hell. Oxy. 7.1: Ἀπέπεμπ[ο]ν μὲν γὰρ ὅπλ[α τε καὶ ὑπη]ρεσίας ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς μετὰ τοῦ Κ[όνωνος, ἐπέμ]φθησαν δὲ πρέσβ[ει]ς ὡς βασιλέα π [.... οἱ περὶ ..].. κράτη τε καὶ Ἁγνίαν καὶ Τελε[σήγ]ορον.

Commentary

The Oxyrhynchus Historian describes Athenian support  – in the form of ambassadors and military support  – for Konon’s expeditions when he was working with the Persians. On the envoys, see Develin, AO 206.

DP7 An embassy to Dionysius of Syracuse Text

T1 Scholion on Arist. Rhet. p. 106 line 32–p. 107 line 1 Rabe (on Rhet. 1384b16): Εὐριπίδης πρὸς τοὺς Συρακουσίους πρέσβυς ἀποσταλεὶς καὶ περὶ εἰρήνης καὶ φιλίας δεόμενος, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἀνένευον, εἶπεν ‘ἔδει, ἄνδρες Συρρακούσιοι, εἰ καὶ διὰ μηδὲν ἄλλο, ἀλλά γε διὰ τὸ ἄρτι ὑμῶν δέεσθαι αἰσχύνεσθαι ἡμᾶς ὡς θαυμάζοντας’.

Commentary

A scholiast’s note offers an expansion on the context of Aristotle’s reference to Euripides’ reply to the Syracusans. An embassy to Dionysius is mentioned in the context of the late 390s by Lysias (19.19–20), who connects it with the policy of Konon. He adds other details: that Aristophanes volunteered and went with Eunomos, a friend of Dionysius, and that the mission aimed to persuade Dionysius to make a marriage alliance with Evagoras, to become hostile to the Lakedaimonians, and to become friends with and allies of the Athenians. Rhodes and Osborne (RO p. 50) suggest the embassy should be placed slightly later than the honorific decree for Dionysius of 394/3 (RO 10 line 1). 846

dp7 an embassy to dionysius of syracuse

847

T1 For the Athenians were sending both weapons and crews to the ships with Konon, and they sent ambassadors to the king with …-krates, Hagnias and Telesegoros.

Date

c. 395.

T1 Euripides, on being sent as ambassador to the Syracusans, requesting peace and friendship, as they denied it, said, ‘Syracusans, even if we are seeking your friendship for no reason other than necessity, you should acknowledge our show of respect.’

Date 393.

DP8 Athenians send out ambassadors to Antalkidas Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 4.8.13: Αἰσθόμενοι δὲ ταῦτα οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀντιπέμπουσι πρέσβεις μετὰ Κόνωνος Ἑρμογένη καὶ Δίωνα καὶ Καλλισθένη καὶ Καλλιμέδοντα. συμπαρεκάλεσαν δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν συμμάχων πρέσβεις.

Commentary

Xenophon describes the Athenian response to the news that the Spartans had sent Antalkidas to Tiribazos at Sardis as a way of reconciling Sparta with the Great King: they too sent an embassy to him. This is the background to the peace conference of spring 392, on which see Ryder, Koine Eirene, 27–31 and Jehne, Koine Eirene, 32–3. It seems to be the case that these ambassadors were distinct from those sent to Sparta in 392/1: see DP 11 below. For the list of ambassadors and discussion of the date on which they were sent, see Develin, AO 211–12.

DPP 9, 10 The demos forbids Iphikrates from launching an assault on Corinth; Chabrias sent out as a replacement Text

T1  D. S. 14.92.2: Ἐπεβάλετο δὲ καὶ Ἰφικράτης ὁ Ἀθηναῖος καταλαβέσθαι τὴν πόλιν, ἐπιτήδειον οὖσαν εἰς τὴν τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἡγενονίαν· τοῦ δὲ δήμου κωλύσαντος οὗτος μὲ ἀπέθετο τὴν ἀρχήν, οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι Χαβρίαν ἀντ’αὐτοῦ στρατηγὸν εἰς τὴν Κόρινθον ἐξέπεμψαν.

848

dpp 9, 10 the demos against iphikrates

849

T1 The Athenians, hearing these things, sent in response ambassadors with Konon, consisting of Hermogenes, Dion, Kallisthenes, and Kallimedon. They also called for ambassadors from their allies.

Date: 393/2.

T1 Iphikrates the Athenian aimed to take the city (sc. Corinth) on the grounds that it was useful for the control of Greece, but the people forbade him and he resigned his office; the Athenians sent the general Chabrias instead of him to Corinth.

inventory b1

850

Commentary

While on expedition in Corinth, Iphikrates aimed to take that city, but was forbidden by the people; when he left office the Athenians sent out Chabrias in his place. For Iphikrates’ next mission, see DP 14 below (= Xen. Hell. 4.8.34); for the reinforcements sent to Chabrias, see DP 16 below (= Xen. Hell. 5.1.10). Hamel, Athenian Generals, 116 note 3 uses this as an example of the assembly issuing instructions to generals on the field in the midst of a campaign.

DP11 Athenians send ambassadors to the Lakedaimonians Text

T1  Hypothesis to Andocides speech 3, On the Peace (= FGrH 328 F149b): … τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ μηκυνομένου πολέμου .... Ἀθηναῖοι πρέσβεις ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους αὐτοκράτορας, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀνδοκίδης.

Commentary

Andocides De Pace puts the number of ambassadors as ten, and says that they were sent ‘with full powers’ (33, 34, 39). The view of Harris, ‘A subversive’, 487– 95 should be noted: Harris casts doubt on the authenticity of the speech, and, accordingly, the testimonia that it provides for actions of the Athenian assembly; Rhodes (‘Heraclides’) is not convinced of the speech’s inauthenticity. For a list of the ambassadors and further references, see Develin, AO, 212. For the decrees relating to the discussion of peace, see DD 25, 26. As Develin notes, the willingness of the envoys to accept peace led them to be sent into exile: on their punishment, see D27.

dp11 athenians send out ambassadors

851

Date

Develin (AO, 211, 214) places this in 390/89, though Diodorus has it under 393/2.

T1 ... since the Hellenic war was dragging on … the Athenians sent ambassadors with full powers to the Lakedaimonians, one of whom was Andocides.

Date 392/1.

DP12 Athenians send out Thrasyboulos with 40 ships Texts

T1 D. S. 14.94.2: Κατὰ δὲ τούτους τοὺς χρόνους Ἀθηναῖοι στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενοι Θρασύβουλον ἐξέπεμψαν μετὰ τριήρων τετταράκοντα. T2  Xen. Hell. 4.8.25: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι νομίσαντες τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους πάλιν δύναμιν κατασκευάζεσθαι ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ, ἀντεκπέμπουσι Θρασύβουλον τὸν Στειριέα σὺν τετταράκοντα ναυσίν.

Commentary

It is just possible, as Hamel suggests, that this expedition was sent out on the initiative of Thrasyboulos himself (Lysias 28.4 with Hamel, Athenian Generals, 38 note 17). As things turned out, Thrasyboulos appears to have been distracted, and sailed instead to Byzantion (Xen. Hell. 4.8.25–8), but died at Aspendos on his way back to Rhodes (Xen. Hell. 4.8.30). As Underhill, Xenophon, 161 notes, this was the first sizeable fleet to be sent out by the Athenians since the Peloponnesian war. Thrasyboulos expelled a Spartan garrison from Thasos and also made an alliance (DS 14.94.2) and reconciliation between Seuthes and Amadokos: see DD 29, 30. For a summary of Thrasyboulos’ campaign, see Buck, Thrasybulus, 115–18; Pritchett, Greek State, 2.50–1.

Text

DP13 Athenians send out Agyrrhios

T1 Xen. Hell. 4.8.31: Καὶ Θρασύβουλος μὲν δὴ μάλα δοκῶν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς εἶναι οὕτως ἐτελεύτησεν. οἱ μέντοι Ἀθηναῖοι ἑλόμενοι ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ Ἀγύρριον ἐπὶ τὰς ναῦς ἐξέπεμψαν.

852

dp13 athenians send out agyrrhios

853

T1 In this year [archonshop of Philokles, 392/1], the Athenians chose Thrasyboulos as general and sent him out with 40 triremes. T2 The Athenians, recognising that the Lakedaimonians were once again building up power by sea; in response they sent out Thrasyboulos from Steiria with forty ships.

Date

Spring 390 or Winter 391: the date of Thrasyboulos’ mission, however, is controversial: for a date of late 391, see Cawkwell, ‘Imperialism’, 274–5 and Buck, Thrasybulus, 115.

T1 And so died Thrasyboulos, who possessed the reputation of a good man. The Athenians, accordingly, chose instead of him Agyrrhios and sent him out to the ships.

inventory b1

854

Commentary

Xenophon describes the dispatch of Agyrrhios after the death of Thrasyboulos.

DP14 The Athenians send out Iphikrates Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 4.8.34: Αἰσθόμενοι δὲ ταῦτα οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ δεδιότες μὴ φθαρείη σφίσιν ἃ κατεσκεύασεν ἐν τῷ Ἑλλησπόντῳ Θρασύβουλος, ἀντεκπέμπουσιν Ἰφικράτην ναῦς ὀκτὼ ἔχοντα καὶ πελταστὰς εἰς διακοσίους καὶ χιλίους.

Commentary

Xenophon describes the dispatch of Iphikrates, who went first to the Chersonese, where he raided enemy territory and led an ambush against Anaxibios (Xen. Hell. 4.8.35–9).

dp14 the athenians send out iphikrates

855

Date

After the death of Thrasyboulos in Aspendos in 389.

T1 The Athenians, seeing this and fearing that the things achieved by Thrasyboulos in the Hellespont would be ruined, sent out Iphikrates in his stead with a force of eight ships and as many as 1200 peltasts.

Date

After the death of Thrasyboulos in Aspendos in 389.

DP15 Athenians send out a force to Aegina Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 5.1.2: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι πολιορκούμενοι ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, πέμψαντες εἰς Αἴγιναν καὶ ὁπλίτας καὶ στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν Πάμφιλον ἐπετείχισαν Αἰγινήταις καὶ ἐπολιόρκουν αὐτοὺς καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν δέκα τριήρεσιν.

Commentary

The Athenians sent out Pamphilos as a response to the Aeginetans’ launching raids on Attica. For further references to the dispatch, see Develin, AO, 216: Pamphilos was recalled and prosecuted for embezzlement.

DP16 Athenians send out reinforcements to Aegina Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 5.1.5: τούτων δὲ γενομένων οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι πάλιν αὖ πράγματα εἶχον ὑπό τε τῶν λῃστῶν καὶ τοῦ Γοργώπα· καὶ ἀντιπληροῦσι ναῦς τρισκαίδεκα, καὶ αἱροῦνται Εὔνομον ναύαρχον ἐπ᾽ αὐτάς.

Commentary

After the Athenians had withdrawn their hoplites from Aegina (D37), they were again harassed by Spartan forces and sent a new expedition against them.

856

dp16 athenians send out a force

857

T1 The Athenians, besieged by these things, sent to Aegina also hoplites and their general Pamphilos who built blockading walls around the Aeginetans and besieged them both by land and by sea with ten triremes.

Date

c. 389.

T1 At a later point the Athenians once again suffered at the hands both of pirates and Gorgopas; and so in response they sent out 13 ships, and they chose Eunomos as admiral of them.

Date

c. 389 or later.

DP17 Athenians send out reinforcements to Chabrias at Cyprus Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 5.1.10: Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Χαβρίας ἐξέπλει εἰς Κύπρον βοηθῶν Εὐαγόρᾳ, πελταστάς τ’ ἔχων ὀκτακοσίους καὶ δέκα τριήρεις, προσλαβὼν δὲ καὶ Ἀθήνηθεν ἄλλας τε ναῦς καὶ ὁπλίτας.

Commentary

For the original dispatch of forces to Cyprus, see D34 above. Cornelius Nepos, Chabrias, 2 says that Chabrias was the commander of this expedition and that his capture of the whole island won him great fame; Demosthenes 20.76 suggests that he set up many trophies at Cyprus.

DP18 The King’s Peace Text

See Commentary below.

Commentary

Xenophon (Hell. 5.1.31) gives a version of the Peace read by Tiribazos to the Greek envoys, and states that some swore to abide by the conditions and others referred the matter back to their governments (5.1.32). For further terms, see SVA 242, Badian, ‘The King’s Peace’; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 34–6; Jehne, Koine Eirene, 43–7. No source indicates directly that the Peace was approved by a decree of the Athenians: Diodorus states that the Athenians consented of necessity, despite being unhappy about the fate of the Greek cities of Asia, and accepted 858

dp18 the king’s peace

859

T1 After this, Chabrias was sailing out towards Cyprus for the purpose of giving aid to Evagoras, having with him 800 peltasts and ten triremes, and he had added to his force further ships and hoplites from Athens.

Date

c. 389.

the peace (‘κατ’ ἀνάγκην συνεχώρησαν καὶ προσεδέξαντο τὴν εἰρήνην’: D.S. 14.110.4). Demosthenes talked of blaming the Lakedaimonians for the nature of the peace (Dem. 23.140); elsewhere he compared the ‘later [peace] made by the Lakedaimonians’ unfavourably with the Peace of Kallias ‘made by our city’ (Dem. 15.29). Perhaps the strongest indication that the peace was made by a decree of the assembly is Isocrates’ reference to inscribed copies of the treaty being set up at temples (Isoc. Paneg. 176, 179, though he emphasises that the Athenians were forced to set them up). It may be the case that the Athenian

inventory b1

860

literary sources were hesitant about admitting responsibility for a peace which essentially handed over the Greeks of Asia to the King.

DP19 Recall of Chabrias; dispatch of Iphikrates Texts

T1  D. S. 15.29.4: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι, σπεύδοντες τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Περσῶν εἰς εὔνοιαν προσαγαγέσθαι καὶ τὸν Φαρνάβαζον ἰδιοποιήσασθαι, ταχέως τόν τε Χαβρίαν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεπέμψαντο καὶ τὸν Ἰφικράτην στρατηγὸν ἐξαπέστειλαν συμμαχήσοντα τοῖς Πέρσαις. T2 Cornelius Nepos, Chabrias 3.1: Athenienses diem certam Chabriae praestituerunt, quam ante domum nisi redisset, capitis se illum damnaturos denuntiarunt.

Commentary

According to Diodorus, in response to an embassy from Pharnabazos, the Athenians recalled Chabrias from mercenary service with Akoris of Egypt and sent out Iphikrates for fight for the satrap; Nepos (Iphikrates 2.4) reports that Artaxerxes asked the Athenians to dispatch specifically Iphikrates as a mercenary commander for his war against the Egyptians: this is indicative of Iphikrates’ good reputation among the Persians. Nepos (T2) goes further in saying that the Athenians threatened Chabrias with death if he did not leave Egypt within a fixed duration of time.

dp19 recall of chabrias; dispatch of iphikrates

861

Date 386.

T1 The Athenians, eager to win the favour of the King of the Persians and to bring Pharnabazos over to their side, quickly both brought Chabrias back from Egypt, and sent out Iphikrates as general, acting in accordance with the alliance with the Persians. T2 The Athenians appointed a fixed time for Chabrias to return home, declaring that if he did not obey, they would condemn him to death. (trans. Rolfe, Cornelius Nepos)

Date

380/79: Stylianou, Historical, 261.

DP20 Athenians send ambassadors out to the cities Text

T1  D.S. 15.28.2: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ πρέσβεις τοὺς ἀξιολογωτάτους τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἐξέπεμψαν ἐπὶ τὰς ὑπὸ [τοὺς] Λακεδαιμονίους τεταγμένας πόλεις, παρακαλοῦντες ἀντέχεσθαι τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερίας.

Commentary

According to Diodorus, the first to respond to the Athenian appeal (T1) were the Chians and Byzantines, who were followed by Rhodians, Mytileneans and other islanders: this appears to have been the first step in the foundation of the Athenian confederacy.

DP21 Foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy Text

T1 D. S. 15.28.3–4: Ὁ δὲ δῆμος μετεωρισθεὶς ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν συμμάχων εὐνοίᾳ κοινὸν συνέδριον ἁπάντων τῶν συμμάχων συνεστήσαντο, καὶ συνέδρους ἀπέδειξαν ἑκάστης πόλεως. ἐτάχθη δ’ ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς γνώμης τὸ μὲν συνέδριον ἐν ταῖς Ἀθήναις συνεδρεύειν, πόλιν δὲ ἐπ’ ἴσης καὶ μεγάλην καὶ μικρὰν μιᾶς ψήφου κυρίαν εἶναι, πάσας δ’ ὑπάρχειν αὐτονόμους, ἡγεμόσι χρωμένας Ἀθηναίοις.

Commentary

After receiving positive responses from the allies of the Lakedaimonians to whom they had appealed (DP 20), the Athenians went ahead and set up a common council (koinon synedrion) of allies. For the inscribed decree setting out a charter of the new Athenian confederacy, see RO 22, enacted in spring 378. The relationship of the inscription to Diodorus’ report is controversial. The inscribed decree, which outlines that 862

dp21 foundation of the second athenian confederacy 863

T1 The Athenians sent their most respected men as ambassadors to the cities under the Spartans, urging them to adhere to the general cause of liberty.

Date

378/7 (as RO p. 98); misplaced by Diodorus at 377/6. Rhodes and Osborne (RO p. 100, against Cawkwell, Cargill and others) think that Diodorus was wrong to place this appeal to the Greeks and the foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy before the raid of the Spartan Sphodrias on Piraeus.

T1 The people, uplifted by the goodwill of the cities, set up a common assembly and appointed representatives of each state. It was arranged by a common decision that, while the council should meet in Athens, each city, big and small, should have an equal status of authority and possess one vote; each was to remain autonomous, making use of the Athenians as leaders.

envoys were to be sent to Thebes (lines 73–4), offers further detail on the developments mentioned by Diodorus (both the sending out of embassies to Greek cities: D.S. 15.28.2 = DP 20; and the foundation of the confederacy: D.S. 15.28.3-4 = DP 21) before the declaration of war with Sparta (which he mistakenly places under the year 377/6). We cannot rule out the possibility that either or both accounts are garbled versions of (an) original enactment(s): Diodorus’ text may

inventory b1

864

well run together more than one decree, but it is also possible that the inscription’s toned down hostility, saying that the Spartans shall allow the Greeks to live in peace, may represent a sanitised version for public display, which softens the blow of the anti-Spartan implications of the alliance. See Stylianou, Commentary, 249–59. DS 15.29.8 (= D45 above) records what may be additions to the terms of the alliance, which may be reconciled with the terms set out in the inscription RO 22: see discussion at D45.

DP22 Gating the Piraeus, fitting out ships, helping the Boiotians Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 5.4.34: Τῶν μέντοι Ἀθηναίων οἱ βοιωτιάζοντες ἐδίδασκον τὸν δῆμον ὡς οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι οὐχ ὅπως τιμωρήσαιντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπαινέσειαν τὸν Σφοδρίαν, ὅτι ἐπεβούλευσε ταῖς Ἀθήναις. καὶ ἐκ τούτου οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπύλωσάν τε τὸν Πειραιᾶ, ναῦς τε ἐναυπηγοῦντο, τοῖς τε Βοιωτοῖς πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ ἐβοήθουν.

Commentary

In early 378, Sphodrias had attempted to occupy the Piraeus at night, but was prevented from doing so by the Athenians. His acquittal at Sparta led the Athenians to vote that the Spartans had broken the King’s Peace (D.S. 15.29.7 = D45 above). The decisions described in this passage were presumably contemporary with that decree.

dp22 gating the piraeus, fitting out ships

865

Date

378/7 (as RO p. 98); misplaced by Diodorus in 377/6. Rhodes and Osborne (RO p. 100) think that Diodorus was wrong to place the foundation of the league before the raid of the Spartan Sphodrias on Piraeus. It is probably right to see this decision as that which initiated the establishment of the new Athenian confederacy; for its further development, see D45.

T1 The pro-Boiotian party of the Athenians instructed the people that the Spartans had not only acquitted Sphodrias, but had gone so far as to honour him for plotting against Athens. And accordingly the Athenians both put gates round the Piraeus, fitted out ships, and did everything they could to help the Boiotians.

Date 378/7.

DP23 Dispatch of a force to Euboia Text

T1  D. S. 15.30.2: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτοῖς κατὰ νοῦν προχωρούντων, δύναμιν ἐξέπεμψαν εἰς τὴν Εὔβοιαν τὴν παραφυλάξουσαν μὲν τοὺς συμμάχους, καταπολεμήσουσαν δὲ τοὺς ἐναντίους.

Commentary

The dispatch of this force appears to have been a reaction to the upheavals going on in Euboia, which involved Neogenes making himself tyrant of Histiaia (Oreos) and Spartan intervention (15.30.2–4): the Athenian commander, Chabrias, laid waste the city of the Histiaians, which had been loyal to the Spartans, fortified it, and left a garrison, before embarking on further missions in the Cyclades (15.30.5). Stylianou, Historical Commentary, 278–9, takes the view that it was intended to defend Euboian cities which had signed up to the Confederacy.

DP24 Athenian assistance to the Thebans Text

T1  D.S. 15.32.2: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ πυθόμενοι τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων παρουσίαν εἰς τὴν Βοιωτίαν, εὐθὺς ἐβοήθουν εἰς τὰς Θήβας, ἔχοντες πεζοὺς μὲν πεντακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ διακοσίους.

Commentary

As Stylianou, Historical Commentary, 294, observes, this was the second occasion that the Athenians had intervened in Boiotia in a very short period of of time: they had done so some months earlier: see above, D44.

866

dp24 athenian assistance to the thebans

867

T1 The Athenians, seeing that things were going according to plan, sent a force to Euboia for the sake of protecting their allies and making war on their enemies.

Date 378/7.

T1 The Athenians, learning of the arrival of the Lakedaimonians into Boiotia, immediately came to the aid of Thebes, with a force of 5,000 infantry and 200 cavalry.

Date: 378/7.

DP25 A convoy for grain-transit Text

T1  D.S. 15.34.3: Πόλλις ὁ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ναύαρχος, πυθόμενος σίτου πλῆθος ἐν ὁλκάσι παρακομίζεσθαι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, ἐφήδρευε καὶ παρετήρει τὸν κατάπλουν τῆς κομιζομένης ἀγορᾶς, διανοούμενος ἐπιθέσθαι ταῖς ὁλκάσιν. ἃ δὴ πυθόμενος ὁ δῆμος τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἐξέπεμψε στόλον παραφυλάξοντα τὴν σιτοπομπίαν, καὶ διέπεμψεν εἰς τὸν Πειραιέα τὴν κομιζομένην ἀγοράν.

Commentary

This passage arises in Diodorus’ explanation of the naval conflict off Naxos of 376: after this episode, Chabrias brought the fleet to Naxos and besieged it; the Naxians were assisted by the Spartan Pollis. Xenophon (Hell. 5.4.61) mentions that the Athenians manned (ἐνέβησαν) ships under the command of Chabrias and won a victory against Pollis, with the result that grain could be imported.

DP26 Athens sends a force of ships to the Peloponnese Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 5.4.63: Καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι μέντοι ὀργιζόμενοι τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις διὰ τὸ Σφοδρία ἔργον, προθύμως ἐξέπεμψαν περὶ τὴν Πελοπόννησον ναῦς τε ἑξήκοντα πληρώσαντες καὶ στρατηγὸν αὐτῶν Τιμόθεον ἑλόμενοι.

Commentary

This was the force that would carry out Timotheos’ famous circumnavigation of the Peloponnese, which preceded his capture of Corcyra (Xen. Hell. 5.4.64). The expedition is mentioned also at D.S. 15.47.2; for discussion of the naval contingent, see Dreher, Hegemon, 12–18.

868

dp26 athens sends a force of ships

869

T1 Pollis the Lakadaimonian admiral, on finding out that a large shipment of grain was being carried to the Athenians in freight-ships, lay in wait watching for them as they arrived at the port, intending to launch an attack. The demos of the Athenians, realising this, sent out a fleet for the sake of protecting the conveyance of grain, which brought it in safely to the Piraeus.

Date 377/6.

T1 And the Athenians, as they were angry with the Lakedaimonians because of the act of Sphodrias, eagerly sent an expedition around the Peloponnese, manning 60 ships and chosing Timotheos as commander.

Date 375.

DP27 Alliances Text

T1  Nepos, Timotheus 2.1: Sociosque idem adiunxit Epirotas, Athamanas, Chaonas omnesque eas gentes, quae mare illud adiacent.

Commentary

Nepos reports that after his victory at Corcyra, Timotheos pillaged Lakonia and then brought a number of communities over to the Athenians. The status of these allegiances is unclear; Diodorus (15.47.3) does, however, mention that Timotheos, as he sailed back to Athens, brought with him envoys from states wanting to make alliances with Athens.

DP28 Dispatch of ambassadors; Peace of 375/4 Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.2.1: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι, αὐξανομένους μὲν ὁρῶντες διὰ σφᾶς τοὺς Θηβαίους, χρήματά τε οὐ συμβαλλομένους εἰς τὸ ναυτικόν, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀποκναιόμενοι καὶ χρημάτων εἰσφοραῖς καὶ λῃστείαις ἐξ Αἰγίνης καὶ φυλακαῖς τῆς χώρας, ἐπεθύμησαν παύσασθαι τοῦ πολέμου, καὶ πέμψαντες πρέσβεις εἰς Λακεδαίμονα εἰρήνην ἐποιήσαντο.

Commentary

Whereas T1 states that Athenian exhaustion and anxiety about the power of Thebes led them to be willing to make peace, Diodorus’ account suggests that it was offered by the Great King, that the Greeks welcomed the peace, and (with the exception of the Thebans, who insisted that all Boiotian communities should be listed as subject to them) accepted it on the condition that all the cities should be independent and free from foreign garrisons (D.S. 15.38.1–4). Cornelius Nepos and Diodorus say that the terms of the peace meant that the Lakedaimonians yielded to the Athenians’ supremacy over the sea (D.S. 15.38.4; 870

dp28 dispatch of ambassadors; peace of 375/4

871

T1 He also joined to Athens as allies the Epirotes, Athamanians, Chaonians, and all the peoples who lived adjacent to that part of the sea.

Date 375.

T1 The Athenians, seeing that the power of the Thebans had increased through their own assistance, but that the Thebans were not contributing to the naval fund, and that they themselves were drained from contributions of money (eisphorai) and piracy from Aegina and by garrisons on their land, were keen to bring war to an end, and they sent out ambassadors to Lakedaimon to make peace.

Nepos Timotheus 2.1–3); Nepos says that in Attica the peace was viewed as a victory and that they set up an altar to Peace and established a festival in its honour (see DP 29 below); he associates this with the statue for Timotheos (see D47 above). Philochorus (FGrH 328 F151) says also that the Athenians agreed to this peace because they were worn out by war. Isocrates (Antidosis, 109–10) emphasises the role that Timotheos played in the peace: he says that it was his capture of Corcyra and his naval victory over the Spartans that forced them to agree these terms. Aeschines claims that he had access to a decree (dogma) of

inventory b1

872

the Greeks which ratified the peace (Aeschin. 2.32–3). Demosthenes later suggested that the peace acknowledged that Amphipolis (Dem. 19.253; cf. Aeschin. 2.32) and the Chersonese (Dem. 9.16) were Athenian possessions. For discussion of the peace, see Bengtson SVA, 265; Cawkwell, ‘Notes on the peace of 375– 374’; Ryder, Koine Eirene, 58–72; Jehne, Koine Eirene, 57–64). On the sources for the peace, see Develin, AO, 243.

DP29 Athenians publicly consecrate an altar to Peace Texts

T1 Didymos, On Demosthenes, col. 7.66–71 (= FGrH 328 F188): Ὁ Φιλόχορος διείλεκται ὅτι π(αρα)πλήσιον αὐτὴν τῆι τοῦ Λάκωνος Ἀνταλκίδου προσήκαντο, ἀπειρηκότες ταῖς ξενοτροφία[ι]ς̣ καὶ ἐκ πάνυ πολλοῦ τοῦ πολέμου τετρυμένοι, ὅτε κ(αὶ) τὸν τῆς Εἰρήν(ης) βωμὸν ἱδρύσαντο. T2 Nepos, Timoth. 2.2–3: Quae victoria tantae fuit Atticis laetitiae, ut tum primum arae Paci publice sint factae eique deae pulvinar sit institutum.

Commentary

In addition to these passages, Isocrates 15 Antidosis 109 mentions that the Athenians, after agreeing a peace treaty (see DP 28 above), celebrated the peace with sacrifices every year. It is perfectly plausible that an altar could have been founded, a cult introduced, or sacrifices instituted by a decree: a parallel is offered by IG II2 1672 line 261, mentioning a payment towards the horserace at the Eleusinia which was established by decree (‘τὴν προστεθεῖσαν κατὰ ψήφισμα’). Parker, Athenian Religion, 230, takes the view that the cult remembered ‘a Glorious Peace’, in a century when peace treaties usually amounted to humiliation.

dp29 athenians publicly consecrate an altar

873

Date

375/4, probably Hekatombaion 16: Develin, AO, 243.

T1 Philochorus has given an account, saying that, though it [sc. the peace of 375/4] was very similar to the peace of the Lakonian Antalkidas, they agreed to it as they were worn out by expenditure on mercenaries and from the very drawn out nature of the war; it was then that they established an altar to Peace. T2 That victory filled the people of Attica with such great joy that then for the first time an altar was publicly consecrated to Peace and a feast established in her honour. (trans. Rolfe, Cornelius Nepos)

Date

The cult and altar are generally associated with the peace of 375, though some associate them with the peace of 371 or even 362: Harding, Didymos, 184. The establishment of the cult is often associated with Kephisodotos’ creation of the famous statue of Eirene: Parker, Athenian Religion, 230 note 45; Jehne, Koine Eirene, 63 note 94.

DP30 Dispatch of Ktesikles Texts

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.2.10: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐνόμισαν ἰσχυρῶς ἐπιμελητέον εἶναι, καὶ στρατηγὸν πέμπουσι Κτησικλέα εἰς ἑξακοσίους ἔχοντα πελταστάς, Ἀλκέτου δὲ ἐδεήθησαν συνδιαβιβάσαι τούτους. T2  D.S. 15.46.3: Οἱ δ᾽ Ἀθηναῖοι ψηφισάμενοι βοηθεῖν τοῖς Κορκυραίοις καὶ Ζακυνθίων τοῖς φυγάσιν, εἰς μὲν τὴν Ζάκυνθον ἐξέπεμψαν Κτησικλέα στρατηγόν, ἡγούμενον τῶν φυγάδων, εἰς δὲ τὴν Κόρκυραν παρεσκευάζοντο ναυτικὴν δύναμιν ἐκπέμπειν. T3 D.S. 15.47.3–4: Ὡς δὲ παρέπλευσεν εἰς τὰς Ἀθήνας, ἄγων πρέσβεων πλῆθος τῶν τὴν συμμαχίαν συντιθεμένων καὶ τριάκοντα τριήρεις προστεθεικώς, πάντα δὲ τὸν στόλον εὖ κατεσκευακὼς πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον, μετενόησεν ὁ δῆμος καὶ πάλιν αὐτῷ τὴν στρατηγίαν ἀποκατέστησεν. προσκατεσκεύαζον δὲ καὶ ἄλλας τριήρεις τετταράκοντα, ὥστε τὰς πάσας γίνεσθαι ἑκατὸν καὶ τριάκοντα· ἐποιοῦντο δὲ καὶ σίτου καὶ βελῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν εἰς πόλεμον χρησίμων ἀξιολόγους παρασκευάς. κατὰ δὲ τὸ παρὸν στρατηγὸν ἑλόμενοι Κτησικλέα μετὰ στρατιωτῶν πεντακοσίων ἐξέπεμψαν βοηθήσοντα τοῖς Κορκυραίοις.

Commentary

After Timotheos’ circumnavigation of the Peloponnese to reach Corcyra in 375, the Spartans intervened on the island. Accordingly the Corcyreans appealed to the Athenians who then decided to send this force under Ktesikles. The relationship of this dispatch and the decree of the Athenians to send out Timotheos to Corcyra (D50 below) is difficult to ascertain, but here I have followed Xenophon’s order of events, placing the dispatch of Ktesikles (T1) before that of Timotheos (D50). In contrast, Diodorus’ convoluted account suggests that Ktesikles was initially sent to Zakynthos (T2) and was dispatched to go to Corcyra only after Timotheos failed to go there (T3: his chronology is followed by a number of scholars: see D50 Commentary). Ktesikles appears to have laid siege to Corcyra (D.S. 15.47.6; Xen. Hell. 6.2.27–39). As Matthaiou suggests, a newly published fragmentary decree proposed by Lysanias may well represent an Athenian response to the Corcyrean appeal: see SEG LXIII 74. Matthaiou suggests that these developments precede the Athenian alliance with the Corcyreans (IG II2 97), traditionally dated to 375/4, which he places in 372.

dp30 dispatch of ktesikles

875

T1 On hearing this [sc. the appeal of the Corcyreans] they took the view that it was necessary to take care of the matter, and they sent out Ktesikles as general with about six hundred peltasts and ordered Alketas to convey them across. T2 The Athenians voted to help the Corcyreans and the Zakynthian exiles, and they sent Ktesikles as general to Zakynthos with the exiles, and prepared to send a naval force to Corcyra.

T3 When he (Timotheos) sailed towards Athens, leading many envoys who were set on alliance after adding thirty triremes to his force, the whole fleet was in good shape for war, and so the people changed their mind and again gave him the generalship. And additionally they prepared forty triremes, so that in total there were 130; and they supplied food and missiles and made worthy preparations for all the other necessities of war. For the time being, they chose Ktesikles as general and sent him out with 500 soldiers to help the Corcyreans.

Date

374/3 (D.S.).

DP31 Alliances with Jason of Pherai and Alketas of the Molossi Text

See Commentary below.

Commentary

At Dem. 49 Against Timotheos 10, Alketas (of Molossi) and Jason (of Pherai) are mentioned in passing as summachoi of the Athenians (who had interceded on behalf of Timotheos). Jason appears to have claimed that Alketas was in subjection to him (Xen. Hell. 6.1.7). The name of Alketas appears in line 109 of the charter of the Athenian confederacy (RO 22 = IG II2 43), and may have been added either in 373 or 375 (RO p. 105); some have restored ‘Jason’ in the erasure at line 111. The alliance between Athens and Jason probably was made at some point after 374, when Jason reportedly claimed that Athens would like him as an ally but that he, contrarily, wanted to rival their power (Xen. Hell. 6.1.10–12).

DP32 Instructions to Iphikrates Text

T1  D. S. 16.57.2­–3. Ἰφικράτους διατρίβοντος περὶ Κόρκυραν μετὰ ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως καὶ Διονυσίου τοῦ Συρακοσίων δυνάστου πέμψαντος εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν καὶ Δελφοὺς ἀγάλματα ἐκ χρυσοῦ καὶ ἐλέφαντος δεδημιουργημένα περιτυχὼν ταῖς κομιζούσαις αὐτὰ ναυσὶν ὁ Ἰφικράτης καὶ κρατήσας αὐτῶν διεπέμψατο πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἐπερωτῶν τί χρὴ πράττειν, οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι προσέταξαν αὐτῷ μὴ τὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐξετάζειν, ἀλλὰ σκοπεῖν ὅπως τοὺς στρατιώτας διαθρέψῃ. Ἰφικράτης μὲν οὖν ὑπακούσας τῷ δόγματι τῆς πατρίδος ἐλαφυροπώλησε τὸν τῶν θεῶν κόσμον.

876

dp32 instructions to iphikrates

877

Date

373/2 or before.

T1  Iphikrates was lingering around Corcyra with a naval force when Dionysius tyrant of Syracuse was sending to Olympia and Delphi statues cleverly worked in gold and ivory; he happened to fall in with the ships which were carrying this cargo and defeated them. He sent a message to the people, enquiring what he ought to do with them; the Athenians instructed him not to ask questions about matters related to the Gods but to concentrate on ensuring that his soldiers had provisions. And so Iphikrates, obeying the command (dogma) of his homeland, sold as booty the works of art of the Gods.

inventory b1

878

Commentary

Diodorus (T1) here offers an example of alleged Athenian impiety. Iphikrates appears to have asked the Athenians for advice; it is possible, but far from certain, that their decision, here reported as a dogma, may have taken the form of a decree.

DP33 Athenian orders to Iphikrates Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 6.4.1: Ἐκ δὲ τούτου οἱ μὲν Ἀθηναῖοι τάς τε φρουρὰς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων ἀπῆγον καὶ Ἰφικράτην καὶ τὰς ναῦς μετεπέμποντο, καὶ ὅσα ὕστερον ἔλαβε μετὰ τοὺς ὅρκους τοὺς ἐν Λακεδαίμονι γενομένους, πάντα ἠνάγκασαν ἀποδοῦναι.

Commentary

This command was issued immediately after the first Peace of 371 (see D52 above) had been agreed. Hamel offers the episode as an example of the ecclesia issuing instructions mid-campaign to a general: Hamel, Athenian Generals, 116 note 3.

DP34 Eisphora levy and expedition to help the Lakedaimonians after Leuktra Text

T1 Dem. 16.12: Οὐ γὰρ ταῦτα λέγοντες ἔπεισαν ὑμᾶς, πάντων Πελοποννησίων ἐλθόντων ὡς ὑμᾶς καὶ μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἀξιούντων ἐπὶ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἰέναι, τοὺς μὲν μὴ προσδέξασθαι (καὶ διὰ τοῦθ’, ὅπερ ἦν ὑπόλοιπον αὐτοῖς, ἐπὶ Θηβαίους ἦλθον), ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς Λακεδαιμονίων σωτηρίας καὶ χρήματ’ εἰσφέρειν καὶ τοῖς σώμασι κινδυνεύειν.

dp34 eisphora levy and expedition

879

Date

374/3 (cf. D.S. 15.47.7).

T1 After this the Athenians withdrew their garrisons from the cities and sent out to Iphikrates and his fleet, obliging him to return all those things which he had taken after the oaths were sworn in Lakedaimon.

Date 371.

T1 For this is not what they said when they persuaded you, at a time when all the Peloponnesians had come to you and demanded that you attack Sparta, to turn them away – so that they had no choice but to turn to the Thebans – and to contribute money and risk your lives for the safety of the Spartans. (trans. Trevett, Demosthenes)

inventory b1

880

Commentary

For the decision to send an expedition to Sparta after Leuctra, probably in 369/8, see D55 above. For other examples of eisphora-levies, which were initiated probably by decree, see Inventory B2.1 below.

DP35 Iphikrates’ expedition to Macedonia Text

T1  Aeschin. 2.27: Ἐχειροτόνησαν Ἀθηναῖοι στρατηγὸν ἐπ’ Ἀμφίπολιν Ἰφικράτην.

Commentary

Aeschines (2.27) recalls that the Athenians elected Iphikrates as their general ‘for Amphipolis’ and goes on to offer an account of his expedition there, initially with a few ships (2.28). We can reasonably presume that this expedition, which aimed to bring Amphipolis back under Athenian control, was sent out by a decree of the Athenians. Heskel (The North, 22–8) provides a detailed account of Iphikrates’ Amphipolitan command and his dismissal. For the Athenians’ decision to replace him with Timotheos, see DP 36 below.

dp35 iphikrates’ expedition to macedonia

Date

881

The levy and expedition probably date to 369/8, though Trevett, Demosthenes, 279–80 note 13, suggests that it refers to Athenian support for Sparta at the Mantineia campaign in 362.

T1 The Athenians elected Iphikrates as their general for Amphipolis.

Date

Autumn 368: Heskel, The North, 23.

DP36 Timotheos sent to Amphipolis and the Chersonese Text

T1 Dem. 23.149: Ἐπειδὴ τὸν μὲν Ἰφικράτην ἀποστράτηγον ἐποιήσατε, Τιμόθεον δ’ ἐπ’ Ἀμφίπολιν καὶ Χερρόνησον ἐξεπέμψατε στρατηγόν, πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς Ἀμφιπολιτῶν ὁμήρους, οὓς παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβὼν Ἰφικράτης ἔδωκε φυλάττειν αὐτῷ, ψηφισαμένων ὑμῶν ὡς ὑμᾶς κομίσαι παρέδωκεν Ἀμφιπολίταις· καὶ τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν Ἀμφίπολιν τοῦτ’ ἐμποδὼν κατέστη.

Commentary

Timotheos was sent out as a replacement for Iphikrates, but T1 suggests that he was charged also with staking Athenian claims to the Chersonese. Timotheos appears to have gone first of all to Amphipolis; Demosthenes emphasises that Timotheos’ expedition was a failure; it was undermined by the Olynthian alliance with the Amphipolitans; Timotheos did, however, take a number of cities of Chalkidike and later was Athenian commander in Macedonia: see Heskel, The North, 30–6. On the decree concerning the Amphipolitan hostages, see D64 above.

DP37 Athenians send Timagoras and Leon to see the Great King Text

T1 Xen. Hell. 7.1.33: Καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἀκούσαντες ταῦτα ἀνέπεμψαν Τιμαγόραν τε καὶ Λέοντα.

882

dp37 athenians send timagoras and leon

883

T1 When you removed Iphikrates from the generalship, and you sent out Timotheos as general to Amphipolis and the Chersonese, first of all he handed over to the Amphipolitans those hostages whom Iphikrates had taken from Harpalos so that he [sc. Charidemos] could guard them, although you had voted to take care of them; accordingly, this meant that you did not take Amphipolis.

Date

368–362, perhaps spring 366 (Heskel, North Aegean Wars, 100, 162), though Cawkwell (‘Athenian naval power’, 334) suggests 365 for the replacement of Iphikrates.

T1 And the Athenians, upon hearing these things, sent Timagoras and Leon (to the Great King).

inventory b1

884

Commentary

Plutarch (Pel. 30.1) says that the Athenians and Spartans sent ambassadors to the Great King to secure an alliance. But his order of events is different from that of Xenophon: whereas Plutarch says that the Thebans sent ambassadors once they heard that the Athenians and Spartans had already done so, according to Xenophon, the Athenians sent them only once they heard that the Thebans had done so. The ambassadors entered into negotiations with the Great King concerning the renewal of peace (Xen. Hell. 7.1.36). These developments form the background to the proposals which the Greeks failed to agree at Thebes in 367: Ryder (Koine Eirene, 136) suggests that the proposals aimed at general autonomy, the principle that each state should posssess its own territory, and that there should be a general demobilisation.

DP38 Athenian expedition to Oropos Text

T1  Xen. Hell. 7.4.1: Ἔτι γὰρ τειχιζόντων τῶν Φλειασίων τὴν Θυαμίαν καὶ τοῦ Χάρητος ἔτι παρόντος Ὠρωπὸς ὑπὸ τῶν φευγόντων κατελήφθη. στρατευσαμένων δὲ πάντων Ἀθηναίων ἐπ’ αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν Χάρητα μεταπεμψαμένων ἐκ τῆς Θυαμίας, ὁ μὲν λιμὴν αὖ ὁ τῶν Σικυωνίων πάλιν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τε τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ τῶν Ἀρκάδων ἁλίσκεται· τοῖς δ’ Ἀθηναίοις οὐδεὶς τῶν συμμάχων ἐβοήθησεν, ἀλλ’ ἀνεχώρησαν Θηβαίοις παρακαταθέμενοι τὸν Ὠρωπὸν μέχρι δίκης.

Commentary

According to Xenophon (T1), the Athenians took action against Oropos when it was undergoing a period of civil strife; they recalled Chares (Hamel, Athenian Generals, 116 note 3 uses this as an example of the assembly issuing instructions to generals on the field mid-campaign). Diodorus’ report (15.76.1) adds more details: he claims that Oropos had been seized by Themison the tyrant of Eretria, but that he had lost possession of it once the Athenians came with far bigger forces. The expedition against Themison is mentioned also by Aeschines (2.164 and 3.85) and Demosthenes (18.99: implicating also a certain Theodoros, identified by the scholiast as another Eretrian). The nature of the arbitration referred to here is unclear: it is, however, likely that Oropos fell under Theban

dp38 athenian expedition to oropos

885

Date

Midsummer 367.

T1 While the Phleiasians were fortifying Thyamia and Chares was still present with them, Oropos was seized by those who had been exiled. At that point the Athenians marched out against them in full force and recalled Chares from Thyamia; but at that point the harbour of the Sikyonians was captured again both by the citizens of Sikyon and the Arkadians. None of the allies assisted the Athenians, and so the Athenians departed, leaving Oropos with the Thebans until they reached a legal settlement.

control in the 360s (Isoc. 5.53). It is possible that Agatharchides BNJ 86 F8 makes a reference to this arbitration: Stylianou, A Historical Commentary, 483.

Date 366.

inventory b1

886

DP39 Peace of 366/5 Text

See Commentary below.

Commentary

Diodorus Siculus (15.76.2) refers to a renewal of peace initiated by the Persian king (D.S. 15.76.3). However, there is no reference to its approval by the Athenian assembly; indeed, it is unclear whether this was an actual renewal of the peace, as Diodorus suggests, or a more limited alliance between the Boiotians and their allies. For extensive discussion and the latter view, see Stylianou, A Historical Commentary, 485–9, suggesting, at 488, that after the loss of Oropos and the failure of her allies to assist her it retaking it (cf. DP 38), the Athenians would have been ready to add their names to an alliance.

DP40 Athenian alliance with Perdiccas Text

T1 Scholion on Dem. 2.14 (Dilts 98b): Ὅλως ... δύναμις· πρὸς γὰρ Ὀλυνθίους πολεμοῦσι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις συνεμάχησε Περδίκκας ὁ ἀδελφὸς Φιλίππου μετὰ τῶν Μακεδόνων. λεληθότως οὖν λέγει ὅτι ἡ δύναμις, ἣν ἔσχομεν τότε ὥσπερ ἐν προσθήκης μέρει πρὸς συμμαχίαν, νῦν ἡμῖν περὶ τῶν πρωτείων φιλονεικεῖ.

Commentary

Demosthenes (2.14) talks of Macedonian aid to the Athenians at the time of Timotheos. The scholiast associates this with an alliance. However, the rather allusive and vague words of the scholiast’s note means that this cannot be identified with certainty. To this indication of Athenian co-operation with Perdiccas, we can add the evidence of Polyainos 3.10.14, stating that Timotheos waged war against the Olynthians with Perdiccas. See Heskel, The North, 31.

dp40 athenian alliance with perdiccas

887

Date 366/5.

T1 Completely … power: for they (sc. the Macedonians) fought with the Athenians against the Olynthians. Perdiccas the brother of Philip fought them together with the Macedonians. And so he speaks imperceptibly about that power, which we then had just as an appendage in relation to alliance, but now he contends with us for supremacy.

Date

Summer 365, probably after Perdiccas came to the throne in 365/4 (D.S. 15.77.5).

DP41 Athenian expedition against the Thebans Text

T1 D. S. 15.79.1: Αὐτὸς δὲ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἐκπεμφθεὶς ἐπὶ τὰς εἰρημένας πόλεις Λάχητα μὲν τὸν Ἀθηναίων στρατηγόν, ἔχοντα στόλον ἀξιόλογον καὶ διακωλύειν τοὺς Θηβαίους ἀπεσταλμένον, καταπληξάμενος καὶ ἀποπλεῦσαι συναναγκάσας, ἰδίας τὰς πόλεις τοῖς Θηβαίοις ἐποίησεν.

Commentary

Diodorus’ discussion of Epameinondas’ naval expansion and adventures leads up to an account of an unsuccessful Athenian expedition against the Thebans.

DP42 Levy of eisphora and dispatch of troops to Arcadia Text

T1  Xen. Poroi 3.7: … ἐνθυμούμενος ὡς πολλὰ μὲν εἰσήνεγκεν ἡ πόλις, ὅτε Ἀρκάσιν ἐβοήθει ἐπὶ Λυσιστράτου ἡγουμένου.

Commentary

Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.29) mentions that 400 cavalrymen were in Arcadia at this time, but makes no comment on their dispatch. Thomsen, Eisphora, 229, dates the levy to 364/3. For other eisphora-levies, see Inventory B2.1 below.

888

dp42 levy of eisphora and dispatch of troops

889

T1 Epameinondas himself, who had been sent out to the above-mentioned cities with a force, overcame Laches the Athenian general, who had a significant fleet and had been dispatched to hinder the Thebans; after defeating him he forced him to sail away, and he made the cities friendly to the Thebans.

Date 364/3.

T1 … bearing in mind how big the sum was which the city levied when it helped Arcadia under the leadership of Lysistratos.

Date

364/3 (Thomsen, Eisphora, 229).

DP43 Athenians sent to Mantineia Text

T1 D. S. 15.84.2: Ἄρτι γὰρ αὐτοῦ πλησιάζοντος ἐρήμῳ τῇ πόλει κατήντησαν ἐπὶ θάτερα τῆς Μαντινείας οἱ πεμφθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀθηναίων στρατιῶται πρὸς τὴν συμμαχίαν, ὄντες ἑξακισχίλιοι, στρατηγὸν δ’ ἔχοντες Ἡγήλοχον, ἄνδρα τῶν παρὰ τοῖς πολίταις ἐπαινουμένων.

Commentary

The Mantineians, in 363/2, had appealed to the Athenians and other states to assist them against the Thebans (D.S. 15.82.4); the Athenians sent aid, which resulted in the battle of Mantineia; Xenophon (Hell. 7.5.15) mentions also Athenian cavalry at the battle. For a possible association with an eisphora collection, see Xen. Poroi 3.7, and DP 42 above.

DP44 Apollodoros is ordered to take Memnon to replace Autokles Text

T1 Dem. 50.12: Προσταχθέν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου Μένωνα τὸν στρατηγὸν ἄγειν εἰς Ἑλλήσποντον ἀντὶ Αὐτοκλέους ἀποχειροτονηθέντος.

Commentary

For the context of this expedition, see Heskel, The North, 147, 174.

890

dp44 apollodoros is ordered to take memnon

891

T1 For just at that time when he (sc. Epameinondas) was approaching the desolate city (sc. Mantineia), the 6,000 soldiers sent by the Athenians for the alliance arrived, having with them the general Hegesileos, a man who was then highly praised among the citizens.

Date 363/2.

T1 I [sc. Apollodoros] was ordered by the people to take Memnon the general to the Hellespont to replace Autokles, who had been removed.

Date

June 361: Heskel, The North, 147, 174.

DP45 Athenians come to the assistance of the Peparethians and leave Leosthenes in command of a mission Text

T1 D.S. 15.95.2: Ἀθηναίων δὲ βοηθησάντων τοῖς Πεπαρηθίοις καὶ στρατηγὸν Λεωσθένην ἀπολιπόντων, ἐπέθετο τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις.

Commentary

This Athenian expedition seems to have countered Alexander of Pherai’s raids against the Cycladic islands and his planting of mercenaries on Peparethos, to the north of Skyros. On Leosthenes, see Hansen, Eisangelia no. 88 and Develin, AO, 268.

DP46 Chares is sent out as a replacement for Leosthenes Text

T1 D.S. 15.95.3: Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι παροξυνθέντες τοῦ μὲν Λεωσθένους ὡς προδότου θάνατον κατέγνωσαν καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐδήμευσαν, ἑλόμενοι δὲ στρατηγὸν Χάρητα καὶ ναυτικὴν δύναμιν δόντες ἐξέπεμψαν. οὗτος δὲ τοὺς μὲν πολεμίους εὐλαβούμενος, τοὺς δὲ συμμάχους ἀδικῶν διετέλει.

Commentary

The Athenians, enraged at Leosthenes’ lack of success at Peparethos, sent out Chares as his replacement, but he too damaged their interests. Stylianou, A Historical Commentary, 550, suggests that there was probably little that Chares could have done, given that Alexander had probably returned to Pherai by this point.

892

dp46 chares is sent out as a replacement

893

T1 And when the Athenians came to help the Peparethians and left Leosthenes as general, he [sc. Alexander of Pherai] attacked.

Date 361/0.

T1 The Athenians, angry with Leosthenes, condemned him as a traitor and confiscated his property. They selected Chares as general; giving him a naval force they sent him out. But he avoided the enemy and treated Athens’ allies with injustice.

Date 361/0.

DP47 Athens sends cleruchs to Samos Text

T1 Scholion on Aeschin. 1.53 (Dilts 121): Σάμῳ. εἰς Σάμον κληρούχος ἔπεμψαν Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπ’ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Νικοφήμου.

Commentary

This dispatch may have reinforced the already-existing cleruchy at Samos. See D65 above.

DP48 Athenians dispatch Mantias as general Text

T1  D.S. 16.2.6: Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι πρὸς Φίλιππον ἀλλοτρίως ἔχοντες κατῆγον ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν Ἀργαῖον καὶ στρατηγὸν ἀπεστάλκεισαν Μαντίαν ἔχοντα τρισχιλίους μὲν ὁπλίτας, ναυτικὴν δὲ δύναμιν ἀξιόλογον.

Commentary

Athenian support for the restoration of Argaios was ultimately futile, and soon they were forced to face up to the realities of living with Philip: see D79 above.

894

dp48 athenians dispatch mantias as general

895

T1  In Samos: the Athenians sent cleruchies to Samos during the archonship of Nikophemos in Athens.

Date

361/0 (T1).

T1 Equally the Athenians also, acting with hostility towards Philip, were trying to restore Argaios to the throne and they sent Mantias as general with 3,000 hoplites and a naval force.

Date

360/59 (Diodorus).

DP49 Athens sends out Chares and Chabrias with an army to face the revolt of Chios, Rhodes, Cos and Byzantium Text

T1 D.S. 16.7.3: Ἑλόμενοι δὲ στρατηγοὺς Χάρητα καὶ Χαβρίαν ἀπέστειλαν μετὰ δυνάμεως.

Commentary

The Social War had broken out by 356 (see D90 above): assisted by Mausolos, the Hekatomnid ruler of Karia, the powerful Byzantines, Rhodians, Chians and Koans left the Athenian Confederacy. The states that seceded embarked upon an aggressive campaign against Athenian interests in the eastern Aegean, and launched attacks on Athenian interests in Samos, Lemnos and Imbros. Athenian responses were ultimately counter-productive (for their military response, see also D.S. 16.21.1–4 = DP 51; for the war, see Strauss, Athens after, 74–81; Cargill, Second, 176–85; Hornblower, Mausolus, 206–14 and Buckler, Philip II, 4).

DP50 Relief expedition sent to Euboia and an expedition to the Chersonese with Chares as plenipotentiary Text

T1 Dem. 23.173: Ἐβοηθοῦμεν εἰς Εὔβοιαν, καὶ Χάρης ἧκεν ἔχων τοὺς ξένους, καὶ στρατηγὸς ὑφ’ ὑμῶν αὐτοκράτωρ εἰς Χερρόνησον ἐξέπλει.

896

dp50 relief expedition sent to euboia

897

T1  The Athenians, on choosing as generals Chares and Chabrias, sent them out with a force.

Date

358/7 (Diodorus).

T1 We sent aid to Euboia; Chares came, bringing with him his mercenaries, and he was sent out as general plenipotentiary to the Chersonese.

inventory b1

898

Commentary

The expedition to Euboia may have been sent out to back up the expedition of 358/7 proposed by Kephisodotos: see D82 above; it supported the Euboaian revolt against the Thebans: D.S. 16.7.2; it gave rise to an alliance with the Euboians: IG II2 124. The expedition to the Thracian Chersonese may have sought to protect Athenian allies there; for the cleruchy, see DP 52 below.

DP51 Athenians send out expeditions during the Social War Text

T1 D. S. 16.21.1: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ Χάρητα μὲν μετὰ νεῶν ἑξήκοντα προαπεσταλκότες ἦσαν ἐν τοῖς ἄνω καιροῖς, τότε δὲ ἄλλας ἑξήκοντα πληρώσαντες καὶ στρατηγοὺς ἐπιστήσαντες τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους τῶν πολιτῶν, Ἰφικράτην καὶ Τιμόθεον, ἐξαπέστειλαν κοινῇ μετὰ Χάρητος διαπολεμεῖν τοῖς ἀφεστηκόσι τῶν συμμάχων.

Commentary

Chares was sent to put down Athens’ rebellious allies, and was put in total control of the Athenian forces (16.21.2–4). After the defeat at Embata which ended the Social War he went on to assist Artabazos’ rebellion against the Great King (D.S. 16.22.1–2).

DP52 Cleruchy to the Chersonese Text

T1  D. S. 16.34.4: Κερσοβλέπτου δὲ τοῦ Κότυος διά τε τὴν πρὸς Φίλιππον ἀλλοτριότητα καὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἀθηναίους φιλίαν ἐγχειρίσαντος τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις τὰς ἐν Χερρονήσῳ πόλεις πλὴν Καρδίας ἀπέστειλεν ὁ δῆμος κληρούχους εἰς τὰς πόλεις.

dp52 cleruchy to the chersonese

899

Date 357/6.

T1 The Athenians, who had already sent out Chares with 60 ships, now manned 60 more and installed as generals the most prominent of citizens, Iphikrates and Timotheos, and they sent out them together with Chares for the sake of pursuing war against those of their allies who had revolted.

Date

356/5 (Diodorus).

T1 When Kersobleptes the son of Kotys, owing to his hostility towards Philip and his agreement of friendship with the Athenians, handed over to the Athenians the cities in the Chersonese apart from Kardia, the assembly then sent out cleruchs to the cities.

inventory b1

900

Commentary

In 353, Athens’ ally Kersobleptes (see D83 above), anxious to gain support against Philip, handed over cities on the Chersonese to the Athenians, and allowed the Athenians to settle cleruchies there. For the dispatch of cleruchs to the Chersonese, see IG II2 1613.297–8. See also Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 23–31; for Athenian interests there, indicated by an inscribed proxeny decree for Philiskos of Sestos of 355/4, see IG II² 133. This is the earliest attested Athenian attempt to re-colonise the area of a fifth-century settlement: it had been re-organised by the Spartan commander Derkylidas in 398 (Xen. Hell. 3.2.9–10; 4.8.5). It seems likely that one of the cities in the Chersonese where a cleruchy was founded was Sestos: cf. IG II3 1 387, an Athenian decree which was to be set up there (a city of the Thracian Chersonese) at its agora (lines 7–8). For the further dispatch of settlers and an Athenian expedition to support them, see DPP 63, 64 below.

DP53 Expedition to Thermopylai Text

T1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Dinarchus 13 p. 320 –6 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F154): Ἡ δ’εἰς Ἀθηναίων ἔξοδος ἐπὶ Θουδήμου ἄρχοντος ἐγένετο, ὄγδοον ἔτος Δεινάρχου ἔχοντος.

Commentary

The Athenians felt that Philip’s advance towards Thermopylai, targeted ostensibly at the Phokians, threatened their interests and central Greece (Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.279–80). The expedition mentioned at T1 was dispatched with the intention of holding up Philip; the Athenians were successful in doing so.

dp53 expedition to thermopylai

901

Date 353/2.

T1 The expedition of the Athenians to Thermopylai took place during the archonship of Thoudemos, when Dinarchus was eight years of age.

Date 353/2.

DP54 Cleruchs sent to Samos Text

T1  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Dinarchus, 13 p. 319 11–13 (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F154): Οἱ μὲν γὰρ εἰς Σάμον ἀποσταλέντες κληροῦχοι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν ἄρχοντα ἀπεστάλησαν.

Commentary

As Harding (From the End, no. 77) observes, this is a reference to a third group of Athenian settlers dispatched to Samos: of the two previous ones, one was sent out in 366/5 when Timotheos had captured the island (Arist. Rh. 1384b32–5 = D65) and the second is dated to 361/0 (Scholion on Aeschines 1.53 (Dilts 121) = DP 47).

DP55 Athenians send soldiers to Phayllos the Phokian Text

T1 D.S. 16.37.3: Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν γὰρ ἀπέστειλαν αὐτῷ στρατιώτας χιλίους, Ἀχαιοὶ δὲ δισχιλίους, Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ πεζοὺς μὲν πεντακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ τετρακοσίους, ὧν ἦν στρατηγὸς Ναυσικλῆς.

Commentary

This expedition contributed to the slowing down of Philip at Thermopylai (see DP 53 above); Demosthenes 19.84 refers to it in passing and says that it cost some 200 Talents, including the expenses of the soldiers.

902

dp55 athenians send soldiers to phayllos the phokian 903

T1 They dispatched cleruchs to Samos during this archonship (sc. of Aristodemos).

Date 352/1.

T1 The Lakedaimonians sent to him [sc. Phayllos] a thousand soldiers, the Achaians two thousand, the Athenians five thousand foot-soldiers and four hundred horsemen, with Nausikles as their general.

Date

352/1 (Diodorus; Develin, AO, 309).

DP56 Dispatch of ships with Charidemos Text

T1 Dem. 3.5: Τούτου τοῦ μηνὸς μόγις μετὰ τὰ μυστήρια δέκα ναῦς ἀπεστείλατε ἔχοντα κενὰς Χαρίδημον καὶ πέντε τάλαντα ἀργυρίου.

Commentary

T1 says that ships were dispatched to Thrace against Philip with Charidemos in Boedromion 351/0, but it is not clear whether this dispatch was related to the decree of the previous year to send an expedition against Philip which is said by Demosthenes (3.4) to have been unfulfilled (= D106 T1). Either way, the expedition was considerably scaled down from the originally planned dispatch of forty ships, perhaps owing to a report of Philip’s illness or death. Develin’s view is that the expedition was abandoned (AO, 310).

DP57 Citizenship for Aristodemos of Metaponton Text

T1 Scholion on Aischin. 2.15 (Dilts 35): Ἀριστόδημον ... Μεταποντῖνος δ’ἦν τὸ γένος.

Commentary

Osborne, Naturalization, PT 134, discusses the possibility that the scholiast was right in identifying Aristodemos as a Metapontine; if it is, given that he was an Athenian citizen in 346 when he was elected to represent Athens on the First Embassy, he must have been made an Athenian citizen at some point before this.

904

dp57 citizenship for aristodemos of metaponton

905

T1 During that month, with toil and pain, after the celebration of the mysteries, you sent Charidemos with ten ships, unmanned, and silver to the value of five Talents.

Date

Boedromion 351/0.

T1 Aristodemos… he was a Metapontine with respect to his nationality.

Date

c. 350 (Osborne).

DP58 Expedition to Euboia Texts

T1  Aeschin. 3.85: Ἐπειδὴ διέβησαν εἰς Εὔβοιαν Θηβαῖοι καταδουλώσασθαι τὰς πόλεις πειρώμενοι, ἐν πέντε ἡμέραις ἐβοηθήσατε αὐτοῖς καὶ ναυσὶ καὶ πεζῇ δυνάμει, καὶ πρὶν τριάκονθ’ ἡμέρας διελθεῖν ὑποσπόνδους Θηβαίους ἀφήκατε. T2 Plu. Phoc. 12.1: Παραδυομένου δ’ εἰς τὴν Εὔβοιαν τοῦ Φιλίππου, καὶ δύναμιν ἐκ Μακεδονίας διαβιβάζοντος, καὶ τὰς πόλεις οἰκειουμένου διὰ τυράννων, Πλουτάρχου δὲ τοῦ Ἐρετριέως καλοῦντος τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, καὶ δεομένου τὴν νῆσον ἐξελέσθαι καταλαμβανομένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Μακεδόνος, ἀπεστάλη στρατηγὸς ὁ Φωκίων ἔχων δύναμιν οὐ πολλήν, ὡς τῶν ἐκεῖ συστησομένων ἑτοίμως πρὸς αὐτόν.

Commentary

While T1 and T2 present strikingly different motivations for this expedition to Euboia, it is quite plausible to think that they both refer to the same one, led by Phokion, sent in response to an appeal made by the Eretrians (T2); Demosthenes claimed that he had spoken against the expedition (Dem. 5.5). For an assessment of this expedition, and the conclusion that it was ultimately harmful to Athenian interests, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 140–1; Dreher, Hegemon, 156–67: Ploutarchos soon deserted to Kallias and Kleitarchos, who were enemies of Athens. The expedition was alluded to in an inscribed decree of Hegesippos, IG II3 1 399 lines 7–8, outlawing future invasions of Eretria.

DP59 Dispatch of ambassadors, including Aristodemos Text

T1 Aeschin 2.15: Καὶ πέμπουσι πρεσβευτὴν Ἀριστόδημον τὸν ὑποκριτὴν πρὸς Φίλιππον, διὰ τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν τῆς τέχνης.

906

dp59 dispatch of ambassadors

907

T1 And when the Thebans had crossed over to Euboia for the purpose of enslaving the cities there, within five days you sent assistance to them in the shape of a force of ships and foot-soldiers, and before 30 days were up you brought the Thebans to terms and sent them home. T2 And when Philip was creeping into Euboia, and was moving a force over from Macedonia, and was taking hold of the cities through tyrants, and when Ploutarchos of Eretria called upon the Athenians and begged them to rescue the island from the occupation of the Macedonians, Phokion the general was sent out with a small force, under the assumption that the people would come to his aid.

Date

Anthesterion 348: Sealey, Demosthenes, 140–1; Anthesterion 348; Plu. Phoc. 12–13.

T1 And they sent Aristodemos the actor as ambassador to Philip, because he knew him, and because of the charming nature of his profession.

Date 348/7.

908

inventory b1

Commentary

Aristodemos (a native of Metapontion) was sent by the Athenians to Philip for the sake of pleading for the release of citizens captured at Olynthos; on the embassy and the ambassadors’ persuasion of the Athenians to make peace with Philip, see Dem. 19.12, Hypothesis to Aeschines 2; Hypothesis 2 to Dem 19). The outcome of his mission led to Demosthenes’ proposal of a crown: see D124 above. It is plausible that Aristodemos was chosen owing to his familiarity with Philip which he had developed when acting in Macedonia. On his career, and naturalisation, see Osborne, Naturalization, PT 134; it is likely that Neoptolemos of Skyros was also sent with him, though he was never made an Athenian citizen: see Osborne, Naturalization, X9. For the Athenian decision to send famous tragic players to embassy with Philip, given Philip II’s alleged passion for theatre and goodwill to actors, see Hanink, Lycurgan Athens, 68–9.

DP59bis Dispatch of ambassadors to Greek states Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.58: ... τὰς πρεσβείας ἃς ἦτε ἐκπεπομφότες κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα, παρακαλοῦντες ἐπὶ Φίλιππον.

Commentary

These Athenian envoys were dispatched to the Greek states in late 347 and they were expected to return during Elaphebolion 346 in time for the deliberation at the assembly about peace and alliance with Philip. See Harris, Aeschines, 158–61. Athens’ allies had appealed to the Athenian demos to wait for the return of these ambassadors to Athens before they made a decision about peace with Philip: see Aeschin. 3.60.

dp59bis dispatch of ambassadors to greek states

909

Date

348/7: see Badian and Heskel, ‘Aeschines 2.12–18’.

T1 … The embassies which at that point you had sent out to Greece, calling them to join you against Philip.

Date

Late 347 or early 346.

DP59ter Decision to dispatch the Second Embassy to Philip Text

See Commentary below.

Commentary

Although there is no straightforward reference to a decree which enacted the decision for a second embassy to be sent to Philip, it is highly likely that the embassy was organised by a decree of the Athenian assembly. For references to the second embassy, see Aeschin. 2.82; Dem. 19.17, 150. For the decree which gave the ambassadors instructions, see D133, and for the decree of the council sending it out with immediate effect, see BD 7.

DP60 Dispatch of the Third Embassy to Philip Text

T1  Dem. 19.121: Ἀπεστέλλετ’ αὖθις αὖ τὸ τρίτον τοὺς πρέσβεις ὡς τὸν Φίλιππον.

Commentary

This was the embassy which was appointed to go to Philip to seek agreement about extending peace and alliance to his descendants. It appears not to have reached Philip before it returned, but the Athenians appear to have sent it again, after re-electing the ambassadors (Aeschin. 2.94, 139; Dem. 18.121–33, 172). For the first and second embassies to Philip, see DD 125, 133, DP 59ter above. As MacDowell, Demosthenes, On the False, 254, writes: ‘no source tells us what the ambassadors were instructed to do, but presumably they were to convert 910

dp60 dispatch of the third embassy to philip

911

Date

Hansen, ‘Ekklesia synkletos’ 280 places the decree in the period Elaphebolion 19th 346; MacDowell (Demosthenes, On the False, 270) suggests that the decree appointing the Second Embassy was made on Elaphebolion 19th or soon afterwards.

T1 You once again sent ambassadors to Philip, for the third time.

the contents of the latest decree proposed by Philokrates, which praised Philip, extend the peace and alliance to his descendants, and propose Athenian support for the surrender of the temple at Delphi by the Phokians to the Amphiktyons.’ Demosthenes in On the False Embassy gives an account of an exomosia in which Aeschines swore that he was ill and therefore exempt from the embassy (Dem. 19.129); it appears, however, that Aeschines had recovered by the time that he departed with the embassy from Athens probably on 23rd Skirophorion (Dem.

inventory b1

912

19.124–7; MacDowell, Demosthenes On the False, 12–13, 256). In this passage Demosthenes mentions a psephisma in which Aeschines’ name was mentioned (Dem. 19.129–30); MacDowell (Demosthenes, On the False, 256) suggests that this represents a decree which gave Aeschines exemption and replaced him as ambassador with his brother, but the reference is too vague to be certain.

DP61 Response of the Athenians to the ambassadors of the Persians Text

T1  Didymus, On Demosthenes col. 8 lines 19–23 Harding (= Philochorus FGrH 328 F157; Androtion FGrH 324 F53): Ἀθή[να]ζε πρέσβεις κἀξι(οῦ)ντος τὴν [φι]λίαν [δ(ια)μένει]ν ἑαυτῶι τ(ὴν) πατρώιαν, ἀπε[κρί]νατο [τοῖς π]ρέσβεσιν Ἀθήνησι διαμε[νεῖν] βασιλε[ῖ τὴν φιλ]ίαν, ἐὰν μὴ βασιλὲυς ἐπ[ὶ τὰς] Ἑλληνίδ(ας) ἴηι̣ πόλεις.

Commentary

In 344/3, the Athenians appear to have proposed that Greek states rise up against the Persians (see D142 above). Perhaps at around the same time, however, the Persians sent ambassadors to the Athenians appealing to them that their ancestral friendship be continued. For full discussion of this passage, and the view that the response to the Persians was made upon the basis of a decree proposed by Androtion, see Harding, Didymos, 186–91, esp. 188 and most recently Harding, The Story, 159–60.

dp61 response of the athenians

913

Date

Skirophorion 16th 346: MacDowell, Demosthenes. On the False Embassy, 254.

T1  In this man’s archonship, when the King sent ambassadors to Athe[ns] and was asking that his ancestral friendship continue to exist, reply was made [to his] ambassadors at Athens that the King would continue to have [their] friendship, so long as he not attack [the] Hellenic cities. (trans. Harding, Didymos)

Date

344/3 (midsummer 344, as Harding, Didymos, 187, following Jacoby).

DP62 Hegesippos sent on embassy to Philip Text

T1 Dem. 19.331: Τὸν γὰρ Ἡγήσιππον ὁρᾶτε καὶ τοὺς μετ’ αὐτοῦ πρέσβεις πῶς ἐδέξατο.

Commentary

This embassy was sent to Philip in 344/3 and was mentioned by Hegesippos in [Dem.] 7.2; it was sent probably to request the return of Amphipolis: see Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.489–95. For more discussion on this front and the amendment to the Peace of Philokrates, see D141 above.

DP63 Dispatch of settlers to the Chersonese Texts

T1 Hypothesis to Dem. 8, sections 1–5: Ἦν μὲν γὰρ Χερρόνησος ἡ πρὸς Θρᾴκην τῶν Ἀθηναίων κτῆμα ἀρχαῖον, εἰς δὲ ταύτην ἀπέστειλαν κατὰ τοὺς Φιλίππου καιροὺς κληρούχους ἑαυτῶν. ἔθος δὲ ἦν τοῦτο παλαιὸν τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, ὅσοι πένητες ἦσαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀκτήμονες οἴκοι, τούτους πέμπειν ἐποίκους εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις τὰς ἑαυτῶν, καὶ ἐλάμβανον πεμπόμενοι ὅπλα τε ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου καὶ ἐφόδιον. καὶ νῦν τοίνυν τοῦτο γέγονε καὶ πεπόμφασιν ἐποίκους εἰς τὴν Χερρόνησον στρατηγὸν αὐτοῖς δόντες Διοπείθη. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι Χερρονησῖται τοὺς ἐπελθόντας ἐδέξαντο καὶ μετέδωκαν αὐτοῖς καὶ οἰκιῶν καὶ γῆς, Καρδιανοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο λέγοντες ἰδίαν χώραν οἰκεῖν καὶ οὐκ Ἀθηναίων. ἐντεῦθεν οὖν Διοπείθης ἐπολέμησε Καρδιανοῖς, οἱ δὲ παρὰ Φίλιππον καταφεύγουσι, καὶ ὃς ἐπιστέλλει τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις μὴ βιάζεσθαι Καρδιανοὺς ὡς αὑτῷ προσήκοντας, ἀλλὰ διαδικάσασθαι πρὸς αὐτούς, εἴ τί φασιν ἠδικῆσθαι. ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἤκουον τούτων οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι, βοήθειαν τοῖς Καρδιανοῖς ἔπεμψεν.

914

dp63 dispatch of settlers to the chersonese

915

T1 See how he [sc. Philip] received Hegesippos and the ambassadors with him.

Date 344/3.

T1 The Chersonese was an ancient possession of the Athenians near Thrace, and in the time of Philip they sent their cleruchs to it. It was an ancient Athenian custom to send those of their number who were poor and had no land at home as colonists to their outlying cities, and when they were sent they would receive weapons and supplies from the treasury. Now then, this has happened and they have sent colonists to the Chersonese with Diopeithes for a general. Most of the other people of the Chersonese welcomed them when they arrived and shared houses and land with them, but the Kardians did not, saying that the land belonged to them, not to the Athenians. Because of this, Diopeithes made war on the Kardians, but they fled for refuge to Philip, who ordered the Athenians not to harm them, because they were associated with him, but rather to go to arbitration with them, if they believed that they had been harmed in some way. But when the Athenians did not obey these commands, he sent aid to the Kardians. (trans. Gibson www.stoa.org/ projects/demos/libanius.pdf adapted).

inventory b1

916

Commentary

This hypothesis is the nearest we come to evidence for a decree organising the dispatch of cleruchs to the Chersonese ‘at the time of Philip’ (Cargill, Athenian Settlements, suggests c. 343/2). For the earlier dispatch of settlers there in 353/2, see DP 52 above. Isaac, The Greek Settlements, 191–7 suggests that the klerouchoi may have been settled at an already-existing settlement at Agora or Pakyte towards the north of the peninsula. Demosthenes speech 8 On the Chersonese of 341 called for the defence of Athenian claims and for the Athenians to give support to Diopeithes (see DP 64 below).

DP64 Diopeithes makes war upon the Kardians Texts

T1 See DP 63 above (hypothesis to Dem 8, 1–5). T2  Dem. 8.6: Πρὶν Διοπείθην ἐκπλεῦσαι καὶ τοὺς κληρούχους, οὓς νῦν αἰτιῶνται πεποιηκέναι τὸν πόλεμον. T3  Dem. 9.15: Οὔπω Διοπείθους στρατηγοῦντος οὐδὲ τῶν ὄντων ἐν Χερρονήσῳ νῦν ἀπεσταλμένων.

Commentary

T1 suggests that the Athenians sent out cleruchs to the Chersonese with Diopeithes and that, on encountering hostility from the Kardians, he was forced to make war upon them. This event is dated as taking place ‘during the time of Philip’ (see T1); Cargill, Athenian Settlers, 28, suggests a date of 343/2. Indeed, Diopeithes is said to have been active around the Hellespont in 343/2: FGrH 328 F158; according to its extant hypothesis, speech 8 in the Demosthenic corpus, On the Chersonese, was made in support of his activities. It is plausible but far from certain that the psephisma referred to at Dem. 8.29 should be identified with the decision to send out Diopeithes with the cleruchs. For discussion of the position of Kardia vis-à-vis Philip and Athens, see Sealey, Demosthenes, 179–80. The Athenians had sent settlers in 353/2: see D.S. 16.34.3–4 = DP 52.

dp64 diopeithes makes war upon the kardians

917

Date

343/2 (Cargill, Athenian Settlements, 28).

T2 Before Diopeithes sailed out with the cleruchs, whom they now allege started the hostilities. T3 Diopeithes was not yet appointed general, nor had the force in the Chersonese been sent out.

Date

343/2: FGrH 328 F158.

DP65 Dispatch of ambassadors Text

T1 Scholion on Aeschin. 3.83 (Dilts 181): Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπὶ Πυθοδότου ἄρχοντος ... ἔπεμψαν πολλαχοῦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος πρεσβείας περὶ συμμαχίας καὶ εἰς Θετταλίαν καὶ Μαγνησίαν τοὺς περὶ Ἀριστόδημον, ἀποστῆσαι αὐτοὺς βουλόμενοι ἀπὸ Φιλίππου.

Commentary

Aeschines 3.83 tells us that these ambassadors, including Aristodemos, who were sent to Thessaly and Magnesia, were crowned upon upon their return to Athens (see D146 above). The scholiast’s note on Aeschines goes on to say that a consequence of these missions was the alliances with Achaians, Arcadians, Mantineians, Argives associated with Mantineia, Megalopolitans, and Messenians (see D149). It seems appropriate to associate these agreements with a physically extant fragment of an alliance with the Messenians of 343/2 (IG II3 1 308); such alliances may however also be associated with Demosthenes’ proposal of the dispatch of ambassadors to the Peloponnese in 344 (D139). However, nothing is said in the sources about the success of creating alliances with the Thessalians and Magnesians. It is likely that the aim of the embassy was to stir up resistance to Philip among the Thessalians, who had sworn, according to the terms of the Peace of Philokrates, not to revolt from him (Scholion on Aeschin. 3.83 Dilts 182; Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.53).

DP66 Embassy to Persia Text

T1  [Dem.] 12 Letter 6: Χωρὶς τοίνυν εἰς τοῦτο παρανομίας ἀφῖχθε καὶ δυσμενείας ὥστε καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πέρσην πρέσβεις ἀπεστάλκατε πείσοντας αὐτὸν ἐμοὶ πολεμεῖν.

918

dp66 embassy to persia

919

T1 During the archonship of Pythodotos … the Athenians sent out embassies with Aristodemos concerning alliance to many parts of Greece, and to Thessaly and to Magnesia, wanting them to revolt from Philip.

Date

343/2 (T1).

T1 Furthermore, you have reached such a pitch of lawlessness and ill-disposition that you even sent ambassadors to the Persian king to persuade him to make war on me.

inventory b1

920

Commentary

The Athenian dispatch of an embassy to the Persians, to make an alliance against Philip, represented a U-turn of Athenian policy, as the source asserts; see also D142 T1. However, diplomatic contact between the Athenians and Persians was otherwise known in the late 340s and later: see Didymos, Demosthenes, Harding col. 8.8-23 and Dem. 10.34–5 and 11.5–6.

DP67 Dispatch of Chares to the Hellespont Text

T1  Plu. Phoc. 14.3–4: Ὡρμημένων δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων βοηθεῖν οἱ ῥήτορες ἠγωνίσαντο τὸν Χάρητα στρατηγὸν ἀποσταλῆναι, καὶ πλεύσας ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲν ἄξιον τῆς δυνάμεως ἔπραττεν, οὐδ’ αἱ πόλεις ἐδέχοντο τὸν στόλον.

Commentary

Plutarch offers an account of Athenian resistance to Philip’s voyage to the Hellespont. Chares’ expedition (T1) was ineffective and he did little other than exact money from the Athenian allies; according to Theopompus, Chares sailed away to a meeting with the King’s generals and left ships behind at Hieron with a view to gathering together cargo ships from the Pontos (FGrH 115 F392). Phokion had himself sent out shortly afterwards (see D157 above).

DP68 Peace between Athens and Philip Text

T1 D.S. 16.77.3: Διόπερ ὁ Φίλιππος καταπλαγεὶς τῇ συνδρομῇ τῶν Ἑλλήνων τήν τε πολιορκίαν τῶν πόλεων ἔλυσε καὶ πρὸς Ἀθηναίους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους Ἕλληνας τοὺς ἐναντιουμένους συνέθετο τὴν εἰρήνην.

dp68 peace between athens and philip

921

Date

Late 340s? Griffith, History of Macedonia, 2.566 suggests mid 341.

T1 The Athenians were very keen on coming to the assistance of their allies, and the orators persuaded them to send Chares out; sailing there, he did little worthy of the power that he had, and the cities did not accept his fleet.

Date

c. 340; Develin, AO 334 places it at 341/0.

T1 Philip, terrified by the co-operation of the Greeks, put an end to the siege of the cities and he made peace with the Athenians and the other Greeks who were opposing him.

inventory b1

922

Commentary

In a very concise account of the consequences of the siege of Byzantion, Diodorus records that Philip made peace with the Athenians and other Greeks: it appears that he accepted his failure at Byzantion and Perinthos. Griffith, History of Macedonia 2.580, however, is not convinced that the Athenians would have made peace with Philip at this point.

DP69 Proposal on mission to Delphi Text

T1  Aeschin. 3.130: Οὐδεμίαν τοι πώποτε ἔγωγε μᾶλλον πόλιν ἑώρακα ὑπὸ μὲν τῶν θεῶν σῳζομένην, ὑπὸ δὲ τῶν ῥητόρων ἐνίων ἀπολλυμένην. Οὐχ ἱκανὸν ἦν τὸ τοῖς μυστηρίοις φανὲν σημεῖον [φυλάξασθαι], ἡ τῶν μυστῶν τελευτή; οὐ περὶ τούτων Ἀμεινιάδης μὲν προύλεγεν εὐλαβεῖσθαι καὶ πέμπειν εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐπερησομένους τὸν θεὸν ὅ τι χρὴ πράττειν, Δημοσθένης δὲ ἀντέλεγε φιλιππίζειν τὴν Πυθίαν φάσκων, ἀπαίδευτος ὢν καὶ ἀπολαύων καὶ ἐμπιπλάμενος τῆς δεδομένης ὑφ’ ὑμῶν αὐτῷ ἐξουσίας;

Commentary

After one (or two) initiates had been attacked by sharks while bathing off Eleusis (Scholion on Aeschin. 3.130 (Dilts 294)), Ameiniades warned the Athenians to be on their guard (εὐλαβεῖσθαι) and to send messengers to Delphi to inquire of the God to ask what was to be done (Dem. 18.130). Demosthenes appears to have opposed this proposal. It is unclear whether or not Ameiniades proposed a decree, and if he did, whether it was passed. For an assessment of this episode, see Parker, Polytheism, 108–9, suggesting that Ameiniades’ suggestion constituted a traditional response to an alarming omen, and discussing Demosthenes’ motivations in opposing it: it may have been the case that he feared an unpredictable response.

dp69 proposal on mission to delphi

923

Date

340 (Diodorus).

T1 I have never seen another city kept so safe by the gods, but sent to ruin by some of its orators. Was not the portent that appeared at the Mysteries – the death of the celebrants – enough? On account of this, didn’t Ameiniades warn you to be cautious, and didn’t he suggest to you that you sent to Delphi to ask the God what ought to be done? And didn’t Demosthenes oppose this, saying that the Pythia had gone over to Philip, out loud, full on, and abusing the power you gave him?

Date

339 (Parker, Polytheism, 109 note 66; cf. Plu. Phoc. 28.3).

DP70 Athenians dispatch a force to Thebes Texts

T1  Hypereides, Against Diondas, 1 Horváth: Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐδέν πω παρ’ἐκείνων εἰληφότες βέβαιον, τὴν δύναμιν ἐκεῖσε Φιλίππου πλησίον ὄντος ἀπεστείλατε· καὶ τότε μὲν ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπιὼν ὤιχετο οὐδὲν ὧν ἠβούλετο διαπραξάμενος· ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ Θηβαῖοι ἐπανελθόντες τάχιστα τὰς συμμαχίας ἐπεκυρώσαμ̣εν. T2  Aeschin. 3.140: Ὑμεῖς ἐξήλθετε καὶ εἰσῇτε εἰς τὰς Θήβας ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις διεσκευασμένοι, καὶ οἱ πεζοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱππεῖς, πρὶν περὶ συμμαχίας μίαν μόνον συλλαβὴν γράψαι Δημοσθένην.

Commentary

The dispatch of an Athenian force to Thebes appears to have been sent out, according to Hypereides (T1), with the aim of encouraging the Thebans to join the Athenians in alliance. The perspectives offered here (TT 1, 2) suggest that an Athenian show of military strength was what led the Thebans to agree an alliance with them (for this view see Guth, ‘Rhetoric’, and DD 162 and 163 above); the other view is that of Demosthenes (18.214–15), who maintained that the dispatch of Athenian ambassadors there, on his proposal (D162), was the motivating factor behind the agreement with the Thebans.

DP71 Athenians set up an epigram commemorating those who died at Chaironeia Text

T1 Dem. 18.289: Τὸ ἐπίγραμμα, ὃ δημοσίᾳ προείλετο ἡ πόλις αὐτοῖς ἐπιγράψαι …

924

dp71 athenians set up an epigram

925

T1 Despite the fact that you had not at that point had any reassurance from them, you dispatched a force there while Philip was close by; and at that point Philip left without achieving what he had wanted to accomplish. We and the Thebans returned and we quickly confirmed our alliance.

T2 And then you marched out and you went to Thebes ready for battle, both foot soldiers and cavalry, before Demosthenes had proposed a syllable concerning the alliance.

Date

Late 339.

T1 The epigram, which the city chose to have inscribed for them in public ...

inventory b1

926

Commentary

As Yunis (Demosthenes, 269–70) observes, the verb προείλετο suggests that the Athenians chose the epigram deliberately, and was used to support the view that Demosthenes enjoyed the people’s trust. For fragments of an inscribed stone epigram from Athens, preserved more fully in the literary sources, which appears to commemorate the dead of Chaironeia, see CEG 467 = Anth. Pal. 7.245: this seems to be a different set of verses from those read out by Demosthenes; the ten lines of epigram which appear in some manuscripts of Demosthenes are, as Yunis comments, probably spurious.

DP72 Call-up after Chaironeia Text

T1  Lycurg. 1.39: Ἡνίκα ἡ μὲν ἧττα καὶ τὸ γεγονὸς πάθος τῷ προσηγγέλλετο, ὀρθὴ δ’ ἦν ἡ πόλις ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν, αἱ δ’ ἐλπίδες τῆς σωτηρίας τῷ δήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ πεντήκοντ’ ἔτη γεγονόσι καθειστήκεσαν.

Commentary

It seems reasonable to accept that Lycurgus’ words suggest that a call-up of men over fifty years of age was issued in the emergency after Chaironeia: while technically citizens were liable until the end of their 59th year, in fact conscription of the over-50s was rare (Christ, ‘Conscription,’ 404, discussing the introduction of conscription by age-class at 409–16).

dp72 call-up after chaironeia

927

Date

After the battle of Chaironeia, 338/7.

T1  When the news of the defeat and the subsequent disaster was announced to the people, and the city was tense at what was happening, their hopes for its safety relied entirely upon those who were more than fifty years of age.

Date

338/7, after Chaironeia.

DP73 Hiring out of mercenaries Text

T1  Aeschin. 3.146: Μισθοφορῶν δ’ ἐν τῷ ξενικῷ κεναῖς χώραις, καὶ τὰ στρατιωτικὰ χρήματα κλέπτων, καὶ τοὺς μυρίους ξένους ἐκμισθώσας Ἀμφισσεῦσι, πολλὰ διαμαρτυρομένου καὶ σχετλιάζοντος ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐμοῦ, προσέμειξε φέρων ἀναρπασθέντων τῶν ξένων τὸν κίνδυνον ἀπαρασκεύῳ τῇ πόλει.

Commentary

Aeschines 3.146 claims that he himself repeatedly complained in the assembly about Demosthenes’ hiring out of 10,000 mercenaries to the Amphissans. Aeschines’ claims that his complaint was made in the assembly make it plausible to think that the dispatch of mercenaries was initiated by a decree of the people. Burckhardt, Bürger, 128 with note 270 discusses the figure and suggests that 10,000 may have been the number of mercenaries assembled in central Greece by the Greek states before the battle of Chaironeia.

DP74 Allocation of Oropos between the tribes Text

T1 Hyp. Eux. 16: Αἱ φυλαὶ σύνδυο γενόμεναι τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἐν Ὠρωπῶι διείλοντο, τοῦ δήμου αὐταῖς δόντος.

Commentary

At some point either in 338 or 335 (for the date of 335, D238 above), the Macedonians handed over Oropos to the Athenians; according to this passage (T1), the Athenians appear to have divided up the land into five portions, each of which was allocated to one of five pairings of the ten Attic tribes. It is quite plausible to think that this allocation of land could have been carried out by decree, though it might equally have been introduced as a law enacted 928

dp74 allocation of oropos between the tribes

929

T1 By taking pay for unfilled vacancies in the mercenary force, and stealing from the military fund, and hiring out 10,000 mercenaries to the Amphissans, notwithstanding my protests and complaints at the assembly, he brought on the danger more quickly when the city was not ready by dismissing the mercenaries.

Date

Between 338/7 and 330.

T1 The tribes, divided into pairs, allocated the hills of Oropos between them, which had been given by the people.

by nomothesia. As Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 102 suggests, at some point before the tribal allocation was made, an appointed board of 50 horistai (boundary-commissioners: on these officers, see Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public, 128–9; Dekazou-Stephanopoulou, ‘Η αρχή των οριστών στην αρχαία Ελλάδα’) had set aside part of the new land for Amphiaraos. The contradiction between these two decisions, both of which may have been made by decree,

inventory b1

930

appears to have been the cause of the upheaval that led the Athenians to appoint Euxenippos to incubate at the sanctuary as a way of receiving advice from the deity (see DP 75 below) and Polyeuktos’ decree (see D238 above). For the view that the original allocation of land was carried out at a time when the Athenians had possession of Oropos, before the 360s, see Knoepfler, ‘L’ occupation’ and ‘L’ appariement’ (suggesting the period 375/4 to 372/1). Colin (Hypéride, 143 note 1); followed by Marzi (Oratori Attici, 180 note 43) suggests that the division was made either before 411 (when the Athenians lost possession of Oropos) or in the 360s. Whitehead, Hypereides, 210, suggests that the land was allocated later, at a time chronologically closer to the speech.

DP75 Euxenippos is ordered to carry out an incubation at the Amphiareion Text

T1 Hyp. Eux. 14: Ὁ δῆμος προσέταξεν Εὐξενίππῳ τρίτῳ αὐτῷ ἐγκατακλιθῆναι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν.

Commentary

When it emerged that there was a contradiction between the allocation of Oropian land between the tribes and the horistai’s allocation of new land for Amphiaraos, Euxenippos and two others (for discussion of the term ‘τρίτῳ αὐτῷ’, see Whitehead, Hypereides, 200) were ordered by the people to incubate in the sanctuary for the sake of receiving, by way of a dream, advice about the allocation of the land. While the technicalities of the appointment are not specified, the demos is described as making orders with the verb ‘προσέταξεν’. For other descriptions of the demos ordering others using the verb ‘προστάσσω’ and its cognates, see Din. 1.8, 50, 58 (the people instruct the Areopagus to make an inquiry). Presumably there must have been a decree ordering that the demos appoint three citizens to incubate at the temple of Amphiaraos; however, the technicalities of the appointment are not specified. As Harris, Dreams, 157, points out, apparently the Athenians ‘proposed to trust a dream in a matter of practical import’, but the choice of sanctuary may be explained by the fact that

dp75 euxenippos’ orders

931

Date

After 338/7 or 335 (see D238 above).

T1 The people ordered Euxenippos and two others to lie down in the sanctuary.

Amphiaraos’ property rights were in question. Euxenippos’ report of the dream was followed by a decree of Polyeuktos (Hyp. Eux. 14–15), which in turn was indicted under graphe paranomon: for discussion of Hypereides’ description of the precise relationship between the dream and the decree, see Whitehead, Hypereides, 201–3, with a summary, at D238 Commentary above. At some point a certain Euxenippos made a dedication to Hygieia there (I.Oropos 347), but we do not know the chronological relation to the incubation under discussion here. For early fourth-century regulations on incubation at the Amphiareion, see I.Oropos 276, 277 lines 37–48; for a votive relief dedicated to Amphiaraos by Archinos, depicted as sleeping in the koimeterion and receiving medical attention, see I.Oropos 344. Incubation in the fourth century appears mostly to have been limited to those seeking cures (see I. Oropos 277 lines 20–4; Petrakos, Ὁ Ὠρωπὸς, 132–5), but it may also have been a way to consult the oracle (Hdt. 8.134.1–2, referring to practice at an Amphiareion which may be at Oropos or a

inventory b1

932

separate one at Thebes; see also von Ehrenheim, Greek Incubation, 168–71). For another example of an incubant receiving divine instructions through a dream at the Amphiareion, see I.Oropos 329.

DP76 Dispatch of envoys to Persia Text

T1 Arrian, Anabasis, 2.15.2: Τοὺς δὲ πρέσβεις τῶν Ἑλλήνων οἳ πρὸς Δαρεῖον πρὸ τῆς μάχης ἀφιγμένοι ἦσαν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τούτους ἑαλωκέναι ἔμαθεν, παρ᾽ αὑτὸν πέμπειν ἐκέλευεν. ἦσαν δὲ Εὐθυκλῆς μὲν Σπαρτιάτης, Θεσσαλίσκος δὲ Ἰσμηνίου καὶ Διονυσόδωρος Ὀλυμπιονίκης Θηβαῖοι, Ἰφικράτης δὲ ὁ Ἰφικράτους τοῦ στρατηγοῦ Ἀθηναῖος.

Commentary

This testimonium suggests that one – or more – Athenian envoys had approached the Persians at the time of the Theban revolt, and appear to have later fallen into Alexander’s hands (Quintus Curtius 3.13.15; T1). It is possible – but not provable – that the Athenian contingent was dispatched by the Athenian assembly. They are taken by Hammond (History of Macedonia, III.57–9) as an indication of Athenian commitment to supporting the revolt of Thebes, which was repressed by Alexander (Arrian, Anabasis, 1.7.2–3); according to [Demades], Demosthenes appears to have made much of the rumour that Alexander had been killed ([Demades] On the Twelve Years, 17) as part of an attempt to get the Athenians to rise up with them; Demades urged caution.

dp76 dispatch of envoys to persia

933

Date

After 338/7 or 335 (see D238 above).

T1 When he found out that those Greek envoys who had got to Dareios before the battle had been captured, he ordered them to be dispatched to him. They included Euthykles the Spartiate, Thessaliskos the son of Ismenias and Dionysodoros an Olympic victor from Thebes, and Iphikrates the son of Iphikrates the general from Athens.

Date

335, at the time of the Athenian alliance with the Thebans (see D184 above), as Hammond, History of Macedonia, III.57. Develin, AO, 385, however, places the ambassadorial mission at 333/2.

DP77 Athens awards isoteleia to Thebans Text

T1 D120 above.

Commentary

After the destruction of Thebes, the Athenians offered refuge to some Thebans and granted them the privilege of paying tax as metics: see Hammond, History of Macedonia, III, 65. For other awards of isoteleia, which could presumably be dispensed only by decree of the Athenian assembly, see D120 above.

DP78 Athenian ships sent to assist Alexander Text

T1  D.S. 17.22.5: Τῆς δὲ ναυτικῆς δυνάμεως οὔσης ἀχρήστου καὶ δαπάνας μεγάλας ἐχούσης κατέλυσε τὸ ναυτικὸν πλὴν ὀλίγων νεῶν, αἷς ἐχρῆτο πρὸς τὴν παρακομιδὴν τῶν πολιορκητικῶν ὀργάνων, ἐν αἷς ἦσαν αἱ παρ᾽ Ἀθηναίων νῆες συμμαχίδες εἴκοσιν.

Commentary

Probably at the time of his expedition to Persia, Alexander appears to have requested triremes from Greek states (Plu. Phoc. 21.1; cf. [Plu.] X Or. 847c and 848e); Plutarch suggests that the Athenians resisted this request, but in T1 Diodorus reports that Alexander held on to the Athenian ships after he had released the others (after the capture of Miletos): this suggests that the Athenians indeed dispatched twenty ships, presumably by decree of the people.

934

dp78 athenian ships sent to assist alexander

935

Date

335, after the repression of the revolt of Thebes.

T1 And as the naval force now had no use and it was hugely expensive, Alexander dissolved the fleet with the exception of a few ships, which he made use of in the transportation of his siege engines; these remaining ones included the twenty ships of the Athenian force.

Date

Before the fall of Miletos in 334/3.

DP79 Dispatch of envoys to Alexander Text

T1 Arrian, Anab. 1.29.5–6: Ἐνταῦθα καὶ Ἀθηναίων πρεσβεία παρ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρον ἀφίκετο, δεόμενοι Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀφεῖναί σφισι τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, οἳ ἐπὶ Γρανίκῳ ποταμῷ ἐλήφθησαν Ἀθηναίων ξυστρατευόμενοι τοῖς Πέρσαις καὶ τότε ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ ξὺν τοῖς δισχιλίοις δεδεμένοι ἦσαν· καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἄπρακτοι ἐν τῷ τότε ἀπῆλθον.

Commentary

This embassy, which was presumably dispatched on the orders of the Athenian assembly, appealed for the release of Athenian mercenaries who had been fighting on behalf of the Persian king. Alexander did not take notice of the request (cf. Quintus Curtius 3.1.9–10, giving a fuller account of Alexander’s response); for other embassies sent by the Athenians, see DPP 80, 81 below (the latter of which was successful in getting the prisoners returned).

DP80 Dispatch of Paralos to Alexander Text

T1 Hypereides Against Diondas 24 Horváth: Ἔλεγε̣ δὲ ἐν τῆι πρώ̣ην ἐκκλησίαι δεῖν ἡμᾶς τὴν Πάραλον πέμψαντας ὡς Ἀλεξάνδρον μέμφεσθαι αὐτῷ, ὅτι ὑστάτοις ὑμῖν ἐπέστειλεν περὶ τῶν τριήρων.

Commentary

Probably at the time of his expedition to Persia, Alexander appears to have requested triremes from Greek states (see above, DP 78 = D.S. 17.22.5); Diodorus’ report that Alexander held on to the Athenian ships after he had released the others suggests that ships were indeed dispatched by the Athenians. In T1 Hypereides suggests that Diondas suggested that the Paralos – presumably bearing ambassadors  – be sent to Alexander. It is impossible to tell 936

dp80 dispatch of paralos to alexander

937

T1  There arrived also an embassy from the Athenians to Alexander, asking him to release to them the prisoners of the Athenians who had been captured at the Granikos river fighting for the Persians and who were now captives in Macedonia alongside the 2,000 others; the ambassadors’ request was not granted and at that point they left.

Date

334/3, after the battle of the Granikos.

T1 He said in a previous assembly that you should send the Paralos to Alexander and complain to him that he wrote to you last of all about the triremes.

whether the proposal was made into a decree, and it is held up by Hypereides as an example of Diondas’ outrageous behaviour.

inventory b1

938

Date

Before the speech against Diondas was given, so late 333 or early 334, as Horváth, Der ‘Neue Hypereides’, 20; or May–June 334, as Rhodes, ‘Hypereides’ Against Diondas, 225–6.

DP81 Dispatch of ambassadors to Alexander Text

T1  Arrian, Anabasis, 3.6.2: Ἐνταῦθα ἀφικνεῖται παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν ἡ Πάραλος πρέσβεις ἄγουσα Διόφαντον καὶ Ἀχιλλέα· ξυνεπρέσβευον δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ οἱ Πάραλοι ξύμπαντες. καὶ οὗτοι τῶν τε ἄλλων ἔτυχον ὧν ἕνεκα ἐστάλησαν καὶ τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀφῆκεν Ἀθηναίοις ὅσοι ἐπὶ Γρανίκῳ Ἀθηναίων ἑάλωσαν.

Commentary

This was the second ambassadorial mission sent by the Athenians to appeal for the release of the prisoners captured at the Granikos river: it appears to have been successful in securing their return. For the first, unsuccessful, mission, see DP 79 above. Curtius (4.8.12) adds that the envoys congratulated him on a victory (perhaps, as Bosworth, Commentary, I.278 suggests, that at Issos); Bosworth (Commentary, I.278) observes that it is plausible to think that the two gold crowns for Alexander, listed in the inscribed account IG II2 1496 (lines 52­–8), were brought to him by this embassy. The trireme Paralos was evidently used for dispatching urgent messages and its crew could be made advocates of the diplomatic process: for its dispatch to Alexander and a representation made by its crew, see Aeschin. 3.162 (and the discussion of Andrewes, HCT V.265–6); for Diondas’ proposal – probably earlier – that it be sent to Alexander for the sake of making a complaint about the non-return of Athenian triremes, see DP 80 above.

dp81 dispatch of ambassadors to alexander

939

T1 There [sc. at Tyre] the Paralos reached him from Athens, bringing the ambassadors Diophantos and Achilles; all of those sailing with them on the Paralos co-operated as diplomatic envoys. And they achieved success in all the aims of their mission, and Alexander gave up to the Athenians those he had captured at the Granikos.

Date

At the time of Alexander’s siege of Tyre, 331.

DP82 Dispatch of ambassadors to Kleopatra, daughter of Philip II Text

T1 Aeschin. 3.242: Καὶ γὰρ ἂν ἄτοπόν σοι συμβαίνοι, εἰ πρώην μέν ποθ᾽ ὑπέμεινας πρεσβευτὴς ὡς Κλεοπάτραν τὴν Φιλίππου θυγατέρα χειροτονεῖσθαι, συναχθεσθησόμενος ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ Μολοττῶν βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτῇ, νυνὶ δὲ οὐ φήσεις δύνασθαι λέγειν.

Commentary

Aeschines alludes to Ktesiphon being dispatched to Kleopatra, daughter of Philip II, to console her about the death of her husband Alexander of the Molossi; the election of an envoy strongly suggests that the Athenians had voted by decree that an embassy should be sent. The dispatch of Ktesiphon, as Carney (Women and Monarchy, 89) suggests, may have constituted a polite gesture, but at the same time may have recognised her role in the grain-supply (Lycurg. 1.26).

DP83 Citizenship for Amphis of Andros Text

T1 Suda, s.v. ‘Ἄμφις’ (alpha 1760 Adler): Ἄμφις, κωμικὸς, Ἀθηναῖος. Ἀμφὶς δὲ χωρίς.

Commentary

Amphis of Andros, probably the playwright (PCG II 213–35) is attested as the recipient of a crown and proxeny-status in a decree of 19th Elaphebolion 331; if The Suda is right to call him an Athenian, it is plausible to think that he received the status of citizen at some point after the decree: see Osborne, Naturalization, PT 138.

940

dp83 citizenship for amphis of andros

941

T1  And now, if you (Ktesiphon) were to claim that you are not able to speak, wouldn’t you be in a strange situation, since just recently you allowed yourself to be elected ambassador to go to Kleopatra the daughter of Philip to offer condolences for the death of Alexander the King of the Molossi?

Date

330/29, at the time of the death of Alexander of the Molossi.

T1 Amphis. An Athenian comedian. But the word ‘amphis’ means ‘apart’.

Date

Later than 331.

DP84 Citizenship for Aristion Texts

T1  Aeschin 3.162: Ἔστι τις Ἀριστίων Πλαταϊκός, ὁ τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου τοῦ φαρμακοπώλου υἱός, εἴ τις ἄρα καὶ ὑμῶν γιγνώσκει. T2  Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀριστίων’ (=Diyllos BNJ 73 F2): ῾Υπερείδης κατὰ Δημοσθένους. οὗτος Σάμιος μέν ἐστιν ἢ Πλαταιεύς, ὡς Δίυλλος φησιν, ἐκ μειρακυλλίου δ᾽ ἑταῖρος Δημοσθένους. ἐπέμφθη δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ῾Ηφαιστίωνα ἕνεκα διαλλαγῶν, ὥς φησι Μαρσύας ἐν ε– Τῶν περὶ ᾽Αλέξανδρον.

Commentary

Harding, From the End, 143 note 3, thinks that the epithet ‘Πλαταϊκός’ (T1) could indicate an individual who was given the status of a Plataean, which amounts to honorary citizenship. Indeed, this is likely, given that the usual way of referring to a Plataean male in Athens was Πλαταιεύς (cf. T2): see Osborne, Foreign Residents, 257–60. Accordingly, the identification of Aristion’s ethnicity is very uncertain: Aristion could simply be a Plataean (as is generally thought for the Πλαταϊκός Theodotos of Lysias 3.5, with Todd, Commentary, 279–81). The entry in Haropkration (T2) suggests that Aristion was either a Samian or a Plataean (Σάμιος μὲν ἐστιν ἢ Πλαταιεύς): this might support the view that he was originally a Samian who was granted citizenship. However, Harpokration’s discussion is thought generally to be a confused reference to a certain Knosion of Hyp. Dem. Col 13 (see now Diyllos BNJ 73 F2). Whitehead, Hypereides, 402– 3, suggests that Knosion was an Athenian citizen, and so he too may well have been made a citizen by decree (cf. DP 85 below).

DP85 Citizenship for Knosion See DP 84 Commentary above.

942

dp85 citizenship for knosion

943

T1 There was a certain Plataïkos called Aristion, who is the son of Aristoboulos the drug-seller, if any of you remembers him.

T2  Aristion. Hypereides in the Against Demosthenes. This man is a Samian or a Plataean, as Diyllos says, and was a companion of Demosthenes from the time when he was a young boy. He was sent by him to Hephaistion for the sake of reconciliation, as Marsyas says in the fifth volume of his books about Alexander.

Date

Before 330.

Date

Before 330.

DP86 Secret and open instructions to Leosthenes Texts

T1  D.S. 18.9.2: Διὸ καὶ τούτους προσέταξαν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις Λεωσθένει τῷ Ἀθηναίῳ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἀναλαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἰδιοπραγοῦντα χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ δήμου γνώμης, ὅπως ὁ μὲν Ἀντίπατρος ῥᾳθυμότερον διατεθῇ πρὸς τὰς παρασκευὰς, καταφρονῶν τοῦ Λεωσθένους, οἱ δ᾽ Ἀθηναῖοι σχολὴν λάβωσι καὶ χρόνον προκατασκευάσαι τι τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον χρησίμων. T2 D.S. 18.9.4: Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οὕτως ἐπράττετο μήπω καλῶς ἐγνωσμένης τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τελευτῆς· ἐπεὶ δέ τινες ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἧκον αὐτόπται γεγονότες τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως μεταλλαγῆς, τότε φανερῶς ὁ δῆμος ἀπεκαλύψατο πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ τῶν μὲν Ἁρπάλου χρημάτων μέρος ἐξέπεμψε τῷ Λεωσθένει καὶ πανοπλίας οὐκ ὀλίγας καὶ παρήγγειλε μηκέτι παρακρύπτειν, ἀλλὰ φανερῶς πράττειν τι τῶν συμφερόντων.

Commentary

Diodorus claims that the Athenians, once they had realised the implications for their cleruchy in Samos of the Exiles Decree and had heard news of the death of Alexander, dared rise up as champions of Greek liberty, and sent instructions to the Athenian mercenary leader Leosthenes to enrol the Greek mercenaries at Tainaron in the Peloponnese; they drew upon the money left by Harpalos (D.S. 18.9.1). According to Diodorus (T1), at first they sent instructions secretly to Leosthenes (though for institutional difficulties in accepting the dispatch of secret orders, see D79 Commentary above), and then they openly declared an intention of war and sent him money and arms (T2). These developments were described by Diodorus as coming before the decree proposing war (see D199 above).

944

dp86 secret and open instructions to leosthenes

945

T1 And because of this [sc. their resources and the existence of mercenaries] they [sc. the Athenians] gave orders in secret to Leosthenes the Athenian at first to enrol them as if he were acting by himself without the proposal of the people, so that Antipater would be less swift in his preparations, given that he despised Leosthenes; meanwhile the Athenians gained leisure and time in the readying of some preparations necessary for war. T2 These things were carried out in this way when the death of Alexander was not yet well known; but when some people came from Babylon who had themselves seen the passing of the king, then the people made clear its intention to go to war and sent part of the money of Harpalos and not a few suits of armour, ordering him no longer to do things in secret, but to do what was advantageous in open.

Date

Summer 323.

DP87 Dispatch of embassy to Arcadia Text

T1 [Plu.] X Or. 846c–d: Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον τῶν Ἀθηναίων Πολύευκτον πεμψάντων πρεσβευτὴν πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀρκάδων, ὥστ’ ἀποστῆσαι αὐτοὺς τῆς τῶν Μακεδόνων συμμαχίας, καὶ τοῦ Πολυεύκτου πεῖσαι μὴ δυναμένου, ἐπιφανεὶς Δημοσθένης καὶ συνειπὼν ἔπεισεν.

Commentary

The Athenian attempt to persuade the Arkadians to abandon their alliance with the Macedonians led them to dispatch Polyeuktos as ambassador; we may presume that this was done by decree of the people. The Polyeuktos who was sent is probably the same man who was dispatched by the Athenians as ambassador to the Peloponnese in 343/2 (Dem. 9.72): see Hansen, ‘Updated inventory,’ 57–8; as Oikonomides (‘The Athenian Orator: Polyeuktos of Sphettos’, 6) commented, ‘Polyeuktos knew the politics of the city-states of the Peloponnese’. The embassy appears to have been dispatched after the exile of Demosthenes; according to Plutarch (see D200 above), Demosthenes’ intervention led the Athenians to recall him. Diodoros, however, says nothing of the Arcadians in his list of those communities who joined in the Greek revolt that led to the Lamian War: Diodorus Siculus 18.11.1; indeed Schmitt, Der Lamische Krieg, 107, lists them among the ‘Neutrale Staaten’ and Kralli’s judgement is that ‘since there is no trace of any Arkadian state participating in the war, ps-Plutarch is either entirely mistaken or the Arkadians promised to support the Athenians but later changed their mind, preferring to remain neutral’: see Kralli, The Hellenistic Peloponnese, 86–7.

946

dp87 dispatch of embassy to arcadia

947

T1 After this time the Athenians dispatched Polyeuktos as ambassador to the confederacy of the Arcadians in order to detach them from alliance with the Macedonians. When Polyeuktos was not able to persuade them, Demosthenes appeared and contributed to the effort and won them over.

Date

323, before the return of Demosthenes.

DP88 Dispatch of force to Leosthenes Text

T1 D.S. 18.11.3: Ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἀπέστελλε στρατιώτας τῷ Λεωσθένει βοηθήσοντας πολιτικοὺς μὲν πεζοὺς πεντακισχιλίους, ἱππεῖς δὲ πεντακοσίους, μισθοφόρους δὲ δισχιλίους.

Commentary

These soldiers were sent out by the Athenians to join Leosthenes (the Athenian mercenary general to whom the Athenians gave orders to go to war and who was commander of the Greek forces) and his force of 8,000 mercenaries which was marching towards central Greece. They inflicted a defeat on the Macedonian forces in Boiotia: D.S. 18.12.4; Hyp. Epit. 15–16.

DP89 Athenians are forced to accept Antipater’s peace-treaty Text

T1  D.S. 18.18.3: Τοῦ δ’ Ἀντιπάτρου διακούσαντος τῶν λόγων καὶ δόντος ἀπόκρισιν ὡς ἄλλως οὐ μὴ συλλύσηται τὸν πρὸς Ἀθηναίους πόλεμον, ἐὰν μὴ τὰ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιτρέψωσιν αὐτῷ (καὶ γὰρ ἐκείνους συγκλείσαντας εἰς Λάμιαν τὸν Ἀντίπατρον τὰς αὐτὰς ἀποκρίσεις πεποιῆσθαι πρεσβεύσαντος αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰρήνης). ὁ δῆμος οὐκ ὢν ἀξιόμαχος ἠναγκάσθη τὴν ἐπιτροπὴν καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν πᾶσαν Ἀντιπάτρῳ δοῦναι περὶ τῆς πόλεως.

Commentary:

The Greek resistance in the Lamian War capitulated at Krannon in summer 322 (for accounts of the final stages, see Plu. Phoc. 26–30, Pausanias 7.10.4–5; Schmitt, Der Lamische, 143–7); Diodorus says that the Greeks were unwilling to come to terms and so Antipater led forces against each city in turn; the reaction

948

dp89 athenians are forced to accept

949

T1 The people sent out citizen-soldiers to Leosthenes for the purpose of helping him in the shape of 5000 foot-soldiers, 500 horsemen, and 2000 mercenaries.

Date

Autumn 323.

T1 When Antipater had heard the speeches [sc. of the Athenian envoys] he gave the answer that he would not bring the war with the Athenians to an end unless they gave up all of their interests to him; for these were the same terms which they offered to him when he was shut up at Lamia when he had sent envoys about peace. The people were not in a fit condition to fight, and so they were forced to grant to Antipater every power over the city to do what he liked.

of the people was that they should send envoys (see D201 above). Demades and Phokion made speeches, and T1 is Diodorus’ account of Antipater’s response. Normally peace treaties involving the Athenians were negotiated by ambassadors and would be discussed at the council before being put on the

inventory b1

950

agenda of the assembly, but in this case the Athenians were forced to grant Antipater complete discretion over the city. Diodorus offers an account of the actual terms of the treaty: D.S. 18.18.4–6, 56.6; cf. Plu. Phoc. 28.3–4. The terms included an agreement of friendship and alliance between Athens and the Macedonians, the handing over of Athenian political leaders, the disenfranchisement of some 12,000 citizens, the imposition of a garrison, and the confiscation of the Amphiareion at Oropos. See SVA 415 and Poddighe, Nel Segno, 33–7; Hammond, History of Macedonia, III. 114–15; Habicht, Athens, 40; Schmitt, Der Lamische, 147–57.

DP90 Citizenship for Palaiphatos Text

T1 Suda, s.v. ‘Παλαίφατος’ (mu 77 Adler): Αἰγύπτιος ἢ ᾽Αθηναῖος· γραμματικός.

Commentary

The Suda’s entries for the name Palaiphatos associate him with a work entitled On Unbelievable Tales and refer to him with a multiplicity of ethnics (Egyptian, Parian, Prienian, Abydian, and Athenian). It is, then, quite possible that he was naturalised as an Athenian, perhaps during a period of residency there: see Osborne, Naturalization, PT 139. However, Nünlist (Palaiphatos BNJ 44 T3 Commentary) takes the view that ‘Palaiphatos’ association with the Peripatetic school may be responsible for the view that he (or another Palaiphatos) is an Athenian’.

dp90 citizenship for palaiphatos

Date

September 322.

T1 Palaiphatos. An Egyptian or Athenian; a grammarian.

Date

c. 350–300 (Osborne).

951

Inventory B2 Other Possible Decrees The majority of decisions taken in Athens probably were the consequence of a decree of the assembly.4 In this section I bring together a selection of examples of other processes and appointments which may well have been initiated by – or have involved at some point – the making of a decree at the assembly. These were previously defined as Type 5 attestations, ‘other possible decrees’ (see Introduction, section 2)

1 Eisphora Levies The process of initiating a levy of eisphora was initiated by a decree of the assembly (Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 100). There is evidence to believe that eisphora was levied on the following occasions (those instances marked with an asterisk, owing to the uncertainty about the precise context of the levy, are not included in either of the D or DP catalogues):   (a) on the occasion of the repayment of debts to the Spartans: Dem. 20.12 (= D13 above); *(b) at a number of points during the Corinthian War (395–386 BC): Lys. 19.29, 43, 57; 27.10; 28.3–4; Is. 5.37, 45; Isoc. 17.41 (on the metics), with Thomsen, Eisphora, 180; *(c) at times after the reform of 378/7, which is made clear from Demosthenes’ account of Androtion’s efforts to recover arrears of eisphora (Dem. 22.48; 24.161 see D88 above); *(d) on other occasions in the 370s: Xen. Hell. 6.2.1 (= D28), perhaps referring to that of the year 375/4; de Ste Croix, ‘Demosthenes’ timema’ 51, suggests as many as three times between 378 and 371;

4 As Develin wrote, ‘most things that happened resulted from an assembly decision’ (AO, 23). However, the following actions, though they were initiated in the assembly, appear not usually to have been described as being set in motion by a decree of the people: apagoge and endeixis to the assembly (Hansen, Eisangelia, 40–1; Hansen, Apagoge, 30–5; apagoge to the council was known too: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2), dokimasia and probole (which opened with a denunciation (epangelia) in the assembly), the sentencing and election of magistrates (Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 118–23).

952

inventory b2

953

(e) In 370/69: when the Athenians decided to ‘contribute eisphora and risk lives’ for the sake of the Lacedaimonians: Dem. 16.12 (= DP 34);   (f) In 364/3: when the Athenians sent troops to Arkadia (= DP 42); (g) In 362: at the time of the battle of Mantineia (Xen. Poroi, 3.7 with de Ste Croix. ‘Demosthenes’ timema’, 52); *(h) On at least one occasion during the Social War: Dem. 22.48, Isoc. 8.20, Xen. Poroi 4.40, with Thomsen, Eisphora, 230–1; (i) In late 352: Dem. 3.4 (= D106);   *(j) Possibly in summer 340, when Athens declared war on Philip: Thomsen, Eisphora, 236 (cf. D159); *(k) Possibly in 339/8, as an attempt to strengthen Athens’ forces: Thomsen, Eisphora, 236–7;   *(l) In 335, in connection with an anti-Macedonian revolt: Din. 1.69 with Thomsen, Eisphora, 237, or perhaps at some point earlier (Worthington, Historical Commentary, 233).

2 Epidosis The practice of levying financial contributions, known as epidosis, was carried out on a number of occasions, and it is highly likely that it was undertaken by a decree of the assembly. Attestations in the literary record: (a) At some point after Agesilaos’ capture of Lechaion in 392: Isaios 5.37 (= Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, 2) claims that Dikaiogenes was called on by another person and pledged to contribute 300 drachmai: ‘κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἐτέρου ἐπέδωκεν ἐν τῷ δήμῳ τριακοσίας δραχμάς’. This refers probably to a levy in 394 during the Corinthian War. (b) At some point between 380 and 318, the Athenians were seeking contributions for a public sacrifice (Plu. Phoc. 9.1 = Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, no. 3); others contributed, but Phokion was asked many times before explaining why he would not contribute: ‘πρὸς δὲ θυσίαν τινὰ τῶν Ἀθηναίων αἰτούντων ἐπιδόσεις, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπιδιδόντων, κληθεὶς ἔφη ...’). (c) Demosthenes at 21.161–2 (= Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, no. 4) lists epidoseis levied by Athenians for the expedition to Euboia (= D82), a second levy was introduced for the expedition to defend Olynthos (cf. Philochorus FGrH 328 F49 = D113) in late 349 and a contribution was made when the Athenians at Tamynai were besieged probably in 348. But there is no firm testimonium demonstrating that they were set in motion by a decree of the people.

954

inventory b2

(d) [Plu.] X Or. 849f (= Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, no. 5) says that when Philip was preparing to sail against Euboia (in 340), that Hypereides gathered 40 triremes by epidosis: ‘τεσσαράκοντα τριήρεις ἤθροισεν ἐξ ἐπιδόσεως’. (e) Dem. 18.171 (Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, no. 6) talks of donations volunteered after the fall of Elateia was announced in Athens in 339. (f) Dem. 18.312 and Din. 1.80 (Migeotte, Les Souscriptions, no. 7) talk of epidoseis made after Chaironeia.

3 Epitaphioi Logoi The decision to appoint a particular statesman to give the funeral speech may well have been made by decree of the assembly, though there is no certain attestation of that process. The following are examples of testimonia for the appointment of speakers: (a) Demosthenes gave one in the aftermath of Chaironeia: [Plu.] X Or. 845f– 6a; Dem. 18.285. (b) Hypereides in the Lamian war: D.S. 18.13.5 (ὁ μὲν δῆμος τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον εἰπεῖν προσέταξεν Ὑπερείδῃ τῷ πρωτεύοντι τῶν ῥητόρων τῇ τοῦ λόγου δεινότητι καὶ τῇ κατὰ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἀλλοτριότητι); [Plu.] X Or. 849f.

4 Appointments The appointment of specific individuals to magistracies was undertaken by election at the assembly or selection by lot, and the decision to select them was made by a probouleumatic decree of the assembly ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 44.4). Such a process was followed for making extraordinary appointments (cf. the claims reported at Aeschin. 3.13 about offices held kata psephisma). The decision to appoint and dispatch envoys was also undertaken by decree (see, for instance, Dem 23.172 = D81). Given that they were the consequence of some form of decree, examples of the appointment of envoys and other appointments are listed in this section.

4.1 Envoys The following list, based on references in Develin, AO, accounts for envoys attested in the literary sources not mentioned in the DS or DP section. The literary references are generally to these individuals being on service or being chosen for service:

inventory b2

955

403/2

Philon of Koile (Isoc. 18.22).

394/3

Epikrates of Kephisia, Phormisios to Persia (Athenaios 6.251a); Aristophanes son of Nikophemos and Eunomos to Dionysius of Syracuse (Lys. 19.19).

390/89

Aristophanes son of Nikophemos to Cyprus (Lys. 19.7, 23).

387/6

Kallias of Alopeke (Xen. Hell. 6.3.3–4) and others sent to Sparta (with Kallias claiming that he had been there twice previously to make peace).

Early 370s

Thrasyboulos of Kollytos, Thrason of Erchia, Leodamas of Acharnai, Archedamos of Pelekes to Thebes (Aeschin. 3.138–9).

Late 370s

Hagnias son of Polemon of Oion, possibly concerning Macedon (Isaios 11.8; Develin, AO, 294).

First quarter of fourth century

Demos son of Pyrilampes to Persia (Lys. 19.25 with Develin, AO, 226).

375/4

Kallias of Alopeke (Xen. Hell. 6.3.4, claiming that he twice went to Sparta to make peace).

360s

Kallistratos son of Kallikrates of Aphidna to Arcadia (Develin, AO, 294); Hypereides son of Glaukippos of Kollytos to Thasos (Hypereides F107 Jensen; Develin, AO, 294).

358/7

Antiphon and Charidemos to Philip (FGrH 115 F30a).

355/4

Envoys to Mausolos of Karia and perhaps Egypt (Dem. 24.12, 127, 129; Hypothesis to Demosthenes 24; Harris, Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26, 123 note 55).

345/4

Eukleides sent to Philip to complain about his movements in Thrace (Scholion on Dem. 19.162 Dilts 342 and Develin, AO, 325).

956

inventory b2

Before 343

Aphobetos son of Atrometos of Kothokidai to Persia (Aeschin. 2.149).

343/2

Ambassadors sent to the Peloponnese (see Develin, AO, 239).

341/0

Demosthenes son of Demosthenes of Paiania to the Peloponnese (Dem. 18.244; Aeschin. 3.96–7, 256).

341/0

Hypereides son of Glaukippos of Kollytos ([Plu.] X Or. 850a).

Before 330

Menelaos (?son of Menelochos of Myrrhinous) to Kleopatra (Lycurg. 1.24).

338/7

Demades son of Demeas of Paiania to Philip after Chaironeia (Dem. 18.285; D.S. 16.87; Suda, s.v. Demades); Aeschines son of Atrometos of Kothokidai to Philip (Dem. 18.283; Aeschin. 3.227); Hypereides son of Glaukippos of Kollytos (Hypereides F28 Jensen).

338/7

Phokion son of Phokos (Nepos, Phoc. 1.3).

335/4

Phokion son of Phokos to Alexander (Plu. Phoc. 17.4); Demosthenes son of Demosthenes of Paiania to Alexander (Aeschin. 3.161; D.S. 17.4.7; Plu. Dem. 23.3).

330/29

Aristogeiton and Dropides of Aphidna sent to Dareios but captured by Alexander (Arr. An. 3.24.4; Curtius 3.13.15).

323/2

Hypereides son of Glaukippos of Kollytos to the Peloponnese (Justin 13.5.10; cf. Paus. 5.21.5; [Plu.] X Or. 850b).

4.2 Other Appointments 354/3

Theoric commissioners: Develin, AO, 285.

inventory b2

957

344/3

Appointment of syndikos, initially Aeschines: Dem. 18.134; [Plu.] X Or. 840e, 850a; for the view that this took the form of a decree, see Hansen, The Sovereignty, 42.

338/7

sitones: Dem. 18.248–9 with Develin, AO, 344.

337/6

teichopoios: Dem. 18.113, 118; Aeschin. 3.14, 17, 23–4.

336/5

Lycurgus son of Lykophron of Boutadai appointed as financial administrator ([Plu.] X Or. 841c, perhaps on the proposal of Stratokles; see Develin AO, 363 and Roisman and Worthington, Pseudo-Plutarch: 192 for discussion). Between 340 and 330: Demosthenes persuades the Athenians to make him a commissioner of the navy (epistates nautikou: Aeschin. 3.222).

5 Actions against Individuals and Magistrates 5.1 Eisangelia The principle that the Athenians made ad hominem decrees against individual Athenians, perhaps with a view to commencing the process of eisangelia (impeachment) is clearly set out in Demosthenes’ On the Chersonese: ‘against our own people we make use of psephismata, eisangelia and the dispatch of the Paralos’ (Dem. 8.29). The process of eisangelia (public announcement, laying of information) against an individual (essentially, impeachment) could be initiated by a denunciation at the assembly or the council (Hansen, Eisangelia, 21–9; Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 188 note 750). According to Hansen’s reconstruction, in cases where the denunciation had taken place at the assembly, the process of eisangelia would have given rise to opportunities for decrees of the people: the assembly would have voted whether to accept or reject the impeachment; were it accepted, it would have ordered the council to draw up a probouleuma outlining the charge and the procedure to be followed, and fixing the sentence. After the probouleuma was drawn up, the assembly would have discussed and voted on it as they would do with any other decree (Hansen, Eisangelia, 26; Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 117). For examples of the involvement of the assembly in the eisangelia process, see, e.g. Philochorus FGrH 328 F149a and Dem. 19.277–9 (against ambassadors, = D27), Aeschin. 3.224 (against Anaxios = Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 111; D145); Hyp. 3.29–30 (against Philokrates = Hansen, Eisangelia, no. 109). But apart from these three

958

inventory b2

cases, where a decree is explicitly implied, I have not counted these in the list. For a comprehensive study of the process, see Hansen, Eisangelia.

5.2 Apophasis From c. 350, apophasis against an individual could be initiated either by the order of the assembly or by the initiative of the Areopagus (Din. 1.50; Dem. 18.133; Hansen, Eisangelia, p. 39). On the procedure, see D195; Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 117. Probable examples of apophasis to the assembly include the following: (a) Antiphon: Dem. 18.132–3; Din. 1.63; cf. MacDowell, The Law, 191, offering the view that it was initiated not by the assembly but that the Areopagus took its own decision to make an investigation and report); (b) Proxenos: Din. 1.63 with Wallace, The Areopagus Council, 115–19, 176-8; (c) Polyeuktos: Din. 1.58; (d) Charidemos: Plu. Phoc. 16.3; (e) Harpalos: see D195 above.

5.3 Probole On probole against offenders, a denunciation brought at the assembly, see Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 117.

6 Nomothesia The process for law-making would also have involved the enactment of decrees at the Athenian assembly: after a preliminary decree was made at the assembly enabling consideration of new laws, proposals were published at the eponymoi and were read aloud in three consecutive meetings of the assembly; nomothetai were established by the assembly.5 Moreover, it seems that the assembly could pass proposals to the nomothetai: as an example, we might point to the fact that an inscribed decree, IG II3 1 327 lines 19–20, includes provisions that the nomothetai are to discuss the law about expenditure (see also IG II3 1 355 lines 39–40).6 For a list of Athenian laws attested in Attic oratory, see Harris, Rule 5 See Canevaro, ‘Making and changing laws’. For appointment of the nomothetai by decree, see Dem. 3.10–13; 24.20–3 and Aeschin. 3.38–9; D93, D160; Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 100. 6 See Hansen, ‘Nomos ep’ andri’ for discussion of examples where decrees of the assembly make positive proposals to the nomothetai.

inventory b2

959

of Law, 359–77. Examples of new laws of the fourth century preserved in the literary record include the following:

403/2

Archinos’ law on legal procedure (Isoc. 18.2; Schol on Aeschin. 1.163); Aristophon’s law concerning citizenship (Ath. 577b).

c. 403–399

Agyrrhios’ introduction of the ekklesiastikon and increase to 3 obols ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 41.3); Herakleides increases the ekklesiastikon to 2 obols ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 41.3); Agyrrhios’ introduction of the theorikon (Harpokration, s.v. theorika); Archinos’ law on prytaneia and epobelia (Scholiast on Aeschines 1.163 Dilts 329b); Diokles’ law concerning the implementation of laws (Dem. 24.42).

382/1

Eudemos’ law on unknown subject (Dem. 24.138: the proposer was put to death because of its content).

379/8

Law against Athenians farming land outside Athens: D.S. 15.29.7–8 (= D45 T1).

378/7

Reform of eisphora system: see Thomsen, Eisphora, 45–104.

358/7

Dem. 47.21: a law concerning naval symmories proposed by Periander.

356/5

Leptines’ proposal concerning the withdrawal of immunities with the exception of the descendants of the tyrannicides (Dem 20.95, 128 with Libanius hypothesis to Dem. 20); Leptines’ rivals appear to have proposed a replacement law which instituted a public indictment of those who had received an honour in the past and had been deemed unworthy of retaining it or had since receiving it injured the Athenians (Dem. 20. 97–8 cf. 88, 100, 137 with Canevaro ‘The procedure’, 39).

354/3 or later

Dem. 14.14: proposals about naval organisation: see discussion of this at D84.

353/2 or earlier

Timokrates’ law amending the eisangelia-legislation (Dem. 24.61–2);

960

inventory b2

Philippos’ decree of unknown content (Dem. 24.138).

Hekatombaion 353/2

Timokrates’ law concerning state debtors (Dem. 24.39–40, 71; cf. D93).

Before 350

Law limiting seizure of debtors’ property on festive days proposed by Euegoros son of Philoinos of Paiania (Dem. 21.10).

349/8

Meidias’ laws concerning the cavalry (Dem. 21.173); Euboulos’ law concerning the theoric fund (Scholion on Dem. 1.1 Dilts 1f).

348/7

Law setting the death penalty for those proposing to make theoric money available for military use (Schol. Dem. 1.1 with Develin, AO, 316); Law concerning the cavalry (Dem. 21.173).

340/39

Demosthenes’ law reforming trierarchic arrangements (Dem. 18.102–3; Aeschin. 3.55, 222; Hypereides F134 Jensen).

336/5

Epikrates’ law concerning the ephebes (Lycurg. F20 Conomis).

336/5–322/1

Hegemon’s law concerning the duties of the theoric commission (Aeschin. 3.25); Aristonikos’ proposals concerning the sale of fish and other matters (Athenaios 226a–c: probably comic fabrications); Lycurgus’ laws concerning comic actors, the statues and texts of tragedians, against the purchase of freeborn captives for slaves; concerning the festival of Poseidon; concerning the transport of women to Eleusis by carriage ([Plu.] X Or. 841f–2a).

7 Possible Laws or Decrees In addition, there are occasions when the sources give us no clear indication, or are contradictory, as to whether the development was initiated by a law or by a decree; these include: (a) At some point before 393, the introduction of assembly pay and its increase by two further measures: Ath. Pol. 41.3. It is highly likely that pay was originally introduced by a law but possible that adjustments were later made by decree.

inventory b2

961

(b) Perhaps fourth century: the introduction of the theorikon on the proposal of Agyrrhios (Harpokration s.v. theorika = Philochorus FGrH 328 F33; Rhodes, Commentary, 514), though some take the view that it was a fifth-century innovation (Plu. Per. 9.1 and Harding, The Story, 112). (c) Lycurgus’ law (see section 6 above) that it would be illegal for a woman to go in a carriage to Eleusis: this is described as a psephisma by Aelian VH 13.24 but a nomos in [Plu.] X Or. 842e. (d) Demosthenes’ proposals about naval organisation (Dem. 14.14–22). While Demosthenes urges the audience to vote on the matter (14.14), the language of the proposals is not definitively that of a decree and, as Hansen points out, Athenian Ecclesia II, 294–5 note 3, the nature of the proposals, pertaining to a general and permanent rule, takes the form of that of a law, and not a decree: he may, however, have proposed that the Athenians appoint nomothetai. For detailed discussion of the implications of his proposals for our understanding of the Athenian navy, see Jordan, Athenian Navy, 228–30; the proposals were never put into effect: Gabrielsen, Financing, 22, 186–93.

8 Other Developments There are other developments in fourth-century Athens which could have been initiated by decrees of the Athenian assembly. It is just possible, for instance, as Rhodes suggests,7 that certain new magistracies, in particular those which were created to deal with ad hoc developments, would have been created on the basis of a psephisma rather than a nomos. Provisions such as the initiation of building projects, or the decision to construct triremes may potentially have been put into action by decrees of the assembly. Festivals were, on the other hand, generally regulated by law (Dem. 4.36) and the introduction of changes to cult activity or a new cult would have necessitated legislation, though the specifics of could be adjusted by decree (see IG II3 1 447 = RO 81).

Inventory B Bibliography Badian, E., ‘The King’s Peace’ in Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell. BICS Supplement 58, eds. M.A. Flower and M. Toher. London (1991) 25–48.

7 Rhodes, Commentary, 516.

962

inventory b2

Badian E. and Heskel, J., ‘Aeschines 2.12–18: a study in rhetoric and chronology’, Phoenix 41 (1987) 264–71. Bosworth, A.B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 1. Oxford and New York (1980) 93–5. Bruce, I.A.F., An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Cambridge (1967). Buck, R.J., Thrasybulus and the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschrift 120. Stuttgart (1998). Buckler, J., Philip II and the Sacred War: Mnemosyne Supplement 109. Leiden (1989). Burckhardt, L., Bürger und Soldaten: Aspekte der politischen und Militärischen Rolle Athenischer Bürger im Kriegswesen des 4. Jahrhunderts V. Chr. Historia Einzelschrift 165. Stuttgart (1996). Canevaro, M., ‘Making and changing laws in ancient Athens’ in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, eds. E.M. Harris and M. Canevaro. Oxford (2016). (Online publication)   ‘The procedure of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines: how to repeal (and replace) an existing law’, JHS 136 (2016) 39–58. Cargill, J., The Second Athenian League: Empire or Free Alliance. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (1981).   Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC. Mnemosyne Supplement 145. Leiden and New York (1995). Carney, E.D., Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Oklahoma (2000). Cawkwell, G.L., ‘The imperialism of Thrasybulus’ CQ 26 (1976) 270–7.   ‘Notes on the peace of 375–4’, Historia 12 (1963) 84–95.   ‘Athenian naval power in the fourth century’, CQ 34 (1984) 334–45. Christ, M.C., ‘Conscription of hoplites in classical Athens’, CQ 51 (2001) 398–422. Colin, G., Hypéride: discours. Paris (1946). Davies, J.K. (2000), ‘Athenaeus’ use of public documents’ in Athenaeus and his World, eds. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter (2000) 203–17. Dekazou-Stephanopoulou, P., ‘Η αρχή των οριστών στην αρχαία Ελλάδα’, Ἐπετηρὶς τοῦ Κέντρου Ἐρεύνης τῆς Ἱστορίας τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Δικαίου, 41 (2008) 9–20. Dreher, M., Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York (1995). Gabrielsen, V., Financing the Athenian Fleet. Baltimore (1994). Guth, D., ‘Rhetoric and historical narrative: the Theban–Athenian alliance of 339 BCE’, Historia 63 (2014), 151–65.

inventory b2

963

Habicht, C., Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D.L. Schneider. Cambridge, MA (1997). Hamel, D., Athenian Generals: Military Authority in the Classical Period. Mnemosyne Supplement. Leiden (1998). Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T., A History of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford (1979). Hammond, N.G. L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford (1988). Hanink, J., Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge (2014). Hansen, M.H., The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense (1974).   Eisangelia. Odense (1975).   Apagoge, endeixis and ephegesis against kakourgoi, atimoi and pheugontes in Classical Athens. Odense (1976).   The Athenian Assembly. Oxford (1987).   ‘Updated inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)’ in M.H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–89. Copenhagen (1989) 34–72.  ‘Ekklesia synkletos in classical Athens and the ekklesiai held in the eighth prytany of 347/6’, GRBS 47 (2007) 271–306.  ‘Nomos ep’ andri in fourth-century Athens: on the law quoted at Andocides 1.87’, GRBS 57 (2017) 268–81. Harding, P., From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus. Cambridge (1985).   Didymos On Demosthenes: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford (2006).   The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika. London and New York (2008). Harris, E.M., Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford and New York (1994).   ‘The authenticity of Andocides De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History and Politics, eds. P. Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen (2000) 479–506.   The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. Oxford (2013).   Demosthenes, Speeches 23–26. Austin (2018). Harris, W.V., Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, MA and London (2009). Heskel, J., The North Aegean Wars, 371–360 BC. Historia Einzelschriften 102. Stuttgart (1997).

964

inventory b2

Hornblower, S., Mausolus. Oxford (1982). Hornblower, S.N., Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols. Oxford (1991–2008). Horváth, L., Der ‘Neue Hypereides’: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin, Munich and Boston (2014). Isaac, B., The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden (1986). Jehne, M., Koine Eirene: Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.. Hermes Einzelschriften 63. Stuttgart (1994). Jordan, B., The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London (1975). Kralli, I., The Hellenistic Peloponnese. A Narrative and Analytic History, 371–146 BC. Swansea (2017). Knoepfler, D., ‘L’ occupation d’Oropos par Athènes au IVe siècle avant J.-C.: une clérouquie dissimulée’, Annuario 88 (2010) 439–54. Knoepfler, D., ‘L’ appariement des tribus aux Thargélies d’Athènes et les cinq collines oropiennes du Pour Euxénippe d’Hypéride (à propos du volume IG I3 4, 1, du nouveau Corpus des Inscriptions Attiques)’, REG 129 (2016) 217–36. Lambert, S.D., The Phratries of Attica, 2nd ed. Michigan (1998). Loening, T.C., The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 in Athens: Its Content and Application. Hermes Einzelschriften 53. Stuttgart (1987). MacDowell, D.M., The Law in Classical Athens. Oxford (1978).   Demosthenes On the False Embassy (Oration 19). Oxford (2000). Marzi, M., Oratori Attici Minori, volume primo: Iperide, Eschine, Licurgo. Turin (1977). McKechnie P.R. and Kern S.J., Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Warminster (1988). Migeotte, L., Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités grecques. Quebec and Geneva (1992). Oikonomides, A.N. ‘The Athenian orator: Polyeuktos of Sphettos. Bibliographica, biographica, decreta et fragmenta’, AncW22 (1991) 3–8. Osborne, M., The Foreign Residents of Athens: An Annex to the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Attica. Leuven (1996). Osborne, M.J., Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. in 3. Brussels (1981–3). Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens. Oxford (2011). Parker, R.C.T., Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford (1996).   Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford (2005). Petrakos, V., Ὁ Ὠρωπὸς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου. Athens (1968). Poddighe, E., Nel segno di Antipatro: l’eclissi della democrazia ateniese dal 323/2 al 319/8 a. C. Rome (2002).

inventory b2

965

Pritchett, W.K., The Greek State at War, vols. 1–5. Berkeley (1971–89). Rhodes, P.J., The Athenian Boule. Oxford (1972).   Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford (1981).   ‘Hyperides’ Against Diondas: two Problems’, BICS 52 (2009) 223–8.   ‘Heraclides of Clazomenae and an Athenian treaty with Persia’, ZPE 200 (2016) 177–86. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I., Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from PseudoPlutarch, Photius and the Suda. Cambridge (2015). Rolfe, J.C., Cornelius Nepos. Cambridge, MA. (1984). Ryder, T.T.B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford (1965) Schmitt, O., Der Lamische Krieg. Bonn (1992). Seager, R., ‘Thrasybulus, Conon, and Athenian imperialism, 396–386’, JHS 87 (1967) 95–115. Sealey, R., Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat. Oxford (1993). Strauss, B.S., Athens after the Peloponnesian War: Class, Faction and Policy 403– 386 BC. London and Sydney (1986). Ste Croix, G.E.M. de, ‘Demosthenes’ timema and the Athenian eisphora in the Fourth Century BC’, C&M14 (1953), 30–70. Stylianou, P.J., A Historical Commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford (1998). Thomsen, R., Eisphora: A Study of Direct Taxation in Ancient Athens. Copenhagen (1964). Todd, S.C., A Commentary on Lysias Speeches 1–11. Oxford (2007). Trevett, J., Demosthenes, Speeches 1–17. Austin (2011). Underhill, G.E., A Commentary on the Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford (1906). von Ehrenheim, H., Greek Incubation Rituals in Classical and Hellenistic Times. Kernos Supplément 29. Liège (2015). Wallace, R., The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore (1989). Whitehead, D., Hypereides: The Forensic Speeches. Oxford (2000). Yunis, H., Demosthenes, On the Crown. Cambridge (2001).

Appendix 1 Decrees of the Athenian boule

The Athenian boule made decrees of its own. Most of these were in some sense supplementary to those of the Athenian demos (e.g. BD 2, enforcing a decree of the demos): some of them, for instance, ordered the epigraphical publication or re-publication of decisions made by the Athenian demos.8 The council decreed also on what were sometimes standard items, such as the right of foreign envoys to address the assembly of the people (Aeschin. 2.58), so its decrees were numerous. The following list offers an account of a number of decrees of the Athenian council which appear in the literary sources of the period 403/2– 322/1, but does not attempt to be comprehensive. Proposals of the council which were destined for discussion at the assembly (probouleumata) are discussed at the appropriate point in the main inventory: see, e.g. D94.

BD1 Decree calling a meeting of the assembly Xenophon (Xen. Hell. 6.5.33) says that the Athenians called an assembly by a decree of the council (κατὰ δόγμα βουλῆς) to discuss policy towards Sparta in the aftermath of the Theban invasion of Lakonia. Hansen (Athenian Assembly, 23–4 and 28–30) takes the view that from 355 there was a limitation on the number of meetings of the assembly that the Athenians were able to convene per prytany. For a sensible statement of the view that the Athenians were indeed able to summon additional meetings, and that they may have referred to such a meeting as ἐκκλησία σύγκλητος, see Harris, Democracy and the Rule of Law, 81–120. For an emergency meeting summoned probably by decree of the assembly, cf. Hell. Oxy. 6.2 = DP 5; cf. also BD 6). 8 For discussion of the evidence for decrees of the council, see Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, 82–7, 271–5. For provisions, within a decree of the people, for supplementary decrees of the council, see IG II3 1 370 (= RO 100) lines 95–100.

966

appendix 1

967

Date

Winter 370/69.

BD2 Decree exacting property The speaker of Demosthenes 47, as part of his justification of his efforts to exact property from Theophemos (see DD 85, 86), claims that after Theophemos had refused to hand anything over, the council produced a decree, instructing the plaintiffs to recover what was due using any means possible (Dem. 47.33– 4). This decree, then, represents a supplementary decree of the boule which ensured that the provisions of a decree of the assembly (D86) were carried out.

Date

357/6 (Dem. 47.44).

BD3 Decree to elect envoys to request the cancellation of Aristodemos’ debts According to Aeschines (2.19), Demosthenes proposed in the council that the Athenians elect envoys to go to those cities in which Aristodemos had been commissioned as an actor, to plead that they allow him to cancel his contracts so that he could be a member of the Athenian embassy to Philip.

Date

348/7 or 347/6. For Aristodemos’ ambassadorial activity, see BD 4 below.

BD4 Decree summoning Aristodemos According to Aeschines (2.17), Demokrates persuaded the council (ἔπεισε τὴν βουλήν) to summon Aristodemos. Aristodemos, an actor, probably a

appendix 1

968

naturalised Metapontine, was sent as ambassador to Philip after the fall of Olynthus in 348/7BC (Aeschin. 2.15); and (perhaps three times) to Philip in 347/6 and to Thessaly and Magnesia in 343/2 (see Hansen ‘Updated inventory’, 37, s.v. Aristodemos). Upon his return to Athens, his report to the senate had been delayed. His report led Demosthenes to propose a crown for him (see D124 above), leading to Demokrates’ proposal.

Date

Late 348/7 or 347/6.

BD5 Granting awards to Philip’s ambassadors The decree of the people, D126, granting a truce for the envoys from Philip, appears to have been followed up, probably on Elaphebolion 4–7, 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 278) by a decree of Demosthenes at the council which proposed that Philip’s ambassadors be assigned seats at the theatre for the Dionysia (Aeschin. 2.55; 3.76). Elsewhere, he claims that the decree granted proedria to them and that Demosthenes offered them other special privileges including the placing of cushions, night-guards and dinner (Aeschin. 2.110–12; cf. 3.76; Dem. 18.28).

Date

Elaphebolion 4–6 347/6.

BD6a Proposal instructing the prytaneis to hold the meeting of the assembly on 8th Elaphebolion 347/6 This proposal, attributed to Demosthenes by Aeschines (3.66–7), appears to have attempted to fix the dates for the meetings of the assembly arranged by an earlier decree of the assembly (D127). As a supplementary decree, it is plausible that it was proposed in the council. As Harris (Democracy and the Rule of Law, 94) points out, Aeschines refers to Demosthenes’ suggestion only as a proposal (γράφει ψήφισμα), and he says nothing about whether it was actually passed.

appendix 1

969

Date

Elaphebolion 4–7, 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 279–80. See discussion in D127 Commentary.

BD6b Decree instructing the prytaneis to hold the meeting of the assembly on 18th and 19th Elaphebolion 347/6 This decree appears to have been the second attempt to fix the date of the assembly that was arranged by an earlier decree of the assembly (D127). It fixed the meeting for 18th and 19th Elaphebolion: Aeschin. 3.68. Aeschines had it read out in the court in 343: see Aeschin. 2.63–6. Aeschines claimed also that it prescribed that the meeting on the first day would consist of deliberation, but on the second day that it would put the question of peace and alliance to the vote, without giving opportunity for debate (Aeschin. 2.65). Later in the same speech he described the decree as the one which ensured ‘the people’s discussion of peace to appointed days’ (‘τὸ περὶ τοῦ βουλεύσασθαι τὸν δῆμον ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης ἐν τακταῖς ἡμέραις’: Aeschin. 2.109); Aeschines claims that Demosthenes did this so that he could force through his version of the peace – one which was identical to that of Philokrates (Aeschin. 2.68). For the view that this was a decree of the council, see Harris, Aeschines, 68 and Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 280.

Date

Elaphebolion 9th 347/6 (Hansen, ‘Ekklesia Synkletos’, 280).

BD7 Decree on the Second Embassy Demosthenes proposed a decree at the council – he did so at that venue probably, as Demosthenes suggests, because (on Mounichion 3rd: Aeschin. 2.91–2) there remained no further opportunities for meetings of the assembly to take place: Dem 19.154) – to the effect that the second embassy (see DP 59 ter and D133) should set out immediately with a view to finding Philip and swearing the oath without delay (Aeschin. 2.91: ‘ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῆς ψήφισμα, ὃ κελεύει ἀπιέναι τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐπὶ τοὺς ὅρκους. Καί μοι λέγε τὸ τῆς βουλῆς ψήφισμα’;

appendix 1

970

Dem. 18.27: ‘ἁγὼ προορώμενος, ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, καὶ λογιζόμενος τὸ ψήφισμα τοῦτο γράφω, πλεῖν ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους ἐν οἷς ἂν ᾖ Φίλιππος καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους τὴν ταχίστην ἀπολαμβάνειν’). Demosthenes (19.154) claimed that the assembly had given authority to the council to pass a decree about the second embassy; he added in the decree that the envoys were to sail immediately, and that the general Proxenos was to convey them to any place where Philip might be (‘γράφω ψήφισμα βουλεύων, τὴν βουλὴν ποιήσαντος τοῦ δήμου κυρίαν, ἀπιέναι τοὺς πρέσβεις τὴν ταχίστην, τὸν δὲ στρατηγὸν Πρόξενον κομίζειν αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοὺς τόπους ἐν οἷς ἂν ὄντα Φίλιππον πυνθάνηται’). Later Demosthenes stated that his intention was that the oath might be taken while Athens’ Thracian allies held outposts in northern Greece (Dem. 18.27–8), and that it was in Philip’s interest to waste as much time as possible before the administration of the oaths (Dem. 19.164).

Date

Mounichion 3rd 347/6.

BD8 Decree concerning the Apatouria In his discussion of the protenthai at Athens, Athenaios mentions a decree attributed to a certain Phokos (Ath. 4.171e: ‘εὑρίσκω δὲ καὶ ψήφισμα ἐπὶ Κηφισοδώρου ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι γενόμενον, ἐν ᾧ ὥσπερ τι σύστημα οἱ προτένθαι εἰσί, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ παράσιτοι ὀνομαζόμενοι, ἔχον οὕτως· ‘Φῶκος εἶπεν· ὅπως ἂν ἡ βουλὴ ἄγῃ τὰ Ἀπατούρια μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, ἐψηφίσθαι τῇ βουλῇ ἀφεῖσθαι τοὺς βουλευτὰς τὰς ἡμέρας ἅσπερ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι βουλαὶ αἱ ἀφεταὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς οἱ προτένθαι ἄγουσι πέντε ἡμέρας.’9 ‘I also find a decree which came about during the archonship of Kephisodoros at Athens, in which the protenthai are something like a board of men, just as those called the parasitoi are. The decree is as follows: “Phokos proposed, so that the council may celebrate the Apatouria with all the other Athenians in the traditional matter, that it should be decreed by the council that the councillors are to be released from duties on the days when the other 9 Lambert, Phratries, 156 note 76 prefers MSS βουλαί to Wilamowitz’s ἀρχαί: ‘such legislation may represent a decision of the Athenian boule giving itself a holiday’.

appendix 1

971

councils who also receive such release, for five days starting on that day when the protenthai start to celebrate the festival”’). The content of this decree appears to enable all councillors to take part in the Apatouria, a festival celebrated throughout Attica and also among phratries (Parker, Athenian Religion, 105). It is generally taken very seriously by scholars: Rhodes, for instance, cites it as evidence that the council gave itself five days’ holiday for the Apatouria (Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 30). Parker (Polytheism, 458) cites it as evidence for a festival of the protenthai (‘foretasters’) on the day before the Dorpia (the first day of the Apatouria). The protenthai are extremely obscure: while Athenaios appears to have collected a lot of information on them, they are not mentioned in the epigraphical sources, and the only classical reference to them crops up in Aristophanes’ Clouds (1198). Lambert’s suggestion is that they ‘were responsible in some way for the organisation of phratry dinners on Dorpia [the first day of the Apatouria] and in consequence had their own a day early’ (Phratries, 155). A certain Phokos is mentioned by Plutarch (Plu. Phoc. 20, 30, 28) as the son of Phokion, and the same son is mentioned a little earlier in Athenaios’ Deipnosophistae (Ath. 168e–9a). But the identification is uncertain, and there are other occurrences of the name (LGPN II, s. v. Phokos). In support of the decree’s authenticity, it is plausible to think that the boule was empowered to pass decrees which concerned its own organisation, though we cannot rule out the possibility that this could have been carried out by a decree of the assembly. Moreover, the formula ἐψηφίσθαι τῇ βουλῇ is well attested in inscribed Attic decrees, and so it is quite plausible that the author drew upon genuine material. However, the invention of a decree, and indeed a proposer, was well within the capabilities of the fertile imagination of Athenaios. As Lambert (Phratries, 156–7) points out, the hedonistic nature of this festival would seem to match the characterisation of Phokion’s son as profligate. But such a connection would suit Athenaios’ literary intentions well, and does not therefore necessarily support the authenticity of this decree. Davies, ‘Athenaeus’, 213, casts some doubt on its authenticity.

Date

Archonship of Kephisodoros (366/5 or 323/2). As Lambert points out (Phratries, 156 note 75) its relevance to festivals and phratries is much more characteristic of the later date.

Appendix 2 Honorific Decrees attested in the Literary Sources This appendix collects references to honorific decrees (both those for non-Athenians and those for Athenians) in the literary record and divides them according to the different genres of honours. A single asterisk (*) indicates that there survives an extant epigraphical reference to the decree; a double asterisk (**) indicates that a literary testimonium makes mention of an inscribed version of the award.

1 Honours for Non-Athenians (a) Citizenship alone D5 (403/2): citizenship for democrats. D6 (403/2): citizenship for Lysias (authenticity doubtful). D42 (390–86): citizenship for Pasion and descendants. D59 (368–366): citizenship for Ariobarzanes and sons. D62 (366-362): citizenship for Klearchos. D72 (361/0): citizenship for Phormion. D74 (c. 360–357): citizenship for Kersobleptes. D75 (c. 357): citizenship for Euderkes. D77 (359): citizenship for Simon of Thrace. D78 (359): citizenship for Bianor of Thrace. D100 (390s or 370s): citizenship for Strabax and Polystratos. D109 (351 or 349): citizenship for Apollonides of Olynthos. D110 (between 352 and 349): citizenship for Peitholaos and Lykophron of Thessaly. D173 (Gamelion 338?): citizenship for Antipater. D174 (autumn 338): citizenship for Alexander. D175 (autumn 338): citizenship for Troizenians. D203 (388–330): citizenship for Antiphanes. D204 (359–343): citizenship for Teres. D231 (c. 341/0 or early 330s): citizenship for Kallias and Taurosthenes of Chalkis. D235 (late 330s): citizenship for Chairephilos and sons.

972

appendix 2

973

D236 (330s–320s): citizenship for bankers Konon and Epigenes. D243 (330s–320s): citizenship for Harpalos.

(b) Citizenship in combination with other awards *D28 (before 389): honours for Satyros. IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64) lines 22–6 implies that he received ateleia, citizenship, and crowns at every Panathenaia. *[Dem.] 12.10 (369/8): citizenship for Dionysius I of Syracuse; cf. RO 33 lines 30–3. RO 33 adds that Dionysius is to receive a crown, his sons are to receive a gold crown of 1,000 drachmas, (lines 18–30). **D39 (389 or later): citizenship, ateleia, stele for Leukon. D43 (384/3): citizenship and golden crown for Kotys. D61 (366/5 or later): citizenship and panth’ ha megista for Phrasierides and Polysthenes. D84 (358/7): citizenship and gold crown for Charidemos. D180 (summer 337 and summer 336): statue, citizenship, crown and divine honours for Philip.

(c) Statue D58 (368/7): bronze statue (and recognition as euergetes) for Alexander of Pherai. D227 (later than 334/3) bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros, and Gorgippos of Bosporos.

(d) Statue in combination with other awards * D24 (394/3): statue and megistai timai for Evagoras (a naturalised citizen); cf. RO 11. RO 11 lines 28–9, 33 imply that he is to receive praise and a crown, that the honours are to be announced at the time of the tragedies, and that the honours are also for his offspring.

(e) Proxeny D103 (before 355): proxeny for Lykidas and Dionysios. **D177 (338-336): proxeny for Euthykrates of Olynthos, with stele (Hypereides F79 Jensen). *D178 (Gamelion 337/6): proxeny for Alkimachos.

974

appendix 2

(f) Proxeny in combination with other awards D31 (390 or 389–386): proxeny, euergesy, ateleia for Archebios of Byzantion. D32 (390 or 389–386): proxeny, euergesy, ateleia for Herakleides of Byzantion.

(g) Ateleia D40 (389/8 or later): ateleia for Thasians. D104 (before 355/4): ateleia for Megarians and Messenians.

(h) Crowns D73 (c. 360): golden crowns for assassins of Kotys. D229 (338/7–335): crown (proclaimed at the Panathenaia and Dionysia) for Charidemos. D244 (340s–324): crown for Kallisthenes (ethnicity not known).

(i) Other awards D41 (386): shelter (they were granted ‘everything which they sought’) to Corinthians. D49 (374/3): isopoliteia (perhaps also epigamia: Isoc. Plat. 51–2) for Plataeans. D94 (353/2): protection for Charidemos. D120 (348/7): isoteleia (?) for Olynthians. D134 (16th Skirophorion 347/6): praise for Philip. D182 (late 337/6 to early 336/5): crown and shrine for Pausanias. D197 (autumn 324) deification and statue of Alexander.

2 Honours for Athenians (a) Praise D3 (403/2): praise for second ‘Ten’. D118 (late summer/autumn 348/7): praise for Ktesiphon.

(b) Crown alone D18 (403/2): olive crown for Thrasyboulos. D89 (355/4): honours for council of 356/5. D114 (349/8): crown for Aeschines.

appendix 2

975

D124 (347/6): crown for Aristodemos. D146 (343/2): crowning members of an embassy. D156 (late 341/early 340): golden crown proclaimed in the theatre for Demosthenes. D166 ((a) early summer 338, (b) 338 or later): golden crown proclaimed in the theatre for Demosthenes. D179 (winter 337/6): golden crown and announcement at the Dionysia for Demosthenes. D181 (336/5): crown for proedroi. D190 (338/7 or 334/3): crown (proclaimed at the Panathenaia and Dionysia) for Diotimos. D228 (between 338/7 and 330): crown (proclaimed at the Dionysia) for Nausikles.

(c) Crown with other honours * **D15 (403/2): 1,000 drachmai for sacrifices and dedications and olive crowns for those returning from Phyle (cf. SEG XXVIII 45). **D23 (394/3): crown, ateleia, bronze statue (megistai timai), stele for Konon. **D35 (after 390?). D54 (371/0): bronze statue, sitesis at the prytaneion, stele and other gifts and honours for Iphikrates. D46 (377/6 or 376/5): statue, crown, hereditary ateleia and other awards for Chabrias. D47 (376/5): megistai timai for Timotheos. D128 (Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4, 347/6): crown and dinner (deipnon) at the prytaneion for Athenian envoys. D230 (338/7 or later): crown and statue for Neoptolemos. D245 (330s–324): crowns and statue for Lycurgus.

(d) Statue alone D189 (335/4): bronze statue for Epikrates. *D222 (after 340): bronze statue for Astydamas.

(e) Statue with other awards (see also 2(c) above) D187 (336/5): bronze statue and sitesis in the prytaneion for Demades. D234 (c. 334-324): sitesis and statue in the agora for Diphilos.

976

appendix 2

(f) Sitesis alone D209 (357–40): sitesis for Charidemos.

(g) Ateleia D102 (between 403 and 355): ateleia for Aristophon.

(h) Other awards D70 (after 24th Metageitnion 362/1): praise and dinner (deipnon) at the prytaneion for Apollodoros.

(i) Unspecified D136 (24th Gamelion, 346/5 or later in the 340s): honours for Phokion. D221 (before 343 or 343–330): honours for Euboulos.

Indexes Index locorum Pertaining to Decree testimonia

Note: decrees bearing the ‘X-‘ preix are fabricated decrees listed only in Appendix 2 in volume 2.

Index of Literary Sources Aelian Varia Historia 5.12: D197 t3 Aelius Aristides 49.85 p. 518 Dindorf: D54 t1 Aeschines 1.77: D137 t1 1.81: D138 t1 1.86: D137 t2 2.12: D117 t1 2.13: D118 t1 2.13–14: D121 t1 2.15: DP59 t1 2.17: D124 t1; BD4 2.18: D125 t1 2.19: D124 t2; BD3 2.27: DP35 t1 2.45–6: D128 t1 2.53: D126 t1; D127 t1; D128 t2 2.55: BD5 2.63–6: BD6b 2.68: D130 t2 2.73: D129 t1 2.83–5: D132 t1 2.91: BD7 2.97–8: D133 t1 2.101: D133 t2 2.104: D133 t3 2.109: D126 t2; BD6b 2.110: D127 t2 2.110–12: BD5 2.132–3: D123 t1 2.169–70: D114 t1 3.27: D176 t1 3.34: D179 t1 3.39: D179 t2

3.54: D130 t1 3.55: D159 t1 3.58: DP59bis 3.63: D125 t2; D126 t3 3.66–7: BD6a 3.68: BD6b 3.73–5: D131 t1 3.76: BD5 3.83: D146 t1 3.85: D231 t1; DP58 t1 3.92–3: D147 t1 3.100–2: D148b t1 3.106: D163 t2 3.118: D87 t3 3.125–8: D161 t1 3.130: DP69 t1 3.140: DP70 t2 3.142–3: D163 t3 3.146: DP73 t1 3.159: D223 t1 3.160: D182 t1 3.162: DP84 t1 3.187–8: D15 t1 3.190–1: D15 t2 3.195: D5 t2 3.223–4: D145 t1 3.236–7: D179 t3 3.239: D184 t1 3.242: DP82 t1 3.243: D46 t4; D47 t4; D54 t6 Alexis (comicus) 57 Arnott: X9 77 Arnott: D235 t2 Andocides 1.81: D1 t2; D2 t1

977

978

index locorum

1.82: D7 t1 1.85: D7 t2 1.88–9: D8 t1 1.90: D1 t3 1.93: D8 t2 1.95–6: D19 t1 3.39, 41: D26 t1 Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace: D25 t1; D26 t2; DP11 t1 Anonymi de Comoedia 12 (Kaibel p. 9) D 203 t1 Androtion (FGrH 324) F 30: D107 t2 F 53: DP61 t1 Apsines Art of Rhetoric, 1.7: X3, X6 Art of Rhetoric, 1.9: X4 Art of Rhetoric, 1.19: D180 t5; X5 Art of Rhetoric, 2.13, 19: X7 Art of Rhetoric, 3.5: D23 t5 Art of Rhetoric, 10.9: D177 t2 Aristophanes Eccl. 193–6: D20 t1 Eccl. 812–14: D95 t1 Eccl. 816–22: D96 t1 Eccl. 823–9: D97 t1 Aristotle Rh. 1411a6–10: D82 t2 Rh. 1411b6–10: D46 t6 Rh. 1384b32–5: D65 t1 Rh. 1399b 1–4: D100 t2 Rh. 1410a17–20: D110 t2 [Aristotle], Ath. Pol. 38.4: D3 t1 39.1–6: D1 t1 40.2: D5 t1 49.4: D11 t2 Arrian Anabasis 1.10.2–3: D185 t1 Anabasis 1.29.5–6: DP79 t1 Anabasis 2.15.2: DP76 t1 Anabasis 3.6.2: DP81 t1 FGrH 156 F9.13: D202 t2 Athenaios, Deipnosophistai 3.104d–e: X9 3.119f–120a: D235 t2 4.171d: X1

4.171e: BD8 6. 234d–f: X13 6.251b: D197 t4 12.551d–e: D99 t1 13.577b: D14 t2 13.586d: D243 t1 13.587c: X14 13.590d–e: X15 Charax, Chronika (BNJ 103) F 19: D154 t3 [Demades] On the Twelve Years 9–10: D171 t2; D180 t1 On the Twelve Years 14–15: D188 t1 Demosthenes 2.6: D79 t1 3.4: D106 t1 3.5: DP56 t1 3.7: D113 t1 4.16–17: D108 t1 4.19: D108 t2 4.21–2: D108 t3 4.28: D108 t4 4.33: D108 t5 8.6: DP64 t2 8.74–5: D82 t1 9.15: DP64 t3 13.22–3: D54 t5 13.32: D111 t1; D112 t1 15.9: D60 t1 16.12: DP34 t1 18.21: D130 t8 18.27: BD7 18.28: BD5 18.69–70: D215–16 t1; D217 t1; D218 t1; D219 t1; D220 t1 18.75: D213 t1; D215–16 t2 18.79: D139 t1; D148a t1; D154 t1; D154 t1 18.80: D158 t1 18.83: D156 t1; D179 t4 18.88: D158 t2 18.105: D160 t1 18.113: D179 t5 18.114: D190 t1; D228 t1; D229 t1; D230 t1 18.177: D162 t1 18.178: D162 t2 18.179: D162 t3 18.216: D165 t1 18.217–18: D165 t2

index locorum 18.222–3: D166a t1 18.237: D149 t1 18.248: D169 t1 18.285: D171 t1 18.289: DP71 t1 19.10: D116 t1 19.47–9: D130 t9; D134 t1 19.54: BD7 19.57: D130 t10 19.61–2: D87 t1 19.72: D87 t2 19.86: D105 t1; D135 t1 19.87: D130 t11 19.121: DP60 t1 19.125: D135 t2 19.143–4: D130 t12 18.301–2: D151 t1; D152 t1 19.234: D128 t3 19.267–8: D119 t1 19.276–9: D27 t2 19.278: D133 t4 19.285–7: D122 t1 19.303–4: D116 t2 19.331: DP62 t1 20.11–12: D13 t2 20.29–30: D39 t1 20.35–7: D39 t2 20.54–5: D41 t1 20.59: D40 t1 20.60: D31, 32 t1 20.68–71: D23 t2 20.75–8: D46 t1 20.84: D46 t2; D47 t1; D54 t2; D62 t1; D100 t1 20.141–3: D103 t1; D104 t1 20.146: D46 t3 20.148: D102 t1 20.149: D12 t1 20.159: D19 t2 21.182–3: D210 t1; D211 t1 22.5: D89 t1 22.48–50: D88 t1 22.70: D88 t2 22.69–70: D57 t1 22.72–3: D57 t2 23.11: D94 t1 23.12: D77 t1; D78 t1 23.16: D94 t2 23.27: D94 t3 23.34: D94 t4 23.50: D94 t5 23.60: D94 t6

979

23.65: D84 t1 23.83–4: D94 t7 23.89: D84 t2 23.91: D94 t8 23.104: D71 t1 23.118: D43 t1 23.119: D73 t1 23.120: D58 t1 23.126–7: D73 t2 23.149: DP36 t1 23.130: D54 t3 23.136: D54 t4 23.141: D59 t1; D74 t2; D84 t3 23.142: D59 t2 23.145: D84 t4 23.149: D64 t1 23.151: D64 t2 23.170: D80 t1 23.172: D81 t1 23.173: D83 t1; DP50 t1 23.175: D80 t2 23.187: D84 t5 23.198: D47 t2 23.202: D47 t3; D59 t3; D61 t1 23.203: D47 t3; D75 t1 24.11: D91 t1 24.11–14: D92 t1 24.26–9: D93 t1 24.160–2: D88 t3 24.180: D46 t5 47.19–20: D85 t1 47.21: D86 t1 47.33–4: BD2 47.44: D85 t2 51.1: D76 t1 51.4: D76 t2 57.31–3, 34: D9 t1 58.30–1: D209 t1 58.35: D212 t1 58.36: D206 t1 58.37: D206 t2 58.37–8: D205 t1 58.53–4: D207 t1 58.56: D207 t2 Hypothesis to Dem. 8, 1–5: DP63 t1; DP64 t1 Hypothesis to Dem. 19, 2, para 3: D117 t2 [Demosthenes] 7.18: D130 t3 7.18–19: D140 t1 7.24: D130 t4 7.25: D140 t2

980

index locorum

7.26: D130 t5 7.30–1: D141 t1 7.31: D130 t6 7.42–3: D208 t1 7.46: D144 t1 12.5: D232 t1 12.6: D142 t1; DP66 t1 12.8–9: D74 t1; D204 t1 12.16: D150 t1 12.22: D130 t7 17.20: D191 t1 17.30: D192 t1 25.87: D237 t1 26.11: D167a t3 46.13: D72 t1 50.3–7: D67 t1 50.8: D68 t1 50.12: DP44 t1 50.13: D70 t1 50.29: D69 t1 59.2: D42 t1 59.4–6: D115 t1 59.27: D55 t2 59.43: D239 t1 59.91: D109 t1; D110 t1 59.104–6: D49 t2 Didymus On Demosthenes col. 1.13–18: D153 t1; D154 t2 On Demosthenes col. 1.18–25: D155 t2 On Demosthenes col. 1.67– col 2.2: D159 t4 On Demosthenes col. 7.11–28: D27 t1 On Demosthenes col. 7.66–71: DP29 t1 On Demosthenes col. 7.71–4: D52 t1 On Demosthenes col. 8.19–23: DP61 t1 On Demosthenes col. 13.42–58: D107 t1; D111 t2 On Demosthenes col. 14.35–49: D107 t2 Dinarchus 1.4: D194 t1; D195 t1 1.8: D195 t2 1.39–40: D44 t1 1.41–3: D227 t1 1.43: D234 t1; D235 t1; D236 t1 1.44: D231 t2 1.62–3: D214 t1 1.68: D193 t1 1.70: D193 t2 1.78–80: D170 t1 1.82–4: D195 t3; D214 t2 1.86: D195 t4 1.89: D193 t3 1.94: D198 t1

1.101: D187 t1 2.3: D195 t5 3.2: D196 t1 3.5: D196 t2 F XLVII Conomis: D242 t1 Dio Chrysostom 15.21: D167a t4 Diodorus Siculus 14.82.1–4: D21 t1 14.82.2: D20 t3 14.92.2: DP9 t1; DP10 t1; DP12 t1 14.94.2: D29, 30 t2 15.26.1: D44 t2 15.28.2: DP20 t1 15.28.3–4: DP21 t1 15.29.4: D19 t1 15.29.7–8: D45 t1 15.30.2: DP23 t1 15.32.2: DP24 t1 15.33.4: D46 t7 15.34.3: DP25 t1 15.46.3: DP30 t2 15.46.5: D49 t1 15.47.3–4: DP30 t3 15.63.2: D55 t3 15.67.1: D56 t4 15.71.3: D58 t2 15.76.2–3: DP39 t1 15.79.1: DP41 t1 15.84.2: DP43 t1 15.95.2: DP45 t1 15.95.3: DP46 t1 16.2.6: DP48 t1 16.4.1: D79 t3 16.7.3: DP49 t1 16.21.1: DP51 t1 16.22.2–3: D90 t1 16.27.5: D87 t4 16.34.4: DP52 t2 16.37.3: DP55 t1 16.57.2–3: DP32 t1 16.74.1: D155 t3 16.77.2: D159 t2 16.77.3: DP68 t1 16.84.5: D162 t4 16.85.1: D163 t4 16.87.3: D171 t3 16.92.1–2: D180 t2 17.4.6: D183 t1 17.15.3: D186 t1 17.22.5: DP78 t1 18.9.2: DP86 t1

index locorum 18.9.4: DP86 t2 18.10.2–5: D199 t1 18.11.3: DP88 t1 18.18.3: DP89 t1 Diogenes Laertius 2.59: D98 t1; D101 t1 2.43: S222 t1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dinarchus 10, p. 312 1–3: D226 t1 Dinarchus 11 p. 315 16–24: D234 t2 Dinarchus 11 p. 317 2: D242 t1 Dinarchus 13 p. 319 10–14: D65 t3 Dinarchus 13 p. 319 11–13: DP54 t1 Dinarchus 13 p. 320 4–6: DP53 t1 Hypothesis to Lysias 34: D1 t6 Lysias 12 p. 21 1–9: D54 t7 Lysias 32 p. 49 3–9: D4 t1 To Ammaios 9 p. 267 10–17: D113 t2 To Ammaios 11 p. 272 9 – p. 273 8: D130 t13 To Ammaios 11 p. 273 1–8: D159 t3 To Ammaios 11 p. 273 12–17: D164 t1 Diyllos BNJ 73 F 2: DP84 t2 Ephorus FGrH 70 F 106: D16 t3 Eumelos FGrH (=BNJ) 77 F 2: D14 t1 Harpokration, Lexikon s.v.: Ἀλκίμαχος D173 t1; D178 t1 Ἀριστίων DP84 t2 Διαψήφισις D137 t3 Ἐπικράτης D189 t1 Ἑρμαῖ D221 t1 Ἑρμῆς ὁ πρὸς τῆι πυλίδι D22 t1 Εὔβουλος D221 t1 ἰσοτελής καὶ ἰσοτέλεια D120 t1; DP77 t1 Παιανιεῖς καὶ Παιονίδαι D226 t2 πεντηκοστή D221 t1 πομπείας καὶ πομπεύειν D57 t3 στεφανῶν τοὺς νενικηκότας D244 t1 Τί ἐστι τὸ ἐν τοῖς Δημοσθένους Φιλιππικοῖς ‘καὶ τὸ θρυλούμενόν ποτε ἀπόρρητον ἐκεῖνο᾿ D79 t2 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 6.1–3: DP5 t1 7.1: DP6 t1 Hypereides Against Athenogenes 31–3: D175 t1 Against Demosthenes col. 2: D195 t6

Against Demosthenes col. 8–9: D193 t4 Against Demosthenes col. 12: D193 t5 Against Demosthenes col. 20: D231 t3 Against Demosthenes col. 30: D197 t1 Against Demosthenes col. 31: D197 t2 Against Demosthenes col. 34: D195 t7 Against Diondas 1: D163 t1; DP70 t1 Against Diondas 9: D233 t1 Against Diondas 24: DP80 t1 Against Diondas 28: D167a t2 For Euxenippos 14: DP75 t1 For Euxenippos 14–18: D238 t1 For Euxenippos 16: DP74 t1 Against Philippides 4–6: D181 t1 Against Philippides 11: D224–5 t1 F 76b Jensen: D177 t1 F 76a Jensen: D177 t2 FF 107–9 Jensen: D221 t1 Inscriptions IG II3 1 298 (= rO 64) lines 22–6: D28 t2 SEG XXVIII 45: t15 t3 Isaeus 6.47: D14 t3 Isocrates 7 Areopagitikos 68–9: D13 t1 9 Evagoras 56–7: D23 t1 9 Evagoras 57: D24 t1 17 Trapezitikos 57: D28 t1 18 Against Kallimachos 20: D1 t9 Istros (FGrH 334) F32: D98 t1; D101 t1 38: X8 Karystios (FHG iv. 358) F 11: D14 t2 Libanius Hypothesis to Dem. 1, 4.2: D113 t3 Hypothesis to Dem. 7, 5: D208 t2 Hypothesis to Dem. 25, 2: D237 t2 Hypothesis to Dem. 57: D137 t4 Longinus On Invention (Chr. Walz, Rhetores graeci 9 (Stuttgart and tübingen 1836), 547, 1–19: D177 t3 Lycurgus 1.16: D167b t1 1.36–7: D167c t1 1.39: DP72 t1 1.58: D168 t1

981

982

index locorum

1.124–6: D19 t3 1.141: D167a t1 1.146: D240 t1 F 19 Conomis: D244 t1 F 31 Conomis: D241 t1 Lysias 2.66: DP1 t1 19.21–22: D34 t1 19.43: D34 t2 24.22: D11 t1 26.9: D10 t1 26.20: D10 t2 28.5: D38 t1 On Isocrates (Carey F47): D54 t1 Against Hippotherses (Carey F165, lines 38–43): D1 t10 Against heozotides (Carey F128, lines 6–13): D17 t1 Against heozotides (Carey F130 lines, 72–82): D17 t2 Nepos Chabrias 1.3: D46 t8 Chabrias 3.1: DP19 t2 Phocion 2.1–2: D202 t1 Phocion 12.1: DP58 t2 Phocion 14.3–4: DP67 t1 hrasybulus 3.2: D1 t7 hrasybulus 4.1: D18 t1 Timotheus 2.1: DP27 t1 Timotheus 2.2–3: DP29 t2 Timotheus 2.2–4: D47 t5 P. Oxy xv 1800 fr. 6 + 7 lines 5–9: D5 t3 Pausanias 1.3.2: D23 t4; D24 t2 1.9.4: D180 t3 Philochorus (FGrH 328) F 40a: D22 t1 F 49: D113 t2 F 55a: D159 t3 F 56a: D164 t1 F 143: D1 t5 F 149a: D27 t1 F 149b: D25 t1; D26 t2; DP11 t1 F 154: D65 t3; DP53 t1; DP54 t1 F 155: D107 t1; D111 t2 F 157: DP61 t1 F 159: D153 t1; D154 t2 F 160: D155 t2

F 181: D57 t3 F 188: DP29 t1 Plutarch Demosthenes 17.1: D155 t4 Demosthenes 22.1: D182 t2 Demosthenes 22.4: D180 t4 Demosthenes 23.1: D184 t2 Demosthenes 26.1–2: D195 t8 Demosthenes 27.6: D200 t1 Demosthenes 28.2: D202 t3 Pelopidas 31.6: D58 t3 Phoc. 14.3: D157 t1 Phoc. 15.1–2: D143 t1 Phoc. 16.4–5: D172 t1 Phoc. 17.5–6: D186 t2; X1 Phoc. 26.3–5: D201 t1 [Plutarch] X Or. 835f–6a: D5 t1; D6 t1 840f: D114 t2 843c: D245 t1 843f: D230 t2 844a: D190 t2 845f–6a: D166a t2; D179 t6 846a–b: D193 t6 846c–d: D200 t2; DP87 t1 848a: D145 t2 848d: D156 t2 848f: D166a t3 848f–9a: D167a t6 849c: D202 t4 849f: X2 850b: D136 t1 Pollux, Onomastikon 8.112: D2 t4 rutilius Lupus On Figures, 1.19: D167a t5 On Figures, 2.12: D167c t2 Scholia on Aeschines 1.39 (Dilts 82.254–7): D2 t2 1.39 (Dilts 82.277–8): D1 t8; D2 t3 1.39 (Dilts 83): D14 t1 1.53 (Dilts 121): D65 t2; DP47 t1 1.64 (Dilts 145): D67 t1 1.77 (Dilts 169b): D137 t5 2.15 (Dilts 35): DP57 t1 3.83 (Dilts 181, 182): D149 t2; DP65 t1 3.83 (Dilts 182): D130 t16 3.118 (Dilts 256): D87 t5 3.195 (Dilts 438a): D6 t2

index locorum Scholia on Aristophanes Eccl. 22: X10 Eccl. 813: D95 t2 Eccl. 825: D97 t2 Plut. 178: D36 t1 Scholia on Aristotle Scholion on Arist. Rhet. p. 106 line 32–p. 107 line 1 rabe (on Rhet. 1384b16): DP7 t1 Scholia on Demosthenes 2.6 (Dilts 50c): D79 t3 2.14 (Dilts 98b): DP40 t1 3.28 (Dilts 132b): D90 t2 7.18 (Dilts 28): D130 t14 7.24 (Dilts 32): D130 t15 19.86 (Dilts 199): D105 t2 21.62 (Dilts 200): D23 t3; D54 t8 24.27 (Dilts 74): D93 t2 Scholiast on Aristeides Panathenaikos 178, 16 (Dindorf): D174 t1 Scholiast on Dionysius hrax (Hilgard, Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1.3. Leipzig: teubner, 1901) 183, lines 16–20: D16 t1 Stephanos of Byzantium, Ethnika s.v.: ᾽Ωρεός: D154 t3 Suda s.v.: Ἄμφις (alpha 1760 Adler): DP83 t1 Ἀντιπάτρος (alpha 2703 Adler): D202 t5 Ἀπεψηφίσατο (alpha 3111 Adler): D167a t7 Δημάδης (delta 415 Adler): D171 t4; D172 t2; D177 t4 Διοκλῆς (delta 1155 Adler): DP3 t1 Κάρανος (kappa 356 Adler): D120 t2 Παλαίφατος (mu 77 Adler): DP90 t1 Πρόξενος (pi 2539 Adler): D177 t5 Σαμίων ὁ δῆμος (sigma 77 Adler): D16 t2 σαυτὴν ἐπαινεῖς, ὥσπερ Ἀστυδάμας ποτέ (sigma 161 Adler): D222 t2 συσσημαίνεσθαι (sigma 1675 Adler) D241 t1

heopompus (FGrH 115) F 30a: D79 t2 F 30b: D79 t3 Xenophon Hell. 2.4.38: D1 t4 Hell. 2.4.43: DP2 t1 Hell. 3.1.4: DP4 t1 Hell. 3.5.16: D20 t2 Hell. 4.8.13: DP8 t1 Hell. 4.8.24: D33 t1; D34 t3 Hell. 4.8.25: DP12 t2 Hell. 4.8.26: D29, 30 t1 Hell. 4.8.31: DP13 t1 Hell. 4.8.34: DP14 t1 Hell. 5.1.2: DP15 t1 Hell. 5.1.5: D37 t1; DP16 t1 Hell. 5.1.10: DP17 t1 Hell. 5.1.31–2: DP18 t2 Hell. 5.4.34: DP22 t1 Hell. 5.4.63: DP26 t1 Hell. 6.2.1: DP28 t1 Hell. 6.2.2: D48 t1 Hell. 6.2.10: DP30 t1 Hell. 6.2.11: D50 t1 Hell. 6.3.2: D51 t1 Hell. 6.4.1: DP33 t1 Hell. 6.5.1–3: D53 t1 Hell. 6.5.49: D55 t1 Hell. 6.33.5: BD1 Hell. 7.1.1: D56 t1 Hell. 7.1.2: D56 t2 Hell. 7.1.13–14: D56 t3 Hell. 7.1.33: DP37 t1 Hell. 7.4.1: DP38 t1 Hell. 7.4.2: D63 t1 Hell. 7.4.4: D63 t2 Hell. 7.4.6: D63 t3 Poroi 3.7: DP42 t1 Zenobios 5.100 (Snell TrGF 60 t2b): D222 t3

983

Index of Proposers of Literary Decrees

Cases in which attribution to a particular proposer is uncertain are marked with an asterisk (*). Where there is uncertainty about the authenticity of a particular example as a decree or other serious problems with its identiication, this is indicated with a dagger (†). Literary attestations are followed by epigraphical attestations. For the proposers of epigraphical decrees, see Volume 2, Appendix 1. Aleximachos Charinou Pelekes PA 545, PAA 120375 D 132

Demomeles Demonos Paianieus PA 3554, PAA 317410, APF D 166a

Andokides Leogorou Kydathenaieus PA 828, PAA 127290, APF D 26†

Demon Demomelous Paianeus PA 3736; PAA 322730, APF D 200a–b

Androtion Andronos Gargettios PA 913 + 915, PAA 129125, APF (3 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) DD 57, 88, 89

Demophantos PA 3659, PAA 320600 D 19

Antimedon PA 1134, PAA 134485 D 212

Demophilos PA 3664, PAA 320855 D 137

Archinos ek Koiles PA 2526, PAA 213880 DD 15, 16

Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus PA 3597, PAA 318625, APF DD 108, 124, 126, 127, 128, 139, 145, 146, 147, 148a, 148b, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 169, 170, 176, 182, 184, 193, 195, 198, 203*, 206, 214, 227, 231, 234, 235, 236, 242

Aristogeiton Kydimachou PA 1775, PAA 168145 D 237

Demotion PA 3646, PAA 320127 D 63*

Aristokrates PA 1897, PAA 170830 D 94

Diopeithes Diopeithous Sphettios PA 4328, PAA 363695, APF D 217

Apollodoros Pasionos Acharneus PA 2526, PAA 213880 D 115

Aristonikos Aristotelous Marathonios PA 2023 + 2028, PAA 174070 D 156 Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus PA 2108, PAA 176170, APF DD 9, 12, 66, 67, 91, 215–216 Chairedemos PA 1511 + 15113, PAA 971980 D 85 Demades Demeou Paianieus PA 3263, PAA 306085, APF DD 171, 172, 173*, 177, 178*, 180, 185, 186, 188, 197, 201, 202*

Diophantos hrasymedous Sphettios PA 4438, PAA 367640 D 105 Father of Epichares Cholleides APF pp. 58–9 D 209 Epikrates –--otetou Palleneus PA 4863, PAA 393525, APF D 93* Euboulos Spintharou Probalisios PA 5369, PAA 428495 DD 98*, 101, 116, 218

984

index of proposers Euktemon PA 5784, PAA 438085 D 92 Eurippides or Heurippides Adeimantou Myrrinousios PA 594 + 595 + 5956, PAA 444540, APF D 97 Glaukon PA 3011, PAA 276730 D 81 Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus PA 6351, PAA 481555, APF DD 87, 140, 144, 219 Hypereides Glaukippou Kollyteus PA 13912, PAA 902110, APF DD 166b, 167a, 167b, 167c

SEG LXIII 74. Concerning Corcyra; date: 373/2? Meidias Meidiou Anagyrasios PA 9720, PAA 637275, APF D 136 Moirokles Eleusinios PA 1040 + 10401, PAA 658480 D 207 Nausikles Klearchou Oethen PA 10552, PAA 701680, APF D 223* Nikomenes PA 10968, PAA 716940 D 14 Phanias PA 14010, PAA 915070 D 99

Kallias Hipponikou Alopekethen PA 7826, PAA 554500, APF D 52

Philippides PA 14351, PAA 928850 D 181, DD 224–5

Kallippos Paianieus PA 8078, PAA 559430 D 208

Philokles Phormionos Eroiades PA 1452 + 14541, PAA 935990, APF D 196

Kallisthenes PA 8090, PAA 559815 D 135 Kallistratos Kallikratous Aphidnaios PA 157+8129+8130 PAA 561575, APF DD 27, 55 Kephalos Kollyteus PA 8277, PAA 566650 D 44 Kephisodotos ek Kerameon PA 8331, PAA 567790 DD 56, 82* Kephisodotos (not in PA; PAA 576485) D 187 Kephisophon Kallibiou Paianieus PA 8417, PAA 569315, APF DD 129, 220 Ktesiphon PA 8894, PAA 587570 D 179

985

Philokrates Ephialtous PA 14586; PAA 937130 D 107 Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios PA 1459 + 14576, PAA 937530 DD 121, 125, 130, 131, 134, 213 Phokion Phokou Potamios PA 15076, PAA 967590, APF DD 143*, 157*, 202* Phormisios PA 14945, PAA 962695 D4 Phrynon Diognetou rhamnousios PA 15032, PAA 966010 (1 literary decree) D 117 Polyeuktos Kydantides PA 1194 + 1192 + 11927, PAA 778230 D 238

Kydias PA 8924; PAA 588215 D 65*

Polykrates Polykratous PA 2027, PAA 779315 (see also seangb.org, s.v. Polykrates) D 150*

Lykourgos Lykophronos Boutades PA 925 + 9247, PAA 611335, APF DD 190, 230, 233, 240*, 241*

Skiton (PAA 824360, LGPN, s.v., cf. APF 12728) D 210

Lysanias identity uncertain (1 epigraphical decree)

Smikros PAA 25720 D 211

986

index of proposers

Stephanos PA 12879, PAA 833430 DD 226, 239 teisamenos Mechanionos PA 13443, PAA 877610 D 7* heozotides PA 6913+ 6914, PAA 507785, APF D 17 houkydides PA 7265, PAA 515410 (1 literary decree)

D 205 hrasyboulos Lykou Steirieus PA 7310, PAA 517010, APF DD 5, 6†, 20 timarchos Arizelou Sphettios PA 13636, PAA 884310 DD 122, 138

Index of Honorands attested in the Literary Sources

Aeschines (D 114) Alexander (of Macedon): D174, D197 Alexander (of Pherai): D58 Alkimachos: D178 Antipater: D173 Antiphanes: D203 Apollodoros: D70 Apollonides: D109 Archebios: D31 Ariobarzanes and sons: D59 Aristodemos: D124 Aristophon: D102 Assassins of Kotys: D73 Astydamas: D222 Bianor: D78 Chabrias: D46 Chairephilos and sons: D235 Charidemos of Oreos: D84, D94, D229 Charidemos (Athenian, son of Ischomachos): D209 Corinthians: D41 Council (boule): D89 Demades: D187 Democrats: D5, D15 Demosthenes: D156, D166, D179 Dionysios: D103 Diotimos: D190 Diphilos: D234 Embassy (Athenian): D128, D146 Epigenes: D236 Epikrates: D189 Euboulos: D221 Euderkes: D75 Euthykrates: D177 Evagoras: D24 Gorgippos: D227 Harpalos: D243 Herakleides: D32 Iphikrates: D35 Kallias: D231

Kallisthenes: D244 Kersobleptes: D74 Klearchos: D62 Konon (Athenian general): D23 Konon (banker): D236 Kotys: D43 Ktesiphon: D118 Leukon: D39 Lykidas: D103 Lykophron: D110 Lycurgus: D235 Lysias: D6 Messenians: D104 Megarians: D104 Nausikles: D228 Neoptolemos: D230 Olynthians: D120 Pairisades: D227 Pasion and descendants: D42 Pausanias: D182 Peitholas: D110 Philip: D134, D180 Phokion: D136 Phormion: D72 Phrasierides: D61 Plataians: D49 Polysthenes: D61 Polystratos: D100 Proedroi: D181 rhinon: D3 Satyros: D28, D227 Simon: D77 Strabax: D100 taurosthenes: D231 ten, the: D3 teres: D204 hasians: D40 hrasyboulos: D18 timotheos: D47 troizenians: D175

987

General Index

Abydos, 216, 265, 555, 556 Academy, 48 Achaians, 517, 547 acropolis, 145, 149, 227, 229, 244, 253, 693, 694 adoption, 119, 748 Aegina, 180, 211, 719, 857 Aegospotami, battle of, 148 Aeschines, 345, 428, 453, 481, 584 Aetolians, 717 Agis of Sparta, 688 Aglauros, sanctuary of, 437 agogimos, 261, 263, 370 agora, 85, 111, 213, 221, 244, 265, 379, 900 Agyrrhios, 853 Aianteion, 216 Ainians, 735 f. aitesis, 215, 221, 415 Akarnanians, 137 Akoris, 178, 860 Alcibiades, 256 Alexander of Macedon, 282, 622, 632, 688, 691, 706, 716 Alexander of Pherai, 261, 289 Alexander of the Molossi, 941 Alketas of Epiros, 261, 876 alliances, 42, 47, 165, 172, 178, 179, 251, 261, 274, 300, 319, 321, 343, 391, 424, 425, 462, 469, 477, 483, 529, 537, 538, 539, 547, 621, 669 alphabet, 113 Amadokos, 306, 308, 316, 322, 323, 331, 372, 732 ambassadors, 444, 451, 458, 463, 464, 468, 492, 493, 516, 519, 531, 537, 540, 543, 587, 616, 675, 910, 913, 919, 956 Ambrakiots, 137 Ameiniades, 922 Ammon, 708 amnesty, 56, 58, 59, 62, 123 Amphiaraos, 815 Amphiareion, 782, 931 Amphictyony, Delphian, 343, 502, 581 Amphipolis, 166, 238, 268, 279, 319, 334, 372, 479, 522, 763, 880, 883, 914 Amphissans, 343, 581, 928 Amyntas III, 319 Anaxinos, 532

ancestral custom (ta patria), 49, 51 andragathia, 254, 649 Andros, 618 Androtion, 255, 258, 347, 352, 359, 363, 403, 509 Antalkidas, 159, 848 antidosis, 292 Antipater, 631, 693, 723, 727, 949 Antiphanes, 729 Antiphon, 319 Apatouria, 970 Aphrodite Euploia, 144 apodektai (receivers), 349 Apollo, 485 Apollo, altar of, 793 Apollodoros, 196, 294, 296, 595, 817, 891 Apollonides, 415 apophasis, 514, 534, 699, 702, 758, 958 aprobouleuta decrees, 68, 73, 354, 811 Arcadians, 274, 437, 947 Archebios of Byzantion, 171 archive, 111 Areopagus, 60, 68, 513, 612, 697, 699, 758, 795 arete, 649 Argaios of Macedon, 279, 318, 895 Argos, Argives, 132, 194, 516 Ariobarzanes, 263, 265, 269, 270, 309, 335 Aristion, 943 Aristodemos, 459, 481, 834, 905, 908, 967 Aristogeiton, 605, 702, 809 Aristokrates, 259, 308 Aristonikos, 725 Aristophanes, 115 Aristophon, 86, 96, 103, 145, 240, 284 Aristotle, 280, 328, 417 Arkadians, 721, 885 Artabazos, 357 Artaxerxes, 149, 268, 860 Artemis, 792, 810 Artemis, temple of, 792 Arthmios stele, 445 Arybbas, 374 Asandros, 144, 150 Asklepieia, 468 assembly (ekklesia), 77, 100, 159, 248, 409, 462, 467, 528, 651, 844, 966, 969

988

general index assistance (boethia), 346 astoi, 102 Astydamas, 144 Astykrates, 344 ateleia, 87, 95, 140, 144, 163, 164, 185, 189, 191, 209, 217, 240, 244, 389, 448, 642, 959, 974 Athamanians, 871 Athena Soteira, 720 Athenodoros, 322, 325, 331 Athenogenes, 633 athletes, 216 atimia, 642 Attic Alphabet, 114 Attalos, 680 Atthidography, 403 Autolykos, 514 autonomy, 238, 279, 525, 626, 680, 840 banking, 196, 302, 785, 805, 806 battleield, honours on, 430 Berisades, 306, 308, 322, 323, 331, 372 Bianor of hrace, 170, 315 Black Sea, 183 Boiotians, 96, 100, 132, 138, 203, 328, 346, 493, 499, 587, 591, 865 Bosporos, Kimmerian, 162, 187, 784 bouleuterion, 107 Brasidas, 166 bribery, 543, 700, 753, 819 building projects, 433, 515, 782, 792, 961 burial, public, 70, 655, 839 Byzantians, 357, 551 Byzantion, 183, 289, 555, 570, 576 cavalrymen, 118, 134, 206, 275, 411, 426, 625, 641, 843, 960 Chabrias, 144, 176, 179, 204, 209, 213, 214, 217, 239, 322, 325, 393, 859, 866, 868 Chairephilos, 785 Chaironeia, battle of, 503, 603–614, 641, 680 Chalkis, Chalkidians, 137, 503, 537, 539, 559, 641 Chaonians, 871 characterisation, 139 Chares, 285, 323, 325, 331, 477, 569, 674, 735, 885, 897, 920 Charidemos, 199, 240, 259, 263, 277, 299, 309, 310, 319, 321, 324, 330, 333, 370, 402, 674, 684, 746, 790, 905 Chaironeia, battle of, 684 charis, 202, 632 Chersonese, hracian, 283, 306, 308, 411, 463, 477, 520, 530, 551, 555, 556, 571, 744, 833, 882, 915

989

Chians, 357 children, evacuation of, 500, 607 choregia, 297 Chremonidean war, 716 citizenship, 54, 65, 67, 68, 70, 103, 108, 121, 150, 187, 196, 199, 211, 219, 225, 229, 270, 273, 298, 302, 304, 307, 310, 333, 386, 418, 508, 606, 607, 630, 633, 646, 786, 798, 825, 840, 959, 973 Aristophon’s law concerning, 103 Pericles’ law concerning, 102 civic rights, 49 class struggle, 843 Cleon, 142 cleruchies, 207, 281, 522, 551, 708, 744, 768, 834, 895, 900, 903, 915 coinage, 379 collaboration, political, 361, 369, 459, 487, 778, 818 commands, military, 43 Common Peace, 482, 488, 521, 524, 623, 625 conscription, 716 Corcyra, 213, 219, 224, 230, 874 Corcyreans, 547 Corinth, Corinthians, 132, 193, 275, 420, 547, 849 Corinthian War, 134 corruption, 182, 511 council (boule), 60, 83, 92, 159, 250, 253, 312, 319, 338, 353, 360, 432, 437, 462, 468, 495, 583, 611, 843, 971 crowns, 255, 352, 974, 975 crowns, golden, 201, 305 crowns, olive, 123 crowns, trierarchic, 290 crowns, value of, 110 cult activity, 872 Cyprus, 172, 174, 211, 859 Cyrus, 382 death penalty, 159, 533, 613, 759, 809 debtors, public, 359, 361, 365, 433, 960 debt, public, 51, 95, 97 decree of Isotimides, 48, 57, 75 decree of hemistocles, 437 decrees alliances, 42 as proofs, 106 Athenian values and, 209 concerning religion, 43 council decrees, 971 credibility of literary accounts, 6 criteria for identiication, 7–16 critique of, 327, 401

990

general index

decrees (cont.) distorted accounts of, 55, 69, 499, 680 domestic matters, 44 epigraphical publication of, 37 epigraphically attested IG I3 156: 374 IG II2 10: 69 IG II2 14: 135 IG II2 24: 184 IG II2 40: 204 IG II2 97: 230 IG II2 111: 285–6 IG II2 112: 423 IG II2 116: 262 IG II2 124: 329 IG II2 126: 308 IG II2 133: 900 IG II2 141: 329 IG II2 450: 144 IG II2 513: 144 IG II2 968: 145 IG II3 1 292: 406 IG II3 1 298: 162, 186, 785 IG II3 1 312: 548 IG II3 1 313: 573 IG II3 1 318: 623, 627 IG II3 1 319: 646 IG II3 1 370: 314 IG II3 1 399: 454 IG II3 1 411: 374 IG II3 1 412: 564 IG II3 1 447: 400 IG II3 1 452: 374 Or 178: 119 rO 6: 134 rO 11: 149, 150, 973 rO 18: 184 rO 22: 862 rO 24: 230 rO 35: 329 rO 41: 277 rO 47: 323, 330 rO 64: 257 SEG LIX 106: 262 SEG LXIII 74: 874 fabricated, 3, 80, 125, 226, 368, 502, 567, 588, 651, 766, 788 foreign policy, 44 honoriic, 976 inscribed, 2, 3, 95, 111, 112, 124, 142, parody of, 377, 379 riders, 268, 600, 602, 749

verbatim quotation, 200, 208, 584, 588, 608, 660 dedications, 107, 164, 244, 810 deiication, 658, 706, 828 deipnon, 297 deliberation, 99, 127, 247, 281, 469 Delos, 641 Delphi, 345, 405, 499, 582, 591, 877 Delphic Amphictyony, 481, 499, 585 Demades, 110, 623, 640, 669, 707, 949 Demainetos, 843 demes, 102, 114, 289, 291, 509 Demeter and Kore, 405 Demochares, 566, 688, 722 democracy Arcadian, 276 at Oreos, 545 democratic activity, 87 restoration of, 54, 63, 68, 95, 97, 110, 119, 122, 202, 382 supported by Macedonians, 646 threats to, 128 values of, 209 Demomeles, 566, 598 Demon, 674 demosios, 255 Demosthenes, 386, 412, 451, 489, 539, 565, 587, 598, 602, 638, 653, 674, 704 diacheirotonia, 354, 432 diadikasia, 362 diapsephisis, 85, 509 diobelia, 94, 118 Diondas, 592, 599, 936 Dionysia, 297, 466 Dionysius of Syracuse, 200, 335, 846, 877 Dionysios, theatre of, 565, 647, 774 Diopeithes, 550, 573, 915, 917 Diphilos, 785 disability, bodily, 93 disenfranchisement, 726 dispatches, 42–3 documents argumentation and, 105 fabricated, 76, 78, 79, 125, 368, 567, 651, 766, 788 in Attic oratory, 3 Dodona, 619 dogma, 137, 224, 239, 483, 551, 741, 877 dokimasia, 52, 89, 515 Draco, 77, 129 dramatists, 729, 774, 841, 941 dreams, 663, 812, 930

general index echinos, 215 education, 115 Eetonia, 139 Egypt, 211, 527 Egyptians, 179 Eirene (cult altar), 219 eisangelia (impeachment), 48, 129, 301, 340, 534, 612, 812, 815, 957, 959 eisphora, 99, 145, 255, 291, 297, 347, 380, 403, 434, 871, 953, 959 ekklesiastikon, 959, 960 Ekphantos, 190 Elaiousians, 573 Elateia, 585, 586 election, 462, 670, 778, 956 Eleusis, 49, 586, 591, 839, 922 Eleutherai, 109 Eleutheria, 399 Eleven, the, 51, 349, 534 emporia, 163 enfranchisement, 603, 605 enktektikon, 293 enktesis, 171, 197, 228 epainos, 473, 974 epangelia (denunciation), 91 ephebes, 368, 437, 510, 683, 960 ephesis, 91 Ephesos, 145 Ephialtes, 674 Ephialtes, laws of, 60 Ephoros, 113, 204 Epichares, 733, 741 Epidauros, 618 epidosis, 788, 954 epigamia, 228, 974 Epigenes, 785 epigram, inscribed, 926 Epikrates, 144 epilektoi, 429 epinikia hiera, 400 Epirotes, 871 epitaphios logos, 599, 620, 708, 954 Eretria, Eretrians, 428, 537, 543, 563 Ergokles, 182 Erythrai, 145, 147, 212 eschatiai, 405 ethos, Athenian, 97, 105, 204 euangelia (good news), 663 Euboia, Euboians, 137, 329, 411, 428, 441, 538, 540, 907 Euboulos, 437, 771 Euderkes, 309

991

euergetai, 170 euergetism, 73, 95, 196, 197, 262, 296, 302, 651, 685, 789, 790, 792 Euktemon, 359 Eumolpidai, 49 eunoia, 207, 226, 228, 472, 646 euthuna, 51, 63, 355, 647, 649, 787 Euthykles, 263, 269, 322 Euxenippos, 812, 930 Euxitheos, 507 evacuation, 399, 500, 665, 672, 681 Evagoras, 139, 144, 149, 172, 178, 262, 846 exetasmos, 256 exiles, 65, 73, 190, 195, 202, 224, 226, 282, 382, 387, 725, 875 Exiles Decree of Alexander, 694, 708, 716, 944 expeditions, 43 ines, 73 ish, 803 ish-traders, 804 foreign policy, 44 foreigners, enfranchisement of, 69, 74 forensic oratory, 4 fortiications, 139 fortresses, frontier, 500 fortune, 93 Four Hundred, the, 120 friendship, 179, 209, 320, 343, 483, 526, 532, 537, 621, 646, 832, 912 Gelarchos, 95 Gorgippos, 785 grain supply, Athenian, 148, 162, 178, 182, 186, 200, 265, 289, 555, 572, 576, 615, 686, 740, 762, 785, 869, 940 Granikos river, 937 graphe paranomon, 4, 9, 60, 67, 68, 74, 87, 96, 134, 205, 240, 253, 284, 336, 352 361, 372, 384, 414, 418, 431, 450, 506, 595, 600, 603, 643, 650, 657, 659, 723, 811 Great King, 176, 179, 232, 233, 239, 264, 268, 278, 525, 861, 883, 913, 919, 933 Hadrian, 149 Halians, 488 Haliartos, 132 Halonnesos, 477, 519, 530, 742, 763 harmosts, 141, 261, 282, 843 Harpalos, 698, 704, 720, 827, 945 Hegesippos, 343, 484, 519, 530, 688, 744, 906, 915 Hekatomnos of Karia, 172 Hellenotamiai, 72, 119–20

992

general index

Hellespont, 265, 520, 549 Heraion teichos, 403, 422 Herakleia, 500 Herakleides of Byzantion, 171 Hermai, commemorative, 111 Hestia, 471 hetairai, 511 hieromnemones, 583 Hieron, 187, 188, 920 Hieronymos, 714 Himeraios, 725 hippotoxotai, 118 historical example, 203 homicide, 373 homicide, cases concerning, 51 homonoia, 99 honoriic decrees, 41 hoplites, 216 horistai, 815, 929 hostages, 277 house-building, 515 hubris, 265 Hypereides, 502, 506, 566, 639, 674, 688 Illyrians, 331, 671 Imbros, 152, 207, 282, 356, 454, 622, 896 imperialism, Athenian, 134, 138, 166, 181, 184, 208, 214, 219, 251, 282, 290 impiety, 255 incubation, 930, 931 inheritance, 748 inscribed decrees, 124, 187, 483, 574, 859 inscribed robes, 810 inscriptions, 95, 227, 241, 255, 309, 342 destruction of, 262 reading, 112 Ionic alphabet, 62, 111, 114–15 Ios, 646 Ioulis, 285 Iphikrates, 166, 200, 211, 212, 215, 217, 239, 247, 279, 306, 334, 387, 390, 855, 877, 880, 933 Isocrates, 272, 859 isopoliteia, 227, 974 isoteleia, 68, 69, 73, 448, 634, 934 Jason of Pherai, 261, 418, 876 Kadmeia, heban, 204, 723 Kalchedon, 289 Kallias, 233, 236 Kallias of Chalkis, 429, 537, 545, 564, 795, 799 Kallisthenes, 110, 674, 829

Kallistratos, 113 Kardia, 522, 550, 742, 768, 915 Kardians, 331, 485 Karthaia, 285 kathairesis, 255 Keos, 285, 322, 618 Kephisodotos, 251, 312 Kersobleptes, 306, 309, 311, 316, 323, 325, 331, 333, 372, 402, 482, 486, 487, 900 Kerykes, 49 Kinesias, 385 King’s Peace, 160, 170, 178, 193, 194, 205, 206, 264, 357, 858 Klazomenians, 184 Klearchos, 211, 219, 220, 272 Kleitarchos, 428, 542, 545, 563 Kleitos, 717 Kleopatra, 941 Knidos, battle of, 138, 149, 143 Konon, 138, 139, 147, 148, 149, 180, 212, 220, 255, 785, 843, 847, 849 Kotys of hrace, 168, 240, 301, 304 Krannon, battle of, 630, 722 Krateros, 125, 727 Krithoe, 268 Kritias, 53 Kritoboulos of Lampsakos, 491 Kronia, 367 Ktesikles, 230, 875 Ktesiphon, 440, 442, 652 Ktesippos, 213, 217, 240, 390 Kydias, 281 Kynosarges, 503 Kyzikos, 289 Kyzikemes, 288–9 Laches, 889 Lamian War, 714, 944, 948 land owners, 64 Lasthenes, 642 law (nomos), 961 Aristophon’s law on citizenship, 103 concerning dokimasia, 91 concerning naval boards, 578 of Eukrates, 128, 229 on citizenship, 102 lawcourts (dikasteria), 91 laws (nomoi) ad hominem, 82 archaioi, 58 concerning festival inances, 368 decrees and, 55, 83, 511

general index publication of, 78 regulations concerning, 77 revision of, 56 scrutiny of, 56, 83 Solonian, 87 writing up of, 77, 83 laws (nomos) decrees and, 87 League of Corinth, 622, 626, 632, 664, 680 legitimacy, 103, 118, 119 Lemnos, 207, 282, 454, 622, 896 Leodamas, 214 Leokrates, 609, 612 Leosthenes, 892, 945 Leukadians, 137, 547 Leukon of Bosporos, 150, 185 Leuktra, battle of, 233, 237 lexiarchika grammateia, 509 liberation, of Greece, 143, 221, 222, 254, 605, 715 liturgies, 87, 292, 303 loans, public, 95, 97 Lokris, Lokrians, 134, 345, 456, 582, 586 Long Walls, 141 Lycurgus, 130, 674, 678, 681, 829 Lykinos, 451 Lykoleon, 213 Lykomedes, 274 Lykophron, 418 Lysander, 98, 282 Lysanias, 874 Lysias, 71, 79, 6 Lysimachos, 657 Macedonia, Macedonians, 278, 290, 319, 477, 686 Macedonian garrisons, 716 Magnesians, 485, 518, 537, 918 maintainance, public, 94 Mantias, 318 Mantineia, battle of, 277 Mantineia, Mantineians, 891 Mantitheos, 134 Marathon, battle of, 328 marriage, 103, 197, 228, 303 marriage-ceremonies, 655 Mausolos, 267, 356, 363 meat supply, Athenian, 262 Medokos of hrace, 167 Megalopolis, 438, 517, 547 megalopsychia, 247 Megara, Megarians, 394, 405, 419, 529, 547, 561 megistai timai, 145, 220, 270

993

Meidias, 505 Melite (deme), 792 memorials, 69 memory, collective, 403 Menelaos the Pelagonian, 220, 279 Menestheus, 687 mercenaries, 73, 98, 179, 240, 264, 331, 386, 411, 835, 839, 929 merchants, 96, 163 Messenians, 394, 516 Methone, 318 metics, 96, 606, 934 metoikion, 170, 228, 448, 934 metoikoi, 613, 634 Metroon, 111, 253, 701 metroxenoi, 103 Milon, 843 Miltiades, decree of, 329, 437 Miltokythes, 300, 301, 323 Mnesias of Argos, 635 mobilisation, 42, 287, 328, 409, 457, 575, 576 Moirokles, 674, 741 motivation formulae, 142 Mounichia, 68, 722 Mysteries, Eleusinian, 671 Mytilene, 216 naturalisation, 150 Naukratis, 360, 363 Nausikles, 463, 789 navy, Athenian, 141, 176, 197, 207, 287, 294, 337, 341, 353, 403, 579, 935, 961 Naxos, 213 Neaira, 196, 246 Neogenes of Oreos, 866 Neoptolemos, 792 Nikaia, 586 Nikomachos, 79 Nisaia, 528 nomothesia, 57, 83, 365, 578, 958 oath, 51, 239, 433, 471, 485, 488 Odeion, 632, 657, 708 Odrysians, 167, 734 oliganthropia, 102 oligarchy, Athenian, 62, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 119, 759 Olympia, 256, 877 Olympias, 533, 795 Olynthos, Olynthians, 279, 317, 334, 411, 415, 424, 427, 446, 447, 449, 641, 886, 887 omens (see also ‘dreams’), 922

994

general index

oracle Delphic, 405, 406, 792, 813, 922 of Zeus at Dodona, 619 oral tradition, 417 Oreos, 534, 539, 543, 559 orgas, sacred, 405, 421 Orontes, 335, 551 Oropos, 109, 620, 655, 782, 816, 885 orphans, 119 Paionians, 317, 331 Pairisades, 785 Palaiphatos, 950 Pamphilos, 785 Panathenaia, 163, 253, 367 paradosis, 256 Paralos, 937 Parapotamioi, 596 Pasion, 196, 302 patrioi nomoi, 60, 759 patrios politeia, 56 Pausanias (Spartan king), 53 Pausanias of Macedon, 663 peace agreements, 154, 157, 525, 537, 573, 626, 723, 726, 848, 922, 969 Peace, altar of, 873 Peace of 322, 949 Peace of 359, 317 Peace of 366/5, 886 Peace of 371, 232, 236, 251, 521 Peace of 371 (renewal), 238 Peace of 375, 233, 872 Peace of Kallias, 859 Peace of Philokrates, 7, 309, 332, 343, 436, 442, 450, 461, 470, 491, 499, 536, 550, 573, 577, 732, 744, 766 Peace, altar of, 873 Peitholaos, 415 Pelopidas, 260 Peloponnesian War, 115, 138, 166, 378 peltasts, 175, 204 pension, public, 92 Peparethos, 262, 892 Perdiccas of Macedon, 426, 887 Periander, 338 Periandros, 290 Pericles, 102, 110, 142, 256, 678 Perillos, 528 Perinthos, 265, 572, 576 Persia, 134 Persian war decrees, 328

Persian Wars, 635, 716 Persians, 178, 184, 526, 912 Phalaikos of Phokis, 456 Pharnabazos, 138, 143, 148, 844 Phayllos, 903 Pheidippos, 785 Pheidon, 785 phialai, 255 philanthropia, 206, 247, 525, 657 Philemon, 774 Philip of Macedon, 307, 309, 317, 334, 409, 425, 437, 439, 442, 449, 453, 477, 495, 499, 521, 526, 536, 574, 618, 641, 654, 761, 895, 922 Philiskos of Abydos, 263, 309, 335 Philiskos of Sestos, 900 Philistides, 545, 559, 560 Philochorus, 509 Philokles, 692, 702, 703 Philokrates, 173, 175, 405, 451, 463, 464, 497 Philomelos, 343 Philon, 594 philotimia, 255 Phleious, Phleiasians, 423 Phoenicia, 527 Phokians, 134, 343, 450, 455, 477, 481, 488, 499, 503 Phokion, 504, 505, 563, 569, 625, 675, 717, 723, 949 Phokis, 7 Phormion, 302 phoros, 184 Phrasierides, 219, 269, 271 phratries, 104, 228 Phrygia, 264 phylai, 639, 716, 813 Phyle (Attica), 53, 69, 98 piracy, 224, 450, 484, 530, 684, 741, 857 Piraeus, 51, 63, 69, 95, 99, 121, 138, 139, 141, 159, 165, 187, 206, 262, 289, 329, 339, 500, 504, 607, 610, 616, 717, 720, 721, 843 Pisistratus, 94 Plataea, Plataeans, 70, 225, 227, 394, 399, 942 Plataïkos, 943 Plato, 272 Ploutarchos of Eretria, 428, 560, 907 Pnyx, 454, 515, 649 politeumata, 510 political rights, 54 Polydamos of Pharsalos, 261 Polyeuktos, 674, 678, 721, 746 Polykles, 287, 295 Polysthenes, 219, 269, 271

general index Polystratos, 211, 387 pompeia, 253 Poseidon, 707 Potidaia, 283, 319, 426, 522, 763 poverty, 85, 94 prices, ixing of, 376 probole, 958 probouleuma, 362, 372, 374, 584 probouleusis, 353, 363, 371, 432, 454, 466, 472, 495, 583, 954, 957 processions, 257 procheirotonia, 362, 363 prodosia, 382, 613 proedria, 145, 213, 244, 466, 786, 968 proedroi, 479, 491, 659 proeispherontes, 292, 293, 350 Prokonnesos, 288, 555, 571 property, 49 proskynesis, 404, 707, 828 protection, of individuals, 373 protenthai, 970 prothymia, 188, 297 proxenoi, 170, 393, 470, 631, 641, 644, 974 Proxenos, 457 prytaneion, 119, 145, 220, 241, 296, 471, 694, 785, 803 prytaneis, 354, 468, 469, 473, 810, 968 Ptoiodoros, 528 Ptolemy of Macedon, 278 public land, 515 Pydna, 319–20, 763 pylagorai, 583 Pythian Apollo, 296, 405 Python of Byzantion, 520 recall from exile, 387, 721 reconciliation, Athenian, 41–2, 48, 68 registers of citizens, 510 religious matters, decrees concerning, 43 religious regulations, 712, 820, 823 remuneration, public, 118, 412, 960 rhamnous, 717 rhodes, 166, 267 rhodians, 357 rubbish dumps, 643 ruddle, 285 sacred land, 815 sacred robes, 811 Sacred Wars, 344, 405, 584 sacriice, 107, 399, 501, 596, 657, 664 Salamis, 622

995

salt, 377 Samos, Samians, 113, 145, 267, 270, 281, 282, 708, 895, 896, 903 Sardis, 160, 848 Satraps’ revolt, 265, 335 Satyros, 784, 785 Satyros of Bosporos, 200 scrutiny, of citizens, 509 Second Athenian Confederacy, 204, 206, 207, 220, 282, 284, 328, 357, 482, 489, 490, 537, 544, 551, 622, 734, 738, 741, 754, 863 secrecy, 319 secretaries (grammateis), 105 Sestos, 268, 900 Seuthes of hrace, 167 sexual behaviour, 513 shame, 105, 265 shark attack, of Eleusis, 922 Sikyon, 885 silver resources, 378 Simon of hrace, 170, 315 sitesis, 145, 149, 213, 220, 241, 244, 748, 786 sitones, 957 Skyros, 207, 282, 454, 622 slaves, 69, 393, 511 Social War, 285, 339, 351, 357, 740, 834, 898 Solon, 77, 87, 94, 124 Sophilos, 147 sovereignty, popular, 433 Sparta, Spartans, 53, 180, 194, 203, 212, 219, 249, 382, 689 Spartokids, 784 Sphodrias, 204, 205, 865 stasis, 328 statues, 141, 145, 148, 213, 215, 221, 241, 244, 262, 654, 657, 677, 683, 785, 803, 831, 837, 877, 973, 975 of Demosthenes, 543 Stephanos, 433 Stoa Basileios, 59, 77, 144 Strabax, 211, 387 stratiotic fund, 595 Strymon (river), 111, 166, 278 surplus, budgetary, 433 sycophancy, 385, 649, 817 symbouleutic oratory, 409 symmoriai, 292, 338, 342, 959 syndikoi, 957 synegoroi, 204, 209, 214, 352, 364, 367, 431, 659, 678, 808 syntaxis, 544, 599, 734

996

general index

Syracusans, 847 Syros, 216 tainaron, 944 tamynai, battle of, 429, 506 taurosthenes of Chalkis, 539, 642, 795 taxation, 9, 87, 170, 183, 191, 246, 322, 324, 381 tax collecting, 349, 350 tax farming, 363 teichopoioi, 138, 649, 957 tekmeria (evidence), 97, 187 ten, the, 51, 61 tenedos, tenedians, 687, 753 tenos, 262, 289 teos, 115 teres, 309, 486, 732 teukros, 149 hasos, hasians, 189, 191, 374 hebes, hebans, 205, 211, 284, 587, 589, 666, 669, 671, 675, 792, 924, 932 hemison of Eretria, 884 heokrines, 733, 739 heomnestos, 196 heopompus, 113, 317 theoric fund, 433, 806, 843, 959, 960 hermopylai, 411, 456, 583 heseus, 635 hespiai, 227 hessaly, hessalians, 260, 412, 415, 418, 457, 485, 518, 537, 918 thetes, 66 heudosia, 163 hirty, the, 51, 68, 94, 104, 120, 127, 390, 843 hrace, hracians, 167, 200, 314, 323, 324, 330, 402, 493, 500, 503, 520, 731 hrasyboulos of Steiria, 48 tigranes, 269 timarchos, 452, 515

timokrates, 256, 359 timokrates of rhodes, 134 timotheos, 144, 145, 166, 211, 212, 217, 222, 223, 231, 239, 261, 268, 271, 279, 329, 334, 390, 869, 875, 880, 886 tiribazos, 848 tithraustes, 134 torture, 373, 533 trade, 86, 96, 164, 187, 576, 741 triballians, 671 trierarchy, 287, 293, 294, 312, 339, 341, 363 troizen, troizenians, 618, 633 truce (for envoys), 464 twenty, the, 59 tyrannicides, 143, 145, 243, 296, 677, 959 tyranny, 143 provisions against, 124, 564 victory, thanksgiving for, 398, 597 violence, 119 wall-building, 139, 142, 615, 637–9, 649, 667 walls, Megarian, 529 water supply, 783 women, 103, 227, 265, 399, 500, 607, 960, 961 women, evacuation of, 500, 607 xenia, 533 xenikon, 85, 86, 129 xenoi, 85, 109, 604 Xenokrates, 722 Xenophon, 382, 515 Zakynthians, 875 Zakynthos, 224 zetetai (commissioners of enquiry), 360 Zeus, 707 Zeus Eleutherios, 149, 221, 399, 792 Zeus Soter, 141, 144, 149, 720, 721

Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2–322/1 bc)

Decree-making is a deining aspect of ancient Greek political activity: it was the means by which city-state communities went about deciding to get things done. his two-volume work provides a new view of the decree as an institution within the framework of fourth-century Athenian democratic political activity. Volume 1 consists of a comprehensive account of the literary evidence for decrees of the fourth-century Athenian assembly. Volume 2 analyses how decrees and decree-making, by ofering both an authoritative source for the narrative of the history of the Athenian demos and a legitimate route for political self-promotion, came to play an important role in shaping Athenian democratic politics. Peter Liddel assesses ideas about, and the reality of, the dissemination of knowledge of decrees among both Athenians and non-Athenians and explains how they became signiicant to the wider image and legacy of the Athenians. Peter Liddel  is Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Manchester. He has published extensively on Greek political history, notably Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens (2007), as well as on Greek history, historiography and epigraphy. He is co-editor of the Annual of the British School at Athens, and serves as co-editor of Brill’s New Jacoby and as associate editor of Polis. He is a founding member of the Editorial Board of the Attic Inscriptions Online project (https://www.atticinscriptions.com/) and is also Co-Investigator in a project to digitally publish Attic inscriptions in UK collections (AIUK).

Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2–322/1 bc) Volume 2 Political and Cultural Perspectives

PEtEr LIDDEL

University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, ny 10006, USA 477 Williamstown road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107185074 doi: 10.1017/9781316882788 © Peter Liddel 2020 his publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by tJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data names: Liddel, Peter P. (Peter Philip), 1977– author. title: Decrees of fourth-century Athens (403/2-322/1 bc) : political and cultural perspectives / Peter Liddel. description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, ny : Cambridge University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. identifiers: lccn 2018043697 | isbn 9781107185074 subjects: lcsh: Legislation – Greece – Athens – History – to 1500. | Democracy – Greece – Athens – History – to 1500. | Constitutional history – Greece – Athens – to 146 B.C. | Athens (Greece) – Politics and government classification: lcc KL4361.32.A75 L53 2019 | DDC 340.5/385–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018043697 isbn 978-1-107-18507-4 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of UrLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

List of Tables

page vi

Introduction

1

1

he Social Capital of the Decree

14

2

Appropriation and Aspiration: Decrees in the Pursuit of Political Self-Interest

59

he Dissemination of Fourth-Century Athenian Decrees: Local Audiences

109

4

he Audiences of Decrees Beyond Athenian Citizens

159

5

Literary Representations of Athenian Decrees

189

3

Conclusion

240

Appendix 1 Proposers of Decrees at the Athenian Assembly 403/2–322/1 Appendix 2 Literary Inventions Bibliography

247 269 273

Index Locorum General Index

300 306

v

tables

1 Comparison between the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence for Period 1 (403/2–353/2) and Period 2 (352/1–322/1)

12

2 Epigraphically Attested Early Fourth-Century Decrees which are referred to by the Literary Sources

135

3 references to Extraordinary Inscriptions in Oratory

147

vi

Introduction In this volume, I offer a new view of the role of the decree as an institution within the framework of Athenian democratic political activity and its legacy. Focusing upon decrees of the Athenian demos of the period 403/2–322/1, the perspectives offered in this volume are informed primarily by the literary evidence collected in Volume 1, but also by epigraphic material and literary engagement with documents and decrees of a wider chronological context, particularly those associated with the fifth century. What makes this volume distinctive is its attempt to contemplate the role of the decree as an institution which, by offering both a rhetorically authoritative resource for narratives of the history of the Athenian demos (Chapter 1 below) and a legitimate route for the political self-promotion of individual citizens (Chapter 2 below), came to play an important role in shaping Athenian politics. I seek to determine how awareness and interpretations of decrees circulated among contemporary Athenians in the fourth century, considering the role of epigraphical publication in that process (Chapter 3 below). I assess ideas about, and the reality of, the dissemination of knowledge of decrees among non-Athenians (Chapter 4 below); I also explore their representation in classical literature, seeking to explain how the subject of decrees came to attain a rhetorical presence and a significance to the wider image and legacy of the Athenians (Chapter 5 below). Over the course of this volume I build upon a number of different modern scholarly developments which deserve mention here: first, scholarly works on Athenian democracy, which have gone some way to placing decrees and activity related to them within the broader frameworks of political institutions and social dynamics;1 second, the work of those who have emphasised the technical aspects of decrees, the significance of their epigraphical publication, and their literary circulation;2 third, those who have produced close studies of 1 For interpretations of Athenian democratic activity based upon an analysis of the city’s institutions (including decree-making institutions), see Rhodes 1972; Hansen 1987, 1999; Lambert 2018: 171–226; on the social dynamics of Athenian politics, see Finley 1966; Ober 1989, 2008. 2 For institutions and Athenian decrees: Hansen 1987: 108-118; Rhodes 1972: 52–87; Schoemann 1819: 129–47; Biagi 1785; for technical aspects of decrees: Rhodes with Lewis 1997; Canevaro 2013; on the significance of their epigraphical publication: Hedrick 1999, 2000; Sickinger 2009; Lambert 2011a (= 2018: 71–92) and 2018: 47-68; on the literary circulation of decrees: Haake 2013.

1

2

introduction

­ articular types of decree.3 Particular mention must be made of the work of p Stephen Lambert, which has opened up a great variety of historical perspectives on inscribed Athenian laws and decrees (see especially Lambert 2018); several of the avenues of analysis Lambert has opened up are pursued here, in particular those which concern the significance of epigraphical publication and the association between decree-making and political influence. To the angles developed by such approaches, I add those developed in sociological theory, New Institutional analysis, and memory studies. An account of the premises upon which this study of Athenian decrees in literature is based can be found in the Introduction to Volume 1, and the Inventory of Decrees. References to ‘D’ and ‘DP’ in the current volume refer to the entries in the Inventory. In the current Introduction, I outline succinctly the approaches offered in this volume to the analysis of the ancient evidence for decrees. *** In Greece, the decree, as a means by which communities made decisions, and initiated the process of implementing them, emerged towards the end of the archaic period out of the political tendency of the Greek city-states to draw together their male adult citizens to discuss proposals put forward by members of their community and to make enactments as shared decisions.4 Some classical Greek city-states entitled an unusually high  – for a premodern (or indeed a modern) society – proportion of male citizens to a role in politics. Yet comparable decision-making processes are known in other, non-Greek, citystate organisations which featured forms of direct democracy.5 For instance, the seventeenth-century rada (assembly) of the Zaporozhian Cossacks was a decree-making body which voted by acclamation on matters such as the division of income, plunder, mercenary remuneration, hunting and questions of

3 Four works which have successfully placed the discussion of particular types of honorific grant in their wider context are: Osborne 1981–3 (citizenship decrees); Ma 2013 (honorific statues); Mack 2015 (proxeny awards); Lambert 2011a (= 2018: 71–92; honorific decrees). 4 For inscribed enactments of archaic Greek city-states, see Koerner 1993; Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994–5. On decision-making at the Homeric proto-assembly, see Hom. Il. 1.1–305, 2.1– 182; Od.2.1–159 with Hammer 2002 and Raaflaub 2004. 5 For discussion of rule by councils and assemblies ‘in which decisions were made by vote after a debate’ as a characteristic of the city-state across history, see Hansen 2000: 612 with note 81, pointing to examples of republican forms of political organisation among city-state organisations of the Etruscans, Latins, Italians, Swiss, Dutch, Mzâb, Swahili, Ibadan of the Yoruba, and BandaNeira of the Malay. For decision-making in the assemblies of Balinese village society, see Hobart 1975: 87–91.

introduction

3

war or peace.6 In this and the ancient Greek context, decrees were formulated and enacted by groups of men who shared privileged status at an assembly or a smaller council. In the ancient Greek world, the passing of decrees allowed communities to regulate internal matters related to areas such as cult practice and civic organisation, but also enabled them to co-ordinate transactions with other communities (through exchange, honorific transactions, diplomacy and warfare). They were, therefore, important for social co-ordination and co-ordination of interaction with other communities. Yet, as we shall see, the Athenian system of enactment, in which individual initiative played a big part, also meant that the proposal of decrees offered a significant route of political self-promotion. Decrees appeared in democratic Athens before the fifth century and it is likely that they were made by the assembly even in the pre-Cleisthenic era;7 the oldest extant Athenian inscription which makes reference to an enactment of the people is IG I3 1 of perhaps the late sixth century, a slab of marble on which is inscribed a decree concerning Salamis.8 Extant epigraphical evidence suggests that the publication of inscribed decrees by the Athenians accelerated over the second half of the fifth century and reached a peak in the second half of the fourth century.9 This aspect of the epigraphical habit is a clear demonstration

6 On Cossack decision-making, see Longworth 1969: 36-7. For the re-establishment of the rada both at the beginning and again at the end of the twentieth century, see O’Rourke 2007: 200– 201, 282; caution is necessary about the modern claims about their heritage, given that such developments were at least partially inspired by Cossack ideals of freedom and equality which were, according to O’Rourke 2007: 62, ‘the stuff of popular dreams’. On the veche (town-meeting) and other ‘free institutions’ among the city-states of Kievian and Novgorodian Russia of the Middle Ages, Cossack communities and military democracies of South Russia, see Timasheff 2010. 7 For an account (perhaps anachronistic) of a decree (a proposal attributed to a certain Aristion) granting a bodyguard to Pisistratos before his first seizure of power in 561/0, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 14.1. Herodotus (1.59.4) tells a story about Pisistratus persuading the Athenian demos to grant him a bodyguard, but without explaining it as a decree. For another occasion when a fourthcentury source describes an incident known from Herodotus’ work as a decree, see Chapter 5.2.1 below. Fourth-century sources make frequent reference to decrees of the Persian War era, but these are often thought to be spurious: see Develin 1989: 56, 59, 64, 66; Habicht 1961; cf. discussion below, Chapters 1.5.3 and 5.4.1 with note 113 below. 8 IG I3 1 line 1 contains the earliest epigraphically attested occurrence of the enactment formulae ‘ἔδοχσεν το͂ι δέμοι’ (‘it was resolved by the people’). For the earliest known use of the term psephisma, see Chapter 1.1 note 4 below. 9 For a quantitative survey of the publication of Athenian decrees, see Hedrick 1999; for the relationship between imperial administration and the publication of decrees, see Schuller 1974. For figures of fifth- and fourth-century Athenian decrees on stone, see Table 1, pp. 12–13 below.

4

introduction

of the importance of the decree to the ancient Athenians,10 who displayed their financial and physical investment in decrees by setting them up them in public places (often at locations with monumental and/or religious significance), and adorned some of them with sculptured reliefs.11 Such forms of publication are a clear demonstration of the importance of the decree to ancient Athenian culture. In Athens, the enactment of decrees was generally regarded as indicative of the democratic will of the people, a theme that will be explored in Chapters 1 and 2;12 more precisely, however, decrees demonstrated the authority of the institutions that enacted them.13 Indeed, while decrees were prevalent in other Greek democracies,14 they were the tool of decision-making also in those Greek citystate communities, such as Delphi, which possessed more narrowly restricted institutional bodies or were not conspicuously democratic;15 decree-making, therefore, was not the exclusive preserve of democratic regimes. Moreover, associated as they were in Athens with individual proposers,16 decrees were subject also to appropriation by political actors in a number of different ways. By the 330s, Demosthenes was able to make claims about his contribution to the salvation of the Athenian city-state on the basis of accounts of decrees that he proposed; in the same period, decrees are attested as the subject and focus of political competition (see Chapter 2.3 below). It is clear, therefore, that in the second half of the fourth century decree-proposing had become a signifi-

10 Rhodes with Lewis (1997) collects the evidence for the enactment of decrees of city-state communities from across the Greek world, drawing predominantly upon epigraphical evidence. The epigraphical publication of Athenian decrees will be explored in more detail in Chapter 3 below. 11 Places of publication: Hölkeskamp 2000; Liddel 2003; Moroo 2016; Lambert 2018: 19–46; see discussion in Chapter 3.3 below. On document reliefs: Lawton 1995; Hagemajer Allen 2003; Moreno 2007: 260–9; Blanshard 2004b, 2007; Deene 2016; Mack 2018. On the history of the stele as a documentary form, see Meyer 2013 and Davies 2005. 12 On the relationship between democracy and decree-publishing see Hedrick 1999, 2000 and now Sickinger 2009. 13 However, on the limits to the sovereignty of decrees of the Athenian demos, see Chapter 1.3 below. 14 Decrees elsewhere in the Greek world: Rhodes with Lewis 1997: passim; democracies outside Athens: Robinson 1997 and 2011; Grieb 2009; Carlsson 2010. 15 Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 126–40. For decrees of (what might be, given that the awards were made by the council alone) oligarchic Erythrai, see RO 56 and SEG XXXI 969; for a decree of oligarchic Miletos, see OR 123 = ML 43. For voting and electoral manipulation at assemblies in oligarchies, emphasising their deployment in supporting regimes, see Simonton 2017: 121–33. 16 The earliest epigraphically attested Attic decree to mention a proposer is IG I³ 8 of c. 460–50: ‘Ἀντίβιο[ς εἶπεν· τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπε]ρ Καλλίμαχος’ (lines 3–4: ‘Antibio[s proposed: other things just a]s Kallimachos (proposed)’): according to this restoration, Kallimachos is revealed as the original proposer, with Antibios the author of a rider. For the attribution of a sixth-­ century decree to a certain Aristion, see note 7 above.

introduction

5

cant political activity which offered a route (but not the only route) to political prominence.17 This theme will be explored in more detail in Chapter 2 below. The interpretations of decrees, their political connotations and the literary representations of them explored over the course of this volume – particularly in Chapters 1 and 2 below  – draw extensively upon ancient sources but are informed more broadly by critical perspectives. The approach taken draws upon three related interpretations of human behaviour and aspiration which have been developed in sociological studies. The first is that of symbolic capital, articulated by Pierre Bourdieu in his 1979 La Distinction: critique sociale du jugement (Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste). This notion emphasises the preponderance among human individuals of aspiration for ‘name, renown, prestige, honour, glory, and authority’.18 The desire for symbolic capital is said to be ‘inculcated in the earliest years of life and reinforced by all subsequent experience’.19 Its demonstration and display equates to the expression of symbolic power.20 That similar aspirations are espoused by individuals in ancient Greek culture has been extensively demonstrated in modern scholarship;21 indeed, the widespread public display of symbolic capital in honorific and commemorative contexts (both inscribed and funerary) is well documented.22 This approach is resonant with the appearance of decrees in political and forensic oratory: in Chapter 2 below I underline the fact that decrees are deployed in political arguments not only for purposes of persuasion but as a demonstration of personal knowledge and political achievement; politicians were able to capitalise on them by deploying accounts, both at the assembly and the lawcourt, of decrees and success in enacting them. In other words, knowledge of decrees could be deployed in the manufacture of political capital. But as will become clear (see Chapter 1 below), this is not the whole picture: decrees were held up not only as records of decisions that were supposed to bolster the profile of particular individuals, but they also could be described in ways which were aimed at communicating a sense of solidarity and shared interests among the people; this is relevant to Bourdieu’s notion – related to, but distinct from, that of symbolic capital – of social capital.23 Bourdieu’s sociological ­methodologies,

17 The view that political institutions can provide a focus for political competition and struggle has been established in the field of political institutionalism: see Blyth 2002. 18 Bourdieu 2010: 249. For an exposition of the idea of symbolic capital, see Bourdieu 1977: 171–83. 19 Bourdieu 1977: 182. 20 On the idea of symbolic power, see Bourdieu 1991: 163-70. 21 Cf. Cohen 1991; Herman 2006. 22 Veyne 1976; Gauthier 1985; Whitehead 1983, 1993; Loraux 1986; Tsagalis 2008: 135–213. 23 Social capital: Bourdieu 1998: 70–1.

6

introduction

therefore, form a good basis for articulating the deployment of knowledge and familiarity with decrees as tools related to expressions of individual aspiration and visions of shared ideals.24 However, another set of theories is helpful in elucidating the significance of thinking about decrees as dynamic institutions – through which human aspirations were framed and managed – in their own right: those which fall under the banner of New Institutionalism. The term ‘New Institutionalism’ is used to refer to a broad set of analytical approaches which focus upon the role of institutions in theoretical, comparative and specific political analyses.25 As defined by North, ‘institutions are the rules of the game in society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’.26 Put another way, institutions consist of ‘the formal rules, compliance procedures, and standard operating practices that structure the relationship between individuals in various units of the polity and economy’.27 They can consist of formal constraints (rules) or informal constraints (conventions, codes of behaviour).28 It is widely accepted that the notion of the ‘institution’ can be helpfully applied to thought not only about ‘institutional agencies’ (in ancient Athens, assemblies, councils, lawcourts, boards of magistrates), to ‘institutional arrangements’ (such as concepts of ownership, property, marriage, the oikos, or law-making) but also to ‘institutional things’ (a contract, the agora, the decrees of the council and assembly).29 Of particular

24 Bourdieu’s development of such methodologies in the late twentieth century was articulated in a way that is relevant to the interpretation of ancient Greek history; see now, for its re-­ articulation as a theory of value, Graeber (2001). Earlier pioneers of the idea of symbolic capital include Mauss and Veblen: see Veblen (2006) and Mauss (2006). One early sense of the value of social capital was raised by de Tocqueville, who observed the value of participation for democratic cohesion. See Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 3 of his 1835 Democracy in America: de Tocqueville 2003: 269–87. 25 On New Institutionalism, see March and Olsen 1984, 1989. For an introduction to the revival of the study of institutions in politics, see Thelen and Steinmo 1992: 2; March and Olsen 1989; Lowndes and Roberts 2013. 26 North 1990: 1. 27 Themen and Steinmo 1992: 2. 28 North 1990: 4. On informal constraints, see North 1990: 36–45; on formal constraints, see North 1990: 46–54 29 For this perspective, see MacCormack 2007: 34–7. North 1990: 5 defines such agencies not as institutions but rather as ‘organizations’. For the application of a range of New Institutionalist theories to ancient Greek history, see, for instance, Weingast 2002; Canevaro 2011; Harris 2013a: 12–14; Simonton 2017: 65 with note 295; Blok 2017: 46, 145–6, 199–200. New Institutional economic thought has also been introduced to the study of ancient Greek economics: see Frier and Kehoe 2007 (emphasising the role of rational self-interest); Ober 2015: 5. With characteristic incisiveness, Davies (2015: 241) writes: ‘the jury is still out on the adequacy of New Institutional Economics’.

introduction

7

relevance is the Historical Institutionalist approach,30 which is concerned with assessing the significance of institutionalised rules, practices and procedures in steering political habits (path dependence)31 over time and emphasising their role in political activity and political change (see Chapter 2 below); it considers also the ways in which accounts of political activity aspire towards demonstrating legitimacy of political decisions (see Chapter 1 below). This volume’s underlying position, that the decree can coherently be given centre-stage in an analysis of political activity, takes a view of the decree as an institutional arrangement in its own right.32 The view that institutions are shaped not only by authoritative rules but are founded upon accepted practices and narratives is also very important.33 The Athenians certainly possessed formal rules when it came to the making and challenging of decrees (see Chapter 1.2.1 below) and such activities were treated also as standard operating practices; yet the liveliness and breadth of narratives about past decrees in political oratory (Chapters 1 and 2) and other genres (Chapter 5 below) is striking. Such an approach, furthermore, places emphasis upon analysis of political actors’ compliance with, and deployment of, these institutions rather than speculations about the personalities of human individuals:34 this is highly appropriate when analysing a dataset in which a small number of famous men dominate the record but which also indicates the breadth of political participation (see Chapter 2 below).35 Finally, New Institutionalism emphasises the importance of strong political institutions in ensuring stability:36 there was some debate in fourth-century 30 On Historical Institutionalism as one of seven forms of institutionalist analysis, see Peters 2005: 71–86 and 2008: 2–5; cf. Steinmo, Thelen and Longstreth 1992; Sanders 2006: 39–55. 31 On the ‘path dependence’ perspective, which says that forms of institution established at a prior stage in history have a significant impact on the behaviour of rational actors in the future, see North 1990: 93–8; March and Olsen 1984, 1989: 49–51; Thelen and Steinmo 1992. 32 An alternative view might be to consider decrees as a kind of ‘transaction’, that is a unit of the wider institution of Athenian democracy; this would be to follow the model developed in Avner Greif ’s study of the ways in which fledging medieval economic institutions (such as merchants’ guilds and traders’ coalitions) influenced modes of economic and commercial behaviour. Greif defines a transaction as the basic unit of institutional analysis (Greif 2006: 29), and as an action taken when an entity (whether that be a commodity, social attitude, emotion, option or piece of information) is transferred from one individual to another (Greif 2006: 45–6). 33 Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 46–76. 34 Sanders 2006, concluding: ‘Historical institutionalists, then, will not be distracted by wishful thinking about different personalities occupying executive power. If HI teaches us anything, it is that the place to look for answers to big questions about class, power, war, and reform is in institutions, not personalities, and over the longer landscapes of history, not the here and now.’ 35 Demost, Appendix 1 and Lambert 2018: 65–7. 36 Huntington 2006: 91–2.

8

introduction

Athens about the extent to which the decree-system was an effective way of meeting day-to-day challenges,37 and individual decrees were open to challenge and dispute through indictment by the graphe paranomon process. Regardless, political leaders and the demos carried on with the decree-making system throughout good times and bad during and beyond the fourth century:38 we might presume that there was no public conception of any plausible alternative way of making decisions democratically;39 this consensus is what underlay the continuity and to a certain degree the strength and constancy of the decree as a decision-making institution. As we will see, there were rules to the systems within which decrees operated (see Chapter 1.2.1 below), but this volume’s emphasis on the use of decrees places emphasis on practice (especially Chapters 1 and 2) and narratives about Athenian decrees (Chapters 3, 4 and 5 below).40 There is one further critical perspective that has influenced the approach taken to decrees in this volume, particularly that which underscores its assessment of the dissemination of their ideas (Chapters 3 and 4). This is the perspective of memory studies and in particular the notion of collective (or ‘social’) memory as a significant historical factor in political and human interaction. 37 Mader 2006; cf. Chapter 1.2.2 below. 38 For a survey of fourth-century decree-making in relation to geopolitical developments, see Chapter 1.4 below. The decree-making system is epigraphically well attested at Athens throughout the Hellenistic period: see Hedrick 1999; Byrne 2004; nomothesia is not, however, attested to have continued in the same way, though the classical distinction between laws and decrees appears to have persisted: see Canevaro 2011. The example of Philon’s graphe paranomon against Sophokles in 306 suggests that the process continued after 322/1: see Diogenes Laertius 5.38. 39 Decrees may have been enacted even under the non-democratic regimes of late fifth-century Athens by more limited boards or groups of voters. For decrees of the regime 5,000 of 411/10 at Athens, see Develin 1989: 164–5. The honorific decree OR 173 may be one of the regime of Four Hundred; for another example, see [Plu.] X Or. 833e–f. Despite the fact that the Thirty were chosen purposefully to frame new laws and a constitution (Xen. Hell. 2.3.11) it proves hard to isolate any particular examples within the narrative accounts of their activity (Xen. Hell. 2.3–4; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 35–7). At Ath. Pol. 37.1–2 it is said that the Thirty ordered its boule to pass a number of laws. Kritias’ speech at the Council condemning Theramenes refers to decisions made by the Thirty, but calls them ‘new laws’ and it is far from clear that he was referring to decrees (Xen. Hell. 2.3.51). The closest we come to evidence for a decree made by enfranchised citizens under the Thirty is the death sentence against men captured at Eleusis, which was passed by the vote of the hoplites and cavalry who were ‘on the list’ at an extraordinary meeting at the Odeion attended also by armed Spartan soldiers (Xen. Hell. 2.4.9-10); on Kritias’ manipulation of this occasion see Simonton 2017: 128–9. Oinobios’ decree to recall Thucydides (Paus. 1.23.9) is often associated with the period of the Thirty in 404/3: see Develin 1989: 186. Kritias’ decree casting Phrynichos’ body out of the city must, however, be placed before the time of the Thirty: Lycurg. 1.113–14. On the abolition of democracy through the decree of the assembly in 411, see Chapter 1 note 101 below and Chapter 5.2.2 below. 40 Practice: Bourdieu 1977.

introduction

9

It is an approach which places emphasis on the potential fluidity of memories of the past especially those which are sustained among collective groups and enunciated in different forms by individuals. Two recent works in Greek history have been instrumental in demonstrating the potential of memory studies to the wider interpretation of Greek history.41 The approach established by Shear in her Polis and Revolution places an emphasis on the view that a society’s memory ‘might be regarded as an aggregate collection of its members’ many, often competing, memories’.42 Collective memory, for Shear, finds one expression in the setting up of monuments and public documents in commemoration of particular events and processes; yet it is viewers’ interaction with such monuments and their reperformance of these memories which is what, according to Shear, perpetuates shared memory.43 The creation of these memories underpinned the Athenian reconstruction of a unified polis in the aftermath of the oligarchic interventions in 411/10 and 404/3; as I shall argue (Chapter 1.5 below), memories of decrees played an important role in the construction of ideas about the harmonious demos of the reconciliation of 403/2. Steinbock’s 2013 book, moreover, has also underlined the importance of collective memory both in public discourse and social cohesion;44 for Steinbock, while there existed a ‘monolithic group mind’,45 individual Athenians were at the same time free to tweak and adapt versions of the past that suited the case they were making. The presentation of decrees (both Athenian and non-Athenian) is relevant to this picture: Steinbock shows how Athenian discourse played up contradictory Theban decrees at different points in the fourth century. Accordingly, an Athenian wishing to encourage hostility to the Thebans would emphasise the Theban proposal to destroy Athens at the end of the Peloponnesian War (Din. 1.25); those who in the 330s wished to encourage rapprochement would emphasise a Theban decree which had assisted the Athenian democrats (Xen. Hell. 2.2.19–20).46 Engagement with memory studies highlights the rhetorical significance of claims made about decrees, in particular in the Athenian courts. This is

41 Note also the seminal studies of Wolpert (2002), Gehrke (2001) and Bommas (2011); see also the contributions in Marincola, Llewellyn-Jones and MacIver (eds.) 2012; for a detailed discussion of approaches to memory studies, see Assman 1995; Olick 2007, Shear 2011: 6–12 and Steinbock 2013: 7–17. 42 Shear 2011: 7 citing Young 1993: xi. 43 Shear 2011: 11–14; for further explication of dynamism in the treatment of inscribed public documents, see Low forthcoming. 44 Steinbock 2013; cf. Shear 2014: 506–8. 45 Steinbock 2013: 13. 46 Steinbock 2013: 211–79, 280–340.

10

introduction

particularly pertinent in the case of accounts of Persian War era decrees which circulated in the late fourth century. These included the decree of Themistocles and that against the traitor Arthmios: the former is represented by an inscribed version which is generally agreed to be partially fabricated in terms of its historical details;47 the latter by a series of stories about it which circulated in the oratorical evidence.48 But the role of social memory is relevant also to the deployment of roughly contemporary fourth-century decrees; as we shall see in Chapter 3 below, social memory was probably more important in terms of the profile of decrees than inscribed or archival versions of them. But when it came to the deployment of contemporary material, orators were apparently more careful to ground their claims in truth than they were in the discussion of fifth-century material: both public awareness of events and the development of an archive from 403/2 meant that, even while orators did not base their claims about a decree closely on scrutiny of the archive, its accessibility meant that their claims could be checked by others.49 Decrees, therefore, were not merely empty vessels that could be put to use for any political purpose or manipulated in any way possible: their content went some way in structuring the possibilities of their deployment. It is to the subject of the significance of the decree to political dynamics that I turn in Chapters 1 and 2 below, where I assess the extent to which decree-­ making and decree-citing might be viewed as social and political practices in their own right and analyse the ways in which those familiar with decrees drew on them in the pursuit of political activity. A guiding principle of this book is the view that the writing of the political history of the decree includes, but should consist of much more than, an account of mechanics and rules; accordingly, I emphasise the role both of decree-making and decree-recalling as a social practice and its significance in oratorical persuasion. Chapter 1 below develops some of the themes initiated in this Introduction, setting out the institutional factors that gave the decrees a negotiable status and exploring their use to make claims about collective achievements and shared values of the demos. In Chapter 2 below, I explore the role of the decree in the construction of arguments, the creation of individual political legacies, and assess the depth of knowledge that was deployed in the courts by self-interested politicians. Both chapters demonstrate that Attic orators presumed that their audiences would

47 Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 48–52. 48 Meiggs 1972. See also Chapter 5.4.1 below. 49 Olick 2007: 7, 37–54 emphasises that the development and exercise of shared memory was a negotiation between different political challenges and cultural claims, but one constrained by awareness of past events.

introduction

11

be sufficiently familiar with and assured of the authority of decrees to find citation of them credible or convincing. This leads into questions about the sources of knowledge of decrees: in Chapter 3 below I ask how awareness of, and ideas about, contemporary decrees diffused among fourth-century Athenians and set out the implications of the fits and non-fits between the epigraphical and literary record of decrees for an understanding of their inscribed publication. Chapter 4 below looks more broadly at the question of audiences, exploring perceptions and realities of non-Athenian audiences, their identity, their likely points of access to knowledge about decrees, and their reactions to them. In both Chapters 3 and 4 below I underline the role that inscriptions played not in ensuring the dissemination of accurate information about decrees but rather in providing rhetorically useful reference points to some high-profile decrees. Finally, Chapter 5 below assesses the representation of decrees in a range of literary contexts: the relatively high profile achieved by Athenian decrees reflects the reception of a perspective on their cultural and political importance and demonstrates that, having started out as an institutional process, they came to achieve a high cultural status among a range of audiences.

introduction

12

Table 1  Comparison between the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence for Period 1 (403/2– 353/2) and Period 2 (352/1–322/1) Genre-type of decree

Inscriptions containing decrees: Period 1 (approximate figures)1

Inscriptions containing decrees: Period 2 (Lambert’s figures)2

Decrees attested in the literary record: 403/2–322/1 (Period 1; Period 2)

Attested decrees: total

c. 223+3

240

245 (104; 141)

Number of attested decrees of discernible content

182

199

235 (103; 132)

Honorific: total

126 (69.2%)

180 (90.5%)

80 (32.7%) (38; 42)

Honours for non-Athenians

125 (68.7%)4

116 (58.3%)

48 (19.6%)5 (27; 21)

1 Percentages are those of attested decrees of discernible content; I am grateful to Angelos Matthaiou for his assistance in drawing up a list of inscribed decrees of this period. It is important to note that on occasion inscriptions make mention of several different decrees enacted distinctly: one example is the case of IG II3 1 306, which contains an account of honorific decrees for an outgoing council (lines 24–6) while providing texts of a proposal of Phanodemos (lines 17–23) and the honorific decrees for Phanodemos (lines 4–16) and Eudoxos (lines 27–33, 43–9); another inscription contains a dossier of five decrees for a single individual (Herakleides of Salamis: IG II3 1 367). However, this table measures the number of self-standing inscriptions containing decrees and accordingly counts them as single cases. It does not attempt to include all dedications which include the passing of decrees. Moreover, with the exception of IG II2 1629.170–271 (= IG II3 1 370) it does not include decrees referred to in the inscribed accounts of the naval epimeletai; decrees in these accounts are the subject of work being undertaken by Adele Scafuro. 2 Figures in this column are based upon Lambert, 2018: 62–4. I have removed laws from Lambert’s figures (which originally included both laws and decrees). Excluded also are dubia et incerta (IG II3 1 531–72). 3 A minimal figure which excludes those fragments such as those dated by IG II2 to the period 400–350 (e.g. IG II2 87–94) or 400–300 (e.g. IG II2 608–11, 629–39) the content of which is so fragmentary as to make their identification as decrees uncertain. The figures here do not include the fragments of the period before 352/1 published by Walbank, 2008 nos. 1–10. Once the new edition of decrees of the period 403/2–353/2 is published, the total figure, including fragmentary decrees, is likely to be higher. Indeed, a higher figure is suggested by Hansen, The Athenian Assembly, 110–11, stating the existence of 488 decrees preserved on stone for the period 403/2–322/1, of which he counted 100 as fragmentary. IG II2 (published in 1913) counted 447 fragmentary and non-fragmentary decrees and laws for the whole period 403/2–322/1 (IG II2 1–447). 4 Of these honours for non-Athenians, 61 are proxeny and 9 are citizenship awards. 5 See Appendix 2. This figure consists of 29 citizenship awards, 5 proxeny awards, and a range of other awards (including ateleia, isopoliteia, protection and statues).

introduction

13

• Honours for Athenians

1 (0.5%)

29 (14.6%)6

31 (12.7%) (11; 20)

• Honours for a deity

0 (0%)

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

• Honours for a party whose ethnicity is not known

0 (0%)7

34 (17.1%)

1 (0.4%)

Alliances/treaties/war and peace

34 (18.7 %)

11 (5.3%)8

39 (15.9%) (19; 20)

Commands/ dispatches/ expeditions/ mobilisation

0 (0%)

3 (1.5%)9

35 (14.3%) (13; 22)

Religious regulations

4 (2.2%)

5 (2.5%)10

10 (4.1%) (1; 9)

Other domestic arrangements (incl. appointments, constitutional, evacuations, financial, legislative, procedural, regulations)

3 (1.6%)

0 (0%)11

51 (20.8%) (31; 20)

Other foreign policy

1512 (8.2%)

2 (1%)

22 (9.0%) (1; 21)

Fifth-century figures: see Sickinger 1999b and Lambert 2017: 5 note 5: ‘Of the ca. 240 total of inscribed decrees from before 403/2 (i.e. the ca. 230 dating to after 454 and the handful inscribed before that), ca. 68 award honours, almost all to foreigners (28%), ca. 54 are treaties or otherwise relate to foreign affairs (23%), ca. 46 are religious measures (19%), ca. 9 are on other topics (4%), ca. 63 are too fragmentary for their subject matter to be determinable (26%).’ The comparison between the literary and epigraphical record for decrees based on this table is discussed in Chapter 3.4 below.  6 This figure includes two decrees of the Athenian boule, IG II2 1155 lines 1–6 and 1156 lines 36–44.  7 Unidentified honours for the period 403/2–353/2 are assumed to have been honours for non-Athenians.  8 This figure excludes regulations concerning overseas relations: see note 9 below.  9 G II3 1 370 (on the expedition to the Adriatic), 399 (forbidding attack on Eretria), 433 (­agreement with Sokles). 10 This figure includes IG II3 1 447 (containing both a law and a decree) but excludes the fragmentary IG II3 1 487, which may perhaps be a lease. 11 The figures in this row do not include inscribed laws. 12 This figure includes some decrees which appear to concern foreign policy but whose precise content is indecipherable.

1 The Social Capital of the Decree

1.1  An Introduction to the Political Faces of the Decree The ancient Greek word ψήφισμα means, literally, ‘a thing voted by ballot’. At the Athenian assembly, cheirotonia (the raising of hands) was the usual procedure for voting on proposals (Dem. 20.3) and for candidates in elections (Dem. 4.26); raised hands were counted or estimated by the presiding magistrates known as the proedroi.1 However, it is striking that, in the literary and epigraphical sources, language is sometimes at odds with procedure: whereas, for the most part, the sources refer to cheirotonia for the election of officials (Aeschin. 3.13),2 they use the term psephisma (and the verb ψηφίζομαι, ‘I cast a ballot’) for the voting of decrees.3 In the classical period, therefore, the term psephisma was used in the texts of Athenian inscriptions,4 the works of historians, the Attic orators and Atthidographers to refer to a decision in the form of a decree, decided by popular vote (see LSJ, s. v. ‘ψήφισμα’). Later writers, including lexicographers and commentators on classical texts used the term in the same way. This study is concerned primarily with decrees enacted by the demos at the Athenian assembly. At Athens the Council of 500 made psephismata of its own, but their scope was restricted usually to adjusting or re-instituting decisions made at the assembly.5 Sub-polis units – principally, in fourth-century Athens, the demes and tribes – also made decrees, but these would have been decided 1 Ath. Pol. 44.3; Hansen 1987: 4–32; Hansen 1983: 103–21, 207–26. 2 On the election of magistrates, see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 44.4, 54.3–5, 61.1 and, for its sociological consquences, Taylor 2007a: 323–5. 3 As Hansen (1983: 104 note 2) notes, the Athenians could refer to decisions made in the ecclesia interchangeably with the terms ψηφίζομαι and χειροτονέω: see Isoc. 8.52. 4 The word for ‘decree’ appears first in the form φσέφισμα in mid fifth-century inscriptions. Its earliest appearance in an Athenian inscription (albeit in a heavily restored context) is in the decree concerning cult at Sounion, IG I3 8 (460–50) lines 12–13: ἀ[ναγράφσαντας δὲ τόδε τὸ φσέφ]ισμα (‘w[riting up this dec]ree’); the first unrestored appearance is in a decree for the Milesians, IG I3 21 (450/49) line 47: [ἐ]ν στέλει̣ [κα]ὶ τοῖς φσεφίσμασ[ι] (‘[o]n the stele [an]d in the decrees’). 5 Decrees of the council: see Rhodes 1972: 82–8, 271–5. For examples of decrees of the council attested in literary texts, see Volume 1, Appendix 1. The council also played the role of creating the agenda of the assembly by the formulation of probouleumata: see Chapter 1.2 below.

14

social capital of the decree

15

by, and binding primarily upon, members of their communities or those involved in their affairs.6 While the council was normally involved in the prior discussion of the subject or even the formulation of the substance of the decree, the demos at the assembly was the principal body for the enactment of decrees in ancient Athens and in this way possessed powers (within the bounds of law) over matters on which decrees were concerned.7 Essential to understanding the political implications of the decree is the fact that whenever there was a consensus among the male citizens of Athens that it was necessary to do something (such as launching an expedition or sending ambassadors) or to initiate any process (legislative, honorific, or related to foreign policy),8 the route to doing so was through consideration at the council and the proposal of a decree at the assembly.9 The Athenians, therefore, regularly made decrees not so much out of self-conscious political ostentation but simply because this was how their decision-making process worked.10 Accordingly, we might think of the decree as a straightforward institutional transaction, that is, a way of getting things done or responding to internal developments and external opportunities and threats. But decree-making involved the initiative of an individual proposer, debate and, ultimately, a vote. Accounts of the process of enactment, their substance and the implications of decrees were widely deployed in Attic oratory in the production of persuasive capital. These will form the subject of discussion in this chapter and Chapter 2 below. It is reasonable to envisage the existence of two political faces to the decree. On the one hand, their substance  – by which I refer to the honours they  6 Two well-preserved examples of deme decrees are RO 46 from Halai Aixonides (honouring a priest of Apollo Zoster) and RO 6 from Hagnous (concerned with the duties of the demarch and the lending of deme funds). For further examples of deme decrees, see Whitehead 1986: 374–93. A well-preserved example of a tribal decree is Ag. XVI 86 (the tribe of Aiantis honours its thesmothetes). For decrees of the tribes see Jones 1999: 178–94; RO 89 is a well-­preserved stele containing honours for ephebes dedicated by the tribe Kekropis. For decrees of other associations, see Jones 1999: 221–67 and Arnaoutoglou 2003.  7 Decrees, however, were challenged by the process of graphe paranomon in the lawcourts which could lead to them being overruled: see Hansen 1974; for the debate about the location of sovereignty in Athens, see Hansen 2010 and Chapter 1.3 below.  8 For the view that debates generally led to consensus decisions among Athenians, see Canevaro 2018. For the initiation of law-making procedures by decree of the assembly, see Canevaro 2016b; certain judicial procedures, such as apophasis (see Carawan 1985) and impeachment (see Hansen 1975: 26; Hansen 1987: 188 note 749 and Ath. Pol. 43.4) were sometimes initiated at the assembly (but at other times at the council) by individual citizens and then voted on by the demos at the assembly. For the wider account of activities of the assembly, see Ath. Pol. 43.3–6; Hansen 1987: 94–124.  9 This is a point made by Develin 1989: 23. 10 Hansen (1987: 108) estimates that the Athenians demos passed some 300–400 decrees per annum in the period 403–322.

16

decrees of fourth-century athens

bestowed, the administrative measures they effected, or the diplomatic movements they entailed – was deeply political in the sense that decrees had great impact upon social and political interactions both within Athens and between the Athenians and other communities. On the other hand, the very act of proposing a decree – or recalling one as part of an argument – entails a political performance in its own right, and it is in this sense of symbolic political significance that the current chapter and Chapter 2 below are interested. Such a dual perspective on the decree  – both as an institutional and as a symbolic transaction11   – should not be regarded as contradictory; rather, the two are intertwined and mutually constitutive:12 it is clear that in the second half of the fourth century, those engaged politically exploited both the institutional ability to propose and attack decrees, but also exhibited awareness of the persuasive significance of knowledge about past decrees. As we will see (Chapters 1.2.2, 1.4 and 2.3 below), given that they could be challenged at the assembly and in the courts, the status and authority of the decree was the scene of negotiation, and the instability of their authority made the decree quite a different rhetorical tool – in some ways more pliable – from knowledge of established law, the criticism of which was far harder to justify. I shall analyse, over the course of Chapters 1 and 2 below, the deployment of knowledge of decrees in political activity in fourth-century Athens. My starting point in this chapter is to sketch the ‘how’ and ‘why’ factors which underscore the significance of the decree as a normative tool of conventional political activity in fourth-century Athens: they consist, first (Chapter 1.2.1 below), of the process of decree-making and the involvement of the Athenian council and the Athenian people; second (Chapter 1.2.2 below) the high, but rhetorically pliable, status and authority of decrees. I then discuss (Chapter 1.3 below) the notion that their proper enactment could be viewed as an expression of appropriate and constitutional behaviour. Their status and authority drove politicians to make use of a ‘decree-minded’ approach to oratory and politics, which will be explored in more detail in Chapter 2 below. Over the course of the rest of Chapter 1 I examine the deployment of decrees and knowledge about them in the fourth century, setting out the practical and symbolic factors that made 11 This distinction between ‘institutional’ and ‘symbolic’ transactions maps relatively neatly onto that drawn by some contemporary theorists of Historical Institutionalism between what they describe as the material aspects of institutions (which refer to structure and practices) and the symbolic aspects (which can break with context and take on different connotations); see Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury 2012: 11; March and Olsen 1989: 52. For discussion of other senses in which Historical Institutionalism is relevant to the interpretation of decrees, see the Introduction above. 12 Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury 2012: 10.

social capital of the decree

17

decrees important to the fourth-century Athenians (Chapter 1.4 below) and then exploring their role in evoking portrayals of harmony and crisis as a way of making assertions about the shared values of the people (Chapter 1.5 below). In Chapter 2 below I move on to the ways in which individual politicians made use of decrees in supporting their political interests. As we shall see, while decrees could sometimes be dismissed as the products of self-promoting politicians or the capricious demos, engagement with them appears to have become, particularly in the second half of the fourth century, an important instrument for those with political ambitions. Any study of the decree as a political phenomenon in the history of fourth-century Athens must take on board both the literary and epigraphical datasets.13 Notwithstanding this book’s focus upon literary perspectives on decrees, it is appropriate to close this introductory section by giving a sense of the basic political perspectives that inscribed decrees offer.14 As we will see, these texts offer insights into the complexity of attribution of responsibility for decrees. Texts of inscribed decrees of the fourth-century Athenians offer a view of them as simultaneously the proposals of individuals, as the decisions of the demos, and the product of co-operation between different political institutions; their formulaic presentation gives a view of the processes behind their enactment. In order to illustrate this, we shall look closely at an inscribed document which offers a detailed view of the decisions which led to its production. In 325/4, the Athenians decided to write up on a stone stele a dossier of decrees in honour of Herakleides of Salamis, a grain-dealer who had made donations to the people at a time of shortage (IG II3 1 367 (= RO 95)). In this well-known dossier we encounter the proposal which appears to have initiated the process of making these awards: Telemachos son of Theangelos of Acharnai proposed (εἶπεν): it is to be decreed by the People (ἐψηφίσθαι τῶι δήμωι): that the Council shall formulate and bring forward to the next Assembly a proposal (τὴν βουλὴν προβουλεύσασαν ἐξενεγκεῖν εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἐκκλησίαν) about Herakleides, for him to obtain whatever benefit he can from the Athenian People. (IG II3 1 367 lines 47–51; translation AIO)

According to this passage, Telemachos of Acharnai proposed at the assembly that the Council should make a probouleuma which would enable the people to discuss and vote on a proposal of honours for Herakleides; this proposal

13 For an epigraphically-informed approach to the Athenian decrees of the period 352/1–322/1, see Lambert 2018. 14 For discussion of the epigraphical publication of decrees, see Chapter 3.3.1–3.3.3 below.

18

decrees of fourth-century athens

led to the recommendation of his fellow demesman (and likely political collaborator) Kephisodotos at the Council (lines 52–66) that Herakleides be honoured by the demos; it was put forward at the assembly by the same Telemachos and the honours were enacted by decree (IG II3 1 367 lines 29–35) in 329/8. The decree added that an envoy was to travel to Herakleia Pontika to request the return of sails that had allegedly been stolen from him by the Herakleots (lines 36–46). This account gives a public-facing explanation of the decree (to make a return for Herakleides’ zealous generosity to the Athenians) and a motivation of the Athenians’ enactment of the decree, ‘that others may also show love of honour (ὅπως ἂν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι φιλοτιμῶνται) knowing that the Council honours and crowns those who show love of honour’ (lines 64–6). Its details establish also the institutional legitimacy of the decree, showing (to a relatively high level of detail) that it had been approved by both the council and assembly and brought forward by both Telemachos in the assembly and Kephisodotos at the council,15 apparently in co-operation.16 It might be viewed as a monument both to Herakleides’ character and at the same time the recognition of this by the decree’s advocates and the Athenian demos;17 it demonstrates the interaction of the council and assembly in the production of a decree. But while such texts offer us details on the formalities of proposal and enactment and the motivation of honorific reward, they tend to obscure any political backstory to the decree:18 they represent them as proposals of individuals approved by the collective decision of the people.19 We are offered no indication of the debate that may have taken place about the award at the assembly or council, nor whether the decision made was unanimous, or carried by a substantial or narrow

15 For the role of accounts of appropriate political processes in ensuring legitimacy of political decisions, see March and Olsen 1989: 50. 16 On their co-operation of these two individuals, see Lambert 2018: 178–9. Another example of collaboration is that where Athenodoros made a proposal concerning sacrifices on the basis of advice of Euthydemos, the priest of Asklepios: IG II2 47. 17 This is the view of Low 2016: 161–2. 18 For further discussion of this view, see R.G. Osborne 1999. See also Low 2016 on the reticence of inscribed decrees of the fourth century about the details of honorands’ euergetic behaviour. 19 Luraghi’s view of documentary inscriptions is that ‘they expressed the collective will of the political community in a more direct way than any other text that has been preserved from ancient Greece’: Luraghi 2010: 248. Low (2016) suggests that the fact that honorific decrees preserved on stone before the 320s rarely give detailed insight into the actions of honorands reflects the control of the polis over which aspects of euergetic behaviour were recorded. Low (forthcoming) emphasises the dynamic aspect of inscribed decrees, demonstrating that whereas they represented a collective memory of a decision of the demos, they offered the potential to represent the interests of specific individuals or groups other than the demos.

social capital of the decree

19

majority.20 Athenian decrees on stone, therefore, present the decision-making process as one which follows particular procedures; its chief aspects consisted of the proposal of an individual, and ratification at the assembly of a decree on a subject that had been placed on its agenda by the council.21 The name of the proposer at the assembly appears always to have been inscribed on stone versions of a decree even if it was one that had originally been formulated in the council: liability for the outcome of the decree, in this sense, was placed at the feet of its advocate at the assembly rather than the council.22 Moreover, Athenian inscribed decrees sometimes recorded the name of the councillor formulating the probouleuma (IG II3 1 367 lines 52–66) and regularly contain the names of the proedroi putting the matter to the vote (IG II3 1 337 (= RO 91) lines 4–6, 28–30; IG II3 1 349 lines 7–8), suggesting that these individuals bear some responsibility for the decree, alongside the proposer at the assembly, on the grounds of their contribution to the formulation and enactment of it. Inscribed versions of decrees, therefore, reflect a balance between individual initiative and popular decision, and the question of liability or political responsibility becomes one open to debate. On the other hand, as we shall see over the course of this chapter and Chapter 2 below, literary accounts of decrees, considered within their wider narrative and persuasive contexts, tell stories about the political intentions of their proposers, as well as using them to offer perspectives on the policy or even the mentality of the Athenian people. Approaching decrees both as institutional and symbolic transactions (as already noted, this is a distinction drawn from the language of New Institutionalism: see note 11 above), in these chapters I explore the dynamics of the decree as an instrument of conventional political activity and shall attempt to explain the preponderance of the decree in the political life and discourse of the fourth century as well as its implications. One essential ingredient which made the decree politically and rhetorically

20 Voting figures are never recorded in Athenian decrees on stone; for discussion of the phenomenon across the Greek world, see Todd 2012. For the argument that most decrees were carried by consensus decisions, see Canevaro 2018, a perspective which makes Athenian democracy appear to behave like a ‘unity’ rather than ‘adversary’ democracy (for this distinction see Mansbridge 1983). 21 For an account of the procedure of decree-making, see Chapter 1.2.1 below and, in more detail, Rhodes 1972: 52–81; Hansen 1987: 41–4; and M.J. Osborne 2012. 22 This is an observation I owe to Stephen Todd. On ‘probouleumatic’ decrees, see Chapter 1.2.1 below. As Rhodes (1972: 71) observes, amendments to decrees might be referred to either – if they made a change to a motion contained within a probouleuma – by reference to the council (‘τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπερ τῆι βουλῆι’: ‘in other respects in accordance with the council’) or – if they made a change to a non-probouleumatic motion – by reference to a named proposer (‘τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπερ ὁ δεῖνα’: ‘in other respects in accordance with [name of proposer]’).

20

decrees of fourth-century athens

significant was its authoritative status as the consummation of the decision of the Athenian people undertaken by way of a process that followed institutionally-accepted norms (Chapter 1.2 below).

1.2  Decrees: Process, Status, Authority 1.2.1 Process At the time when popular government was restored during the archonship of Eukleides (403/2), a legislative distinction appears to have been introduced between law (nomos) and decree (psephisma).23 From this point, the process of introducing new laws was undertaken by a process of nomothesia,24 but decrees were enacted in a procedure – as we saw in the case of the decree for

23 The precise point at which the distinction was introduced is not known, but for Athenian legislative reform (initiated by decree) in that year, see DD 7, 8 below. For the distinction at Athens, see Hansen 1983: 161–76; Ostwald 1986: 523; Todd 1996: 127–9. As Harris 2013a: 163–5 observes, while there was no formal distinction between laws and decrees in the fifth century, few inscribed decrees actually exhibit the characteristic of laws (that is, general rules, applying to large groups of people). Interchangeability between the terms nomos and psephisma might be observed in the fifth century, see Hansen 1983: 162; note also Ar. Birds, 1037–8; Acharnians, 532; Thuc. 3.37.3, where Kleon contends that the laws should not be altered in the debate about a decree. But even in fifth-century texts we might observe a hierarchical relationship between the two. This might be seen, as Canevaro (2016b: section 3) points out, in the inclusion, in the chorus’ account in Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusai (lines 352–71), of impious women, of those who try to make changes to psephismata and nomos: ‘the use of the singular nomos opposed to the plural psephismata seems to imply some sort of hierarchy between the sphere of the law and as a unified and coherent one, and the individual engagements of the assembly’. For discussion of Aristophanes’ parody of decrees (and their relationship to nomos), see Chapter 5.5 below. For the view that the distinction between laws and decrees is relevant also to the enactments of Athenian associations, see Arnaoutoglou 2003: 128–9. For the distinction outside Athens, see Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 498–9. Hansen 1983: 162 note 3 offers reference to older bibliography which maintained that the Athenians frequently disregarded the distinction, e.g. Quass 1971: 71. 24 For a reconstruction, drawing primarily upon Dem. 20.24 and Aeschin. 3.38-40, of the procedure of nomothesia (law-making), see Canevaro 2016b (with summary at Harris 2016a: 74–6) and Canevaro and Esu forthcoming: after a preliminary decree was made at the assembly enabling consideration of new laws, proposals were published at the eponymoi and were read aloud in three consecutive meetings of the assembly; nomothetai were appointed by the assembly; contradictory laws were repealed by a court. Inexpedient laws were subject to being overturned by the procedure of graphe nomon me epitedeion theinai. For perspectives on the board of the nomothetai, see Rhodes 1984, 2003a; Hansen 1985. For the suggestion that the appointment of nomothetai to regulate the constitution was made necessary by the fact that many fifth-century psephismata must have ‘encroached on the stipulations of the Solonian code’, see Ostwald 1986: 410; for nomothesia as a special session of the assembly, see Canevaro and Esu forthcoming.

social capital of the decree

21

Herakleides (Chapter 1.1 above) – involving the assembly and the council of 500. It is generally accepted that for a decree to be considered legal, its subject or substance had to be put on the agenda of the assembly by the council; otherwise it was liable to the charge of being aprobouleuton.25 The substance of particular decrees was, however, not always discussed in detail at meetings of the council. What appears to have been a new distinction between law and the decree (see Chapter 1.2.2 below) in 403/2 has generally been seen as having the effect of limiting the power of the demos at the assembly, but it has been proposed that the change had the effect also of strengthening democracy by ensuring the stability and scrutiny of law.26 The power of the people to make decrees (within the bounds of law) appears to have continued unchanged. References to, but not complete accounts of, the process of fourth-century Athenian decree-making survive in passages of Attic oratory and in the formulae of inscribed decrees; the processes have been reconstructed in the work of Rhodes and Hansen; a balanced assessment of the decree-making process underlines the interaction of the council and the assembly in the enactment of decrees.27 The formal process of decree-making appears to have been initiated usually at the bouleuterion where members of the council discussed proposals put to them by the assembly (as they did in the example of Herakleides’ honours IG II3 1 367 discussed at 1.1 above) or by members of the council (Dem. 19.185): these discussions resulted sometimes in the passing of an ‘open’ recommendation, inviting the assembly to make a decision on a related subject 25 Rhodes 1972: 53, 62; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 45.4 (cf. Dem. 19.185) says that the demos was not permitted to vote on matters that had not been previously discussed by the council; the author states that anyone who proposed an aprobouleuton decree was liable (enochos) to prosecution for illegality (graphe paranomon). Harpokration, s.v. ‘ἀπροβούλευτον’. However, we should note also the claim evidently made by the opponent of Demosthenes in Dem. 22 that an assembly could propose honours for outgoing bouleutai (on the grounds of a law that the assembly could grant it if the council appeared to deserve it) even if this had not been discussed by the council (Dem. 22.5). For discussion see Commentary on D89 below and Liddel forthcoming. 26 Aeschines (3.6–7, 233) saw the rule of law as a bulwark of democracy. For the view that the reform had the effect of reducing the power of the demos and ensuring stability, see Ostwald 1986: 524; for the suggestion that it made Athens less democratic, see Todd 1990b: 170; for the proposal that it strengthened democracy, see Rhodes 2010: 68; for the idea that it ensured stability of the laws, see Canevaro 2011, arguing on the grounds that the constitution could no longer be overthrown by a simple vote of the assembly, as happened in 411 ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 29.2–3; Thuc. 8.67.1). 27 Rhodes 1972, 52–81; cf. Hansen 1987, 41–4. De Laix 1973 emphasises the importance of probouleusis and the influence of the council on the nature and substance of Athenian decrees. For a view of ‘divided power’ at Athens which emphasises the interaction between the council and the assembly in the production of decrees at Athens, exploring its implications for the meaning of ‘sovereignty’ at Athens, see Esu 2018.

22

decrees of fourth-century athens

as it agreed was appropriate or requiring it to listen to the appeal of a named individual;28 alternatively, the council could make a specific recommendation (probouleuma) on the wording of a decree, upon which the assembly would vote.29 Rhodes’ designation of this distinction as one between non-probouleumatic and probouleumatic decrees (marked by distinct epigraphical formulae) has rightly gained widespread acceptance among modern scholars; in the ancient sources, however, there is no indication of any hierarchy in the relationship of the two types in terms of their authority and status.30 The communication of the agenda and proposals from the council to the assembly was the responsibility of individual office-holders: the prytaneis (the tribal contingent of 50 members of the council who were in effect a standing committee for one tenth of the year)31 were expected to ensure that the Council’s specific recommendations were communicated – sometimes in the form of a written draft (Aeschin. 2.68; Xen. Hell. 1.7.34)32  – to the proedroi (who, from early on in the fourth century, acted as the presiding magistrates of the assembly)33 so that they would appear on the agenda of the assembly ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 44.2; IG II3 1 476 line 18); accordingly, the relevant probouleumata were then presented to the assembly (see, for example, IG II3 1 325 lines 10–11).34 When 28 See for instance Dem. 24.11–14 (= D92); Dem. 18.169–74; Rhodes 1972: 58–9. The brief formula of Lycurgus’ decree honouring Eudemos of Plataea of 330/29 (IG II3 1 352 = RO 94) suggests that it was a non-probouleumatic decree (in other words did not enact directly what was put to the assembly in a probouleuma); the content of the subject of the original probouleuma which presumably gave rise to its proposal is, however, not known. An example of a decree which was enacted by the people in response to an open probouleuma of known content is Lycurgus’ decree allowing the Kitians to acquire land for a sanctuary of Aphrodite: IG II3 1 337 = RO 91. 29 Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 13; Rhodes 1972: 52–81; Rhodes 1981: 543–4. For example of specific recommendations accepted by the assembly (in other words, probouleumatic decrees), see Aeschin. 3.125–7 (= D161) with Rhodes 1972: 60 note 1; IG II2 96 = RO 24. 30 For the distinction, see Rhodes 1972: 68; for the formulae of ‘probouleumatic’ and ‘non-probouleumatic’ decrees, see Rhodes 1972: 246–66. Lambert (2018: 227–71) shows that for the period 352/1–322/1, the majority of epigraphically attested decrees were non-probouleumatic, which ‘confirms the liveliness of the Assembly in late classical Athens as a forum for decision-making’ (Lambert 2018: 254). Literary attestations of decrees do not offer the level of detail which would allow for either modification or confirmation of this view. 31 Rhodes 1972: 16–25; Hansen 1987: 35–7. 32 Sickinger 2002 offers a balanced assessment of the degree to which legislative proceedings made use of written documents, acknowledging the ‘oral nature of legislative proceedings’ (Sickinger 2002: 150; cf. Ath. Pol. 54.5) while recognising that ‘the seemingly oral environment of the Assembly thus actually revolved around written texts, and new legislation often had a written origin’ (2002: 153). 33 Rhodes 1972: 26. 34 The agenda was publically displayed in advance of meetings of the assembly and council, but it is not clear that texts of proposals were (Ath. Pol. 43.3–4 with Sickinger 2002: 150). Proposed laws were set out for public display (Dem. 20.93–4).

social capital of the decree

23

the assembly received the proposal of the council, it is likely that a preliminary vote (procheirotonia) was held to decide whether the probouleuma would be scrutinised by the assembly or whether the council’s recommendation sufficed and could be accepted without debate (Harpokration, s.v. ‘προχειροτονία’; cf. Aeschin. 1.23; Dem. 24.11 = D92 T1).35 Over the course of deliberation at the assembly, citizens could accept, amend,36 reject, or propose alternatives to probouleumata, though in the case of an open recommendation, individual citizens were free to make positive proposals in response to it.37 If different proposals were made in response to a probouleuma, it is likely that the proedroi would have to decide which were to be put to the vote. At this point there was opportunity for debate at the assembly by supporters and opponents of the proposal (Dem. 19.185–6).38 It appears that the actual content of the text could be finalised either by the proposer himself (on one occasion referred to as the ‘draughtsman’ [ὁ γράφων] of a decree: Dem 23.70) alone or in association with a secretary.39 After discussion, the proedroi would put the matter to vote (Aeschin. 2.67–8; IG II3 1 324 lines 6–7),40 and the assembly accepted or rejected the decree as it saw fit.41 Aeschines’ account of Aleximachos’ proposal that Kersobleptes might partake in the oaths of the Peace of Philokrates, while it emphasises the obstructive behaviour of Demosthenes, offers a view of the political process that went on over the course of a discussion of a proposal made at the assembly: At that assembly, Kritoboulos the Lampsakene, on coming forward, said that Kersobleptes had sent him, asking that he be able to give his oaths to the ambassadors of Philip, and requesting that Kersobleptes be enrolled alongside your

35 Hansen 1983: 123–30 takes the view that the procheirotonia addressed the question of whether to accept the council’s proposal without discussion or to debate on specific recommendations, but for doubt on this matter, see Osborne 2012: 39–40. 36 For an example of a decree where the assembly appears to have amended the motion put to it in a probouleuma, see Xen. Hell. 7.1.1 = D56; IG II2 112 = RO 41 and IG II2 212 = RO 64 with Rhodes 1972: 60, 73–4. 37 Hansen 1987: 38–9, 88–93. 38 Cammack 2013 suggests an absence of debate at the assembly, but the likelihood of this is challenged in the papers of Rhodes 2016a and Canevaro 2018. The likelihood that there was substantive discussion of, and debate about, decrees at the assembly is suggested also by the existence of riders added to decrees (see Rhodes 1972: 278–9; Lambert 2018: 249–52). Moreover, the existence of disagreement at the assembly is suggested also by the fact that on one occasion, the Athenians offered a solution to it by proposing alternative courses of action, the choice of which was delegated to the Delphic oracle: see IG II3 1 292 lines 25-30. 39 For the view that a secretary was responsible for the drafting the copy that would be inscribed or deposited in the archive, see Dover 1980; cf. Osborne 2012: 41-2. 40 Hansen 1987: 41-2. 41 Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 13; Rhodes 1972: 52-81; Rhodes 1981: 543-4.

24

decrees of fourth-century athens allies. When these words were spoken, Aleximachos of Pelekes gave to the proedroi to read a decree (Ἀλεξίμαχος ὁ Πήληξ δίδωσιν ἀναγνῶναι ψήφισμα τοῖς προέδροις) in which it was written that the one coming from Kersobleptes should give oaths to Philip with the other allies. When the decree was read out, and I believe that you all remember this, Demosthenes stood up from among the proedroi and refused to put the decree to vote (οὐκ ἔφη τὸ ψήφισμα ἐπιψηφιεῖν), saying that he would not undo the peace with Philip, and that he did not recognise as allies those who joined only just at the moment that the libations for the sacred matters were being poured; for this opportunity had been presented at a previous assembly. When you gave a shout and ordered the proedroi to the platform, the motion was put to the vote forcibly (οὕτως ἄκοντος αὐτοῦ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐπεψηφίσθη). To show that I speak the truth, bring here the proposer of the decree Aleximachos (κάλει μοι τὸν γράψαντα τὸ ψήφισμα) and the fellow-proedroi with Demosthenes, and read the statement. (Aeschin. 2.83–5 = D132)

In this case, we can presume that Kritoboulos requested permission from the council to attend and make a request at the assembly; the council presumably discussed this and allowed him to do so; Aleximachos therefore, at the assembly, proposed a decree by handing a written version of it to the proedroi. Demosthenes attempted – unsuccessfully – to prevent the decree being put to the vote; the decree, however, appears to have been rejected on the basis of a vote. As well as enacting decrees, the assembly could also reject by vote or take no action about recommendations of the council; it may be the case that proposals could be blocked by prytaneis or proedroi who did not proceed with expected procedures.42 After being put to the vote, a decree can be said to have been enacted only after a show of hands at the assembly had been judged by the proedroi to constitute a majority;43 additionally, decrees granting citizenship had to be ratified by the casting of ballots.44

42 For the view that proedroi were entitled to refuse to put a proposal to the vote, see Hansen 1999: 39 with Aeschin. 2.84, but note the objection to this view by Ober 1996: 115–16.. 43 Voting: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 44.3 with Hansen 1983: 103–21. Todd 2012 accepts Hansen’s contention that votes in the Athenian assembly were estimated rather than counted, but also adds an alternative explanation for the absence of voting figures on decrees: that ‘the public recording of votes in the permanent medium of an inscription may be undesirable because it invites losers (particularly those who have lost narrowly) to revisit decisions that have been made’ (Todd 2012: 39). For the view that a proposal might be regarded as an enacted decree if an opponent had given an immediate formal undertaking to bring a graphe paranomon see Hansen 1974: 51–2, 1987: 94–107; Todd 1993: 159–60, 298–9. 44 This second vote of ratification was introduced in or shortly after 385/4: Osborne 1981–3 III– IV, 161–6 with RO 33 lines 34–6 and [Dem.] 59.89–90.

social capital of the decree

25

The process of decree making, then, was one involving the contribution of the council, a debate and vote at the assembly, and the administrative support of magistrates in the communication of details; but individual initiative played also an important part. The fact that the Athenian institutions and individuals were obliged to undertake such processes in order to introduce their political decisions was the foundation not only of their authority and legitimacy but also of the rhetorical value deployed in the portrayal both of individual political behaviour and the activity of the Athenian demos.

1.2.2  Status and Authority Having described the formal institutional foundations of the decree’s authority, we turn to looking at its status in fourth-century Athens and in particular to consider its relationship to law. The first aspect to consider is that in addition to the procedural distinction between law and decree (see Chapter 1.2.1 above), there usually appears to have been a substantive difference: the view that in fourth-century Athens, laws usually referred to general, permanent rules, and decrees referred to short-term directives specific to individuals or situations – never comprehensively articulated in the ancient oratorical sources – has been worked out in most detail in the work of M.H. Hansen.45 Decrees concerned the award of honours, all aspects of foreign affairs (the making of treaties, the dispatch of expeditions and ambassadors, declarations of war) and short-term issues concerning adjustments to cult, the administration of justice, constitutional procedure, and adjustments to financial management;46 laws, on the other hand, concerned long-term arrangments concerning religious, general financial issues, constitutional matters, individual behaviour, rights, duties and affairs relating to the grain-supply.47 Ad hominem laws were forbidden (And. 1.88–9 = D8 T1), but decrees could concern individuals (Dem. 8.29). Ancient philosophers reflected on the differences between the two: Plato offered the perspective that a psephisma was a political act (δόγμα πολιτικόν) of a fixed duration of time (Definitions, 415b11). In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle advocated the view that psephismata were needed as rules about things about which it was not possible to lay down a universal statement that would be entailed by a law (Arist. NE 1137b13–4 and 27–32). Elsewhere, he asserted that 45 For the view that the distinction was adhered to with the exception of times of crisis, see Hansen 1983: 161–77 and 1987: 113. For the view that there was erosion of the distinction over the course of the fourth century, see Atkinson 2003. Canevaro 2011: 81 suggests that the distinction was still probably recognised even after the disappearance of nomothesia in 322. 46 For summary coverage of the scope of decrees, see Hansen 1987: 110–13. 47 Harris 2013a: 138–74.

26

decrees of fourth-century athens

the essence of the decree (τὰ ψηφισματώδη) is justice of a conventional but not natural sort (1134b24). What is perhaps striking here is that rather than asserting a straightforward hierarchical relationship between law and decree, Plato and Aristotle shared the view that decrees were less universal as ordinances than were laws. The fact that philosophers and other commentators had an interest in the distinction between law and decree is indicative of the wide impact and cultural resilience of an institutional distinction: 48 indeed, as Canevaro writes, the Athenian understanding of the distinction between law and decree ‘must have taken roots in the institutional ideology of the Athenians well beyond its actual implementation’.49 Moreover, at Athens there appears to have been a formal subordination of decrees to laws: the orthodox view enunciated by the orators was that laws possessed more authority than decrees (κυριώτερον: And. 1.88–9 (= D8 T1);50 Dem. 23.87, 218; 24.30; Hyp. Ath. 22),51 and that the proposal of decrees should be carried out in accordance with them (Dem. 20.92; 22.43; 23.86)52. It is clear that in fourth-century Athens there were laws which regulated aspects of the honours granted by decrees as well as assembly activity.53 Moreover, it is significant that, as Harris points out, decrees of the assembly were able to overturn decisions of the courts; but they could not over-ride laws.54 Their relative authority meant that Andocides was ready to assume that his audience would accept the principle that, given that it was illegal to enforce a law that was not written down, it would also be illegal to enforce a decree that was not written down (And. 1.86).55 48 Writing in the second century AD, Aelius Aristides took the view that the greatest difference between law and decree is that ‘the laws have discovered once and for all justice and have made this a universal order for all time, but decrees depend upon emergencies’ (Aelius Aristides VI The Opposite Argument 9, trans. Behr 1981–6). 49 Canevaro 2011: 81. 50 Canevaro and Harris 2012: 116–19 show that the document at Andocides 1.87 is a forgery, reconstructed in all likelihood on the basis of the adjacent text of Andocides and other speeches. 51 Hypereides (Ath. 22) even claimed that this was a Solonian law. There is, however, no reason to believe that the process was introduced by Solon: see Hansen 1974: 61, and as Leão and Rhodes 2015: 164 point out the hierarchy could not have been enacted before the distinction between laws and decrees was made at the end of the fourth century. 52 The status of the document at Dem. 23.87 is discussed in the light of these passages by Canevaro 2013: 75–6. 53 Liddel forthcoming, citing IG I3 131, [Dem.] 59.89–92 and other legislation on the award of honorific decrees and assembly activity. 54 Harris 2016a: 80–1. 55 Alternatively, as Stephen Todd points out to me, Andocides might have assumed that his audience would overlook a flaw in his logic: that it might not be necessary to have a decree – as a decision of temporary effect – written down.

social capital of the decree

27

Aeschines articulated one strand of reasoning behind the hierarchy of laws and decrees, suggesting that decrees were inferior (καταδεέστερα) because whereas laws were enacted with a singular concern for justice, the assembly and courts were prone to be led astray by trickery and appeals to passion (Aeschin. 1.177–9); elsewhere he complained about illegal proposals and that those proedroi who agreed to put such motions to the vote held the position by deceit (Aeschin. 3.3–4); these complaints lead Hansen to suggest that Aeschines was implying that the proedroi  – who would have passed judgement on the balance of votes – had been accepting bribes to skew the results of the vote.56 In an important sense, Aeschines’ perspectives on the problems with the decree represent a strand in the negative characterisation of the decree – as subject to the manipulations of unscrupulous orators at the assembly – that we encounter also in accounts of late fifth-century political activity.57 Accordingly, the existence of a hierarchical relationship between laws and decrees is undeniable,58 and is underlined both by the fact that, with the exception of a number of forensic speeches (Dem.18, 20, 23) laws were cited with a higher frequency in Attic oratory than were decrees59 and also in the nature of disputes about them in the courts. While it was acceptable to attack a recently proposed law on the grounds of it being inexpedient (graphe nomon me epitedeion thenai: e.g. Dem. 20), established laws and the normative aspects of law and law-making were on the whole not subject to extensive criticism.60 One of the arguments put forward by Diodorus, in his attack on Timokrates’ law about the liberty of state debtors, was that the regularity with which Athens’ politicians were proposing laws was damaging to its tried and tested system of laws (Dem. 24.142–3): the idea was that politicians were abusing the system of law-making by using it for their own ends, but there was no criticism of the established laws per se. Praise of ‘the laws’ was widespread in Attic oratory: in the Against Aristokrates, Demosthenes, challenging Aristokrates’ proposal that Charidemos be inviolable, praised the established laws and the supposed intentions of Draco the legislator (e.g. Dem. 23.22–87). On the other hand, decrees were vulnerable to general attacks, and the speech Against Aristokrates is widely critical of honorific decrees passed by

56 Hansen 1983: 114. 57 On such literary perspectives, see Chapter 5.2.1 below. 58 Sealey takes the view that decrees offered a weaker norm which had to conform to the laws of Athens: Sealey 1987: 32–4; this is a view upheld by Canevaro 2016b and Gagarin 2011: 185. 59 Harris 2013a: 359-76. On the high profile of law in oratorical argumentation, see Carey 1996. 60 On Athenian legislative conservativism, see Boegehold 1996.

28

decrees of fourth-century athens

the Athenians.61 The claim that a decree should be rescinded owing to the fact that it contradicted one or more laws – central to Demosthenes’ speeches Against Androtion (Dem. 22.8) and Against Aristokrates (Dem. 23.18, 22–87) – was presumably widespread in speeches advocating graphe paranomon in fourth-­century Athens.62 Moreover, as Mader has pointed out, sections of Demosthenes’ symbouleutic oratory are dedicated to criticising the Athenian demos for passing decrees upon which it would not act:63 in the Third Olynthiac, for instance, Demosthenes gave an account of the people’s decree of 352/1 for an expedition against Philip (Dem. 3.4 = D106) before going on to criticise them for failing to carry out the expedition (Dem. 3.5). What lies at the heart of this hierarchy is the expectation, enunciated by Aeschines (1.178), that whereas laws would be coherent and as unified as possible, aspiring to justice and the common good, the decisions of the assembly and courts were prone to the deceit of individual politicians (cf. Dem. 19.86 = D135; [Dem.] 59.91 = D109).64 Moreover, the fact that, as Lycurgus observed (1.7), the scope of decrees was rather limited (to trifling issues, concerned with a moment of time), meant that they were treated as lower down in the hierarchy of authority. However, as we will see shortly (Chapter 1.5.3 below), the view that historic decrees might have timeless application rather contradicts this view of decrees as transactions with only ephemeral relevance. The manifestation of this hierarchy in the rhetorical strategies of ancient orators is reflected in the trajectories of modern scholarly analysis of ancient lawcourt rhetoric. There has been much recent scholarly discussion of the significance of laws (nomoi) as rhetorical devices and as evidence in debates about both legal and non-legal matters; while there is debate about the extent to which laws were treated by orators as binding or just persuasive, it is clear that they were cited in a range of contexts: as a basis for legal claims, in the interpretation

61 For attacks on Athenian decrees, see Liddel 2016. 62 Sundahl 2003: 140–2. As Sundahl 2003 notes, however, contradictions between decrees and laws became an issue only when they were raised by a proposer: this was hardly a strong form of protection for laws. 63 Mader 2006. For examples of this criticism, see [Dem.] 50.3-7 (= D67); Dem. 3.4 (= D106); Dem. 13.32 (= DD 111, 112); see discussion in Chapter 2.5.2 below. For other criticisms of the Athenian demos, see Harris 2006c. 64 For the theme that the demos at the assembly was prone to be misled by demagogues, see Hesk 2000; Ober 1989: 168–9; Kremmydas 2012: 184–5; Canevaro 2016a: 189, pointing also to the theme in Dem. 8.63, 15.16, 19.29–30, 23.96–7; Aeschin. 1.178, 3.35.

social capital of the decree

29

of justice, and to construct assertions about character.65 Interpreting law was not always a straightforward task: as Harris points out, orators sometimes develop novel interpretations of laws for persuasive purposes, though more often juries opted for traditional ones.66 Law (nomos) was undoubtedly enshrined in a respected position, and the attribution of large amounts of particular legislation to law-givers, most prominently Draco and Solon, certainly heightened that esteemed position.67 Yet the rhetorical significance of the decree, however, has received much less attention in modern scholarship.68 There are several reasons, however, not to dismiss decrees as insignificant instrument in political persuasion. The frequency of their occurrence in the literary and epigraphic texts suggests that the fourth-century Athenians made decrees more prolifically (Hansen estimates that some 30,000 decrees of the assembly were passed in the period 403/2–322/1)69 than they did laws.70 This meant that there was a bigger selection of contemporary material  – enacted

65 Compare the perspectives of Harris, emphasising the rule of law (e.g. Harris 1994, 2006b, 2013a) with that of Lanni, arguing that law encouraged rather than coerced compliance (Lanni 2016). For a view of an ideology of rule of law as an aspect of wider democratic discourses and as a way of resolving feuds, see Cohen 1995. Todd (1990a, 1993) and Carey (1996) emphasise the rhetorical potential of laws as evidence. For a review of the different assessments of the rhetorical power of law in Attic oratory, see De Brauw 2001–2: 161–2, demonstrating the ways in which the evidence of law was deployed in the portrayal of character. On the use of laws in speeches and for a broad view of relevance among the Athenians, see Lanni 2006: 64–70. For a list of laws cited by the Attic orators, see Harris 2013a: 359–78. A wide-ranging and balanced discussion of the ways in which the laws were deployed in the courts, with discussion of recent bibliography, is provided by Sickinger 2007. 66 See Harris 2000b, writing of the ‘open texture’ of Athenian law, and arguing that juries generally opted for traditional interpretations of laws rather than novel ones. For the possibility of non-literal interpretations, see Aviles 2011. Christ 1998: 193–224 emphasises the potential for distortions and manipulation of the law in the courts and the extent to which jurors developed a sense of fairness. 67 Cf. Hansen 1990; Thomas 1994. Many of these claims are clearly anachronistic, such as Solon’s association with a graphe paranomon at Dem. 24.212 or the misattribution of detailed rules about nomothesia to Solon at Dem. 20.90: see Leão and Rhodes 2015: 151–96. 68 For an excellent discussion of the importance of the decree in the rhetoric of conspiracy, see Roisman, 2006: 95–117. 69 Hansen 1987: 108. 70 For the numbers of preserved decrees, see Table 1. For the nine extant inscribed laws of the fourth century, see Stroud 1998: 15–16 (note now the publication of the law concerning repair work on the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron: SEG LII 104); for laws proposed in the period 403/2–322/1, see Volume 1, Inventory B6.1. Lambert 2012a: 59 suggests three possible reasons for the relative scarcity of inscribed laws: there were fewer of them; they may have been inscribed at locations other than the acropolis (and so fewer have been discovered); they were published on non-permanent media; Lambert 2018: 61–2 adds the suggestion that a further factor was that the Metroon by the fourth century had become the place to host physical copies of the laws and there was felt no need to inscribe them.

30

decrees of fourth-century athens

within living memory – for orators to draw upon in the formulation of arguments. The status of the decree in the lawcourts is indicated by the fact that all Athenian jurors swore to observe both laws and decrees and to judge in accordance with them; orators frequently reminded the jurors of the duty to adhere to them and to vote according to their provisions (Hyp. Dem. Fr. 1 col. 1, Din. 1.84; Dem. 19.179; Dem. 24.149 [document]).71 The pairing of ‘laws and decrees’ as terms of authoritative reference in these passages reminds us that one of the shared ideals that emerges in Athenian discussion of legislation is that the two institutions were conceived not normally as at odds but rather to complement each other. The deployment of decrees in the courts was, as we will see, widespread and provides the clearest impression of their importance to political life and litigation. Litigants in the courts insisted, where it suited them, on the importance of imposing both laws and decrees in an appropriate fashion (see Dem. 47.19–20 = D85; see further Chapter 2.2.2.2 below). Decrees were cited also for their persuasive value; indeed, the conventional hierarchy of legislation was undermined when it was rhetorically necessary or convenient for litigants to do so, especially in challenges brought against laws: Demosthenes, arguing that Leptines’ law on ateleia annulled the favour set in store for the Athenians by their honorary decrees, claimed that some of their laws were no different from, and no newer than, many of their decrees (Dem. 20.92).72 The law was said to lead to an excess of wickedness (kakia) and contradicts the treaties (sunthekai) implied by the provileges granted to Leukon (Dem. 20.36–7). Demosthenes’ statements should be appreciated within their rhetorical context: they were designed to underline his argument that Leptines’ law subverted the salutary impact of Athenian honorific decrees. It must be considered as an aspect of his wider rhetorical view that the passing of honorific decrees supported the interests of the Athenian community by encouraging euergetic behaviour.73 It is clear that, when it was rhetorically useful to do so, it was publicly acceptable to emphasise the importance of the decree: in the case

71 For a list of references to the oath, see Harris 2013a: 353. For discussion of its application, see Harris 2013: 101–37; on its content, see Canevaro 2013: 175–80, suggesting that the document of the oath at 24.149 is a reconstruction or forgery. For discussion of the pledge to vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the Athenians, see Harris 2006a: 159. 72 Dem. 20.92: ‘ψηφισμάτων δ’ οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν διαφέρουσιν οἱ νόμοι, ἀλλὰ νεώτεροι οἱ νόμοι, καθ’ οὓς τὰ ψηφίσματα δεῖ γράφεσθαι, τῶν ψηφισμάτων αὐτῶν ὑμῖν εἰσίν’. Isocrates claimed that the laws were full of confusion and contradiction: Isoc. 12 Panath. 144, though the display– oratory context of this speech means that it was possible for the author to say things that a democratic audience might have found objectionable. 73 See Chapter 2.5.1 below; Liddel 2016.

social capital of the decree

31

against Leptines’ law abolishing honorific exemption, Demosthenes amassed the evidence of decrees to make a case against his legislation (see Chapter 2.4.1 below). Later in the fourth century, Lycurgus’ decision (Lycurg. 1.127; see D19 Commentary) to cite the late fifth-century decree of Demophantos rather than the contemporary law of Eukrates (IG II3 1 320 = RO 79) as a paradigm of how the Athenians treat traitors suggests that decrees could attract as much persuasive capital as laws. The physical investment on decrees that the Athenians of the fourth century undertook also is indicative of their high status.74 It is clear that while the Athenians did not attempt to inscribe on stone every single decree that was passed by the assembly,75 the large numbers of stone inscriptions that survive indicate that the Athenians frequently did so:76 this would have incurred substantial costs, with the price of inscribing such decrees in the fourth century regularly being 20 or 30 drachmai, a sum which may have included the cost of supplying and preparing the stone.77 By the 360s money for inscribing costs was regularly drawn from a special fund for expenses incurred by the provisions of decrees (not just those pertaining to publication) known as τὰ κατὰ ψηφίσματα ἀναλισκόμενα τῶι δήμωι (‘the monies expended by the people in accordance with decrees’).78 Athenian investment in decrees is shown also by the fact that in the fourth century the Athenians charged particular magistrates with the management of them. From the 340s onwards,79 there is evidence for a secretary deemed to have responsibility for decrees

74 For the importance of inscribed decrees in terms of religiosity, dissemination of messages, and imperial ambition, see Lambert 2018: 19–46. 75 See discussion in Chapter 3.3 below; Lambert 2018: 47–68; pace Osborne 2012, who argues, unconvincingly, against the orthodoxy that only a minority of decrees were published on stone: see especially Osborne, 2012, 33–4 note 2. 76 For the period 352/1–322/1, some 280 inscribed decrees survive in some form of preservation: see IG II3 1 292–572 and Table 1. 77 For occasional larger sums, see Osborne 2012: 50 note 99. For the cost of inscribing, see Loomis 1998: 121–65. For discussion of other costs, including that of the stone and its transportation, see MacLean 2002: 13–14. For the view that the costs even of reliefs on inscribed decrees were covered by the issuing body that passed them, see Deene 2016; for the Athenians charging allies for the inscription of decrees, see Low 2005: 100–1. 78 First attested in 367/6: RO 35 with commentary at p. 173; IG II3 1 327 lines 15–18; 453 lines 35–41. See also, for payment out ‘of the amount set aside according to decree’ (‘τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσματα μεριζομένων’), see IG II3 1 298 lines 41–2; 355 lines 50–2; 411 lines 26–7. For discussion see Rhodes 2013: 216–17, with reference to the debate about the sources of payment expenditure for Athenian decrees at 216 note 88; cf. Osborne 2012: 50. 79 Develin 1989: 21.

32

decrees of fourth-century athens

(γραμματεύς … ἐπὶ τὰ ψηφίσματα: IG II3 1 306 C lines 34–7).80 Moreover, there was a prytany secretary who, according to the author of the Ath. Pol., had the duty of ensuring that an official text of a new decree was recorded ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.3), and  – on occasions when epigraphical publication was decided – was charged with arranging for its publication on stone (e.g. IG II3 1 473 lines 13–14), and with abolishing inscribed texts which contradicted laws (RO 25 lines 55–6). From 363/2 the prytany secretary held the office for a year, rather than a prytany, at a time, which suggests that the growing amount of detail required more expertise than would be garnered in little more than a month (Rhodes 1972: 135–8); we should not think of a professional requirement, given that, as the author of the Ath. Pol. (54.3) states, this officer was at his time appointed by sortition, though he had previously been appointed by lot. In the later fourth century an anagrapheus (recorder) appears also to have been responsible for the recording of state documents, which probably included papyrus documents in the archive (see IG II3 1 469 lines 13–15). It is likely that public employees (demosioi) were responsible for the physical incising of the texts on stone slabs.81 Having established the scope and limitations of the institutional authority of the decree and its status among fourth-century Athenians, we turn to perceptions of the decree that are suggested by the treatment of them in contemporary literature. The perceived association between good forms of decree-making and the right way of doing democratic politics (Chapter 1.3 below) was a theme that underscored the status of the decree as a tool of normative political activity but, as we will see, some counter-arguments reveal a level of disquiet about the way that the decree represented the power of the people.

1.3 Decrees and Democracy The author of the Athenaion Politeia stated that one characteristic of the Athenian democracy of his own time was that the people were in charge of everything (ἁπάντων κύριος) and that they administer matters through their

80 Rhodes 1972: 137–8 discusses this secretary and asserts that it was an office distinct from the secretary of the council; cf. Agora XV 58 lines 76–85; there is, however, no evidence on how its duties were separate from those of the principal grammateus. Harpokration, s.v. ‘γραμματεύς’ describes the secretary as the one who keeps guard over the passed decrees (τὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ γενόμενα) and makes copies of all the other decrees (τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἀντιγράφεται). 81 For the involvement of a public slave (demosios) in making inventories, see IG II2 120 lines 11–19 with Rhodes 1972: 98, 141–2 and 1981: 601.

social capital of the decree

33

control of decrees and the lawcourts (Ath. Pol. 41.2).82 This is rather a summary and over-generalised analysis of the location of power within the Athenian state: emphasising the power of the demos, it ignores the place of the laws and marginalises the council. Yet it demonstrates that rule by decree could be viewed as an important element of the power of the people, perhaps inasmuch as they were able to undermine or even to challenge the rule of law. The extent to which we should recognise a distinction between the power of the people at the assembly and that in the lawcourts is the subject of a long-running debate between Hansen and Ober. Hansen’s view seeks to find a stable location of sovereignty in the lawcourts and does not see the courts as embodiments of the assembly; alternatively, Ober’s allows for the location of sovereignty in the hands of the people in whichever capacity they met.83 An alternative to their perspective is that of Harris, which emphasises the rule of law in Athens.84 Along the same lines of thought, Apollodoros ([Dem.] 59.88) reminds us that the sovereignty of the people was restricted by laws which the demos itself enacted.85 What is the place of decrees of the assembly in the debate about sovereignty? It is very clear that activity surrounding decrees is a central aspect of the question of sovereignty, but it seems that there was a tug of law between the decrees of the assembly on the one hand and the laws and the people at the lawcourts on the other: as we have seen, the people at the assembly possessed the power

82 [Arist]. Ath. Pol. 41.2: ‘The people has made itself supreme in all fields; they administer matters by decrees of the assembly and by decisions of the lawcourts in which the people are supreme’ (‘ἁπάντων γὰρ αὐτὸς αὑτὸν πεπoίηκεν ὁ δῆµoς κύριoν, καὶ πάντα διoικεῖται ψηφίσµασιν καὶ δικαστηeίoις, ἐν oἷς ὁ δῆµός ἐστιν ὁ κρατῶν’). 83 Hansen’s view – set out originally in Hansen 1974: 19–21, expanded in Hansen 1978 and re-iterated in Hansen 2010, esp. 526 – is that there was a substantive distinction between the courts and the assembly and that the courts were the location of sovereign power in the fourth century. For the view – that of the majority of scholars  – that sovereignty was in the hands of the people, see Ober 1996: 107–22, asserting at 117 that the term demos could constitute a synechdocal reference to the whole citizen body while at times also taking in a narrower term of reference to the people gathered at the assembly. Ober criticises Hansen’s emphasis on institutions in his analysis of the location of sovereignty and instead focuses upon the citizenry’s power over discourse. For the important observation of the lack of consensus among ancient writers on the question of the location of power, see Blanshard 2004a. 84 See Harris 2013a and Harris 2016a; for earlier statements of the ‘rule of law’ thesis see MeyerLaurin 1965; Ostwald 1986; Sealey 1987. Lambert (2018: 157–70) notes an increased emphasis on the rule of law in Athenian inscriptions after the defeat at Chaironeia. 85 [Dem.] 59.88: ‘The Athenian people is supreme over all things in the city, and has the power to do as it pleases, but it held the gift of citizenship to be so fine and sacred a thing that it made laws to which it must abide whenever it wishes to make someone a citizen’ (‘ὁ γὰρ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων κυριώτατος ὢν τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁπάντων, καὶ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ ποιεῖν ὅ τι ἂν βούληται, οὕτω καλὸν καὶ σεμνὸν ἡγήσατ᾽ εἶναι δῶρον τὸ Ἀθηναῖον γενέσθαι, ὥστε νόμους ἔθετο αὑτῷ καθ᾽ οὓς ποιεῖσθαι δεῖ, ἐάν τινα βούλωνται, πολίτην’).

34

decrees of fourth-century athens

to make decrees without consultation of the lawcourts, but at the same time the lawcourts possessed the power to overturn or uphold those decrees referred to them through the graphe paranomon process on the basis of the question of their legality or illegality.86 This process upheld the principle that laws possessed higher authority than decrees and that decrees were bound within the limits of the law; yet, on the other hand, the demos created the context for law-making by acting as the body that initiated – by way of a decree – the process of nomothesia.87. Furthermore, recent work by Esu (2018 Chapter 2) has emphasised the place of a third party, the Athenian council, in the balance of powers: not only did the council possess the power of probouleusis, but the assembly was able, by decree, to designate specified powers to decrees of the council. The statement at Ath. Pol. 41.2 about sovereignty reminds us of the fact that the people had the potential, at points, to exercise sovereignty by voting on decrees which concerned areas unbounded by the laws of the city, such as the formulation of treaties or the exercise of foreign policy.88 By accepting that it was at the point of the vote on decrees, whether upon their enactment in the assembly or on their rejection when challenged in the courts by graphe paranomon, that the demos exercised its powers, we can posit the occurrence of moments of sovereignty of the people both in the lawcourts and in the assembly.89 This is manifested in the evidence for the regulation of the sovereignty of the demos, in terms of the processes of graphe paranomon and graphe me epitedeion thenai held in the courts, in terms of those decisions pertaining to areas (such as public finances, jurisdiction, and some matters pertaining to the constitution and religion) which usually fell under the scope of law and which were subject to scrutiny by way of the process of nomothesia (involving the intervention of the thesmothetai (Aeschin. 3.38) and repeal of contradictory legislation in the courts: Dem. 24.35–6). But in 86 Hansen 2010: 528; Sundahl 2003; Harris 2018: 66 note 138. Esu 2018 emphasises the idea that the courts, by way of the graphe paranomon, contributed to the principle of the sovereignty of law while also upholding by majority vote decrees that the courts deemed legal. 87 On the process of nomothesia, see now Canevaro 2016b; for the view that nomothesia was undertaken as a special session of the assembly and the nomothetai as a special instantiation of the assembly, see Canevaro and Esu forthcoming; this view has important implications for the sovereignty of the Athenian assembly. On re-activating old laws: see Dracon’s law (IG I3 104) or the account of Aristophon’s revival of the Solonian law on taxation for foreigners: Dem. 57.31–3, 34. For discussion of decrees which contain provisions for legislation, see Lambert 2018; Hansen 2017: 270–5. 88 On the scope of decrees, see Chapter 1.2.2 above 89 Cf. the idea of ‘floating sovereignty’, which emphasises the external limitations on statist sovereignty, outlined in Kostakopoulou 2002 and Jovanović and Henrard 2008. For critique of the usefulness of the term ‘sovereignty’ to classical Athens, see Pasquino 2010; Davies 1994b. Esu 2018 suggests replacing it with the perspective of ‘divided power’.

social capital of the decree

35

terms of d ­ eclaring war, diplomacy, and making rewards, the people was sovereign through its decrees. To return to [Aristotle]: given his expression of disappointment that the late fifth-century Athenians failed to observe their laws properly (Ath. Pol. 26.2), his statement may, admittedly, be indicative of a critical view of their classical form of democratic government.90 In work firmly attributed to Aristotle, however, it is not so much the decree itself, but rather the excessive assignment of power to decrees, which is identified as problematic: Aristotle made a close connection between unconstitutional decrees and undesirable and extreme forms of government.91 In his analysis of the general idea of democracy in the Politics, he shows how extreme democratic societies make use of decrees in an undesirable or unconstitutional way: he says that one symptom of mob-rule was that of decrees over-riding laws, a condition brought about by demagogues (1292a 6–11).92 In such a situation, the demos seeks to exercise monarchic rule and becomes despotic (15–17). Aristotle equates this with the tyrannical form of anarchy, because despotic control is imposed over the better classes, and the psephismata become the equivalent of commands (epitagmata) of a tyrant (20).93 This is inappropriate to a proper politeia given his principle that it is impossible for a decree to be a universal rule and means that a state in which decrees rule over everything cannot be defined as a demokratia (32–6). What may lie behind Aristotle’s opinion is the view that in an extreme democracy,

90 This is the view of Rhodes 1981: 489, 512; cf. Harris 2016a: 73 note 2. 91 Aristotle also made observations about the significance of decrees in other communities: in what may be a fragment of Aristotle’s Constitution of the Megarians, Plutarch noted that the Megarian extreme democracy enacted a decree (dogma) according to the terms of which the poor received back again the interest which they had paid their creditors (palintokia: Plu. Mor. 295c–d). On Megara as a literary paradigm of extreme democracy, see Forsdyke 2005. For the argument that the Megarian sections of Plutarch’s Greek Questions derive from Aristotle’s Politeia of the Megarians, see Giessen 1901: 461–3 with Aristotle fr. 550 Rose. 92 For Aristotle’s wider concern that, in an extreme democracy, the authority of laws and magistrates is undermined by decrees, see Politics 1292a1–37, 1293a9–10. For the view that a good form of democracy was one that was law-abiding, see Hdt. 3.80; Eur. Suppl. 403–50; Dem. 22.51; Aeschin. 1.4–5, 3.6; Harris 2013a: 3–18. 93 Unconstitutional decrees were associated also with tyrannical forms of government: according to [Aristotle], the Thirty were established by a decree of Drakontides, which the people were forced to approve: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 34.3; cf. Lysias 12.73. The non-Athenian evidence suggests that the proper constitutional use of decrees appears to have been important in distinguishing good kingship from demagogy or tyranny. Dio Chrysostom, in his speech On Agamemnon or Kingship, claimed that something that distinguished the king from demagogues was that the latter (unlike the former) bring before the popular assembly measures that have not been passed by the council (56.10). Part of Polybius’ criticism of Kritolaos as a tyrant was that he brought forward a paronomon decree that said that generals should have absolute power (Plyb. 38.13.7).

36

decrees of fourth-century athens

the council lacks any power (Arist. Pol. 1299b30–1300a4); accordingly, in such a scenario, the people would enact whatever forms and types of decree for which advocates at its meetings were able to make a persuasive case. At least in the fourth century, this is an unrealistic scenario: it is unlikely that it was ever the usual practice for Greek states to pass decrees without any consultation of their councils at all.94 But this critique of the democratic connotations of the decree is not enunciated in the oratorical texts.95 What we find in the speeches is that problems with decrees are identified not with them as manifestations of popular sovereignty, but with their vulnerability to the conspiracy and intrigue of self-interested individuals. Aeschines, for instance, claimed that Philokrates and Demosthenes collaborated to exclude Kersobleptes from swearing the oath of the alliance with Philip II of Macedon by surreptitiously inserting a clause giving Athens’ allies the privilege into the decree just before it was put to the vote (Aeschin. 3.73–4; cf. 2.82–90 = D131). Procedural problems loom large in oratorical critiques of decrees: among the most effective ways of attacking a decree in the Athenian lawcourts were the claims that it contradicted law (Dem. 23) or that its subjects had not been considered by the council (Dem. 22.5–6).96 The discourse of Athenian politics at times placed emphasis on correct political procedure, a view enunciated most clearly in Aeschines’ tendency to align his own cases with descriptions of good practice (e.g. Aeschin. 1.33– 5; 3.3–12). The democratic legitimacy – and sense of shared sentiment – of the process of decree-making is asserted in the standard form of the enactment formula which appeared in the prescripts of Athenian decrees, ‘the council and the people resolved’ (‘ἔδοξε τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι’);97 such a formula emphasised the role of the collective decision of the demos in indicating the formal creation of a decree. Aeschines thought it appropriate in his speech On the False Embassy to describe the way in which decrees were passed with the explicit approval – by way of voting through cheirotonia at the assembly – of the demos (Aeschin. 2.13; 3.3; cf. Ar. Eccl. 263-7;

94 Probouleusis across the Greek world: Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 475–501. For decrees whose critics claimed they had not been considered by the council (aprobouleuta psephismata), see Rhodes 1972: 53, 62 and 1981: 544. 95 For discussion of some of the criticisms of decrees found in the lawcourts, see Liddel 2016. 96 There are many examples of decrees said to have been unconstitutional: see Hansen 1974 passim. For more discussion of the attacking of decrees, see Chapter 2.3 below. 97 On this and other enactment formulae, see Rhodes 1972: 64 and Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 4. For the importance of demonstrating that decisions were made in appropriate ways for establishing their legitimacy, see March and Olsen 1989: 49.

social capital of the decree

37

[Arist.] Ath. Pol. 30.5).98 Moreover, his assertion that the laws forbade the introduction of falsehoods into the decrees of the Athenians (Aeschin. 3.50) is another indication of how they might be construed as a politically upstanding form of political transaction. No literary author ever alleged that decrees were unique to democratic forms of government, but there certainly was a tendency to identify government by decree of the people as a central feature of democracy: Aeschines classified the government of Oreos (earlier known as Histiaia) on Euboia as a democracy on the basis of the observation that ‘everything is done there by decree’ (‘δημοκρατουμένων τῶν Ὠρειτῶν καὶ πάντα πραττόντων μετὰ ψηφίσματος’: 3.103).99 Furthermore, we also encounter in the literary sources the view that correct decree-making procedure was to be identified with democracy; this was something suggested by Demosthenes’ claim that the process of probouleusis was something that distinguished democracy from oligarchy or monarchy: For in these polities [oligarchy and tyranny], as I see it, everything is done promptly by word of command; but with you, first the Council must be informed, and must adopt a provisional resolution (προβουλεῦσαι δεῖ), and even that not at any time, but only after written notice given for heralds and embassies; then the council must convene an assembly, and this must happen at the point which is directed by the laws. (Dem. 19.185)

Demosthenes then goes on to highlight the role of the best orators in prevailing and overcoming ignorant and dishonest opposition, as well as ensuring that arrangements are made so that the provisions of the decree can be put in place (19.185–6). What, therefore, the oratorical analyses of decree-activity appear to emphasise is the notion that openness and adherence to constitutional procedures were essential in the process of constructing a sound decree. Indeed, we should note that Aeschines celebrated the Athenian tendency to write down and to protect the substance of their enactments (Aeschin. 3.50, 75–6). To the literary evidence we can add the observation that inscribed decrees in Athens appear to have become more standardised and detailed in their prescripts 98 The act of voting does not appear explicitly in the enactment formula in Athenian decrees (which uses ‘ἔδοξε’ (‘resolved’) rather than, e.g., ‘ἐψηφίσθη’ (‘voted’)), but the act of voting is sometimes referred to in the motion formula, which Rhodes with Lewis (1997: 5) describe as ‘an infinitive dependent on the “N said” in the prescript’, which ‘calls on the enacting body to approve the motion put to it’; for instance, IG II3 1 333 lines 8–9 calls on the assembly to resolve the decree (‘ἐψηφίσθαι τῶι δ[ήμωι ἐπαινέσαι μὲ]ν Ἄρχιππον’: ‘be it decreed by the people to praise Archippos’) on the basis of the council’s report; see also IG II3 1 367 (= RO 95) line 47 discussed in Chapter 1.2.1 above. Rhodes (1972: 65) observes that in motion formulae ‘δεδόχθαι’ (‘be it resolved’) and ‘ἐψηφίσθαι’ (‘be it voted’) were interchangeable. 99 On democracy at Oreos, see Robinson 2011: 175–6.

38

decrees of fourth-century athens

and enactment formulae over the course of the fourth century,100 suggesting a growing effort at ostensibly demonstrating adherence to appropriate levels of procedure. In addition to a strong rhetoric of respect for procedures surrounding enactment, there was also a clear idea of the right way of attacking a decree: Aeschines and others suggest that the procedure to indict unconstitutional proposals (graphe paranomon) was central to the conception of proper democratic behaviour. Aeschines claimed  – in the course of a speech in support of the graphe paranomon against the honours for Demosthenes – that after the restoration of democracy in 403/2 it was said that the abolition of this mechanism was what had caused the fall of democracy (3.191); he complained, as a way of convincing his audience of the severity of their predecessors, that the jurors no longer took the process as seriously as had their ancestors (3.192–4).101 As we shall see later (Chapter 2.4 below), the record of having launched a graphe paranomon against an unconstitutional decree could be referred to in claims about political service. In conclusion, we can observe that in their right form, decrees appear to be conceived of as a staple of orderly government and careful adherence to good procedure. Properly formulated, they could be construed as expressions of the will of the demos102 but the process of probouleusis at the council oversaw their formulation and that of graphe paranomon in the courts tested their legality. It will come as no surprise, therefore, that decrees could be seen as upholding core values of the Athenian demos (see Chapter 1.5.1 below) and that participating in the decree-system could be construed as appropriate political behaviour (see Chapter 2.2 below). At the same time, however, we should recognise a vein of scepticism expressed by Aristotle about the political impact of decrees which underlined the dangers that they posed when they became too powerful or were enacted without appropriate constitutional scrutiny. Such views are reminiscent of the debate reported by Xenophon on the fate of the generals after the battle of Arginusae in 406: some claimed that Kallixenos’ proposal (on which he is alleged to have taken bribes) to make a decree that the generals be tried 100 Henry 1977: 1–49. Athenian decrees start to record their month and day of enactment in the second half of the fourth century: Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 149. 101 [Aristotle] Ath. Pol. 29.4 associated its abolition with the oligarchic coup of 411; cf. Thuc. 8.67.2; Dem. 24.154. Indeed, the association of it with a virtuous form of democracy is suggested by Xenophon’s report that it was over-ridden at the debate in the aftermath of the battle at Arginusae (Xen. Hell. 1.7.12–13). The author of the Ath. Pol. (40.2) took the view that Archinos’ graphe paranomon against the decree of Thrasyboulos admitting to citizenship all those who had come back together from Peiraeus (D5) was a praiseworthy indication of his statesmanship. For discussion of the connection between democracy and graphe paranomon, see Hansen 1974: 55–61. 102 Luraghi 2010.

social capital of the decree

39

as a board and not individually was unconstitutional, but others responded that it was right for the people to do as they pleased (Xen. Hell. 1.7.9–12; see Chapter 5.2.1 below).103 It is an account that suggests the existence of contentious views about the rightful extent of the power of the decree and the danger that decree-making might be swayed by selfish politicians in their own interest. We must take into account, however, that this debate is reported in the work of an author who had reservations about Athenian democratic norms;104 nevertheless, given that decrees were the subject of debate and voting in the assembly, it therefore follows that contradictory opinions would have been expressed about the concept of the decree. So far I have offered an account of the enactment of decrees and the origins and limitations of their authority (Chapter 1.1–1.2), and have made a case for the potentially close association, in oratorical texts, of correct democratic behaviour with the proper enactment of a decree (Chapter 1.3). As we shall see in Chapter 2 below, this image coincided with, and to a large extent, underlay, the tendency of politicians of fourth-century Athens to be what we may reasonably describe as ‘decree-minded’: in other words, to make use of familiarity with decrees, proposing them, attacking them, interpreting them and applying them in their political rhetoric; in short, to be mindful of the value of decrees in their accrual of symbolic capital through political activity.105 But this image is also important to the construction of decrees as expressions of shared Athenian values and sentiments in relation to the promotion of ideas about the social capital of the demos as a community, which is the subject of Chapter 1.5 below.106 First, however, it is necessary to consider the perceived geopolitical context of the decrees that we are dealing with.

1.4  Fourth-Century Geopolitics and the Profile of Athenian Decrees: Practical and Symbolic Aspects Thus far, it has become clear that, despite an institutionalised subordination to law in fourth-century Athens (Chapter 1.2 above), the decree as a political

103 On Xenophon’s account of the trial of the generals, see Chapter 5.2.1 below. 104 Xenophon as a critic of democracy: see Seager 2001; Christ 2012: 138. For a more positive appraisal of Xenophon’s view of democracy, see Gray 2004: 169–71; Farrell (2016; forthcoming). For his interest in the rule of law, see Gray 2007: 9–10. See the discussion at Ferrario 2017: 66–71, suggesting that while Xenophon frequently casts democracy in a bad light in the Hellenika, his main reservation is about the capacity of the people to govern effectively without effective leadership. 105 On Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital, see Introduction, p. 5 above. 106 On Bourdieu’s notion of social capital, see Introduction, pp. 5–6 above.

40

decrees of fourth-century athens

transaction possessed significant potential authority on the grounds of its close association with proper democratic procedure (Chapter 1.3 above). The prominence of decrees to political matters is manifested both in their practical and symbolic aspects (see Chapter 1.1 above). The practical aspects must be viewed in the light of their perceived historical context, and so in what follows I shall set out a brief account of Athens’ history as it is represented in literary references to decrees. It must be stressed that this is an account which inevitably emphasises those decrees which are prominent in the literary record: therefore it constitutes a view of their history that reflects the preoccupations of the literary sources and should not be taken as an straightforward account of Athenian history; my interest here is in elucidating the geopolitical features of Athenian decree-making of this period that are highlighted in literature. A full analysis of the history of Athenian interstate relations in this period would necessitate thorough engagement with epigraphical sources and is beyond the scope of the current work. Over the duration of the fourth century, the Athenian demos faced up to a changed and shifting geopolitical reality: this is manifested in the fact that, in the aftermath of Athens’ defeat in the Peloponnesian War, she was no longer the unchallenged military authority of the area of Greece and the Aegean. It became clear that Athenian power was not able to match the city’s former ambitions.107 This had an impact upon the type of decrees that were passed at the Athenian assembly in the fourth century, which reflected Athenian attempts to deal largely on a case-by-case basis with the military threats she faced and to make the most of the occasional opportunities that she enjoyed. Before 395, Athenian decree-activity appears to have focused upon internal reconstruction: the Athenians based their restoration of institutions at the end of the fifth century on the enactment of decrees (DD 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19; cf. Chapter 1.5.1 above), deployed them to recognise the contribution of those who had assisted in the restoration of democracy (DD 3, 5, 6, 15, 18), and repayed debts to outsiders (DD 12, 13). But from the mid 390s the Athenians restored their alliances and walls by way of decrees (DD 20, 21, 22); moreover, in the years and decades after the defeat of the Spartans at Knidos in summer 394, the Athenians used decrees to seal alliances with other communities (DD 29, 30, 33, 36, 45, cf. DP 20, 21, 27), to negotiate peace terms (DD 25, 26, 51, 52, 53; cf. DP 18, 39), to pursue military campaigns (DD 34, 44, 50, 55), to manage their own military officials (DD 37, 48), to offer shelter to groups of exiles (DD 31, 32, 40, 41, 49) and to honour both citizens and foreigners who made contributions to the prosperity 107 Badian 1992; for the rhetorical theme that Athenian decrees were passed in vain, see Mader 2006 and discussion in Chapter 2.5.2 below.

social capital of the decree

41

and security of the city (DD 23, 24, 28, 35, 42, 43, 46, 47, 54) as a way of encouraging others to act in similar ways.108 Over the course of the period from the early 360s to the mid 350s the Athenians appear to have pursued a similar line, using decrees for diplomatic purposes (DD 81, 90), to make alliances and peace agreements (DD 58, 63, 79, 80, 83, 87), to dispatch military expeditions (D56, 60, 67, 82), to pursue interests in territories outside Attica through the grant of honours (DD 58, 59, 61, 62, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 84, 94, 100, 103, 104, 204), to support Athenian interests outside the city in other ways (DD 64, 65, 66, 205, DP 47), to commend good behaviour of Athenian citizens (DD 89, 102), and to improve both public finances (DD 57, 68, 85, 86, 88, 91, 92) and military organisation (DD 67, 69). As late as 353/2 BC, Diodorus, speaker of Demosthenes Against Timokrates, talks in front of an audience of jurors about how Athenian laws and decrees had in the past secured Athenian interests and achieved goals, such as protecting communities, punishing enemies and bringing about peace (Dem. 24.92–3). But another style of argument – known from the assembly speeches of Demosthenes (such as the Third Olynthiac of 349/8)  – was much more negative about the legacy of Athenian decrees, criticizing the demos for failing to live up to the promise of its decrees in terms of military action (e.g. Dem. 3.4–6, 14–15; cf. Chapter 2.5.2 below). Yet proactive aspects of Athenian policy are highlighted in the literary sources decrees even down to the time of the defeat at Chaironeia in summer 338: dated to this period are decrees dispatching ambassadors (DD 116, 117, 125, 140, 142, 144, 148, 162), launching military expeditions (DD 106, 108, 111, 112, 129, 143, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 162), making alliances and arranging peace (D113, 130, 131, 132, 141, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 163), celebrating victories (D105, 165), granting awards to foreigners (DD 109, 110, 120, 209), honouring citizens (DD 114, 118, 124, 128, 134, 136, 146, 156, 166, 221), initiating adjustments to public finances (DD 115, 164) and concerning Athenian settlers outside Athens (DD 150, 20; cf. DP 52, 63). The growing proliferation of honorific decrees is noticeable. As the fourth century went on, the Athenians appear to have faced up to the fact that even such decrees as they passed were often rendered insignificant by the limits to their capabilities. Defeat at the hands of rebellious allies in the Social War in 355, the failure to stall Philip’s progress either at Olynthos in 348 or through the Peace of 346 (D130) or on the battlefield at Chaironeia in 338 demonstrate that the power behind their

108 For Athenian honours for grain dealers see Engen 2010; for inscribed honours for Athenians, see Lambert 2011a.

42

decrees of fourth-century athens

decrees had further subsided.109 This is visible in the rhetoric that surrounded the decrees of the period from the early 340s (see Chapter 2.5.2 below) but also in the substance of those decrees which suggest Athenian attempts to cope with crisis: there are decrees managing the use of disputed sacred territory (D107), arranging the evacuation of the countryside (D135), dealing with the Delphian Amphictyony (D161), directed against those who threaten merchants (D207); other decrees, relating to the scrutiny of the citizen body (D137), concerning public works (D138), the powers of the Areopagus (D214) suggest a decree of introspection. The period after the defeat at Chaironeia saw the Athenians use decrees to manage a range of further crises (DD 167, 168, 183, 237, 238; cf. DP 69 and see Chapter 1.5.2 below), military organization (DD 170, 176; cf. DP 72), domestic matters (DD 193, 194, 195, 196, 200, 226), religious affairs (DD 237, 240, 241), external demands (D186, 202) and perceived acts of aggression (D191). While decrees were still deployed to dispatch emphassies or to make peace (DD 170, 171, 172, 185, 188, 201), and perhaps even to make alliances and prepare for war (DD 184, 192, 199), decree-making appears to have been focused much more upon the dispensation of honours to Athenians (DD 179, 181, 187, 189, 190, 222, 228, 229, 230, 234, 245) and foreigners (DD 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 182, 196, 227, 231, 232, 235, 236, 243, 244). Indeed, as Lambert has recently observed, the fact that there are no epigraphical records of the Athenians making bilateral treaties in the period from the defeat at Chaironeia until the death of Alexander demonstrates Athens’ weaker hand in interstate diplomacy; on the other hand, the Athenians used honorific decrees in the period after Chaironeia as a tool to promote good relations with the Macedonian regime and their allies.110 At the same time, the necessity of encouraging euergetic behaviour among non-­ Athenians, as well as civic-minded office-holding among Athenians, as a means of promoting the interests of the city became more stark; both the literary and the epigraphical pictures suggest that the passing of honorific decrees as a tool of Athenian interests was deployed more extensively.111 Such matters, I sug-

109 For developments of that era in Athenian politics and notions of citizenship in the late fourth century, see Mossé 1989; Hakkarainen 1997; Humphreys 2004: 77–129; Liddel 2007: 98–102; Scholz 2009; Azoulay and Ismard 2011. 110 Lambert 2018: 7, 96–9.For the possibility of a bilateral alliance with the Thebans in 335/4, see D184 (cf. also D171). 111 Engen 2010 makes a case for the significance for the Athenian grain-supply of honorific decrees in the wider the period after the Sicilian expedition to the end of the fourth century. On the relationship between decrees and her changed place in the world, see Lambert 2011a, 2011b and Liddel 2016. Changes in the types of decrees being passed at the assembly are discussed by Lambert 2018 93–111.

social capital of the decree

43

gest, combined with Athenian insecurity about the power and impact of their decrees, go some ways to explaining the profile of the decree in political life in the second half of the fourth century. The symbolic prominence of the decree is suggested by its profile in extant lawcourt speeches in which the citation of decrees played a prominent role in the construction of social and political values; in these speeches, decrees were a subject of focus. In his speech Against Leptines of probably 355/4,112 Demosthenes attacked Leptines’ law of the previous year which had withdrawn from honorands all exemptions from liturgies related to festivals. He challenged the law on the basis of his claim that it was not expedient (ἐπιτήδειος: see Dem. 20.83, 95) and stripped the people of the right to make awards as they saw fit (Dem. 20.2–3, 102–3). In making his argument,113 Demosthenes drew extensively upon knowledge of fifth- and fourth-century Athenian honorific decrees to support an argument about how the Athenian honorific system  – threatened by Leptines’ law – enabled the demos to encourage foreign benefactors to treat the Athenians favourably,114 adding that honorific inscriptions represent a memorial of the character of the city and provide examples for those who want to do good to the city (Dem. 20.64).115 Second, in 331 Lycurgus the orator placed strong emphasis on decrees in his speech supporting the impeachment of the runaway Leokrates. In particular, decrees were held up as offering paradigms of the harsh treatment of traitors and other offenders.116 Furthermore, we can point to epigraphic tendencies of that particular era: the Athenians published decrees on stone in the second half of the fourth century more prolifically than

112 Kremmydas 2012: 33. 113 For an assessment of the logical nature of the rhetoric of this speech, see Kremmydas 2007b. 114 For the decrees cited in this speech, see Dem. 20.35–7 (= D39), 20.55 (= D41), 20.41–8 (decree for Epikerdes of Cyrene; cf. IG I3 125), 20.52–4 (decree for Corinthians), 20.59 (= D40). 20.68–71 (= D23), 20.84 (= DD 46, 47, 62), 20.131–3 (= D103, 104), 20.148 (= D12) and West 1995. See also the discussion of the deployment of decrees in this speech in Chapter 2.4.1 below. 115 This view of the importance of the honorific system to the functioning and prosperity of the Athenian community was not unique: see also Andocides 2.23, Dem. 18.120, Xen. Poroi 3.11 with Liddel 2016: 349–50 and Lambert 2018: 75 116 Decrees in Lycurgus’ speech Against Leokrates: Lycurg. 1.16 (= D167b), 1.36–7 (= D167c), 1.41 (= D167a), 1.53 (= D168) 1.113 (Kritias’ decree against Phrynichos), 1.120–1 (against those who moved to Dekeleia), 1.117–18 (establishment of pillar of traitors), 1.122 (decree against those executed in Salamis, 1.124–7 (= D19) 1.146 (= D240). For the date of the speech, see Harris 2013a: 233 note 54 and Harris 2013a: 233 note 54, citing Lycurg. 1.45 (in the eighth year after Chaironeia, that is, seven years after 338, i.e. 331; cf. 58, 145). Engels (2008: 113) prefers the date of 330. On the notion of the good citizen in this speech, see Scholtz 2009. As Grethlein (2014: 340–4) points out, there is also considerable emphasis on mythological parallels in this speech; cf. Brock 1998.

44

decrees of fourth-century athens

at any other time in their history;117 moreover, as Habicht argued in 1961,118 it was probably in the second half of the fourth century that the Athenians created documentary versions of what they believed to have constituted patriotic documents and decrees from the era of the Persian Wars, in some cases writing them up on stone and so symbolically engraving them into the public memory.119 It is from this point, therefore, that the Athenians demonstrably regard historical decrees as possessing political and rhetorical significance in setting standards of ideal behaviour, particularly in respect to the community’s treatment of those who carry out benefactions on its behalf or those who commit crimes against it (see Chapter 1.5.3 below). Negative characterisation of Athenian decree-activity certainly does not disappear in the fourth century, as Demosthenes’ attack on the inanity of unfulfilled decrees in his symbouleutic oratory demonstrates.120 But such characterisation – expressed as it was in arenas of public debate  – far from undermining the idea that knowledge of them was important for political rhetoric, actually suggests the existence of a lively contest about their significance. Indeed, there was a counter-argument to Demosthenes’ position: that decrees could be made effective by a combination of decision and action (D82 T1; D191). Perceptions of Athens’ changed geopolitical position in the late fourth century may go some way to explaining the heightened profile of the decree in the political contests of the late fourth century.121 Moreover, it might also explain the changes in genres of decree that were prominent, in particular the growing proliferation of inscribed honorific decrees for Athenians in the second half

117 Hedrick 1999: 304; the increased proliferation of epigraphical publication of decrees in the Lycurgan period is noted also by Lambert 2010. 118 Habicht: 1961. 119 Inscribed fifth-century patriotic documents written up possibly in the late fourth century include the Themistocles decree: ML 23 , recited by Aeschines in 348 (Dem. 19.303), the Oath of Plataea (RO 88 lines 21–51) and Arthmios decree: see Meiggs 1972 and discussion in Chapter 5 below. In his speech against Neaira, Apollodoros claims that the decree regarding the Plataeans was set up in the acropolis near the temple of the goddess ([Dem.] 59.104–6): we cannot be certain whether his reference to the inscription was to a genuine fifth-century document or one written up in the following century. Against the authenticity of the document at 59.104, see now Canevaro 2010. 120 Mader 2006; see Chapter 2.5.2 below. For other negative characterisations of the substance of decrees at both the lawcourts and assembly, see Chapter 1.3 above and Liddel 2016: 348–52. 121 This impression of the raised profile of the decree may also be a result of speech-survival and the fact that dating from the 350s and later there are several graphe paranomon speeches which make extensive use of decrees, and in particular honorific decrees, in their line of argument. See also, for the influence of factors relating to survival of speeches on modern impressions of fourth-century history, Lane Fox 1994: 141.

social capital of the decree

45

of the fourth century.122 It is likely that the crisis in funding at the end of the Social War in 355 provoked debates about the relationship between decrees and the raising of finances: such are the arguments which arise in Demosthenes’ speeches 20 (Against Leptines) and 23 (Against Aristokrates) of 352 (on the date, see Volume 1, D94 Date), both of which make prolific use of honorific decrees in their argumentation (see Chapter 2.1 below). But the fact that there is one earlier speech  – Andocides’ On the Mysteries of late 400123  – which makes extensive use of decrees in its argumentation shows that their deployment was not restricted to the late fourth century.124 What we can perhaps conclude is that the detailed engagement with decrees  – and specifically with honorific decrees – was a phenomenon that became more common after the Social War, but was not restricted to that period: decrees were a feature of political life throughout the fourth century. Having made a case for the importance of decrees in realities and perceptions of fourth-century Athenian political and geopolitical activity I shall turn, in the next stage of this chapter, to the orators’ deployment of them, exploring the ways in which knowledge about decrees, and the deeds of proposing and attacking them, were key means of developing an image of Athenian shared values (Chapter 1.5 above) and for accruing individual political capital in the Athenian assembly and lawcourts (Chapter 2 below). It is worth underlining at this point – at the risk of anticipating the conclusions of Chapter 3  – that there is little to suggest that the publication of decrees on stone would have automatically led to widespread detailed knowledge of them; while the comprehensive storage of decrees at the Metroon evidently provided a resource upon which those seeking particular documents would have been able to draw,125 familiarity with the language of decrees was something that was learned primarily 122 On the point of inscribing honorific decrees in the second half of the fourth century, see Lambert 2018: 71–91; on the proliferation of various types of decree in the fourth century see above, Table 1 and Chapter 3.3 below. 123 For the dating of the speech to the second half of 400, see Makkink 1932: 32–5 and MacDowell 1962: 204–5. 124 Decrees in Andocides On the Mysteries: 1.8 and 71 (decree of Isotimides), 1.27–8 (decrees of Kleonymos and Peisandros), 1.81, 90 (= D1), 1.81 (= D2), 1.76-80 (decree of Patrokleides), 1.82, 85 (= D7), 1.88–9, 93 (= D8), 1.95– 6 (= D19). For discussion of the inauthenticity of the documentary versions of the decrees which appear in some manuscripts of the text, see Canevaro and Harris 2012, Harris 2013–14; Canevaro and Harris 2016; cf. Sommerstein 2014b; Hansen 2015; 2016; Carawan 2017. As Sickinger 2002: 162 –7 demonstrates, the citation of decrees took place in political debates also of the fifth century too; he points to Euryptolemos’ speech in the Arginusae debate (Xen. Hell. 1.7.16–33) and Pericles’ references to the Thirty Years’ Peace and the Megarian decree (Thuc. 1.140.2; 1.141.2–3). 125 Archive at the Metroon: Aeschin 3.187, Din 1.86. Generally, see Sickinger 1991, 1999b and Chapter 3 below; on the storage of laws, see Sickinger 2004.

46

decrees of fourth-century athens

through socialisation and political participation.126 My working hypothesis (to which we shall return in Chapter 3.2.3 below) is that orators aspired to exploit, augment and manipulate their audiences’ awareness (however sketchy it was) of past decrees when deploying them in argumentation.

1.5  Decrees and the Representation of Harmony and Crisis Management 1.5.1  Athens After the Thirty: Decrees and Memories of Reconciliation Athenian orators at times sought to emphasise any single decree’s association with its proposer: this is a theme to be explored in depth over the course of Chapter 2 below); alternatively, decrees could be read as expressions of the will of the community of citizens as a whole. At this point I begin consideration of how orators undertook to do this in two particular ways: first (1.5.1) I look at the decrees drawn upon in narratives about the establishment of harmonious arrangements associated with the restoration of democracy during the archonship of Eukleides of 403/2;127 second (1.5.2) I look at the deployment of decrees to represent accounts of shared sentiments in the face of crisis, particularly in the aftermath of the Athenian defeat at Chaironeia in 338. Finally (1.5.3) I assess the implications of the orators’ citation of historical decrees for the view of decrees as transactions with long-lasting significance. Shear’s 2011 Polis and Revolution marks an important step forward in the understanding of ways in which the Athenians reconstituted democracy after its restoration in 403/2 C. The re-institution of popular government, she argues, was based on legislative reforms and a form of epigraphical publication and monumentalisation which aimed to envelop its audience in a feeling of democratic restoration.128 Such a process can be identified also in the significant 126 For assumed familiarity with particular documents, see Richardson 2015. 127 For an early view of the reconciliation as an example of forgiveness and unity, see Dorjahn 1946. The definitive study of the politics of the reconciliation is now Shear 2011: 188–322; for details of the decrees concerning the reinvention of the Athenian political system, see DD 1–8. For a view of the success of the Athenian reconciliation and its classical and Hellenistic legacy, see Joyce 2016. For the wider themes of homonoia in accounts of classical Athenian history, see Christ 2012: 50–67. On the idea more broadly, see Funke 1980: 13–26; Christ 2012: 50–67; Gray 2015: 39–41; 2018: 144–5. 128 Shear 2011: 296 note 30; on the inscriptions which emphasised the return to democracy, see Shear 2011: 162: ‘inscriptions all reminded the readers of what it meant to be Athenian and what being democratic entailed … the memory created, consequently, will function as a “national” memory to unify them.’ For another approach to memory (and forgetting) in the post-oligarchic reconciliation, see Loraux 2002 and Wolpert 2002 (concentrating on the relevant speeches of Lysias).

social capital of the decree

47

amount of decree-making activity undertaken in the aftermath of the revival of democracy (see DD 1–19); moreover, in the years after the restoration of 403/2, a number of honorific decrees of the era before 404 were re-inscribed on stone.129 In investing in the creation of such inscriptions,130 the Athenians were showing that they were ready to re-affirm privileges that had been abolished in the time of the Thirty:131 restoration of the fifth-century honorific record was an important aspect of the restoration of democracy. Moreover, our literary sources suggest that this year was one of the busiest in terms of not only the initiation of the revision-process of Athenian laws but also the enactments of decrees by the Athenian assembly: some 19 of the 245 decrees firmly attested in the literary record can reasonably be placed in that year or thereabouts,132 and as many as eight inscribed decrees can reasonably associated with the year 403/2.133 However, close examination of the literary records (for which, see Inventory D1–19) shows that few of these decrees are unproblematic in terms of their dating and content: there is a lack of clarity in these testimonia in terms of the content, status and date.134 The reason for this lack of clarity is that accounts of these decrees of the period were put to use in strongly rhetorically charged contexts, some of which, as we will see, have an interest in creating a rose-tinted account of the decrees of those years.135 Andocides, in On the Mysteries, made reference to a number of the decrees of that year relating to the reorganisation of Athenian legislation (DD 1, 2, 7, 8, 19). He did so in support of a claim – central to a wider argument protesting his innocence – that, given the revision of laws introduced by the decree of Teisamenos of 403/2 (And. 1.82-4), the earlier decree of Isotimides which excluded him from the agora and the temples of Attica was invalid (1.8) and did

129 IG II2 1; 6 lines 11–15; 9; 52 lines 4–8; 66; Agora XVI 37 lines 7–15, 39. For an outline of these reinscribed decrees, see Lambert 2018: 145–6. 130 It is worth noting, however, that on at least one occasion the funding of the inscription was to be funded by the honorand: IG II2 6 lines 14–16. 131 In addition to destroying inscribed honorific decrees, the Thirty were associated with the destruction of inscribed records of enemies of the democracy (cf. the story of Leodamas: Arist. Rhet., 2.23.25 = 1400a32–6). 132 See Volume 1, Inventory A Checklist. 133 IG II2 1–7; SEG XXVIII 45 (cf. D15) and, more controversially SEG XXVIII 46 (cf. D17). 134 For the difficulties in reconstructing the reconciliation agreement, see Loening 1987. 135 For modern discussions of the reconciliation, see Quillin 2002, Wolpert 2002, Lanni 2016: 179–99 (at 198, emphasising its ‘expressive and persuasive effect’); on the amnesty legislation, see Carawan 2013: 171–202 (taking the view that the pledge ‘not to remember ills’ applied to specific reconciliatory agreements; Joyce 2016, on the other hand, makes a case for the traditional view that the pledge was a wide-ranging promise not to seek retribution of any kind); for another broad interpretation see Gray 2015: 87.

48

decrees of fourth-century athens

not affect him (1.71). At the same time he emphasises the sense of popular unity expressed through these decrees: After your return to Athens from Piraeus, though it was possible for you to take revenge (γενόμενον ἐφ’ ὑμῖν τιμωρεῖσθαι), you decided to let bygones be bygones (ἔγνωτε ἐᾶν τὰ γεγενημένα). You prioritised the preservation of Athens over personal vengeance, and it was resolved not to revive accusations against one another for what had happened. On resolving this you appointed twenty men (εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι) … You organised a meeting of the assembly, discussed the matters, and voted that the laws were to be examined (ἐψηφίσασθε δοκιμάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόμους), then those which were scrutinised would be written up at the Stoa. (And. 1.81–2 (cf. D1 T2 and D2 T1), trans. MacDowell 1998, adapted)

In this passage, the emphasis upon the second person plural, that is, the Athenian male citizens (cf. D23 T2; D41 T1; D46 T2), as agents behind the decree, is striking: Andocides stresses the role of his audience, in initiating the reconciliation and reconstitution of the laws. This is a reasonable claim to make: a significant proportion of his audience would have been aware of the constitutional changes undertaken by the Athenians just three years previously. Elsewhere in his speech he emphasised homonoia and amnesty (And. 1.108–9). Of course Andocides, speaking in his own defence, had a reason for portraying the harmoniousness of these changes: what he wanted to do was to stress the success of the reconciliation, which was such that the pre-Euclidian decree of Isotimides, with which he was threatened, was no longer valid. But the perspective appears to have been echoed in other oratory: a number of other speeches, which reach out to a wider historical perspective, underline the paradigmatic nature of the legislation in the aftermath of the Thirty. Recollections of the democratic reconciliation were founded upon knowledge of decrees in the work also of other orators. Isocrates  – a speaker with serious reservations about the democratic process – was hardly a natural advocate of the power of the decree: in his Areopagitikos, dated usually to the period after the Social War, he argued that morals – not decrees – underlay the smooth running of a community: Those who are rightly governed, on the other hand, do not need to fill their porticoes with letters (οὐ τὰς στοὰς ἐμπιπλάναι γραμμάτων), but only to cherish justice in their souls; for it is not by decrees, but by morals, that states are well directed (οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ψηφίσμασιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἤθεσι καλῶς οἰκεῖσθαι τὰς πόλεις), since men who are badly reared will venture to transgress even laws which are drawn up with minute exactness (τοὺς ἀκριβῶς τῶν νόμων ἀναγεγραμμένους τολμήσειν παραβαίνειν), whereas those who are well

social capital of the decree

49

brought up will be willing to respect even simple norms (καὶ τοῖς ἁπλῶς κειμένοις ἐθελήσειν ἐμμένειν). (Isocrates 7 Areopagitikos 41 tr. Norlin adapted)

However, later in that same piece (7.68–9) he recalled the decision of the Athenian people to repay debts incurred by the Thirty (D13 T1) as a ‘beautiful and great testimony of the fairness of the people’ (κάλλιστον καὶ μέγιστον τεκμήριον τῆς ἐπιεικείας τοῦ δήμου), and as a vital stage in the establishment of homonoia at Athens.136 Isocrates appears to make reference in such a positive way to this decree137 in order to rebut the criticism levelled against him for his anti-democratic views (7.70).138 His view of this particular decree was re-asserted, in the context of the lawcourts, also by Demosthenes in the Against Leptines (20.11–12 = D13 T2), who also wanted to make a point about it illustrating the trustworthy ethos of the Athenians which contradicts the legislation of Leptines he is attacking. For Demosthenes, this decision forms part of a much wider view on the credibility of Athenian decrees and the argument that Leptines’ law, by cancelling awards of exemption (ateleia), will do much to damage this reputation. What these deployments of decrees have in common, however, is that they place emphasis on the unity of the Athenians and the view that the legislation of that year was worthwhile. The positive view of the decrees of 403/2 surfaces again in the 330s: Aeschines, in his attack on Ktesiphon’s honours for Demosthenes (D179), cited the reward for the democrats of Phyle (D15) to exemplify honours bestowed in an appropriate manner upon a deserving people. In this case, Aeschines drew upon the contrast between the ‘good’ decree rewarding the democrats and the ‘shameful’ decree of Ktesiphon for Demosthenes, saying, ‘if this resolution is good (εἰ τοῦτ’ ἔχει καλῶς), the other was bad (ἐκεῖνο αἰσχρῶς). If they were worthily (κατ’ ἀξίαν) honoured, this man is unworthy (ἀνάξιος) of the crown that is proposed’ (Aeschin. 3.188).139 The threat was that Demosthenes’ decree would bring shame on the Athenian people, an argument we encounter in other critiques of decrees.140 But here the mode of citation is slightly different, with the speaker emphasising also the role of the proposer (ὁ τὸ ψήφισμα νικήσας) Archinos (3.187 = D15 T1), in order to juxtapose his diligence with the illegality of Ktesiphon’s proposals. Clearly in this case the role of the proposer bears particular significance for the rhetorical deployment of the decree, and suggests

136 Areopagitikos 69: ‘καὶ γάρ τοι διὰ ταύτην τὴν γνώμην εἰς τοιαύτην ἡμᾶς ὁμόνοιαν κατέστησαν.’ 137 For Isocrates’ presentation of the decision as a decision of the assembly, see D13 Commentary. 138 This is the suggestion of Usher 1999: 305. 139 On the rhetoric of shame associated with decrees, see also Chapter 2.4.1 below. 140 Dem. 23.142 = D59 T1; Dem. 23.172 = D81 T1.

50

decrees of fourth-century athens

that his involvement in the reconciliation after the fall of the Thirty contributed to the emergence of a positive reputation.141 But the reward was described still as one ‘which you [i.e. the demos] gave’ (ἣν ἔδοτε δωρεάν) to the honorands (3.187): the role of the individual as proposer of a noble decree is combined with that of the demos as gracious donor of the reward. A further paradigm which is drawn out of the decrees of this era in the lawcourts arises in Lycurgus’ citation of the decree of Demophantos against political usurpers (which he places in the era after the Thirty: see Lycurg. 1.124–6 = D19 T3) as an example of paradigmatic harshness: he urged the Athenians to replicate these standards by condemning the runaway Leokrates (127), telling the Athenians that they had sworn in this decree to kill such a traitor.142 In this and the other rhetorical contexts, orators attempted to direct the opinions of their audience by using decrees to portray a picture of paradigmatic harmony and unity and steadfastness against common threats.143 The accounts amount almost to a (re-)foundation story of democracy according to which Athenian harmony was recreated through the votes of the assembly. Perhaps the strength of the decrees lie in their enduring relevance: even if they were enacted at some point 70 years before the orator was speaking, they could still be presented as contemporary and authoritative. This was done easily with decrees because, as enactments of the people, they could be presented as their own decision which bore lasting consequences. This optimistic perspective was not restricted to oratory: as I note in Volume 1 (D1 Literary Context), the most detailed account of the terms of the reconciliation is that which appears in the Ath. Pol.’s account of the events of 404/3–403/2 (D1 T1), and the author does so to support his claim that the Athenians behaved with moderation and fairness towards even those who had been responsible for previous disasters (Ath. Pol. 40.2–3).144 Such a classical perspective gave rise to a wider praise of the decree for the amnesty: it was held up by Plutarch, in his Precepts of Statecraft, as an example of the type of act through which statesmen could improve the characters of their contemporaries (Plu. Mor. 814a–b).145 But 141 For his political acts, see Hansen 1983: 38. 142 ‘διομωμόκατε δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι τῷ Δημοφάντου κτενεῖν τὸν τὴν πατρίδα προδιδόντα καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ καὶ χειρὶ καὶ ψήφῳ’. For discussion of the date and content of this decree, see D19. 143 See Dem. 19.276–9 (= D27 T2) for citation of a decree putting ambassadors to death as an example of the way in which Demosthenes wanted the Athenians to treat those responsible for the Peace of Philokrates. The treatment of Arthmios and Kallias who negotiated peace with the Persians is cited in support of the same argument (Dem. 19.268–72) as is the decree against those who betrayed the Olynthians (Dem. 19.267 = D119 T1). 144 Elsewhere, the reconciliation was held up as an achievement which demonstrated Athenian wisdom: Aeschin. 2.176–7. 145 On the rhetoric of the success of the Athenian reconciliation, see Gray 2015: 87–90, 177.

social capital of the decree

51

it was an idealising view of the past: we should remember that it is clear, as Shear highlights, that in 403/2 there was not a complete consensus on the mode of reconciliation. We know about a number of proposals of that year the rectitude of which was challenged,146 and the accounts that we have of these disputes contradict the impressions of concord that are expressed in Andocides’ and others’ accounts of the decrees of that year.147 So far, we have seen that the history of decrees was deployed by orators to contribute towards a vision of unity after a period of adversity: in this way, knowledge of decrees was used to generate a feeling of social capital which emphasised the contribution of the people to the creation of a post-crisis reconciliation.148 The names of proposers, we should note, usually do not loom large when decrees are cited to this end. When we look at the representation of decrees of the second half of the fourth century, we encounter also their deployment in the creation of narratives about a rather different political atmosphere, but nevertheless one that was, according to one view, addressed by the people’s decrees.

1.5.2  Decrees and Social Cohesion in the Face of Crisis Fourth-century Athenians were painfully aware of the difficulties that they faced in negotiating their place in the world at the time of the emergence of Philip of Macedon’s power over Greece (cf. Chapter 1.4 above); this feeling was particularly acute in the aftermath of the Peace of Philokrates in 346, after which they had effectively abandoned their Phokian former allies to their enemy. Portrayals of crisis were an important feature of narratives about the year during which the Peace was agreed: Aeschines, in his speech On the False Embassy (Aeschin. 2.73), cited the emergency decree of Kephisophon recalling an Athenian general on campaign (D129) as a way of evoking the crisis under which the Athenians made the peace of Philokrates; he claimed that: things were so precarious and dangerous (σφαλερὰ καὶ ἐπικίνδυνα τὰ πράγματα) that Kephisophon of Paiania, one of the friends and accomplices of Chares, was forced to propose a decree (ἠναγκάσθη γράψαι ψήφισμα) that Antiochos, the commander of the dispatch-boats, should set sail quickly and should seek out the general commanding our forces.

146 For disagreements about the mode of reconciliation in 403/2, see Shear 2011: 260, 312; for graphe paranomon against decrees of that year, see D5 (Thrasyboulos’ proposal = Hansen 1974 no. 4), D17 (Theozotides’ proposal = Hansen 1974 no. 5). For the rejected proposal of Phormisios, see D4. 147 For other accounts of the decrees of 403/2, see DD 1–13. 148 On wider claims about homonoia in Athenian self-perceptions, see Christ 2012: 50–67.

52

decrees of fourth-century athens

The decree was recited to demonstrate the circumstances during which the debate on the peace of 346 was undertaken: accordingly, Aeschines attempted to deflect responsibility for making the peace away from himself and the other envoys sent to Philip. Knowledge of decrees, therefore, was deployed in the rhetorical construction of crisis and necessity. On one hand this was a reflection of the fact that crisis and perception of crisis was an important driver of policy in the fourth-century assembly. Yet, as we shall see, it is an indication of the interest that individual orators had in evoking memories of crisis and the role of the decree as a community-sanctioned means of dealing with emergencies. Some 10 decrees in the literary record are associated with the year of the archonship of Chairondas (338/7), in other words the ten-month period after the Athenian disaster at Chaironeia in August 338 (see DD 167–76). This survival rate points to the possibility that more decrees were passed during years of crisis in an attempt to meet perceived external threats; but it is just as likely that decrees undertaken in reaction to crisis were more likely than those of other times to become lodged into public memory because they were instrumental in the description of a critical point in history. In his prosecution of the runaway Leokrates of 331, Lycurgus drew widely upon examples from mythology,149 and history both ancient and contemporary. In particular, he made use of decrees of that year to heighten this feeling of crisis, citing at 1.16 the decree evacuating the countryside (= D167b) and at 1.36 a decree that the council should go down to the Piraeus armed (= D167c); he emphasised that the latter was passed as a consequence of the risks (κίνδυνοι) that the city faced up to at the time. He cited also Hypereides’ decree (later overturned – though Lycurgus did not acknowledge as much  – as illegal) which enfranchised those without citizen rights (1.41–2 = D167a), and held it up in contrast to the Athenian claim to be ‘autochthonous and free’. At 1.53 he accounted for the decree declaring that anyone leaving the city would be a traitor (= D168), saying that it was inspired by the people’s sense of horror (ὁ δῆμος δεινὸν ἡγησάμενος) at what was happening. In one of the more allusive and roundabout arguments he puts forward, towards the end of the speech against Leokrates, Lycurgus had a decree on piety read out, and he claimed that Leokrates’ behaviour threatened to destroy the principles which it entailed (Lycurg. 1.146 = D240).150

149 Brock 1998; Grethlein 2014.On the date of Lycurgus’ speech, see note 116 above. 150 There is evidence – in the form of references made by later writers to his speeches – to show that Lycurgus drew upon his knowledge of decrees also in other, non-extant, speeches: see fr. 58 Conomis (fifth-century crown of foliage for Pericles); fr. 31 Conomis (decree on priestess’ seal) = D241; fr. 19 Conomis (crown for Kallisthenes) = D244; fr. 20 Conomis (statue for Epikrates) = D189.

social capital of the decree

53

Lycurgus’ presentation of these decrees on one level reflects one aspect of the reality of crisis after Chaironeia. The fact that Hypereides’ decree about enfranchising those who lacked citizen rights (D167a) was indicted as illegal shows that there were disputes about the right way to meet the challenges the Athenians faced. Yet even if decrees did not solve the problems that the Athenians faced, according to Lycurgus, they showed how the people shared in the crisis. Lycurgus’ portrayal of the situation and emphasis on the dangers faced by the Athenians was of course rhetorically important for his argument against the defendant Leokrates who, he claimed, ignored the depth of crisis that faced Athens and therefore deserved to be punished as a traitor. Lycurgus wanted also to make the point that the Athenians – through decisions of the demos – were able to live up to the challenges of such crises: he did this in order to convince the people that the condemnation of Leokrates would be in tune with their past record of dealing with crisis. The same view is communicated also by Lycurgus’ elaboration of decrees against traitors in earlier times of crisis,151 describing, for instance, the decree against a traitor at Salamis in 480 as ‘an admirable decree, worthy of your ancestors’, which revealed the nobility (εὐγένεια) of the Athenians.152 It is, however, striking that he offers up this historic decree as symbolising Athenian virtue, whereas contemporary decrees are reflections of Athens’ precarious position.

1.5.3  Decrees as Historical Paradigms of Athenian Values Lycurgus was not alone among the politicians of the fourth century in drawing upon historical decrees in the illustration of the virtues of the Athenian people and their tendencies to face up to crisis: Demosthenes, Aeschines and Dinarchus too drew upon decrees of the Persian War, like that against the traitor Arthmios, in the construction of their arguments; their references to an inscribed version of it strongly suggest that the Athenians at some point in this 151 Lycurgus made use also of past decrees of the Athenians, including Kritias’ decree condemning Phrynichos as a traitor and a subsequent decree against his supporters (112–15), the decree ordering the destruction of the bronze statue of Hipparchos son of Charmos (117–18), the decree condemning Athenians who withdrew to the Lakedaimonians at Dekeleia during the Peloponnesian War, and the decree against a traitor at Salamis in 480 (122). For discussion of the reliability of Lycurgus’ accounts, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 444–5. Lambert has made a case for a related phenomenon, the tendency of epigraphical decrees to connect with the past: see Lambert 2018: 115–53. 152 Lycurgus may be alluding to a story about the stoning of Lykidas who had proposed that the Athenians accept terms with the Persians after Salamis (Hdt. 9.5), a version of which episode may be alluded to by Demosthenes (18.204). For Herodotus’ version of the episode, see Chapter 5 below.

54

decrees of fourth-century athens

era even fabricated a version of it on the acropolis. 153 In particular, Demosthenes in his speech defending his conduct as an ambassador to Philip, maintained that the treatment of Arthmios represented paradigmatic Athenian harshness towards traitors: You hear, men of Athens, the record which declares (τῶν γραμμάτων λεγόντων) Arthmios son of Pythonax, of Zelea, to be enemy and foeman of the Athenians and their allies, him and all his kindred. His offence was conveying gold from barbarians to Greeks. Hence, apparently, we may conclude that your ancestors were anxious to prevent any man, even an alien, taking rewards to do injury to Greece; but you take no thought to discountenance wrongs done by your own citizens to your own city. Does anyone say that these words (τὰ γράμματα) have been set up just anywhere? No; although the whole of our citadel is a holy place, and although its area is so large, the inscription stands at the right hand beside the great brazen Athene which was dedicated by the state as a memorial of victory in the Persian war, at the expense of the Greeks. In those days, therefore, justice was so venerable, and the punishment of these crimes so meritorious, that the retribution of such offenders was honoured with the same position as Pallas Athene’s own prize of victory. Today we have instead mockery, impunity, dishonour, unless you restrain the licence of these men. (Dem. 19.271–2 trans. Vince and Vince adapted)

The citation of the example of Arthmios deserves note: the deployment of historic decrees was a practice which enabled orators in both the assembly and lawcourts to enhance the well-established tendency to look towards historical examples for examples of paradigmatic behaviour with the institutional authority of the decree.154 Past decrees could be presented as timeless, and applicable outside their immediate contexts; they developed a rhetorical fiction by which, as Wolpert suggests, the rule of the people was presented as transcending time and place:155 this is why Apollodoros was able to cite a fifth-century decree for the Plataeans to make a point about the value of Athenian citizenship ([Dem.]

153 Dem. 9.41–3, 19.271–2; Din. 2.24–5; Aesch. 3.258; of these only Dinarchus makes it clear that it was an enactment voted by the people. For a full account of the testimonia for the Arthmios decree, see Meiggs 1972: 508–12 and Habicht 1961: 18–19; on the deployment of it in making claims about the relevance of past decrees, see Low forthcoming. For the other Persian war era decrees cited by Attic orators, see Chapter 5.5.1 below with note 113. 154 The tendency to cite Persian war era decisions in the lawcourts stretches back at least as far as the start of the fourth century: see Andocides 1.107 citing the decision of the Athenians to restore exiles and re-instate disenfranchised citizens before Marathon. On the uses of the past in fourth-century oratory, see Nouhaud 1982, Rhodes 2011; Hesk 2012, Grethlein 2014; Westwood 2017. On the uses of the past in fourth-century Athenian decrees, see Lambert 2018: 115–70. 155 See Wolpert 2003.

social capital of the decree

55

59.104 cf. D49 T2); this is why also the Athenians appear to have re-inscribed decrees from the Persian wars in the second half of the fourth century as examples of virtuous conduct in the face of external threats.156 Moving slightly closer to a decree of a contemporary period, Dinarchus (1.39–40 = D44 T1), in his discussion of those politicians who behaved in a way equivalent to the reputation of the Athenians (contrasted to the behaviour of Demosthenes on receipt of Harpalos’ money), says that Kephalos’ decree of winter 379/8, proposing that the Athenians should march out to help the exiles who had fled Thebes, lived up to the ancestral reputation of the Athenians;157 Dinarchus in this way praised the proposer, but his emphasis on the fact that the Athenians had fulfilled the decree bolstered the point that they had on this occasion lived up to the reputation of their ancestors. Such a simultaneous praise of proposer and past Athenian habits is reminiscent of Aeschines’ discussion of Archinos’ decree rewarding the democrats of 404/3 (see Chapter 1.5.1 above). Finally, we should also point out that particularly in the late fourth century there is a tendency in argumentation to intermingle contemporary with past decrees. Demosthenes, for instance, cited old cases alongside decrees passed within the lifetime of his audience as examples of penalties imposed by the Athenians (Dem. 19.276 = D27 T2). Moreover, Hypereides, in his prosecution of Athenogenes, offers another example of a decree illustrating the good nature of the Athenian demos when he points to its reward of citizenship to Troizenians as illustrating the people’s readiness to remember another community’s good deed during the Persian Wars (D175).158 His argument was that the behaviour of his opponent, Athenogenes, contradicted not only the substance but also the spirit of Athenian decrees. But in the case of Hypereides’ citation it is actually impossible to tell whether or not a decree being cited is historical or contemporary, and it is not altogether clear that the audience would have been any more enlightened. The myth of continuity – the impression that the Athenians made decrees back in the fifth century in the same way, and to the same effect, as they did at the time of speaking – underscored the rhetoric in

156 Habicht 1961; see Chapter 1.5.3 above and Chapter 5.4.1 below. 157 The view that an Athenian decree was an indication of Athenian good character is suggested also by Demosthenes’ claim that accepting Corinthian exiles was a deed of kaloi kagathoi men: see Dem. 20.54 (= D41) and discussion in Kremmydas 2012: 189–90 (on philoxenia) and Canevaro 2016a: 287. For the view that Kephalos’ decree in assistance of Theban exiles in 379/8 was in tune with Athenian character, see Din. 1.39 (= D44). 158 Demosthenes in the Against Leptines points to honorific decrees – of both the fifth and fourth centuries – as an indication of Athenian readiness to return favours: see Dem. 20.64. For a list of the decrees he cites, see note 114 above.

56

decrees of fourth-century athens

such contexts.159 In effect, this oratorical emphasis on the timeless relevance of some decrees160 contradicts the widely held view that decrees were enactments which had only a restricted duration of relevance (cf. Chapter 1.2.2 above). At the same time, we must remember the malleability of this aspect of the decree, given that some advocates emphasise their contemporaneity: Aeschines 1.81 (D138 T1), for instance, used decrees to focus his audience’s attention on the present in his discussion of Timarchos’ career, urging them to focus on what happened at a particular assembly meeting.161 While, of necessity, Attic orators and politicians built arguments upon decrees that had been enacted in the past, the fact that they could be portrayed as enactments of ‘you, the people’ meant that they possessed an enduring value. Accordingly, as tools of argument, they could be used to build a bridge between past and present, and to hold the people, or individual proposers, responsible for those past decisions that have given rise to a current scenario or dilemma; this, perhaps, has broader implications: recent studies have placed emphasis on the role of the past in the creation of social memory; what I suggest is that the past and present decrees were co-opted in the construction of the past and ideas about morality, blame, identity and Athenian self-interest, a combination which has been underplayed in contemporary studies on the construction of social memory.162

1.6 Conclusion Over the course of this chapter I have explored the nature and limits of the authority of the Athenian decree (Chapter 1.1–1.2 above) and the relationship between perceptions of the decree and democratic norms (Chapter 1.3 above). I explained the profile of the decree in the context of literary accounts of Athens’ fluctuating geopolitical situation in the fourth century (Chapter 1.4 above).

159 On the importance of myth-making in the success of particular institutions, see Meyer and Rowan 1991. 160 This is an aspect discussed also in Chapter 2.4.1 below. 161 Aeschin. 1.81 = D138 T1: ‘I omit mention of many of those things which happened long ago, but I want to remind you of what happened at that assembly, when I proclaimed this prosecution of Timarchos. When the Areopagus council appeared before the assembly in relation to the decree which this Timarchos made about the dwelling-houses on the Pnyx (‘κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα, ὃ οὗτος εἰρήκει περὶ τῶν οἰκήσεων τῶν ἐν τῇ Πυκνί’), it was Autolykos, a member of the Areiopagos, who made the speech, a man who, by Zeus and Apollo, lived his life with honour, with piety and was worthy of that institution.’ 162 On the ‘past-connectedness’ of Lycurgan-era epigraphical publishing habits, see Lambert 2018: 115–53. Lambert 2012b emphasises the way in which the democratic system was generally regarded as the creation of the era before the fifth century.

social capital of the decree

57

Towards the end of this chapter (Chapter 1.5 above) I underlined the role that decrees played in oratorical portrayals of the group psychology of the demos of Athens – past and present – and its reaction to particular developments; these images were evoked, ultimately, as part of the wider construction of arguments. Nevertheless, they emphasise the collective role of the demos in using decrees: this is perhaps why Lycurgus omits to mention that the decree on enfranchisement (Lycurg. 1.41 = D167a) was overturned by graphe paranomon. Speakers, then, held up decrees to represent a mainstay of social cohesion in the face of crisis which offered telling juxtaposition with the behaviour of an opponent. It is striking that speakers drew upon both contemporary and historical decrees (see esp. Chapter 1.5.3 above) to present universal norms: in this sense they went way beyond the rather limited view represented in the sources (see Chapter 1.2.2 above) that they were restricted to the implementation of short-term and specific measures. There is, of course, no straightforward answer to the question of whether decrees really did underpin social cohesion: probably it was the case that some of them appeared, to the Athenian demos at particular moments in time, to do so (that is how they came to be passed at the assembly: Canevaro 2018), whereas others were divisive163 or, like the decree of Theozotides (D17), perceptibly prioritised the interests of particular groups.164 What is, however, revealing about the extent of orators’ deployment of decrees is that they presumed that their audiences would respond to arguments which drew upon them; this, then, is strongly indicative of the high profile of the decree among the Athenian people in the fourth century. When the Athenian assembly enacted a decree, it represented a collective decision; but of course, as we have noted (Chapter 1.1 above), such decisions had their origins in proposals of individuals. Accordingly, decrees were dynamic in the sense that they had the potential to be represented either as a collective contribution of the demos or as a contribution of an individual proposers. As we will see (in Chapter 2 below), the fact that decrees were proposed by particular individuals meant that credit (or symbolic capital) for them could be accrued – or liability attached to – those individuals. Before we turn to that line of investigation, it is appropriate to introduce some ancient debates about the liability for 163 The evidence for decrees that were challenged in the lawcourts can be found in Hansen 1974, a collection of material pertaining to the graphe paranomon in classical Athens; these challenges were undertaken no more than a year after their original proposal at the assembly: Giannadaki 2014. 164 For the view that the pursuit of social capital can reproduce inegalitarian structures and practices, see Bourdieu 1986. Yet it can also be a force which introduces measures which place heavier financial burdens on the rich: see, for instance, Demosthenes’ proposed law on trierarchic support at Dem. 18.102 (cf. D160).

58

decrees of fourth-century athens

decrees. This debate was first noted perhaps by Thucydides in the fifth century, in his account of points at which the people expressed anger at the politicians whose proposals they had approved at the assembly (Thuc. 2.61.2, 64.1; cf. 8.1.1): Pericles’ response to this was to say that the problem lay not with his policy but the people’s implementation of it (Thuc. 2.61.2). Later on in Thucydides’ work, Diodotos, in his challenge to the Athenian decree against the Mytileneans of 427, complained that the Athenians would be more careful what they voted for if both proposer and voters were subject to the same penalties (Thuc. 3.43.4–5).165 A similar dynamic is visible in the sources for fourth-century political rhetoric: the dual potential of the decree was skilfully put to use by Demosthenes in the courts of 343. Speaking against Aeschines and Philokrates for their role in shaping the terms of the Peace of Philokrates, Demosthenes casts his audience’s mind back to two earlier decrees, those of Diophantos (D105) and Kallisthenes (D146) as a way of juxtaposing the Athenians’ reaction to victory and defeat, respectively: Take and read the decree of Diophantos and that of Kallisthenes, so that you might know that, when you did your duty, you were thought worthy of acts of sacrifice and of praise, both at Athens and among other peoples; but that when you were led astray by these men, you brought in your children and women from the countryside and you voted to make the sacrifices to Herakles within the city walls, even while there was peace. (Dem. 19.86)

In this passage Demosthenes wants to hold up a virtuous decree (that of Diophantos, celebrating victory) with a hopeless one (that of Kallisthenes, evacuating the countryside): in order to do so, he associates the first decree with dutiful action and sacrifice by the people, but the latter with the Athenians being misled by its politicians. Accordingly, Demosthenes asserts both the social capital of shared decision-making and also the fact that it was sometimes undermined by the will of feckless politicians. At this point I will move on to explore the deployments of decrees by individual politicians, in the advocacy of their personal political interests, and in the construction of their own political identity. 165 For more discussion in Thucydides about liability for decrees, see Chapter 5.2.1 below. The question of responsibility is discussed also in Finley 1962: 3–4.

2 Appropriation and Aspiration: Decrees in the Pursuit of Political Self-Interest

2.1 Introduction We have shown already (Chapter 1.1–1.3 above) that, despite their institutionalised subordination to law in fourth-century Athens, decrees as a political transaction offered a great deal of persuasive capital on the grounds of their close association with proper democratic procedure. Decrees were deployed to portray the Athenian community’s management of reconciliation and its reaction to crisis as a way of grounding arguments about shared values with which the audience would sympathise (Chapter 1.5 above). But such portrayals were deployed primarily in support of the cases of litigants, and they must be understood in that context. Accordingly, at this point I turn to assess the role of the decree in the pursuit of individual political self-interest. Modern studies of ancient democracy have not thoroughly explicated the relevance of decrees to an assessment of political activity in ancient Athens: over the course of the late twentieth century, a number of scholars have set out models for assessing the activity of Athenian politicians and their interaction with the assembly in the democratic era, but most – with the exception of M.H. Hansen and more recently S.D. Lambert  – have done so without close consideration of the significance of the proposal of decrees or the deployment of knowledge of about them.1 In this chapter, I attempt to redress this imbalance: I shall argue that politicians in the Athenian lawcourts, drawing upon the institutionally-normative basis of decrees (established in Chapter 1.2 and 1.3 above), deployed them extensively in the construction of arguments about themselves and about their opponents; in so doing they contributed to the proliferation of 1 Works exploring the relative significance of political leadership and popular contribution include the following: Finley 1962; Connor 1971; Mossé 1989; Rhodes 1986, 2000; Pope 1988; Taylor 2007a, 2007b; Ober 1989; 2008: 124–30, 180; Yunis 1996. For analysis of the significance of proposal of decrees in political activity and profile see Hansen 1989: 1–127, illustrating the breadth of political participation but emphasising the dominance of expertise and leadership; for the epigraphical picture, see Lambert 2018: 171–226, emphasising the spread of political power and influence between multiple individuals.

59

60

decrees of fourth-century athens

what we might call decree-minded argumentation among Athenian political actors. Their importance in political life is clearly demonstrated in the fact that orators frequently attempted to generate rhetorical leverage from knowledge of decrees or of practices related to them. This has already been illustrated by reference to the way that the orators use decrees to illustrate the shared values of the Athenian demos (Chapter 1.5 above); this chapter, however, will focus upon the role that decrees played in the assessment of individual political activity. After exploring the claims that the Athenians made about the reliability of the decree as evidence (2.2.1), I will look at the deployment of decrees in the portrayal of good and bad human behaviour (2.2.2). At that point, I make a case for the significance in the fourth century of familiarity with decrees and the decree-making and decree-breaking processes for the accrual of symbolic capital (2.3–2.4). In Chapter 2.5, with a view to asking how far expertise in decrees was the preserve of an elite, I will assess the evidence for close attention to the language of decrees and claims made about the proposers’ intention and actual consequences of decrees.

2.2  Decrees as Evidence in the Lawcourts 2.2.1  The Reliability of the Decree It is already well established that laws could be usefully deployed as evidence in a number of ways in the Athenian courts (see Chapter 1 note 65 above). It is noteworthy that Aristotle did not describe decrees among his types of ‘inartificial proofs’ (atechnoi pisteis), but it is possible that he was not trying to distinguish them from laws, which constituted one of the five types that he discussed at length (Rh. 1375a22–b25).2 Yet decrees, evidently, possessed a potentially high status as the bases of arguments in the courts, as proofs of ‘fact’ that were difficult to dispute. Aeschines, who observed that the preservation of public documents meant that the people were able to probe the political legacy of unscrupulous turncoats (3.75), articulated the view that the decrees of Athens offered insight into the true nature of his opponents: emphasising that the laws forbade the inscription of falsehoods into public decrees (ἐν τοῖς δημοσίοις ψηφίσμασι: 3.50), he juxtaposed the constancy of decrees, standing as they were drafted, with the misleading spoken words of the sycophants (Aeschin. 2.66). Aeschines himself was in the habit of citing decrees in his speeches to support the claim that he was speaking the truth (e.g. Aeschin. 2.46 (= D128 T1), 2.73

2 On Aristotle’s deployment of these proofs in relation to argumentation, see Carey 1994.

decrees and political self-interest

61

(= D129 T1), 3.93 (= D147 T1)).3 He was not alone in championing the idea that the value of decrees was lodged in their nature as true records of things that really had happened:4 Apollodoros, too, in the speech against Neaira, asked the secretary to read out the fifth-century decree for the Plataeans in order to make the law about Athenian citizenship completely clear ([Dem.] 59.104 = D49 T2) and to demonstrate that he was telling the truth;5 the example underscored his view on the moral implications of the privilege of citizenship which had been abused by Neaira. Such value attached to decrees meant that they were sometimes held up as evidence in the support of arguments alongside witness-statements (e.g. [Dem.] 50.3 = D67; [Dem.] 50.13 = D70); a decree could itself represent a witness in its own right (Dem. 23.16 = D94 T2). The idea that decrees were reliable as pieces of evidence was one that underscored their use in accounts of historical situations (see Chapter 1.5 above), but it also enabled their use in the verification of assessments made in the lawcourts of individuals’ behaviour. As several extant speeches demonstrate, decrees formed the substance of considerable proportions of the evidence offered in a number of high-profile political contests fought in the second half of the fourth century. The example par excellence is the ongoing confrontation between Aeschines and Demosthenes, played out in the lawcourts in 343 and then again in 330, in which they deployed knowledge of decrees, both contemporary and historic, as ammunition in personal and political debate (see Chapter 2.2.2 and 2.3 below). In short, I will make a case for the view that politicians in the late fourth century were able to profitably undertake a ‘decree-minded’ approach to politics. In the following sections, I will discuss the substance and expression of this decree-mindedness; I will show how exhibiting and deploying knowledge about decrees, proposing them and attacking them were key ways of accruing self-promoting symbolic capital in the Athenian lawcourts. Decrees appear to have worked well as pieces of evidence in those speeches where orators

3 The same strategy was used by the speaker at Dem. 23.151 = D64. 4 Hegesippos, for instance, maintained that the existence of a decree emending the Peace of Philokrates undermined Philip’s claims that he had never agreed to it ([Dem.] 7.18–19 = D130). For other applications of decrees as proofs, see Dem. 18.115; 19.161. 5 [Dem.] 59.104: ‘From your decrees the law will become plain to all and you will know that I am speaking the truth’ (‘ἐκ γὰρ τῶν ψηφισμάτων τῶν ὑμετέρων καταφανὴς πᾶσιν ἔσται ὁ νόμος, καὶ γνώσεσθ’ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω’). On the inauthenticity of the document that appears subsequently in some versions of the text, see Canevaro 2010: it omits two important provisions which Apollodoros claimed it included; it is, therefore, possible either that the text that appears on the page is defective or that Apollodoros is misleading his audience; the former solution is preferable.

62

decrees of fourth-century athens

attempted to build logical, well-informed arguments.6 At the same time, it should be noted that extant texts suggest that reference to them in assembly oratory appears to have been made relatively infrequently (see Chapter 2.3.1 below).

2.2.2  Decrees and Dynamics of Behaviour A key aspect of persuasion in the Athenian law-courts was to represent oneself or one’s client in the best possible light and one’s enemies in the worst possible way.7 It has already been shown that law (and other types of evidence) could be used in character portrayal in Attic oratory.8 Decrees too contributed to such characterisation, and did so in two ways: on one level, honorific decrees were deemed to offer proof of public-spirited character (Chapter 2.2.2.1 below); on another level, exploration of the dynamic between regulatory decrees and human performance (Chapter 2.2.2.2 below) was also relevant to the judicial assessment of those involved in disputes. These two themes will be the focus of discussion in Chapter 2.2.2 as I explore the ways that decrees were used as evidence; the question of characterisation will be revisited in the discussion of decree-making legacy of specific individuals (Chapter 2.3 below).

2.2.2.1  Announcement and Recital of Honours Aristotle defined honour (time) as the token of a reputation for doing good (σημεῖον εὐεργετικῆς δόξης) and wrote that those who have done good are justly honoured (Rh. 1361a28–9). He defined a number of different parts of honour: it included sacrifices, monuments (mnemai) with words and without words, privileges, grants of land, front seats, public burial, state maintenance (Rh. 1361a34–6). Claims made by Xenophon and Demosthenes that the Athenians were particularly amenable to honour and reputation (Xen. Mem. 3.3.11; 3.5.3; 6 For the view that orators in the courts (in contrast to those in the assembly) emphasised logical and the appearance of being well informed, see Bers 2013; Harris 2017b also downplays the role of exaggerated emotional persuasion in the courts. For the role of emotional persuasion in the assembly, see Sanders 2016; Gotteland 2016 notes that Demosthenes offers a critique of emotional persuasion in his prologues, while paradoxically deploying emotional arguments as a way of demonstrating his dedication to the city’s interests. 7 On the importance of characterisation in the Athenian courts, see Dyck 1985; Spatharas 2011; Adamidis 2017; for characterisation and self-presentation in the Athenian assembly, see Kremmydas 2016. Hunter 1991 explores the politics of reputation and Wohl 2009 the rhetoric of citizenship. 8 For the role of law in characterisation, see de Brauw 2001–2 and Adamidis 2017: 154–5; for other types of evidence, see Todd 1990a.

decrees and political self-interest

63

Dem. 18.66, 203) should not be read out of context, but it is tempting to hypothesise that they reflect the fact that the Athenians were particularly interested in the question of how to recognise euergetic activity. Indeed, not only literary texts (e.g. Demosthenes 20 Against Leptines) but also the inscriptions of fourth-century Athens provide abundant evidence that honorific awards were being bestowed by decree of the assembly.9 The passing of honorific decrees, therefore, was clearly an important medium for the official communuication of the token of honour. In fourth-century Athens, the fact that honorific transactions carried such weight meant that they were an important part of public life: a large proportion of those decrees which survive in the literary and epigraphical sources are some form of honorific decree, and the proliferation of them expanded particularly in the second half of the fourth century (see Table 1). Many such decrees were set up on stone in prominent places, which constituted an enhancement of the award.10 However, the decree was not merely a lapidary honour: there was also an oral element to such awards, which went beyond their proposal and discussion at the council and assembly.11 For example, in his response to Aeschines’ claim that proclamation of Ktesiphon’s honours for him at the theatre was illegal (Dem. 18.120–2; Aeschin. 3.32–6, 43; cf. D179), Demosthenes revealed a view on why honours were announced in public places: announcement provided, he argued, glory (zelos) for the honorand and stimulus for all those listening to doing services for the city (Dem. 18.120).12 Elsewhere he took the view that worthwhile recipients of honours would give their lives for the city, rather than bringing shame upon the awards that were granted to them (Dem. 20.82).

 9 For a linguistic survey of honorific awards, see Henry 1981; for awards of the period 352/1– 322/1 see Lambert 2012a: 3–47, 93–183. 10 On the point of inscribed honorific decrees, see Lambert 2011a (= Lambert 2018: 71–92); for places of publication see now Lambert 2018: 19–46 citing past scholarship at 20. For detailed discussion of the significance of places of publication of decrees, see Chapter 3.3 below. 11 On the announcement of honours in the theatre, see Hanink 2014: 120; Ceccarelli 2010; Wilson 2009; Wilson and Hartwig 2009; Lambert 2018: 54. See further note 12 below. 12 This was a response to Aeschines’ argument that honorands should be content with the admiration of the people (Aeschin. 3.33); he claimed the existence of a law which stated that honours could be announced only at the council and ecclesia on the Pnyx (Aeschin. 3.32–48); this was contradicted in a law cited by Demosthenes allowing the announcement of honours in the theatre if the demos decreed it (Dem. 18.120–1). See the discussion in Harris 1994: 142, arguing that Aeschines did not have a legally valid case against the announcement of the honours at the theatre; cf. Liddel 2007: 170–4. Honorific decrees are known to have been enacted at the assembly which took place at the theatre after the festival of Dionysia: see IG II3 1 344, 345, 346, 347, 384. On this meeting of the assembly, see Lambert 2008: 52–3 and Harris 2013b: 211–13, 222.

64

decrees of fourth-century athens

Despite the contentiousness of the question of where honorific decrees for citizens could legally be proclaimed in fourth-century Athens, it is likely that announcement – at the assembly or at the theatre of Dionysos – was normal. It was an ostentatious expression of the fact the honorand had been granted the token of honour as outlined in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. But honorific decrees could also be discussed as a way of conspicuously asserting how one had behaved in the interests of the wider community. The oratorical citation of honorific decrees suggests that they offered value to those who aimed to make a case about their own good behaviour and the community’s recognition of it. This is a phenomenon attested from the late 360s onwards, in Apollodoros’ speech (preserved as [Demosthenes] 50) Against Polykles in which he attacked his opponent for not taking up his trierarchic service; in that speech, he reminded the audience of his own euergetic service, telling them that in order to ensure that he did not neglect to follow the orders which the people sent him, he pledged his estate as security to two lenders in order to fund the remuneration of his sailors. Accordingly, the people praised him and granted him dinner at the prytaneion as a reward; he had the decree read out, telling the jury that he did so to illustrate the truth of the matter (Dem. 50.13 = D70).13 It is hardly surprising that the reading out of honorific decrees was a practice in which Aeschines and Demosthenes engaged in their disputes in both 343 and again in 330: they read out or referred to honorific decrees passed in their honour in those speeches in which they gave an account of their public careers. Aeschines in 343 explained and read aloud the honours that he was awarded for his participation at the battle of Tamynai (Aeschin. 2.169–70 = D114) in order to support his assertion that he was not, as Demosthenes claimed, a hater of the people (misodemos) but a hater of wickedness (misoponeros), and that he encouraged others to emulate activities that were good and salutary to the city (2.171). It is clear that the reading of honorific decrees in one’s favour was a practice that offered clear ammunition in the whitewashing of one’s own character and career; for Demosthenes, too, the reading of honorific decrees passed 13 [Dem.] 50.13: ‘Pledging my estate to Thrasylochos and Archeneos as security for the 30 mnai which I borrowed from them and paid to the sailors, I set out to sea, so that nothing of the things which the people had ordered me might be neglected. And the people, hearing of this, both praised me, and invited me to dinner at the prytaneion. And to show that I am telling the truth, a witness statement of these things and the decree of the people will be read to you. WITNESS STATEMENT. DECREE.’ (‘ὑποθεὶς δὲ τὸ χωρίον Θρασυλόχῳ καὶ Ἀρχένεῳ, καὶ δανεισάμενος τριάκοντα μνᾶς παρ’ αὐτῶν καὶ διαδοὺς τοῖς ναύταις, ᾠχόμην ἀναγόμενος, ἵνα μηδὲν ἐλλείποι τῷ δήμῳ ὧν προσέταξε τὸ κατ’ ἐμέ. καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἀκούσας ταῦτα ἐπῄνεσέν τέ με, καὶ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον εἰς τὸ πρυτανεῖον ἐκάλεσεν. καὶ ὡς ταῦτ’ ἀληθῆ λέγω, τούτων ὑμῖν ἀναγνώσεται τὴν μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὸ ψήφισμα τὸ τοῦ δήμου. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ. ΨΗΦΙΣΜΑ.’). There is a notable absence of any comparable decree from the evidence offered in support of the speaker's liturgical claims in earlier speeches such as Lys. 21.1-12.

decrees and political self-interest

65

in his honour not only offered parallels to those aspects of Ktesiphon’s proposal which were under attack from Aeschines (Dem. 18.83 (= D156), 222–3 (= D166)) but also re-iterated his argument about how he was worthy of praise. The same practice is attested elsewhere in other apparently high-profile cases: in the speech Against Neaira of the late 340s, perhaps Theomnestos was making a point about the deserved status of his synegoros Apollodoros when he opened the speech with an account of the citizenship decree granted by the Athenians in recognition of his father’s service to the city (‘διὰ τὰς εὐεργεσίας τὰς εἰς τὴν πόλιν’: [Dem.] 59.2 = D42).14 Litigants generally, however, seem to have been relatively restrained in their discussion of decrees in their own favour; more often their citation was not about self-adulation – which might, given Aeschines’ warnings against the moral consequences of granting charis to those who seek it (Aeschin. 3.180), have run the risk of appearing excessive – but about illustrating particular parts of their argument. Indeed, oratorical discussion of them suggests that the enactment by the people of these honours was as highly valued as were the good deeds behind them, and this may reflect the reluctance of inscribed honorific decrees of the fourth century to offer details of the actions of honorands.15 Accordingly, Euxitheos in his speech Against Euboulides mentions the decree passed in his honour by his fellow demesmen apparently to illustrate the conspiracy against him in the deme: his enemies had had the inscribed version of it chiselled out as a way of undermining him (Dem. 57.65); there was no need for him to offer any justification for the award. At the same time, his claim about the legitimacy of his citizenship would certainly have been bolstered by the status implied in his reminiscence of this decree. The citation of honorific decrees illustrates also one aspect of a wider theme: the rhetorical deployment of accounts of the relationship between individual good behaviour and the Athenian decree. In what follows I explore how this was worked out with respect to accounts of non-honorific decrees.

2.2.2.2  Conforming – and not Conforming – with Decrees There exists scholarly debate on the question of legislative enforcement in ancient Athens. A balanced view is that the enforcement of laws was heavily reliant upon the readiness of individuals, as magistrates, or at some points as

14 As I note in D42 Literary Context, the speaker is also explaining his family connection to Apollodoros. 15 Before the 320s, epigraphically published details about the deeds of honorands for which they were being honoured were usually brief and formulaic: see Low 2016.

66

decrees of fourth-century athens

citizens, to implement their provisions as they interpreted them:16 this is because the judicial and executive processes of the Athenians were set in motion only on the initiative of magistrates and individual citizens (in the assembly and council). The heavy reliance upon individual activity for the enforcement of decrees too (see Chapter 3.2.1 below) meant that, in accounts of obedience and public performance, there was political capital to be gained from exploring the relationship between Athenian decrees and human activity. The speaker of Demosthenes 47, justifying his efforts to exact state property from Theophemos, claims that he was obedient to a decree of the council which ordered him as a successor trierarch to recover in any way possible the ship’s equipment retained by his predecessor Theophemos; accordingly, he vividly describes his demand for the gear, in accordance with the decree, which he appears to have wielded in his hand (ἔχων τὸ ψήφισμα: 47.34; cf. 47.20 = D85).17 This is an example of a rhetorical strategy widely deployed,18 an account which presented one man’s behaviour as the virtuous performance of the orders of a decree, while representing his opponent’s as its infringement. Orators argued also that they or their clients had gone beyond the requirements of a decree: in his account of his own investment in trierarchic activity, [Apollodoros] (Dem. 50.3–7 = D67)

16 Modern scholars have placed different weightings on each of these factors: on Athenian ‘self help’ in enforcement of the law, see Hunter 1994; Harris challenges Hunter’s view, and emphasises the role of magistrates in the enforcement of laws and decrees: see Harris 2007, 2013a: 26–59, 349–52. Herman, meanwhile, has made a case for an internalised code of self-restraint combined with a limited coercive state apparatus: see Herman 2006. An alternative view is that of Lanni 2012, 2016, emphasising the role of legal institutions in encouraging (rather than coercing) compliance with the law; Gottesman 2014: 67 suggests that popular sentiment in the assembly and courts would have determined how far legislation and decrees were imposed, but largely ignores the role of magistrates; Wallace 2012 points out that the Athenians did not always successfully enforce their laws; the same would have applied to decrees, as Demosthenes acknowledged: Mader 2006 and Chapter 2.5.2 below. 17 Dem. 47.33–4: ‘And after many speeches, the Council replied with a decree that the secretary shall read to you, that we were to make the recovery in any way we could. Decree. Well then, when this decree had been passed by the Council and no one brought in an indictment against it for illegality but it became operative, I then approached Euergos who is present here, the brother of Theophemos (for I was unable to find the latter); and with the decree in hand I began by demanding the equipment and told him to inform Theophemos.’ (trans. Scafuro 2011, adapted) (‘καὶ πολλῶν λόγων γενομένων ἀποκρίνεται ἡμῖν ἡ βουλὴ ψηφίσματι, ὃ ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν, εἰσπράττεσθαι τρόπῳ ᾧ ἂν δυνώμεθα. Ψήφισμα. γενομένου τοίνυν τοῦ ψηφίσματος τούτου ἐν τῇ βουλῇ, καὶ οὐδενὸς γραφομένου παρανόμων, ἀλλὰ κυρίου ὄντος, προσελθὼν Εὐέργῳ τουτῳὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ τοῦ Θεοφήμου, ἐπειδὴ τὸν Θεόφημον οὐχ οἷός τε ἦν ἰδεῖν, ἔχων τὸ ψήφισμα πρῶτον μὲν ἀπῄτησα τὰ σκεύη καὶ ἐκέλευσα αὐτὸν φράσαι τῷ Θεοφήμῳ.’) 18 In Dem. 47.19, the speaker underlines that he was ‘obeying your decrees of the people and council and law’ (‘ψηφισμάτων  δὲ ὑμετέρων δήμου καὶ βουλῆς καὶ νόμου ἐπιτάξαντος’). See also Dem. 51.4 (= D76 T2).

decrees and political self-interest

67

claimed that he had done markedly better than Aristophon’s ineffective decree on enrolment. A similar tactic emerges in an attempt to challenge an opponent’s claims about good behaviour: Apollodoros spoke of his rival, the reluctant trierarch Polykles, being ‘forced by you and your decrees’ to take over the command of a ship ([Dem.] 50.29 = D69: ‘ἐπειδὴ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ψηφίσματος τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἠναγκάσθη ἐπὶ τὴν ναῦν ἀπιέναι’); this was a way of undermining the possibility that his opponent would have done something public-spirited of his own volition. Immediately before that, in the same speech, the speaker claimed that he had paid the costs of the expedition voted by the people in advance (Dem. 50.8 = D68), in other words, in compliance with a decree. Other orators made much of the converse argument, that the behaviour of an opponent contradicted the provisions of a decree: this is what Demosthenes at 19.278 says about the behaviour of the ambassadors (including Aeschines and Philokrates) on the Second Embassy to Philip: the exclusion of the Phokians from the Peace of Philokrates directly contradicted an earlier decree of the Athenians which had made friendship and alliance with them (Dem. 19.61–2 = D87). Disobedience to orders contained within decrees was held up as part of an attack on the characters of opponents in the courts. In his prosecution speech charging Ergokles (a general who served under Thrasyboulos on his expedition in the Northern Aegean)19 with embezzlement and receiving bribes, Lysias (28.5 = D38 T1) maintains that the Athenians had required, by decree, that he and his magistrates present accounts of what they had taken from the cities. Ergokles’ response to the request  – which was to maintain that the people were again acting as sycophants and longing for their old laws (archaioi nomoi: probably a reference to the fifth-century habit of exacting tribute) – is held up as symptomatic of his behaviour and is intended to prejudice the jurors against him. Ergokles’ reaction to the decree could be seen as a reflection not only of his dishonesty but also his arrogance towards the commands of the people. Such criticisms could also be made against non-Athenians: one of the accusations that Demosthenes (Dem. 23.149–51 = D64) brought against Charidemos was that he had disobeyed the orders of the Athenian decree about the hostages at Amphipolis, thereby undermining Athenian attempts to recover that territory. A further aspect of the deployment of claims based on decrees consists of the attempt to create logical support for a wider argument about human conduct. In his second speech Against Stephanos, Apollodoros claimed that

19 See Hansen 1974: 88.

68

decrees of fourth-century athens

the testament of his father, Pasion, had been forged by his rival Phormio; in support of this position, he formulated an argument on the basis of the date of the award of citizenship to Phormio, granted ten years after the death of his father: Phormio became an Athenian during the archonship of Nikophemos, in the tenth year after our father died. And so, how could my father, not knowing that he would become an Athenian, have given him his own wife in marriage, and would both have outraged us and shown contempt towards that gift which he received from you, having contempt for the laws? ([Dem.] 46.13 (= D72))

His claim is that the date of the gift of citizenship indicates that his father would never have bequeathed to him his widowed wife in marriage, given that he did not know that Phormio would have become an Athenian a decade later.20 The effectiveness of the argument is dependent on the consensus that the dating of decrees can be reliably ascertained. There are other more roundabout uses of decrees of limited relevance to the case in hand, including those which build upon a view of the intentions of the proposer and the likely implications of the decree: Demosthenes cited, approvingly, Timarchos’ decree (which he described as forbidding the export of arms to Philip (19.285–7 = D122)) to demonstrate that Aeschines’ intention, in destroying the career of Timarchos (on a charge of sexual misconduct), was not to improve the behaviour of the Athenians. The implication of Demosthenes’ line of argument was that Timarchos’ decree would, conversely, improve the Athenians. Having established some of the ways in which accounts of the interface between decrees and human activity was used to offer perspectives on human behaviour in forensic oratory, in what follows (Chapter 2.3 below) I set out to explore the extent to which the act of proposing decrees played a role in the positive representation of individual political activity.

2.3  Making Decrees: ‘Decree-Mindedness’ and Political Activity 2.3.1  Proposing Decrees In this section I assess the significance of the act of proposing decrees as an aspect of political self-promotion. A considerable proportion of the business of

20 On this occasion Phormio did not deploy the language of Athenian decrees when talking about the citizenship award, but the strength of claims made on the basis of the date of a citizenship award was surely rooted in the fact that the jurors knew that such awards could be granted only by decree of the people and that decrees were firmly dated – in documentary (cf. Aeschin. 2.58, 89) and epigraphical form – by particular archonships.

decrees and political self-interest

69

the council and assembly must have been dedicated to the proposal, discussion, and enactment of decrees.21 Yet this is hardly reflected in extant symbouleutic oratory: as Hansen observes, it offers relatively little clear evidence on the proposal of decrees. While a considerable amount of assembly time must have been dedicated to the discussion of decrees that had been proposed, Hansen argues that only one surviving Demosthenic symbouleutic speech, the First Philippic (see D108) and a couple of pseudo-Demosthenic speeches ([Dem.] 7 (cf. D144)22 and 17 (cf. D192)), directly advocate a decree being proposed.23 This may be owing in part to the processes behind survival: as Trevett (2011: 19) suggests, most assembly speeches were made extemporaneously (or at least aspired to appear so) without reference to a prepared text and perhaps without the kind of planning that detailed reference to a decree would entail. Moreover, Demosthenes or his political advocates may have revised or released for publication mostly those speeches which advocated policy broadly rather than those which advocated particular decrees on the grounds that the latter were more susceptible to political critique.24 It is clear, however, that Demosthenes made recommendations about aspects of policy in other speeches too: in the Third Philippic he gave advice to the demos about taking immediate military action (Dem. 9.19), dispatching embassies (Dem. 9.71–2) and supporting those Athenians in the Chersonese with funds (Dem. 9.73);25 at the close of

21 For the view that the preponderance of non-probouleumatic decrees in the period 352/1– 322/1 suggests the vigour of the assembly and liveliness of democracy, see Lambert 2018: 227–71. 22 Hegesippos, the speaker of [Demosthenes’] speech 7, ends his reply to Philip with the statement that he intends to make a proposal about how the Athenians will respond to Philip ([Dem.] 7.46). 23 For this observation, see Hansen 1989: 283–6. 24 For the view that Demosthenes may have made drafts of his assembly speeches before he gave them, see Edwards 2016: 30. Trevett 1996b argues that Demosthenes’ symbouleutic speeches remained mostly unpublished until after his death; this is a view followed by MacDowell 2009: 7–8. On the other hand, Yunis (1996: 243) thinks of the publication of speeches as an important part of Demosthenes’ career and Tuplin suggests that he did so to justify his policies. On the factors influencing the selection and arrangement of surviving symbouleutic oratory, see Tuplin 1998, suggesting that an editor carefully selected and arranged the speeches. Worthington 1991 suggests that the extent of revision was limited and that they were based on drafts of what he had intended to say to the assembly. 25 The final paragraph of the speech includes the statement ‘these are the things I propose’ (‘ταῦτα γράφω’: 9.76), but it is not clear that such recommendations were put to the vote as a decree. MacDowell (2009: 349) takes the view that the ‘text appears to have been written in order to introduce a specific proposal, though the wording of the proposal is not preserved’, while acknowledging that the speech is about ‘policy towards Philip in the longer term, and its conclusion is that they should prepare for war’.

70

decrees of fourth-century athens

On the Peace he offered guidance about avoiding war (Dem. 5.24–5).26 In the speech On the Chersonese Demosthenes attempted to persuade the Athenians to exonerate the actions of Diopeithes and make war against Philip (Scholion on Demosthenes 8.2 Dilts); the speech closed with a general recommendation about raising money, keeping a force together, sending out ambassadors and punishing those who undermine the interest of the community (Dem. 8.76). It may be worth noting that orators at the assembly do make occasional reference to decrees of the past in their argumentation: the decree of Arthmios, for instance, was cited as an example of Athenian ancestral ethos (Dem. 9.42–6).27 But when citing contemporary decrees they seem rarely to associate them with their proposers, tending to lay responsibility for them at the feet of the demos at the assembly who enacted them (e.g. Dem. 3.4–6).28 References to past decrees were sometimes very vague, as were Hegesippos’ claims about how the decree of Philokrates damaged Athenian interests at Amphipolis that were set out ‘in past decrees’: there is no indication exactly when exactly they were passed ([Dem.] 7.25 = D140 T2). We should add that, in assembly contexts, it seems that individuals rarely boast straightforwardly of their own proposals: even as he responded to his rivals’ criticism of his own reluctance to make proposals, Demosthenes in On the Chersonese talked of his benefactions rather than his proposals (Dem. 8.68–73). For an assessment of the role of decrees in politics and self-promoting political activity we are, once again, heavily reliant on their citation and discussion in forensic oratory (for the projection of ‘decree-mindedness’ in the courts, see also Chapter 2.3.2 below). One essential ingredient which made the decree politically and rhetorically significant is its authoritative status as a transaction of the Athenian people (see Chapter 1.2 above); but its association with, and appropriation by, individuals meant that the decree was reproduced in the pursuit of personal political interests too. Speakers at the lawcourts were likely to name the proposer of a

26 These recommendations are noted by Harris 2017c. We should note also the specific recommendations made in the First Olynthiac for expeditions to be sent to Chalkidike or to ravage Philip’s territory: Dem. 1.17–18. Another speech which amounts to a general discussion of policy in terms of finances and military organisation is [Demosthenes] 13. 27 For further discussion of the presentation of decrees at the assembly, see Chapter 3.2.1 below. 28 References to decrees in assembly oratory: D60 (= Dem. 15.9), D106 (= Dem 3.4), D112 (= [Dem.] 13.32), D141 (= Dem. 7.30–1), D142 (= [Dem.] 12.6). In his attack on the policy of Timotheos, Demosthenes criticised a policy presented in a speech rather than associating it explicitly with a decree: Dem. 8.74–5. Hesitancy to make reference to past decrees by reference to proposers may well be another example of an ‘informal rule’ of oratory at the assembly; for others such informal rules see Harris 2017b; for Demosthenes’ self-presentation in symbouleutic oratory, see Kremmydas 2016. For the role of argument from emotion in symbouleutic oratory, see Sanders 2016.

decrees and political self-interest

71

decree on occasions when they were attempting to make a point (positive or negative) specifically about the proposer. This ties in with a useful perspective, emphasised by New Institutionalist analysis, which is that political institutions are very much formed by the broader human environment, and once they have taken shape they themselves start to become influential on the choices and strategies of human individuals.29 Ambitious individuals, both aware of accounts of the history of an institution and presented with opportunities for engagement with it, internalise the conception that the institutional route is an effective means of self-promotion and self-interest. Accordingly, institutions, as systems of normative rules and beliefs, channel the social and political behaviour of the political class.30 Engagement with them leads analytically minded individuals to ask critical questions about their functioning and rectitude.31 Yet institutional practices are founded not only on authoritative rules but are modelled upon both accepted practices and also the stories that are told about them.32 As we will see in this section, Athenian politicians were led to engaging with decrees (sometimes normatively, sometimes critically) not because they were bound to by a set of rules but because to do so was a widely accepted practice, accounts of which loomed large in popular discourse. There were many ways of being a citizen in Athens. Many may have found a route through life rarely partaking in political activity, leading them to be branded as idiotai (private citizens).33 Some, like Isocrates, took a route into public life which was essentially critical of mainstream political values;34 others may have engaged in profile-building exercises by spending money ostentatiously rather than through political engagement.35 Some citizens were involved

29 Ostrom 1986: 5–7. 30 Greif 2006: 30. 31 Gray 2015: 15–16. 32 Generally, for the way in which political institutions shape actors’ behaviour through systems of rules, practice, and narrative, see Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 46–76, articulating the view that ‘actors understand how they are supposed to behave through observing the routinized actions of others and seeking to recreate those actions’ (Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 57); for a view of the ways that institutions influence action by way of the narratives told about them, see Lowndes and Roberts 2013: 63. 33 Political quietism: Christ 2006; Carter 1986.On idiotai, see Rubinstein 1998; on the difficulty in distinguishing between active and passive citizens, see Mossé 1979. 34 Too 1995. 35 Lysikrates son of Lysitheides of Kikynna is an example of an individual who had a high profile in Athens through choregic sponsorship (he was the victorious sponsor of the Akamantis tribe in the boys’ dithyramb in the Dionysia of 335/4 (IG II3 4 460) and the dedication of a tripod, but does not seem to have been politically engaged; see discussion of his homonymous father and his family at APF 9461. The bibliography on Athenian euergetism is huge, but see most recently Domingo Gygax 2016.

72

decrees of fourth-century athens

in public life principally through activity at the lawcourts;36 others would have taken centre-stage at the assembly or at the council when they engaged in debates at those arenas. The privilege of proposing decrees was one reserved for Athenian citizens, and was removed from those who had been punished by atimia (Joyce 2018: 58 note 77) including those who had been prostitutes or debtors (Dem. 22.29, 33). It is clear that making decrees was a central aspect of the activity of the meetings of the assembly. How important was the act of proposing a decree to Athenian political life? Lambert observes, in a recent statistical and socio-economic analysis of the proposers attested on inscriptions of the period 352/1–322/1, that the epigraphical ‘statistics for proposers of laws and decrees do not perhaps indicate that the ordinary Athenian had as much political influence as someone of wealth and prominence; but it does suggest that, whether wealthy or not, it was an essential aspect of Athenian democratic culture that political power and influence should be spread between multiple individuals’.37 The literary evidence for decrees supports such an inference, while adding the nuance that association with activity surrounding decrees could have both positive and negative connotations (see Chapter 2.4.2 below). The breadth of participation – emphasised by Lambert by reference to the epigraphical material38 – is reflected also in the literary evidence for decree-proposal. Of the total of 245 decrees attested in the literary sources, 141 of them (that is, about 58 per cent) are attributed to named proposers, of whom there are 61 unique individuals (see Appendix 1). The spread of literary decrees is interesting: a disproportionately large number – as many as 40 of them – are attributed to Demosthenes, whose name is attested only once in the epigraphical record as a proposer of a decree.39 But significant numbers are attributed to other prominent politicians, most of whom are attested as proposers also in the

36 For diverse assessments of the wide range of forms of enmity in the lawcourts (which according to some scholars spilled over into violence outside them), see Rhodes 1986; Cohen 1995; Christ 1998; Johnstone 1999; Rhodes 1998; Todd 1998; Herman 2006; Alwine 2015. 37 Lambert 2018: 202–3. 38 See Lambert 2018: 171–226, observing that 54 different proposers of decrees are known for the period 354/3–322/1, and emphasising also that they derived from a spectrum of different political backgrounds. For a list of the 91 epigraphically attested proposers for the whole period 403/2–322/1, see Appendix 1. The phenomenon of widespread fourth-century engagement with decree-making is in tune with Taylor’s observations on the breadth of political participation in the fourth century generally: see Taylor 2007a, 2007b. 39 Lambert 2018: 185–7 discusses the factors behind the high number of decrees attributed to Demosthenes in the literary sources.

decrees and political self-interest

73

inscriptions: Demades (at least 9 literary decrees), Aristophon (7),40 Philokrates (6), Lycurgus (possibly as many as 5),41 Hegesippos (4), Euboulos (3 or 4), Hypereides (2 or 4), and the less-well-known Philippides (3). Timarchos, who is said to have proposed more than one hundred decrees (Aeschin. 1 hypothesis) is associated with 2 examples, as are 5 other politicians. According to the literary evidence, therefore, there were Athenians who seem to have prolifically proposed decrees and appear to have founded a reputation on them. It is plausible that some of the prolific proposers acted as advocates of particular political factions in the assembly: some scholars, for instance, have suggested that Aristophon was the advocate of an ambitious Athenian foreign policy of the first half of the fourth century represented on the field of battle by the generals Diopeithes and Chares.42 Others, such as Athenodoros, the proposer of a decree concerning sacrifices at Piraeus proposed on the recommendation of Euthydemos, the priest, appear to have acted as advocates of cult interest groups (IG II2 47).43 But it is perhaps revealing also that the vast majority of proposers attested in the literary evidence, that is 43 of the 61 (= 70.5 per cent), are associated only with a single proposal in the literary dataset.44 In terms of their social background, 41 per cent (25 of 61) of the literary-attested proposers are identified by Davies, in his Athenian Propertied Families (APF), as members of the liturgical classes. When we look at the epigraphical record for the same period, a slightly lower proportion (26 of 87, that is 29.9 per cent) are identified as members of the liturgical classes.45 It is clear, therefore, that the literary evidence places slightly more emphasis on the decrees proposed by the elite (and in particular the activity of Demosthenes!), but is still not wildly out of tune with the epigraphical evidence. On the whole, it seems 40 Aristophon is said to have been acquitted 75 times for making illegal proposals (Aeschin. 3.194), a story which indicates either that he was an extremely prolific proposer of decrees or that it was the type of story that could be told in the courts with a reasonable hope of being believed. Hansen suggests on the basis of this anecdote that Aristophon may have proposed up to 225 decrees. On Aristophon and the accuracy of this figure, see Oost 1977; Whitehead 1986. 41 For the suggestion that Lycurgus was responsible for ‘hundreds of decrees’ see Lambert 2018: 188–9 note 52. 42 See Oost 1977; Whitehead 1986; Salmond 1996. 43 For examples of decrees made on the advice of religious functionaries and other officials, see Rhodes 1972: 43. 44 Of these, there is reason to believe that one, Kephalos, was engaged in the proposal of many more decrees: for Aeschines’ response to his boasts about this, see Aeschin. 3.194 and b, Chapter 2.3.2 below. 45 This figure is based on the testimonia analysed in Hansen 1989: 34–72. Lambert’s survey of the epigraphical evidence for the period 354/3–322/1 shows that 38 per cent of epigraphically-preserved proposers were of the liturgical class: Lambert 2018: 190.

74

decrees of fourth-century athens

that the literary evidence tells the same story as the epigraphical evidence: the coexistence of a number of proposers from a wide socio-economic background with an elite who were frequently involved in proposing decrees. The act of proposing a decree appears therefore to have been a manifestation of both highand low-profile political activity. For a balanced picture of Athenian politics we must consider the fact that not all Athenian citizens, even those with an active public life, would have engaged in the activity of proposing decrees: indeed, of those 373 individuals listed by Hansen in his ‘Inventory of rhetores and strategoi of the period 403/2–322/1’,46 only 22 per cent (82) of them are attested as proposers of decrees of the assembly.47 Decree-proposing was a significant part of political activity and underscored its principles of participation, but it was very far from being the only way of making a political career; if one wanted to become prominent, it was not enough just to propose decrees.48 At the same time, however, we should acknowledge the significance of the fact that of the prominent political actors of the fourth century, even those who are not attested to have proposed a decree undertook some political activity which would have led to some association with decree-making or decree-challenging processes: Agyrrhios and Meidias are known to have proposed laws (the initiation of which process involved decrees of the assembly); three other prominent non-proposers, Iphikrates, Chabrias and Timotheos were recipients of an honorific decree.49 Even Aeschines, who emphasised that he himself had not made proposals about the peace with Philip (Aeschin. 2.160), was deeply implicated with the politics of decrees, famously attacking the decree honoring Demosthenes (Aeschin. 3). A relevant insight which is offered in contemporary Insitutionalist thought is Ostrom’s view that while institutions do not shape the behaviour of human actors, they can channel it in particular ways.50 This perspective applies not so much to those who were politically unengaged, but rather to those who were eager to raise their profile in the city through political activity. Indeed, when we look at those involved in the political sphere, even those who – like

46 Hansen 1989: 69. 47 Hansen 1989: 102. 48 Indeed, very few of those who are attested to have proposed only one decree of the assembly are otherwise known: see Lambert 2018: 190 and Hansen 1989: 34–72. 49 These observations are based on the lists in Hansen 1989: 34–72. Perhaps the only prominent Athenian who does not appear to have had dealings with a decree was Chares, though even he may have launched his eisangelia against Pheidiades by way of a decree: see Hansen 1976 no. 114. 50 Ostrom 1986: 5–7.

decrees and political self-interest

75

Aeschines  – were not connected with the proposal of decrees in any source, whether epigraphical or literary, involved themselves with the wider consequences of decree-activity by attacking others’ decrees. In that sense, then, Ostrom’s insight is helpful: in ancient Athens political ambition generally necessitated some engagement with the widely pervading culture of decrees and their consequences.

2.3.2  Political Presentations of Proposals At this point, I turn to explore the extent to which the proposal of a decree could be construed as a political act which possessed value beyond its immediate substance. And more broadly, I ask what forms of engagement with decree-activity had implications for the development of political profile in fourth-century Athens? Lawcourt oratory, as we have seen, provides a great deal of information about fourth-century perspectives on the decree; however, one of the clearest expressions of the possibility of aspiring to political capital, or a raised political profile, in the process of decree-proposing, emerges in a philosophical text: Plato, in the Phaedrus, identified the written words of an honorary decree as a manifestation of a conventional speech of a politician: Socrates: The name of the commender (ὁ ἐπαινέτης) is written first in the writings of the politician ... the author (ὁ συγγραφεύς) says ‘the council resolves’ or ‘the people’, or both, and X proposed, mentioning his own name with dignity and praise. (Pl. Phdr. 258a–b)51

Plato went on to claim that the main body of a proposal amounts to an attempt at displaying wisdom and a vain aspiration to immortality (Phdr. 258c). His remark, while it overlooked the role of the council, people and magistrates in the enactment of a decree (see Chapter 1.2.1 above), underlines the significance of one aspect of the form of the decree – the mention of the proposer’s name – to argue that the politicians with the highest opinions of themselves are those most anxious to attach their names to any form of composition. It contributes to his view that such politicians are no better than the speech-writers (logopoioi) who he criticises.52 One view, taken by Rhodes with Lewis, is that Plato’s argument displays a ‘wonderful perversity’;53 it should certainly be seen in the

51 Pl. Phdr. 258a–b: Σωκράτης: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀνδρὸς πολιτικοῦ [συγγράμματι] πρῶτος ὁ ἐπαινέτης γέγραπται ... ‘ἐδοξέ’ πού φησιν ‘τῇ βουλῇ’ ἢ ‘τῷ δήμῳ’ ἢ ἀμφοτέροις, καὶ ‘ὃς εἶπεν’– τὸν αὑτὸν δὴ λέγων μάλα σεμνῶς καὶ ἐγκωμιάζων ὁ συγγραφεύς. 52 On the status of logopoioi at Athens, see Gottesman, 2014: 83–5. 53 Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 4 note 9.

76

decrees of fourth-century athens

context of Plato’s wider critique of democratic political activity.54 As already noted (2.3.1 above), straightforward boasts of decrees do not occur in symbouleutic oratory. But given that we have seen praise of historical proposers deployed in the Athenian lawcourts (cf. Aeschines’ presentation of Archinos (Aeschin. 3.187 = D15) and Dinarchus on Kephalos (Din. 1.39 = D44)), it seems reasonable to assess the question of whether the proposal of decrees carried with it some sense of political capital: did the act of making a proposal serve to promote the reputation of the proposer? Epigraphical evidence offers an affirmative response to this question. It was indeed the case that draft proposals (Aesch. 1.188; 2.68) and inscribed decrees bore the name of their proposer usually at the end of their prescripts (see Chapter 1.1 above on the decree for Herakleides of Salamis), and in some inscribed decrees of the 330s a whole line was dedicated to the name of the proposer.55 Lambert takes the view that the increasing proliferation of inscribed decrees in the 330s and 320s, among them a significant proportion proposed by two politicians of the era (notably Lycurgus and Demades),56 is indicative of ‘an increasing tendency to regard successful proposing of decrees in the Assembly, prominently displayed on inscribed stelai, themselves erected by the decision, and at the expense, of the Assembly, as an expression of political influence’.57 This is borne out both by the literary testimonia and the epigraphical evidence. A dedication and dossier of decrees of 343/2 inscribed on a base from Athens offers an indication of the recognition and profile that could be granted to proposers of decrees. This base consists of a dedication to Hephaistos made by the Athenian council after it had been crowned by the people for its excellence and justice; on its front and left-hand and right-hand inscribed faces it contains also five decrees (one of the People and the other four of the Council). Prominently inscribed on the front face of the base beneath the dedicatory formula is a decree of the Council granting honours to Phanodemos of Thymaitadai; the award was made on the grounds that he had spoken and acted best and incorruptibly on behalf of the Athenian Council and People (IG II3 1 306 lines 4–16). It seems to be the case that the words and deeds being honoured here consisted

54 The view that Plato had some positive things to say (Monoson 2000) about democracy or that he was critical but not wholly negative (Saxonhouse 1996: 87–114) is not incompatible with the view of him as a critic of the workings of democracy: see Ober 1998: 156–247 and Allen 2010. 55 Lambert 2018 189 with note 53; this became a more common practice after 307/6: Henry 1977: 63–6; Tracy 2000; Lambert 2015: 5–6. 56 For proposers of decrees attested in the literary record, see Appendix 1. 57 Lambert 2015: 5–6; Lambert 2018: 171–204. For the view that the setting up of a decree on a stele represents a political statement in its own right, see Culasso Gastaldi 2014b.

decrees and political self-interest

77

of the proposal of a decree which was written up on the left-hand face of the base: this included the provision to set up a dedication to Hephaistos and Athena Hephaistia (lines 17–23) and to write up the honours which the assembly had previously bestowed upon the Council for its having managed the City Dionysia well (lines 22–3, 24–6): there is a clear appreciation of the significance not only of writing up honours but of the value of Phanodemos’ proposal. At the same time, however, the most prominent lettering on the block is reserved for the dedicatory formulae of the Council (lines 1–3). This suggestion of the high valuation of the proposer appears to be part of a wider theme which finds its expression in language: indeed, the successful proposal of a decree was, on occasion, described with the verb νικάω (‘I am victorious’: Aeschin. 3.63, 68 (= D127 T4); IG II2 77 line 858); similarly, the individual who carried a motion could, on occasion of his success, be referred to as ὁ νίκησας (that is, the victor in a debate: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 45.4 and Lysias F130 lines 72–82= D17 T2), which suggests that success in passing a decree could be construed as a victory in a contest. The literary record of decrees supports this high profile of individual proposers in relation to their decrees. As noted above, some 58 per cent of fourth-century decrees attested in the literary record are done so in association with one of 61 named proposers,59 and some – but not all – fifth-century examples cited by later sources were associated with individual names.60 The high political valuation of the proposer is a theme promoted in the speeches of Demosthenes. More decrees of Demosthenes are preserved in the contemporary literary sources than those of any other Athenian politician (see Appendix 1). This is, to a large extent, owing to the fact that he himself refers to his own decrees prolifically in those speeches in which he defended his political activity 58 In IG II2 77 line 8 the subject of the verb ἐνίκησε is not stated. 59 See Appendix 1 for a list of all those Athenian decrees of the period 403/2–322/1 which are associated in the literary evidence with named proposers. 60 However, decrees were sometimes associated – in both lawcourt oratory and also in later literature – with prominent fifth-century historical figures including Kallias (e.g. Dem. 19.273 with the testimonia collected in Fornara 1983 no. 95), Kritias (Lycurg. 1.112-15), Pericles (see Chapter 5.2.3 below), Themistocles (Dem. 19.303 and ML 23) and Miltiades (Dem. 19.303; Ar. Rh 1411a = D82 T2; Plut. Mor. 628e; Nep. Milt. 4; see D82 Commentary). For decrees associated with the family of Aristeides, some of them attributed to Aristeides the Elder (Plu. Arist. 27.2; Dem. 20.115) and others Lysimachos the son of Aristeides (Plu. Arist. 27.1; Aeschin. 3.258; Nep. 3.3), see Domingo Gygax 2016: 177–8. Later rhetoricians, such as Aspines, were fond of associating prominent historical figures with decrees: see Chapter 5.5 below. For the tradition on the decree of Syrakosios against the satirising of named individuals, see Scholiast to Aristophanes Birds 1297; it was associated with Syrakosios by Phrynichos (fr. 27 K-A) and Eupolis (fr. 220 K-A); cf. Atkinson 1992. A certain Antimachos is associated with a decree forbidding the satirising of the people: see Suda s.v. ‘Ἀντίμαχος’ (Adler alpha, 2683).

78

decrees of fourth-century athens

(Dem. 18 and Dem. 19), but also because they were attacked in the speeches of his opponents (Aeschin. 2 and 3; Din. 1). It is notable that only one of his decrees is extant in epigraphical format (IG II3 1 312), which is an indication that the literary record over-states the proliferation of his decrees in the politics of the 340s and 330s.61 Demosthenes, therefore, uses accounts of his own decrees strikingly to substantiate claims about his own political contribution:62 this tendency is particularly clear in speech 18 where he uses accounts of his own proposals to demonstrate that he was a politician worthy of Ktesiphon’s honorary decree for him:63 he recalls the embassies and expeditions dispatched on the basis of his proposals of the 340s, emphasising that whereas Aeschines remembers some of his proposals, he forgets others (Dem. 18.79 = DD 139, 148a, 154, 155). He reminded the audience of his record of creating positive alliances for the Athenians (Dem. 18.237 = D149; 18.301–3 = DD 147, 151, 152) and dispatching forces (Dem. 18.80, 88 = D158). He recited a number of decrees that he himself had proposed before the battle of Chaironeia after the fall of Elateia to Philip in spring 338,64 and claimed that they made the danger which had befallen the city ‘pass away like a cloud’ (188). He took pride in his decrees because they made the city safe (248), ensured the security of the corn-supply, and secured the friendship and alliance of Byzantium, Abydos and Euboia (18.301–2 = DD 151, 152): All these achievements were accomplished by my decrees and my political acts (politeumata). Whoever will study them, men of Athens, without jealousy, will find that they were rightly planned and honestly executed; that the proper opportunity for each measure was never neglected, or ignored, or thrown away by me … 65

61 Lambert (2018: 185–7) has discussed the factors behind the prominence of Demosthenes’ decrees in the literary record, underlining the very high profile of Demosthenes in the surviving oratory of the period, which may have been owing to his nephew Demochares’ promotion of his uncle’s posthumous reputation; cf. Asmonti 2004. 62 But fifth-century politicians may also have been ready, over the course of their public speeches, to point out the significance of their public acts: Thucydides’ Alcibiades in the Sicilian debate, for instance, calls upon the Athenians to consider his public acts (ta demosia: Thuc. 6.16.6). 63 For extensive discussion of the use of decrees in Demosthenes 18, see Harris 1994; for their use in establishing chronology, see Clarke 2008: 292–3. 64 For instance the decrees appointing nomothetai (D160), and a decree (D162) which launched ships against Philip and made the alliance with Thebes. 65 Dem. 18.303: ‘ταῦτα τοίνυν ἅπαντα πέπρακται τοῖς ἐμοῖς ψηφίσμασι καὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πολιτεύμασιν, ἃ καὶ βεβουλευμέν’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐὰν ἄνευ φθόνου τις βούληται σκοπεῖν, ὀρθῶς εὑρήσει καὶ πεπραγμένα πάσῃ δικαιοσύνῃ, καὶ τὸν ἑκάστου καιρὸν οὐ παρεθέντ’ οὐδ’ ἀγνοηθέντ’ οὐδὲ προεθένθ’ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ.

decrees and political self-interest

79

A sense of his own decree-mindedness emerges also in his attacks on Aeschines for not making proposals or failing to indict those of others (Dem. 18.139–40, 222–3, 235). At points he offers not just boasts of having made decrees but talks about details of their provisions: when defending his record in the year before Chaironeia, he read out some particulars of his decree on the ambassadors to be dispatched to Thebes: Afterwards, I order you to select ten ambassadors, and to grant them the authority, together with the generals, to decide when it is necessary to march out there (sc. Thebes) and on the conduct of the campaign. (Dem. 18.178 = D162 T2).

As Yunis suggests, Demosthenes offered such specifics in order to demonstrate the seamlessness of the connection between his policy and the decrees through which it was expressed,66 and as a way of demonstrating his power and significance in forging an alliance with the Thebans. Accordingly, he presented agreement of an alliance with Thebes before Chaironeia as the consequence of his own ambassadorial mission rather than, as his rivals appear to have suggested, as the result of Athenian military pressure (Dem. 18.209– 15).67 His description of the fear faced by the Athenians both before (18.173: ‘ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς φοβεροῖς’) and after (Dem. 18.248: ‘ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς δεινοῖς καὶ φοβεροῖς’) the Athenian defeat strikes a chord with Lycurgus’ description of its immediate aftermath of Chaironeia (see Chapter 1.5.2 above), but unlike Lycurgus he was more interested in emphasising his own role rather than the contribution of the people to address the situation. A strong sense of his own decree-mindedness emerges in the claim that he himself did not speak without making a proposal in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Elateia (Dem 18.179). Yet Demosthenes earlier in this speech had also to recognise that Athenian decisions before Chaironeia had not been successful in resisting Philip:68 accordingly he attempted to deflect Aeschines’ claims that he had embroiled the city in hostility (Dem. 18.79–80) by underlining the fact that there were other proposers who, before Chaironeia, affected policy by making decrees (Dem. 18.75 = DD 213, 215, 216, 217, 218). Demosthenes made use of a similar strategy when it came to defending his record after the defeat of Chaironeia, speaking of his proposals for military changes and repairs to the fortifications (Dem. 18.248 = D169). In his discussion of his decree to dispatch a force to Byzantion, he acknowledges that the 66 Yunis 2001: 209. 67 For the view that Demosthenes exaggerated his role in setting up the alliance with Thebes before Chaironeia, see Guth 2014. 68 On the balance that Demosthenes in On the Crown struck between defending his own record and acknowledging Athenian failure, see Yunis 2001.

80

decrees of fourth-century athens

people’s forces prevented the Hellespont being taken by Philip, but emphasises that this was carried out under the directives of his decree (Dem. 18.88 = D158). Overall, much of Demosthenes’ On the Crown – as he made a case in support of Ktesiphon’s honours – amounts to an exercise in self-aggrandisement, and his own record in proposing decrees played an important part in this. It is a speech which enunciates more clearly than any other extant text the idea that the political leader bears a social obligation to formulate and advocate policy at the assembly.69 What is more, Demosthenes’ readiness to recite his own proposals contributed to the development of his political reputation and his historical legacy.70 While the speeches he made at the assembly tend not to make explicit associations between individual politicians and their decrees, in the Second Philippic he offers a firm association between appropriate political activity and proposing decrees, criticising those politicians who shrink from making proposals or offering advice, being wary of incurring the displeasure of the people (Dem. 6.3). Moreover, in the On the Chersonese he pre-empts those whom he anticipates will reproach himself for cowardice if he fails to make a proposal (Dem. 8.68), turning the criticism against those who participate irresponsibly or vexatiously (8.69). Demosthenes was not alone in accruing capital from the decrees with which he was associated, but the weight placed on such argumentation by other orators is unclear. In the speech Against Neaira, Apollodoros’ co-speaker, Theomnestos, as part of his account of the ongoing conflict between Apollodoros and Stephanos, introduces Apollodoros as the proposer, in spring 348, of a probouleumatic decree on the use of surplus money. His description of the proposal underlines Apollodoros’ adherence to procedure ([Dem.] 59.4–6 = D115). While Themnestos emphasised the unanimous popular support of the proposal (claiming there was an absence of votes against the use of surplus for military funds) as a counterweight to Stephanos’ undeniably successful indictment of the decree, his presentation does not, however, indicate a clear implication of Apollodoros taking pride in it. In fact, when we reflect on the substance of this decree  – that the people should decide by vote whether the surplus of state funds should be used for military purposes or for the theoric fund – what stands out is the cautiousness of the proposal. Whereas it is likely that 69 Cf. Liddel 2007: 250–3. 70 Pseudo Lucian’s Encomium of Demosthenes clearly associated him with decree-making and other political acts (Lucian, Dem. Enc.18, 37, 45); Plutarch’s anecdote about Philip, in the aftermath of Chaironeia, going about drunk among the bodies of the dead and reciting, in metre, the start of the Demosthenes’ decree, ‘Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes, of Paiania, proposes in this way …’ is also indicative of the literary phenomenon of associating Demosthenes with stories about decrees: Plu. Dem. 20.3: see Chapter 5.2.3 below.

decrees and political self-interest

81

Theomnestos’ presentation of Apollodoros’ decree may have aimed to make it appear less controversial than it actually was ([Dem.] 59.4–5), it appears to be the case that Apollodoros stopped short of making a positive proposal on the use of surplus funds; perhaps, as Trevett suggests, Apollodoros’ proposal may have been a ‘calculated attempt to test the public acceptability of a policy of increasing investment on the military side of things at the expense of the theoric fund’.71 Apollodoros’ cautiousness in proposing a substantive decree may be indicative of his relative lack of political experience. On the other hand, the representation of the high-profile politician Demades, in a speech of dubious authenticity, as pointing to his own decree making peace with Alexander as made well and expediently (καλῶς καὶ συμφερόντως) in defence of his political career ([Demades], On the Twelve Years 14–15 = D188 T1) may well reflect arguments that he actually deployed. Evidence for straightforward boasts about the success of one’s proposals can be found in Aeschines’ report in 330 on the less famous Kephalos (known as the proposer of only one literary decree of the period, D44: see Appendix 1) who garnered philotimia from the claim that he had been the author of more decrees than anyone else, but yet had never been charged in a graphe paranomon for making an unconstitutional proposal; to Aeschines this represented a more reverent boast than Aristophon’s claim that he had been acquitted seventy-five times in a graphe paranomon (3.194).72 But the claim that Aeschines attributes to Kephalos is something of an exceptional one, and we cannot rule out the possibility that he invented it: if this was the case, then the passage is still interesting not so much as a window into the reality of Kephalos’ political activity but rather as a demonstration of the kinds of claims that might be made in front of a jury. Given the negative reputation that was at points attached to the decree at the end of the fifth century (see Chapter 5.2.1 below), it is perhaps hardly surprising that, as we have seen, it was not until the second half of the fourth century that it became viable for public figures to make such boasts in terms which made the proposer eclipse the role of the people in the enactment of the decree. On the other hand, in his extant assembly speeches, Demosthenes highlighted the role of the people in making decrees;73 moreover, in his description of the role he played in the making of the Peace of Philokrates, Aeschines stressed that he had specifically not proposed a decree in relation to it (Aeschin. 2.160): it is clear, therefore, that there is plenty of variation in politicians’ attitudes towards decrees. 71 Trevett 1992: 146. 72 On Aristophon, see note 40 above. For other politicians who faced multiple graphai paranomon, see Hansen 1974: 25 73 Mader 2006; see Chapter 2.5.2 below.

82

decrees of fourth-century athens

At this point, I return to considering less prolific proposers. As already noted (Chapter 2.3.1 above), the vast majority of proposers attested in the literary evidence, 70.5 per cent of them, are associated only with a single proposal, and a significant proportion (59 per cent) of literary-attested proposers are not known to have held significant wealth. How do we explain this apparently wide spread of decree-proposing activity across the population? It is plausible to think that less prominent citizens may have aspired to be associated with prominent politicians by supporting decrees that represented their interests or policy: this is one possible implication of Apollodoros’ complaint about individuals, such as Stephanos, who allow their names be inscribed at the head of motions formulated by others ([Dem.] 59.43). There is limited evidence for proposals being made by two individuals jointly: a decree on pirates is presented in the accounts of the naval epimeletai as proposed by Lykourgos Bouta(des) and Aristonikos: IG II2 1623 line 280–3 (cf. also D166a). Another possibility is that prominent individuals may have asked others to make proposals on their behalf as a way of getting their policy through without having to face the direct opposition of their political rivals. But the evidence for this is contentious,74 controversial (see Aeschin. 3.159 with Commentary at D223) or late (Plu. Arist. 3.4; Plu. Dem. 21.3; Plu. Per. 7.7–8; Plu. Mor. 811c–13a). At other times, collaboration between individuals in the formulation of decrees may have been undertaken by two individuals who collaborated on relatively equal terms.75 It is better, then, with Lambert, to conclude that the multiplicity of proposers (attested also in the epigraphical evidence) points to the broad spread of political engagement in late fourth-century Athens.76 It seems, therefore, that the institution of the decree was one which facilitated wide and meaningful participation in Athenian democratic politics.77 We might add to this impression the observation that the inscribed record of honorific decrees from the 340s onwards indicates that the Athenians became

74 Aeschin. 3.125–8 (= D161) claimed, as part of his attack on him, that Demosthenes coerced a councillor to put together a probouleuma concerning Athenian attendance at the meetings of the Delphian Amphictyony before himself putting it to the vote at the assembly. For allegations about decrees being proposed in return for bribes or as political favours see note 103 below. 75 See discussion in Chapter 1.1 above, of IG II3 1 367, in which the fellow-demesmen Kephisodotos and Telemachos collaborated in the formulation of honours for Herakleides of Salamis. 76 Lambert 2018: 201–4. Cf. Hansen 1991: 145, underplaying the political significance of those proposers associated with a small number of decrees. 77 See Taylor 2007b, observing that in the fourth century there was widespread political participation among the non-wealthy and those from non-urban demes; Taylor (2007a: 339–40, 2007b: 76–7) notes that proposers of decrees came from demes widely dispersed across Attica.

decrees and political self-interest

83

more ready to honour those who had played even a relatively minor, or an administrative, role in civic activity.78 The Athenians were ready to value even a small contribution to political activity when the circumstances were right. But we must emphasise that there was no mechanism to ensure the raised profile of a proposer; there was nothing to stop a decree and its proposer falling into obscurity: the fame of Demosthenes’ decrees survives principally because the speeches in which he defended his political career are extant; that of Lycurgus survives owing to the epigraphical legacy of his decrees. It was up to the individual to exploit the potential of political capital offered by the act of proposing a decree either by ensuring that his decrees were inscribed or by talking about them in other political or litigious contexts. Accordingly, we again draw attention to the fact that no politically ambitious individual would have restricted his political engagement solely to activity associated with decrees, especially given that decrees were always open to attack. Indeed, the most extensive deployment of decrees and knowledge about decrees appears to have been undertaken in the course of those cases related to acts of challenging decrees and laws, in the processes known respectively as graphe paranomon and graphe nomon me epitedeion theinai.79 In the next section, therefore, I will assess the significance to our understanding of decree-­ mindedness of claims about decrees in speeches relating to these processes.

2.4  Decrees in the Construction of Arguments 2.4.1  Challenging Decrees and New Laws Whereas making proposals could form the basis of a claim to fame (see Chapter 2.3 above), the other side of the coin was the fact that every decree was liable to be challenged by the indictment that it was illegal, the claim that it was damaging or disadvantageous to the city, or that the honorand was unworthy (graphe paranomon);80 this meant that the proposer, by making a decree, ran the risk of his proposal being attacked. While the spectrum of possible punishments

78 See, for instance IG II3 1 301, 305, 311, 323, 327, 469; Lambert 2011a. 79 For the distinction between the two procedures, see Hansen 1974: 44–8, 1983: 171–5; MacDowell 2009: 152–3, observing that a graphe paranomon might plausibly be used against a newly proposed law, but that in practice this does not seem to have happened. Further on the process see, highlighting its significance as a political process, Yunis (1988) and, emphasising its relationship to the rule of law, Sundahl (2003) and Harris 2018: 66 note 138. 80 Yunis 1988 argues that both a legal and political plea was necessary to successfully overturn a decree by way of graphe paranomon; MacDowell 2009: 154 is less certain; for the view that it was oriented against illegality, see Harris 2018: 66 note 138.

84

decrees of fourth-century athens

ranged from execution to a symbolic fine of 25 drachmai,81 alongside impeachment (eisangelia), it was one of the most effective ways of attempting to embarrass, or disrupt the policy of, a political adversary within a year of their proposal (Dem. 23.104):82 Aristophon was allegedly mocked (κεκωμῴδηται) for supporting what was later deemed to have been an illegal decree relating to Keos (Scholion on Aeschin. 1.64 (Dilts 145); see D66). The fact that the proposer of any decree at the Council or Assembly took such a risk is a further indication that making decrees was something considered important for the creation of one’s own political legacy. As we shall see below, over the course of those speeches which were made against or in support of claims about the legality of proposed laws and decrees, decrees were cited extensively as evidence: two such speeches, Demosthenes’ Against Leptines (Dem. 20) and Against Aristokrates (Dem. 23)83 made widespread deployment of decrees. It is possible that some, like Theokrines, the opponent of Apollodoros in Demosthenes 58, may have used such indictments against unconstitutional decrees as a springboard for raised political profile: his opponent claimed that he described himself as on guard against illegality (Dem. 58.45–7; cf. Dem. 24.11–14). Indeed, the procedure was invoked sometimes in descriptions of the expectations that the Athenians had about political behaviour: Dinarchus suggested that Demosthenes had failed in his duty as a politician given his reluctance to indict Demades for his numerous unconstitutional proposals (Din 1. 100–1 = D187 T1). As already noted (see Chapter 1.3 above) Aeschines in his Against Ktesiphon went so far as to suggest that the graphe paranomon was central to a conception of proper democratic behaviour and called upon the jurors in the course of such a trial to consider themselves as securing democracy and punishing those who were against the laws (Aeschin. 3.8). Indeed, he argued that the graphe paranomon was just about the only reputable democratic process remaining in Athens (3.5, 75), given that standards of orderly procedure had been set aside at the assembly (Aeschin. 3.3). As a constitutionally normative mode of polemic political activity, using the graphe paranomon was considered an appropriate way of attacking the enactment of a political enemy (Dem. 21.182–3 = DD 210, 211; [Dem.] 25.37 = D237 T1): certainly it was a more 81 Hansen 1974: 53. For the prosecutors’ allusion to the possibility of the death penalty, see Hansen 1974 nos. 12 and 14, but neither of the relevant passages demonstrate that it was in fact imposed (Dem. 22.69 and 23.62). As MacDowell 2009: 155 points out, those who had been convicted three times in a graphe paranomon would be disenfranchised. 82 Hansen 1974: 24–5, 53. For the view that a graphe paranomon would have to be launched within a year of a decree’s proposal, see Giannadaki 2014. 83 For the reputation of Demosthenes 20 in antiquity, see Kremmydas 2012: 62–4 and Chapter 5.4 below; for that of Demosthenes 23, see Papillon 1998.

decrees and political self-interest

85

acceptable mechanism than the chisels used by the demesmen who obliterated an honorary decree set up for the speaker of Demosthenes 57 (57.64). On the other hand, those who attacked decrees using the process were liable to the criticism that they were sycophants motivated by the hope that they would be bribed by their opponents to withdraw the indictments (Dem. 58.34). It is relevant to our understanding of the nature of Athenian politics that cases against particular new laws and decrees drew extensively upon a knowledge of decrees. In the speech attacking Aristokrates’ proposal to make anyone who killed Charidemos liable to arrest (D94), Euthykles (the speaker) offered a largely negative survey of Athenian honorific activity. His argument was supported by a narrative which recounts the damage done to the reputation of the Athenian demos by its readiness to grant honorific decrees to those who did not deserve them.84 He did his best to underline, by reference to a knowledge of Athenian honorific habits and to claims about the inflation of awards granted to non-Athenians, Athenian anxieties about their dispensing of honorific decrees for citizens. He expatiated on the mistakes that the Athenians had made in granting awards to unworthy and despicable foreign honorands: he pointed to the example of Kotys as someone to whom the Athenians gave citizenship contrary to their interests. In citing this example he was careful to place the blame at the feet not of the Athenian people but of the (unnamed) proposer, asserting that such was ‘the act of men of unsound mind to propose such decrees and to give such awards to these men’ and emphasising that the people who enacted it believed the honorand to be a well-wisher: ‘you would not have done that had you believed him to be your enemy’ (Dem. 23.118 = D43). The behaviour of another honorand, Philiskos (Dem. 23.141 = D59) was said to be even worse, including the mutilation of free-born boys, the insult of women, and uncivilised conduct. Even in the Against Leptines, where Demosthenes mostly defended the Athenians’ record of granting awards by decree, he acknowledged that the people were sometimes deceived into making bad decrees (Dem 20.3), drawing upon a theme which underlined the susceptibility of the people to be deceived by demagogues.85 Honours for Athenians came in for criticism too: Euthykles says that through their hyperbolic awards also to Athenian military leaders (pointing 84 For more detailed discussion of the decrees see Liddel 2016: 350–2. For the decrees in Demosthenes 20, see Chapter 1.4, note 114) above; for the decrees in Demosthenes 23, see Dem. 23.12 (= DD 77, 78), 23.16 (D94), 23.104 (D71), 23.116 (= D73), 23.118 (= D43), 23.141 (= DD 59,74), 23.145 (= D84), 23.149 (= D64), 23.172 (= D81), 23.173 (= D83), 23.175 (= D80), 23.202 (= D61), 23.203 (= D75). 85 Hesk 2000; Ober 1989: 168–9; Kremmydas 2012: 184-5; Canevaro 2016a: 189, pointing also to the theme in Dem. 8.63, 15.16, 19.29-30, 23.96-7; Aeschin. 3.35.

86

decrees of fourth-century athens

to Timotheos, Iphikrates and Chabrias), the demos had deprived itself of honour (time) for particular victories (23.198); in past times, on the other hand, referring to the battles of Marathon and Salamis, they rewarded great leaders not with bronze statues but by choosing them as leaders (Dem. 23.196–7).86 But Demosthenes’ emphasis in this speech was on honours for non-Athenians and he warned too against the inflation of awards for foreigners which meant that the old honours no longer sufficed (23.199–201). Contemporary practice was held to stand in contrast to the restrained fifth-century Athenians who drew the line at awards of citizenship for Meno of Pharsalos and Perdikkas of Macedonia (23.199–200). While Demosthenes’ speech targeted individual examples in his criticism of Athenian honorary decrees for non-Athenians,87 it is clear that he was arguing that the system as a whole is extremely problematic; but the blame for this he placed – as he did the decree for Kotys – at the feet of contemporary Athenian politicians, who are said to drag the system through the mire and make it contemptible (23.201). It is perhaps significant that in this speech Euthykles did not reveal the name of the decrees’ proposers, perhaps because he did not wish to provoke a reaction from those responsible for them; the demos was in these cases held to be the party responsible for the decrees. His argument extends to the point that the Athenians undermined the awards for deserving men, by making grants to the unworthy too (Dem. 23.202), drawing the conclusion that Athenians’ reputation was damaged by such awards: ‘what is really terrible is, not that our counsels are inferior to those of our ancestors, who surpassed all mankind in excellence, but that they are worse than those of all other peoples.’ (Dem. 23.211). Accordingly, Demosthenes claimed that the honorific tendencies of the contemporary Athenians  – led astray by their leaders – was undermining the honorific system and reputation of the Athenians established long ago. Moreover, he argued that those honorands who desired Athenian citizenship for the personal advantages that it brought rather than out of an admiration for Athenian character and customs would not be champions of Athenian interests (Dem. 23.126). Contrastingly, Demosthenes’ case against Leptines’ law abolishing ateleia argued – as already noted: see Chapter 1.4 above – that his legislation would undermine the favour accrued to the Athenians by their decrees for their benefactors (20.64). He drew upon decrees from the fifth and fourth centuries extensively to make a case about the damage that the law would do to the 86 For the treatment of honorific decrees in oratory, see Liddel 2016. 87 Other decrees cited negatively in this speech: citizenship for Kersobleptes (Dem. 23.141 = D74); honours for Euderkes (Dem. 23.203 = D75); citizenship for Simon and Bianor of Thrace (Dem. 23.12 = D77 and 78); protection for Charidemos (Dem. 23.16 = D94).

decrees and political self-interest

87

Athenian honorific system;88 in doing so, Demosthenes took the guise of a defender of Athenian decrees and their legacy. As part of his argument about the shame that the Athenians would feel at the withdrawal of decrees if they were to accept Leptines’ law (20.60), Demosthenes holds up  – among other decrees  – the example of the offer of refuge to political exiles from Corinth after the Peace of Antalkidas, asking his audience whether these decrees should stand as authoritative: Later, when the peace with the Spartans was brought about, that is the Peace of Antalkidas, they (sc. the Corinthians who were sympathetic to Athenian interests) were exiled by the Spartans because of what they had done. By receiving them you did a deed of noble and good men (‘ἔργον ἀνθρώπων καλῶν κἀγαθῶν’), for you voted for them what they needed. Shall we now examine whether these grants should remain valid? For it is shameful even to ask the question, if anyone were to hear how the Athenians are examining whether it is necessary to allow the benefactors to keep the grants they have been given. These things should have been scrutinised and decided about long ago. Read out also this decree to them. DECREE. These are things you voted for those Corinthians who went into exile because of you. (Dem. 20.54–5)

To abolish these decrees – by upholding Leptines’ law – would be to bestow shame on the Athenians who had originally acted as noble and good men; the idea that stripping Athens’ honorands of their privileges is a shameful act which amounts to deception (Dem. 20.9) is deployed a little later in the speech (Dem. 20.60 = DD 31, 32).89 Such an appeal was powerful because by drawing on decrees of the past (Demosthenes in this speech appears to have avoided citing decrees made over the course of the decade prior to his speech)90 it made a case for the timeless relevance of Athenian decrees.91 Accordingly, as Wolpert argues, it placed a moral burden onto the shoulders of the jury to preserve the status quo which had been established by the people in past times:92 in this case, it applied to the balance of Athenian honorific relations. As well as making moral appeals, like those which made a case for the necessity of avoiding shame, the same speech also makes an argument about decrees on the basis 88 For the view that this amounted to a subversion of the orthodox hierarchy of laws and decrees, see Chapter 1.2.2 above. 89 For claims that bad decrees bring shame upon the Athenian people, see Aeschin. 1.188 (D15) and Dem. 23.142, 172 (DD 59, 81) with discussion in Chapter 1.5 above. For claims about shame as foundations of civic obligations, see Liddel 2007: 149–50. 90 The latest decree cited is that for Klearchos (D62) of the period 366–362. For a list of the decrees cited in the speech, see Chapter 1.4 note 114 above. 91 The timelessness of decrees is also discussed in Chapter 1.5.3 above. 92 Wolpert 2003.

88

decrees of fourth-century athens

of the practicalities of Athenian interests: Demosthenes emphasised also the role that rewarding citizens (as well as foreigners) in encouraging good public service (Dem. 20.67–87). But the speech’s emphasis on decrees is remarkable when we consider that the Athenians had the power to indict a new law or decree on the basis that it contradicted a law,93 but not on the basis that it contradicted a decree. Demosthenes places decrees at the centre of his argument on the grounds that Leptines’ law was unacceptable because it contradicts not the exact provisions but the spirit of so many Athenian decrees.94 On this occasion and also the speech Against Aristokrates it is perhaps relevant that Demosthenes emphasised the interests of the city (Dem. 20.1; Dem. 23.1–2) rather than his personal interest in the debate, which means that his argument is logical and places emphasis on examples of decrees rather than personal slander. Knowledge of decrees, then, emerges as an important tool for those constructing logical arguments. Finally, no discussion of honorific decrees in graphe paranomon cases can be complete without reference to the recrudescence, in 330, of the dispute about the crowning of Demosthenes proposed by Ktesiphon’s decree (Aeschin. 3 and Dem. 18: see D179).95 Aeschines’ argument focused on allegations he made about the illegality of the decree (see D179 Commentary) but asserted also that the decree was proposed shamefully (Aeschin. 1.188 with discussion in Chapter 1.5 above). In these speeches, the orators combine polemic and logic, drawing widely upon decrees. In his defence of Ktesiphon’s proposal, Demosthenes cited Aristonikos’ decree for himself not just to boast of his own achievements (cf. Chapter 2.2.2.1 above), but as a precedent for the proclamation of a crown at the theatre (18.83 = D156) and the decrees of others as evidence that men who are liable to audit could be crowned (18.114–15).96 Aeschines, on the other hand, cited honorific decrees which he claimed the Athenians all agreed to be for deserving benefactors (the democrats from Phyle, Chabrias, Iphikrates and Timotheos) in his assault on Demosthenes’ worthiness (Aeschin. 1.88 = D15; Aeschin. 3.243 = D46 T4). Moreover, Aeschines – as he did elsewhere – used 93 Hansen 1974. 94 For the view that this speech goes some way to subverting the hierarchical relationship between decrees and laws, see Chapter 1.2.2 above. On the logic of the argument that runs throughout the speech, see Kremmydas 2007b. 95 A parallel, but less famous case, is that of the rivalry between Lycurgus and Demades: Lycurgus launched an attack on Kephisodotos’ proposal to honour Demades with a statue (D187), and he cited the achievements of Pericles in the fifth century presumably as a way of comparing the modesty of Demades' achievements (Lycurg. fr. 58 Conomis). 96 At 18.114–15 he mentions honours for Diotimos (D190), Nausikles (D228) and Charidemos (D229).

decrees and political self-interest

89

decrees in a detailed way in an attempt at demonstrating the illegality of the crowning of Demosthenes: he held up Demosthenes’ decree on the repair of the city walls as evidence to prove that he had held an office, and accordingly not yet rendered accounts, when Ktesiphon made the proposal (Aeschin. 3.27 = D176).97

2.4.2  Blame and Liability We have already seen (Chapter 2.4.1 above) that the act of challenging decrees, as well as decree-making, appears to have been a potential source of political capital in Athenian forensic oratory, while it is clear that knowledge of decrees was a useful tool in the construction of such cases. At this point we add the suggestion that holding political rivals to account for their decree-proposing activity was also an important tool of political invective. This view of responsibility may have been what underscored Lycurgus’ argument, in his speech On Administration, that the Athenians should subject proposers of decrees to dokimasia (Conomis fr. 18 1b).98 Whereas the stelai of discredited or obsolete decrees could be destroyed,99 memories of rejected decrees could be perniciously revived by rivals of their proposers. Hypereides, evidently responding to criticisms of his enemies,100 had to explain the emergency enfranchisement decree that he had proposed after Chaironeia by asserting that it was not he but the Athenian defeat on the battlefield – in other words, circumstance – that had proposed it (D167b T6= [Plu.] X Or. 848f–9a). In the debate on the conduct of the embassy to Philip in 343, Aeschines and Demosthenes traded arguments about the responsibility for the decrees that shaped the Peace of Philokrates, and in particular their implications for the treatment of the Phokians and Kersobleptes of Thrace, the Athenians’ allies. Demosthenes claimed that Aeschines was responsible for persuading the people to accept the details of Philokrates’ decree on the Peace (19.47–50, 113; cf. D134). Aeschines, correspondingly, made  97 Harris 1994 and Harris 2017 demonstrate thoroughly that Aeschines’ claims about the illegality of Ktesiphon’s decrees are empty. On the charges against Ktesiphon’s decree and Demosthenes’ response, see Harris 2017, summarised at D176 Commentary.  98 According to Suda, s.v. ‘δοκιμασίαν ἐπαγγεῖλαι’ (Adler delta,1329) the law on dokimasia subjected active politicians and those who had proposed a decree to the process. Another passage suggesting suspicion of those who proposed decrees is Suda, s.v. ‘Πανδελετείους γνώμας’ (Adler pi,171), alleging that a certain blacksmith Pandeletos was known as a sycophant, proposing decrees, and spent his time hanging around the courts.  99 Bolmarcich 2007, arguing that the act of destroying a stele would have to be enacted by decree. 100 The fragmentary preservation of this passage makes it impossible to know precisely to what sort of criticisms Hypereides was replying.

90

decrees of fourth-century athens

a case for Demosthenes’ responsibility for the Peace of Philokrates on the basis of an argument that his proposals led up to it (Aeschin. 2.176 = D124; Aeschin. 2.53, 109, 3.63 = D126; Aeschin. 2.67 = D127); he reminded the audience of Demosthenes’ responsibility for putting to the vote Philokrates’ decree on swearing oaths which led to the exclusion of Kersobleptes (Aeschin. 3.73–5 = D131) as well as his vain attempt to block the putting to the vote of Aleximachos’ decree which would have allowed him to give oaths to Philip (Aeschin. 2.83–5 = D132). In the same speech his attacks on Demosthenes’ policy extended to other decrees: he claimed also that his alliance with the Thebans betrayed the interests of the Athenians (Aeschin. 2.141; cf. D184). In his case against Ktesiphon’s honours for Demosthenes, Aeschines again attempted to turn Demosthenes’ proposals against him: he re-iterated his responsibility for the Peace of Philokrates  (Aeschin. 3.54), argued that his decrees after the Peace were those which provoked war with Philip (Aeschin. 3.83 = D146; Aeschin. 3.55 = D159 T1; Aeschin. 3.125-8 = D161), that they had the effect of surrendering opportunities that the city had (Aeschin. 3.92–3 = D147) and asserted his hypocrisy and cowardice by proposing a shrine for Pausanias (Aeschin. 3.160 = D182). Aeschines drew upon his decrees also to disparage the character of his rival, pointing to his decree leading to the arrest of his former guest-friend Anaxinos as an indication that he was a murderer of his host (ξενοκτόνος: Aeschin. 3.223–4 = D145). In response, Demosthenes (18.69–70, 75) argued that he did not bear sole responsibility for formulating Athenian policy against Philip of Macedon in the run-up to Chaironeia, pointing to the proposals of Philokrates, Diopeithes, Aristophon, Euboulos and others (D213, 215–17). In other political speeches we see a similar combination of attacks on decrees pertinent to the subject of the case and decrees more generally relevant to the reputation of the opponent. In his speech against Demosthenes for his involvement in the Harpalos affair, Dinarchus put into the mouth of its speaker accounts of Demosthenes’ decrees on the detention of Harpalos and empowerment of the Areopagus (DD 193, 195, 214), and the deification of Alexander (Din. 1.94 = D198).101 He claimed that in the period after Chaironeia Demosthenes failed to improve the city either ‘by decree or by law’ (1.96) and attacked his policy by having his decrees read out aloud (Din. 1.78–80 = D170) and pointing out the contrast to the advice from the oracle at Dodona. He made allegations about the inconsistency of his policy on the basis of knowledge of his opponent’s decrees, claiming that Demosthenes at one time made a proposal forbidding anyone to believe in any but the accepted gods, but at another 101 Similar attacks on the decree of Philokles concerning Harpalos’ money were made in Dinarchus’ speech Against Philokles (D196).

decrees and political self-interest

91

time said that the people must not question the grant of divine honours (1.94 = D198).102 Not only did the content of decrees come under attack in the courts, but there were claims also about corruption in the process of their enactment; their critics emphasised the workings of surreptitious factors in the process: as we have already established, Aeschines warned that one reason that decrees were inferior to laws was that the people sometimes passed decrees in circumstances when they had been misled by deceit and trickery (Aeschin. 1.178–9).103 Apollodoros, meanwhile, criticised certain awards as unworthy by claiming the ‘individual requesting’ the decree had misled the people ([Dem.] 59.91 = DD 109, 110). Moreover, it appears to have been a fairly common way of slandering the proposer of a decree to claim that a citizen had been bribed or persuaded to propose it as a favour or for some self-interested motive; 104 it was, of course, surely frequently the case that the proposal of a decree was motivated by an individual’s desire to return a personal favour or secure a networking connection. But the problem we face is that such claims – such as that of Dinarchus about Demosthenes’ support of honours for bankers and grain-dealers (Din. 1.43 = D227) – is that they are situated within wider attacks on their proposers. Yet the claims are a reflection of the Janus-faced issue of the allocation of responsibility for the decree and its consequences to the demos or the proposer. Critiques of Athenian decree-practice were, however, evidently not limited to the speeches made in the courts. There is some evidence in the Demosthenic symbouleutic corpus for criticism of past decrees of the demos. In [Demosthenes] 13 (On Organisation), an assembly speech made in support of spending financial surplus on military matters, the author draws upon examples of decrees deployed elsewhere by Demosthenes, in an attack on Athenian honorific habits: it is likely that the editor of the published version

102 The turning of an opponent’s decrees against him can be found in Demosthenes Against Theokrines, where the accusation of inconsistency is set against Moirokles, one of Theokrines’ fellow-speakers: Demosthenes claims that his advocacy of Theokrines will contradict his own decree (Dem. 58.53 = D207). See also Dem. 20.148, where it is argued that Aristophon’s support of the proposal to abolish honorific exemption was, given that he was a recipient of it, hypocritical. 103 On the stated intention of decrees and their manipulation, see Chapter 2.5.2 below. 104 For claims about the proposal of decrees and laws by those influenced by bribes or interested in the giving or return of favours see Aeschin. 3.125; Dem. 20.132; 23.146–7, 201–3; 24.66–7, 201–3; 58.35; [Dem.] 59.43; Din. 1.41–3; Hyp. Dem. fr. 6 col. 25; cf. Hansen 1974: 54, 1989: 97 note 12. See also DD 148b, 212, 227, 231, 234, 236.

92

decrees of fourth-century athens

of the speech revised or condensed the passages of the Against Aristokrates.105 [Demosthenes] 12 is a one-off document, which purports to be a letter sent by Philip to the council and people of Athens but which may have been penned by an Isokratean fabricator; what is interesting for our purposes is that on at least three occasions it critically cites Athenian decrees, accusing the Athenians of hypocrisy ([Dem.] 12.8–9 = D74 T1; 12.6 = D142; 12.8–9 = D204) and claiming that no-one cared a jot about Athenian decrees (12.9). Whatever the identity of its creator, he seems to have been aware of Athenian sensitivity about the image of their decrees. It is notable, however, that discussion of decrees in symbouleutic oratory rarely appears to have entailed the naming of the proposer; in the context of the assembly, the emphasis appears to have been on the liability of the demos or its current responsibility to living up to past expectations ([Dem.] 7.25 = D140 T2). Criticism of decrees in forensic oratory appears to have focussed, for the most part, upon decrees applied to named individuals in relatively recent times. There appears to have been little reason to call attention to problematic decrees of the period before 403/2 except perhaps for reasons of specific argumentative strategy (e.g. Andoc. 1.8). Part of the reason for this is that criticisms of individual decrees are concentrated (in assembly speeches) on those decrees that went unfulfilled in recent times and (in lawcourt speeches) on those decrees which constituted, or were associated with, the policy of a political opponent. We can draw the conclusion at this point that decrees introduced into speeches in the Athenian lawcourts offer a view of portrayals of the dynamics of the Athenian demos’ behaviour (see Chapter 1.5 above) and in the portrayal of good and bad citizen conduct (2.2). Political capital was accrued also over the course of the processes of decree-making (2.3) and decree-­challenging (2.4). The fact that experience and knowledge of decrees offered a potent source of evidential persuasion in the lawcourts and assembly for individual politicians supports the hypothesis outlined earlier: the prevalence of a decree-minded mentality in the politics of the fourth century. At this point I want to turn to a related question: to what degree can this decree-mindedness be thought of as a skill? And if it does amount to a skill, how exclusive was it? What degree of attention did fourth-century orators pay to the content of decrees?

105 [Dem.] 13.21–5 with Dem. 23.196–202 with Liddel 2016: 351 note 77. For criticism at the assembly of the demos’ failure to fulfil the intentions of decrees, see Mader 2006 and discussion in Chapter 2.5.2 below.

decrees and political self-interest

93

2.5  Close Attention to Decrees? 2.5.1  Expertise It has been observed that over the course of the fourth century there was an increase in the amount of detail that appears in the prescript of Athenian decrees, with elements such as the patronymic of the proposer, the date within the prytany, and the number of the prytany being introduced to inscribed texts.106 How far can we talk about ‘expertise’ or even ‘professionalism’ as a requirement of the secretary? While the growing level of detail in the prescripts of inscribed decrees may explain the change in 363/2 in the term of office of the prytany secretary from one prytany to a whole year,107 there is no indication that there was anything like a requirement of any exclusive type of professionalism: as the author of the Ath. Pol. (54.3) states, this officer was at his time appointed by sortition, though it had previously been appointed by ­election.108 As noted already (Chapter 1.2.2 above), from the 340s there is reference to an office with responsibility for decrees (ho grammateus epi ta psephismata), who presumably had some role related to overseeing the enactment of decrees and the writing down of their texts, but there is nothing to say that these were experts or specialists.109 There is some evidence for the deployment of expertise in the drafting of documents in the classical period: in fifth-century Athens the Athenians commissioned ad hoc boards, known as syngrapheis, to contribute towards the composition of decrees with elaborate formulae;110 in the fourth century, we occasionally see officials being required, over the course of decrees, to draw up more detailed specifications than were contained in the version published on stone (e. g. IG II3 1 292 lines 68–9). On occasion, proposers appear to have sought advice from a religious official on the subject of a decree (IG II2 47).111 Proposers, then, certainly consulted those with expert knowledge

106 Rhodes 1972: 138; Henry 1977. 107 Rhodes 1972: 137–8. 108 As Rhodes 1972: 138 writes of the fourth-century situation, ‘professional expertise was not yet thought necessary, or the office would not have been made sortitive, but dissociation from the boule and a longer period of tenure suggest an improvement in efficiency and perhaps a slightly fairer spreading of the state’s burdens’; cf. RO p. xxi; cf. Lambert 2018: 188 note 52. On the secretary, see Chapter 1.2.2 above. For prejudice against experts, see Todd 1996; Ismard 2015. 109 Rhodes 1972: 138; Brillant 1911: 97–108. One might contrast the situation in modern legislative practice where the wording of legislation is drafted by unelected civil servants: Ober 2008: 219 with Huber and Shipan 2002. 110 Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 27, 494. 111 For other examples of proposers taking advice from office-holders, see Rhodes 1972: 43 note 6.

94

decrees of fourth-century athens

or experience in the language of decrees when drafting proposals. It cannot be assumed, however, that the act of handling the language of the initial proposal would have required expertise beyond that which any individual would have obtained through participation in political processes or through consultation of an expert.112 The anecdote that Lycurgus employed an Olynthian expert to draft his decrees ([Plu.] X Or. 842c) is, in all likelihood, based upon a slander that he may have faced in the course of opposition to a proposal: the author of the Lives of the Ten Orators probably gleaned this from a now lost oratorical attack on Lycurgus.113 A balanced assessment of the subject says that the drafting of the text of a decree was an activity that was undertaken through collaboration: the process of finalising the text of a decree involved the input of the council, a proposer and a secretary as well as the magistrate commissioned to have the text written up on a stele (see Chapter 1.2.2 above). On at least one occasion Demosthenes appears to have collaborated with a bouleutes in order to produce a probouleuma which he would carry at the assembly (Aeschin. 3.125–8 = D171). Such a collaborative mode of drafting meant that few citizens would have been ruled out of activity relating to the proposal of a decree. There is, however, literary evidence for close attention to the language of drafting from at least the 420s onwards:114 Thucydides claimed that the clause in the Peace of Nicias permitting the Athenians to adjust its terms made the states of the Peloponnese worry that the Spartans were planning to enslave them with the aid of Athens (Thuc. 5.29.2–3). We cannot pretend that the perspectives of that historian into fifth-century documents offer us a straightforward insight into the level to which Athenians in the assembly and lawcourts in the fourth century engaged with the language of decrees. But also in the early fourth ­century there is some evidence for argumentation based on close attention to the text of a decree: this occurs in Lysias’ speech 13, Against Agoratos,

112 For the idea that a grasp of political language would have been widespread, see Harris, 2006b: 429 following the view of Willi 2003. On participation as an educative experience in the field of politics, see Ober 1998, esp. 161–2. On financial expertise see Davies 2004 and Kallet-Marx 1994 (focussing on its deployment at the Athenian assembly); cf. also Moreno 2007, esp. 213 on the deployment by elite politicians of knowledge about the grain-supply. 113 For a similar assessment of this passage, see Roisman and Worthington 2015: 200; cf. Lambert 2018: 188 note 52, suggesting that the anecdote points to the possibility of an ‘increasing professionalisation’ of decree-drafting in this era. 114 Rhodes 1972: 277.

decrees and political self-interest

95

in which the speaker points out that Agoratos was never declared to be an Athenian in the decree praising the assassins of Phrynichos.115 Oratorical texts extant from the period after the Social War suggest that politicians were making points on the basis of words that appeared in the texts of decrees. Yunis suggests that Demosthenes’ quotation in the de Corona of technical aspects of his decree about marching to Eleusis in 339/8 (Dem. 18.178 = D162 T2) aimed at ‘creating a seamless connection between his advice and the demos’ decree’.116 Some years earlier, in his commentary on the peace with Philip, Demosthenes demanded that the audience appreciate the gulf between the praise and fine-sounding phrases which appear on the decree and Philokrates’ rider, which provided that the Athenians would coerce the Phokians to adhere to the terms of the peace (Dem. 19.47–9 = D130 T9). Indeed, it was obvious by the 340s that interstate disputes were discussed in terms of the phraseology of decrees and agreements: the original version of the Peace of Philokrates appears to have deemed it permissible for all parties ‘to keep what they held’ (‘ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἃ εἶχεν’): this went on to form the basis of Philip’s contention that Amphipolis was rightfully his (Dem. 7.25–6). At [Dem.] 7.18, 23–9, Hegesippos refers to a promised amendment to the Peace, contradicting this view saying ‘that each side should retain its own possessions’ (‘ἑκατέρους ἔχειν τὰ ἑαυτῶν’), to which Philip denied agreeing (D140 T1).117 One view of this debate might be to suggest that it was not just the politicians and their critics in the Athenian lawcourts and assemblies who paid close attention to the words of decrees, but Athens’ rivals beyond the confines of the polis too: the reception of decrees outside Athens will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.2 and 4.3 below. But at the same time, we must not exaggerate the implications of a political exchange that centred upon a short phrase: in ancient Athens, just as it is in the modern world, it is possible to

115 Lys. 13.72: ‘That Agoratos did not kill Phrynichos is clear from the terms of the decree. Nowhere does it say, “Agoratos is to be an Athenian”, as it does for Thrasyboulos and Apollodoros. And yet if he really killed Phrynichos, then it would necessarily have been recorded that he was to be an Athenian, on the same inscribed stone where this is said about Thrasyboulos and Apollodoros. But by offering bribes to the proposer, some people arranged to have their own names added to the inscription as “benefactors”. The following decree will prove that I am telling the truth.’ (trans. Todd 2000) There is textual debate about over the inclusion of ‘and Apollodoros’ on both occasions in this passage; see Todd 2007: 526 note 8 and below, p. 134 n. 84. On this decree, and its relation to the inscribed honorific decree for Phrynichos’ assassins, see ML pp. 260–3, OR pp. 500–5 and Todd 2007: 515–16; see also discussion in Chapter 5.2.2 below. 116 Yunis 2001: 209. 117 On this phrase, see Rhodes 2008: 24–7.

96

decrees of fourth-century athens

make claims about the interpretation of political slogans without a firm grasp of their full connotations. On the domestic front, politicians, with some attention to the texts of decrees, criticised their content in order to score points against rivals or undermine their political activity: as part of his critique of the directives given to the Second Embassy to Philip, Aeschines singled out the vagueness (τὸ ἀφανές) of the instructions of the people for the ambassadors to do whatever good they were able (‘πράττειν δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις καὶ ἄλλ’ ὅ τι ἂν δύνωνται ἀγαθόν’: Aeschin. 2.104). He claimed that the instructions had been obscurely drafted deliberately so that the ambassadors could retreat in case they failed to persuade Philip to rebuild the Boiotian towns: of course, what Aeschines claimed in 343 was obscure may possibly have been candid to the people in 347/6; moreover, these words constituted standard formulaic decree language. Aeschines also attacked Demosthenes’ decrees in his speech of 330, criticising the decree creating alliance with the Thebans by claiming that through its phrase ‘if any city revolts from the Thebans, the Athenians are to help the Boiotians in Thebes’, Demosthenes had betrayed the Boiotians by handing them over to the Thebans (Aeschin. 3.142 = D163). At other points it is possible to detect a level of disingenuousness in oratorical descriptions of decrees; in such cases orators place emphasis on general awareness of specific decrees rather than detailed knowledge of their content. In his account of the activities of the Second Embassy to Pella, which was sent to organise the swearing of the oaths of the Peace of Philokrates (according to which key Athenian allies would be left out of the agreement), Aeschines claimed that Demosthenes had praised the returning ambassadors in a decree of Skirophorion 346 (Aeschin. 2.121–2): he aimed to make a point about the hypocrisy of Demosthenes who was, in 343, attacking the conduct of the ambassadors. However, the status of this decree is controversial. Demosthenes, in his account, was keen to maintain that the consequence of his report (apangelia) on the activity of the embassy was that, unprecedentedly, the council did not offer the returning ambassadors a vote of thanks or dining at the prytaneion. Demosthenes maintains that a probouleuma was made by someone in response to his report (19.31), and he has it read out to the court. He maintains, however, that it bestowed no praise on the embassy, and anyway was not read out to the assembly (19.34–5). We are left, therefore, with an apparent contradiction. One possible solution is that Demosthenes did indeed make such a decree, and the passage in which he denies having made it (interestingly, he does not accuse Aeschines of lying) was inserted in a

decrees and political self-interest

97

later published version of the speech as part of his defence of his reputation.118 But a preferable view is that of Harris, who takes the view that the council did not propose the bestowal of honours because they were aware of the disagreement among the ambassadors, and that the probouleuma mentioned by Demosthenes was non-committal on the question of honours:119 according to this view, Aeschines presented a misleading view of Demosthenes’ proposal as if it amounted to a formal proposal.120 Aeschines’ deployment of decrees, at other points, was less controversial but simply offered an attack on their nature rather than their substance: for instance, he attacked Ktesiphon’s honorific decree for its ἀλαζονεία (false pretence) and κόμπος (pomp);121 meanwhile, one inspired composition of Demosthenes was said to be ‘longer than the Iliad’ while being ‘more empty than the speeches that he is accustomed to deliver and the life that he has lived’.122 It is important to recognise that his description of Demosthenes’ use of decrees is one which was designed to make a case for a gap between the will of the people and the content of the decree and has no need for close engagement with minutiae. Criticism of the length of Demosthenes’ decree may have 118 On issues concerning the revision of forensic texts for publication, see Worthington 1991. Worthington 1991: 67 makes observations about other factual errors in the 19th speech, such as the claims (19.154) that Aeschines and other ambassadors delayed in Athens so that the king would have time to seize forts in Thrace. MacDowell (2000: 23–4) suggests that the versions we have of some speeches represent ‘a copy of what the speech-writer prepared in advance’ in the form of notes, but that in other cases what we have is ‘a copy of what was prepared after the trial for distribution to readers. This may or may not incorporate material written beforehand, which the writer has revised with additions and deletions.’ 119 Harris 1995: 91. 120 Another example of Aeschines’ misleading presentation of proposals is at 3.67, where he presents Demosthenes’ proposal that the prytaneis call a meeting of the assembly for 8th Elaphebolion, as if it were passed. As Harris 2006b: 94 observes, it is unlikely that this decree was passed. See also Harris 1989: 134–5, observing that Aeschines misleadingly claimed that Demosthenes forced the assembly to accept a proposal of Philokrates by having Antipater address the assembly (Aeschin. 3.71–2; cf. 2.65–6) and told a misleading story about the exclusion of Kersobleptes from the treaty (3.73–5; cf. 2.83–6). Misleading descriptions of decrees can be found also in speeches attributed Demosthenes: the claim that Aristokrates’ decree protecting Charidemos empowered him who arrested him to torture, maim and collect money was a tendentious interpretation: see Harris, 2018: 37 note 5. 121 Aesch. 3.237: ‘If you turn to the second part of the decree, in which you have dared to write that he is a good man and “constantly speaks and does what is best for the Athenian people,” omit the false pretence and the pomp of your decree, deal with real acts and show us what you mean.’ (‘εἰ δὲ ἥξεις ἐπὶ τὸ δεύτερον μέρος τοῦ ψηφίσματος, ἐν ᾧ τετόλμηκας γράφειν ὡς ἔστιν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, καὶ “διατελεῖ λέγων καὶ πράττων τὰ ἄριστα τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων,” ἀφελὼν τὴν ἀλαζονείαν καὶ τὸν κόμπον τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἅψαι τῶν ἔργων, ἐπίδειξον ἡμῖν ὅ τι λέγεις.’) 122 Aesch. 3.100: ‘ταῦτα δ’ εἰπὼν δίδωσιν ἀναγνῶναι ψήφισμα τῷ γραμματεῖ μακρότερον μὲν τῆς Ἰλιάδος, κενότερον δὲ τῶν λόγων οὓς εἴωθε λέγειν, καὶ τοῦ βίου ὃν βεβίωκε.’

98

decrees of fourth-century athens

been an attempt to make his audience laugh at it: it was perhaps reminiscent of the joke in Aristophanes’ Clouds (1016–19), that under the influence of the Worse Argument, Pheidippides ‘will have in the first place, a pallid complexion, small shoulders, a narrow chest, a large tongue, little hips, great lewdness, a long decree …’.123 Naturally, the closest attention to the content of decrees came in those compositions which were directed against their substance in the shape of indictment for illegality (graphe paranomon). In such cases it is highly likely that the prosecutor would have scrutinised the archival copy of the decree being attacked. Demosthenes’ speech on Aristokrates’ decree for the inviolability of Charidemos attacked its drafting particularly closely, pointing out that the decree failed to specify whether the murderer of Charidemos would still be liable to seizure had they killed him when he was acting in opposition to Athenian interests (23.16–17 = D94 T2).124 It seems to be the case that the full political mileage in attacking a decree could be unleashed by its detailed recitation. Aeschines, in addition to expressing exasperation at Ktesiphon’s praise of Demosthenes as the one who ‘does and speaks the best things for the Athenians’ (3.50, 92), emphasised another vein, the procedural performance of a decree, when he re-enacted the drama of the herald reciting the decree for Demosthenes in order to amplify the connotations of an honorific decree for someone he rated unworthy of such distinction (Aeschin. 3.153–5). The fact that we never, in extant forensic oratory, encounter the claim that an opponent is lying about the straightforward substance of a decree is revealing: it suggests either that litigants were for the most part truthful about the contents of decrees or, alternatively, that they lacked the will to check the claims made by their opponents. Indeed, not even Aeschines, who accused Demosthenes of having lied to the assembly in spring 340 about resources available to the Athenians and of being an adept liar (Aeschin. 3.97–9), claimed that Demosthenes misrepresented the content of decrees.125 Earlier I asserted that while proposers might have drawn upon expertise in the drafting of the formulaic or detailed aspects of a proposal, this would have been something available to them through knowledge gleaned through participation in the political process and consultation of experts. We have seen,

123 See discussion in Chapter 5.3.2 below. 124 Demosthenes elsewhere in that speech argued against the legality of the decree on the basis of its wording (23.90-1; cf. 23.27, 34, 36, 84). 125 For discussion of the slander about sophistry and mendacity that went on between Demosthenes and Aeschines see Hesk 2000: 213–14, 231–41.

decrees and political self-interest

99

furthermore, the ways in which knowledge of the substance of decrees bore rhetorical potential in the development of political argumentation and invective. There is, however, little evidence to support the idea that orators were putting to use any kind of privileged expertise in decree-making: the level of technical knowledge implied in these attacks was not high and could have been achieved simply by engagement with the decree-making processes of the council or assembly;126 at times (particularly when advocating an indictment for illegality), however, consultation of the archive would have been necessary. We will return to questions about the dissemination of knowledge of Athenian decrees in Chapter 3 below. However, at this point, I want to explore another means by which the orators appear to have engaged in the rhetoric of decrees: their attempts to emphasise or subvert the intention behind a piece of legislation.

2.5.2  Manipulation of Intention and Consequence The sociologists March and Olsen, in their work on political institutions, have emphasised the role of stating legitimate intentions in ensuring the authority of political decisions.127 This is a perspective which can be found in the evidence for Athenian decrees. Even if decrees sometimes drew upon past examples or made connections with episodes in Athenian history,128 it was in their nature to be concerned with future consequences: as Harris has observed, by reference to Demosthenes’ speech Against Timocrates, Athenian decrees went potentially into effect from the day when they were passed, and did not normally have retroactive action (Dem. 24.41–4):129 generally, they offered instructions which required immediate (αὐτίκα μάλα) or subsequent (τὸ λοιπόν) action.130 The future-facing nature of decrees seems to be amplified by the fact that they often stated explicitly forward-looking intentions:131 even Hegesippos’ decree which specifies that the council is to hand to the people a probouleuma concerning those who have in the past made expeditions in the land of the Eretrians states

126 Cf. Harris, 2006b: 429 127 March and Olsen 1989: 49–51. 128 Lambert 2018: 115–53. 129 Harris 2006b. The fact that the Athenian assembly sometimes acted as a court (for instance, in some cases of eisangelia) suggests that it was not in principle against taking decisions about the past: I owe this point to Stephen Todd. 130 ‘αὐτίκα μάλα’: Rhodes 1972: 280. On references to action to be taken subsequently to the passing of a decree, referred to by the phrase ‘τὸ λοιπόν’, see Harris 2006: 425–7. 131 Lambert 2011a; on exhortatory intentions in honorific decrees, see Miller 2016.

100

decrees of fourth-century athens

that this is to be done ‘so that they shall render justice in accordance with laws’ (IG II3 1 399 lines 7–10).132 Statements concerning intention contained in the wording of Athenian decrees fall into three categories. First, there are those which express a general intention of the decree, which is often related to its publication, and aim to publicise the generosity, altruism, or the public reputation of the legislative body. This is often framed in terms of a hortatory clause:133 in the decree for the grain-merchant Herakleides of Salamis, for instance, we find the stated intention  – pointedly using repetitively the language of philotimia  – that the honorand is crowned ‘so that others also may behave in an honour-seeking way (φιλοτιμῶνται), knowing that the council honours and crowns those who behave in an honour-seeking way (φιλοτιμουμένους)’ (IG II3 1 367 lines 64–6; trans. AIO); this was linked at other times to the hope that other cities might continue to be friendly to the Athenians, as was expressed in an honorific decree for the city of Pellana in the Peloponnese (IG II3 1 304 lines 16–18). Second, non-honorary decrees might state a general intention which refers to the subject of that decree: the decision about whether or not the Athenians should cultivate the sacred land on the border between Eleusis and Megara of 352/1, once made, would aspire towards piety and the avoidance of asebeia (impiety), so ‘that relations with the two goddesses may be as pious as possible and in future no impiety may be done concerning the sacred land and other sacred things at Athens’ (IG II3 1 292 lines 51–3). Third, non-honorary decrees might also state a local intention which might refer to a specific proposal/idea laid out on a decree: the same decree tells us that Athenian magistrates are to be present at the discussion of the sacred land at the city Eleusinion ‘so that they may place the boundaries as piously and fairly as possible’ (IG II3 1 292 lines 15–16).134 Another example which illustrates the second and third types of hortatory clause is the decree concerning sacrifices at the Asklepieion in Piraeus (IG II2 47) which contains two stated intentions: so that the preliminary sacrifices might be offered’ according to the advice of the priest (lines 25–8) and so that the Athenians might distribute as much meat as possible (lines 32–3). What did Athenians think about the intentions of their decrees? It is clear from the literary record that Athenians made appeals to the audience by 132 The view is widespread: Cohen 1995: 52 uses Dem 24.72–6 as evidence that democratic governments do not apply laws retrospectively; Harris (2018: 147 note 145) observes, on the basis of the same passage, the principle that once a case was decided it could not be brought to court again. 133 Henry 1996. See, for analysis, Lambert 2011a; Miller 2016. 134 On stated intentions that can be found on inscribed Athenian laws, which generally emphasise public interest, see Liddel 2007: 111–14.

decrees and political self-interest

101

reference to the ideas about intention stated on decrees. At times it was expedient to emphasise their consonance with community interests. The speaker of Demosthenes 47 suggests that the decree concerning the collection of naval material that he produced (D85 = Dem. 47.20) was introduced ‘so that the equipment for the ships might be recovered and kept safe for the city’.135 Orators were also ready to assert forward-looking motivations of honorific decrees, the likes of which we encountered in the epigraphical evidence. In Andocides’ assembly speech advocating his return from exile, we read perhaps the earliest oratorical presentation of such a motivation,136 notwithstanding a sense of reservation about the readiness of the Athenians to bestow honours: I often see you bestowing civic rights and substantial grants of money upon both slaves and foreigners from every part of the world, if they prove to have done you some service. And you are acting wisely in making such gifts; they engender the greatest possible willingness to serve you (οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ὑπὸ πλείστων ἀνθρώπων εὖ πάσχοιτε). (Andoc. 2.23, trans. Maidment 1953)

Such a perspective, which views honorific decrees as increasing Athens’ chance of receiving benefactions in the future, was central to the argument of Demosthenes’ case for honours in the de Corona (Dem. 18.120), and was also expressed in Xenophon’s Poroi (3.11).137 At other times, though, orators, as Isocrates did in his encomium for Evagoras (Isoc. 9 Evagoras 57 = D24 T1), made claims about honorific decrees as a straightforwardly fair return to those who had done good for the Athenian community: this constituted an expression of morally upstanding reciprocity conceptually separate from the interests of the city. In the Against Leptines, for instance, Demosthenes argued that, were Leptines’ abolition of ateleia to be accepted, then the likes of those Thasians who handed their island over to the Athenians would be deprived of the things

135 Dem. 47.20: ‘ἵνα εἰσπραχθῇ τὰ σκεύη ταῖς ναυσὶ καὶ σᾶ γένηται τῇ πόλει.’ It is impossible to know whether these words were included in the text of the decree or whether they were introduced by the speaker. 136 It is plausible to read hortatory intention in the second of the inscribed Herms cited at Aeschin. 3.184. This text is viewed by Petrovic as that of an authentic epigram: Petrovic 2013. The importance of hortatory intentions (often implied rather than explicitly-stated) is widely recognised in the study of archaic poetry, some of which was epigrammatic: see, e.g., Irwin 2005: 17–34, 63–81; Day 2010: 280; Petrovic 2010: 214. 137 Xenophon recommended that the Athenians should write up the names of benefactors as a way of raising income (Poroi 3.11; cf. Liddel 2007: 164); he advised also that the Athenians make awards to merchants so that they would benefit Athens for the sake of both honour and profit (Poroi 3.4); Engen’s study has shown how Athenian honorific decrees were used by the Athenians to engage their benefactors in a system of gift-exchange and thereby to foster relationships (Engen 2010: 217).

102

decrees of fourth-century athens

given to them (Dem. 20.58, 60).138 Demosthenes took this argument further, appealing to the stated intentions of honorific decrees, suggesting that the inscribed versions of them stand as a memorial to the generous character of the city and proofs of this to those who wish to do good things for the Athenians (Dem. 20.64): You have heard the decrees … it is fitting, therefore, to allow these inscriptions to hold good for all time, that as long as any of the men are alive, they may suffer no wrong at your hands, and when they die, those inscriptions may be a memorial of the character of the city, and may stand as examples to all who wish to do us a service, declaring how many benefactors our city has benefited in return.139

Stated intentions appear, therefore, to have had a strong appeal to the speakers. But they were open to dispute, both by speakers who wished to dispute the morality (Aeschin. 3.180; Dem. 23.196–201) and practical efficacy (Dem. 23.111–14, 118–19, 138, 141) of the Athenian honorific system, and also by those speakers who wanted to read collusion and conspiracy into their rival activities:140 in Demosthenes’ 24th speech, attacking Timokrates’ law on the liberty of public debtors, the speaker claimed that Epikrates’ decree (D93) bringing forward the date of the commission of the lawmakers (nomothetai) to the 12th of Hekatombaion was drafted not, as it claimed, so that it would arrange for adequate funds to be channelled to the Panathenaic festival so that it would be celebrated as handsomely as possible (ὡς κάλλιστα) but in collusion with Timokrates so that his law would bypass the normal route for the introduction of a law and accordingly could be enacted by them without any significant opposition: You noticed as the decree was being read out how craftily its author held out the excuse of the budget and the pressing needs of the festival in order to eliminate the time appointed by law when he proposed that the legislation be passed on the next day. His aim, by Zeus, was not to ensure that the festival be as splendid as

138 There are plenty of other examples in that speech where honours are presented as fair exchange for someone who has done a good service: this, for instance, is stressed in Demosthenes’ account of the shelter they offered for the Corinthians who had held out for the Athenians in the Corinthian war (Dem. 20.52–4); Epikerdes of Cyrene, who fed Athenian prisoners in Sicily, is held up as another worthy donor (Dem. 20.41­4). Cf. the implications of reward and reciprocity in the discussion of the reward to the Troizenians at Hyp. Athenog. 3 (= D175). 139 Dem. 20.64: ‘ἠκούσατε μὲν τῶν ψηφισμάτων …. προσήκει τοίνυν τὰς στήλας ταύτας κυρίας ἐᾶν τὸν πάντα χρόνον, ἵν’, ἕως μὲν ἄν τινες ζῶσι, μηδὲν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν ἀδικῶνται, ἐπειδὰν δὲ τελευτήσωσιν, ἐκεῖναι τοῦ τῆς πόλεως ἤθους μνημεῖον ὦσι, καὶ παραδείγμαθ’ ἑστῶσι τοῖς βουλομένοις τι ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀγαθόν, ὅσους εὖ ποιήσαντας ἡ πόλις ἀντ’ εὖ πεποίηκεν.’ 140 Cf. Roisman 2006: 95–117.

decrees and political self-interest

103

possible, for there was nothing left to be done, and no funds to be provided, but that this law now on trial be enacted and go into effect for their benefit without anyone noticing in advance and lodging an objection. (Dem. 24.28 = D93 T1, trans. Harris 2018)141

This, the speaker claims, is one element of Timokrates’ plot to exempt his associates from paying their debts to the city.142 The allegation of self-serving motivations can be observed elsewhere: in an endeixis following a graphe paranomon the speaker (Epichares) of Dem. 58.30 (D209) mentioned the claim of his rival, Theokrines, that the speaker’s father had plotted to force Charidemos to return to his natural father’s family and to revoke the inheritance that Aischylos had left for him by the wording of the honorific decree he had proposed; allegedly, the decree had named Charidemos the son of Ischomachos (his natural father) rather than as the son of Aischylos (his adoptive father).143

141 Dem. 24.28: ‘ἐνθυμήθητε {ἀναγιγνωσκομένου} τοῦ ψηφίσματος ὡς τεχνικῶς ὁ γράφων αὐτὸ τὴν διοίκησιν καὶ τὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς προστησάμενος κατεπεῖγον, ἀνελὼν τὸν ἐκ τῶν νόμων χρόνον, αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν αὔριον νομοθετεῖν, οὐ μὰ Δί’ οὐχ ἵν’ ὡς κάλλιστα γένοιτό τι τῶν περὶ τὴν ἑορτήν (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ὑπόλοιπον οὐδ’ ἀδιοίκητον οὐδέν), ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ προαισθομένου μηδενὸς ἀνθρώπων μηδ’ ἀντειπόντος τεθείη καὶ γένοιτο κύριος αὐτοῖς ὅδ’ ὁ νῦν ἀγωνιζόμενος νόμος.’ 142 For other examples of allegations made about self-serving motivations for proposals of decrees, see Chapter 2 note 104 above. 143 Dem. 58.30–1 (D209 T1): ‘When he prosecuted him for making an unconstitutional proposal, in the accusation he brought against my father, he said that a conspiracy had been formed against the boy who was the subject of the decree, according to which it was promised that Charidemos, son of Ischomachos, be awarded free meals in the prytaneion. For he (sc. Theokrines) alleged that, if the boy were to return to his father’s home, he would lose all the estate that his adoptive father, Aischylos, had given to him. This was a lie, and no such thing has ever taken place to an adopted person. He claimed also that Polyeuktos, the husband of the boy’s mother, was responsible for all of this, because he wanted to take some of the boy’s property. The judges were indignant at the things that were said, and though they held the decree in itself and the gift to be legal, they thought the boy would be deprived of his property. And so they fined my father ten Talents as being in concert with Polyeuktos, and they thought that Theokrines was actually helping the boy.’ (‘τοῦ γὰρ πατρὸς κατηγορῶν, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ὅτε τὴν τῶν παρανόμων αὐτὸν ἐδίωκε γραφήν, ἔλεγεν ὡς ἐπιβεβουλευμένος ὁ παῖς εἴη περὶ οὗ τὸ ψήφισμα γεγραμμένον ἦν, ἐν ᾧ τὴν σίτησιν ἔγραψεν Χαριδήμῳ ὁ πατὴρ τῷ Ἰσχομάχου υἱῷ, λέγων ὡς, ἐὰν ἐπανέλθῃ εἰς τὸν πατρῷον οἶκον ὁ παῖς, ἀπολωλεκὼς ἔσται τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπασαν ἣν Αἰσχύλος ὁ ποιησάμενος αὐτὸν υἱὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ, ψευδόμενος: οὐδενὶ γὰρ πώποτε, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, τοῦτο τῶν εἰσποιηθέντων συνέβη. καὶ τούτων πάντων αἴτιον ἔφη Πολύευκτον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἔχοντα τὴν μητέρα τοῦ παιδός, βουλόμενον ἔχειν αὐτὸν τὴν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐσίαν. ὀργισθέντων δὲ τῶν δικαστῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ νομισάντων αὐτὸ μὲν τὸ ψήφισμα καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι, τῷ δὲ ὄντι τὸν παῖδα μέλλειν ἀποστερεῖσθαι τῶν χρημάτων, τῷ μὲν πατρὶ δέκα ταλάντων ἐτίμησαν ὡς μετὰ Πολυεύκτου ταῦτα πράττοντι, τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐπίστευσαν ὡς δὴ βοηθήσαντι τῷ παιδί.’). For discussion, see Roisman 2006: 116­–17.

104

decrees of fourth-century athens

One connotation of the forward-looking nature of decrees was that once an audience had become familiar with their content, it was relatively easy for orators and historians not only to elaborate the intentions of decrees but also to compare or contrast them with their actual or probable consequence. Accordingly, Euthykles, speaker of Demosthenes 23, in his case against Aristokrates’ decree for the inviolability of Charidemos (a mercenary fighting for the Thracian king Kersobleptes: D94), claimed that Aristokrates’ proposal would deprive the Athenians of an honest and effective safeguard for the Chersonese. Showing favour to Kersobleptes through this Charidemos risked distancing his enemies from Athens: if Kersobleptes attacked the Athenians they would be less likely to have the support of those he may have wronged (105).144 Early on in the speech, he asserted to the audience the importance of deliberating about not only the intentions of the decree but also its consequences: If it is your desire to learn the truth about this business, and to give a righteous and legitimate verdict on the indictment, you must not confine your attention to the mere phrasing of the decree, but also take into consideration its probable consequences ... You must not be greatly astonished if we convince you that his decree also is so worded that, while apparently offering some personal protection to Charidemos, it really robs our city of an honest and effective safeguard for the Chersonese.145

In assembly oratory, whereas it was possible to emphasise the potential of the Athenian decree for resisting hostile powers,146 Demosthenes in the Third Olynthiac offered a potential contrast between stated intention and actual outcome, telling the people that: 144 However, the main emphasis of his speech is not this conspiracy theory: much of the rest of the speech is spent discussing what the decree fails to specify, rather than what it actually says (23.22–99), that the decree is unconstitutional, undeserved (6–7, 19, 89, 184) and contrary to the interest of the state (100–22, 189–90). He also attacks the desirability (113) of what he claims to be the concealed intention of the decree, after arguing that it forms a part of a plot to make Kersobleptes the sole ruler of the Thracian kingdom (23.9, 15). For discussion, see Roisman 2006: 116–17. He insists that (58–9) the decree throws the Athenians into uncertainty about what might happen in the future, as it will deprive anyone maltreated by Charidemos of legal deserts and gives Charidemos licence to do as he pleases (67). 145 Dem. 23.2–3: ‘δεῖ δὴ πάντας ὑμᾶς, εἰ βούλεσθ’ ὀρθῶς περὶ τούτων μαθεῖν καὶ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους δικαίως κρῖναι τὴν γραφήν, μὴ μόνον τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι ῥήμασιν προσέχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ συμβησόμεν’ ἐξ αὐτῶν σκοπεῖν…. προσήκει μὴ πάνυ θαυμάζειν, εἰ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ψήφισμ’ ἡμεῖς οὕτω γεγραμμένον ἐπιδείξομεν ὥστε δοκεῖν μὲν Χαριδήμῳ φυλακήν τινα τοῦ σώματος διδόναι, τὴν ὡς ἀληθῶς δὲ δικαίαν καὶ βέβαιον [φυλακὴν Χερρονήσου] τῆς πόλεως ἀποστερεῖν.’ 146 See, for instance, Dem. 8.74–5 = D82 T1; see also Dem. 23.104 (D71) emphasising the dunamis of the Athenian decree concerning Miltokythes.

decrees and political self-interest

105

a mere decree is worthless without a willingness on your part to put your resolutions into practice. If decrees could automatically compel you to do your duty, or could accomplish the objects for which they were proposed, you would not have passed such an array of them with little or no result, and Philip would not have had such a long career of insolent triumph. (Dem. 3.14–15)147

We close this chapter, therefore, with Demosthenes urging the assembly to take up his policy of strenuous resistance to Philip on the basis of the argument that their decrees are useless  – the irony of which may well have coincided with Philip’s cynical claim that no-one cared about Athenian honorific decrees (if we are right to think that the author of his letter – at Dem. 12.9 – correctly gauged Philip’s views).148 Demosthenes was attempting to empower himself by criticising the Athenians’ decree-making habits. In so doing, he poses as a critic of the decree system in order to motivate the audience into action.149 He was probably right that the Athenians had not always lived up to the aims of their decrees.150 Even in the early 350s, speakers could present decrees of the Athenians as ineffective in places where it was rhetorically useful to do so (e.g. [Dem.] 50.3–7 = D67). However, by the time of the speech Against Diondas, disillusionment,

147 Dem. 3.14–5: ‘ὅτι ψήφισμ’ οὐδενὸς ἄξιόν ἐστιν, ἂν μὴ προσγένηται τὸ ποιεῖν ἐθέλειν τά γε δόξαντα προθύμως [ὑμᾶς]. εἰ γὰρ αὐτάρκη τὰ ψηφίσματ’ ἦν ἢ ὑμᾶς ἀναγκάζειν ἃ προσήκει πράττειν ἢ περὶ ὧν γραφείη διαπράξασθαι, οὔτ’ ἂν ὑμεῖς πολλὰ ψηφιζόμενοι μικρά, μᾶλλον δ’ οὐδὲν ἐπράττετε τούτων, οὔτε Φίλιππος τοσοῦτον ὑβρίκει χρόνον.’ For other Demosthenic criticism of Athenian decree-making see Mader 2006 with Dem. 4.20, 30, 46; 7.29; Exordia 21.3, 48.1. This line of thinking is emphasised on the speech On Organisation, where Demosthenes states that ‘such is the state of our public affairs that if anyone read out your resolutions and then went on to describe your performances, not a soul would believe that the same men were responsible for them both’ ([Dem.] 13.32). He points to the decree against the Megarians, when they appropriated the sacred orgas, and on behalf of the Phleiasian exiles, as examples of principled hostility which led to action of no account (13.32; cf. DD 111, 112), offering the point that ‘Your decrees accord with the traditions of Athens, but your powers bear no relation to your decrees’ (13.33). 148 [Dem.] 12.9 (‘Philip’s letter’): ‘And you act like this even though you well know that nobody who receives such gifts from you cares a jot for any of your laws or decrees’. (‘καὶ ταῦτα

σαφῶς εἰδότας ὅτι τῶν λαμβανόντων τὰς δωρεὰς τὰς τοιαύτας οὐδεὶς οὔτε τῶν νόμων οὔτε τῶν ψηφισμάτων οὐδὲν φροντίζει τῶν ὑμετέρων.’) For Plutarch’s view that Philip mocked

Demosthenes’ decrees on the bloody battlefield at Chaironeia, see Plu. Dem. 20.3. 149 Mader 2006 suggests that Demosthenes’ tendency to present the demos as politically paralysed and gripped by symbolic action was a strategy for moving the audience to endorse his own more strenuous policy. Demosthenes explained the slowness of the Athenians to act in his speech On the False Embassy on account of their need to collect the means for expeditions (Dem. 19.185–6). 150 There is epigraphical evidence for unfulfilled promises on Athenian decrees: in their honours for the exiled Arybbas of the Molossi, the Athenians pledged to recover for him his ancestral kingdom: IG II3 1 367 lines 42–7; as Lambert (AIO website) observes, this was never done and the honorand died in exile (Justin 7.6.12).

106

decrees of fourth-century athens

born of the realisation of the Athenians’ weak geopolitical position (cf. Chapter 1.4 above), had set in: Hypereides maligned the standard of the Athenians’ decrees, claiming that whereas their former decisions were on a par with the ancestors of the Athenians, their current ones were equivalent to that of the Megarians and Corinthians, and he attacked Demades’ resistance to the people’s desire to expunge particular clauses (Hypereides, Against Diondas, 20–21 Horváth).151 What is suggested is a disenchantment born of Athenian weakness, expressed by way of a criticism of their decrees; we will return to the Athenian concern about the image of their decrees in non-Athenian contexts in Chapter 4 below.

2.6 Conclusion Formulating a general theory about the deployment of the decree in political contexts is a challenging task because public figures engaged with decrees, decree-making processes, and accounts of them in different and sometimes contradictory ways. While the form of deployment with the details of Athenian decrees fluctuates, orators were capable of paying close attention to their language, the procedures that surrounded their implementation, and their implications. Decree-making, decree-challenging, and decree-interpreting were important sources of symbolic capital for the politically ambitious in the Athenian lawcourts. More specifically, we have seen the ways in which knowledge of decrees was deployed in order to sway the people to make particular decisions in the lawcourts, by offering memories and interpretations of the recent and not-so-recent past and to attack political enemies. At the assembly, when orators cited decrees, they tended to do so with the intention of criticising the demos for mistakes in past policy, and appear to have avoided naming fellow politicians as proposers. In doing so, speakers assumed that their audiences were familiar with the culture of decree-making and the importance of its workings to the interests of the city. Over the course of the preceding two chapters, I hope also to have established some of the reasons for the preponderance of the decree in political life: their rhetorically negotiable status (in particular when compared to laws), the perception of them as an appropriate route for political activity, the accessibility of the decree-making process to citizens, their forward-looking nature and the rhetorical pliability of their stated intentions and actual consequences. Orators drew upon them owing to the degree of authority they offered, but also the fact 151 For the possibility that this is a reference to the Megarians and Corinthians caving in to Philip’s demands after Chaironeia, see Horváth 2014: 153–4.

decrees and political self-interest

107

that they loomed large in the practices of politics and the stories that were told about politics. As we have seen, decrees of the people could be used to summon up an image of Athenian harmony and unity (Chapter 1.5.1 above), but also to evoke an atmosphere of crisis and crisis-management (Chapter 1.5.2 above). Reminiscences of decrees could be used, therefore, to generate a sense of the shared purpose of the Athenian people, as a way of expressing social capital; at the same time, they were used by individuals as evidence in the assessment of individual human behaviour (2.2) and were widely deployed in the construction of politically relevant arguments (2.3); by proposing and attacking them, orators generated self-interested symbolic capital (2.4). Individual orators showed the ability to engage closely with the language and stated intention of decrees, but not to an extent that would necessitate a level of expertise beyond that which the civically engaged individual would have obtained through political and social activity (2.5). Once again, as we saw in Chapter 1, both contemporary and non-contemporary (chiefly fifth-century) decrees could be cited in the formulation of arguments, and Demosthenes does not seem to have had any reservations about deploying them in speeches challenging the law of Leptines and the decree of Aristokrates. The accessibility of this system to male Athenian citizens (see Chapter 2.3 above) was one manifestation of a positive political freedom to which many of them had access,152 though it was a system open to manipulation by individuals with an overlapping set of characteristics: ambition, knowledge, eloquence, and being well connected. But we have seen also  – especially in the speech Against Aristokrates (see Chapter 2.4 above)  – that there existed a rhetoric which emphasised systemic problems with the way that the Athenian people dispensed honours by way of decree. Thus challenges to institutional norms in the shape of criticism of decrees may have offered persuasive capital to a politician seeking it. It is a tendency which, perhaps, offers a further insight into the nature of the institution of the Athenian decree: it offered the capacity for individuals and groups to highlight the problems of accepted practices and to deviate from expected norms. To return to the subject of the dynamism of institutions: as we have seen, decrees served as passive agents or receptacles of ambition. They were subject also to the processes of interpretation, distortion, and dispute. The decree-system offered proposers both the means of initiating political developments and also the opportunity to exploit the memory of their achievements; to their local and wider audiences they could act as souvenirs of virtuous or mistaken 152 See now Campa 2018, emphasising positive freedom as ‘self-mastery’ rather than political participation.

108

decrees of fourth-century athens

political activity or as receptacles of historical memory. As vehicles for broader political, moral, euergetic and aspirational transactions the decree-system of fourth-century Athens, I suggest, opened up a unique moral economy of its own, one which is revealed in the literary and epigraphical texts pertaining to Athenian political life. But to fully explain their preponderance in political transactions requires assessment at this point of the Athenian politicians’ sources of information about decrees, to which I will now turn. In Chapter 3 below, I ask how awareness about contemporary decrees diffused among fourth-century Athenians and set out the implications of the fits and non-fits between patterns of preservation of decrees in the epigraphical and literary records for an understanding of the inscribed publication of decrees.

3 The Dissemination of Fourth-Century Athenian Decrees: Local Audiences

3.1 Introduction In Chapters 1 and 2 above I have explored the deployment of knowledge about, and accounts of, decrees in political and litigious contexts. At this point I come to assess the ways in which perspectives on recent and contemporary decrees diffused among fourth-century Athenians. I will test the hypothesis that whereas accounts of some Athenian decrees were disseminated through formal institutional mechanisms, those of others were spread by informal means. Accordingly, knowledge of Athenian decrees was often inexact and unevenly distributed throughout the population. I address the question of how knowledge about, and understandings of, fourth-century Athenian decrees circulated among those Athenians (primarily political orators but also historians) who made reference to them in their works; I shall assess how Athenian public knowledge of decrees was informed or facilitated by involvement in political and litigious processes, the informal circulation of knowledge and access to decrees in the public archive (Chapter 3.2 below); I shall explore the relevance of epigraphical publication in terms of its likely audience, its authority and its impact upon the literary reception of decrees (Chapter 3.3 below). A comparison between the range of decrees preserved in the literary record with those in the epigraphical record (see Table 1) will foreshadow discussion of the implications for understanding the relationship between the Athenians’ decree-making institutions and their epigraphic habit (Chapter 3.4 below). I conclude by emphasising the largely social nature of the processes through which awareness of decrees was disseminated among Athenians. The fact that literary texts are often very quiet about their sources of knowledge of decrees makes this endeavour a challenging one, and so the first task in this chapter, therefore, is to set out the contexts in which news about decrees was disseminated.

109

110

decrees of fourth-century athens

3.2  Diffusion of Athenian Decrees 3.2.1  Institutional and Informal Interaction As already noted (Chapter 1.2.2 above), it appears to have been the prytany secretary who had responsibility for ensuring that an official text of a decree was recorded ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.3), probably in the archive (see Chapter 3.2.2 below). But beyond the meeting of the assembly in which they were enacted, we should not assume that there was any systematic attempt to spread news of decrees evenly through the citizen population of about 30,000 adult males.1 Instead, the extensive individual participation of citizens in the activities of civic institutions was vital to the spread of ideas about decrees.2 For those citizens of fourth-century Athens involved  – even in a limited capacity  – in political activity or litigation, probably the most important way of getting to know about decrees was through hearing them being formulated as preliminary decrees (probouleumata) and debated at the bouleuterion,3 read out and discussed in speeches at the assembly,4 and challenged and advocated in the lawcourts; at such venues, active individuals were engaged with decrees as interested participants involved in a debate about them,5 as officials involved in the administrative aspects of enactment,6 or were exposed to presentations of them as citizens whose role in the process of enactment was to pass judgement when the proposal was put to the vote. The extant sources of the fourth century enable some access to understanding how new decrees were presented before an audience of citizens at the assembly:7 Demosthenes’ First Philippic is the clearest example of a speech extant in

1 On the population of fourth-century Athens, see Van Wees 2011; Hansen 1988: 14–28. 2 Hansen (1980) suggests there were some 700 magistrates (in addition to the 500 bouleutai) selected annually. For a large-scale assessment of the way in which political participation at Athens contributed to the dissemination of knowledge, see Ober 2008, taking the view that formal institutions promoted the cascade of knowledge throughout the citizen body (Ober 2008: 180 note 19). Whereas Ober talks about a ‘cascade’ of knowledge, in this current chapter I place emphasis on the subjectivity of the accounts of decrees that were disseminated. 3 For the dissemination of knowledge at the council and its role in giving political experience to citizens, see Gomme 1962: 85; Ober 2008: 152–5. 4 On the role of the assembly in disseminating news, see Hansen 1987: 27, Lewis 1996: 98–123; Ober 2008: 163–4, writing of the ‘aggregation’ of knowledge. 5 For debate at the assembly, see, for instance, Dem. 19.185. On discussion of proposals at assemblies, see Rhodes 2016a. For the view that debates generally led to consensus decisions among Athenians, see Canevaro 2018. 6 On the process of enactment and the drawing up of the text of proposals, see Chapter 1.2.1 above. 7 There are, moreover, examples of speeches attributed to politicians proposing decrees in the work of Thucydides: Thuc. 1.140–5; 3.36–49; 6.8–26.

local audiences for decrees

111

the corpus of Attic oratory which consists of an argument for a specific proposal under discussion at the assembly (D108);8 it gives us a view not only of the details of Demosthenes’ proposal to organise a mission against Philip (see D108 TT 1–5), but also of the spectrum of intertwined types of argument that were deployed in support of the proposal: these were based on claims about external threats (Dem. 4.6–10, 17–18), practical recommendations (13–22, 28–33), Athenian reputation (3–5, 42), the notion of duty (13, 50), emotional appeal (29, 39–40, 44–6), promises of improved predicament (34, 51) and criticism of past policy (40–2). Demosthenes elsewhere describes how advocates of decrees at the assembly have to speak against those opponents who were motivated by ignorance or dishonesty (Dem. 18.185). Xenophon’s Hellenika also reports upon some speeches which purport to have been spoken in support of specific proposals: he records a debate that took place in the Athenian assembly in 369 about the terms of alliance with the Spartans, with the orator Kephisodotos persuading the Athenians that the fairest policy was to allow the Spartans and the Athenians to hold the command for periods of five days at a time (Xen. Hell. 7.1.14 = D56 T3; cf. 7.4.4 = D63 T2). Orators at the assembly, therefore, would have combined details of the decrees that they were advocating with elements of logical and emotional argumentation. It seems likely, therefore, that the process of discussion of, and debate about, decrees at the Athenian assembly would have significantly contributed to public perceptions of the substance of such decrees and the rationales behind them.9 In the case of honorific decrees, announcements would also have contributed to their dissemination: proclamations took place at the council and assembly (Aeschin. 3.32–6) and public knowledge of them within Athens would have been promoted also by public proclamation at the theatre of Dionysos during the Dionysia  – if the assembly voted to allow it (Dem. 18.120–1) – in front of both Athenians and non-Athenian visitors.10

 8 On the proposals (both in the form of specific decrees and broad policy advice) preserved in symbouleutic oratory, see Chapter 2.3.1 above.  9 On the basis of the statistical proliferation of non-probouleumatic decrees in the period 352/1– 322/1, Lambert (2018: 237–68) makes a strong case for the vitality of the assembly in this period. 10 On the legality of Demosthenes’ claim about the possibility of announcing honorific decrees at the theatre, see D179, Harris 1994 and Chapter 2.2.2.1 above. Reckonings of the attendance of performances at the Great Dionysia have ranged between 5,000 and 17,000: see Vatri 2017: 12. Hanink 2014: 98 suggests a seating capacity of 16,000. On the social makeup of those attending the theatre, see Robson 2017: 69–74; on the assemblies that took place after performance festivals, at which decrees were discussed and enacted, see Lambert 2008: 52–3 and Harris 2013a: 211–13, 222.

112

decrees of fourth-century athens

While there is little evidence to say that texts of past decrees were read frequently to the people at the assembly in the course of speeches,11 incidental references to decrees in public contexts were also important for the raising of their public profile: as we have already noted (Chapter 2.2 above) other extant assembly speeches in the Demosthenic corpus, in which the speaker advocates general issues of policy, discuss the implications of past decrees over the course of their argument. In On Organisation ([Demosthenes] 13), the speaker draws attention to the gap between the stated intention of the Athenians’ decrees and their actual performances, pointing to recent Athenian decrees against the Megarians and that in support of Phleiasian exiles ([Dem.] 13.32 = D111 T1; D112). Such strategies of argumentation would have contributed to public perceptions of past Athenian decrees while also, in this case, developing an overall interpretation and the rhetorical theme that the pledges made in Athenian decrees often went unfulfilled.12 However, if we follow the view of Johnstone, that the structure and acoustics of the assembly-place at the Pnyx meant that it was often hard to hear precisely the words of speakers at the bema,13 it seems unlikely that forms of communication even in this institutional setting would have enabled a straightforward cascade of information about decrees. Moreover, as Lewis points out, the limited capacity of the Pnyx auditorium and socio-economic pressures on individual citizens which affected their ability to attend meant that the assembly ‘could never be the sole or even the principal way in which information was disseminated’.14 Furthermore, references to past decrees in assembly speeches were often vague (see the ‘past decrees’ referred to at [Dem.] 7.25 = D140 T2). Many citizens would, therefore, have learnt about the decisions of the assembly second hand. Other institutions were significant too to the spread of accounts of Athenian decrees; the Athenian council of 500 was particularly important, for it was in the enclosed venue of the council chamber that proposals were discussed, opinions about them were exchanged, and probouleumata to be placed on the agenda of the assembly were formulated.15 But the fact that, as inscribed records suggest, citizens rarely appeared to have served more than once during their adult lives meant that this aspect of participation was hardly a systematic

11 On the infrequency with which documents were read out in extant assembly oratory, see Hansen 1987: 170 note 572. For references in symbouleutic oratory to decrees, see Chapter 2.3.1 above. 12 On the rhetoric drawn from accounts of unfulfilled decrees, see Mader 2006 with Chapter 2.5.2 above. 13 Johnstone 1996. 14 Lewis 1996: 119; for the debate about the capacity of the Pnyx auditorium, see Hansen 1996 and Stanton 1996. 15 For the involvement of the council in the formulation of decrees, see Chapter 1.2.1 above.

local audiences for decrees

113

way of ­disseminating knowledge about decrees.16 However, it is quite plausible, as Rhodes suggests, that members of the public would have been able to hear the proceedings of the council when it discussed decrees, either by being present inside the bouleuterion as it met, or by listening carefully from outside.17 The other major institution of the Athenian democracy was its judicial system and in particular its lawcourts, which were manned by up to 6,000 jurors drawn from a wide social spectrum.18 Decree-related discussions in the Athenian law-courts must have contributed greatly to the spreading of public awareness of decrees: such discussions took place over the course of debates about decrees that were being challenged as illegal (the procedure known as graphe paranomon).19 A significant proportion of the decrees preserved in literary texts  – often those about which the most details are preserved  – were referred to as evidence in those speeches which relate to such trials (e.g. Aeschin. 3; Dem. 18, 23) or indictments of laws (the graphe nomon me epitedeion thenai: Dem. 20, 24) or other speeches which purport to address matters of public concern (e.g. [Dem.] 59): they indicate clearly that awareness of a significant number of decrees would have been disseminated among the litigants and jurors at such trials.20 But as with their presentation at the assembly, the interpretation of the intention or impact of decrees that were presented in such contexts would have been highly subjective, directed by the speaker’s advocacy or criticism of the enactment under discussion. Decrees were discussed also at the level of local institutions – in the meetings of demes and tribes  – where they had implications for matters under discussion: it is clear from Demosthenes’ speech Against Euboulides that the implications of the assembly decree on diapsephisis (= D137) were raised in the course of the deme assembly of the Halimousians and that his fellow demesmen 16 For the inscribed evidence of bouleutic and prytanic lists, see Meritt and Traill 1974. For suggestions on the high extent of participation in the council, see Hansen 1991: 249; Stockton took a view of wide participation: 1990, 85–6: ‘Every year, 500 new bouleutai had to be found, so even if, per impossibile, every bouleutes served twice in a lifetime, over any 25-year period, 6,250 men would be needed – in reality, the number required must have been more like 10,000 at least.’ On the demographics of Athenian councillors, favouring the better-off, see Rhodes 1972: 5–6. 17 For discussion of the question of whether citizens who were not bouleutai were permitted to attend meetings of the council, see Rhodes 1972: 40, 80. Some sessions may have effectively been closed off however, given that the council may have plausibly operated without the knowledge of the assembly, pointing to the council’s dispatch of Demainetos’ trireme in 395 (see Hell. Oxy. 6.1 = DP 5). 18 Rhodes 1981: 691; Todd 1990a; Hansen 1991: 185­6. 19 Graphe paranomon: see Hansen 1974 and Chapter 2.4.1 above. 20 See Liddel 2016 on Demosthenes’ deployment of honorific decrees of the past in forensic oratory.

114

decrees of fourth-century athens

voted to expel from their lists some of its members possibly as a response to its directives (Dem. 57.6, 26).21 While knowledge of decrees, therefore, would have proliferated among those who were engaged in political or litigious activity, it would not have been restricted to those groups. Presumably decisions of the people were discussed also in contexts in which citizens engaged in a wide range of civic activities: on occasions when, for instance, they participated in arbitration or took part on embassies or military expeditions as soldiers or rowers; their implications were discussed over the course of family disputes also (e.g. Dem. 58.30–1 = D209). Accounts of decrees of the Athenian assembly were disseminated also through discussions of them that took place outside formal institutional contexts:22 that the business of the assembly would be the subject of day-to-day conversation is strongly suggested by Theophrastos’ critique of the Talkative Man who reports news from the assembly to his associates (Characters, 7.7) and also of the Boorish Man who discusses assembly activity with his farm labourers (Characters, 4.3; see discussion in Chapter 4.3.1 below). But such orally transmitted accounts of assembly activity – as were those discussed within institutional settings – were of course open to the effects of distortion and rumour and would not have been straightforward windows into the content of decrees. Those with an interest in specific decrees may have pursued the imposition of their directives in non-formal contexts: on at least one occasion, it seems to be the case that a decree was relevant to the attempt of a private individual to resolve a dispute to his satisfaction: we have already discussed (Chapter 2.2.2.2 above) the way in which the speaker of Demosthenes 47 describes how, when giving an account of his attempts to recover ship’s equipment from his trierarchic predecessor Theophemos, he proffered in his hand a copy of the decree (presumably obtained from the archive) which supported his claims (ἔχων τὸ ψήφισμα: 47.34; cf. D85). For our current purposes what is important about this episode is that it illustrates one way in which perspectives on decrees would have been spread through their implementation. Decrees might be enforced – and knowledge of them disseminated – by individuals functioning as magistrates in official capacities. Generals and heralds were among those charged with disseminating announcements about the commands of the council and assembly (Andoc. 1.45; Dem. 18.169; D143 T1 = Plu. 21 For the view that demes formed a link between individuals and polis institutions, see Osborne 1985: 88­–92. 22 Ober (1989: 148) suggests that rumour and gossip were important to the dissemination of information about politics; on the circulation of political knowledge through informal discussion, see now Gottesman 2014: 16, 60, 75 and Livingstone 2016: 56–60; on gossip and the rhetorical significance of claims about gossip more generally, see Hunter 1990 and Eidinow 2016: 171–262.

local audiences for decrees

115

Phoc. 15.1–2). In cases where decrees required the summoning of an Athenian individual overseas, it is likely that a kleter (summoner) was appointed to deliver a summons (cf. Thuc. 6.61.4–7).23 A decree might appoint commissioners of enquiry (zetetai) for the sake of finding out information relevant to its provisions (e.g. D91 T1 = Dem. 24.11). Any individual or board charged with the responsibility of enforcing a decree would have contributed to the dissemination of knowledge about it: in a decree inscribed within a stele bearing accounts of the overseers of the Athenian dockyards for the year 325/4 (IG II3 1 370), we read of Athenian arrangements for the dispatch of a colonising expedition to the Adriatic. The decree contains provisions for the selection by the people from all Athenians of ten men, to be known as the ‘dispatchers’ (apostoleis), who are to have responsibility for the sending of the colony according to the specifications set out by the boule (lines 82–8): it seems to be the case that they were to be given the responsibility of ensuring that ships and equipment were released in time and that the trierarchs were to muster with their ships as set out in the decree so that the colony was sent out as quickly as possible (lines 1–21). There are other occasions too where Athenian officials were responsible for putting the effects of a decree into action. In Athenodoros’ decree concerning sacrifices at Piraeus (IG II2 47), overseers (epistatai) of the Asklepieion were appointed with the task of undertaking sacrifices and providing money for the building work (lines 28–32) while religious officials (hieropoioi) were to take care of the festival and the distribution of meat (lines 32–8). In Androtion’s decree collecting arrears of eisphora, a clause was added which ordered the Eleven, the Receivers (apodektai) and their assistants to accompany Androtion in his tax-collecting activities (D88 TT 1, 3). The decree of Philokrates concerning the sacred orgas of 352/1 (D107) gave rise to guidelines about delineating the consecrated area: according to the sources (D107 TT 1, 2), the Eleusinian magistrates Lakrateides the hierophant and Hierokleides the daidouchos were to mark out the disputed boundary; accordingly, they were effectively charged with the diffusion of the impact of the decree among Athenians and Megarians alike.24 At the start of the Demosthenic speech On the Trierarchic Crown, the speaker claims that the demos ordered the treasurer (tamias) to grant a crown to the trierarch who was first to ready his trireme for sea ([Dem.] 51.1 = D76 T1). The assembly could also order other bodies to embark on formal investigations

23 Harrison 1971: 85-6; Todd 1993: 125. 24 The inscribed document IG II3 1 292 = RO 58 (which I suggest (D107 Commentary) refers to developments subsequent to Philokrates’ decree) emphasises the involvement of the basileus, the hierophant, the daidouchos, the Kerykes and the Eumolpidai in the placing of the boundaries (lines 12–15).

116

decrees of fourth-century athens

of matters, as it did when it ordered the Areopagus in summer 324 to investigate the scandal surrounding the money brought to Athens by the Macedonian treasurer, Harpalos (DD 194, 195). While there was no systemic attempt to ensure that knowledge of Athenian decrees were disseminated evenly across the citizen-body, we might reasonably suppose that awareness of decrees would have diffused among politically involved citizens who had an interest in them through the routes we have discussed (at political meetings, via informal means, and through magistrates); such knowledge and understanding would, depending on the circumstance of the conversation and factors influencing its spread, have been of uneven depth and accuracy. But knowledge of Athenian decrees was not something that would have been restricted to Athenian citizens, which will be the subject of discussion in Chapter 4 below.

3.2.2  The Quest for Knowledge: Using Documents, Collections and Archives Thus far we have considered the possibility that awareness of decrees would have been promoted by their discussion in institutional and private contexts. We have already argued that knowledge of decrees was a potentially important tool in rhetorical contexts (see Chapter 2 above). At this point it is necessary to ask whether, for the sake of their deployment in particular contexts, some Athenians, in particular those who were pursuing political or judicial agendas within institutional settings, actively sought detailed knowledge about decrees. One problem we face when answering this question, however, is that those who draw upon the evidence of decrees in litigious contexts, perhaps because they wanted to deflect the possibility of prejudice against those deemed to be ‘experts’ in Athenian law,25 say little about the sources of their knowledge of decrees and virtually nothing about non-inscribed documentation. Antiquarian decree-collecting reached a new height at the end of the fourth century with the appearance of Krateros’ work Sylloge Psephismaton (‘The Collection of Decrees’) and Apellikon, another collector of decrees.26 While the references to decrees in literary sources earlier in the fourth century 25 Todd 1996, 115, 131; Ismard 2015. At Lysias 30.27, Nikomachos, who had been involved in the administration of constitutional reform as an anagrapheus, was dismissed as a hypogrammateus, or an ‘under-clerk’; see also Dem. 19.249 for Demosthenes’ description of Aeschines’ work as a grammateus and hypogrammateus. For other prejudice against experts, see Dem. 35.40–3; Isae. 10.1. 26 On Krateros see Higbie 1999; BNJ 342 and Chapter 5.4.3 below; on Apellikon, see Chapter 5.4.3 below.

local audiences for decrees

117

­ emonstrate some interest in decrees (see Chapter 5 below), there is little evid dence to say that private individuals collected knowledge about decrees for reasons other than persuasion in rhetorical contexts. It is possible to speculate that some politically engaged citizens of fourth-century Athens possessed personal collections of documentary versions of decrees;27 however, evidence is scarce.28 Demosthenes, a prolific proposer of decrees, referred to his own proposals in defence of his honours, and while it is plausible to think that he drew upon personal records or at least those he had collected in advance of his case being heard (e.g. Dem. 18.79 = D139), at the same time it is not impossible – given the rather low level of detail with which he outlines decrees – that he recited them from memory. In this case Demosthenes’ aim was to highlight the wider implications of his decrees – that is, reminding the audience of those public acts which he held to justify Ktesiphon’s honours – and had little need to recite details that would necessitate significant research into their content. It seems to have been the case, however, that the city’s archival resources were at the disposal of those citizens who wished to secure detailed knowledge of the substance of the city’s decrees.29 Access to texts of decrees was greatly facilitated by the establishment, at the end of the fifth century, of an archive holding public documents in the west side of the agora in the former bouleuterion at the Metroon, the sanctuary of the Mother-Goddess.30 Reference to the

27 Other possible sources of knowledge about decrees might include family archives or petitions put together by those proposing awards for individuals, though the evidence for such sources is not altogether compelling for the classical period: see Gauthier 1985: 100–2. 28 The fact that the Athenians had a generally negative attitude towards documentary bureaucracy (see Todd 1996) goes some way to explaining their reluctance to talk about personal collections of documents; Theophrastus’ Man who has lost all sense (6.9) describes a person who arrives at a trial loaded with a box of evidence and holding strings of documents pertaining to his case. 29 For citizen access to the archives of the city, see Sickinger 1999a: 158–70. In the speech Against Leokrates 66, Lycurgus imagines a citizen entering the Metroon and illegally erasing a law. 30 For the view that a public archive was established in the period 409–406, see Boegehold 1972. But evidence for the writing up in the fourth century of decrees which were enacted as early as the 420s suggests that there was some organised archive in the last quarter of the fifth century (OR 161, a decree of Alkibiades of 422/1). For earlier scholarship, see Todd 1996: 123 note 27 and MacDowell 2000: 258. On the Metroon see Sickinger 1999a: 161–7; cf. 186: ‘[the] Athenians with some frequency may have sought from the Metroon texts of state documents by which they pursued or protected their interests.’ For an important challenge to the idea that litigants were easily able to consult written versions of laws, see Lanni 2004; for a more optimistic view of the accessibility of texts of laws, see Sickinger 2004. Pritchett (1996: 14–39) took a very strong view on the existence of organised archives even in the fifth century, and argued that copies of decrees of the Athenians, in the fifth century, would have been kept in the bouleuterion (1996: 34); for a critique of the view that this represents an ‘archive’ in the modern sense, see Thomas 1989: 75. For a re-statement of the view that there were ‘archival’ documents in the fifth century, see Faraguna 2017: 25­8.

118

decrees of fourth-century athens

post-403/2 re-inscription of decrees destroyed by the Thirty (see Chapter 1.5.1 above) and a written account of a decree (biblion: RO 2 line 61) in the possession of the secretary of the council strongly suggests that this resource, from the end of the fifth century at the latest, contained reference copies of decrees of the assembly. An optimistic portrayal of the use of this archive is outlined at one point in Aeschines’ speech of 343, On the False Embassy, in which he praised the Athenians for preserving for all time their decrees, together with their dates and the names of those who put them to vote, in a public archive (Aeschin. 2.89: ἐν τοῖς δημοσίοις γράμμασι);31 he offered the view that this constituted a practice (pragma) of assistance to those who were the victims of slander in a public place. The availability of decrees in such an archive constituted a resource not only for those who had suffered at the hands of a wrongdoer, but offered a facility for those wishing to strengthen or substantiate defences of their own political activity – or attacks on that of others – by reference to a decree. Some recent scholarship has made a case for the growing profile of public and private written documents, both inscribed and archival, in the fourth-century courts.32 While oratorical references to the storage of decrees in the archive are relatively rare, there are enough of them – most of which were made in the second half of the fourth century – to suggest that, by the 340s, there was widespread awareness of the availability of decrees deposited there; 33 moreover, in certain contexts, it seems that it was rhetorically advantageous to make assertions about drawing upon the resource in the construction of an argument: Demosthenes, in his account of the Third Embassy to Philip (see DP 60), had the secretary recite a decree from the archive in the Metroon (‘ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς τοῖς ὑμετέροις

31 Aeschines appears to have been particularly adept at exploiting his knowledge of documentary material: Sickinger 1999a: 121; cf. Harris 1995: 30; but note the reservation of Lane Fox 1994: 140–1 about the depth of Aeschines’ expertise; on his occasional disingenuousness in citing decrees, see Chapter 2.5.1 above. 32 Sickinger 2002; Rydberg-Cox 2003; Higbie 2017: 172–8. Gagarin 2011: 188: ‘Forensic speakers can speak of a decree as an oral proposal rather than a written text (e.g., Dem. 18.75). But Demosthenes and other later orators also regularly refer to writing decrees and speak of decrees as written by someone, and the common expression for the activity of public figures in the assembly is “speaking and writing” (e.g., Dem. 18.66), that is giving oral advice and proposing decrees orally, but also putting those decrees in writing before they are approved.’ Thomas (1989: 94), while downplaying the extent of the actual consultation of written documents, suggests it became more frequent over the course of the fourth century BC: ‘the slow realization of the use of documents and archives for later consultation ... It is only by the mid-fourth century that we begin to find explicit recognition of the importance of past documents as records to be consulted – and with that, detailed examination of precise wording to elicit new information.’ See also, on the proliferation of written documents in classical Athens, Thomas 1989: 41–4; Cohen 2003; Higbie 2017: 241, identifying ‘document-mindedness’. 33 For decrees at the Metroon, see Sickinger 1999a: 162–3.

local audiences for decrees

119

γράμμασιν ἐν τῷ Μητρῴῳ’) which mentioned Aeschines (Dem. 19.129).34 Yet, in this case, the fact that Demosthenes, in the passages that follow the reading of the decree, passes over it without close comment, suggest that he made claims about reference to the archival resource as a way of establishing the authority of what he was claiming, but without drawing out the detailed implications of the decree. At points it seems to be the case that claims about decrees were not good enough as proofs of their content and they needed to be reinforced with evidence that would be regarded as authoritative by its audience: Demosthenes, in his speech Against Leptines, tells his audience to ask his opponents to ‘show’ (δειξαῖ) them decrees granting exemption to those they claimed were unworthy of it (Dem. 20.131): the implication is that the jury would ask to have them read out by a secretary in court. References in other speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines demonstrate that they would arrange for documentary versions of decrees to be read out as proofs in court by the secretary at specific points over the course of a speech (e.g. Dem. 19.86 = DD 105, 135; Aeschin. 2.170 = D114; Dem. 19.267 = D119; Aeschin. 2.19 = D124).35 But, again, on such occasions, orators do not appear to have been particularly interested in the close details of these decrees: the readings of the decrees were not followed by close discussions of their content. It seems to be the case that having a secretary read a decree out loud was something that was done, for the most part, to underline a broader rhetorical point about the existence of a decree: Demosthenes had the decrees of Diophantos and Kallisthenes read out loud in the court of 343 in order to support a wider argument about the consequences of the conduct of Athenian politicians (Dem. 19.86 = DD 105, 135) rather than to make a precise case about the substance or directives of these decrees. Elsewhere, Dinarchus, in attacking Demosthenes’ decree proposing that the Areopagus investigate the affair concerning Harpalos’ money (D195), claimed that his rival’s decree was to be kept (presumably at the archive) ‘beside the Mother of the Gods, who is the guardian of all the written agreements in the city’ (‘παρὰ τὴν Μητέρα τῶν θεῶν, ἣ πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι δικαίων φύλαξ τῇ πόλει’: Din. 1.86). On this occasion, Dinarchus emphasises the sacred value of the archive to support his insistence that the people uphold Demosthenes’ decree and implement it against its proposer. Documentary versions  – presumably obtained from the archive  – do on occasion appear to have been proffered as proofs of decrees (Dem. 47.34; Dem.

34 MacDowell 2000: 258 suggests that this was a reference to a decree ordering the deletion of Aeschines’ name from a public list of some kind. 35 For the process according to which documents were prepared for public reading in the assembly, see Sickinger 1999a: 167; Thür 2008; Canevaro 2013: 1. For the election of a secretary to read documents to the assembly and the council, see [Arist.], Ath. Pol. 54.5.

120

decrees of fourth-century athens

20.131 = D103, 104a–b). But only on rare occasions do orators appear to have engaged in archival research for the sake of detailed argument. Demosthenes uses documents widely in the speech Against Leptines.36 In composing this speech he appears to have prepared, in advance of his speech, a list of Chabrias’ military accomplishments (Dem. 20.78): it is plausible that he probably drew upon research into different public documents, including decrees, naval lists and public accounts.37 A little later in the speech he asks a secretary to read out an honorific decree for Chabrias, his words suggesting that the official responsible would have to search through a dossier of documents pre-selected by the orator for deployment during the trial: ‘Take now also the decree voted for Chabrias; look for it, seek it out, for it must be here somewhere’ (Dem. 20.84).38 But even in this speech, in which Demosthenes refrains from personal slander against Leptines and relies instead on a rational argument based on the evidence of decrees,39 Demosthenes does not engage at a high level of detail with the provisions of the decrees that he has read out; however, he certainly quotes lines from decrees, such as the statement, on the inscribed honours for Konon, that he had ‘freed the allies’ (Dem. 20.69 = D23 T2). Yet only occasionally is it possible to detect a level of engagement with the language of decrees which suggests that orators may have looked at documents in the archive: as we have seen already (Chapter 2.5.1 above), orators sometimes drew upon close knowledge of decrees in their argumentation. On such occasions – in the debates about the honours for Charidemos (D94), of the Peace of Philokrates (D130), and the terms of Demosthenes’ crowning (D179)  – the nature of disputes meant that detailed engagement with the content of the decrees was important for the construction of an argument. But these were exceptions rather than the rule in terms of the style of reference. Perhaps it was the case that orators referred to the archive in the hope that it would give their claims about decrees authority among an audience who had a high level of respect for the record-keeping abilities of the city.

3.2.3  Decrees in Public Memory and Narratives While, as we have seen, speakers did indeed make assertions and drop hints about their deployment of archival material in the accrual of knowledge about decrees, it seems likely that those who consulted this resource would have 36 West 1995; Kremmydas 2012: 62-4. 37 For the view that this was compiled on the basis of Demosthenes’ perusal of public documents but also oral accounts, see Kremmydas 2012: 325; Canevaro 2016b: 317. 38 Dem. 20.84: ‘λαβὲ δὴ καὶ τὸ τῷ Χαβρίᾳ ψήφισμα ψηφισθέν. ὅρα δὴ καὶ σκόπει· δεῖ γὰρ αὔτ᾽ ἐνταῦθ᾽ εἶναί που.’ 39 On the logical nature of argumentation in Demosthenes 20, see Kremmydas 2007b.

local audiences for decrees

121

had already at least some sense of the kinds of decree that they were looking for. There are, therefore, considerable social aspects to the circulation of knowledge about decrees. Assertions about collective memory – real or fabricated – of decrees appears to have played an important part in the proliferation of accounts of them. These assertions probably were not unfounded: we have already set out the likelihood (see Chapter 1.5 above) that orators, when talking about decrees, would have built upon memory or awareness of decrees – however inexact – among their audience, aiming to augment and manipulate it in different ways. In their construction of arguments, orators make claims about their audience’s memory of decrees or request that they recall certain decrees: when, in the Third Olynthiac, Demosthenes reinforced his point about the Athenians’ tendency to pass decrees but leave them unfulfilled, he told his audience to ‘remember’ (μέμνησθ’, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι) that they had voted to launch an expedition when Philip was in Thrace besieging Heraion Teichos (Dem. 3.4 = D106). His words amount to the claim that the decree already was present in the Athenians’ collective memory in which Demosthenes shared. Claims about shared memory should not always be accepted straightforwardly: in the case of the decrees granting citizenship to the Olynthians, Apollonides and Peitholas ([Dem.] 59.91 = DD 109, 110), Apollodoros’ claims that those listening would remember the honorands and the fact that their honours were confiscated by a decision of the people in the lawcourts seem rather disingenuous. It is out of the question that Apollodoros was inventing such decrees for the sake of his argument: the accessibility of the archive to Athenian citizens would have made the outright fabrication of a decree politically dangerous.40 But scarcity of other references to these honorands in public oratory suggests that they were as obscure as they were infamous41 and that, on this occasion, the collective memory of these awards and their confiscation was one which Apollodoros was attempting

40 For the view that the development and exercise of collective memory was a negotiation between different political challenges and cultural claims, but one limited by awareness of past events, see Olick 2007: 7, 37–54. Indeed, claims in political oratory about falsification and manipulation of public records are extremely limited: for some examples of tampering with public records, see Higbie 2017: 172–8 and Calhoun 1914: 140–2, citing Dem. 37.34, 57.60, 62; [Dem.] 58.41; Aristophanes, Clouds, 764; Knights, 1369-70; [Dem.] 44.37; Lys. 16.7. It appears to have been the case that falsification of private documents was more widespread: see Calhoun 1914. 41 However, the graphe paranomon brought against the decree for these Olynthians was known to Aristotle: Arist. Rh. 1410a 17ff (= D110 T2), recalls an argument brought against the honorands.

122

decrees of fourth-century athens

to construct (or at least exaggerate) for the sake of his argument.42 But at other times, where orators cite a well-known decree (such as those for Timotheos: D47 TT 1–3, where the decree is cited only in passing in three separate oratorical contexts) it seems much more likely that they were taking advantage of an already existing collective awareness of a decree (e.g. Dem. 20.159 = D19 T2).43 As we will see in Chapter 3.3 below, references to inscribed versions of decrees draw upon a similar line of argument: that the document being cited is one which is already lodged in the popular conscience. Claims about decrees were often presented within narrative accounts of political activity associated with their proposer, and awareness of them was based probably upon wider orally preserved narratives. Examples of decrees that were embedded by speakers in wider accounts of the past can be found in the speeches of Aeschines. In his speech Against Timarchos his mention of his opponent’s proposal about dwelling-houses on the Pnyx forms an element of his account of what happened when it was discussed at the assembly (Aeschin. 1.181= D138). In his second speech, Aeschines told the story of the rejected proposal to allow Kersobleptes to take the oaths of the Peace of Philokrates by recalling the procedure through which it was put to the vote against the will of Demosthenes (Aeschin. 2.83–5 = D132). His account was based on the testimony of its proposer Aleximachos (Aeschin. 2.85), as presumably no copy of a rejected proposal was available in the archive. In the same speech, Aeschines quoted the words of Demosthenes, setting out his proposals about the treatment of ambassadors from Philip before going on to ask the secretary to read out the decree granting a truce for them (Aeschin. 2.53 = D126). In this case, Aeschines appeared to present the archive version as a way of backing up a claim about a remembered decree.44 Elsewhere, speakers combined witness statements with decrees as a way of making a case about the intentions of the proposals that they were describing (Aeschin. 2.19 = D124 T2; Hyp. Ath. 33 = D175 T1). When we look beyond oratory, at historians’ accounts of decrees, they often are uninterested in the close detail of their substance. While sometimes Xenophon showed awareness of democratic procedure, as he did in the case of the debate about the procedure to punish the generals after the battle of

42 A comparable example is Demosthenes’ (23.118 = D43) assertion that the Athenians know well the decree for Kotys of Thrace (‘ἴστε γὰρ δήπου πάντες’). 43 Conversely, orators could also exploit for their lines of argument the obscurity of an honorand, as Euthykles did in the case of Euderkes (Dem. 23.203 = D75). 44 For similar practices, where a description of the decree in the narrative of a speech is followed up by the reading out of a documentary version, see also Andoc. 1. 82 = D7; Aeschin. 2.73 = D129; Aeschin 3.92–3 = D147 and Aeschin. 3.100–2 = D148b.

local audiences for decrees

123

Arginusae,45 his interest in decrees emerges in relation only to his understanding of debates at the assembly and military adventures. Accordingly, in his account of the background to the peace of 375 (Xen. Hell. 6.2.2 = D48), he refers to a decree only as part of his explanation of the recall of Timotheos: Two of the Athenian ambassadors, sailing immediately from there (Sparta), in accordance with a decree of the city (‘κατὰ δόγμα τῆς πόλεως’), told Timotheos to sail homewards, as there was now peace.

The non-documentary basis of Xenophon’s knowledge of decrees is in this case highlighted by his use of language that is not normally associated with Athenian decrees (δόγμα τῆς πόλεως) to describe the decree that recalled Timotheos.46 Just as with the orators, the historian’s knowledge of the decree was lodged within a wider narrative which Xenophon recounts; his sources for this narrative may well have been oral. There are, however, some historiographical accounts of Athenian decrees where it seems, from the level of detail offered, that an author or his sources have ultimately drawn upon an archival source.47 Knowledge of decrees, therefore, circulated among fourth-century Athenians and others in a number of ways which arose from both active engagement and passive exposure to their details. In certain contexts, archival research offered detailed substantiation of knowledge of detailed aspects of decrees among those who undertook it but there is little strong evidence to prove that it was a standard source of knowledge for those seeking to construct detailed arguments. Certain orators do, in the second half of the fourth century, attempt to seek rhetorical advantage by referring to the archive. Yet they often appear to appeal to decrees that they claimed were common knowledge: at times claims about this knowledge may have been based on simply rhetorical construction, but at other times – as we shall see in 3.3 below  – they appear to have been based on their monumental existence in reality. At this point, it is appropriate to measure the significance of epigraphical publication in the dissemination of perspectives about – and the public profile of – decrees. To do so requires some initial consideration of the wider significance of the epigraphical publication of decrees.

45 On Xenophon’s account of decrees after Arginousai, see Chapter 5.2.1 below. 46 The possibility that this might refer to a dogma of the Spartan assembly is raised at D48 Commentary. For discussion of Xenophon’s rather limited use of documents, see Bearzot 2014. 47 This is surely the case with the author of the Athenaion Politeia’s account of the ratification of the reconciliation and amnesty of 403/2 BC ([Aristotle] Ath. Pol. 39.1–6 = D1 T1. On the sources of the Athenaion Politeia and for more detailed assessment of decrees in historical narratives see Chapter 5.2 below.

124

decrees of fourth-century athens

3.3  Inscribed Decrees and their Uses 3.3.1  The Implications of Epigraphical Publication For historians of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, much of what is treated as primary evidence for the enactment and substance of classical Athenian decrees consists of the extant versions inscribed on marble slabs, deriving primarily from the acropolis and, less frequently, other city-centre locations such as the agora;48 there survive more than 500 in varying states of preservation from the period 403/2–322/1 BC (see Table 1). The majority of inscribed decrees of fourth-century Athens were set up as free-standing stelai dedicated to a single decree, but on occasion they were incorporated into other documents (e.g. IG II3 1 370),49 appeared within dossiers of decrees (IG II3 1 367),50 or were written upon a dedication (IG II3 1 306; IG II3 4 3).51 The work of Lambert on the selectivity of publication of stelai of Athenian state decrees of the fourth century has contributed to the understanding of the broader significance of the epigraphical publication of decrees:52 he has observed that certain types of decree do not regularly get inscribed (decisions to dispatch military expeditions, embassies, minor honours such as the award of foliage crowns to Athenians) and that it follows that the positive decision of the Athenians to inscribe any single decree can be viewed, therefore, as an act that was of itself significant; it was primarily those decrees which had enduring importance (awards of citizenship and proxeny, religious regulations, treaties, and, from the 340s, honours for Athenians) that were normally inscribed.53 Moreover, the significance of the places of publication at which inscribed decrees would be set up has been studied in extensive detail by Lambert and others: the alluring – and reasonable – assumption behind analysis of them is that decisions about where they would be put on display were motivated by knowable factors.54 It is clear that the majority of inscribed Athenian decrees

48 For the development of the stele as the form of publication of decrees, see Meyer 2016. 49 IG II3 1 370 is written up within an inscribed set of accounts of the naval epimeletai. Another example is IG II2 47, which contains an inventory of medical supplies followed by a decree concerning cult activity at the Asklepieion in Piraeus. Some decrees make provisions for the inscription of earlier, uninscribed decrees, as does RO 31 (= IG II2 107) of 368/7, arranging for the writing up of a decree responding to an enquiry of the Mytileneans (lines 21–22, 35–60) of the previous year. 50 For dossiers of decrees, see Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 24–7. 51 Lambert 2018: 23 note 18. 52 On selectivity of publication, see also Chapter 3.4.2 below. 53 See Lambert 2018: 47–68. 54 For places of publication, see Detienne 1998; Hölkeskamp 1992 and 2000; Osborne 1999; Richardson 2000; Liddel 2003; Shear 2007, 2011; Moroo 2016; Lambert 2018: 19–46.

local audiences for decrees

125

of the fourth century were set up on the acropolis. The motivation behind this tendency seems not to have been to ensure democratic accountability or to enable individuals to read inscribed texts,55 but rather to draw upon the potential of the site as a religious, elevated, conspicuous, and monumentally adorned public space. Meyer offers the view that such stelai might be interpreted as offerings to the gods.56 Moreover, it is tempting to think that they were set up on stone as a way of bestowing general divine attention to, approval of, or protection over the provisions they specified, or even that they demonstrated the religious underpinnings of political authority.57 This divine aspect appears to be very much an epigraphical perspective on decrees: with the exception of the occasionally-enunciated view that the Mother of the Gods offered some kind of protection to the written documents, including archival copies of decrees contained within her sanctuary (Din. 1.86; cf. [Dem.] 25.97), we seldom find expressions of the religious aspect of decrees in the literary testimona for them.58 Indeed, one view is that the scarcity of reference to deities in extant symbouleutic oratory noted by Martin suggests the absence of a divine aspect from decree-making, although Mack makes a strong case for concern for them expressed through the medium of document reliefs and on the basis of the evidence for ritual practice, including prayers and sacrifices at the council and assembly.59 It seems to be the case that the epigraphical record offers a far more theological view of decrees than does the oratorical evidence. There are, however, other implications of epigraphical publication (some of which are echoed in the literary evidence): in cases where inscribed decrees were set up in locations other than the acropolis, Lambert identifies other motivations related alternately to specific religious interests, power dynamics and a ‘message-driver’ tendency consisting of the attempt to deliver a message to a particular audience (that is, to discourage or encourage particular forms of behaviour).60 This points to an overall perspective that some, but not necessarily

55 Democratic accountability and inscriptional publication: D. Harris 1994; Hedrick 2000; cf. Meyer 2013, 454–7. 56 Meyer 2013, 459–60. 57 For these religious aspects, see Lambert 2018: 22–7, offering other explanations for the setting up of decrees on the acropolis; for religious underpinnings: Mack 2018. 58 Rarely do forensic speakers appear to have a claim for the divine origin of law (an exceptional case being found in the spurious (cf. Harris 2018: 195–6) Against Demosthenes [Dem.] 25.16); for the association of law with divinity in other genres, see Willey 2016. 59 Martin 2016; Mack 2018. For religious rituals associated with meetings of the assembly, see Rhodes 1972: 36–7, alluded to in forensic oratory: Aesch. 1.23; Dem.19.70, 23.97, 24.20. 60 Lambert 2018: 33–9. An example of an inscribed decree – set up both at the acropolis and ‘the port’: lines 19–20 – which aims to deliver a message to a particular group is IG II3 1 399, which is aimed at those planning military operation against Euboia.

126

decrees of fourth-century athens

all, decrees were written up on inscriptions with the intention that they would be read and that their details would have an impact upon readers; at the same time, their wider connotations, particularly those related to piety and honorific value, could be appreciated without necessitating close attention to their written words. Over the course of section 3.3.2 I will explore the evidence for human audiences of inscribed Athenian decrees.

3.3.2  Athenian Audiences of Inscribed Decrees What can we say from the evidence of inscribed decrees about their audiences? We have noted already the fact that the majority of inscribed decrees were set up on the complex of shrines that was the Athenian acropolis, which suggests a desire to capitalise upon some form of religious engagement. I will consider the possibilities of non-Athenian audiences in Chapter 4 below, but for now my aim is to explore the expressions of the idea that inscribed decrees were aimed at human Athenian readers. It is clear, at a basic level, from the statements of intention that appear on some inscribed decrees from the second half of the fourth century onwards, that they were written up with the intention that they obtain validity in the eyes of human readers:61 a proxeny decree of the second half of fourth century states that it is to be set up on a stone stele at the acropolis ‘so that others also may know that the people knows how to return thanks to its benefactors’ (IG II3 1 516 lines 13–19);62 a decree honouring the prytaneis of the Leontis tribe of c. 340–25 encourages others to show philotimia in speaking and acting, knowing that they will receive thanks (IG II3 1 417 lines 29–30).63 While the majority of inscribed decrees containing expressions of hortatory intention appear on honours for non-Athenians, both citizens and non-citizens who encountered such clauses may have been encouraged to perform well on behalf of the community and to emulate the honorands if they indeed found the idea of r­ eceiving 61 Lambert 2011a: 202. For examples of inscribed decrees which included explicit expression of encouragement of particular behaviour by way of hortatory clauses, see IG II3 1 306, 417, 516; generally, see Henry 1996; Miller 2016. On the significance of the formulae of disclosure for expressions of honour, competitive display and encouraging emulation, see Sickinger 2009; cf. Hedrick 1999, 2000 raising the possibility of democratic undertones. 62 ‘ἀναγράψαι δ[ὲ] αὐτῶι τὴν προξε[ν]ί[αν τὸν γραμματ]έα ὸν κατὰ πρυτανε[ίαν εἰς στήλην] λιθίνην καὶ στῆσα̣ [ι. ἐν ἀκροπόλει], ὅπως [ἂ]ν καὶ οἱ ἄλλο[ι εἰδῶσιν, ὅτι ὁ] δῆμο[ς] ἐπίστατ̣ α̣ ι χά[ριτας ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς εὐεργε]τ[․․․․․10․․․․․].’ 63 ‘[ὅπως ἂν φιλοτιμῶνται] καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι λέγειν [καὶ πράττειν τὰ ἄριστα εἰδότ]ε̣ ς̣ , ὅτι χά̣ ρ̣ ι̣ τας ἀξίας ἀπολήψονται παρὰ [τῆς] β̣ ο̣ [υ]λ̣ [ῆ]ς καὶ τοῦ [δήμου].’ For a study of the implications . of such hortatory intentions for an understanding of ancient Athenian competitive culture, see now Miller 2016.

local audiences for decrees

127

honours an appealing one.64 Perhaps, as I suggest below (section 3.3.5), it was such enhanced significance and validity to which the orators aspired when they drew attention to Athenian inscriptions. Indeed, it is worth underlining that it is clear that the role of Athenian honorific practices in encouraging civic-minded behaviour was recognised by fourth-century orators and their contemporaries (see Chapter 2.4.2 above; Isoc. 9.57; Dem. 18.120; Dem. 20.64; Lycurg. 1.102; Xen. Poroi 3.11). Other inscribed decrees appear to have aimed to encourage euergetic behaviour among targeted groups of individuals,65 such as priests of a particular cult (IG II3 1 416), and also to send messages to groups, such as deterrents to those contemplating military action against Eretria (IG II3 1 399) or those who were in a position to consider acquiring land in the territories of Athens’ allies (RO 22 (= IG II2 43) lines 35–46). It is, therefore, possible, that orators and politicians might have been included among the target audiences of such decrees, but they were not specifically directed at those politically-active citizens per se.

3.3.3  Authority, Memory and the Inscription of Decrees The question of why the Athenians chose to write up some – but probably not all – of their decrees on stone deserves further exploration. Setting aside the argument that they did so for reasons of democratic accountability,66 there are two other significant schools of thought on this subject: one, espoused most recently by M.J. Osborne, is that the Athenians sought to display versions of texts that would be authoritative for reference purposes; the other, represented by Shear and others, is that the Athenians wrote up inscriptions as an act of collective memory-creation. There is no reason to doubt the rhetorical power that inscribed versions of Athenian decrees offered to their users:67 as we will see (Chapter 3.3.5 below), there are times when orators point to inscriptions to support their arguments (cf. Table 2 on p. 135). The view of the authority of inscribed versions of decrees has been taken to its logical conclusion by M.J. Osborne who, in a 2012 study of the publication of decrees, argued that references (in classical and Hellenistic 64 Miller 2016: 393. IG II3 1 306 is an example of a decree for an Athenian which contains the expression of a hortatory intention: ‘ὅπως ἂν [οὖν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἅπαν]τες εἰδῶσι’ (line 13), but hortatory clauses appear on honorific decrees for Athenians more frequently after the end of the fourth century: Miller 2016: 392. 65 Lambert 2018: 34–9. 66 See note 55 above. 67 Thomas 1989: 48: ‘the epigraphic copy could be regarded as authoritative even though it was incomplete and in effect an “excerpt” from the spoken decree’; cf. Thomas 1992: 135.

128

decrees of fourth-century athens

inscribed decrees) to texts recorded on stelai suggest that inscribed versions of documents possessed a particularly high status as ‘authoritative’ texts.68 There is some fourth-century evidence for the view that inscribed versions of decrees could provide texts for authoritative reference: for instance, a passage from the honorific decree for the Akarnanians of 338/7 refers to an inscribed version of the honours for the ancestors of the honorands of probably about 400 (IG II3 1 316 lines 15–20), but in this case the words seem to constitute a passing reference to this inscription of the fifth century rather than implying its authority.69 Moreover, according to IG II2 120, a decree which initiated the cataloguing of the contents of the chalkotheke, records of items were to be collected from things written up on stelai (line 28) though these were, surely, inscribed inventories, not decrees. Osborne supports his argument by observing that inscribed decrees sometimes order the destruction of inscriptions containing contradictory directives: both the charter of the Athenian confederacy (RO 22 (= IG II2 43) lines 31–5), and the alliance with the Thessalian koinon (RO 44 (= IG II2 116) lines 39–40) call upon an official (a secretary and the treasurers of the goddess, respectively) to destroy contradictory stelai; the same can apply in the case of laws: RO 25 (= SEG XXVI 72), the fourth-century law on silver coinage, contains similar provisions (lines 25–6). One view is that such orders for destruction aimed to eradicate the risk of a contradiction between authoritative inscribed texts; another is that obliteration was a symbolic act which impressed the abolition of a particular enactment into the public memory.70 How does Osborne’s view of inscribed texts as the absolute authority for decrees of the Athenian assembly fit with the relative infrequency of references to inscriptions by fourth-century authors (Chapter 3.3.5 below)? One solution is that orators and other authors did not always feel the need to appeal to the authority of an inscription: claims about knowledge of decrees could be

68 Osborne 2012: 44–6. As Lambert (2018: 56–7) observes, Osborne’s emphasis on the epigraphical version is undermined by the fact that there was an expectation, in the fourth century, that archival and epigraphical versions of decrees would be harmonious. 69 IG II3 1 316 lines 15–20: ‘since the Athenian People made Phormio the grandfather of Phormio and Karphinas an Athenian, and his descendants, and the decree by which this was enacted was inscribed on the acropolis, the grant which the People made to Phormio their grandfather shall be valid for Phormio and Karphinas and their descendants.’ Sickinger 2002: 159–60 discusses other epigraphical cross-references to inscribed texts including the alliance of 378 between the Athenians and Thebans which refers to existing agreements on stelai (IG II2 40 lines 14–20). 70 On destruction as an act with explicit political significance, with a detailed survey of the practice in Athens, see Culasso Gastaldi 2014a. For the argument that normally a separate decree was required to authorise the destruction of a public text of a treaty, see Bolmarcich 2007. On the act of destruction (and also erasure and reconstruction) as a reflection of the dynamic nature of collective memory-creation, see Low forthcoming.

local audiences for decrees

129

founded on other forms of knowledge (see Chapter 3.2 above). An alternative is that Osborne over-states the prominence of references to stelai in fourth-century inscriptions. Indeed, in many inscribed texts, the primary reference point for an authoritative version is not a stele but a psephisma on an unspecified medium: the proposers of inscribed directives refer to regulations ‘according to the decree’ (κατὰ τὸ ψήφισμα), without reference to a stele. For instance, in IG II2 111 (= RO 39) of 363/2, a decree of Aristophon made a proposal concerning the Ioulitans’ payment of what they are said to owe to Athens ‘in accordance with the decree of the Athenian People which Menexenos proposed’ (lines 8–9). Moreover, in IG II3 1 298 lines 28–9 the arrangements for the manufacture of honorific crowns are specified as ‘in accordance with the decree of the People voted previously for Leukon’; no mention is made of the inscribed version which we know from lines 46–7 to have been written up on stone, probably at Piraeus (cf. Dem. 20.36): the reference point on both occasions is to a psephisma rather than a physically inscribed version. It is quite clear, then, that authoritative reference to a decree could be made without specific reference to an inscribed copy. It is important to remember that the final text of a decree, and the question of whether references within it were made either to stelai or psephismata, was decided either by an individual proposer (perhaps, in the case of probouleumatic decrees, with the assistance of councillors), or by a secretary, or by the two in combination.71 The commissioners of the texts of decrees were, therefore, essentially amateurs,72 albeit amateurs who, through experience of political institutions, may have been well-versed in documentary language. If, when composing their decrees, they decided to make a reference to a stele as an authoritative text, considering that it would heighten the authority of their own text, or perhaps even lead to a symbolically or politically loaded destruction of contradictory stelai, they were free to do so; alternatively, they could make reference to a psephisma alone. It seems likely, therefore, there were indeed some Athenians who paid attention to the content of inscribed decrees; the processes both of drafting the text of a decree and of citing a decree in a persuasive context were ones in which knowledge – or at least awareness of – inscribed decrees, was potentially significant. It may have been the case, therefore, that there was a lack of clear consensus on the question of the source of the authoritative text;

71 On the composition process of the text of Attic decrees, see Osborne 2012: 42. 72 The secretary to the prytaneis, who took charge of documents and decrees, was originally elected and held office for one prytany only, but from the 360s was selected by lot and held office for a whole year: see [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.3 with Rhodes 1981: 601-2. For discussion, see above, Chapter 1.2.2.

130

decrees of fourth-century athens

this absence of consensus points to a lack of a systematic notion of authority in terms of the texts of decrees. Moreover, as Lambert has shown, Osborne is probably wrong to conclude that the Athenians inscribed all the decrees that were enacted by the assembly:73 inscribed examples indicate that the setting up of an inscription on a stele required action that went beyond the provisions of the original decree and was a later add-on. An inscription of the early fourth century demonstrates that the order to write up the honorific decree for Komaios of Abdera on a stele was to be carried out by the secretary of the council subsequent to the passing of the original decree: the authoritative people’s decree existed before any inscribed version was created; the act of inscription required this further decree of the council: Smikythos son of Chares of Acharnai was the secretary. The council resolved according to the decree of the people. Prytany of Hippothontid tribe; Stratios was the epistates; Smikythos was the secretary; Xenotimos proposed: the secretary of the council is to write up Komaios son of Theodoros of Abdera as proxenos and benefactor on a stone stele according to the decree which he succeeded in getting passed previously concerning him. (IG II2 77 lines 1–8)74

The inscription goes on to specify that at an earlier point the council had resolved, according to the decree of the people, that Komaios and his descendants were to be proxenoi and benefactors of the Athenians and that the council and generals were to give him protection. It is clear on this occasion that the writing up of the decree on a stele was carried out by order of a subsequent decree of the council.75 Why was the order to write the decree up on stone passed at a later point? It is plausible to think Komaios may have made this request to the council himself: as we will see (Chapter 4.3.3 below), some non-Athenian honorands appear to have specifically requested that their awards be publicly inscribed. On the other hand, given that as we will see (Chapter 4.2 below), 73 For critiques of Osborne’s claim that all decrees of the Athenians were inscribed, see Mack 2015: 13-15, Faraguna 2017: 30-1 and Lambert 2018: 47-68. 74 ‘Σμί[κυθο]ς Χα[ρ]ίνο Ἀχαρνε[ὺς] ἐ̣ γ̣ ρ̣ [αμμάτευε. ἔδ]οξεν [τῆ]ι βουλῆι κατὰ τὸ το[ῦ] δ̣ ή[μου ψήφισμα]· Ἱπποθωντὶς ἐπρυτάνε[υ]ε, Σ[τ]ράτ̣ ι̣ ο̣ ς̣ [ἐπεστ]άτει, Σμίκυθος ἐγραμμάτευε, Ξε[νότι]μος εἶπε· ἀναγράψαι Κωμαῖον Θεοδώ[ρο Ἀβδηρίτη]ν τὸν γραμματέα τῆς βουλῆς εἰ[σ]τ[ήλην λιθί]νην πρόξενογ καὶ εὐεργέτηγ [κατὰ τὸ ψήφισ]μα, ὃ ἐνίκησε περὶ αὐτοῦ πρότ̣ ε̣ ρ̣ [ον το]ύ[του]’ (lines 1–8). 75 Another instance of a set of honorific decrees set up not by initial decree but on the basis of later initiative is the dossier of decrees for Herakleides of Salamis of the early 320s, eventually written up by the prytany secretary of 325/4 (IG II3 1 367 lines 22–5) on the initiative of the proposer Demosthenes of Lamptrai. A further example is the inscription of the honours for the Pellanians of the Peloponnese, which was inscribed only the year after the original honours were granted: IG II3 1 304 lines 7–11.

local audiences for decrees

131

certainly some Athenians believed that there was an audience of interested foreigners who would pay attention to their decrees, so the initiative may have been that of an Athenian. Let us now move on to the other key interpretation of Athenian inscribing habits: the relationship between inscription and public memory. Since the late twentieth century, scholarship has, appropriately enough, tended to downplay the role of the inscription as a source of straightforward information among their contemporary audience. The works of Thomas, Lewis and Pébarthe have set out perspectives that amount to the view that Athenian inscribed decrees were designed not to communicate detailed information or reference-texts, but rather to stand as monuments to Athenian decision-making.76 However, some recent work on social memory in ancient Athens has highlighted the role of specific inscriptions in the manufacture of social memory in particular after the restorations of democracy in 410 and 403. Shear, in her Polis and Revolution, emphasises the importance of inscribed decrees in the Athenian reaction to the oligarchs of 410, pointing to the example of the honours for Thrasyboulos: The politics of memory … formed an important element of the dynamics of the honorific decree for Thrasyboulos and, we must imagine, his accomplice Apollodoros. In this case, to read the inscription was to remember the process which brought the text into being, the moment in the ecclesia when the citizens decided to honour this man … [I]nscriptions picked out significant moments in responding to oligarchy for the Athenians to remember in the future.77

Shear makes a case for the role of physical structures at the Athenian agora – a number of them inscribed – in the creation of collective memories about the restoration of democracy; she argues that on this occasion, an inscribed version of a decree contributed to it being remembered at later points in history; this in turn enabled the reader to recall the ‘exemplum provided by the honorand rather than the specific details of his deeds’.78 Moreover, Steinbock’s 2013 book makes claims about the role of those decrees honouring those who fought for the Athenians at Phyle ‘in the formation of 76 Pébarthe 2006: 288: ‘Nombreuses sont les inscriptions qui laissent supposer l’existence de lecteurs potentiels, les fausses comme les vraies. Mais les considérer comme de simples documents, équivalents ou non aux originaux archivés, constituerait une erreur fondamentale. Les stèles sont aussi, parfois avant tout, un monument qui communique par sa seule présence dans l’espace de la cité. Á ce titre, elles constituent un moyen privilégié de communication publique.’ See also Thomas 1989: 94; Lewis 1996: 164. However, for the view that inscriptions sometimes were set out in ways designed to communicate information, see RO p. xiii. 77 Shear 2011: 161–2. 78 Shear 2011: 162.

132

decrees of fourth-century athens

social memory’.79 Low offers an important advance in the understanding of the relationship between inscription and memory by observing first that the inscribed decree marks the moment where an individual proposal or an account of the past becomes a part of ‘a collectively-agreed narrative’ but recognising that such inscriptions were then subject to the appropriation of individual politicians.80 These views of inscribed decrees being read and playing an active role in bringing forth responses on particular well-documented occasions are reasonable perspectives, but we must ask how widespread such interactions between the Athenians and their inscriptions really were, and assess carefully the degree to which inscriptions can be shown to have had an impact upon public awareness of decrees. It would be misleading to presume that all inscribed decrees were treated with an equal level of attention to detail by ancient readers. Over the course of the rest of Chapter 3.3, I shall explore what the bigger picture of literary reference to decrees suggests about engagement with inscribed documents by fourth-century readers. In Chapter 3.3.4 below, I discuss those decrees for which there survive both epigraphical and literary references; in Chapter 3.3.5 below, I expand this discussion by reference to the deployment of claims about inscribed knowledge among the Attic orators.

3.3.4  Substantive Overlap in the Epigraphical and Literary Sources for Decrees One way of assessing the extent of literary texts’ engagement with inscribed media is to explore the overlap between epigraphical and literary reference to particular decrees. This in fact is a relatively scarce phenomenon: only a very small minority of decrees extant in the material record can be associated in some substantive sense with preserved references in the literary record; still fewer can be identified as making reference to the same decree (see Table 2). It seems appropriate to foreshadow analysis of the material of the period 403/2– 322/1 by discussing one of the clearest cases of overlap between the epigraphical

79 Steinbock 2013: 243. Steinbock (2013: 243–4) observes that the fact that the inscribed version of Archinos’ decree and epigram (SEG XXVIII 85) has been, in modern times, restored on the basis of Aeschines’ text makes it hard to prove that he was drawing upon the inscription. For more discussion, see Chapter 3.3.4 below. Elsewhere, the appearance in both literary and epigraphical texts of the phrase ἀπὸ Φυλῆς κατελθεῖν in reference to the return of Thrasyboulos’ foreign supporters (RO 4 line 4 with Lys. 13.77 and Aeschin. 3.195), is not a secure indication of epigraphical autopsy. 80 Low forthcoming.

local audiences for decrees

133

and literary evidence for pre-Euclidian decrees.81 IG I3 102 = OR 182 = ML 85) is a stele, partially reconstructed from five fragments recovered on the Athenian acropolis, bearing a decree in honour of the assassins of the Athenian oligarch Phrynichos (Thuc. 8.92). The primary honorand was Thrasyboulos: in the inscription, an initial decree, bestowing praise and a crown upon him (lines 6–11), is followed by Diokles’ amendment (lines 14–37), which is restored to state that Thrasyboulos is to be an Athenian citizen (lines 15–16: ‘εἶναι δὲ Θρασύ[βολον Ἀθεναῖον]’); it says that the things the Athenians decreed are to be written up (lines 21–2). A certain Agoratos is named, alongside others, later in the same rider in association with doing good to the demos (lines 25–7); he was granted a number of rewards (lines 28–35), though these fall short of citizenship.82 This man was the opponent of the speaker of Lysias’ Against Agoratos of 399 or later; Agoratos was accused of the murder of Dionysodoros, one of the victims of the Thirty. Lysias attempted to undermine Agoratos’ claims to have been made a citizen on the basis of an honorific decree: ‘the truth of my statement will be shown by the decree itself ’, he said (13.71), pointing to the absence of an award of citizenship for Agoratos on the stele (13.72), and implying that he had ensured his name be inscribed as a euergetes through bribery . As already noted (Chapter 2.5.1 above), Lysias uses knowledge of a decree and reference to its stele in his argument, demonstrating awareness of its provisions and language: we cannot prove that Lysias looked at and read the inscribed version of the decree, but what is important is that he points to the inscription as an authoritative version of it.83 The assertions made by 81 The alliance between the Athenians, Argives, Mantineans and Eleians and their allies is another example of a decision preserved both in the literary record and for which there is extant a (fragmentary) inscribed version: see IG I3 83 with Thuc. 5.47 and the discussion in Hornblower 2008: 109–22, suggesting that Thucydides saw the Athenian copy of the inscription at 111. Lane Fox 2010: 22–3 follows Clark’s view that Thucydides’ text depends upon a text of it inscribed at Olympia in summer 420; Smarczyk 2006: 506 too takes the view that it derived from an inscription rather than an Athenian archive copy. See also Müller 1997. In a later period, as Lambert (2018: 290–304) points out, there is overlap between Stratokles’ decree honouring Lycurgus in 307/6, IG II2 45 + 3207 and [Plu.] X Or. 851f–852e. As Lambert (2018: 57 note 19) writes, ‘the inscribed version is fragmentary, but there is enough to see that, while the text is not precisely the same, it is consistent with the literary version, which most likely derives from the archive’. 82 Agoratos was made a benefactor of the Athenians (IG I3 102 line 28), was awarded enktesis (30) and granted protection by the boule (lines 32–4). 83 We might add another example of close overlap between the literary and epigraphical record for a decree of approximately the same period in the shape of the wording of Demosthenes’ account in the speech Against Leptines of the honours for Epikerdes of Kyrene of circa 405, preserved also in three fragments of IG I3 125: West (1995: 243) makes a case for his view that Demosthenes’ reports are based on knowledge of the decree’s original motivation formulae (cf. Dem. 20.42); in this case, though, Demosthenes offered no mention of an inscribed version.

134

decrees of fourth-century athens

Lysias appear to be to a degree compatible with the inscribed version of the text when we bear in mind both that the awards for Agoratos were bestowed only on the basis of a rider to the original proposal (lines 14–37); moreover, his claims about bribery may be related to the inscription’s second rider, which mentions an investigation into allegations made against the awards for Apollodoros (lines 38–47).84 It is, however, important that Lysias refers to other decrees, including those calling for the arrest of Agoratos and those concerning information he offered without reference to a stele:85 like any other ancient Athenian user of documentary evidence, Lysias was no epigraphical purist. It seems to be the case, therefore, that the reference to a stele certainly bolsters this speaker’s argument, but it cannot be proved that epigraphy was the primary source of his knowledge of Athenian decrees. Nevertheless, it is perhaps relevant both that a comprehensive archive of public documents at the Metroon may not have been established until the restoration of democracy in 403/2 and would probably have collected comprehensively only those documents subsequent to that date.86 The possibility that an inscription was the text of a pre-403/2 decree that was most accessible and also authoritative may go some way to explaining Lysias’ reference to it.87 At this point we turn to probe the evidence for such engagement with the epigraphical record for decrees in the fourth century. When we move into the post-Euclidian era, there are some 16 further occasions in which epigraphical remains appear to pertain to decrees mentioned in the literary texts: see Table 2.88

84 See Todd 2007: 515–16. The repeated mention of Apollodoros as having received citizenship alongside Thrasyboulos makes it hard to identify the decrees mentioned by Lysias with the inscribed version, but this problem may be eradicated by textual amendment or the possibility that the Lysias text makes erroneous claims about the awards (Todd 2007: 516 note 8 and above, p. 95 n. 115.). For discussion of fits- and non-fits between the texts of the inscription and Lysias, see OR p. 503. 85 Lys 13.22–3, 28-9, 33, 35, 59, with Sickinger 1999a: 165–6. 86 See Sickinger 1999a: 62–3, on the rather haphazard and unsystematic nature of the preservation of Athenian records and documents before the end of the fifth century. Cf. above, note 30, for Pritchett’s view of an organised archive in the fifth century. 87 For the view that, in the fifth century, inscriptions were the ‘most permanent type of document possible,’ see Thomas 1989: 74–5. 88 References to honorific crowns in inscribed inventories attested also in the literary record are not collected here, but see DD 174, 190, 228, 229, 230 with IG II2 1496.18–54.

local audiences for decrees

135

Table 2  Epigraphically-Attested Early Fourth-Century Decrees which are Referred to by the Literary Sources89 (a) Archinos’ decree rewarding the democrats from Phyle, 403/2: D15 with SEG XXVIII 85 lines 73–6; (b) The Theozotides decrees, c. 409 and c. 403/2: D17 with Matthaiou 2011 and OR 178; (c) Treaty between Boiotians and Athenians, 395: D20 with RO 6 (= IG II2 14); (d) Awards for Satyros, before 389: D28 with RO 64 (= IG II3 1 298) lines 22–6 mentioning an alliance with Satyros; (e) Honours for Evagoras, 394/3: D24 with RO 11 (cf. IG II2 20). (f) Treaties with Amadokos (Medokos) and Seuthes, 391 or 390: DD 29–30; the kings are mentioned in fragmentary contexts in IG II2 21 with SEG XXXII 43 (Seuthes) and IG II2 22 with SEG XL 56 (Medokos); (g) Decree for Thasians, 389/8: D40 with IG II2 33 lines 4–9; (h) Foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy, 378/7: D45 and DP 21 with IG II2 40 (on the ambassadors coming from Thebes) and RO 22; (i) Citizenship for Dionysius of Syracuse, 369/8: [Dem.] 12.10 with RO 33 lines 30–5; (j) Athenian alliance with Alexander of Pherai, c. 368: D58, with RO 44 ((= IG II2 116) lines 39–40 declaring that the stele of the alliance is to be pulled down: ‘τὴ]ν δὲ στ[ή]λ[ην τὴ]ν πρὸ[ς] Ἀλ[έξα]νδ[ρ]ον [κα]θελ[εῖ]ν τὸς [ταμία]ς τῆς θε [τὴν π]ερ[ὶ τῆ]ς [σ]υμμαχία[ς]’); (k) Treaty between Athens and Thracian Kings, 357/6: D83 with RO 47 (= IG II2 126); (l) Philokrates’ decree on the sacred orgas of 352/1: see D107 with RO 58 (= IG II3 1 292); (m) Decree making alliance with Peloponnesian states of 343/2: see D149 with IG II3 1 308; (n) Decree making peace and alliance with Philip of autumn 338: see DD 171 and 172 with RO 76 (= IG II3 1 318); (o) Proxeny-status for Alkimachos of 337/6: see D178 with IG II3 1 319; (p) Statue for Astydamas of post-340: see D222 with IG II2 3775. More detailed discussions of the relation between the inscribed remains and the literary references are to be found under the individual entries in the Inventory of Decrees (See Volume 1). Unsurprisingly, the relationship 89 Cf. Hansen 1983: 188 note 16, counting six cases of overlap for the period 403/2–352/1.

136

decrees of fourth-century athens

between the inscribed remains and the literary references is rarely a clear one and is often very problematic (for instance, see D17 on the Theozotides decree(s): Table 2(b) above). There is, however, room at this point to analyse the nature of the overlap. On only one of these 16 occasions  – the decree proposed by Archinos rewarding with olive crowns those who had returned with the democrats from Phyle (D15; Table 2(a)) – does a literary source make reference to the material existence of a decree that appears also to be epigraphically extant (albeit in a heavily restored form: see D15 T3) in the material record. This decree was one of a number of rewards proposed, upon the restoration of democracy, for those who had contributed to the democratic uprising against the rule of the Thirty.90 Combining the literary accounts with epigraphically preserved fragments, we can surmise that the inscription appears to have consisted originally of a heading, a list of honorands ordered by tribe and an epigram, followed on the stone by a decree. In his attack of 330 on Ktesiphon’s honours for Demosthenes, as a way of underlining his view of both the modesty of the historic rewards that the Athenians allocated, and the care with which they were dispensed, Aeschines paraphrased the decree (Aeschin. 3.187–8: see D15) which he said was to be seen at the Metroon (‘τῷ μητρώῳ παρὰ τὸ βουλευτήριον … ἔστιν ἰδεῖν’) and had the secretary read out the epigram (‘ἀναγνώσεται ὑμῖν ὁ γραμματεὺς τὸ ἐπίγραμμα’) that he said was written up (‘ἐπιγέγραπται’) for the honorands (3.190–1). In all extant manuscripts of Aeschines 3, the secretary appears to read much the same text;91 this passage has been used to restore the inscribed fragments, deriving from the Athenian agora, of the epigraphical remains both of the epigram and its associated decree (SEG XXVIII 45; cf. CEG 431). Identification of the two is strongly supported by the fact that Aeschines claimed that it was possible to see the award ‘in the Metroon beside the bouleuterion’ (3.187), which is compatible with the findspot of the inscribed fragments in section E of the Athenian agora excavations. However, although it forms part of his imaginary tour of the agora,92 it is striking that, in contrast to his discussion of the epigrams commemorating the victory at the river Strymon a little earlier in the speech – which are said to have taken the form of three inscribed stone Hermai standing in the stoa of the Hermai (3.183) – Aeschines made nothing of the details of the physical form of the award, being interested

90 On this extensively-studied document, see now Taylor 2002; Malouchou 2014. For a list of the different honours dispensed at this time by the Athenian demos, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 24-5; see Inventory DD 5, 6, 14, 15. 91 Petrovic 2013: 206 with note 28. 92 Hobden 2007: 395.

local audiences for decrees

137

primarily in the provisions of the award, the fact of its visibility in the Metroon, and its epigram (3.190–1).93 Aeschines’ words do not reveal whether the secretary drew his text from the inscribed version or an archival record of the decree and its epigram. It is plausible that his awareness of this award – and his presumption that it was shared by his audience – was underscored by its physical existence or perhaps even memory of the epigram (D15 T2),94 but it seems likely that the secretary read from a documentary version of it at the Metroon: there is no indication of epigraphical autopsy in the fashion of a modern scholarly reader of an ancient inscription.95 Aeschines’ interest in the physical presence of the inscription should be regarded in the context of the speech: its presence is cited to heighten the sense that the Athenians grant prestigious rewards to those – unlike Demosthenes – who are worthy of them. There are some five cases where literary and epigraphical sources make reference to what we may reasonably identify as one and the same decree. There is clear overlap in the epigraphical and literary sources for the alliance between the Athenians and the Boiotians of 395 (Table 2(c)), known from a stele which preserves a subject heading and the treaty (RO 6 = IG II2 14). Both Xenophon (3.5.16) and Diodoros (14.82.2) talk about the Athenian decision to send help to the Thebans (or Boiotians), but only Philochoros, cited by a scholiast on Aristophanes’ Ekklesiazousai, talks about a treaty of alliance (to summachikon: see D20). The absence of mention of a physically inscribed decree in our literary sources suggests that the overlap is merely coincidental and that no autopsy of the epigraphical material had taken place. The case of the citizenship decree for Dionysius of Syracuse (Table 2(i)) is similar: there is a literary reference to the Athenian grant of citizenship for him and his descendants ([Dem.] 12.10) and an extant decree which grants, among other things, this status (RO 33 lines 30–5). A comparable overlap is likely in the case of the decree for Evagoras of Salamis (Table 2(e)): literary references (D24) are to a statue, but the epigraphic evidence for the honours (RO 11) is too fragmentary to enable certain identification of the precise awards being granted.96 The situation is the same in the case of the decree for Alkimachos (Table 2(o)), where the literary source

93 Orators rarely make anything of the monumentality of an inscribed decree, though for comments on the physical form and setting of the Arthmios stele, see Chapter 3.3.5 with Table 3 below. 94 For the view that knowledge of the epigram may have derived from a collection that was circulating in the 330s, see Petrovic 2013. 95 Similarly, the overlap in the language of the inscription rewarding Thrasyboulos’ foreign supporters does not prove epigraphical autopsy. See Chapter 3.3.4 above. 96 It is possible that a statue of Evagoras is referred to in a fragmentary portion of the inscription: see discussion at D24 Commentary.

138

decrees of fourth-century athens

s­ uggests a proxeny award (see D178 Commentary), but the epigraphical material is too fragmentary to allow certainty about the nature of the award (IG II2 1 319). In the case of the award for the playwright Astydamas (D222; Table 2(p)), the literary sources are very clear about the setting up of a statue of him; the epigraphic evidence consists of an inscribed base (IG II2 3775) from the theatre of Dionysos which bears the inscription ‘Ἀστυ[δάμας]’, and is usually associated with the episode. While it is plausible to speculate in the cases of Evagoras and Astydamas that the statue of the honorands gave rise to the literary traditions about their decrees,97 on none of these occasions does the literary source make any reference to the inscribed version of the text. Passing epigraphical reference to decrees sometimes overlaps with the literary record in a way that enables the identification of a decree: in the case of the rewards for Satyros (D28; Table 2(d)), it is only the reference in the inscribed decree from Piraeus for the Kings of the Kimmerian Bosporos (IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64) at lines 22–6) and to the awards for Satyros and Leukon which enables us to identify Satyros – mentioned by Isocrates (Trapezitikos 57) – as an honorand of the Athenian demos. In a similar way, the literary attested decree for alliance with Alexander of Pherai (Table 2(j)) is confirmed by the declaration in an inscribed alliance with the Thessalians that its stele is to be pulled down (RO 44 = IG II2 116 lines 39–40). At other points the overlap between the literary and inscribed record is rather less securely attested: the alliances and friendship with Thracian leaders of 391 or 390 (Table 2(f)) are well-known (DD 29–30), but in this case the fragmentary inscriptions appear to mention in passing the subjects of the decree rather than recording the enactment of the proposals (IG II2 21 (with Add. p. 656) and IG II2 22 with SEG XL 56). A second example is that of the inscribed treaty between Athens and the Thracian Kings (RO 47; Table 2(k)), which may well be identified as one that was developed on the basis of the suntheke between Chares and the kings (D83), but certain identification is impossible. William West’s article of 1995 has highlighted a number of possible references to extant epigraphical texts in Demosthenes’ speech Against Leptines, a speech that is rich in documentary evidence.98 However, on the whole, overlap between the decrees mentioned in that speech and those which are epigraphically extant is extremely limited, consisting, for the fourth-century material, of only his reference to the ateleia granted to Thasians under the leadership of Ekphantos in 97 Another example of a statue-base related to a decree mentioned in the literary record is that associated with Chabrias: see D46 T4 with Burnett and Edmondson 1961. On the significance of statues, see Chapter 3.3.5 below. 98 West 1995.

local audiences for decrees

139

389/88 (D40 = Dem. 20.59; Table 2(g)). In this case, therefore, there is possible overlap here with IG II2 33, a fragmentary decree which mentions xenia (4–5) and a grant of ateleia ‘just as for the Mantineans’ (lines 6–7) to Thasians exiled on the charge of Atticism. N[aumachos] and Echpha[ntos] are given the responsibility of writing up their names (lines 8–9). While in this case there are clear associations between the literary and the epigraphical evidence, it is likely that, as Osborne (Naturalization D9 Commentary) has argued, the inscribed decree relates not to the episode described by Demosthenes, but to an exile of pro-Athenians which followed it. Again, we have a coincidence of associated, rather than identical, developments being referred to in the two datasets. Other occasions of apparent overlap between the literary and epigraphic record are yet more controversial. Diodorus, in his account of the establishment of the Second Athenian Confederacy (15.29.7; see D45; Table 2(h)), states that the Athenians admitted the Thebans to the koinon sunedrion, restored cleruchies to their former owners, and banned Athenians from cultivating lands outside Attica. This passage has clear resonances with two pieces of epigraphical evidence: on the one hand, the decree IG II2 40, which appears to concern an alliance with, or at least the receipt of ambassadors from, the Thebans; and the well-known prospectus of the confederacy (RO 22 = IG II2 43), the provisions of which against the Athenian ownership of land in allied states are at least echoed in the passage of Diodorus. In this case, the correspondences between the inscribed and the literary attestations are oblique and linguistically rather distant, but both sets of evidence share the sense of prohibiting Athenian exploitation of allied territories.99 So far, we have discussed a number of decrees to which there is shared reference in the epigraphical and literary sources.100 The majority of overlaps seem to consist of coincidental reference to different aspects of the same episode. But they highlight some wider tendencies too: we might observe that the literary sources place emphasis on the motivations behind the decree, their logical and moral consequences and the processes to which they gave rise; the epigraphical accounts of them focus upon their formulaic ratification and terms. We can observe also that, given the tendencies of literary selection to emphasise decrees concerning relations between Athens and the outside world and epigraphical  99 The three other cases of possible overlap between the literary and epigraphical datasets (DD 17, 107 and 171/172) are all deeply controversial and are discussed in more detail in their respective Inventory entries. 100 Overlap between the award of proxeny and euergesy on Herakleides of Byzantion of Dem. 20.60 and the inscribed honours for a Herakleides of (probably Klazomenai) was decisively ruled out by Meiggs and Lewis 1998 (ML 70 with SEG XXXII 10, ML Addenda p. 313; cf. OR 157).

140

decrees of fourth-century athens

emphasis on inscribed treaties and honours for non-Athenians (see Chapter 3.4 below), the foreign-policy and outward-facing orientation of the majority of these examples is not a surprise. In terms of chronological spread it is perhaps worth noting that 10 of the 16 examples of overlap date to the period between 403/2 and the early 360s: this proportion is at odds with the growing pace of epigraphical publication of decrees in the third quarter of the fourth century (see Chapter 3.4.1 below);101 one explanation may lie in the fact that the growth area in epigraphical publication in the second half of the fourth century was among those inscriptions which were least likely to be mentioned in the literary record, that is, honours for otherwise obscure Athenians.102 We should note also that, apart from the decree for the assassins of Phrynichos (IG I3 102, discussed on pp. 133–4 above), the most plausible case for the significance of epigraphy to the dissemination of knowledge about decrees arises from the testimonia for the Archinos decree bestowing awards for Athenians: this may well have something to do with its exceptional place of publication, in the agora where, as already noted (Chapter 3.2 above), the Athenians, after 403/2, developed an archive into which copies of laws and decrees were deposited. At the same time, however, Aeschines makes no claim that he has seen an inscribed version of it: by talking about its visibility at the Metroon (3.187) he might be referring to an archival version. It seems to be the case, therefore, that even in cases where decrees are known, on the grounds of their physical survival, to have been inscribed in antiquity, the literary sources did not owe their knowledge of them to epigraphy. Whatever the identity of the target audience of inscribed Athenian texts, they do not seem to have attracted a great deal of attention from those ancient authors whose work is extant. But before we dismiss the significance of inscriptions to our understanding of ancient perceptions of decrees it is important to assess the claims made in the literary sources about the existence of inscriptions that are not physically known to modern scholars.

3.3.5  Claims about Inscribed Decrees The occasional passing comments of politicians (including Aeschines, Demosthenes, Hypereides, Dinarchus and Lycurgus)103 about the location of inscribed decrees suggest that orators were aware of their physical presence in the city and their potential relevance to their arguments. They may have 101 Lambert 2018: 297-8 notes that the increase accelerated after the battle of Chaironeia. 102 Lambert 2018: 187. 103 E.g. D15 TT 1–2; D19 T3; D177 with Hypereides F79 Jensen; Din. 2.24-5 (stele of Arthmios).

local audiences for decrees

141

made reference to them on the grounds, as Richardson argues, that they expected their audience to be acquainted with some epigraphical terminology and accordingly that it would summon up a bond of shared touchstones with their speakers.104 Such references reveal the importance of inscriptions as physical monuments to public decisions also through their expression of concern about physical damage to them: the speaker of Demosthenes 57, asserting the small-mindedness of his enemies (and revealing the limits of his own scope of argument),105 complained that rival demesmen had chiselled out the inscription of the honorific decree granted to him. In the following sections, I offer a brief survey of engagement with inscribed provisions in rhetorical contexts with a view to assessing the significance of inscriptions to contemporary Athenian perceptions of decrees. This is not, however, the place for a full discussion of the arguments that were constructed on the basis of claims about inscribed knowledge;106 my focus here is primarily on reference to inscriptions pertaining to decrees, and these will be discussed in turn by type.

3.3.5.1  Anti-Tyranny Provisions One type of legislation which Attic orators cite in association with their inscribed manifestation is those laws and decrees outlawing individuals involved in office-holding over the course of a tyrannical regime. In his speech On the Mysteries (399) Andocides attacked his opponent Epichares by claiming that, had Solonian anti-tyranny legislation been in force, he would have been – on account of his having served in the boule during the regime of the Thirty – liable to lawful killing by any Athenian. He cites this law by reference to a nomos ‘from a stele’ which is set up ‘in front of the bouleuterion’ (Andoc. 104 For familiarity with epigraphic language: see Richardson 2015. For the role of inscriptions in the creation of a widely accepted narrative about the past, see Shear 2011: 11–14; for this view, with increased emphasis on the dynamism of the treatment of inscribed public documents, see Low forthcoming. 105 Dem 57.64: ‘The demesmen from whom I had exacted repayment of the public moneys swore a conspiracy against me, and by a sacrilegious theft stole from the temple the shields which I had dedicated to Athena (for the truth shall be told) and chiselled out the decree which the demesmen had passed in my honour (‘τὸ ψήφισμ’ ἐκκολάψαντες ὃ ἐμοὶ ἐψηφίσανθ’ οἱ δημόται’). And they have come to such a pitch of shamelessness that they went about saying that I had done this for the sake of my defence. Yet what man among you, men of the jury, would judge me so utterly insane as to commit an act punishable with death in order to secure a bit of evidence for my case, and then myself to destroy an inscription which brought me honour?’ 106 See Richardson 2015. Diodorus, the speaker of Demosthenes 22, for instance, expressed dismay at the loss of inscriptions on dedicated crowns which was a consequence of Androtion’s recasting of public dedications (Dem. 22.72).

142

decrees of fourth-century athens

1.95).107 On this occasion it seems to be the case that by reminding the people of the existence of an inscribed version of this law, Andocides was able to make a stronger case for its moral significance for attitudes towards Epichares. Given the inauthenticity of the document which appears in sections 96–8 of Andocides’ On the Mysteries,108 we are reliant for firm knowledge of the decree of Demophantos on tyranny (see D19) on two later testimonia: those of Lycurgus (Against Leokrates) and Demosthenes (Against Leptines). On both occasions, the orators make reference to the physical location of the text. In his speech of 331, Lycurgus deployed knowledge both of the text of the post-­ Euclidian decree and the Athenians’ decision to set it up at the bouleuterion as a reminder of the severity of punishment the Athenians imposed on those who betrayed democracy (Lycurg. 1.126): They wrote these things, men, on the stele, and they set it up at the bouleuterion, as a memorandum for those who gather each day and deliberate on behalf of the fatherland how it is necessary to behave towards such men. And on account of this they swore to kill anyone who was perceived as even contemplating such things.

Citing it as evidence, Lycurgus had apparently decided that the provisions and reputation of the inscribed decree of Demophantos would be more rhetorically powerful than those of the more recently enacted law of Eukrates (IG II3 1 320 = RO 79):109 an old decree appeared to him to be more p ­ ersuasive, as a memorandum of the jurors’ duties, than a new law. Some years earlier Demosthenes, in probably 355/4,110 had urged his audience to remember the ‘stele of Demophantos’ (20.159) to underline his point that the Athenians in the past had received awards for defending democracy: in both cases, therefore, the mention of a physical manifestation makes the moral argument more enduring, but it may well be the case that discussion of such inscriptions relies not on engagement with the physical inscription but rather awareness of a tradition about an inscribed version of the document.

107 The interpretation of this passage presented here is not reliant upon the controversial document which purports to be a decree of Demophantos on the treatment of those implicated with tyrannical activity. See Canevaro and Harris 2012. Harris 2013–14 challenges the defence of the decree proposed by Sommerstein 2014b; its authenticity is defended also by Hansen 2015: 898–901; cf. Carawan 2017. For discussion of the document, see D19 above. For deployment in historical reconstruction of Andocides ‘document’ of the Demophantos decree, see, for example, Shear 2007; Teegarden 2012, 2014: 35–53. 108 See D19 Commentary. 109 For the hierarchical relationship between laws and decrees, see Chapter 1.2.2 above. 110 Kremmydas 2012: 33.

local audiences for decrees

143

3.3.5.2  Honorific Decrees Hypereides, in his graphe paranomon speech against Demades’ proposal that Euthykrates of Olynthos be made proxenos of the Athenians, joked that the stele for this honorand would be more justly set up among the rubbish dumps (oxythymia) than among the temples (Hypereides F79 Jensen; cf. D177).111 At this point in the speech, it seems that Hypereides was attacking the decree by focussing upon the provision to set up an inscribed version of the award, perhaps on the acropolis. As Demosthenes does elsewhere (Dem. 20.149; see below), he suggests that it was normal for honorific decrees to be set up in sanctuaries. Yet the fragmentary preservation (Harpokration, s.v. ‘ὀξυθύμια’) and rhetorical context of this testimonium means that it is impossible to be certain about whether the decision to write up an honorific award on stone is exceptional or not. The fact that, of the 80 honorific decrees for Athenians and non-Athenians discussed in the literary sources (some of them – such as Ktesiphon’s decree for Demosthenes (D179) – in detail), only four others made reference to an inscribed version (see D15: for democrats; D23: for Konon; D39: for Iphikrates; D54: for Leukon), makes it seem unlikely that the Athenians automatically inscribed all copies of honorific decrees.112 We should follow the view taken by Aristotle, that a written memorial constituted a reward in its own right just as did a spectrum of other awards: sacrifices, monuments without words, privileges, grants of land, front seats, public burial, state maintenance (Rh. 1361a34–6). The occasions when honorific decrees were cited by reference to their inscribed manifestations merit some analysis: in the Against Leptines Demosthenes, in support of the view that his opponent’s law would unjustifiably annul rewards granted to both Athenians and non-Athenians, cited an inscribed honorific stele for Konon and introduced it with the motivation formulae ‘since [Konon] … liberated the allies of the Athenians’ (‘ἐπειδὴ [Κόνων] … ἠλευθέρωσε τοὺς Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους’: Dem. 20.69): Demosthenes envisages that this statement would, to an Athenian reader, represent the philotimia of Konon, while showcasing, to a Panhellenic audience, the philotimia of the Athenian community.113 Such a statement ­represents

111 For an alternative interpretation of the term oxythymia, see Chapter 5 note 110 below. 112 The limited overlap between inscribed and literary testimonia for honorific decrees supports this assertion: see Table 2 on p. 135. 113 20.69: ‘These words represent, jurors, his ambition to win respect among you, and your ambition to win the same among the Greeks’ (‘ἔστιν δὲ τοῦτο τὸ γράμμ’, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐκείνῳ μὲν φιλοτιμία πρὸς ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, ὑμῖν δὲ πρὸς πάντας τοὺς Ἕλληνας’). For discussion of Athenian decrees outside Athens, see Chapter 4.2–3 below.

144

decrees of fourth-century athens

clearly the way that an inscribed honorific decree might be ­perceived as speaking to its honorand while also setting out the ambition of the awarding body. Demosthenes elsewhere in the speech drew significance from inscribed versions of honorific decrees, claiming the durability of stelai as enduring memorials of the city’s character (20.64). Furthermore, when he talked in detail about the decrees for Leukon at section 36 he maintained that the stelai themselves were held to symbolise the agreements into which the Athenians had entered for the sake of reciprocal benefit, but that, if the Athenians upheld Leptines’ abolition of ateleia, they would stand ‘forever as proof (tekmerion) that those who want to slander our city are telling the truth’ (36–7). Later in the speech he argued that Leptines’ law would remove the awards which ‘had been written up in sanctuaries’ (ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἀναγράψας) and which ‘everyone knows’ (πάντες συνίσασιν: Dem. 20.149). The stelai of decrees are held by Demosthenes, therefore, as significant in their creation of a legacy of Athenian character, which Leptines’ law threatened to undermine. He makes a case for the view that inscribed stelai have implications for the relationship between the Athenians and their benefactors and for the image of Athens throughout Greece. At the same time, the places of publication of the stone listed by Demosthenes himself – Bosporos, Piraeus and Hieron – suggest that he was drawing not directly upon autopsy of the stelai but rather was exploiting his and his audience’s shared view of the implications of these places of publication.114 When we move beyond the stelai, we find that the decrees dispensing the most prestigious honours  – in particular a statue  – win more attention in the literary sources: those who received statues, for instance, Konon (D23), Evagoras (D24), Timotheos (D47), Chabrias (D46) and Iphikrates (D54),115 were more prominent than those who did not. The Athenian decision to honour Evagoras of Salamis in 394/3 is known from some fragments of a decree (RO 11) in which it is said that ‘[something]’ (the inscribed text is lost) is to be placed or done ‘[in fron]t of the stat[ue’) (‘[ἔμπροσθ]εν τοῦ ἀγάλμα[τος]’): that is, in front of the statue, probably of a deity: lines 21–22): we can reasonably assert that this ‘[something]’ was a reference either to the statue of Evagoras reported by Isocrates and Pausanias (D24) or to the stele of the inscription. It is relevant, on this occasion, that while the literary sources refer to a statue, the inscribed copy of the decree is never deemed

114 The inscribed decree for Leukon’s sons, with its mention of the stele for Leukon and Satyros, stands as another testimonium of the award for Leukon: RO 64 lines 46–7. 115 See Oliver 2007: 184.

local audiences for decrees

145

important enough for a mention:116 in this case, and surely in others too, a statue attracted more attention than a stele. An honorific stele was clearly not enough to secure fame in fourth-century Athens but a statue would offer a firmer guarantee of it. We may observe, finally, that while honorific documents appear to have been among the type of decree that was most frequently cited by orators – primarily for their moral implications – it is striking that the examples cited by reference to inscriptions are mostly exceptional and high-profile rather than run-of-the-mill examples of minor officials being honoured for good conduct.

3.3.5.3 Treaties As already noted (Table 1 on pp. 12–13), the treaty is one of the most frequently attested forms of fourth-century Athenian decree in literature. The inscribed version of the Peace of Philokrates attracted occasional passing reference among its contemporaries.117 The probably spurious Andocides’ On the Peace cited a stele bearing terms according to which the Athenians made peace with the Spartans at the end of the Peloponnesian War, comparing them unfavourably with the proposals of 392 (D25).118 The terms of the settlement to which Andocides refers here are uncontroversial, but the testimony to the existence of a stele bearing such terms is unique; this peculiarity may be explained by the fact that the terms of the settlement were embarrassing to the Athenians, and not the type of thing to discuss in a public context even had they been inscribed on the acropolis. Andocides’ style of reference, as Sickinger argues,

116 In addition to this, we might also take note of IG I3 113 (= Osborne 1981–3 D3), which is a very heavily restored award of citizenship for Evagoras of probably early 407; the grant of citizenship to him is mentioned in Philip’s Letter (= [Dem.] 12.10) and Isocrates’ Evagoras 54, but neither of these sources mentions an inscribed version. 117 For passing references to the stele of the Peace of Philokrates, see D130 Commentary. Philochoros (T13) says that the people voted to destroy the stele which was set up regarding the peace and alliance with Philip; [Dem.] 12.8 (on which see D204) talks also of the names of Teres and Kersobleptes being left off the stelai of the Peace. Aeschin. 3.70 also mentions a stele of the Peace, to which, according to a resolution of the allies of the Athenians, any Greek state could add its name. 118 Andocides, On the Peace, 12: ‘Look at the provisions of the two as they are written down (‘ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν γραμμάτων’); contrast the conditions of the truce inscribed upon the stone (‘ἐν τῇ στήλῃ γέγραπται’) with the conditions on which you can make peace today. In the inscription there, we have to demolish our walls: in these terms we can rebuild them. There, we are to keep 12 ships: now, as many ships as we like. Then, Lemnos, Imbros and Skyros are to be kept by those who held them at the time: now, they are to be ours. Now, we are not required to let any of the exiles return: then, we were required to, with the result that the democracy was subverted.’ For discussion see Sickinger 2002: 157–8.

146

decrees of fourth-century athens

‘all but prove that he had studied the inscription itself ’.119 Yet given the probable inauthenticity of the speech,120 we cannot rule out that the stele was the fantasy of the speech’s later fabricator. At the same time, however, we cannot necessarily dismiss the existence of unfavourable stelai on Athenian soil: Isocrates, for instance, refers to stelai which bring shame upon the Athenians (4.176, 180), and those that the Great King forced them to set up, in which case it is clear that he was talking about the terms of the Peace of Antalkidas.121

3.3.5.4  Other Inscribed Public Documents To our observation that reference to inscribed versions of fourth-century Athenian decrees was occasional among literary sources, we can add the point that such references appear to be concentrated among those lawcourt speeches (including Demosthenes’ Against Leptines and Lycurgus’ Against Leokrates) in which the speaker construed the case as being of public concern. Unsurprisingly, while inscriptions could be drawn upon as a source of persuasive capital, there is nothing that we have seen so far to suggest that they represented the primary authoritative source of information about decrees. As points of evidence in argumentation, therefore, inscriptions offer an enhancement of an argument, rather than its defining point, and rather than being essential to an overall line of argument they strengthen it. But orators did not consistently take advantage of this opportunity: even Lycurgus, when he read out the text of documents that had been inscribed probably in the years immediately before his speech of 331,122 did not mention a physical version of either the ephebic oath or the oath of Plataea (Lycurg. 1.76, 80–1). What we have seen, so far, is that the citation of inscribed versions of documents is a practice related to the underlining of specific rhetorical points, but

119 Sickinger 2002: 157. 120 For the view that the speech is spurious, see Harris 2000a; Rhodes 2016a remains unconvinced of the speech’s inauthenticity. 121 Isoc. Panegyrikos 180: ‘Yes, and he has compelled us to engrave this treaty on pillars of stone and place it in our public temples (‘ταύτας ἡμᾶς ἠνάγκασεν ἐν στήλαις λιθίναις ἀναγράψαντας ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς τῶν ἱερῶν καταθεῖναι’) – a trophy far more glorious for him than those which are set up on the fields of battle (‘πολὺ κάλλιον τρόπαιον τῶν ἐν ταῖς μάχαις γιγνομένων’); for the latter are for minor deeds and a single success, but this treaty stands as a memorial of the entire war and of the humiliation of the whole of Greece.’ Compare also Isoc. 4 Panegyrikos 176 on agreements allowing the cities and islands to be autonomous as ‘μάτην ἐν ταῖς στήλαις’: presumably a reference to the Peace of Callias. 122 An inscription bearing texts of both was set up in the middle of the fourth century, and probably antedates the reform of the ephebic organisation of the 330s (RO 88 with Commentary).

local audiences for decrees

147

it demonstrates little by way of straightforward documentary consultation of public inscriptions: the contemporary sources are rarely interested in the runof-the-mill type inscribed decrees (such as proxeny-awards or honours for officials) that dominate corpora of extant inscribed decrees. On one occasion, an orator appears to make reference to a relatively mundane epigraphical form, an inscribed list of naval debtors, in which Demochares and Theophemos appear, as he urges them to pay up what they owed by reference to the inscribed version (Dem. 47.22–3).123 But among the extant speeches of Attic orators, there appears to be some emphasis upon those public inscriptions that are extraordinary or pertain to exceptional circumstances, as the following list of references to extraordinary inscriptions in oratory in Table 3 suggests. Table 3  References to Extraordinary Inscriptions in Oratory (a) Historic honorific inscriptions: enfranchised Plataeans ([Dem.] 59.104); inscribed Hermai (Aeschin. 3.183–5); ateleia for descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (Dem. 20.128); epigram for those who died at Chaironeia (Dem. 18.289); (b) Historic laws: Lysias 1.30 (from the Areopagos), 1.47; Dem. 47.71; sacred regulations for the Basilinna: [Dem.] 59.76; the patrios nomos on Eleusinian mysteries: And. 1.115–16; (c) Lists of traitors: Lycurg. 1.117–19; And. 1.51; Ar. Rhet. 1400a32–6; cf. Schol. Ar. Lys. 243, Stroud 1978: 31–2; (d) Stele of Arthmios: Dem. 9.41–3, 19.271–2; Aesch. 3.258; Din. 2.24, 25; Plu. Them. 6.4; Aristides ii, p. 392 (= Krateros F14); Isocr. 16 Team of Horses 9; (e) Verdict and curses against Alkibiades: D.S. 13.69; Isocr. 16 Team of Horses 9); (f) Material from outside Athens: altar at boundary: [Dem.] 7.41; inscribed dedications of Athens at Delphi: Aeschin. 3.116; Chaironeia epigram: Dem. 18.239. Table 3 outlines the more extraordinary inscribed public documents that attracted citation by Attic orators and emphasises how far removed this audience’s attention was from what are today the extant remains of Athenian state inscriptions. The material is dominated by oddities: the inscribed honorific decrees cited consisted of exceptional and famous cases (Table 3(a)). Orators 123 As Davies 1994a: 211 notes, records of this trierarchy survive in the published accounts of naval epimeletai (IG II2 1612 line 314; 1622 line 615).

148

decrees of fourth-century athens

were ready also to make claims on the basis of inscriptions from extra-Athenian contexts (Table 3(f)). Moreover, a significant proportion of the interest shown in inscribed laws consists of reference to legislation whose physical creation lies deep in the Athenian past (Table 3(b)):124 claims were made sometimes about famous historical inscriptions, such as those related to the legislation of Draco and Solon. The most frequently cited inscription occurring in the texts of the Attic orators was that of the bronze stele about the traitor Arthmios (Table 3(c)), the likes of which there is no physically attested parallel. One apparent attraction of this document was the prominence of its physical manifestation on a bronze stele close to the statue of Athena Promachos (Dem. 19.272) on the acropolis: accordingly, both its setting and monumentality were available to those who wanted to harness it as an example of the way that the morally upstanding Athenians of the era of the Persian wars and their aftermath treated traitors. Demosthenes quoted it verbatim in his Third Philippic (9.42) to create a contrast between the freedom-loving Greeks of the past (Dem. 9.36) whose power was feared by the ‘barbarians’ (Dem. 9.45) and his fallen contemporaries. Demosthenes makes a point about the intention (dianoia: 9.43) of the Athenians: to ensure the safety of Greece (Dem. 9.45). Arthmios was not the only ‘inscribed’ traitor whose treatment was held up as paradigmatic: Lycurgus had read out loud in the court of 331 the Athenian decree to create an inscribed list of traitors on the acropolis out of the melted bronze statue of Hipparchos the son of Charmos in order to assert that the Athenians were creating an example of how to treat traitors (Lycurg. 1.117–19). It is significant that the profile of decrees against traitors and inscriptions related to them (Table 3(c) and (e)) is not matched in the epigraphical record; what is becoming very clear is that the oratorical presentation of inscribed decisions is not a balanced reflection of the inscribed output of the fourth-century Athenians. It is important to remember that the orators used claims about inscribed decrees to make rhetorical points to the Athenian demos at the assembly and the jurors: orators, therefore, expose them to traditions about those inscriptions which evoke historical or pseudo-historical situations which support their view of the present, with the intention of evoking a deep-seated moral of political consciousness in a way that will support their case. And celebrity, myth–historic inscriptions do this more effectively than run-of-the-mill contemporary inscribed decrees. It seems highly likely that there did really exist inscribed versions of decrees like that against Arthmios on the Athenian acropolis, but it is

124 See also Hansen 1990; Thomas 1994.

local audiences for decrees

149

also likely that orators would have felt able to develop or elaborate traditions – within bounds set by their consciousness of the knowledge of the people  – about their content to suit the rhetoric of their argument:125 in such cases the shared consciousness of the physical inscription gave authority to the claims made by the orator.126 This notion that inscribed versions offer supplementary value to decrees is reflected, as we shall see shortly (Chapter 3.4.1 below), in the publishing habits of the Athenians. The actual overlap between the epigraphical and literary evidence for decrees, therefore, is limited, and represents a very slim proportion of the literary testimonia for decrees. We can draw the conclusion that the epigraphical publication of a decree served as no guarantee of fame, at least among orators and ancient Greek literary authors (who, of course, did not necessarily constitute the primary audience of inscribed decrees). Even in cases where inscribed versions of decrees were available, this does not seem to have led to close engagement with them by ancient writers. Inscriptions were deployed by orators for a number of purposes, but the examples outlined at Table 3 are, in terms of substance, very different from the types of decree that the Athenians were regularly inscribing in the fourth century. The next step in this analysis is to set side-by-side the epigraphical and literary records for fourth-century Athenian decrees (Chapter 3.4 below).

3.4  Inscribed and Literary Evidence Set Side-by-Side 3.4.1  Comparing the Range of Decrees in the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence The current organisation of epigraphical publications of fourth-century Athenian decrees means that analysis of inscribed decrees is best divided between two periods, 403/2–353/2 and 352/1–322/1. Table 1 (pp. 12–13) sets sideby-side the quantitative data from the epigraphic and literary evidence on decrees. For the earlier period, there are published some 223 extant inscribed decrees of the Athenian demos.127 Of these, 50 are too fragmentary for certainty about their content to be possible; of the other 173 of whose content we can 125 On the negotiation of collective memory, see Olick 2007: 37–54. 126 On the role that reference to material objects play in unleashing the capital of cultural identity, see Assman 1995: 132. 127 The fact that the most recent publication of these decrees dates to 1913 (IG II2 1–203) means that these numbers are approximate. A revised publication of these decrees is currently being undertaken. The total figure, including fragmentary decrees, is likely to be higher than 223.

150

decrees of fourth-century athens

be certain, there are some 47 alliances or decrees concerning external relations; the majority of them, however, that is 113, are honorific awards granted to non-Athenians, of which 61 bestow the award of proxeny-status and nine bestow citizenship. There is a very small group of decrees, three of them, which honour groups of Athenian citizens in some way; there are ten regulations, of which half concern sacred matters. Accordingly, the epigraphical evidence for this period very strongly suggests an emphasis in this period on the inscribing of decrees with honorific intention – initially those for non-Athenians – and, to a lesser extent, treaties. Lambert offers a breakdown of the inscribed laws and decrees of 352/1–322/1 whose subject matter can be identified as follows: of the 199 decrees of discernible content there are 180 honorific decrees of which 29 can be firmly identified as honours for Athenians, one is for a deity, 116 contain honours for foreigners, while certainty is impossible about the honorands of the other 34; there are 11 treaties, and five religious regulations.128 As Lambert notes, the tendency of the Athenians to publish honours for Athenians on freestanding stone stelai is something that appears to commence in the second half of the fourth century probably as a way of promoting competitive civic performance and philotimia in the face of Athens’ changing geopolitical profile: the earliest inscribed decree honouring Athenians in what might be thought of as a regular series of publication is IG II3 1 301 of 346/5; yet it is certain that the Athenians honoured their officials before this date.129 The increasing proliferation of inscribed honorific decrees in the aftermath of the Athenian defeat at Chaironeia in 338 reflects an attempt to make more use of Athens’ connections with private individuals in a world where whole communities were less interested in formulating formal relations (in the shape of treaties) with the Athenians.130 At the same time, the decline in the frequency of bilateral alliances and treaties in the inscribed record of the post-338 period is indicative of Athens’ declining geopolitical standing.131

128 Lambert 2018: 62–4. 129 Lambert 2011a: 197. As Lambert points out in the online commentary on IG II3 4 57 (https:// www.atticinscriptions.com), a dedication (of Euktemonides, perhaps a hieropoios at Eleusis) of 357/6 is ‘the earliest datable dedication by an Athenian official in which it is stated explicitly that he had been crowned by the Council and People’ though, as Lambert points out, ‘crowns dedicated by boards of officials are recorded in inventories of the treasurers of Athena earlier than this’: for the syllogeis tou demou of 370/69 and 368/7 dedicating crowns to Athena, see IG II2 1425 lines 126 and 225; cf. IG II3 4 72 of 351/0. See now Lambert, AIO Papers 9, emphasizing the year 357/6 as that during which the Athenians began to fund publicly the inscribing of dedications commemorating the award of honours on the successful fulfilment of an official’s term of office. 130 Lambert 2018: 96–9. 131 Lambert 2012a: 377–86.

local audiences for decrees

151

It is reasonable to accept that these figures – notwithstanding the vagaries of preservation – are likely to be a reasonable reflection of Athenian epigraphical practice: they show a clear emphasis on publishing honorific decrees. At the same time, it is plausible to take the view that the large proportion of extant honorific decrees for non-Athenians is related to the possibility that the enduring significance of these honours as examples both of good individual behaviour and of Athenian gratitude meant that the Athenians were less likely to destroy this type of decree than those which set out alliances and regulations which, once obsolete, were liable to alteration.132 How do the patterns of publication suggested by the inscribed record compare with those of the literary evidence? I set out the range of genres of decree preserved or referred to in the literary evidence in the third column of Table 1 on p. 12–13. There are some clear differences in the patterns of preservation. The literary dataset is smaller, consisting of 245 decrees for the whole period 403/2– 322/1, for most of which (235) we can be reasonably certain of their content. Literature gives also evidence for decrees that appear to have been rejected, or were challenged and over-ruled through the process of graphe paranomon in the courts.133 The focus of many of the literary sources for this period of history upon military aspects of Athenian foreign policy goes some way to explaining the percentage (14.3) of decrees concerning military dispatches and mobilisation in the literary record, which are virtually unknown in the epigraphical record.134 Moreover, the number of decrees pertaining to domestic appointments, financial matters and regulations initiating legislative developments is strikingly small in the epigraphic evidence when we compare it to the large number (51 out of 245 literary-attested decrees, that is 20.8 per cent)135 in

132 Bolmarcich 2007 argues that the norm was to allow obsolete treaties to remain on inscriptions, although they were sometimes dismantled under the orders of the demos. The destruction of an honorific stele, when it was undertaken, was a significant political statement: see, for instance, the account of the destruction of the stele for Euphron of Sikyon in the restored version: IG II2 448 lines 58–67. 133 On decrees attested to have been challenged in the courts by the process of graphe paranomon, see the comprehensive study of Hansen 1974. Decrees over-ruled by graphe paranomon: DD 5, 66, 109, 110, 115, 164, 209, 210, 211, 224-5, 237, 238; decrees rejected: DD 4, 6, 26, 108, 132, 167a, 192. 134 For the single inscribed decree of this period relating to the dispatch of an ambassador, see IG II3 1 370, a decree organising a colonising expedition to the Adriatic, which was inscribed not on a dedicated stele but within the slab recording the accounts of the naval epimeletai. 135 This includes decrees for the reorganisation of legislation after the restoration of democracy, the impeachment of individuals; there are procedural decrees arranging for the initiation of nomothesia and meetings of the assembly, decrees concerning qualifications for citizenship, the repayment of loans, taxation, coinage, the reform of the alphabet, etc.

152

decrees of fourth-century athens

the literary evidence.136 The Athenian literary references offer us a great deal of information about the contribution of Athenian decrees to the legislative reconstruction of democracy during the archonship of Eukleides (DD 1, 2, 7, 8, 9), about which there is little in the extant epigraphical record.137 The literary sources, therefore, place more emphasis on decrees relating to domestic arrangements, including appointments, constitutional changes and other procedural matters. However, there are some areas of apparent compatibility between the impressions given by the literary and inscriptional evidence for decrees: when we view them from the perspective of the entire period 403/2–322/1 the proportion of alliances in the literary record is in line with the figures for the inscribed material, representing 15.9 per cent of the literary decrees and 11.8 per cent of the epigraphic material;138 both records confirm that treaties with other communities were seldom undertaken in the period after Chaironeia, as the Athenians tended to use honorific transactions as a lever to fulfil their foreign-policy aspirations in this era.139 Just as the epigraphical dataset does,140 the literary testimonia also assert the prominence of honorific transactions, concern with foreign policy and negotiation with external communities in the decree-making activity of the Athenians. Both datasets suggest that fewer than 5 per cent of the decrees of the Athenian assembly concerned religious regulations; religion, of course, was regulated also by law as well as decree, and so the evidence for decrees may well underplay the profile of religion in Athenian public institutions (or it may be the case that on the whole, new religious regulations were exceptional). But the implications of this comparison point to the likelihood that a great deal of the Athenian assembly’s business was concerned with the formulation of foreign policy through the making of alliances, military expeditions, the dispatch of ambassadors and the passing of honorific decrees for non-Athenians.

136 I do not take into consideration the inscribed evidence for fourth-century laws, for which see Stroud 1998: 15–16 and Canevaro 2016b section 8, counting 11 fourth-century laws on stone. 137 However, for the intention to inscribe laws (now lost) in front of the stoa after the re-organisation of democracy in 403/2, see Andocides 1.82 and (in 409/8 BC) IG I3 104 lines 5–8; cf. also Robertson 1990; Rhodes 1991: 100; Canevaro and Esu 2018. 138 11.8 per cent is the figure produced when combining the epigraphic material for the whole period 403/2–322/1. 139 It is clear also that the number of epigraphically attested alliances goes into steep decline after the Athenian defeat at Chaironeia: see Lambert 2012a: 377–87, suggesting (at 385) ‘a marked shift of emphasis from the interstate level of operation to a focus on achieving those objectives through relations with individual foreigners’. 140 For discussion of religious regulations of the period, see Lambert 2012a: 48–92.

local audiences for decrees

153

Both the epigraphical and literary data make reference to decrees relevant to a wide range of types of honour, especially citizenship, often in combination with other awards, and including also the award of both olive and gold crowns, bronze statues, exemption, sitesis at the prytaneion, and other awards.141 Both datasets suggest that awards could be granted in combination: citizenship would often be combined with a crown (DD 43, 84, 180),142 and proxeny could be combined with ateleia (DD 31, 32).143 However, further differences emerge from the two datasets when we look in detail at the patterns of preservation of honorific decrees. On the one hand, the epigraphic evidence for honours for non-Athenians places emphasis on the grant of awards of proxeny and the proclamation of individuals as euergetai;144 on the other hand, the literary evidence is far less interested than the epigraphical evidence in awards of proxeny-status.145 On the whole, the epigraphical sources offer far more specific details of the honours dispensed and, in the case of crowns, their value. The literary sources demonstrate that honours for Athenians were passed at the assembly far earlier in the fourth century than the epigraphic record suggests.146 And throughout the fourth century the literary sources place emphasis on prominent, wealthy, benefactors, whereas the epigraphical record of the second half of that century attests to a far lower proportion of named honorands who derived from the propertied classes.147 The literary dataset emphasises that honours for Athenians were frequently dispensed for the sake of military (particularly before the defeat at Chaironeia in 338) and financial contributions and ambassadorial activity,148 but these activities are less visible in the inscribed record. Whereas the inscribed record of honours for Athenians shows Athenian recognition of the value of small-scale political activity and the holding of cult office, the literary record points up the career-spanning contributions of prominent men like Demosthenes and Demades.149 It might be reasonable to draw the inference that the literary sources’ focus on big political debates leads to an

141 For a breakdown of the honorific decrees in the literary sources see Volume 1 Appendix 2; for those in the epigraphical record, see Lambert 2012a: 3–48, 93–183. 142 On epigraphically inscribed citizenship awards, see Osborne 1981–3 DD 5–25; for detailed discussion of those of the later period, see now Lambert 2012a: 93–113. 143 For the range of epigraphically-preserved awards for non-Athenians of the later period, see Lambert 2012a: 138–83. 144 Liddel 2016: 344-5; for awards of proxeny and euergesy, see Lambert 2012a: 113–37, 145 See Table 1 note 5, counting 6 proxeny awards in the literary record but 27 citizenship awards; cf. Liddel 2016: 344–5. 146 Liddel 2016: 237. See also Volume 1 Appendix 2. 147 Liddel 2016: 339. 148 Liddel 2016: 339–42. 149 Liddel 2016: 342–3.

154

decrees of fourth-century athens

exaggeration of the proliferation of honours among the elite throughout the fourth century and in particular those awards whose controversy was held to have public significance.

3.4.2  Interpreting the Comparison The available sources, therefore, offer us two accounts of the Athenian decree. The literary evidence places emphasis not only on honorific decrees but also those related to alliances and the sending of expeditions, and this emphasis is more pronounced when we take into consideration those less firmly attested ‘probable decrees’ (testimonia identified as ‘DP’: see Volume 1 Inventory B).150 Generally speaking, the epigraphical record accentuates the growing proliferation of honorific decrees and suggests that the Athenians were inscribing decrees in the hope that their physical manifestation – combined with expressions of hortatory intention which often appeared within their texts – would spur on others to emulate the standards of civic benefaction set by the honorands.151 The literary record for Athenian decrees shows that honours for high-profile Athenians (as well as non-Athenians) were passed throughout the whole period: this is a consequence of the interest of our literary sources both in political conflicts concerning honorific rewards and in drawing upon the moral connotations for honours for prominent Athenians.152 Yet despite these foci, the literary record does itself show a shift in the honorific record from decrees honouring military leaders in the first half of the fourth century to honouring financial donors and ambassadors in the second half.153 Still, it is clear that there is an inclination of the literary sources to take an interest in far-reaching, politically controversial, and sometimes exceptional, decrees rather than the relatively low-key epigraphical record (see Chapter 3.3.2 above). What is more, the comparison affirms that the Athenians passed a far wider range of decrees than those which they published on stone.154 It is clear that, as Hansen observed in 1987, the Athenians very rarely inscribed decrees whose

150 The vast majority of such ‘probable decrees’ (DP) amount to the dispatch of military expeditions, instructions and ambassadors. 151 Lambert 2011a. 152 On the importance of honour in Athenian politics in the era of Demosthenes, see Brüggenbrock 2006: 265–308. 153 Liddel 2016. 154 See discussion in Chapter 3.3.3 above.

local audiences for decrees

155

task was primarily to initiate an act of hostility or military activity;155 and there is also certainly a tendency to inscribe those decrees which have a long-term significance in terms of encouragement of euergetic behaviour but not those with only ephemeral impact (such as decrees arranging for the dispatch of embassies or organising meetings of the assembly).156 As Lambert notes, there is a notable group of inscribed honorific decrees for Athenians from the 340s.157 However, the fact that the publication of decrees on stone appears to be geared heavily towards the honouring of foreigners and the setting up of alliances suggests, therefore, that the act of inscribing aimed in particular to address issues relating to the Athenians’ negotiation with the rest of the world (an area that will be explored in Chapter 4 below), and also, perhaps, at ensuring public accountability with respect to the contributions of Athenian citizens – as proposers of decrees – to the formation of such policy.

3.5 Conclusion Over the course of this chapter, we have built up an impression of the ways in which awareness and knowledge of decrees were disseminated among Athenian citizens. Dissemination appears to have taken place through a range of processes, including engagement in public decision-making and legal institutions, through the agency of those magistrates and private citizens enforcing them, and through hearsay (3.2.1). The creation of an archive of public documents at the end of the fifth century offered a potential source of authoritative knowledge, but only on rare occasions is it clear that speakers drew purposefully on archivally stored details (3.2.2). Orators deploying decrees within narrative frameworks made claims about collective awareness; such claims were sometimes backed by requests to a secretary to read a decree out loud to the

155 Hansen 1997: 110–13; Osborne 1999: 342. As Lambert (2018: 52) points out ‘there is, in fact, only one inscribed decree of this period which provides for a military expedition: the decree of 325/4 providing for a naval expedition to found a colony in the Adriatic, IG II3 1 370; but significantly it is not a self-standing decree, erected at the initiative of the Council or Assembly, but embedded in a naval inventory. It is an exception which proves the rule that decrees making provisions for military expeditions were not generally inscribed on stelai.’ 156 The lack of inscribing of decrees concerned with ephemeral matters is observed by Woodhead, in his commentary on Ag. XVI 48. But note that some extant inscribed decrees contained clauses requiring immediate action (autika mala): see Rhodes, 1972: 280; see also Chapter 2.5.2 above. As Lambert (2018: 52) points out, ‘In our corpus IG II3 1 292, 18 requires that the sacred orgas and the other sacred precincts be cared for “for all time” (εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον); at 447, 33 arrangements are made for the Little Panathenaia festival to be finely celebrated “for all time” (εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον).’ 157 Lambert 2018: 76.

156

decrees of fourth-century athens

judges (3.2.3). Awareness of, and ideas about, decrees appears to have been disseminated through socialisation, both inside and outside institutional settings. Archival research into decrees appears to have had rather limited significance for purposes of political persuasion, but may have been carried out by those who wished to know more detail about a particular decree of which they were already aware. Orators made claims about the content of decrees as they believed their audiences would find them authoritative and persuasive; these claims were occasionally magnified by making claims about archival reference or the existence of inscribed versions of them. The setting up of decrees on inscribed stones was undertaken for reasons relating to religion, the encouragement of euergetic behaviour, and the intention to disseminate messages (3.3.1–2). They constituted one, but not the only, authoritative source of information about decrees (3.3.3). A number of factors cast doubt on the extent to which orators and politicians paid attention to the inscribed record of decrees: one is the relative lack of substantive overlap in the epigraphical and literary datasets for decrees (3.3.4); another is the fact that when orators make claims about inscribed decrees, they do so primarily by reference to famous and extraordinary documents which are very different in substance and tone from the extant inscribed record (3.3.5). Orators, in their deployment of decrees in the fourth-century lawcourts, were not reliant on inscriptions for information about decrees, nevertheless they did at points draw upon the additional persuasive capital offered by inscribed monuments (3.3.5), as Demosthenes did in the speech Against Leptines. However, the depth of epigraphically informed knowledge of decrees displayed in Demosthenes 20, despite its high reputation in antiquity,158 was never repeated in any extant speech. Epigraphical publication, therefore, did not guarantee a high profile for a decree among Athenians. When we compare the epigraphical and literary evidence for decrees (3.4) we find a number of fits- and non-fits between the evidence: both datasets suggest a concern with the recognition of euergetism and the formulation of foreign policy; distinctions that can be observed at a closer level of analysis support the view that epigraphical publication of decrees was not comprehensive over the course of this period of Athenian history. In the light of this analysis, therefore, we can offer a distinction between two distinct types of epigraphical knowledge: that which was formulaic and perhaps mundane (which was of interest primarily to some of those who drafted the texts of decrees and which is preserved in the extant epigraphical record); 158 West 1995; Kremmydas 2012: 62–4; for its high reputation, see Kremmydas 2007b and Dionysius of Halicarnassos, ad Amm. 1.4, calling it ‘most elegant and accurately-written of speeches’ (χαριέστατος ἁπάντων τῶν λόγων καὶ γραφικώτατος).

local audiences for decrees

157

and the famous and spectacular, prevalent among the citizens who manned the juries, which is the material that was cited in the lawcourt for the sake of its moral implications (see 3.3.5 above), and knowledge of which was disseminated by their existence in the public memory. Yet the awareness of decrees which is suggested in the literary record is, for the most part, distinct from these two forms of knowledge: Athenians got to know stories about decrees by way of political participation and word-of-mouth, processes which, for obvious reasons, would not nurture exact knowledge about decrees. The fact that most orators and historians were vague about their sources of information for decrees points, on the one hand, to the likelihood that they drew upon hearsay, with knowledge about decrees wrapped up in stories about events, or actual experience in the courts or assembly: a sense emerges of messy familiarity with decrees. We might try to explain in practical terms the relative lack of engagement with the inscribed record among those fourth-century Athenians interested in decrees: was there perhaps a lack of confidence about locating the right decree among the mass of inscriptions that had built up on the acropolis by the middle of the fourth century? Had the Metroon simply become a more comprehensive and better-organised archive, and accordingly an easier-to-access resource, and had the epigraphic record become, with the proliferation of epigraphical publication, far harder to master? We might, therefore, envisage a maze of inscriptions standing upon the fourth-century Athenian acropolis, apparently competing for conspicuousness, but not entirely succeeding in captivating close attention of those who saw them.159 But the inaccessibility of inscribed texts of contemporary decrees is not the whole explanation: as Klaffenbach pointed out, ancient audiences of inscriptions were less obsessed with producing verbatim-accurate transcripts than were their modern counterparts;160 they were much more interested in unleashing their moral and political capital without close attention to substantive detail. It is possible at this stage to draw some conclusions about the nature of dissemination of knowledge of decrees. In Chapter 4 of his 2008 book, Democracy and Knowledge, Ober insightfully outlines a view of the ways in which Athenian political institutions gave rise to the ‘aggregation’ of knowledge about political processes and contributed to policy-making decisions. Ober talks in terms of

159 For an inscribed decree that appears to have been lost, see IG II2 172, ordering it to be re-inscribed because it had disappeared: lines 9–11: [ἐπειδὴ] ἠφάν̣ ισται α̣ ὐτῶ[ι ἡ στήλη]. 160 Klaffenbach 1960: 34–6.

158

decrees of fourth-century athens

‘informational cascades’.161 How far should we think in terms of a cascade of information about decrees? What needs to be emphasised is that the rhetorical and political context of the activity in Athenian institutions means that we should not expect discussions of decrees to have been objective or straightforward.162 While speakers talking about particular decrees in formal institutional contexts would have avoided – for fear of facing criticism – making factually false claims (see Chapter 3.2.3 above), we should emphasise that speakers cite decrees for the most part to support arguments, to justify policy, or to attack the policy of another. Accounts of them were, nevertheless, open also to distortion or ­exaggeration.163 Instead of thinking in terms of the cascade of information, therefore, we should envisage the dissemination of impressions of decrees among audiences both within formal institutional space and beyond. The citation of a decree in one particular context would have given rise to its deployment in other ways too: in the speech Against Leptines, Demosthenes set out Chabrias as a model recipient of honours (D46 TT 1–2), and some years later Aeschines followed this view of the honorand (D46 T4), setting out his praiseworthiness (and that also of Timotheos and Iphikrates) as a way of questioning Demosthenes’ worthiness of honours. In this case, it is clear that we are dealing not just with the dissemination of straightforward knowledge of decrees, but that of perspectives on how they can be deployed rhetorically. The Athenian democracy was an organisation in which knowledge was a vital tool in political engagement among aspirational citizens:164 awareness of decrees was an important commodity in the assembly, council and lawcourts. Its accrual and circulation happened by way of wide range of public and private transactions, some of them invisible to us today. Even, therefore, within a culture in which documents and writing had attained new-found status, socially based knowledge of decrees was the chief factor behind their deployment. In the final chapters of this book, I will explore the possibility of audiences beyond those of Athenian politicians, discussing both the evidence for a non-­Athenian audience of their decrees (Chapter 4 below), and also the wider reception of Athenian decrees in literary texts (Chapter 5 below) where, as we shall see, the emergence of traditions about Athenian decrees is an important medium through which information about them circulated in the longue durée. 161 Ober 2008: 180. For a view of human exchanges as providing a background to political education, see Livingstone 2016, acknowledging the potential for challenges to democratic ideals (Livingstone 2016: 86–8). 162 Indeed, Ober does allow for the possibility that aggregated knowledge might sometimes produce bad policy: Ober 2008: 167. 163 See the discussion of Aeschines’ citation of decrees in Chapter 2.5.1 above. 164 Kallet-Marx 1994.

4 The Audiences of Decrees Beyond Athenian Citizens

4.1 Introduction Thus far, this exploration of the deployment, dissemination and reception of Athenian decrees has focussed on their local audience: one which was primarily Athenian, consisting both of politically engaged citizens and also the broader group of those upon whose lives decrees had an impact (Chapter 3 above). On one level, focus upon a primary audience of Athenians is entirely appropriate: decrees were enacted at Athens by the Athenian people, a body whose sovereignty extended only as far as the borders of Attica. In fourth-century Athens, political activity – including the discussion and proposal of decrees, and voting on their enactment – was the perquisite exclusively of male Athenian citizens. However, poleis were not narrowly inward-looking communities and interaction with external political units was inevitable and necessary for the functioning of the city: regardless of whether they were either hegemonic or insignificant, their decisions had consequences for communities of non-citizens; more often than not, these took the shape of decrees. In the case of the Athenian demos, a community with interests and aspirations that went beyond its borders, the decrees of the assembly – in particular those which dispatched expeditions or embassies or honoured foreigners – had significance well beyond the borders of the polis.1 Moreover, the proposal of honorific decrees offered those ambitious Athenian politicians who possessed private connections beyond their community the opportunity to secure links and networks overseas and to manage and nurture mutually interested relations with outsiders. Accordingly, even as Athens’ geopolitical influence waned over the course of the fourth century (cf. Chapter 1.4 above), the demos continued to pass decrees which either appealed

1 On the proportion of Athenian decrees that concerned the demos’ interaction with other communities (in the form of expeditions, alliances, and honorific transactions), see Table 1 on pp. 12–13 with discussion in Chapter 3.4.1.

159

160

decrees of fourth-century athens

to, or had implications for groups of non-Athenians, even if their scope and effectiveness became more compromised than ever before.2 There has been a tendency in recent work on Greek history to challenge the long-established primacy of the polis as the prism for understanding ancient social and cultural phenomena;3 this tendency has underlined the significance of inter-polis political institutions, exchanges and phenomena.4 Yet there has been relatively little consideration of the reception of Athenian political acts and values outside that city. Indeed, assessments of Athenian political activity have tended to focus very much upon what Athenian politicians did and how they behaved when they were inside Athens, without much attention to their associations with, or appeals to, the outside world.5 The study of Athenian decrees, I suggest, offers a perspective on the extent to which there was a sense among Athenians of the broader relevance of the political activity that went on within the polis: in this section I shall assess the degree to which the Athenians envisaged that there existed non-Athenian audiences of their decrees (Chapter 4.2 below), and then shall explore the possibility that such audiences were real by considering their likely identity and the modes through which news about Athenian decrees was disseminated (Chapter 4.3 below). By ‘non-Athenian audiences’ I refer both to individuals and groups of non-Athenians inside the polis of Athens and to those who resided outside Attica. In Chapter 5 below I shall explore a rather different aspect of the reception of Athenian decrees, focussing on the indications that ancient literary authors were interested in portraying Athenian decrees and the activities that were related to them. 2 See on the shift of emphasis away from decrees that made alliances towards those which honoured foreigners, Lambert 2018: 93–113; Chapter 3.4.1 above. 3 Vlassopoulos 2007a. For cross-community studies of Greek political activity, see e.g. Murray 1990; Welwei 1998. The general consensus in the modern scholarly literature is that the political systems of the classical Greek world were dominated by polis institutions, and that individual communities managed their own independently developed political institutions and structures. While these shared in common some key features, such as a bouleutic body, and mechanisms for making decrees – the significance of which has been demonstrated by Rhodes with Lewis 1997 (cf. Robinson 2011, s.v. probouleusis) – they were, as Mitchell (2006) shows for the classical period and Robinson (1997) for the archaic, very diverse. On the diversity of political institutions see also Jones 1987. Indeed, the Aristotelian project which gave rise to the publication of 158 monographic descriptions of the politeiai of Greek states in the late fourth century suggests that Aristotelians valued the polis-by-polis approach to the history of political institutions. An analysis of inter-community political activity is offered in Liddel 2018. 4 Emphasising inter-community interaction, see, for instance, Herman 1987; Mitchell 1997; Low 2007; Hunt 2010, esp. 201–10; Mack 2015. Finley’s 1966 article (= Finley 1975) initiated a discussion of the ‘unity’ of Greek law; On shared and diverse aspects of epigraphical practices, see, for instance, Massar 2006 and Hagamajer Allen 2003. 5 For political activity in Athens (a selection): Rhodes 1986; Bleicken 1987; Ober 1989; Yunis 1996; Allen 2006.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

161

The first dimension of the inter-community relevance of Athenian decrees to be explored, therefore, is the Athenians’ belief that representatives of other communities (both poleis and non-poleis) were interested in, or profoundly affected by, their constitutional form and their decrees.

4.2.  Athenian Perception of Non-Athenian Interest in Athenian Politics and Decrees Pericles’ statement on the politeia of Athens – viewing it as a model for others – suggests that some Athenians took the view that their way of life was potentially a model for other communities: We make use of a constitution that does not imitate the laws of our neighbours (πολιτείᾳ οὐ ζηλούσῃ τοὺς τῶν πέλας νόμους). It is more the case of our being a model (παράδειγμα) to others, than of our imitating anyone else. (Thuc. 2.37.1)

The degree to which Thucydides’ account of the funeral speech is a reflection of the words spoken by Pericles is much debated,6 but the fact that a similar claim about the innovative nature of the Athenian constitution is made also in the epitaphios logos of Lysias (Lys. 2.18) supports the conclusion that this type of assertion would have been received favourably by its listeners and that it was an appropriate thing for Pericles to have said in this context. His audience consisted primarily of Athenians mourning the passing of those in their community who had fallen in battle, and so the claims made in front of them appealed to their beliefs about Athenian political superiority. A similar ideal, that the Athenian way of politics was inherently superior, surfaces also in fourth-century lawcourt oratory, with speakers in political cases at points making boasts about Athenian excellence in deliberation (Dem. 23.109) or claiming that the Athenians made better laws than did other communities (Aeschin. 1.178); orators at points compared Athenian legislative habits favourably with those of other communities, or attacked the idea that one might look to others’ legislation in the formation of legal argumentation.7 Lycurgus in his Against Leokrates, urging his audience not to be misled by the digressions of speakers, claimed that they should look to the Areopagus court which offered ‘the finest example of the Greeks’ (Lycurg. 1.12). In making these claims, it seems that 6 See Thuc. 1.22.1 for Thucydides’ statement that the speeches in his work combine statements of ‘what was appropriate’ (ta deonta) with the actual things spoken. For the view that the speech is ‘a potent distillation of the speech Pericles actually delivered’, see Bosworth 2000: 16. 7 Dem. 20.110-11 offers the argument that it was wrong to cite Lacedaimonian or Theban laws; Dem. 23.212-4 offers an attack on the Aeginetans’, Oreitans’ and Megarians’ meanness with honours.

162

decrees of fourth-century athens

they were attempting to align their audiences’ views with their own and appealing to them as judges to have the confidence of casting ballots in their favour. Notwithstanding these perspectives, however, there were still points at which Athenian orators in the lawcourts saw it as politically worthwhile to cite the laws of other communities, usually as moral paradigms.8 The rectitude of constructing arguments on the basis of non-Athenian values and legislation was, however, contested, and less widespread than the idea that Athenian political ideas and acts had relevance beyond Athens. A view was also put forward at both the assembly and the lawcourts that non-Athenians were interested specifically in decrees of the Athenian demos. We have noted already (Chapter 2.5.2 above) that, as Mader points out, Demosthenes in his symbouleutic speeches sometimes attempted to rouse his audience into action by criticising their failure to fulfil the promises of their decrees (e.g. Dem. 3.4–6):9 on one level this would suggest a degree of insecurity among the Athenians about their political system, and we will return to discuss this phenomenon later on in this chapter. But at the same time we must acknowledge the existence of a discourse that said that their decrees had a wide audience, one which reached beyond that of Athenians. Even in the second half of the fourth century, when the Athenians’ interstate clout was much reduced, Athenian orators appealed to their audiences and attempted to draw them into particular lines of argument by claiming that their political decisions were much heeded by non-Athenians: in his account of the Second Embassy, for instance, Aeschines focuses his listeners’ attention on the negotiation of the Peace of Philokrates by imagining that, as the Athenian ambassadors at Pella arrived with an Athenian decree, all of the Greeks were watching their negotiations with Philip:10 For ambassadors from Thebes are here, ambassadors from Lakedaimon have arrived, and here we are with a decree of the people in which it stands written, ‘The ambassadors shall also negotiate concerning any other good thing that may  8 Examples of non-Athenian legislation as moral paradigms to the Athenians: Lycurg. 1.95–6 (Sicilian values), 103 (Hektor exhorting the Trojans), 106–7 (quotation of Tyrtaios, here claimed to be an Athenian), 128–30 (Spartan law condemning to death all those who refused to fight for their patris); Dem. 24.139–42 (Locrian legislative conservativism); Aeschin. 1.180–1: Spartan attitude towards shameful men; cf. also Fisher 1994, 2007. Aeschines (3.122–4) discusses a decree of the Delphic Amphictyony as part of his case against Demosthenes. See also note 69 below.  9 Mader 2006. 10 Cf. Hunt 2010: 209, noting the importance that Greek communities attached to publicising interstate commitments. On the rhetoric of the claim that foreigners had come to Athens to hear a case or that the Athenians would face the judgement of the Greeks as a whole, see Lewis 1996: 46.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

163

be within their power.’ All the Greeks are watching to see what is going to happen (‘ἅπαντες δὲ οἱ Ἕλληνες πρὸς τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι βλέπουσιν’). (Aeschin. 2.104)

The rhetorical strategy of emphasising the significance of Athenian decrees by reference to the breadth of their audience was not limited to lawcourt oratory: in his On the Chersonese Demosthenes, speaking to the assembly, invites his audience to imagine the Greeks calling the Athenians to account for the opportunities missed in resisting Philip (Dem. 8.34–5). This was a vision designed to persuade an audience of Athenians at the assembly to support their general Diopeithes’ actions against Philip in Thrace. Indeed, the idea that other Greeks were watching was noted by Aristotle, perhaps on the basis of hearsay:11 he claimed that, in the fifth century, the orator Kydias, haranguing the people about the allotment of territory at Samos, implored the Athenians to picture that the Greeks were standing around them and would not only hear but would also see what they were going to decree (Rh. 1384b32–5).12 But such claims were ones made in front of predominantly Athenian audiences: they were set out for rhetorical purposes – as a way of heightening the sense of responsibility of the Athenian listeners – and should not, therefore, be taken as straightforward indications that other Greek communities were interested in Athenian decrees. Yet the theme that non-Athenians were interested in the decrees of Athenians received extended treatment in two high-profile cases in the fourth-century courts, that against the decree of Aristokrates (Dem. 23; cf. D94) and that against Leptines’ law abolishing ateleia (Dem. 20): in both cases, the speaker’s argument hinged on the idea that other Greeks were paying attention to Athenian decrees. In the speech Against Aristokrates, which argues against the proposal to grant protection to Charidemos, a Euboian mercenary who fought on behalf of the Thracian king Kersobleptes (see D94), Demosthenes reveals a number of distinct Athenian assumptions about the wider significance of their decrees. On the one hand, he appeals to the polis-patriotism of the audience and their concerns for Athens’ status abroad when he claims that the standard of legislation he is challenging is lower than that of the people of Aigina, Megara and Oreos (23.211–12): the assumption he makes is that the Athenians care about how their decrees measure up to those of other states.13 Other elements of his case are dependent upon the idea that Athenian decrees were 11 This is the view of Trevett 1996a of the sources of the historical references in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. 12 For discussion of this as a rhetorical trope, see Serafim 2017: 55–6; cf. Hunt 2010: 212. 13 For a similar criticism, that the Athenians are currently passing decrees of an equivalent quality to those of the Corinthians or Megarians, see Hypereides, Against Diondas 20 Horváth.

164

decrees of fourth-century athens

indeed taken seriously by leaders of other Greek states. This is the implication at the point when he talks about the effect of an Athenian decree upon the rebellious Thracian aristocrat Miltokythes (D71): And so that you may not be quite surprised to hear that decrees made in Athens have such great power (τὰ παρ’ ὑμῖν ψηφίσματα τηλικαύτην ἔχει δύναμιν), I shall remind you of something that happened in the past that you all know. After the revolt of Miltokythes against Kotys, when the war had already lasted a considerable time, when Ergophilos had been superseded, and Autokles was on the point of sailing to take command, a decree was proposed here in such terms (ἐγράφη τι παρ’ ὑμῶν ψήφισμα τοιοῦτον) that Miltokythes withdrew in alarm, supposing that you were not well disposed towards him, and Kotys gained possession of the Sacred Mountain and its treasures. (Dem. 23.104)

The example he picks here, that of Miltokythes stepping down from his revolt at the prospect of an Athenian decree, suggests the assumption that Athenian decrees possess so much clout that they will deter a foreign potentiate from behaving against the interests of the Athenians. Demosthenes makes arguments also on the grounds of the far-reaching consequences of the decree of Aristokrates that he is challenging: he suggests at 23.123 that if the award to Charidemos is maintained, then other leaders in the area, like Bianor or Athenodoros, would expect the same treatment; further on in the same speech he suggests that the immunity bestowed on Charidemos would essentially put the world at the mercy of his patron Kersobleptes, claiming that this is ‘precisely the effect of that decree’ (23.140). Demosthenes proposes another line of reasoning which envisages the reaction of an external audience: this is the suggestion, at 23.105, that if the Athenians do not annul Aristokrates’ decree, ‘the kings and their commanders will be immensely discouraged, viewing themselves as slighted and will imagine that your favour is inclining towards Kersobleptes’, and they might at a later date refuse help when the Athenians ask for it. This argument suggests not that other leaders care about Athenian decrees because they threaten them but rather because they value Athenian favour. Elsewhere, Demosthenes contrasted those honorands who he claimed desired Athenian citizenship for the personal advantages rather than out of an admiration for Athenian character and customs (Dem. 23.126), arguing that the Athenians ought to be on guard against the former category (23.127–8). Honorific awards are the type of decrees that most frequently arise in discussions of non-Athenian audiences in the decree-intensive rhetoric of Demosthenes speeches 20 and 23. The Athenians in particular appear to have used the system of granting by decree honorific rewards as a way of securing and extending the goodwill of those communities, leaders and traders who had

audiences beyond athenian citizens

165

access to raw materials, in particular grain.14 Indeed, institutional praise of virtuous behaviour, a common political transaction among fourth-century Greek states, was a practice that clearly exuded inter-polis transferable value.15 As Hagemajer Allen argues with reference to the publication and physical form of honorific decrees, cultural and political differences between the Athenian community and non-Greeks did not, for the most part, have a significant impact upon the values of honorific exchange that went on between them;16 accordingly, it follows that the honorific values by the Athenians would have, in all likelihood, been esteemed also by non-Athenian Greeks. Expressions of the idea that there is an overseas audience of Athenian honorific decrees loom large in Demosthenes’ speech attacking Leptines’ law abolishing awards of ateleia to foreign benefactors. Demosthenes challenged the proposal on the basis of a claim that this legislation would effectively annul honorific decrees that the Athenians had passed for their benefactors. One of the scenarios he offered was that, by upholding Leptines’ legislation, the Athenians would incur shame on the grounds that, whereas the Chians let their rewards for Chabrias stand despite the fact that he attacked them as an enemy, the Athenians would have revoked rewards for such an honorand even though he had done nothing against them (20.81).17 Underscoring his argument was the view that Athenian honorific decrees illustrate the generosity of their people, pointing to those for Leukon set up at Piraeus, in the Bosporos and at Hieron (Dem. 20.36–7 (= D39 T2); cf. 42, 54, 86); inscribed Athenian decrees have the effect, he argued, of ensuring that Athenian honorands suffered no harm when they were alive and also stood as evidence ‘to those who wish to do us good’ of how many euergetai the Athenians had given returns to (Dem. 20.64). Demosthenes, therefore, points to awards which had been set up specifically at those places where those individuals whose involvement in the grain-trade might have been encouraged to be generous to the Athenians;18 as Lambert suggests, it is plausible that the Athenians were advertising not only the trading

14 Engen 2010; Moreno 2007. 15 This is already well established for the Hellenistic world: see Hellenistic period, see Massar 2006; Ma 2003. 16 Hagemajer Allen 2003. 17 Moreover, in the speech Against Aristokrates Demosthenes claims that a decree for Charidemos, a brutal mercenary commander employed by a Thracian autocrat, would give the Athenians a bad reputation (23.138) 18 Cf. the suggestion of RO p. 324, that the setting up of IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64), the inscribed honours for Spartokos and his brothers, was set up at the Piraeus ‘to impress men arriving from the Bosporos’.

166

decrees of fourth-century athens

privileges that they had granted to the kings of the Bosporos but also those which had been granted to them by the Bosporan kingdom.19 In the speech Against Leptines, Demosthenes offers an interesting thought-experiment by envisaging what would happen were Leptines’ law to be upheld and the exemptions bestowed upon Athens’ benefactors were withdrawn: it would lead them to reverse the favours that they bestow on the Athenians (Dem. 20.34). Moreover, given that any honours that the Athenians might award in the future would be rendered untrustworthy (Dem. 20.120, 124), the city would appear to deceive its benefactors (134–5), and its system of established reciprocal trust would be destroyed. Accordingly, Leptines’ law would leave behind it a shameful legacy of illegality, and would cause the Athenians to lose the goodwill of foreigners who act with philotimia towards the Athenians (20.155). Central, therefore, to Demosthenes’ argument against Leptines is the assumption that Athenian awards of exemption matter to Athens’ benefactors, and they are the motivation for their acts of euergetism. The arguments reviewed so far suggest that Athenian speakers supposed their Athenian audiences would share the view that other Greeks would react in some way to their decrees both because they feared Athenian military power and because they valued Athenian honorific capital.20 There exist also epigraphical indications of the Athenians aspiring to a non-Athenian audience for their decrees: relevant here are the statements of hortatory intention which emerge in Athenian decrees, as Lambert has observed, from the middle of the fourth century. In 330/29, for instance, the Athenians praised the grain-merchant Herakleides of Salamis with a crown, ‘so that others may also show love of honour, knowing that the Council honours and crowns those who show love of honour’(IG II3 1 367 lines 64–6): in this case and others, the epigraphically expressed aim was to encourage not only Herakleides, but also other grain-­ merchants to behave in a way which would earn them honours;21 what lay behind this sentiment was an assumption that there was an audience of these decrees which included foreign grain-dealers hungry for honours. Epigraphical expression of related sentiments can be found in rather different circumstances too: a citizenship decree for Peisitheides of Delos, probably 19 Lambert 2018: 36. 20 Other speeches indicating the centrality of the decree-system to Greek diplomacy include the diplomatic exchanges recorded in the letters and decrees between Philip and the Athenians referred to in Demosthenes 18.163–8. 21 See Lambert 2011a: 194 and 2011b: 181–2. For a detailed study of hortatory clauses and their implications, see now Miller (2016: 393), suggesting a primarily Athenian audience for such claims, arguing that they aimed to encourage Athenians to emulate the deeds of both other Athenians and non-Athenians.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

167

a long-standing partisan of Athenian interests who had come to Athens (IG II3 1 452 lines 35-7) in the 340s to flee anti-Athenian sentiment on Delos,22 contains the statement that the award was made ‘so that everyone might see that the Athenian people repays great favours to those who are its benefactors and maintain their good will towards the people’ (‘ὅ]π[ως ἂ]ν εἰδῶσιν ἅπαντες ὅτι ὁ δῆμος [ὁ Ἀ]θηναίων ἀποδίδωσιν χάριτας με[γ]άλας τοῖς εὐεργετοῦσιν εἱαυτὸ[ν] καὶ διαμένουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς εὐνοία[ς] τοῦ δήμου’: IG II3 1 452 lines 11–16);23 in this case, the subject of the verb εἰδῶσιν, the anticipated audience – ἅπαντες  – would surely suggest that it was aimed at an audience including non-Athenians. The Athenians expressed the belief that other communities would pay attention to the honours granted by the people, and that they had the potential to inspire a reaction from those communities in terms of euergetic behaviour. Viewed in this way, the decree seems to encourage a wide audience to maintain long-standing pro-Athenian policies. But the fact that the decree for Peisitheides was to be set up at Athens on the acropolis (lines 28–9) and nowhere else suggests that the potential audience of this decree did not consist of the Delian’s countrymen back in their home community, some of whom were hostile to his and Athenian interests at the time. A clue to its intended audience lies in the fact that the decree contains clauses threatening anyone who kills Peisitheides or any city which harbours his killers (lines 31–5) and grants him a subsistence allowance of one drachma per day while he is unable to return to Delos; such clauses, it is possible, were written up for the benefit and reassurance of the honorand. Other Athenian honorands, especially proxenoi, may well have taken reassurance from pledges made in Athenian decrees about protecting them from injustice.24 Before we turn to assessing the degree to which the audiences that the Athenians envisaged were real, it is worth raising two final points. The first is to observe that Athenian decrees were discussed as if they were a transaction through which the image specifically of the Athenian demos was projected; the reputation of individual politicians beyond Athens was a consideration not enunciated in Athenian decrees;25 it is highly likely, however,

22 Osborne 1974: 175–84 places it in the 330s. See also Tuplin 2005 on its implications for anti-Athenian sentiment in Delos in the 340s. 23 cf. IG II3 1 306 A lines 13–15; cf. 400 lines 7–10, 378 lines 17–20. For further comparable clauses see Hedrick 1999: 414–15 and Sickinger 2009; for discussion of their significance, see Lambert 2011a. 24 For other examples of honorands granted protection against injustice, see Henry 1983: 171–6. 25 Other speeches offer the possibility of prospective admiration, with, for instance, the appeal that a particular verdict will raise the moral rating of Athens among its allies (Lys. 14.12–13; Lycurg. 1.14; cf. And. 1.140).

168

decrees of fourth-century athens

that some ambitious politicians like Demosthenes (with interests in Thebes (D162) and the Cimmerian Bosporos (D227), Androtion (with interests in the Cimmerian Bosporos: IG II3 1 297), Aristophon (with interests in the island of Keos: see D66); and Demades (with interests in the Hellespont–Black Sea area and Euboia) would have deployed the proposal of decrees as a way of securing private political and/or commercial links with communities and prominent individuals beyond Attica.26 Naturally, such links were presented by their opponents as if they endangered the interest of the city (e.g. Aeschin, 2.141; Din. 1.41–3). The second point is one already made, which is the possibility that, over time, politicians felt gradually less confident of the high prominence of contemporary Athenian decrees among non-Athenians.27 In the aftermath of the Peace of Philokrates, the Second Athenian Confederacy was in terminal decline.28 By the 340s, therefore, it was no longer the case that every state was in thrall to the decrees of the Athenians: the absence of evidence for inscribed bilateral alliances between Athens and other communities in the aftermath of the battle at Chaironeia is indicative of the Athenians’ falling stock.29 The feeling of insecurity of the Athenians in the late fourth century about their interstate profile is reflected in expressions of concern that decrees of the demos are doing damage to the image of the Athenians. Both Demosthenes and Aeschines suggest that the other has managed to lower the interstate reputation of Athens in their contributions to disreputable decrees: Demosthenes claimed at 19.291 that, owing to Aeschines’ machinations, the Peace of Philokrates turned out as shameful to, rather than equitable for, the Athenians; moreover, at Aeschines 3.76, he says that a decree of Demosthenes (= BD 5; cf. D126), in its flattery, makes the city look ridiculous (katagelaston).30 A more direct indication of at least the perception of an interstate audience of Athenian decrees can 26 For Demosthenes’ links with Thebes, see Trevett 1999 and Mack 2015: 114-15, cf. Harris 1995: 199 note 15; for his links with the Bosporan kings, see Moreno 2007: 166–7, 220–2, 252–6. Moreno (2007: 175–7, 269–75) suggests close ties between Androtion and Polyeuktos, proposers of a decree for the Bosporan kings (IG II3 1 297), and the honorands, On Demades’ associations, see Gabrielsen 2015; cf. Mitchell 1997: 212–13. For other close ties between proposers and non-Athenian honorands, see Lambert 2018: 197–9. Mitchell (1997: 90–110) offers an overview of classical-period Athenian magisterial appointments of individuals with links to other communities. 27 See Chapter 1.4 and 2.5.2 on [Dem.] 12.9 above. 28 Dreher 1995: 287–92. 29 Lambert 2012a: 377–86; for the view (against Lambert) that the inscribed version of the league of Corinth constituted a bilateral alliance between the Athenians and Macedonians (IG II3 1 318 (= RO 76)), see Worthington 2009. 30 The claim that a decision might make a city look ridiculous (katagelaston) is also deployed in by Socrates in his defence: Pl. Ap. 35a–b.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

169

be found in a speech of Aeschines, who suggests in his Against Ktesiphon (3.227) that by seeking rewards in the shape of honours, Demosthenes was making Athens an object of ridicule in all the cities in Greece, and this is what led him to launch his graphe paranomon against Ktesiphon’s decree. As the power of Philip emerged over the course of the late 350s and 340s, the Athenians expressed concern that the changing balance of power was having an impact on the prominence of their decrees. One feeling enunciated was that Philip was able to remain aloof from the decisions of the Athenians, so much so that he denied knowledge of a proposed amendment to the Peace of Philokrates (Dem. 7.18–19 = D140). It is well established that one of the important themes in the First Philippic – and in Demosthenes’ symbouleutic oratory generally – was the idea that Athens’ decrees were empty and that Athens’ military behaviour failed to live up to the expectations of its decrees:31 indeed, Demosthenes (4.45) in the First Philippic went as far as warning the people that when they send out a general with an empty decree (psephisma kenon), they were mocked by their enemies while their allies were frightened. There was also a feeling that decrees of the assembly were doing the Athenians themselves damage, as Demosthenes claims that they actually provoked Philip to march out to Elateia (18.168). Hegesippos claimed that the Peace of Philokrates undermined Athenian interests at Amphipolis, which were themselves based upon past decrees ([Dem.] 7.25 = D140 T2). A different kind of reaction was that of Hypereides (Against Diondas 6 Horváth), who joked that Philip pressured the Athenians to grant proxeny-awards to those who launched attacks against them on his behalf:32 we get the sense that the Athenians have a growing feeling that their powerlessness was being increasingly reflected in their decree-making tendencies. At a time of political instability, it is, therefore, possible to detect Athenian insecurity about the potential reaction to their decrees. Athenian orators, it seems, cared particularly about what Philip thought about their decrees because he was such a political and military threat to their own position in the Greek world. What seems to be emerging is that the level and type of interest of prospective non-Athenian audiences of Athenian decrees was deeply contingent on the inter-community power dynamics of the era. Indeed, as already noted (Chapter 1.4 above), the increasingly compromised position of Athenian foreign policy over the course of the fourth century meant that by the period after Chaironeia, the Athenians scarcely appeared to have made alliances with other

31 Mader 2006. 32 The same insecurity emerges in the spurious letter of Philip to the Athenian council and demos, preserved as number 12 in the corpus of Demosthenic speeches: see Chapter 2.4.2 above.

170

decrees of fourth-century athens

communities, and instead used honorific transactions mostly for individual foreigners as the most important lever of foreign policy (Chapter 3.4.1 above).33 So far, I have brought together evidence that the Athenians made claims that their decrees were of interest to non-Athenian audiences. At this point I turn from the perceptions to the practicalities. Which groups of non-Athenians were interested in Athenian decrees? How, if at all, were Athenian political decisions and in particular the activities of the Athenian assembly disseminated across the Greek world? What resistance was there to the provisions sent out in decrees?

4.3  Non-Athenian Audiences of Athenian Decrees 4.3.1  Non-Athenians with Interests in Athenian Decrees While non-Athenians were largely excluded from the decision-making process at the Athenian assembly (cf. Lys. 13.73), in a city where decisions were made by the people assembled in the open air, it is likely that news of Athenian decrees would have spread quickly among Athenians and non-Athenians concerned with them.34 In informal contexts, individual Athenians would have spoken about Athenian decrees in different forms of social interaction, just as Theophrastos describes his Boorish man talking to his hired labourers about matters that had arisen at the assembly (Characters, 4.3).35 The physical proximity of non-Athenians to Athenian institutional activity would have led to the dissemination of information about Athenian decrees. Apollodoros’ citation of a law requiring the prytaneis to set out ballot boxes and allocate ballots to the people when citizenship awards were being decided ‘before the foreigners (xenoi) come in and the barriers have been removed’ ([Dem.] 59.90) suggests that the presence of non-Athenians around the edges of the assembly was presumed normal. One might envisage that non-Athenian bystanders took interest also in judicial disputes taking place in the Athenian agora: Aeschines, for instance, reminded his audience that gathered at the courts were individuals (those ‘standing around’: periestekotes) from other Greek communities who had come to find out about whether the Athenians know how to make good laws, to judge between the good and the not good, if 33 Lambert 2018: 93-­13. 34 For the view that it was impossible for the assembly to entrust top-secret discussions to the council or to ambassadors: Ste Croix 1963: 116-17, but this is no longer widely-accepted: see the discussion at D79 Commentary. 35 For interaction and social circulation of knowledge between Athenians and non-Athenians in the agora at Athens, see now Sobak 2015.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

171

they know how to honour good men, and if they are able to punish those who put the city to shame (Aeschin. 1.117–18).36 Aeschines’ claim is one that chimes with the familiar rhetoric of Athenian superiority in deliberation (see Chapter 4.2 above); other allusions, such as his claim at the trial about the crowning of Demosthenes that there were more foreigners present than for any trial in living memory (3.56), suggest the plausibility of the claim that foreigners took an interest in the outcome of Athenian public debates about decrees.37 But once again we must remember that these claims about the presence of non-Athenians are politically loaded ones which were brought out with a view to impressing upon the audience the wider significance of the cases under discussion. Knowledge of Athenian decrees would have disseminated among non-Athenians who were the recipients of Athenian honours, those involved in treaties with the Athenians, or those on the receiving end of acts of hostility delivered by the decrees of the Athenian assembly. Non-citizens, including metics and other visitors to Athens, were frequently involved in litigation in the Athenian courts, and on such occasions they would have been exposed to arguments about Athenian decrees: the metic Athenogenes, defendant in a private lawsuit about a contract concerning the purchase of three slaves and a perfume business, would have heard his opponent talk about the Athenian assembly’s decree making the Troizenians citizens (Hyp. Athenog. 31–3 = D175 T1).38 One assumes that members of other communities would have taken an interest in Athenian decrees for self-interested reasons. Sensitive military decisions would have been of interest to Athens’ enemies: Aineias Tacticus, in his advice to communities about how to survive under a siege (Poliorketika), takes it almost for granted that, at a time of crisis, decisions of an assembly would be leaked to an enemy (9.2–3), perhaps owing to the presence of foreigners in the city (10.9). There are literary testimonia which suggest that information was disseminated in this way in Athens:39 Xenophon reports, for instance, that

36 Periestekotes: see Lanni 1997. 37 For further claims about the significance to non-Athenian audiences of the jury’s verdict in public trials, see Pl. Ap. 35a–b, Hyp. Dem. col. 22; Lys 12.35). In such contexts foreigners would have heard the decrees and other political transactions of Athens discussed. Foreigners were probably in the audience of the epitaphioi logoi: Thuc. 2.36.4. 38 At the same time it is worth observing that decrees do not appear normally to have been used as evidence in speeches relevant to maritime suits, probably because they were viewed largely as irrelevant to the litigants and the disputes between traders. On the significance of ideas about relevance to such speeches, see Lanni 2006: 149–74. 39 In the fifth century, Thucydides’ account suggests that the generals were cautious of putting a crucial decision to the vote lest its result were communicated to enemy forces (Thuc. 7.48, 50–1). On political intelligence, see Starr 1974; on the role of proxenoi in passing on information, see Gerolymatos 1986.

172

decrees of fourth-century athens

Demotion’s advice in the assembly for the Athenians to check the power of Corinth was disclosed to the Corinthians with the consequence that ‘they sent at once sufficiently strong forces of their own men to all places garrisoned by the Athenians and told them they could go away, as they had no further need of garrisons’ (Hell. 7.4.4). 40 Present at Athens were groups of non-Athenians at particular points who felt, for reasons of personal or community self-interest, a serious interest in Athenian decrees, and this feeling must have been particularly strong among groups of non-Athenian residents in Attica. Exiles or refugees – such as those Boiotians or Phokians who were present in Athens in 343 (Aeschin. 2.142–3) or the Olynthians who had been granted the right to stay in Athens in 348/7 (D120) – would have made up interested audiences of decrees, as would those individuals who aspired towards receiving refuge at Athens. Astykrates, an exile from Delphi, is known to have successfully appealed to the council for its help (IG II2 109 of 363/2 lines 8–10).41 The award of granting priority access to non-Athenian honorands to the Athenian assembly after the treatment of sacred business, known, for instance, in the honours written up for loyal Samians in 403/2 (RO 2 lines 72–3; cf. IG II2 107 lines 15–16; 212 lines 55–7) strongly suggests that some non-Athenians would have valued highly the possibility of access to the Athenian decree-making body in times of political necessity. Those who had settled and been accepted as metics in Athens, often for the purposes of pursuing business interests, would also have had an interest in Athenian decrees. This is demonstrated in the text of a decree which in 333/2 granted the Kitian merchants at Athens the right to acquire land for the foundation of a temple of Aphrodite (RO 91 = IG II3 1 337). This thought-provoking document was found at Piraeus, but the fact that it lacks a publication clause leads Lambert to suggest that the inscribed version of the decree was written up by the Kitians as a way of demonstrating to passers-by that they had legitimate permission to establish this sanctuary.42 One audience of the decree, therefore, consisted of those Kitians at Athens who were granted this privilege; if Lambert is right about the Kitians being the creators of the inscribed version, it seems that they envisaged a further interested audience in the decree: they had the 40 [Plu.] X Or. 845d suggests that there were individuals who would report to Philip the public speeches of Demosthenes. 41 On those who sought refuge at Athens in the fourth century, and aid to deserving refugees as an Athenian characteristic, see Gray 2015: 297–8. For other appeals by resident exiles to the Athenian council and assembly for privileges, see Gray 2015: 316 with note 144; for their participation in multilateral alliances of the Athenians, see Gray 2015: 217–18. 42 Lambert 2018: 39.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

173

document written up in order to justify their establishment of a sanctuary in front of a yet wider group of Athenians and non-Athenians who saw the inscription.

4.3.2  Foreign Ambassadors Another audience interested in prospective Athenian decrees – and in persuading the Athenian demos to enact them – were those foreign ambassadors who made appeals to the council or who were present at the assembly at the time of the enactment of decrees: Xenophon, for instance, describes a meeting of the assembly at Athens in 369 with the Spartans at which were present Spartan and Phleiasian ambassadors (Xen. Hell. 7.1.1–14) and which resulted in the assembly decreeing an alliance with the Spartans (D56). Aeschines (2.58) says that embassies from other communities were awarded the right of addressing the assembly by a decision of the council.43 A clue to the interest that such visitors to Athens had in the decrees of the demos lies in the references within inscribed texts to requests for alliances and honours reportedly made by visiting ambassadors; these references crop up in a range of decrees across the fourth century, several of which are relevant to the entrance of members to the Second Athenian Confederacy.44 Two such inscriptions (IG II2 42 (= RO 23) of 378/7 and IG II2 96 (= RO 24) of 375/4) record decrees which enrol communities into the alliance: they make respective reference to what was said by ‘the Methymnaians’ and what was said by the envoys of Kerkyra, Akarnania and Kephellenia in front of the Athenian council (lines 3–4; lines 5–6, respectively): in this context, it is generally assumed that these envoys had appealed to the Athenians to enrol their communities in the new alliance. But an example from 362/1 gives pause for thought. In that year, Thessalian envoys appear to have offered an alliance to the Athenians, though the text of the inscription suggests that the Athenians had actually approached the Thessalians previously (IG II2 116 (= RO 44) lines 8–9, 34–6): this is a useful reminder of the fact that, sometimes, on occasions when alliances appear to have been initiated by the appeal

43 On the rhetoric of ambassadors, see Rubinstein 2016, emphasising their stress on the collective ethos of the communities they represented. Another group of non-Athenians given access to the assembly consists of those who made supplications: see Gottesman 2014: 102–10: on one occasion in 346/5 Dioskourides of Abdera was taken under the protection of the Athenian generals and archons and was honoured with food at the prytaneion: IG II3 1 302 lines 18–22. One may suppose that their rhetoric would have placed more emphasis on self-representing the character and situation of the suppliants themselves. 44 IG II2 17, 42, 44, 109, 116, 118, 141 (= RO 21); IG II3 1 295, 298, 299, 302, 304, 313, 316.

174

decrees of fourth-century athens

of foreign ambassadors to the Athenians, there may have in fact been a longer series of prior negotiations in the background.45 On a number of occasions, the Athenians granted honours by decree in response to things said by the envoys of other communities: the two decrees for Mytilene of 369/8 and 368/7, inscribed on the same stele (IG II2 107 = RO 31), form a good example. The chronologically earlier of the two decrees consists of Kallistratos’ proposal answering a question posed by some envoys from Mytilene (‘ἀποκρίνασ]θαι δὲ τοῖς πρέσβεσι[ν τοῖς ἥκουσιν …]’: lines 40–1) with an account of Athenian foreign policy; the later decree praises the Mytileneans and grants them access to the Athenian assembly with priority, and responds to ‘the things about which the ambassadors from Lesbos say on coming here’ (‘[π]ερὶ ὧν οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ ἐκ Λέσβου ἥκοντ[ες] λέ[γο]υσιν’: lines 8–9). The inscribed honours for Spartokos and his brothers (IG II3 1 298 (= RO 64) lines 9–11) recount both a letter which the Kings sent to the Athenians and the report of their ambassadors. Other mid fourth-century honorific decrees passed for those who are recorded as having made statements to the Athenians include that for the satrap Orontes (IG II3 1 295 of 349/8 lines 2–3); the honours for Dioskourides of Abydos and his brothers of 346/5 (who had made supplication to the council so that they would hear him: IG II3 1 302 lines 7–9, 23–4), those for the Tenedians of 340/39 (IG II3 1 313 line 6) and for the Akarnanians of 338/7 (IG II3 1 316 line 6).

4.3.3  Appeals for Inscriptions? Accordingly, it seems that some Athenian decrees were made either as a result of ongoing discussions between Athens and other states or at the specific request of outsiders. We can introduce a further refinement to this impression: on at least one occasion, the inscribed texts of an honorific decree appears to have been set up on stone up in response to a request of non-Athenians:46 the inscription, bearing two decrees of the 340s, honouring the Pellanians of the Peloponnese (IG II3 1 304) is restored to this effect: [… concerning what the] envoys of th[e Pellanians have report]ed, be it resolv[ed by [the People: as regards the dec]ree which Aristo- ... [proposed about the] Pellanians [last year? = 345/4], [the secretary of the C]ouncil shall inscribe on a [stone stele and sta]nd it on the acr[opolis]. (lines 5­–11)

45 In the same era, an alliance was made with the Chalkidians on the basis of ‘the things that the Chalkidians say’ (IG II2 44 lines 7–8 of 378/7). Other treaties made in response to an appeal from foreign envoys include that with the Mytileneans of 347/6 (IG II3 1 299 lines 6–7). 46 For another possible example, see IG II2 77, discussed in Chapter 3.3.3 above.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

175

What we can ascertain here is that the decrees (both the original honorific decree of 345/4 honouring them and that of 344/3 setting out the decision to write up the honours on stone and to praise the ambassadors) were written up on stone in response to the Pellanians’ appeal.47 But what precisely the Pellanians were asking for is unknowable: it could be that they were asking for something more than honours; accordingly, it might be right to think of this writing up of the decree as, in Lambert’s words, ‘a consolation prize, in effect the outcome of a failed negotiation’ (cf. lines 9–20).48 But, as Lambert points out, the fact that the act of inscription appears to have been endowed with a hortatory intention ‘[so that the city of the] Pellan[ians shall continue always to be friendly] and we[ll-disposed to the Athen]ian [people]’ (lines 16–18) suggests that the setting up of an inscription was something that the honorands found desirable (or at least that the Athenians thought they would find inspiring). Another instance where the text of a decree might suggest that a foreigner was particularly interested in having a decree written up on stone was that for Sthorys of Thasos (probably a seer, who was rewarded for his services before the battle of Knidos)49 of 394/3. This is a difficult but interesting text consisting of 8 fragments,50 containing two decrees: a main decree (lines 24–40) describing the honours granted and specifying that the decree is to be written up on his own account is preceded by a supplementary decree (lines 6–12), perhaps a clarification,51 of the Council which specifies that the stele is to be set up in two locations: Supplementary decree, lines 6–12: Since his ancestors were [proxenoi and] benefactors of the city of the Athenians, and the Athenians made [him] a citizen, the secretary of the Council [shall inscribe] ... what the People have voted [about Sthorys on two stone stelai] on the acropolis and in the Pythion; and to invite Sthorys also to dinner tomorrow in the city hall. Main decree, lines 33–6: … and the secretary of the Council shall inscribe this decree at the expense of Sthorys, on a stone stele where the previous decrees for him have been inscribed.

The supplementary decree, therefore, clarified the two places of publication of the citizenship decree for Sthorys – at both the Pythion (probably that in 47 Osborne 2012: 47 note 85 makes the rather unconvincing claim that this demonstrates that all decrees were normally inscribed. 48 Lambert 2011a: 199 = Lambert 2018: 78. 49 See Osborne, 1981–3 D8 50 I have used the text of Agora 16.36, and the translation of Attic Inscriptions Online. 51 The view that this is a clarification is a view taken by Osborne, 1981–3 D8 Commentary, but this is a view rejected by Gauthier, BE 1996, no. 126 and REG 99 (1986) 123.

176

decrees of fourth-century athens

Athens) and the acropolis: Osborne’s suggestion was that the earlier decree granting citizenship did not make this clear, ‘since it spoke of only one stele’.52 The style of the stele, with a sunken surface, is reckoned to have been made in a characteristically Thasian shape.53 It has been suggested that this clarification about the place of publication of the inscription was introduced as a result of Sthorys’ own appeal, though this cannot be proven.54 But the fact that he was asked to pay for his own stele may well support the hypothesis that he had a say in where it was set up:55 perhaps Sthorys was very keen on having his decrees set at a specific location, made in a style familiar to his native community, and was even ready to pay for them.56 The evidence, therefore, for non-Athenians making appeals about the setting up of inscriptions is rather thin on the ground. We cannot produce, on the basis of Sthorys’ inscription and the Pellanians’ appeal, a general hypothesis about the audiences of Athenian decrees: the Thasian’s case was exceptional and, moreover, his work as a seer may have given him occasion to have been a regular resident of Athens. The fact that he appears to have borne the responsibility for paying for the inscription of his award (Ag. XVI 36 lines 34–5) also makes him exceptional: the provision that an honorand was to pay for the inscription of honours is rare in fourth-century decrees,57 and better attested in the fifth century, probably when the Athenians reckoned on their ability to force subject-states to fund the imposition of such monuments.58 The prob-

52 Osborne, 1981–3 D8 p. 46, but noting the objections of Gauthier. For another interpretation, see Mack 2015: 97 note 27, suggesting that the double place of publication was intended to assert the finality of a controversial award. 53 As Osborne, 1981–3, II, p. 48 note 147. 54 Such a hypothesis is reliant on the restoration in a lost section of line 5 of the words ‘περὶ δὲ ὧν λέγει Σθόρυς’ (‘concerning what Sthorys says’), presumably in an appeal to the Athenian council. As Polly Low suggests to me, it is plausible to think that IG II2 6, a restoration of a proxeny-decree for some Thasians, was also set up on the initiative of the honorands or their offspring, especially given that the honorand was asked to pay for the inscription. 55 The fact that the honorand of IG II2 6, Eurypylos, was asked to provide the expenses of his own re-inscribed proxeny decree in 403/2 (lines 14–16), suggests that he may have requested that it be set up after the restoration of democracy. 56 On occasion, it seems to have been the case that non-Athenian honorands might make a request about the wording of a decree: one interpretation of the rider to the award for Oiniades, which changed his ethnic from ‘Skiathos’ to ‘Palaioskiathos’ was that it was proposed at the assembly by a political ally upon his request (IG I3 110 lines 26–31): see ML p. 277, suggesting that ‘Oiniades is perhaps a little touchy; he wants to make it clear on the stone that he comes from the old town’; cf. OR p. 517. 57 See, however, IG II2 54 lines 4–5 and 130 line 18, where honorands are to pay for the stele, and also the treaty IG II2 98 line 26 to be funded by the Kephallenians. 58 IG I3 156 line 28; cf. payment for stelai by allies who appear to have revolted: on Kolophon: IG I3 37; Chalkis: IG I3 40; Mytilene: IG I3 66; Low 2005: 100–1.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

177

lem we are faced with, however, when hypothesising about the appeals that lay behind these awards, is that the decrees never say anything about what exactly the envoys who had communicated with the Athenians were requesting: that is left to deduction. Once again, therefore, it is important to note that the testimonia that we have looked at are purely Athenian perceptions of non-Athenian audiences. So far we have discussed a good amount of evidence which demonstrates a range of contexts in which non-Athenians took an interest in Athenian decrees. In the next sections I shall assess the efforts the Athenians made to disseminate information about their decrees among non-Athenians by proclamation (4.3.4) and epigraphical publication (4.3.5).

4.3.4 Proclamation Already in Chapter 3 above we have discussed the importance of the proclamation of honours in their dissemination among Athenian audiences. On those occasions where proclamation was undertaken at the theatre of Dionysos, we might reasonably accept Demosthenes’ view that the aim of such proclamations was to introduce the whole audience  – including Athenians and non-­ Athenians – to emulate the service towards the city undertaken by the honorand (Dem. 18.120–1)59. But proclamation was important in the ­dissemination of news outside the civic institutions of the Athenians. Other than the informal spreading of information by word of mouth, the primary mode of dissemination of decrees to non-Athenian audiences consisted probably of oral proclamation to a targeted group of non-Athenian magistrates, a council, or an assembly: as Lalonde notes, on the basis of non-Attic evidence, diplomatic decrees or declarations of war would usually be copied down on papyrus or other lightweight material and would have been physically carried to the affected city and read out by heralds, ambassadors or even generals.60 59 On the legality of this proclamation at the theatre, see the discussion in Chapter 2.2.2.1 and 3.2.1 above. 60 Lalonde, 1971: 77-84. Decrees which contained threats or warnings (Plu. Per. 30) would have been taken to the hostile state and proclaimed by herald; treaties were made by an exchange of oaths undertaken by ambassadors: accordingly, envoys would have read the decrees under which they were acting at the community they were visiting (Aeschin. 2.101, 104 = D133 TT 2, 3); generals might also read out decrees, as Paches, the general of 428/7, was required to do to the Mytileneans (Thuc 3.36.3). For the role of heralds in the communication of news beyond the polis, see Lewis 1996: 63–8. The use of interstate festivals as centres for the dissemination of news emerges, however, only at the very end of the fourth century: Lewis 1996: 71, 73. On the reading aloud of decrees by ambassadors in the Hellenistic period, see Chaniotis 2013, 2016 and Rubinstein 2013; on the rhetoric of envoys in the classical period, see Rubinstein 2016.

178

decrees of fourth-century athens

Decrees of the Athenian imperial era that bore implications for other cities appear on occasion to have been disseminated also through oral announcement. In 425/4 the decree re-organising tribute assessments directs that heralds be sent around the regions of the Athenian empire to announce the prescriptions of the decree (OR 153 = ML 69 lines 5–6, 41–2; Kleinias’ decree on tribute collection contains comparable provisions (OR 154 = ML 46 lines 26–7)). A similar mode of dissemination is suggested in Aristophanes’ parody of Athenian imperial administration which introduces a decree-seller who announces to Peisthetairos the Athenian decree imposing Athenian weights, measures and decrees on the people of Cloud-Cuckoo Land. His mention also of a stele  – vandalised by Peisthetairos  – upon which Athenian decrees were written up (Aristophanes Birds, 1037–56) suggests that epigraphic and oral modes of dissemination coincided with one another.61 It is likely, therefore, that whereas some Athenian decrees of the imperial period might have received a sympathetic audience among pro-Athenian groups (such as the Eteokarpathians recognised as benefactors in IG I3 1454 lines 5–8), others might have given rise to resistance or indifference: the latter response is suggested in Plutarch’s account of the Greek states’ refusal to toe the line of Pericles’ Congress Decree, which arranged for the dispatch of 20 Athenian citizens to the cities of Greece to call upon communities to send representatives to Athens to discuss destroyed Greek sanctuaries, sacrifices owed to the gods, and the questions concerning sea power (Plu. Per. 17).62 In the fifth century, therefore, it is possible to find evidence for Athenian attempts to disseminate their decrees, but the response of the projected audience to them is still hard to discern. As we have already noted (Chapter 3.2.1 above), in the fourth century too Athenian magistrates could be charged with the job of disseminating news about Athenian decrees beyond Athens: the decree of Philokrates concerning the sacred orgas of 352/1 (D107) gave rise to guidelines about delineating the consecrated area on the borderlands between Eleusis and Megarian territory; according to the literary sources (D107 TT 1, 2) the Eleusinian magistrates Lakrateides the hierophant and Hierokleides the daidouchos were to mark out the boundary; accordingly, they were effectively charged with the diffusion of the impact of the decree among Athenians and Megarians alike. But on this occasion the nature of the dispute – combined perhaps with the resistance of the Megarians and the reduced clout of the Athenians – meant that the Athenians

61 On this passage, see Chapter 5.3.2 below. 62 On this controversial decree, see Meiggs 1972: 512–15; Stadter 1989: 201–4, suggesting that it was genuine.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

179

found it useful to consult the Delphic oracle by means of lottery about the best way forward (IG II3 1 292 lines 23–54). Epigraphical evidence gives us clear indication that Athenian ambassadors could be sent out with the explicit charge of imposing Athenian decrees on weaker states in this era. An inscribed Athenian decree of the mid fourth century, RO 40, preserves Koresian and Ioulietan responses to an Athenian decree concerning the Athenian regulation of Kean ruddle export. It contains a passage (lines 37–8) which makes it very clear that the decree of the Ioulietans acquiescing with the demands of the Athenians’ decree was to be inscribed at the harbour at Ioulis; moreover, that same inscription demonstrates that the Athenians had sent envoys to the cities of Keos to disseminate the Athenian assembly’s decree (lines 9–10, 25–6, 39–40). Another inscribed decree of fourth-century Athens that includes arrangements for its own proclamation is RO 35 (= Ag. XVI 48), an inscription containing a decree of Kephisodotos of 367/6, declaring that a herald was to go to the Aetolians to demand the release of those that the Trichonians (of south-west Aetolia) had unlawfully imprisoned (lines 14–18). It may well give us insight into a practice of oral information that was widespread, in particular for those decrees which were of ephemeral nature and would not have usually have been set up on stone.63 Moreover, the inscribed dossier of decrees honouring Herakleides of Salamis (IG II3 1 367) states that the Athenians were to select an envoy to travel to Herakleia to request the return of the honorands’ sails and to ask them to refrain from such behaviour in the future (lines 37–41). In the fourth century, members of the Athenian naval confederacy affected by directives of Athenian decrees would presumably have been the recipients of information about them: to take one example, Moirokles’ decree (D207 = Dem. 58.53) of the mid fourth century stated that Athens’ allies were to be persuaded to organise a stronghold against the pirates, presumably through a dogma of their synedrion.64 It is plausible that the Athenian decree would have been communicated to the organisers of the meeting of the synedrion and disseminated

63 Rhodes and Osborne suggest, for epigraphical reasons, that the decision to write up the inscription may have been taken by officials of the Eleusinion rather than the Athenian state: RO p. 173. 64 Cf. also the Peace of Philokrates (= DD 130, 131), which required ratification by the members of the confederation; for exchanges between the synedrion of the League and the Athenian council, see Rhodes 1972: 60–1. On the other hand, the allies could introduce proposals to the Athenian council: see, for instance, IG II2 112, an inscribed alliance with some Peloponnesian communities, which the allies introduced to the Athenian council on the grounds of things that the Peloponnesians had promised (lines 12–16); cf. IG II2 97, specifying that aspects of an Athenian alliance should be carried out according to the dogma of the allies (lines 14–15).

180

decrees of fourth-century athens

on that occasion. At the time of the Peace of Philokrates, an amendment to the agreement said that synedroi were to give oaths to Philip’s ambassadors which ensured that member-states of the Confederacy were party to the terms of the peace (D131 T1 = Aeschin. 3.73–5). Again, we can reasonably take the view that the synedrion of allies was the mechanism that communicated the decisions of the Athenian confederacy to Athens’ allies. Interestingly, however, there is rarely any provision for honorific decrees to be announced at an honorand’s home, and it is unclear from Diodorus’ description of the honours announced for Philip at Olympias’ wedding whether the announcement was made by a herald of Macedonia or of an individual Greek state: Not only did individual notables crown him with golden crowns but most of the important cities as well, and among them Athens. As this award was being announced by the herald, he said finally that if anyone plotting against Philip were to flee to Athens for refuge, he would be handed over. (D.S. 16.92.1–2 = D180 T2).

Perhaps it was the case that provision for the announcement of honours to foreigners was left up to the initiative of the honorands themselves: in 403/2 when the Athenians granted proxeny-status to Poses of Samos they inscribed the decree at Athens and the secretary was ordered to give him a document (biblion) with the text of the decree (RO 2 lines 61–2); perhaps Poses would have had the decree inscribed back at home on Samos.65 The literary evidence for announcement of the peoples’ decrees outside Athens is rather limited; just occasionally, however, the pronouncement of a decree to other communities was an important part of its substance: the decree of Diophantos (D105 = Dem. 19.86) appears to make arrangements for the announcement abroad of praise and thanksgiving after the defence of Thermopylai; in many senses this was a decree designed to display Athenian piety and to celebrate an act of resistance: announcement would have reinforced the fulfilment of such intentions. On the occasions when they passed a decree of general significance, the intended non-Athenian audience of a decree may well have been made up of many separate communities, and the Athenians arranged for wide distribution. The limited literary evidence for such dissemination suggests the importance of oral proclamation: according to Diodorus, in 323 the Athenians issued a decree sent round to various cities which said that they should organise in support of koine eleutheria for Greece (D.S. 18.10.2–5). Earlier, in 378/7, as Diodorus reports, the Athenians had appealed to cities subject to the Lakedaimonians, 65 Lewis 1996: 134.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

181

presumably after they had decided to establish an anti-Spartan alliance which would form the basis of the second Athenian confederacy (DP 20 = D.S. 15.28.2). But as Athenian power dwindled in the second half of the fourth century, and it was increasingly the case that decrees of the Athenian state required negotiation with another party, we see that a decree could sometimes only reach its final form once it had been ratified by another party: one view of this process is offered by Plutarch (Phoc. 17.4) who states that the Athenian decree responding to Alexander’s request that they hand over certain important politicians was at first cast away in disgust by Alexander, but that he was willing to give it more thought when it was brought by Phokion in person. There is little, therefore, to suggest that there was any system in place to ensure that decrees of the Athenian ecclesia were comprehensively disseminated: the spread of news about decrees was introduced when the Athenians decided that it needed to be done. Past decrees were re-announced to a secondary audience when they were relevant to ambassadorial missions: the significance to diplomatic exchanges of past decrees could be re-iterated in speeches made by Athenian ambassadors: Aeschines (2.109–10) says that Demosthenes, when he was serving as an ambassador at Pella, read out several decrees: Philokrates’ decree that Philip be allowed to send ambassadors (D121), his own proposal for safe conduct to the herald and ambassadors (D126), the motion that restricted the people’s discussion of peace to certain days (D127 T1), the decree which provided that the people should discuss an alliance (D127 T3), and the motion about assigning the front seats at the Dionysia to Philip’s ambassadors (probably a council decree: see D126 and BD 5). From this passage, we might surmise that Demosthenes went to Pella armed with dossiers of decrees for the sake of persuasion or perhaps, if we follow Aeschines’ view, appealing to the Macedonians, and it is quite plausible to think that ambassadors on other occasions would have been similarly well equipped.

4.3.5  Epigraphical Dissemination How far was the epigraphical publication of decrees aimed at audiences of both Athenians and non-Athenians? It may be relevant that there was a tendency for the Athenians to set up decrees at the potentially cosmopolitan spaces of the acropolis and agora: these were locations which might have been visited by non-Athenians without restriction;66 furthermore, there is no evidence to say 66 For the agora as a ‘cosmopolitan’ place, see Vlassopoulos 2007b and Sobak 2015; most visits to the acropolis would have been during times of festivals; for non-Athenians on the acropolis see Liddel 2003: 80–1 and Lambert 2018: 27–9.

182

decrees of fourth-century athens

that inscribed decrees were set up on the Pnyx Hill, the seat of the Athenian assembly which, with the exception of supplicants and foreign ambassadors granted permission to visit it, appears to have excluded foreign visitors.67 At the same time we cannot assume that the publication of decrees at such locations is an indication that they were aimed specifically at an audience of non-Athenians. There is, however, a sub-set of decrees whose places of epigraphical publication suggests that they were indeed aimed at an audience of non-Athenians: the epigraphical evidence attests to 27 Athenian decrees set up outside Athens in the classical and Hellenistic period; of these, eight are fifth-century, and seven are dated to the fourth century.68 It is perhaps revealing, moreover, that there is, in the classical period, much more evidence for decrees of the Athenian demos being set up outside Attica than there is for non-Athenian decrees being set up in Attica: only a handful of non-Athenian decrees are attested to have been set up inside Athens.69 On such occasions, the Athenians appear to have ordered that their decrees be set up in locations of cities affected directly by the provisions contained within them, and there appears to have been a variety of motivations for such a decision. When the Athenian demos enacted regulations about the imposition of Athenian standards on its imperial subjects, probably in the period 425–415,70 it appears to have supported the dissemination of information about this decision by ordering that the decree should be set up in front of the mint in the cities of the empire ‘for anyone who wishes to scrutinise’ (IG I3 1453 section 12). The discovery of fragments of this document (IG I3 1453) of the late fifth century in 9 locations across the Athenian empire suggests that wide physical publication of the decree aimed to support the dissemination of knowledge about it. While certainty about the effectiveness of this intention is impossible, 67 Hansen 1987: 87. 68 Liddel 2003: 93 collects the evidence. To this figure we should add RO 17, which appears to be an Athenian decree set up at Erythrai, though one which does not preserve an extant clause relating to its place of publication; see discussion in Chapter 4.3.6 below. See also, on decrees of the Athenians set up in allied states, Low 2005: 100–1. 69 Non-Athenian legislation in Athens: IG II2 1126–37 including decisions of Panhellenic congresses, on which see Sickinger 1999a: 119–21; note in particular CID I 10 and RO 40 (an Athenian decree recording the dispatch of ambassadors to Keos, which incorporates parts of three related Kean decrees; see discussion in Chapter 4.3.4 above); Lalonde 1977; for the Chabrias monument from the Athenian agora, bearing records of honours of Greek communities for Chabrias, see SEG XIX 204 = Hesperia 30 (1961) 74–91. For non-Athenian legislation cited in the lawcourts, see Lys. 1.2; Dem. 20.71 (awards for other states for Konon); Dem. 18.93–4; Aeschin. 2.32, 3.48, 103–5, 123–5; Din. 1.25–8; Hyp. Ath. 32–4, and note 8 above. 70 On the dating of the Standards decree probably to the mid 420s at the earliest, see Papazarkadas 2009: 72; OR 155 suggests c. 425–415.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

183

it suggests that the Athenians at least attempted to disseminate news of this imposition to allied states with a view to enforcing the regulation. And it is likely that some allies would have had little choice other than to face up to the implications of Athenian decisions promulgated by decrees of the assembly. 71 There are other indications that the Athenians in their era of imperial power attempted to disseminate their decrees through epigraphical publication:72 an Athenian decree praising the Eteokarpathians of the third quarter of the fifth century as euergetists was to be set up both on the Athenian acropolis and at Karpathos in the sanctuary of Apollo (IG I3 1454 lines 34–6); as Low notes,73 the fact that this relationship is recorded only in an Athenian decree means that the only view we have of this episode is that projected by the Athenians; but the decision to set up the decree on the island of Karpathos at least suggests that this was an account that the Athenians projected at a local audience. It seems to be the case that in the fourth century too there was some deliberate Athenian dissemination of inscribed versions of their decrees into non-Athenian space. In a context already discussed (Chapter 4.2 above), Demosthenes claimed that both the Athenians and Leukon set up copies of the honorific decree for him (at Bosporos, Hieron and Piraeus: Dem. 20.36), and that this practice would have disseminated awareness of them among non-Athenians with the effect of encouraging foreign benefactors.74 Just as the fifth century saw the Athenians imposing their decrees (or bestowing honours) upon their allies as they pleased, so too the strength and influence of the Athenian polis in the first half of the fourth century meant that its state decisions had a fundamental impact on other Greek states: on occasion, Athenian legislation potentially affected the political configuration of small communities beyond Attica.75 We have already seen (Chapter 4.3.4 above) the Ioulietans of Keos acquiescing with the demands of the Athenians that a decree was to be inscribed at the harbour at Ioulis (RO 40). Another indication that the Athenians were still ready to impose their will upon this small community – and did so by way of epigraphical publication – emerges in the

71 Cf. Low 2007: 242. 72 For Athenian decrees inscribed outside Athens as an imperialist ‘message-driver’, see Lambert 2018: 39–41. 73 Low 2007: 249–50. 74 For detailed discussion of Athenian decrees for the Bosporan kings, see Lambert 2018: 34–9, suggesting that the three locations were ‘part of a deliberate policy by Athens and the Bosporan rulers to advertise and secure the unusual trading privileges enjoyed by the latter, perhaps with reciprocal advertisement of privileges in the Bosporan kingdom enjoyed by Athens’. 75 Hagermajer Allen 2003: 234–9; Engen 2010.

184

decrees of fourth-century athens

inscription of 363/2 which sets out Athenian arrangements for the same city of Ioulis: the decree sets out details of the Athenian settlement after a revolt against the Athenians on the island (IG II2 111 = RO 39 lines 27–46). It gives an account of the return of some Ioulietan exiles who had returned to the city, made war against the Athenians, and overturned stelai upon which details of an earlier reconciliation with the Athenians had been written (lines 27–46). Not only does the inscription provide us with a clear indication of an Athenian decree which made the Kean cities swear an oath of allegiance to the Athenians (lines 69–73), but it also informs us that earlier Athenian inscribed arrangements were an object of the wrath of the rebels. The Athenian motivation for having the inscriptions set up at the sanctuary of Pythian Apollo in Ioulis was presumably to act as a reminder for the Ioulietans to repay what the Athenians were demanding (IG II2 111 (= RO 39) lines 19–22). The Kean example is something of an exception: evidence for the Athenians imposing political arrangements through inscriptions on their fourth-century allies is fairly limited.76 On one occasion, it seems to be the case that the epigraphical publication of an honorific decree had a practical function. A stele of white marble (IDélos 88) discovered close to the old Artemision in Delos contains two decrees of Athens of 369/8 and 363/2:77 one of them honours Pythodoros of Delos, making him proxenos for having carried out certain services concerning the finances of the God and the people of Athens; the other decree extends the award to his nephew. A rider to the first decree states that the Athenian council and the generals and the Amphictyons are to make sure that no one harms him (lines 15–20), that the secretary of the (Athenian) council is to have it set up on the (Athenian) acropolis (lines 20–22), that the secretary of the Amphictyons is to write up a copy of the decree at the sanctuary of Apollo at Delos which they (the Amphictyons) are to fund ‘from the money taken from those who have been condemned’ (lines 22–5): these were probably those enemies of Pythodoros who opposed Athenian interests, perhaps during an outbreak of anti-Athenian sentiment in the mid 370s.78 It seems likely that the Athenians specified its dual publication to the Delians as a way of asserting the duties of protection for Pythodoros that were implied for both the Athenians and Amphictyons. On this occasion, therefore, 76 On Athenian intervention in the affairs of the allied states of the fourth century, see Cargill 1981: 146–88, arguing that it was restrained. For decrees concerning Athenian settlements overseas of the fourth century, see DD 65, 150, 208; IG II2 114 = IG II2 1613 lines 297–8; IG II2 1629 lines 17–21; DPP 52, 63. An inscribed decision of the Second Athenian Confederacy of probably 372 mentions a ‘reconciliation’ between the Athenian allies and the Parians: RO 29 lines 7–8. 77 Discussion: see Osborne 1974: 170–4. 78 As Plassart 1950: 43 and Osborne 1974: 171; cf. Tuplin 2005: 55.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

185

the Athenians appear to have attempted to ensure, through epigraphical publication, that the man who championed their interests was protected even at Delos: while the decree was certainly projected at Delians, it is likely that its setting up at the sanctuary of Apollo was an Athenian, rather than Delian, initiative. At other points the motivation for the Athenians to set up decrees outside Athens appears to be the aim to ensure that allied communities had access to the details of the obligations implied by bilateral treaties (e.g. IG II2 44, a treaty with Chalkis of 378/87; IG II2 55 concerning Athens and Aphytis of the second quarter of the fourth century); indeed, we would expect treaties to have been published in each of the participating states on their own initiative (cf. Thuc. 5.47.11). Relevant decrees were set up in new Athenian cleruchies perhaps either to assert the rights or to praise the activity of new settlers79 or, in the case of the cleruchy on Lemnos, perhaps to assert the piety of the Athenians towards divine matters.80 Whereas the act of setting up the proxeny-decree at Delos might have been an attempt to prevent the abuse of Pythodoros in his Delian home, and the agreements between Athens and Chalkis and concerning Aphytis might have been of interest to those communities with whom the Athenians were making agreements. It was generally the case that the setting up of Athenian decrees outside Athens was carried out on the initiative of the Athenian assembly and was motivated by Athenian interests. The exception to this pattern dates from a period of relative Athenian weakness: the setting up of an inscribed version of the treaty between the Athenians and Alexander of probably 336 at both Athens and at Pydna in the sanctuary of Athena (IG II3 1 443 line 13) can be explained probably by the strategic significance of that city for relations between the Greeks and Macedonians.81 Given that this was probably the inscribed Athenian version of a multilateral treaty between Alexander and the Greek cities, it is likely that its erection at Pydna was the choice of Alexander.

4.3.6  Resistance to Athenian Decrees The Athenians declared wars and launched military expeditions against their enemies by way of decree. We have noted already (Chapter 4.2 above) that one Athenian insecurity about their decrees was the fear that Philip could remain 79 IG II3 1 387 is a decree concerning the cleruchy at Sestos, which was set up both at Athens on the acropolis and at Sestos, perhaps in its agora (lines 7–8). 80 IG II2 1222 (cf. SEG XLV 126) lines 5–7, set up at Hephaistia: ‘so that it might be clear to everyone [that the Athenian demos at Hephaistia] is pious with respect to divine matters’ (‘ὅπως ἂν ἅπασιν φανερὸ[ς ἦι ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων τῶν ἐν Ἡφαιστίαι] εὐσεβῶν τὰ πρὸς τοὺς [θεούς’). 81 Voutiras 1998: 115–16.

186

decrees of fourth-century athens

aloof from their decisions. Among some communities, therefore, news of Athenian decrees might have been received with indifference; in others with outright hostility (as they were among the revolting Ioulietans of Keos: RO 39: see Chapter 4.3.5 above); yet in other cases with trepidation.82 Moreover, within many Greek communities, there was probably considerable debate about the extent to which adherence to the decrees and politics of the Athenians mattered, and such debates would have surfaced in full relief in situations of civil strife. Such a situation of conflict is one that emerges in an inscription from Erythrai containing an Athenian decree concerning the Erythraians, dated to the period before the King’s Peace, which was published in 1976 (RO 17). This decree of the Athenian assembly (lines 2–3) prohibits reconciliation of outsiders with ‘those within the city’ without the consent of the Athenian people (lines 5–7); exiles were not to be restored, meanwhile, without the consent of the Erythraian people (lines 7–11). It appears from the decree that a group of Erythraians had appealed to the Athenians to prevent their city being handed over ‘to the barbarians’ (as it was after the King’s Peace), and the inscribed document represents the reply of the Athenians (lines 11–16) which the pro-Athenians may well have had set up at a part of Erythrai which was friendly to them; this decision is one which foreshadows the Hellenistic practice of smaller cities inscribing edicts of more powerful political entities as a way of securing their own position (e.g. IK Erythrai 30 and 31).83 One envisages, though, that the Erythraian exiles would have been of a faction who opposed Athenian intervention and the imposition of their decrees.84 Even among those city factions which drew upon Athenian support, there is evidence for uneasiness about reliance upon, or adherence to, the provisions of the Athenian people’s decrees. This much is suggested in the rhetoric of Pelopidas, according to Plutarch’s account (Pel. 7.1–2), during the Theban resistance to the Spartan occupation of the Kadmeia after winter 382: Pelopidas incited fervour among the Theban exiles in Athens by berating them for ‘hanging upon the decrees of the Athenians’ (‘ἐκκρέμασθαι τῶν Ἀθήνησι ψηφισμάτων’). Ironically, however, he also is reported to have persuaded them  – by pointing to the Athenian example of Thrasyboulos (on the basis that he returned 82 One anticipates such a reaction of the Megarians or Phleiasians to the Athenian decrees launching expeditions against them: see DD 111, 112. 83 I am grateful to Polly Low for this suggestion. For inscribed letters of Hellenistic kings set up by small communities, see Welles 1934. 84 On this decree see now Matthaiou 2017, taking the view that those locked outside the city were oligarchs and that the opposing democrats supported by the Athenians held the city; for the alternative view, that those ‘within the city’ (in lines 5–7) are dissidents with whom the Athenians are refusing to reconcile, see RO p. 77.

audiences beyond athenian citizens

187

from Thebes to liberate Athenians) – they should return from Athens to liberate Thebes. Accordingly, Pelopidas appears to have resented the power of the Athenians’ decrees but still acknowledged that their political history provided examples worthy of emulation.

4.4 Conclusion The Athenian orators (Chapter 4.2 above) were probably right in claiming that there was a significant audience of non-Athenians interested in the decrees of the Athenians; however, it appears to have been the case that this audience consisted of specific self-interested groups rather than  – as some Athenians liked to imagine  – a general audience of those who were enthusiastic about Athenian charis for its own sake: attractions such as partisan political alliance and protection appear to have been key factors in the generation of interest in decrees. Those non-Athenians with an interest in Athenian decrees would have consisted of non-Athenians at Athens (Chapter 4.3.1 above), ambassadors visiting the city (Chapter 4.3.2 above) and those who perceived that an honorific decree, sometimes even in an inscribed version (Chapter 4.3.3 above), was a desideratum. Beyond those factions who advocated Athenian intervention on their behalf or who were directed by the provisions of Athenian decrees we have, so far, come across little by way of straightforward evidence that there was a general, broad, audience of non-Athenians hanging on the words of decrees. Athenian perceptions, however, can be revealing: the claim that Athenian decrees were of profound interest to other political communities suggests that the Athenian demos and its politicians sometimes possessed an inflated view of the significance of their own enactments, a belief that at times appears out of balance with the declining inter-community significance of the decisions of the fourth-century Athenians. It is clear that there were many situations in which we can conceive of non-Athenian communities, or sub-sections of those communities, caring about Athenian decrees, but these were essentially contingent on numerous factors, most prominently that group’s political and economic relationship to Athens, and the extent of their reliance upon the political favours of the Athenians. The fact that it is possible to observe some Athenian influence in inscribed documentary style from the classical period supports the idea that there were non-Athenians who paid close attention to the language of Athenian decrees.85 However, dissemination of knowledge about Athenian decrees was uneven and 85 The study of Athenian influence on non-Athenian documentary styles is under-developed, but see Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 550–60; Liddel 2010.

188

decrees of fourth-century athens

unsystematic and reliant in part upon social interaction: while there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that the Athenians did make some attempts to disseminate their decrees to other communities by way of proclamation and the dispatch of ambassadors (4.3.4), their reception would have been unpredictable. Again we note (as we did in Chapter 3 above) that epigraphical publication was not the primary means of dissemination of Athenian decrees, but the act of inscription either coincided with oral proclamation or was something that added extra value to the power of the decree and its representation of Athenian interests (4.3.5). It was argued at the end of this chapter that not all news of Athenian decrees would have been welcome: some non-Athenians would have been hostile to the content of Athenian decrees (4.3.6). At this point, it is time to extend our exploration into further audiences of Athenian decrees over time as we consider the reception and representation of Athenian decrees in extant literary texts more broadly (Chapter 5 below) and the implications for our understanding of the circulation of perceptions about decrees of the Athenian demos.

5 Literary Representations of Athenian Decrees

5.1 Introduction Beyond epigraphical publication, the chief indication of the esteem in which decrees were held – among a different but sometimes overlapping audience – is their profile in literary texts. The theme of this volume so far, drawing heavily upon the Attic orators, has been the representation of decrees of the fourth-century assembly among Athenian and non-Athenian contemporaries. But at this point we turn to explore the engagement of other literary authors with Athenian decrees and the ideas associated with them. In this chapter, I will investigate the deployment, representation and fabrication of decrees in Greek literature more broadly, raising the possibility that, while the processes of decree-making and of discussing decrees were institutional practices with political and social significance, they had also a wider cultural presence that can be detected in literary references to them. Before we begin assessing the ways in which decrees surface in different genres, it may be worth recalling three critiques of the democratic system that surfaced in the fourth century. First, there is the argument familiar to Demosthenes’ symbouleutic oratory, that Athenian power is undermined by the gap between the ambitiousness and hostile intent of the decrees of the people and the Athenians’ inability to live up to them in terms of military activity (Dem. 3.4–6).1 This is a view that suggests the potential inanity and even vanity of Athenian decrees. A related criticism was that decrees were the tool of self-interested politicians (Dem. 23.201). The other critique was associated with Greek worries about it as a tool of an extreme, unbridled democracy.2 As we observed earlier (Chapter 1.3 above), Aristotle expressed, at points, misgivings about the role of the decree in democracy, suggesting that the situation in which a decree can over-ride the law was symptomatic of mob-rule and equivalent to anarchy. Aristotle’s views reflect a wider anxiety about the assembly making critical and uncensored decisions and imposing 1 A phenomenon identified and discussed by Mader 2006; see Chapter 2.5.2 above. 2 For discussion of criticisms of Athenian democratic procedure  – which never extended to criticism of the system as a whole – see Harris 2006b; Saxonhouse 1996: 128, 131.

189

190

decrees of fourth-century athens

its ­unbridled will on the wider community. His fear about the power of the decree as a tool of a rampant assembly is a criticism largely unattested in fourth-century oratory. At this point, I turn to assess the degree to which such views about the decree surface in other writings, and aim to establish a clearer sense of the themes that recur in the wider representation of the decree in Greek literature. My analysis takes a genre-based approach, beginning with writing about the past (historiography and biography: 5.2), proceeding into classical drama (5.3), the work of antiquarians and travel-writers (5.4), later rhetorical treatises (5.5), and ending with the representation of decrees in post-Hellenistic satirical literature (5.6). The reception of fourth-century decrees in later texts was determined by broader attitudes towards both documents and political activity. As a way of engaging with classical attitudes to decrees more broadly, it seems appropriate over the course of this final chapter not to restrict discussion to those decrees that constitute the core of fourth-century material, but to introduce also some consideration of decrees of earlier periods, in particular those of the fifth century.

5.2 Historiography 5.2.1  Histories of the Greek World At the most general level, historians of the classical era made reference to decrees in their description of historical narrative. At points, they were conceptualised simply as decisions of a sovereign body: even though he made some use of inscriptions as a way of elaborating his narrative,3 Herodotus had little reason to discuss decrees of the Athenians in any depth. However, in his account of the result of Aristagoras of Miletos’ appeal for support in 499, he says that the Athenians were persuaded (ἀναπεισθέντες) by him and voted (ἐψηφίσαντο) to send twenty ships to assist the Ionians (5.97.3): these twenty ships, famously, turned out to be the beginning of misfortunes for Greeks and non-Greeks; the author’s reference to the Athenian voting process, therefore, underlines the Athenians’ responsibility for the decision. At other points Herodotus represents the Athenians as being persuaded by prominent individuals to take certain decisions, but nothing is made of their institutional details: the Athenian resolution to abandon Attica was presented as the initiative of Themistocles (Hdt. 7.143.1–2; cf. 7.144.1–3). In this case, though, Herodotus had little interest in the intricacies of Athenian decree-making institutions. 3 West 1985.

literary representations of decrees

191

Another Athenian decision that he discusses was the bouleutes Lykidas’ proposal (gnome) at the council that the Athenians should put to vote at the assembly Mardonios’ appeal that they surrender: in Herodotus’ account this angered a mob which proceeded to stone to death the proposer, his wife, and children (Hdt. 9.5.2–3). As Gottesman observes, Herodotus described how a proposal at the council might be presented as giving rise to an expression of public anger;4 Lycurgus’ account of the same episode, on the other hand, offers an account of a public lynching of the proposer undertaken by order of a decree of the council and appears to have been supported by his reading of a documentary version of the decree (Lycurg. 1.122). Lycurgus’ version of the events reveals the orator’s own interests both in the formal role of the council as a punitive body and also the importance of the decree as the catalyst of all forms of public action. Herodotus, on the other hand, expressed less interest in Athenian political institutions or the formally imposed details of Athenian decrees and closer engagement with the public reaction to them.5 Compared to Herodotus, Thucydides paid more attention to Athenian decision-making institutions, though accurate constitutional description is rarely a priority in his account. His truest explanation (alethestate prophasis) of the origins of the Peloponnesian War underplayed the significance of the Athenian decrees concerning the Megarians.6 However, his report of diplomatic exchanges in the build-up to war, recounting the Athenian refusal to accede to the Spartan demand that they revoke the Megarian decree (Thuc. 1.139.1–2), highlights the role of the decisions of the Athenian assembly in the outbreak of hostilities. Elsewhere, Thucydides drew extensively upon documentary material pertaining to decrees in his history, in particular at the end of book 4 and in book 5, where he shows familiarity with, and quoted verbatim, a number of treaties (Thuc. 4.118; 5.18–19, 47, 77, 79). Describing the year’s truce of 424/3, Thucydides cited words which, to an Athenian, may have resembled the enactment formula of a decree of the Spartans and their allies (4.118.4)7 and a fuller version of that of the Athenians (4.118.11)8; in doing so, he was perhaps the first historian to record such close attention to the language of a decree: this

4 Gottesman 2014: 64–5. 5 For another occasion in which a fourth-century source describes a decree relating to an incident known from Herodotus’ work, see Introduction note 7 above. 6 Ste Croix 1972: 225–89. As Pelling (2000: 103-11) notes, he may have underplayed the significance of Athenian decrees against the Megarians as a way of contradicting the belief that the war was Pericles’ making. 7 ‘τάδε δὲ ἔδοξε Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ξυμμάχοις …’ 8 ‘ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ. Ἀκαμαντὶς ἐπρυτάνευε, Φαίνιππος ἐγραμμάτευε, Νικιάδης ἐπεστάτει. Λάχης εἶπε, τύχῃ ἀγαθῇ τῇ Ἀθηναίων …’

192

decrees of fourth-century athens

underlined one aspect of the accuracy of reference to which he was aspiring in the writing of his history; at the same time the familiarity and immediacy of decree-style language contributed to the authority of his account. There is, however, modern scholarly debate about whether he drew upon documentary Peloponnesian versions of these agreements, or somehow had access, even as an exile, to documents kept at Athens.9 It is highly unlikely that he carried out autopsy of inscribed versions.10 Yet as recent scholarship has suggested, the appearance of documents in his text might be seen as underlining the high status of the written word in Thucydides’ text,11 his high regard for the inscribed text in his view of history,12 and also in his attempt to reconstruct the historical past with accuracy.13 Thucydides drew upon and presented documentary evidence for interstate treaties for the narrative of his history: he had a high regard for their status as sources of historical detail and as records of political decisions and even statements of political intent. But the decree, as a political transaction, played another important role in Thucydides’ account of Athenian history. In those documentary citations already mentioned, Thucydides was interested primarily in their status as treaties rather than as decrees of the Athenians; yet his language at 4.118.11– 14, where he cites verbatim the Athenian decree by which it was enacted that the Athenians would accept the truce and would deliberate on the peace, is striking. In his account of this decision, Thucydides appears to omit the role of the Athenian council: he uses the enactment formula ‘the demos decided’ (ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ) rather than the usual ‘the council and demos decided’ (ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ).14 Hornblower has argued that, here and elsewhere, Thucydides has purposefully under-reported the role of the Athenian council in his history; this was tantamount to depicting the Athenians as impulsively

 9 Athenian sources: Hornblower 2008: 110–11; Peloponnesian sources: Lane Fox 2010. For discussion of the treaty documents and possible explanations for Thucydides’ inclusion of them, see Hornblower 1996: 113–19. For the view that Thucydides made use of the inscribed versions of the Thirty Years Peace at 5.18 (where he does not record enactment formulae), see Wallace 2003. For the view (not widely accepted), however, that the documents are editorial insertions, see Müller 1997. 10 Even on an occasion where there is explicit reference to an inscription, Thucydides says nothing about autopsy of a stone inscription, and may have followed others’ accounts: Thuc. 5.47.11; 6.54.7 11 Steiner 1994: 65–7; Smarzyk 2006. 12 Moles 1999. 13 For the view that Thucydides’ inclusion of documents is important to historical narrative, see Bearzot 2003. 14 Gomme (1956: 602–3), however, thought that the text of Thucydides was defective at this point.

literary representations of decrees

193

making decisions on the basis of discussion only at the assembly.15 An alternative view would be that here and elsewhere Thucydides is focusing upon the decisions of the assembly as the body that held the final vote on what was to be undertaken by way of decree; in that sense, he was simply reflecting the reality of the fifth-century situation. Yet one might detect that Thucydides – as part of his wider scepticism about democracy – takes a view of decrees as the pernicious manifestation of the whims of an irrational but powerful demos,16 not least in his account of the decrees that led to the Sicilian expedition: The Athenians called an assembly and listened to the further reports of the Egestans and their own ambassadors. The reports, which were untrue, were encouraging on the subject of money which was said to be ready in large quantities in the common treasury and in the temples. Accordingly, they voted (ἐψηφίσαντο) to send 60 ships to Sicily and appointed as commanders with full powers Alcibiades son of Cleinias, Nicias the son of Nikeratos and Lamachos the son of Xenophanes. (Thuc. 6.8.2)

According to Thucydides, the Egestan ambassadors were given an audience at the assembly, which in response made a decree to send out the expedition with Alcibiades: there was in Thucydides’ account no place for the council to hear the ambassadors, as it undoubtedly would have done, nor for it to make preparations for the agenda of the assembly or preliminary decrees (probouleumata) for it to discuss.17 Thucydides’ view is clearly that the people ought to take responsibility for their impetuosity in sending out the expedition, even if this is a blame that – once the expedition had ended in disaster for them – they place on the shoulders of their politicians ‘as though they themselves had not voted for the expedition’ (Thuc. 8.1.1: ὥσπερ οὐκ αὐτοὶ ψηφισάμενοι). In the Mytilenean debate, on the other hand, Cleon introduced a criticism of the impermanency of the Athenian decision-making process: ‘worst of all is if nothing is established as secure concerning the things about which we have resolved’ (Thuc. 3.37.3: πάντων δὲ δεινότατον εἰ βέβαιον ἡμῖν μηδὲν καθεστήξει ὧν ἂν δόξῃ πέρι); he then dismisses politics as a performance in which politicians are agonistai (competitors: 3.37.4).18 In this way Thucydides identifies 15 See Hornblower 2008: 133–7 and Hornblower 2009. 16 See Foster 2017: 117 for the observation that ‘Thucydides frequently shows the assembly’s policies were emotional rather than reasonable (as at 2.59.2, 2.65.3–4, 4.27–29.1)’. 17 The immediacy of the Athenians’ vote to send the expedition is re-iterated at Thuc. 6.26.1, where the assembly immediately voted full powers to the generals after hearing Alcibiades’ speech. 18 On the debate about liability for Athenian decrees in Thucydides’ account of the Mytilenean debate, see Chapter 1.6 above. For Diodorus’ account of the debate in terms of his account of Athenian democratic characteristics, see Holton 2018: 178­84.

194

decrees of fourth-century athens

a problem with democracy that manifests itself in the way that decrees were formed. The implication that the decree was a tool of the impulsive demos prone to abuse by self-interested politicians is one which surfaces also in Xenophon’s Hellenika, despite the fact that he made comparatively less use of documents than did Thucydides.19 In particular, it is a view which appears during the course of his detailed account of the debate about the treatment of the generals after the battle of Arginusae in 406: according to Xenophon, Kallixenos was persuaded by Theramenes to propose an extraordinary decree (referred to as a gnome, but which amounts to a probouleuma of the council) against the generals; it was cited verbatim: They (sc. Theramenes and his men) persuaded Kallixenos to make an accusation against the generals in the council. At that point they called a meeting of the assembly, in which the council brought in the following proposal of Kallixenos (ἡ βουλὴ εἰσήνεγκε τὴν ἑαυτῆς γνώμην Καλλιξένου): ‘That, since in the previous assembly the speeches in accusation of the generals and the speeches of the generals in their own defence have been heard, the Athenians shall now vote by tribes; each tribe shall place votes in two urns; that in each tribe a herald shall proclaim that whoever judges the generals guilty for not picking up the men who won the victory in the sea battle shall cast his vote in the first urn, and whoever judges them not guilty shall cast his vote in the second urn; and, if they are adjudged guilty, they shall be punished with death and handed over to the Eleven, and their property shall be confiscated to the state and the tenth part of it shall belong to the goddess.’ (Xen. Hell. 1.7.8–10)

This proposal, which gave rise to the decree of the assembly on the treatment of the generals, is quoted at a crucial point in Xenophon’s account of the story: its substance was integral to the unfolding of the drama and judgement on its nature was offered in his account of the reaction of those who opposed it. Not only was the proposal to try the generals by a single vote considered controversial (1.7.26, 34) and its effect damaging for the Athenians, but it was probably also, as its opponent at the assembly Euryptolemos maintained, illegal (1.7.12, 16–33, esp. 25).20 Kallixenos rallied the people against those councillors who objected to it (1.7.12–14). Xenophon’s account of those who thought that 19 Bearzot, exploring Xenophon’s use of documents, counts 34 decrees (of which 19 are Athenian) mentioned in the Hellenika: see Bearzot 2014: 97–9. On Xenophon’s use of the language of Athenian decrees in describing decisions reached by groups of soldiers, see Hornblower 2004 and Papazarkadas 2014: 236 note 69. 20 One possibility is that Kallixenos’ proposal contradicted a law that no one should be put to death without trial: Harris 2013a: 342; for the view that it violated not a prescribed law, but a ‘deeper constraint’, see Carawan 2015: 176; for the perspective that it violated not a law but the principle that a fair trial should precede a verdict, see Ostwald 1986: 431–45.

literary representations of decrees

195

it was a terrible thing to prevent the people from doing as they pleased (1.7.12) implies that he judged democratic power to have spiralled out of control at this point.21 In Xenophon’s account, Euryptolemos’ speech against the proposal, in which he appealed to the decree of Kannonos22 against those who wrong the Athenian people (1.7.20), initially won favour, but was subject to an objection under oath by Menekles (1.7.34); a second vote upheld Kallixenos’ original proposal, and the generals were condemned and executed. This irreversible decision was, famously, greatly regretted by the Athenians (Pl. Ap. 32b and D.S. 13.103.1); their capriciousness was expressed in another decree presented by Xenophon: And not much later the Athenians changed their mind and voted (ἐψηφίσαντο) that whoever had deceived the people should have complaints lodged against them, and they should provide sureties until they came up for judgement, and one of these to be Kallixenos. (Xen. Hell. 1.7.35)

Xenophon’s story of the aftermath of Arginusae, therefore, might be read as another damning indictment of the capricious way that the Athenian people wielded power by way of the decree. The theme was captured by later writers too: the rhetorician Aelius Aristides, writing in the second century AD, appears to have fabricated a story about an indictment of a proposal of Kallixenos – not preserved in the accounts of Xenophon or Diodorus  – that the generals not be buried within Attica:23 this account offers an example of the way in which Athenian debates about decrees caught the imagination of later rhetorical writers who wished to illustrate rhetorical themes with pseudo-historical decrees, to which I shall return (see Chapter 5.5 below). Xenophon’s account of the Arginusae debate is the part of his history which offers closest engagement with the process of a debate about a decree. If viewed as part of the author’s characterisation of the behaviour of the Athenian demos at the end of the Peloponnesian War, it perhaps also owes something to the historiographical theme that associated Athenian decrees of the fifth century with their readiness to impose extreme punishments on those opposed to them: the punishments of the Skionians and Melians were made famous by Thucydides 21 Flaig (2013) assesses the debate as an example of a clash between the constitutional powers of the boule and those of the assembly. For analysis as an indication of Xenophon’s attitude towards the effectiveness of democratic leadership, see Ferrario 2017: 69. 22 On the decree of Kannonos (date unknown), see Chapter 5.4 below and Develin 1989: 114. The phrase ἔγραψε γνώμην at 1.6.34 arguably suggests that Euryptolemos’ speech constituted a proposed decree. 23 Stephens 1983, discussing Aelius Aristides IV.736.5–20 Walz = Behr 1981–6 volume 1 Appendix 1 fragment 111. On Aelius’ interest in decrees, see Chapter 5.4.1 with note 119 below. Not burying the generals did, however, appear in a counter-proposal of Euryptolemos: Xen. Hell. 1.7.22.

196

decrees of fourth-century athens

(Thuc. 5.32.1, 116.4); less well known, however, is the decree – opposed by one man, Adeimantos – to cut off the hands of captives (Xen. Hell. 2.1.31–2);24 and the view of a later historian was that the Athenians had utterly destroyed subject cities by their decrees (D.S. 13.30.7). While these constitute individual examples of critical accounts of disastrous decree-making and enforcement, rather than general reflections on the decree as a transaction, it seems reasonable to say that these classical historians, at the end of the fifth century, illustrated reservations about both the power of the people through its decrees and their deployment in the hands of demagogues. When we look at Xenophon’s narrative of the post-Euclidian period, decrees do not seem to be deployed to illustrate the capriciousness of the demos, and they are outlined in less negative contexts: we might point, for instance, to his mention of the decree concerning alliance with the Thebans (D20 T2, where Thrasyboulos makes reference to a decree as an answer to the envoys), the one recalling the Athenians from Aegina (D37), or that recalling Timotheos (D48 T1). His account of the Athenian decision to send armed assistance to the Spartans (D55 T1) and make an alliance (D55 TT 1–3) in 369/8 is one which features a reference to debate and decree-making at the assembly. In these instances, Xenophon  – as did Herodotus  – made mention of decrees as a way of informing the reader how the Athenians initiated developments significant to elements of his narrative. But it is worth commenting that there are key moments in his work where Xenophon describes a decision elsewhere attested as a decree without explicit reference to it as a psephisma: the ratification of the reconciliation and amnesty in 403/2 is one such example (D1 T4), as are the honours for Evagoras (D33 T1).25 On such occasions Xenophon is not interested in making anything of the institutional basis of such developments. We might note also some oddities of Xenophon’s description of decrees: at Hellenika 6.5.33, he describes a decision of the Athenian council according to which they decided to hold an assembly to discuss the activity of the Spartans (Xen. Hell. 6.5.33: ‘ἐκκλησίαν ἐποίησαν κατὰ δόγμα βουλῆς’). Oddly, this decree of the council is described as a ‘decision’ (dogma), a term which was reserved usually for descriptions of decisions of the Athenian Confederacy (Aeschin. 2.32–3)26 or of the Spartan allies (Xen. Hell. 5.4.37) or the Theban allies (Xen. Hell. 7.3.11), though it is rarely used by other authors to refer to decrees of the Athenians (e.g. Harpokration, s.v. 24 For discussion, and the suggestion that it was a proposal of Philokles, see Papazarkadas 2014: 236–7. See also Suda, s.v. ‘Λειποναῦτα’ (Adler lambda, 384). 25 For further possible examples, see DPP 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37, 38. 26 Dreher 1995: 117–18.

literary representations of decrees

197

‘Ἑρμῆς ὁ πρὸς τῆι πυλίδι’ (= FGrH 328 F40a = D22)).27 Such technical inaccuracy appears probably in contexts where precise detail was less important than it was in, for instance, the crucial narrative about the decree concerning the generals at Arginusae. In the fourth-century sections of his work, it seems, therefore, that while decisions made by the Athenians – usually in the form of decrees – do have bearing upon his history, Xenophon has little interest in exploring the rhetorical potential of attestations about decrees. His focus on military and diplomatic detail means that he has no reason to make mention of those honorific decrees for generals which loom large in oratory: moreover, the military successes of Chabrias and Timotheos gain a lesser profile in the work of Xenophon than they do in the orators; Iphikrates has a much higher profile, but not always a positive reputation.28 Otherwise, in the fourth-century sections of his work, there does not seem to be any significant patterning to his deployment of decrees, nor were they used to blacken the image of Athenian democracy. Historians of the Hellenistic period were often critical of the workings of Athenian democracy: the narrative that said that the Athenians descended into ochlocracy in the period after that of virtuous leaders such as Themistocles is a familiar one from Polybius and others (Plyb. 6.57.1–9 with Champion 2018). Diodorus’ account of the mobilisation decree proposing war against Macedon of summer 323, echoing the sentiments of his source Hieronymos of Kardia, is presented by the author as carried through by irresponsible orators embodying the impulse (horme) of the people against their own interests, having failed to learn lessons from the past (D.S. 18.10.2–4 = D199); the passages prepare the reader for the defeat of the Athenians in the Lamian war (D.S. 18.18.6). On occasion, however, decrees could be held up by Hellenistic historians as examples of the virtues of the Athenian demos: Diodorus, for instance, represented the Athenian decision to return land taken up by cleruchs to its former owners as an act of kindness (philanthropia) which won them goodwill (eunoia) among the Greeks (D.S. 15.29.7–8 = D45 T1); he characterised the Athenian demos as magnanimous (megalopsychos) and humane (philanthropos) on the basis of its decision to assist the Spartans in their hour of need in 369/8 (D.S. 15.63.2 = D55 T3); it was driven by sympatheia for the fate of its politicians when they were demanded by Alexander in 335/4 (D.S. 17.5.3 = D186 T1): these three passages

27 Dogma is not normally used to describe a decree of the Athenian ecclesia: on another occasion it is used to describe an enactment of a meeting of delegates making the peace of 370: Xen. Hell. 6.5.2. On the use of the term, see Hansen 1983: 277 note 32, suggesting that it could be used in a rather vaguer sense to apply to a decision made by the Athenians. 28 See, for instance, Xenophon’s criticisms of Iphikrates at Hell. 6.5.51.

198

decrees of fourth-century athens

contribute to his wider portrayal of Athenian philanthropia (cf. Gray 2013 and Holton 2018); elsewhere he presented the Athenian decision to send forces to Thebes when the Spartans had occupied the Kadmeia in 379/8 as a repayment of the Theban euergesia (presumably the hosting of Athenian democratic refugees during the civil war of 404/3: D.S.15.26.1 = D44 T2); the decision to end the Social War was described as a manifestation of cautiousness (D.S. 16.22.2 = D90 T1).

5.2.2  Local Histories It seems that in classical histories, which take as their subject the interstate affairs of the Greeks, there was awareness of, and even concern about, the power of the decree as a tool of the unrestrained demos in the fifth century; at least in the work of Xenophon there is a certain ambivalence about the Athenian decrees of the fourth century. As we now turn to the evidence of local histories which concern Attica, are these patterns repeated? A good starting point is a not a history of the Athenians or their polis, but a work which combines a history of their constitution (politieia) with an account of its workings. This is the work attributed to Aristotle, bearing the title Athenaion Politeia (Constitution of the Athenians). Among the earliest ‘decrees’ attested in Athenian literary sources is the mention by the author of this work of a decree granting a bodyguard to Pisistratus before his first seizure of power in 561/0, a proposal described, perhaps anachronistically,29 as the proposal of a certain Aristion (Ἀριστίωνος γράψαντος τὴν γνώμην: Ath. Pol 14.1). The citation illustrated Pisistratus’ popularity and persuasive abilities, but emphasises the relevance of proposals of individual citizens to his accrual of power. As Rhodes has observed, however, the author of the Athenaion Politeia can reasonably be said to have drawn mostly on earlier narrative accounts (such as historians of Attica) or on accounts of Athenian nomoi or even the nomoi themselves,30 but not psephismata. This is certainly the case for the bulk of this work, which consists of a history of constitutional development and the description of political arrangements; but there are times, when describing 29 Rhodes 1981: 200. It is possible that the account of the appointment of a bodyguard by decree was an innovation of [Aristotle]: cf. Hdt. 1.59.4 with discussion in the Introduction note 7. 30 Rhodes 1981: 20–5, 35–7, 516; Rhodes 2014: 25–32; on the laws in the Ath. Pol, see Rhodes 2004b. For the Aristotelian works on constitutions, see Aristotle fragments. 381-603 Rose; for Theophrastos’ work on laws, see Szegedy-Maszak 1981, Keaney 1993; Diogenes Laertius 5.80.1 refers to a work of Demetrios of Phaleron with the title On Laws and another On Lawmaking at Athens: see BNJ 228 T1 and FF 4–7.

literary representations of decrees

199

historical developments with significance for political change, that he mentions, or even quotes, documentary decrees: the decree (which, according to Rhodes’ interpretation of the text, was proposed at the assembly by Melobios but was authored by Pythodoros in the council)31 to reform the constitution in 412/1 is quoted verbatim, and the author also introduces details about Kleitophon’s amendment (Ath. Pol. 29.1–3); the abolition of democracy in 404 was itself associated with a decree proposed by Drakontides of Aphidna (Ath. Pol. 34.3; cf. D.S. 14.3; Lys. 12.73). Moving into the period of the aftermath of the restoration of democracy, [Aristotle] mentions the indictment of Thrasyboulos’ decree which proposed to offer citizenship to those who had joined in with the citizens’ return from Piraeus, adding that ‘some of whom [the honorands] were manifestly slaves’ (D5 T1), and describes Archinos’ indictment of the decree as unconstitutional as an example of his exemplary political behaviour (‘καὶ δοκεῖ τοῦτό τε πολιτεύσασθαι καλῶς Ἀρχῖνος’). What is apparent here from such a selection is the role played by decrees in some of the ultimately traumatic constitutional changes experienced by the Athenians: the author of this work appears to hold a largely negative view of the demos’ deployment of them and their impact upon Athenian history. The fact that the decrees described in the Athenaion Politeia are high-profile ones which tend to surface within broader narratives suggests that the author of this work encountered them within the pre-existing accounts – preserved orally or in written form – that he drew upon in his research. Other historians of Attica (authors of Atthides  – the Atthidographers  – fragments of whose works are quoted by later writers) do seem to have reported decrees in their texts, and appear to have done so as part of their accounts of events in which they were interested; their accounts of Athenian decrees, in contrast to those of the Attic orators, appear not to have assumed that their audience would have prior familiarity with the developments they described.32 The fourth-century Philochoros’ mention of names of the eponymous archon (FGrH328 F155 = D107 T1 and D111 T2; FGrH328 F56a = D164) and exact details of forces dispatched by decree (FGrH328 FF 49–51 = D113 T2) suggests that documentary sources  – perhaps an archival version  – may have been the ultimate source of information for Philochoros 31 Rhodes 1981: 370, 375. 32 See D27 T1, D107 TT 1–2, D111 T2, D113 T2, D159 T3, D164 T1. For discussion of the nature of the Atthidographers and their (diverse) interests, see Rhodes 1990. For the observation that local historians framed their discussions of Athenian decrees through third-person narratives, see Tober 2017: 470–1 referring to DD 27 and 107. On the other hand, orators sometimes referred to decrees in the second person as the resolutions of their audience: see, for instance D23 T2, D41 T1, D46 T2 and Chapter 1.5.1 above.

200

decrees of fourth-century athens

(and other Atthidographers, including Androtion). However, it is clear that their accounts of how decrees were put into action, such as those concerning the dispute with the Megarians over the sacred orgas, drew upon non-­ documentary narratives (FGrH328 F155 = D107 T1 and D111 T2; FGrH324 F30 = D107 T2).33 The appearance of decrees in these fragments enables only limited insight into the Atthidographers’ deployment of decrees,34 and the most we can say is that they contributed factual elements to their information about narrative history and succoured their interest in it. Thus far, we can conclude that accounts of decrees were used to illustrate the ways in which the Athenian demos initiated or at least attempted to initiate political developments; in Thucydides’ and Xenophon’s accounts of fifth-­century developments there is some representation of them as the manifestations of a capricious demos, but this view does not extend into their analysis of post-­ Euclidian decrees. At this point we turn to analysing the deployment of decrees in the other main non-fictional genre that dealt with the past: biography.

5.2.3 Biography The value of the decree in the reconstruction of accounts of human lives is one that comes across very clearly in Attic oratory. This is demonstrated, as we have already noted (Chapter 2.3 above), by Demosthenes in his speech in defence of Ktesiphon’s crown, where he points not only to the decrees honouring him, but also those that he had proposed, in the account of his political performance. In biography, decrees that are elsewhere represented as illustrations of the wider policies of the Athenian demos can be re-framed as part of the character-portrayal of their proposer.35 The Cisalpine biographer Cornelius Nepos (Thrasybulus 3.2 = D1 T7), for instance, represents the decree of the amnesty and reconciliation of 403/2 as an example of a noble (praeclarus) deed of Thrasyboulos whereas the Greek sources (see D1, T2) present it as an indication of the Athenian people’s moderation towards their enemies.36 33 For the possibility of Philochoros and Androtion’s drawing upon documents for dates, and information like troop numbers or names of commanders, see Harding 1994: 36–7, 44 with FGrH 328 F49–51; FGrH 324 F30. For the view that the Atthidographers drew upon documentary sources but supplemented details from other accounts, see Rhodes 2006: 23. 34 Even the Oxyrhynchos Historian’s account of the dispatch of a message to Milon: Hell. Oxy. 6.1–3 (= DP 4) after a trireme had been sent out without the permission of the people seems relatively free of value judgement. 35 On the development of biographical detail in Greek epigraphy and decrees, see Rosen 1987; Low 2016. 36 On the presentation of the amnesty decree as exemplifying Athenian attitudes, see discussion in Chapter 1.5.1 above.

literary representations of decrees

201

Haake has illustrated in great detail some of the ways in which Hellenistic biographers were ready to deploy decrees, but also to modify their terms or even fabricate them. Versions of honorific decrees or substantive proposals were employed by biographers writing in apologetic modes to refute criticism of individuals. Of particular relevance to our understanding of Athenian decrees of the period 403/2–323/2 is what purports to be an Athenian honorific decree for Aristotle, transmitted in the work of the Arabic scholar Ibn Abī Usaybi‘a, the text of which suggests that it was granted to the honorand as a return for the benefits that he had bestowed upon the Athenians and in particular his entreaties to Philip on their behalf. Haake has demonstrated, however, that this decree is a forgery, created probably by a Greek Hellenistic tradition upon which the Arabic scholar drew: it was fabricated originally probably as part of a biographical defence of Aristotle.37 Moreover, as Haake shows, not only did the Hellenistic-era scholar fabricate a decree for Aristotle, but he also developed a story about it, which aimed to blacken the reputation of Aristotle’s opponents.38 The forger claimed that one of them, Himeraios, physically destroyed the decree, before it was restored by one of his allies. Accordingly, it was not just the content of the decree but the story about it that underscored the likely apologetic contribution of the decree in its original context. Aristotle was not the only philosopher whose character was defended through the fabrication of a decree: Diogenes Laertius in his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers (7.10–12) quoted what purported to be a third-century Athenian honorific decree for Zeno at length. The quotation not only reinforced Diogenes’ assertion that the Athenians held him in high honour (7.6), but its content also contributes to the biographical description of Zeno. The biographer uses an honorific decree to make a terse and accurate statement about the life and character of an individual while also giving insight into his reception by a community. As Haake has argued, it is likely that this decree was drawn upon by the Stoic Apollonios of Tyre, a Hellenistic apologist for Zeno, who aimed to defend his character by demonstrating that his reputation was high among his contemporaries.39 In this case, Haake acknowledges the possibility that Apollonios drew upon the evidence of an original Athenian decree for Zeno, but elaborated its content imaginatively.40

37 Haake 2006: 332–6, 348–50; cf. 2007: 55–60. 38 Haake 2013: 94–6. 39 Haake 2013: 98–100. 40 Haake 2004. For fabricated decrees which emerged in biographical accounts, see Chapter 5.4.2 below with Appendix 2 X1, 2, 8, 9, 11.

202

decrees of fourth-century athens

As an author who was well versed in both antiquities and the work of some Hellenistic biographers, Plutarch was well aware of the potential that decrees offered, noting in the introduction to his Life of Nicias that both decrees and dedications offered certain facts which had eluded most writers altogether and would contribute to the understanding of the character and nature of those he was studying (Plu. Nic. 1.5).41 There are times where Plutarch’s narrative clearly appears to be informed by knowledge – even if second hand rather than documentary – of decrees: his account of Themistocles’ dispatch of military men to the triremes and evacuation of children and wives to Troizen before the battle of Salamis presents these acts as enacted by decree of the people (Plu. Them. 10.4–5). In this case there is nothing to indicate that his knowledge was based upon the documentary version of the decree that had been in circulation probably since the late fourth century (see discussion in 5.4.1 below), and his knowledge of it was gleaned probably from narrative accounts of Athenian preparation before the battle. There are times when one wonders whether later authors tended simply to presume (probably correctly) without firm evidence that developments were undertaken on the basis of decrees proposed by prominent politicians: this might be the case in the association of Themistocles with a proposal allowing exiles to return before Salamis (11.1). Plutarch’s Pericles is another text which draws heavily upon accounts of its subject’s decrees, some of which implicitly contribute to the portrayal of Pericles’ character: his decree recalling his rival Cimon is recalled (Per. 10.4) as an example of his readiness to go along with the whims of the masses (οὐκ ὤκνησε χαρίσασθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς) at an early stage of his career. Among Pericles’ later achievements Plutarch enumerates his proposal concerning the Long Walls (13.7) and that which set out that a musical festival be held as part of the Panathenaic festival (13.11), which he proposed because of his love of honour (φιλοτιμούμενος). Pericles’ decree, which said that all Greeks were to be invited to send delegates to Athens to discuss the destroyed Greek sanctuaries, sacrifices owed to the gods, and the control of the sea (17.1), is cited to demonstrate Pericles’ ambition and the loftiness of his thoughts (17.4: ἐνδεικνύμενος αὐτοῦ τὸ φρόνημα καὶ τὴν μεγαλοφροσύνην).42 His decree dispatching a herald to go to the Megarians complaining about their uses of sacred land at Eleusis (30.2: εὐγνώμονος καὶ φιλανθρώπου δικαιολογίας ἐχόμενον) is described as ‘reasonable and humane’ 41 For discussion of Plutarch’s use of inscribed documents and decrees, see Liddel 2008 (though Plutarch does not mention any inscribed fourth-century decrees); for the view that Plutarch’s interest in the moral implications of decrees reflected a wider epigraphical tendency, see Low 2016. 42 On this controversial decree, widely known as the ‘Congress Decree’, see Meiggs 1972: 512–15; Stadter 1989: 201–4, arguing that there was indeed an authentic decree on this subject.

literary representations of decrees

203

in juxtaposition to the hostility of Charinos’ decree which said there should be continuous and implacable enmity towards the Megarians (30.3). At Chapter 32, in his illustration of the opposition Pericles faced, he recites decrees which were hostile to him, namely Diopeithes’ decree against those who did not believe in gods, a decree of Drakontides requiring Pericles to submit his accounts to the prytaneis, along with Hagnon’s procedural emendation (32.32.2–4).43 Accounts of decrees, in the examples of these fifth-century lives, are deployed by Plutarch to illustrate points about his subjects’ contributions to political processes and also the opposition that they faced. 44 Plutarch’s Demosthenes was also informed very much by awareness of decrees: Plutarch mentions Demosthenes’ proposal to invade Euboia (Plu. Dem. 17.1 = D152 T4) as an example of his resistance to Philip, and his decree that the Areopagos should investigate the Harpalos affair (26.1 = D195 T8) as an example of his political resilience. Moreover, his knowledge of Demosthenes’ career reveals also knowledge of lore concerning decrees relating to Demosthenes: he tells us that Philip celebrated over the bodies of the dead at Chaironeia by parodying a Demosthenic decree in verse (20.3), and Philip’s arrogance is contrasted not only with his later realisation – in the cold, sober, light of day  – of Demosthenes’ ability and power (δεινότης καὶ δύναμις), but also Demosthenes’ reluctance, after the battle, to propose decrees in his own name, avoiding it as ‘inauspicious and unfortunate’ (21.3). Their respective style of engagement with the culture of the decree, therefore, serves to contrast Demosthenes’ nobility and superstition with the arrogance of Philip. Plutarch also shows he is aware that Demosthenes’ recall from exile was proposed by his cousin Demon (27.3 = D200): this is important to his assessment of his reputation because it substantiates his claim that Demosthenes returned from exile more honourably than Alcibiades did, given that he had persuaded, rather than forced, the citizens to accept him. Plutarch’s association of decrees with their individual proposers was an expression of his view that the Athenian assembly tended to become an instrument of individual political power and ambition:45 the proposal and enforcement of decrees was a convenient depiction of this. 43 The decree of Diopeithes is generally agreed to be ahistorical: for linguistic, cultural and chronological arguments against its authenticity, see Dover 1976: 39–41; Wallace 1994: 137­–8; Filonik 2016: 128. 44 For the view that the biography was informed by Krateros’ collection of decrees, see Stadter 1989: lxix–lxx, 202. 45 For this perspective on Plutarch’s view of Athenian politics, see Schmitt Pantel 2014: 102; on his interest in ancient philotimia, with reference to that in his Greek lives, see Nikolaidis 2012. On Plutarch’s attitude towards the behaviour of the Athenian demos, which distinguished between good and bad democratic practice, arguing that his subjects’ interaction with the demos was one way of assessing their character, see Erskine 2018: 239–45.

204

decrees of fourth-century athens

The prosaic engagement of Plutarch’s Lives with decrees, as noted above, can be contrasted with the largely descriptive treatment of such material that we encounter in the author (or authors)46 of the Lives of the Orators, a text preserved among Plutarch’s works.47 This set of biographical essays makes numerous references to decrees of relevance to the lives of its subjects,48 or ones which were proposed by them,49 as part of its account of its subjects’ deeds. The Life of Antiphon draws to a close with a quotation of the decree concerning the trial of Aristophon (833e–f, citing as a source the first-century BC Sicilian orator and critic Caecilius of Caleacte), and the condemnation communicated in this text is an appropriate way of ending the chapter dedicated to Antiphon. Appended to the end of the work are three documents, purporting to constitute texts of the request for the grant of posthumous honours for Demosthenes (of 280/79: [Plu.] X Or. 850f–1c), the honours for Demochares (of 271/70: 851d–f) and the extension of benefits to Lykophron the descendant of Lycurgus (of 307/6: 851f–2e). The closing section of the third of these documents contains what appears to be the enacted version of this decree for Lycurgus’ descendants: For good fortune, the people have decided that Lycurgus of Boutadae, the son of Lycophron, is to be commended for his goodness and justice; that a bronze statue of him is to be erected in the Agora (excluding those places where it is illegal for statues to stand); that dining rights in the Prytaneum are to be granted in perpetuity to the eldest of the descendants of Lycurgus in each generation; that the State Secretary is to set up all copies of his decrees, which are to remain valid, on stone stelai and place them on the Acropolis in the area given over to such dedications; and that for the inscription of the stelai the State treasurer is to draw 50 drachmas from the funds reserved by the people for matters relating to decrees. ([Plu.] X Or. 852e, trans. Waterfield in Roisman and Worthington 2015).

Differences between the text of this decree as it appears here and the fragmentary inscriptions which preserve parts of it may be explained by reference to the possibility that the literary version stems from a different archival or even

46 Martin (2014: 324, 334) argues that the incoherence of the work’s structure and its contradictions and factual errors might be explained by the possibility that different authors contributed to it over time, suggesting that it was an ‘unstable text, in which material was replicated and put to use’; for a view of it as a stylistic pastiche, see Pitcher 2005; for the view that there was a single author, see Roisman and Worthington 2015: 11–12. 47 On this text, see now Roisman and Worthington 2015. 48 [Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a (= D6 T1); 843c (posthumous honours for Lycurgus, granted in 307/6); 846a (D166a T2); 846d (D200 T2), 49 The decrees of Lycurgus and Hypereides: [Plu.] X Or. 842c, 848f–9a (= D166b).

literary representations of decrees

205

privately owned version of the decree.50 The general sense of the decree is reasonable enough for Faraguna to make a strong case about the reliability of the document, 51 though the arrangements for the setting up of Lycurgus’ decrees (presumably those he proposed) as a memorial to the man (852e) are strikingly unique.52 Yet what is relevant to our current purposes is the question of why this dossier of requests for honours is appended to the work: the author of this piece sees fit to, apparently uncritically, reproduce documentary material. Roisman and Worthington have suggested that the author was interested in them ‘not for their evidentiary but for their antiquarian value, in the hope that they would add something new and authentic to his sources’.53 But decrees to that author appear to represent evidence which is perhaps less immediately impressive or informative: whereas he offers a substantial account of the laws proposed by Lycurgus (841f–842b), he gives only the briefest notice that he introduced decrees, observing that he drafted them, allegedly, with the help of an Olynthian (842c).54 As we have already noted, some of the decree-material which is drawn upon in the biographical tradition is very problematic: this is the case also in the Pseudo-Plutarchian text where there is a claim that Hypereides proposed a decree to honour Iolas, the son of Antipater, because he had given poison to Alexander the Great ([Plu.] X Or. 849f = Appendix X3). Iolas, the son of Antipater, is otherwise attested as Alexander’s chief cupbearer (Plu. Alex. 74.1); his father was indeed honoured by the Athenians (see D173). But it is hard to accept the decree as genuine: even if it were the case that Alexander had been poisoned by his cupbearer (and other accounts are not incompatible with this possibility),55 it is incredible that the Athenian demos would have openly praised the assassin. One can only guess that this is the invention of either a

50 On the epigraphically extant version of the decree for Lycurgus, IG II2 457, see Martin 2014: 331–2 and Lambert 2018: 290–304, associating also IG II2 3207 with the decree. See also Oikonomides 1986. 51 Faraguna 2003 and Domingo Gygax 2016: 209 take the view that the documents are reliably authentic. Shear 2012: 276–7, 285–6, 290–2 discusses the implications and politics of Laches’ proposal for the honours of Demochares, noting similarities to other inscribed documents. Roisman and Worthington 2015: 18, 22, 23–4 suggest that the author of the work himself saw inscribed versions of the decrees. An alternative view is that of Frost 1961, suggesting that the decrees were composed by Caecilius of Caleacte. 52 Cf. Low 2016: 161, emphasising the oddity of [Plutarch]’s claim (X Or. 843f) that a record of Lycurgus’ achievements was to be written up on a stele. For the view of the posthumous writing up of Lycurgus’ decrees as a dedicatory practice, see Lambert 2015: 305. 53 Roisman and Worthington 2015: 24. 54 For discussion of this passage, see Roisman and Worthington 2015: 200. 55 Arrian 7.27–8, mentioning a grudge of Iolas; D.S. 17.117.1–2; Plu. Alex. 75.3–4.

206

decrees of fourth-century athens

rhetorician or a biographer offering a perspective on the character and activities of Hypereides.56 What we have seen from Plutarch’s and [Plutarch]’s work is that decrees were deployed to represent the contribution of individuals to political developments as well to characterise their style of activity. It is highly likely that biographers often drew these vignettes of decree-related activity from earlier sources which characterised the behaviour of individuals by reference to their decrees (see, for instance, Appendix 2 X1 below); such characterisations surface also in writers of other genres too: for instance, Diodorus’ remark on the artfully composed (φιλοτέχνως) Demades’ decree which responded to Alexander’s demands for the surrender of anti-Macedonian politicians (D.S. 17.5.3 = D186 T1) likely reflected an earlier critique of Demades’ political style. But Plutarch’s interest in decrees should also be seen as representative of the intellectual interests of writers of the second sophistic period in what they saw as an intriguing classical phenomenon; this is a theme to which we shall return when we look at their appearance in the work of Athenaios and Lucian (see Chapters 5.4 and 5.6 below). Thus far, we have been assessing the role of decrees in essentially factual accounts. As we shall now see, the representation of decrees in literature is one that has a background extending into the development of fictional narratives about decrees in the fifth century, as we turn to look at the appearance of decrees on the tragic and comic stage of Athens.

5.3 Drama 5.3.1 Tragedy Modern scholars have long debated the nature of fifth-century Athenian tragedy’s engagement with contemporary political themes; what is clear, though, is that it dealt with important questions about the nature of the polis.57 Polisinstitutions loom large in some plays, and questions about justice, law and legal argumentation play an important role in debates and plots in tragedy.58 56 On this highly suspect decree, followed by Photios too, see Roisman and Worthington 2015: 258. 57 For the debate about the engagement of tragic drama with ideas about democracy, see Goldhill 1987, 2000; Euben 1990; Rhodes 2003b (emphasising the engagement with questions about the polis); Carter 2007, 2011; Burian 2011. On the relations between drama and democracy generally, see Henderson 2007; on the resemblances between rhetoric in the courts and on the dramatic stage, see Hall 1995. 58 On the complex interplay of law and drama, see Ostwald 1986: 148-61; Allen 2005 (discussing in particular the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ law); Harris, Leão and Rhodes 2010. On the rational aspects of appeals to pity, see Konstan 2000; on justice in tragedy, see Euben 1990: 67–95. On the depiction of assembly-scenes in tragedy, see Carter 2013.

literary representations of decrees

207

In Euripides’ Suppliant Women, a play which is particularly closely interested in democratic themes, Theseus claims that by liberating the city ‘on terms of an equal vote’ (isopsephos: 353) he put the people in charge of Athens.59 Yet allusions to decrees – real or fictional – and decree-making are infrequent in extant Athenian tragedy.60 There is an important exception to this general rule, which occurs in Aeschylus’ Suppliants, performed at Athens for the first time in the late 460s.61 This is the episode in which the Egyptian Danaos, on arriving from the Argive assembly, informs his fugitive daughters, the Danaids, that the Argives – guided to do so by their ruler, Pelasgos62 – have granted them, by way of decree, the asylum which they were seeking by supplication: Danaos: Rejoice, children; things go well with respect to the affairs of the inhabitants of the land; decrees with full authority of the people have been resolved (‘δήμου δέδοκται παντελῆ ψηφίσματα’). Chorus of Danaids: Greetings envoy, bringer of precious news. But please tell us, with what effect has the decision been settled, and in what way did the authoritative hand of the people (‘δήμου κρατοῦσα χείρ’) win its majority? Danaos: A decree was resolved by the Argives (‘ἔδοξεν Ἀργείοισιν’) with no objection, such as to make my old heart young again. For the air bristled with right hands when, unanimously, they ratified the following decision: ‘That we live as metics (μετοικεῖν) in this country, free, subject to no seizure and inviolable 59 Later in the same play, Theseus describes Athens as a city featuring common and written laws (lines 430–41) where Athenians are equal (408, 432, 434, 441); freedom is said to consist of making a spoken proposal at the assembly (438–41): this follows a theme which presents Theseus as a democratic king: see Morwood 2007: 9; cf. Carter 2013: 49. 60 On the rarity of language related to decrees and decree-making in verse outside comedy, see Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980: II. 488, 493, acknowledging that the terminology of decree-resolution was known elsewhere, pointing to E. Hec. 22 (‘the Achaians resolved’: ἔδοξ’ Ἀχαιοῖς) and Or. 46 (‘the Argives resolved’: ἔδοξε δ’ Ἄργει). It should also be noted that the Argive herald in Euripides’ Herakleidai refers to those who have been ‘sentenced to die by the laws in place’ (‘νόμοισι τοῖς ἐκεῖθεν ἐψηφισμένους θανεῖν’), but this seems to refer not to a decree but to the imposition, by vote, of a penalty set out in law: Eur. Herakl, 141–2. I have not discussed Antigone’s challenge to Kreon’s edict (kerugma: lines 7–8, 26–34, 450–5) on the grounds that his decree is the proclamation of a single ruler rather than the product of a democratic vote. Accordingly, while it addresses issues relating to authority and claims about legality, it does not give rise to the same kind of debates about the responsibility of the people and instead emphasises the opposition between established laws and the will of a single ruler; see further Harris 2006b: 41–80. 61 On the date of the play, see Bowen 2013: 10–21, suggesting 463. 62 For Pelasgos’ use of manipulation to get the decree for the protection of the suppliants passed, see Sommerstein 1997: 75–6; compare Pelasgos’ enigmatic statement that ‘I will not do this without the people, though I have the power [or, as Garvie 2006: xvi: ‘even if I had the power’], in case they say some day, if the outcome were somehow not good, “You gave respect to immigrants and destroyed our city”’ (Aesch. Suppl. 398–401).

208

decrees of fourth-century athens

(“ξύν τ᾽ ἀσυλίᾳ”) by any mortal; that no one, either among natives or among aliens, may carry us off as captives; and that if any one uses violence against us, he out of the landholders here who does not succour us shall lose his civic rights and be exiled by order of the people.’ (Aeschylus, Suppliant Women, lines 600–14, trans. Friis Johansen 1980, adapted)

In terms of language, Danaos’ description of the Argives’ voting procedure and their decree bears some resemblance to practices associated with Athenian decree-making and ideas about democracy.63 The term associated with the decree’s enactment, δέδοκται (line 601), resembles but is not identical to the common Athenian enactment formula ‘ἔδοξεν τῶι δήμωι’ or the motion formula ‘δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι’; the phrase ‘ἔδοξεν Ἀργείοισιν’ (line 605) is what an Athenian might, by way of analogy with Athenian decree-language, have expected Argive resolution formulae to look like. Danaos announces that the Argives had resolved decrees (600–1) without objection (605: ‘οὐ διχορρόπως’) by voting (607–8: ‘χερσὶ δεξιωνύμοις’) and had granted that his daughters be allowed to live among the Argives as metics (609).64 The idea that the decrees are authoritative (παντελῆ: 601) and that the vote of the people is all powerful (δήμου κρατοῦσα χείρ: 604; cf. πανδημίᾳ γὰρ χερσί: 607) might be viewed as representing an early manifestation of a democratic ideal of popular sovereignty 65  – even if it was framed in language which resembles, rather than reproduces, that of Athenian democratic documents. Danaos’ report that his daughters had been granted protection against seizure and reprisals (610) ends with a clause which threatens those who fail to assist them in the face of threats to their sanctuary (612–14): this is reminiscent of some Athenian awards of the fourth century which offer security to honorands by guaranteeing seizure of those who assault them (D94; cf. D58 T1; IG II2 286), but in this case it goes further in specifying a penalty for those who fail to rescue the Danaids.

63 On the decrees in the play, see Petre 1986. On the resemblance of the language to that of Athenian democratic institutions, see Ehrenberg 1950: 517–22 and Easterling 1985: 2; Carter 2013: 31 and Harris 2010: 3 offer useful summaries of the passage in which this decree is announced; Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980: lines 487–503 for a line-by-line commentary with some epigraphical parallels. On the oddity of this scene, see Podlecki 1966: 45–52. 64 On metic status in this play see Bakewell 1997, suggesting that it was a recently introduced status-group at the time of the play’s performance in 463. However, it is far from certain that the status existed formally among the Athenians at this time: as Whitehead (1977: 7) notes, the word metoikos appears in extant documents from the second quarter of the fifth century, and Watson (2010: 271) suggests it was introduced as a formal status-group at the time of the citizenship law of 451/0 BC. 65 This is the view of Ehrenberg 1950: 522–4; on the idea of democracy in this play, see Lotze 1981. On fifth-century popular sovereignty, see Ostwald 1986: 77–83. For the possibility that the scene represents a critique of democracy, see Carter 2013.

literary representations of decrees

209

Accordingly, one view is that some of the documentary language introduced by Aeschylus may have served to make the purported Argive decision-making processes look familiar to an audience in democratic Athens. Some scholars have taken the view that this might be intended to evoke Athenian popular sympathy for the depiction of the Argive democratic decision-making: indeed, as Zeitlin suggests, Argos often occupies something of a middle-ground between Athens and Thebes in Greek tragedy, as a place that is tortured by conflict but at the same time can be depicted as democratic and led by a wise king, Pelasgos.66 The cautiousness of Pelasgos who acts not as an absolute monarch but sponsors a popular decree is strikingly pragmatic: by acting as if he were a democratic politician he attempts to deflect responsibility from himself while also acknowledging the democratic legitimacy of the decree.67 Yet as Carter points out, Aeschylus’ depiction of a single ruler in the Argive system (one who plays the role of persuading the people to support a decree: lines 616–24) would have made it look rather undemocratic to an Athenian audience, as would the absence of opposition to the proposal (605): Argos is presented not a democracy in the Athenian style but rather a monarchy where the king has the option of consulting the people.68 The use of language which resembled, but was not identical to, that of Athenian decree-making, may have led the audience not to empathise with the situation in Argos, but rather to stimulate their interest and invite debate about the nature of Argive politics as it was represented on the stage. An alternative perspective on the role of the decree in this play is put forward by Gottesman, proposing that these passages constitute a ‘critique of extra-institutional politics’ on the basis that ‘this decree is a jarring 66 On the idea of Argos in this play, see Zeitlin 1986: 118, 145; Said 1993: 168–9, 174–6; cf. Podlecki 1966: 50. On Argos in tragedy more generally, see Said 1993 and Rosenbloom 2004, suggesting that Argos is represented in many different forms, often inconsistent, in tragedy. For the representation of Argos as a democratic state ‘very like Athens itself, deceived with “tricks of oratory”’, see Sommerstein 1997: 76; cf. Rosenbloom 2012 and Pattoni 2017. Carter 2013: 29–31 points out that, given the role of Pelasgos as ruler, the representation of Argos is not straightforwardly as a democracy. It is also surely relevant that while the Argives deployed democratic institutions in the fifth century, the language of their decrees was rather different from that of Athenian inscriptions: see Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 67–71. On Argos’ democratic political system and civic identity, see Piérart 2000, 2004; Leppin 1999; Robinson 2011: 6–21. 67 Podlecki 1993: 82–6; 1994: 72–3, juxtaposing the authority of Pelasgos referred to elsewhere in the play with his deployment of the democratic system in this context. For the view that it supports a view of Pelasgos as a ‘democratic king’ in the shape of Theseus, see Papadopoulou 2011: 71 68 Carter 2013: 31–2; cf. Easterling 1985: 2, emphasising that Aeschylus in these passages mixes the language of democracy with that of monarchy.

210

decrees of fourth-century athens

anachronism that serves to underscore how the extra-institutional machinations of Danaus, the Danaids, and Pelasgus have translated into an official pronouncement’: the people of Argos were persuaded to accept  – and approve by decree  – the supplication on the basis of appeals and supplications put forward by Pelasgos, Danaos and his daughters (398–502).69 Whatever one makes of Gotteman’s distinction between the rather slippery concepts of institutional and extra-institutional politics,70 the fact is that the decision of the decree is one which is challenged by the suitors who pursue the Danaids and the Egyptian herald who demands their surrender; accordingly, the clash between their acts and the provisions of the decree brings war upon the Argives (950–1, 1044) and ultimately ends Pelasgos’ leadership of the city. The decree, therefore, is of pivotal significance for the plot of the play.71 One gets the sense not so much of the author encouraging Athenian sympathy for the Argive decree or highlighting Danaos’ manipulation of the system but rather deploying the enactment of the decree as a crucial element in the narrative. At the same time, Aeschylus makes reference to debates about the nature of decrees: in the speech of Danaos he raises the question about the balance of responsibility between the Argive demos and the decree’s sponsor, Pelasgos.72 While it is clear that the Argive demos had made this resolution unanimously, Pelasgos’ sponsorship of the decree is emphasised, given that he is said to have made the speech that persuaded the people to grant asylum to the Danaids (615–24). This passage is an important one in that it points up Pelasgos’ role in enacting the decree: his attempt to deflect responsibility away from himself was unsuccessful. Accordingly, Aeschylus referred his audience to the perennial debate about responsibility for the acts of a democratic assembly.73 The play offers also a perspective on the source of the authority of the decree:74 at a later point, when the herald of the Egyptians tries to take away Danaos’ daughters, Pelasgos protests against them on the basis of the people’s vote (ψῆφος: 943); its 69 Gottesman 2014: 88–91 at 88; for the inventive use by tragedians of anachronism, see Easterling 1985. 70 For a critique of Gottesman’s account of this distinction, see Harris 2012–13. On the co-­ existence of both formal and informal institutional norms, see Introduction above. Burian (2007: 201–8) challenges the view of the constitutional activity as deliberately anachronistic and reflects instead Pelasgos’ reluctance to accept responsibility for the decision. 71 Burian 2007: 206: ‘the dramatic function of the Argive assembly’s decision is surely primary, and whatever praise it implies of democracy, Argive or Athenian, is only subsidiary.’ 72 Carter 2013: 26 makes the point that tragedy provides commentary on the balance of responsibility between leaders and led. 73 See Chapter 1.1 and 1.6 and Chapter 2.3 and 2.4.2 above. 74 For the question about the decree’s source of authority, see Chapter 3.3.3 above.

literary representations of decrees

211

authority, he adds, is based not upon a written version either in a biblion or a pinax, but instead upon its announcement.75

5.3.2 Comedy Aristophanic comedy was deeply political in many senses. Its characters and themes mocked politicians, their acts and aspirations, and parodied also the political administration of the Athenian demos. Political themes were confronted on different levels,76 and mockery of political institutions played a significant role in the construction of humour.77 Wohl, in an investigation of the place of law in Athenian comedy, has argued convincingly that in the Wasps, Aristophanes demonstrates that the ‘city needs its laws’; accordingly, ‘comic justice works together with civic justice and its institutions, reaffirming them in a form improved by comic critique’.78 In the following discussion I argue that Aristophanes demonstrates how decrees provide yet further scope to combine political and comic critique.79 In contrast to tragedy, surviving Old Comedy engages extensively with both real and imaginary psephismata. On the one hand, Aristophanic comedy gives rise to some parody of normative values about decrees. This is expressed 75 946–9: ‘ταῦτ᾽ οὐ πίναξίν ἐστιν ἐγγεγραμμένα οὐδ᾽ ἐν πτυχαῖς βίβλων κατεσφραγισμένα, σαφῆ δ᾽ ἀκούεις ἐξ ἐλευθεροστόμου γλώσσης’ (‘it is not a text scratched on tablets, nor has it been sealed in rolls of papyrus; you hear it clearly uttered by a tongue that speaks freely’ trans. Bowen 2013). Here I have advocated the interpretation of Friis Johansen and Whittle 1980, lines 250–2. For a view of lines 944–5 underlining not the contrast between publicly displayed texts and those which are sealed and not visible, see Faraguna 2015. 76 For examples of the mid twentieth-century attempts to assess the political views of Aristophanes, see Gomme 1938 and Forrest 1963, both of which challenged the idea that Aristophanes expressed partisan views; Ste Croix, on the other hand, argued that he enunciated a conservative political perspective (Ste Croix 1972: 355–76). Sommerstein 2014a and Olson 2010 provide a useful overview of scholarship as well as different perspectives. For a collection highlighting the different ways in which Aristophanic comedy can be said to engage with political theory, see Mhire and Frost 2014. One assessment suggests that the political content of his work points to the possibility that it refers to a primary audience of politically sophisticated intellectuals: see Sidwell 2014; for the view that Aristophanes’ comedy was philosophical but yet aspired to mobilise the author’s ‘tacit commensal knowledge to evocative ends’, see Clements 2014: 194. 77 Workings of the assembly: Rhodes 2004a, 2010; inscriptions: Lougovaya 2013: 255–64; official language: Harris 2006b: 425–30 and Willi 2003: 72, both arguing against the idea that the details of legal language would have been too technical for the average male citizen; law: MacDowell 2010, emphasising that the evidence of Aristophanes might be used as evidence in the reconstruction of Athenian legal procedures. 78 Wohl 2014: 333. 79 The discussion of Lougovaya 2013: 262–4 concentrates specifically upon inscribed documents.

212

decrees of fourth-century athens

in an idea about their wider civilising role: Pheidippides joked in Aristophanes Clouds that what distinguishes men from the roosters and other animals is that they pass decrees (Clouds 1428–9); in this way he parodied the idea that decrees are central to human justice.80 The association of decrees with the conceited political activity of particular types of politician also emerges in comedy: in the Clouds, it was implied that under the influence of the Weaker Argument, Pheidippides will acquire  – as a surprise addition to a number of unappealing bodily features  – a long decree (1016–19). It is, therefore, expected that after this training he will become an orator and propose longwinded decrees,81 which of course was a criticism levelled at Demosthenes by Aeschines (Aeschin. 3.100).82 In the Acharnians, Aristophanes’ emphasis on Pericles’ responsibility for the Megarian decree, while offering a short-cut comedic explanation of the outbreak of war, reflects the tendency to identify decrees with their proposers, envisaging the Megarian decree as a small spark set off by Pericles which set the city on fire (Peace 608–9; cf. Acharnians 530–7). 83 In the Wasps, a mockery of religious authority is invoked through a humorous deployment of a decree: the Chorus urges Philokleon to escape from home, telling him that if his son tries to destroy him, ‘I’ll make him bite his heart and struggle for dear life, so he’ll know not to step on the decrees of the Two Goddesses (‘ἵν’ εἰδῇ μὴ πατεῖν τὰ ταῖν θεαῖν ψηφίσματα’: 374–8, trans. Sommerstein 1983, adapted). In this passage, the term psephismata is used as a surprise substitute for the mysteria with which the goddesses are associated,84 suggesting the overblown claim that ‘the legal underpinnings of jury service are as inviolable as mystic rites’,85 but another view might be that the ‘Two Goddesses’ constitute an allegoric reference to the boule and demos of the Athenians, a breach of whose decrees would be taken very seriously.

80 This idea, that there was a complication in the relationship between decrees and justice, was developed later by Aristotle who expressed the view that the essence of the decree (τὰ ψηφισματώδη) was justice of a conventional but not natural sort (Arist. NE 1134b 24): see Chapter 1.2.2 above. 81 For discussion of the language of political administration in this play, see Harris 2006b: 425–30. 82 We might also compare the idea that busybodies propose petty decrees: in Alkiphron 2 Letters of Farmers 2, a slave about to run away from his master disparages him as proposing decree-lets and resolution-lets at the assembly. 83 For Aristophanes’ manipulation of the audience’s knowledge of the Megarian decrees, see Pelling 2000: 151–8. 84 Sommerstein 1983: 179. 85 Biles and Olson 2015: 208.

literary representations of decrees

213

Decrees were parodied more extensively in four extant comedies: Birds (414), Lysistrata (411), Thesmophoriazousai (411) and Ekklesiazousai (391).86 In the Birds, the premise of the establishment of the alternative state CloudCuckoo Land is motivated by the protagonist’s disenchantment with Athenian fondness of litigation (40–1). Over the course of the play we encounter an expression of mild irritation about them as tools of imperial politics: on arriving at Cloud-Cuckoo Land, the Athenian inspector (episkopos), responding to Pisthetairos’ enquiry as to who had sent him there, responds that he was dispatched there by ‘some wretched note (φαῦλον βιβλίον τι) of Teleas’ (line 1024). The βιβλίον is presumably a reference to a copy of the decree, perhaps in the form of a scroll, which ordered him to go there.87 A little later, Aristophanes introduces an Athenian decree-seller to Cloud-Cuckoo Land (1035–45),88 who arrives bearing a clutch of imperialist documents, including a decree threatening those subjects of Athens who carry out an offence against an Athenian (1035–6).89 He brings also a parodic version of the Athenian standards decree (1040–1), one which claims that the citizens of Cloud-Cuckoo Land ‘shall use [Athenian] measures, weights and decrees’ (‘χρῆσθαι Νεφελοκοκκυγιᾶς τοῖς αὐτοῖς μέτροισι καὶ σταθμοῖσι καὶ ψηφίσμασι καθάπερ Ὀλοφύξοι’), the term ψηφίσμασι replacing the νομίσμασι of the inscribed version (IG I3 1453 (= OR 155) composite text section 10): as well as parodying specifically the standards’ decree, a joke is made about the Athenian rule of decree and the allies’ frustration with it.90 The official is driven away after reading this decree, but a little while later he returns, reminding the subjects, by reference to a third decree, both of the threat against those who expel Athenian officials and those who do not admit them ‘according to the stele’ (1049–50); on this occasion, he goes further, reminding the subjects of their past acts of subversion by claiming that

86 There is of course humorous use of mock political language in other plays too: on the metaphorical assembly in the Knights, see Rhodes 2010; generally, on Aristophanic fun at the assembly in Acharnians, Thesmophoriazousai, Lysistrata and Ekklesiazousai, see Rhodes 2004a. 87 For βιβλίον as a reference to a documentary copy of a decree, perhaps one on papyrus, see RO 2 line 61, where the secretary of the council is to hand over the ‘biblion of the decree’ with Osborne 2012: 43. See Chapter 3.2.2 above. For the suggestion that the Birds suggests a private trade in copies of Athenian decrees, see Slater 1996: 100. 88 For the view of a ‘decree-seller’ as a parody of a new style of ‘professional’ politician, see Jackson 1919. The notion of the ‘decree-seller’ as a profession was, of course, a parodic one: Dunbar 1995: 567. 89 Dunbar 1995: 568–9, substantiating the view that this clause ‘closely resembled the sanction clauses in decrees prescribing penalties originally imposed for killing an Athenian citizen anywhere in the empire’. 90 For discussion of this passage, see Dunbar 1995: 569–72. The passage is sometimes used to date the decree to c. 414: see the commentary on OR 150.

214

decrees of fourth-century athens

the birds used to deposit their droppings on the stele (1054).91 As Lougovaya argues, the citation of a stele, and perhaps the introduction onto the stage of such an object – and the emphasis on its abuse – not only heightens the comedic effect of Athenian decree, but also represents the decree-seller’s third and final attempt to impose his authority;92 nevertheless, regardless of his inscription, he is forced to flee and does not appear again in the play. As the leadership of the new community is increasingly concentrated in the hands of Pisthetairos, he receives a golden honorific crown from a herald of the Athenians (1274–5),93 who had by this time metamorphosed into bird-men, and whose mark of civilisation was that they spend time foraging among the laws and browsing among the decrees (1287–9). Accordingly, although Pisthetairos’ community became a place worthy of praise (1277–1307), those who metamorphosed into birds were unable to escape the culture of the decree; Pisthetairos accepts the decree (1276) but persists with his resistance to Athenian hegemony. Overall, therefore, the effect of decrees in the Birds is both to parody the futility of Athenian attempts to impose their authority through decrees while stressing the inevitability of Pisthetairos’ new community falling into line with the normative expectations of the decree-culture. Similarly, the Lysistrata is pervaded by a theme of disillusionment with the decrees of male Athenian politicians: the magistrate (proboulos) sent to clamp down on the women’s revolt launches into a tirade about the proposals that he heard Demostratos make (that an expedition be launched to Sicily and that the Athenians recruit Zakynthian mercenaries) while his wife yelled from the roof of his house (Lysis. 387–98). As Henderson observes,94 the thesis of this passage is that ‘failure to control wives brings disaster to husbands’, but also Demostratos’ readiness to propose controversial decrees is being criticised. Elsewhere in that play, the leader of the women’s chorus expresses defiance in the face of the male-dominated medium of Athenian decrees, claiming that the Athenians will never be able to do anything about the power of the women, not even if they decree seven times (698). But at the same time she expresses frustration at the nature, frequency and number of Athenian decrees: not only are they petty, but they are also frequent and persistent: Why, just yesterday I threw a party for the girls in honour of Hekate, and I invited my friend from next door, a fine girl who’s very special to me: an eel from Boiotia. 91 This is a passage which inspired Meiggs 1972: 587 to speculate ‘there must have been a strong temptation to oligarchs as well as dogs to deface or foul decree stones’. 92 Lougovaya 2013: 263. 93 Dunbar 1995: 634–5, noting that a gold crown for conspicuous service would probably have been rare at the time. 94 Henderson 1987: 120.

literary representations of decrees

215

But they said they wouldn’t let her come because of your decrees. And you will never, ever stop passing these decrees until someone grabs you by the leg, throws you away, and breaks your neck. (700–705, trans. Henderson 2000)

Sommerstein’s view of these lines is that they refer to Athenian decrees restricting trade with Athenian enemies,95 a view which points to the passage as an expression of frustration at such measures. Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazousai was set at an irregular meeting of women at the Thesmophorion in Athens, where they discuss how they will take revenge on Euripides for his abusive portrayal of the female gender. This play too makes comedy by criticising Athenian decree practice. At 361–2, the speech of the Chorus of women attacks those who, as well as carrying out other inversions of normality, seek ‘to change decrees and law to their opposites’ (‘ψηφίσματα καὶ νόμους ζητοῦσ’ ἀντιμεθιστάναι’): such a phrase could be reasonably viewed as an allusion either to Euripides’ poetic deception, or a reference to the oligarchs’ proposal that the assembly pass decrees which would transform the democratic constitution (Thuc. 8.67.1).96 But in this play we witness the protagonists of the play making use of the template of the Athenian decree to enact their decisions: when the council of the women enacts a decision to hold an assembly, they announce their resolution in the language of a decree of the council, and also place deliberation about the punishment of Euripides on the agenda of their assembly: Listen everyone. The Council of Women resolves as follows (‘ἔδοξε τῇ βουλῇ τάδε τῇ τῶν γυναικῶν’). Timokleia presiding (‘Τιμόκλει᾽ ἐπεστάτει’), Lysilla was the secretary (‘Λύσιλλ᾽ ἐγραμμάτευεν’); Zostrate proposed (‘εἶπε Ζωστράτη’): to convene an assembly at dawn in the middle of the Thesmophoria, at which point we have some leisure-time, and to do business in the first place about what Euripides should suffer for he seems to all of us to be a criminal. Who wishes to speak (‘τίς ἀγορεύειν βούλεται;’)? (lines 372–9)

The passage makes, with its resolution clause, mention of the epistates (presiding officer of the council), the secretary, and proposer, an excellent parody of an open probouleuma.97 It largely follows the patterns of the prescript of an inscribed decree,98 though the omission of the prytanic tribe – if we make 95 Sommerstein 1990: 193. 96 Austin and Olson 2004: 170. See the insightful discussion at Clements 2014: 190 note 99. 97 Rhodes 1972: 59 note 3. See also Eccl. 397–8, in answer to the question of what brought the people to the assembly so early in the morning: ‘why, what else than the prytaneis deciding to make a proposal about saving the city?’ (τί δ᾽ ἄλλο γ᾽ ἢ ἔδοξε τοῖς πρυτάνεσι περὶ σωτηρίας γνώμας καθεῖναι τῆς πόλεως;). 98 As Rhodes 2004a: 225 observes.

216

decrees of fourth-century athens

a­ nything of it – may be read as a deliberate distancing from the usual documentary pattern;99 accordingly, it sets the scene for a discussion at the assembly on Euripides. Adherence to normal bouleutic procedure perhaps indicates that the women have fully taken on normal decree-making practice. The Thesmophoriazousai makes its humour in this case by portraying the women as behaving like men, but in the Ekklesiazousai, the whole plot hinges upon on a gendered transformation of politics by putting the women in charge of the city,100 and by assessing through experiment whether women could become rulers of the city by decree of the assembly.101 The play emphasises Praxagora’s regime’s reliance on psephismata – rather than nomoi – to turn power over to the women (lines 649, 812–13), and in doing so disputes the legitimacy of the women’s reform102 whilst asking probing questions about the authority of the decrees of the assembly. The background of the women’s plans was formulated by resolutions (bouleumata) which had evidently been resolved – as enunciated in Praxagora’s documentary-style language103  – at the women’s festival of the Skira: according to these decisions, the women decided that they would assume actions to take over the running of the community, but would also put to an end the shaving of body-hair (lines 17–18; 59).104 The eventual turning over of power to the women is done by a decree of the assembly in which the women, disguised as men, were able to infiltrate (383–5); the decree was reported in a discussion between Blepyros (husband of the heroine, Praxagora) and his neighbour Chremes (429–70); their barbed comment is that it is sometimes the fact that the maddest decrees do the most good (474–5). From this point, the women assume control of what is usually the male-controlled territory of the decree. However, the men in the play undermine the permanency of the women’s legislation,105 with the Dissident criticising Chremes’ obedience to the women’s government by labelling their laws ‘δεδογμένοι’ (762–4: ‘enacted’, that is, rather than long-established, laws); this joke about the transience of legislation is reinforced by an account of  99 Austin and Olson 2004: 172. 100 See Zeitlin 2000; Ober 1998: 122–55; Shepherd 2016, emphasising the role of Praxagora in enunciating a call for strong leadership of the democratic Athenians. 101 Ober 1998: 135. 102 Cf. Shepherd 2016: 473. 103 As Shepherd 2016: 465 notes, the formula ‘Σκίροις ἔδοξε ταῖς ἐμαῖς φίλαις’ (line 18: ‘it was resolved by my friends at the Skira’) is reminiscent of documentary language and ‘immediately establishes the register of assembly-style speech’. 104 This is a resolution through which, as Ober (1998: 136) suggests, Aristophanes emphasises that the appearance of femininity is a consequence of human action: ‘if women are naturally hairy and brown like men, might they also be naturally political, like men?’ 105 For this point, see Rothwell 1990: 62–3.

literary representations of decrees

217

Athenian decrees which have turned out to be particularly fickle or never acted upon (797–8; 812–29; see DD 95, 96, 97). Such mockery of probably-real decrees of the Athenian assembly sets the stage for the realisation, by decree, of Praxagora’s version of communism, which says that men who want to have sex with a girl first have to do so with an older woman (596–648, 706). Later on in the play the new regulations are implemented: when a youth, Epigenes, attempts to resist the advances of an old woman, she attempts to persuade him by announcing that she bears the decree with her (1010–13) and then reading it out: Old Woman: A decree says that you’ve got to come to my house. Epigenes: Read out what it actually says. Old Woman: All right, I shall: ‘The women have decreed (ἔδοξε ταῖς γυναιξίν): if a young man desires a young woman he may not hump her until he bangs an old woman first. Should he in his desire for the young woman refuse to do this preliminary banging, the older woman shall be entitled with impunity to drag the young man off by his pecker.’ (1013–20, trans. Henderson 2002)

The over-reaching powers of this decree of the women’s assembly, which lacks any indication of preliminary consideration by a council,106 makes it seem a perversion of the normal, democratic law-making procedure. The confusion between laws and decrees emphasises this: a young girl then attempts to rescue the young man, but her efforts are thwarted also by the entrance of a second old woman, who cites the document, referring to it as a νόμος (1050), before he is dragged off with violence. There is one last decree-themed joke: dragged off by the old women, he found the energy to parody the decree of Kannonos, which made those found guilty of harming the Athenian people be bound in chains and face the people (cf. Xen. Hell. 1.7.20): Epigenes: This is obviously Kannonos’ decree put into practice: I’ve got to appear in irons and fuck my accusers! (1089–90, trans. Henderson 2002)

Not only does this play experiment with the decree as the key to disrupting customary gendered and political restrictions, its frequent blurring of the distinction between laws and decrees (e.g. 1050, 1089–90) may well underline the possibility, even in the 390s, the distinction between laws and decrees may have been less than clear.107

106 As observed by Rothwell 1990: 69. 107 As Ober, 1998: 145–6. For the view that Aristophanes is poking fun by confusing nomos and psephisma, see Shepherd 2016: 272–5; on the distinction between laws and decrees in the Thesmophoriazousai, see also Canevaro (Chapter 1.2.1 note 23 above).

218

decrees of fourth-century athens

Aristophanes’ comedy contains other references to decrees and their proposers,108 and this is surely what lies behind the phrase attributed to him, preserved in Athenaios: ‘bearing fish-baskets full of decrees’ (Ath. 4d: γυργάθους ψηφισμάτων φέροντες); given that most of his decrees reflect fifth-century developments, this is not the place for a full comprehensive exploration of them. For now, it is enough to say that the Aristophanic deployment of decrees drew both upon their normative implications, critiqued them as the rash products of a capricious people and suggests some disillusionment with their impositions and general effect. The success of this humour was underpinned by the fact that while responsibility for a decree lay with its proposer, it could also be deployed to mildly berate the demos for enacting it. It is also clear that the idea of the decree is also at the centre of the subversive plots of the gynaecocratic Ekklesiazousai and Thesmophoriazousai, in which Aristophanes allows women to make use of them as transactions with a level of, but not unassailable, authority. Whereas the most intensive engagement with the decree occurs in the Ekklesiazousai, it is in the Thesmophoriazousai that Aristophanes undertakes the creation of a document that closely resembles a probouleuma of the Athenian council. Aristophanes’ fabrication of decrees was one which appears to have been followed by the Middle Comedian Alexis, as we see in a fragment of his Dorkis or The Girl Who Popped Her Lips, to which Athenaios was drawn in his discussion of crayfish: It is voted by the fish-sellers (‘τοῖς ἰχθυοπώλαις ἐστὶ ἐψηφισμένον’), so the people say, to erect a bronze statue of Kallimedon in the fish market, during the Panathenaia, holding a roasted crayfish in his right hand, since he is the sole saviour of their trade and everyone else is against them. (Athenaios 3.104d–e = Alexis fr 57 Arnott)

On this occasion, it is impossible to be certain whether a real decree for a statue of an individual called Kallimedon lay behind the humour, but it is quite

108 In Ekklesiazousai 22, Praxagora makes reference to a certain Phyromachos, who is connected with a proposal which meant that ‘we wenchmen must grab our seats’ (trans. Henderson). A later scholiast appears to have rationalised this by reference to a decree: Suda, s.v. ‘Σφυρόμαχος’ Adler sigma,1764 (= Schol, Ar. Ekkles. 22) says that a certain Sphyramachos introduced a decree that men and women could not sit together (‘Σφυρόμαχος· οὗτος ψήφισμα εἰσηγήσατο, ὥστε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας χωρὶς καθέζεσθαι’). Given that women could not attend the assembly, the decree is likely to be false. ‘Sphyromachos’ is probably a parody of Aristophanes’ Phyromachos. For other explanations of this passage of Ekklesiazousai, see Sommerstein 1998: 140 and Appendix 2 X10 below.

literary representations of decrees

219

plausible to think that one did.109 The same poet, in his play Epidaurios, made fun of the award of citizenship for the sons of the fish-importer Chairephilos, though in that case a genuine decree may be at the background of the humour: see D235 T2. The fragmentary nature of our knowledge of Alexis (just as for other authors of Middle Comedy) means that we will always be guessing about the precise nature of his mockery of decrees; the fact that the examples we have share a piscine-theme may be down to the preferences of our source, Athenaios. For now, all we can do is suggest that his use of decrees to mock Athenian honorands may well have been inspired by the ridicule mockery of decrees in the plays of Aristophanes, and that others in the Middle period of Greek comedy may well have done the same. Decrees, then, were deployed on the dramatic stage for a number of different ends: represented in the mouths of speakers and, on occasion, physically represented on stage, reports of them could act as a turning point in tragic narrative, and humour could be drawn from their wider connotations. Comic poets reached for the language of decrees and a collective comprehension of how they functioned, reassured that their predominantly Athenian audiences would be familiar with it, and hoped that audiences would be engaged by their parody of it. The deployment of decrees on the stage is a reflection of the familiarity of their language to an Athenian audience and the high cultural profile of the decree. Parody of decrees, of course, was not limited to comedy, and its possibilities may well have been exploited in the courts, if we follow the reports of later authorities: Hypereides, in his speech Against Demades in support of a graphe paranomon against making Euthykrates a proxenos of the Athenians (see D177), is said to have parodied Demades’ justification of the decree, claiming that he could be honoured only ‘because he speaks and acts in the interests of Philip; because, as cavalry commander, he betrayed the Olynthian cavalry to Philip and through this act was responsible for the destruction of the Chalcidians; because, on the capture of Olynthos, he assessed the prices of prisoners; because he opposed the city’s interests concerning the temple at Delos …’: he even appears to have drawn up a mock decree: ‘Demades, son of Demeas of the deme Paiania, proposed that, whereas Euthykrates betrayed his own city, Olynthos, to Philip, and was responsible for the destruction of the forty cities 109 The politician named here was an orator and politician of the 320s whose wealth depended partly on mining interests (IG II2 158 line 12; APF 8157 III); indeed. Arnott (1996: 179) raises the possibility that the poet was mocking the speech or decree in which he was designated ‘saviour of the city’: in this case, the joke appears to be that he was fond of eating fish (it is parodied elsewhere: Ath. 340b–d; Alexis fr. 249 Arnott); the idea is that he ate so much fish that he was the saviour of the fishmonger’s business.

220

decrees of fourth-century athens

of the Chalkidians, etc.’ (Hypereides F76 Jensen), and suggested that such a stele would be more suitably raised at the crossroads, that is to say at the rubbish-dump (ὀξυθύμια), than in our sanctuaries’ (F79 Jensen = Harpokration s.v. ‘ὀξυθύμια’).110 We will return to the parody of decrees when we come to look at Lucian’s deployment of them (see Chapter 5.6 below). Having now shown that the literary representation of the decree has a heritage which stretches back into the fifth century, I turn to explore other fabrications of Athenian decrees in later prose works, in order to assess the other uses to which knowledge of decrees were put.

5.4  The Deployment of Elaborated and Fabricated Documents For the most part, the Inventory of classical Athenian decrees (see Volume 1) takes the view that the Athenian orators’ references to, and deployments of, decrees provide potentially reliable testimonia for their content: I have suggested the view that the dangers of being shown up as a liar would have dissuaded orators from outright falsification of the content of contemporary decrees in a public context (see Volume 1 Introduction).111 Accordingly, fourth-century orators, while they were ready to construe the motivation and intention of Athenian decrees in different ways, tend not to falsify the content of contemporary decrees or invent them outright.112 That is a rule which, generally, applies to decrees of current times and the recent past. Our literary sources’ perspectives into decrees of earlier eras, however, tend to be prone much more to distortion than are contemporary documents. In Chapters 5.4 and 5.5 below I suggest four different contexts for the elaboration or even fabrication of decrees in literary texts: the fabrication of such documents in the fourth century for

110 Suda, s.v. ‘ὀξυθύμια’ offers alternative interpretations of this term: ‘Hyperides in the [speech] Against Demades [says]: “Concerning which, the stele would have been far more justly set up amongst the gallows-refuse than amongst our shrines.” Some, including Aristarchus, maintain that oxythymia is the term applied to the wooden [gallows] from which certain people are hanged, [the term deriving] from being quick [oxys] to anger [thymos]; these [gallows] they cut down and root out and burn. But Didymus asserts that oxythymia is the name for refuse and filth; for [he says that] this is taken out to crossroads whenever they purify houses.’ (trans. Suda on Line) 111 For a general view of assessing the credibility of the claims made by orators, see Harris 1995: 15–16; Carawan 2013: 13. 112 Though there are exceptions: see D128 Commentary for discussion of the debate about the proposal to honour the ambassadors returning from the Second Embassy to Pella and Aeschines’ disingenuous presentation of proposals as decrees.

literary representations of decrees

221

patriotic reasons, their development in biographical contexts, their deployment by antiquarians and their use by rhetoricians.

5.4.1  The Invention of Decrees in Demos-Oriented Narratives Both epigraphical and literary evidence points to a movement, perhaps born of the existential threat to Athens of the rising power of the Macedonians from the 350s onwards, to revive, or perhaps to fabricate documentary versions of patriotic, Persian War-era, decrees.113 It is likely that these documentary decrees were fabricated on the basis of already existing accounts of Athenian decisions in the Persian Wars. Probably in the late fourth century, some examples, such as the decree of Themistocles, the Ephebic oath, the Oath of Plataea, and the Peace of Callias (ML 23, RO 88 i, ii;114 Harpokration, s.v. ‘Ἀττικοῖς γράμμασιν’), and the decree against the traitor Arthmios were even written up on stelai.115 There may have been a tacit acknowledgement that these documents were not straightforward records of enactments made at the assembly, but rather that they reflected stories told about the decisions that the Athenians had made and emphasised the unity of purpose of the demos in the face of external aggressors and the threat of Greek traitors; they were held up usually as paradigms of appropriate behaviour. There was, in the fourth century, awareness of the possibility of outright forgery: famously, Theopompos denied the authenticity of the Peace of Callias on the basis of the version of the letter-forms on the version that he had seen 113 The documents outlined as such inventions are outlined by Habicht 1961: 17–19 as the following: the decree of Miltiades of 490 to engage the Persians at Marathon (Dem. 19.303; Ar. Rhet. 1411a10: see D82 T2); Themistocles’ decree of 480 evacuating Athens (Dem. 19.303 with ML 23); the decree of the Troizenians granting support to Athenian refugees (Hyp. Athenog. 32–3; see D175 Commentary); the decree of the Athenian council against the man executed at Salamis (Lycurg. 1.122, with discussion in Chapter 5.2.1 above); the Oath of Plataea (Lycurg. 1.80; D.S. 11.29.3 with RO 88 ii; cf. Krentz 2007); the decree destroying the statue of Hipparchos (Lycurg. 1.117); the decree against Arthmios of Zeleia (Dem. 19.271, 9.41–2; Din. 2.24–5; Aeschin.3.258–9); the Peace of Callias (Dem. 19.273; Lycurg. 1.73; BNJ 342 F13); the Ephebic Oath (Dem. 19.303, 311–12; Lycurg. 1.76–7 with RO 88i). To this list we might also add the Athenian decision to restore exiles and reinstate disenfranchised citizens before Marathon: see And. 1.107 with MacDowell 1962: 140. See also, on invented documents, Davies 1996. Other candidates include those decrees mentioned by Plutarch: see Chapter 5.2.3 above. The fact that reference to the terms of the Peace of Callias makes its first appearance in c. 380 (Isoc. Panegyrikos 118–20) suggests that such documents had their origins in earlier accounts. 114 For the view that RO 88 ii represents the Oath of Marathon, not Plataea, see Krentz 2007. 115 It is not clear which body authorised the setting up of such inscriptions: the Themistocles decree, set up in Troizen; RO 88, was dedicated by the priest of Ares and Athena Areia in the deme of Acharnai.

222

decrees of fourth-century athens

(FGrH 115 F154 cited by Harpokration, s. v. ‘Ἀττικοῖς γράμμασιν’).116 But accuracy about the substance of decrees of past eras or qualms about their authenticity would have mattered little in the forensic contexts upon which they were cited: of these documents, the decision (described as a decree by Dinarchus 2.24–5 and Harpokration, s.v. ‘ἄτιμος’) which condemned a Persian war traitor, Arthmios, to death,117 was cited occasionally, often by reference to an inscribed version on the acropolis. In such cases, orators deployed them as a way of sketching moral standards in a way that made them publicly indisputable.118 The best approach to such documents is to treat them not as windows onto a fifth-century reality, but rather to think of them as perspectives, lodged in the public memory of the fourth century, onto that past. We cannot be certain about the identity of the producers of the documentary versions of these decrees, but orators’ references to them in the lawcourts and assembly demonstrate that they captivated listeners in fourth-century Athens who wanted to hear stories about Athenian resolution against the Persians. Yet accounts of these decrees had a wider captive audience also during the period of the Second Sophistic. In his To Plato: in Defence of the Four, the second-century rhetorician Aelius Aristides launched into a eulogy of the decree of Themistocles evacuating Attica, praising its proposer and the Athenian resolve in carrying it out, concluding ‘this decree is the fairest, most glorious, most perfect evidence of all under the sun in regard to virtue’ (III To Plato 249 trans. Behr 1981–6).119 Aristides’ view gives us a sense of the reception of one strand of the fourth-century Athenians’ ideas about decrees: that which projected a rose-tinted view of a unified purpose of the Athenian demos in the face of Persian aggression. At this point we turn to exploring Hellenistic and later representations of Athenian decrees.

116 But of course, the authenticity of the peace has been defended: Grote, for instance, suggested that Theopompos had seen either a later version or one inscribed with Ionic style letters for an audience used to them: Grote 1849: 547 note 1; Hartmann 2013: 37, 52; Pownall 2008; Higbie 2017: 170–1. Bosworth (1990) highlights the role of fourth-century traditions in influencing the claims made by later sources; for more recent bibliography on the Peace of Callias, see Hartmann 2013: 37 note 28. Theopompos FGrH 115 F153 has sometimes been associated with the Peace of Callias, but this is uncertain: see Krentz 2009, associating it with an earlier Athenian treaty with Dareios (Hdt. 5.73). 117 Habicht 1961; Meiggs 1972: 508–12 offers a useful comparison of what different sources say about the ‘Arthmios decree’, while maintaining a positive view of its authenticity. On its use by the orators, see Nouhaud 1982: 239–42. 118 Cf. Petrovic 2010. 119 Aelius Aristides also demonstrated an interest in the patriotic documents connected by fourth-century sources with Athenian activity of the Persian Wars: see Habicht 1961: 17–19. For his praise of Athens in the Panathenaika, see Day 1980; for his discussion of the Peace of Callias, see Day 1980: 140–71.

literary representations of decrees

223

5.4.2 Biographical Creations The survey, in Appendix 2 below, of fabricated fourth-century decrees, points to other, not-patriotic reasons for the fabrication of decrees. We have already noted (Chapter 5.2.3 above) that decrees were extensively deployed in biographical literature and were sometimes fabricated by those who were interested in the lives of, and in particular in creating apologetic accounts of, prominent statesmen.120 Discussion of the biographical deployment of such decrees has already been undertaken (Chapter 5.2.3 above), where we emphasised their role in the construction of narratives about individuals and their role in Athenian politics.

5.4.3  Decrees in Antiquarian Literature There are some references in ancient sub-literary texts to probably fabricated decrees whose origins are all but impossible to decipher (see, e.g. Appendix 2 X10). But it seems to be the case that the antiquarian writer of antiquity who took an interest in Athenian decrees to its furthest extent was Krateros of Macedonia, born in the late fourth century. 121 Accordingly, it is appropriate to commence discussion of the appearance of decrees in antiquarian literature with an assessment of Krateros’ use of them. He is said to have authored a work entitled Synagoge Psephismaton (Collection of Decrees) which one later reporter, implausibly, claimed to have collected all the decrees in the Greek world.122 Recent scholarship has been divided between the views of, on the one hand, Higbie and Carawan,123 that he relied primarily upon material inscribed on stone and the view of Erdas,124 that he drew primarily upon archival material. In all likelihood, he made use of both, though neither comprehensively.125

120 See also Appendix 2 X1, 2, 8, 10, 11 below. 121 For a definition of the notion of the antiquarian, as someone who collects artefacts which are informative on the practices of antiquity, see Momigliano 1950; cf. Payen 2014, emphasising the antiquarian aspects of Plutarch’s erudition. For the possibility that his material was among the sources used by later editors to reconstruct the documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries, see Carawan 2017. 122 BNJ 342 T1c (Scholiast, Aristides Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπέρ τῶν τεττάρων (To Plato, on the Four) 46, 217–18): ‘Κρατερός τις ἐγένετο, ὃς συνῆξε πάντα τὰ ψηφίσματα τὰ γραφέντα ἐν τῆι ῾Ελλάδι’ (‘There was a certain Krateros who collected all the decrees written in Greece.’ (trans. Carawan, BNJ)); and collected not only decrees but also legal indictments (e.g. Plu. Arist. 26.4 = BNJ 342 F12) and information from the Athenian Tribute Lists (e.g. Suda, s.v. ‘Νύμφαιον’ = BNJ 342 F10). 123 Carawan in BNJ 342 Biographical Essay; see Higbie 1999. 124 Erdas 2002; the view of Jacoby was that he used archival material: Jacoby FGrH III b I96 with ii 64 note 26 and 33; cf. Ste Croix 2004: 309–10. 125 This is the view of Faraguna 2006.

224

decrees of fourth-century athens

It is highly likely that he would also have taken an interest in those decrees that he encountered in narratives preserved in oral and written form. The fact that he remarked on decrees that were specifically inscribed (BNJ 342 FF 5b, 17), far from being a proof of epigraphical autopsy, reflects probably his awareness of traditions about these inscriptions. These are the references to Athenian decrees: BNJ 342 F5b, the bronze stele setting out the punishment of Antiphon and Archeptolemos of 411 ([Plu.] X Or. 833d–4b); BNJ 342 F13, the Peace of Callias (Plu. Cim. 13.4); BNJ 342 F14, the decree against Arthmios (Schol. Aristides Πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὑπέρ τῶν τεττάρων (For Plato, on the Four) II 287 Dindorf); BNJ 342 F15, the decree of Kannonos (Schol. ad Aristophanem Ekklesiazusae 1089; cf. Xen. Hell. 1.7.20 and Develin 1989: 114); BNJ 342 F17, the bronze stele setting out the punishment of Phrynichos (Schol. ad Aristophanem Lysistrata 313; to be distinguished from a second decree which honoured his killers, IG 13 102; see above, p. 95.). When we look at the Athenian material attributed to his collection, we note that it is dominated by celebrity decrees of the fifth century,126 and there is little evidence of interest in run-of-the-mill fourth-century decrees. A significant proportion of the testimonia pertains to the punishment of traitors including the bronze stelai setting out the punishment of Antiphon, Archeptolemos and Phrynichos (FF 5b, 17), the decree against Arthmios (F14) and the decree of Kannonos (F15), which – according to Xenophon’s version – provided for the throwing into a pit of those found guilty of doing harm to the Athenians.127 The fragmentary remains reflect not only Krateros’ own interests but also those of his audience of later writers who were, after all, responsible for the fragments that survive of his work: they were more interested in the deployment of such material to make moral points. Once again (cf. Chapter 3.3.5.4 above), we note a gap between the type of decree-material that antiquarians were interested in and that which provides the bulk of our evidence for decrees in fourth-century Athens. There is little to suggest, however, that Krateros had any reason to fabricate decrees, though he may have taken seriously decrees, such as that against Arthmios, which modern scholars have found reason to treat with scepticism. It is clear that Krateros collected information about decrees, but it is a work

126 For the view that his work concentrated on fifth-century material see Erdas 2002: 27–8; Carawan BNJ 342 Biographical Essay; Jacoby FGrH 342 Kommentar 97. 127 Krentz 1989: 166, suggesting that it was an archaic law revived when the Athenians were re-codifying their laws after the fall of the Four Hundred; cf. Lavelle 1988.

literary representations of decrees

225

that went beyond simple antiquarianism: a reference to Krateros’ discussion of the prosecution of those not born of two Athenian parents who had attempted to enrol into a phratry by Harpokration (s.v. ‘ναυτοδίκαι’ (= Krateros BNJ 342 F4a)) suggests that the interest of his work extended into the implementation of decrees as well as their substance (cf. D14). The fragmentary preservation of the antiquarian literature like that of Krateros in the works of later scholars leads us next into some discussion of the interests of one such inventive polymath of the late second century, Athenaios of Naukratis (see Appendix 2 X12–15 below). Much of the evidence for interest in Athenian decrees among Hellenistic writers derives from his Deipnosophistai, a lengthy work presented in the form of conversations on matters of wide cultural and literary interest. The authenticity of many of the authors and works referred to by Athenaios is far from clear: at points he seems to invent the names of authors and their works; at other times he draws upon plausible-sounding scholarly traditions;128 accordingly, each reference must be assessed on its own merits. His references to decrees suggest a considerable Hellenistic interest in decrees which would otherwise be largely unknown to modern scholarship.129 Early on in this work, Athenaios launches into praise of a Larensios, the host of the discussion,130 who, he claims, gained his knowledge from a study of psephismata and dogmata (Ath. 2d). It appears, therefore, that the status of the decree, as a source of antiquarian knowledge, is asserted from the outset of his work. Athenaios’ alertness to decrees and interest in lore about them emerges elsewhere: his long account of the tyranny of the Peripatetic Athenaion in the early 80s BC is generally accepted as an accurate account of the longest historical narrative connected with Poseidonios (Deipnosophistai 211d-15b).131 According to this account, the Athenians were reported to have sent a force against the revolting Delians under the command of a certain Apellikon of Teos, a naturalised citizen; the expedition turned out to be a failure owing to Roman intervention. What is relevant here is his claim  – as an illustration of Apellikon’s ‘colourful and diverse life’ – that Apellikon collected, in addition to the works of Aristotle, copies of old decrees from the Metroon (‘τά τ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ Μητρώιου

128 On the difficulty of distinguishing between allusion and invention in the work of Athenaios, see Ceccarelli, Biographical Essay on BNJ 166 Athenaios. Jacob (2013) places more emphasis on Athenaios’ deployment of the Hellenistic intellectual tradition to provide a complex and reflective work. 129 For the view of Athenaios’ work as a reflection on lost Greek culture, see Jacob 2013: 113–20. 130 On the figure of Larensios, see Braund 2000; on his ‘circle’, see Jacob 2013: 19–23. 131 See e.g. Dowden, Commentary on BNJ 87 F36. Habicht 1997: 304–5, draws upon the account for historical narrative purposes.

226

decrees of fourth-century athens

τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτόγραφα ψηφίσματα’): he had been caught doing this surreptitiously and had fled from Athens (214e). While there are aspects of Athenaios’ account which may be later fabrications, the story may reflect the interest of Hellenistic collectors in the documentary heritage of the Athenians; moreover, it is possible to detect some disparaging irony or even ridicule in the praise offered to this collector of decrees. Among such Hellenistic writers preserved in fragmentary form, some – like Krateros – appear to have been interested more broadly in physically inscribed documents or inscriptions.132 One of the most frequently cited of the documentary antiquarians was Polemon of Ilion, a writer of the second century, of whose work Preller and Müller collected 102 fragments.133 Polemon was a favourite of later writers, especially Athenaios, who cites his works 45 times. Some 34 book titles are attributed to Polemon, of which several suggest significant epigraphical content. Polemon was interested in laws and decrees too, as is made clear in a fragment cited by Harpokration (s.v. ‘Νεμέας’ = Polemon F3 Preller): in this passage, which purports to derive from his work About the Akropolis, he describes as a decree (psephisma) a regulation according to which the Athenians forbade the naming of certain categories of individual (a slave, a liberated woman, a prostitute, or a flute-player) after the penteteric festivals. Davies takes the view that this citation is an example of a vintage of invented documents restricting behaviour of, or with respect to, women,134 and it is therefore likely to be a forgery of a Hellenistic antiquarian or Athenaios himself. It is, anyway, highly unlikely that such a restriction would have, in the fourth century, been introduced on the basis of a decree: its content is much more likely to reflect that of a law in the post-403/2 era. 135

132 In the second century, Heliodoros of Athens, who wrote about the Athenian acropolis, is reported to have described Athenian dedications, tripods and monuments (BNJ 373 T2, F6–7): among these would have been inscriptions. For other ancient collectors of documents, see Larfeld 1902–7: 1.16–25. Note also: Diodorus the Periegete (BNJ 372), author of Peri Mnemata (F34); cf. F35 on Hypereides’ burial place and the tomb of Themistocles; Heliodorus, BNJ 373 (with Roisman and Worthington 2015: 25–7), author of On the Akropolis (FF 1, 4), On the Tripods at Athens (F6); Menetor, On Dedications (Ath. 594c = FHG iv.452); Neoptolemos of Parion, Peri epigrammaton (Ath. 454f ); Philochoros of Athens, Epigrammata Attika (FGrH 328 T1); cf. Alketas, On the dedications at Delphi (FGrH 405 F1 = Ath. 591c). 133 Polemon of Ilion: see Preller 1838; Müller 1853: 108–48. 134 Davies 2000: 217. Another example is the decree alleged to have been passed by the Athenians permitting bigamy towards the end of the Peloponnesian war: see Aulus Gellius 15.20.6; Diogenes Laertius 2.26; Suda s.v. ‘λειπανδρεῖν’, though taken seriously by Patterson 1981: 142–3. 135 The regulation is mentioned also by Athenaios, though as a law: 13.587c.

literary representations of decrees

227

Yet more striking is Athenaios’ discussion of Polemon’s report of epigraphical material, including a decree concerning parasitoi:136 Polemon  – the stele-glutton (stelokopas)  – says the following when he writes about parasitoi: ‘Parasite is today a disreputable term, but among the ancients I find that the parasite was sacred and resembled an invited guest at a meal. In the precinct of Herakles in Kynosarges is a stele inscribed with a decree moved by Alcibiades when Stephanos son of Thoukydides was secretary in which the following is said concerning the title: “let the priest, accompanied by the parasitoi, make the monthly offerings. Let the parasitoi be drawn from the bastards and their children, in accord with ancestral practice. If anyone is unwilling to serve as a parasite, let him be indicted in the lawcourt, in connection with these matters.” The following is inscribed on the kurbeis concerned with the sacred ambassadors to Delos: “And the two heralds from the Kerykes clan associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries. These men are to serve as parasitoi in the precinct of Delian Apollo for a year.” The following is inscribed on the dedications at Pallene: “The Archons and parasitoi in the year when Pythodoros was an eponymous archon made this dedication after being crowned with a gold garland. In the year of the priestess Diphile the parasitoi were Epilykos son of … -stratos of the deme Gargettos, Pericles son of Perikleitos of the deme Pithos, and Charines son of Demochares of the deme Gargettos.” And among the laws relating to the archon basileus is written: “The Acharnians’ parasitoi are to sacrifice to Apollo.”’ (Athenaios 234d–f (= Preller/ Mueller F78): trans, Olson 2008 adapted) 137

The passage, as it is preserved, suggests that Polemon was, at this point in his work,138 interested in citing inscriptions (he appears to make reference to four of them in this passage) primarily for what they tell us about the meaning of the word ‘parasitos’; he may have organised them according to their relevance for the subjects in which he was interested. He presents some of this as an inscribed decree (emboldened in the above quotation). The mentions of a plausibly named distinguished proposer (Alcibiades: PAA 121630; for his proposals see IG I3 117, 118, 119, 120, 227bis) and a secretary (Stephanos son of Thucydides: PAA 834135), a place of publication (albeit a unique one), and some reasonable directives concerning the selection of parasitoi has led this passage to have become accepted as evidence for a fifth-century decree of the

136 For Athenaios’ interest in the term parasitos and its wider use, see Bouyssou 2013 and Constantakopoulou: 2017: 2, 238 (especially on the characterisation of the Delians as parasites). 137 The parts of the text related to the purported decree are emboldened. 138 Moreover, as Athenaios claims, they derive probably from a work called The Letter Concerning Obscure Names (ἐν τῇ Περὶ ὀνομάτων ἀδόξων ἐπιστολῇ: Müller F77).

228

decrees of fourth-century athens

Athenians on the subject.139 Indeed, the physical existence of an inscribed list of magistrates and parasitoi of Athena from the chapel of Agia Triada at the intersection of the roads from Athens to Marathon and Athens to Sounion (SEG XXXIV 157) is rather reminiscent of the types of dedication that Polemon identified at Pallene, and could be cited in supportive of the authenticity of the epigraphical claims made in this passage. Notwithstanding this question, it is a firm indication of the fact that decrees – real or fabricated – could be used by Hellenistic writers, alongside other documents, as proofs of religious directives. We should recognise that while Polemon had some interest in Athenian decrees, epigraphy was not his sole preoccupation: the spectrum of titles attributed to him suggest that places, objects, and associated stories were his primary interest.140 Had, therefore, his work survived, it might resemble that of a traveller or periegetes, like Pausanias (see below), rather than an epigrapher or someone primarily interested in documentary decrees. At this point it is appropriate to note that Athenaios, the principal reporter of Polemon, has particular agendas related to the interests of his work: he makes other references to decrees which have reasonable credentials but concern exotic topics; this example crops up in his discussion of protenthai (perhaps best glossed as ‘food inspectors’): I also find a decree (‘εὑρίσκω δὲ καὶ ψήφισμα’) which came about during the archonship of Kephisodoros at Athens (‘ἐπὶ Κηφισοδώρου ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι γενόμενον’), in which the protenthai are something like a board of men, just as those called the parasitoi are. The decree is as follows: ‘Phokos proposed (“Φῶκος εἶπεν”), so that the council may celebrate the Apatouria with all the other Athenians in the traditional manner (“ὅπως ἂν ἡ βουλὴ ἄγῃ τὰ Ἀπατούρια μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἀθηναίων κατὰ τὰ πάτρια”), that it should be decreed by the council (“ἐψηφίσθαι τῇ βουλῇ”) that the councillors are to be released from duties on the days when the other councils (“αἱ ἄλλαι βουλαί”141), who also receive such release, for five days starting on that day when the protenthai start to celebrate the festival.’ (Ath. 171d–e)

139 See, for instance, Murray 1995: 236; Parker 2005: 438. Develin 1989: 195 places it in the period 431/0–404/3. 140 Other works of Polemon, e.g. On the Sacred Road (Preller/Müller FF 11–13) or On the Poikile Stoa at Sikyon (Preller/Müller FF 14–15) or On the Treasuries at Delphi (Preller/Müller FF 27–9). 141 Lambert (1998: 156 note 76) prefers MSS βουλαί to Wilamowitz’s ἀρχαί: ‘such legislation may represent a decision of the Athenian boule giving itself a holiday as long as that enjoyed by boulai on other Ionian states and, possibly, the Areopagos at Athens.’

literary representations of decrees

229

The content of this passage does not rule out the possibility that this is a report of a genuine decree of the council, proposed by a certain Phokos,142 and dated to the archonship of Kephisodotos (a plausible archon-dating, which could refer to the archon either of 366/5 or 323/2: see BD 8);143 indeed, it is reasonable to accept the possibility that the council may well have been empowered to pass decrees which concerned its own organisation. The motion formula for a decree of the council, ‘be it decreed by the Council’ (‘ἐψηφίσθαι τῇ βουλῇ’) is well-attested in inscribed Attic decrees,144 and so it is quite plausible that the author is either drawing upon documentary material (or is well informed). Accordingly, the content of this decree, which appears to enable all councillors to take part in the Apatouria, a festival celebrated throughout Attica and also among phratries,145 is generally taken very seriously by scholars: for instance, Rhodes cites it as evidence that the council gave itself five days’ holiday for the Apatouria.146 Parker cites the passage as evidence for a festival of the protenthai (foretasters) on the day before the dorpia (the first day of the Apatouria).147 Moreover, Lambert’s suggestion is that they ‘were responsible in some way for the organisation of phratry dinners on the dorpia [the first day of the Apatouria] and in consequence had their own a day early’.148 The protenthai, however, are extremely obscure: while Athenaios appears to have collected information on them, they are not mentioned in the epigraphical sources, and the only classical reference to them crops up in Aristophanes’ Clouds (1198). Davies, however, casts doubt on the authenticity of this decree, chiefly on the basis that it was not the kind of thing that would have been written up on stone and ‘it is hard to identify any other route by which the text could have been preserved to reach Athenaios’.149 Its authenticity, therefore, must remain uncertain; however, one must acknowledge the possibility at least that Athenaios drew upon a source 142 A certain Phokos is mentioned by Plutarch (Phoc. 20, 30, 28) as the son of Phokion, and the same son is mentioned a little earlier in Athenaios (4.168e–9a). But the identification is uncertain, and there are other occurrences of the name (LGPN II, s.v. ‘Phokos’). The invention of a decree, and indeed a proposer, is hardly beyond the imagination of Athenaios. However, as Lambert (1998: 156) points out, the hedonistic nature of this festival would seem to match the allegedly profligate character of Phokion’s son. Yet such a connection would suit Athenaios’ literary intentions well, and does not therefore necessarily support the authenticity of this decree. 143 As Lambert points out (1998: 156 note 75), its relevance to festivals and phratries is much more characteristic of a later date. 144 See Rhodes with Lewis 1997: 5. See for example IG II² 128 line 10 of 356/5. 145 Parker 1996: 105. 146 Rhodes 1972: 30. 147 Parker 2005: 458. 148 Lambert 1998: 155. 149 Davies 2000: 213.

230

decrees of fourth-century athens

which itself had drawn upon Athenian decrees in the archive or knew of an orally preserved tradition about such a decree. Davies is rightly cautious about the authenticity of other decrees that crop up in Athenaios’ work. Athenaios (590d–f) claims that, according to the biographer Hermippos of Smyrna (author of the Life of Hypereides of c. 200 BC; FGrH 1026 F46a), the Athenians made a decree (psephisma) after the trial of Phryne (fr. 178 Jensen) forbidding both speakers from lamenting on the behalf of others and the putting on display of men or women while their case was being decided. Davies suggests that this was another ‘product of the decreemanufacturing industry’ which coincided with the theme of book 13 (women, prostitutes and their lovers) and Athenaios’ widely-expressed interest in the regulation of human, particularly female, behaviour and the role of the gynaikonomoi (6.245b–c).150 Yet it is quite possible that this decree was the fabrication of the Hellenistic biographer, Hermippos, to whom Athenaios attributes the story.151 Athenaios’ claim about bigamy being permitted by decree at a time of scarcity (556a) falls into the same category: Diogenes Laertius 2.26 (attributing knowledge of it to Satyros and Hieronymos of Rhodes) mentions a comparable decree, according to which men were allowed to have children by one woman while being married to another: as Haake suggests,152 it was probably a Hellenistic composition fabricated in a pseudo-biographical apology to defend Socrates on charges of bigamy. Other than the examples discussed, as Davies concluded,153 among the material pertinent to decrees that we find in Athenaios’ work, there is little genuine documentary material, though there are traces of material which may have derived from manufactured decrees. Perhaps it is worth, however, observing that by valuing the testimonia of – most of them extraordinary – decrees and connecting them with learned people, he drew on decrees which he had encountered in his own source-material to illustrate points and expand discussion of words, food and individuals (especially women). Decrees, real or fabricated, are there to show off knowledge and even to entertain. For Athenaios, it should be added, there is little by way of moral assessment of the decrees under discussion: knowledge of them is there for his speakers to impress their collocutors with their knowledge of classical culture. This was one expression of the 150 Davies 2000: 213; Filonik 2016: 132–3 also takes the view that the decree was a forgery. 151 Bollansée 1999: 388 suggests that the account of the trial and its aftermath was the invention of Hermippos; on the different versions of Phryne’s trial, see Eidinow 2016: 23–30 and, emphasising the role of Hermippos and his source Idomeneus of Lampsakos, see Cooper 1995. 152 Haake 2013: 104 note 169, 107-8. 153 Davies 2000: 217.

literary representations of decrees

231

wider phenomenon of the Second Sophistic of admiring things classical: the decree-culture of classical Athens, so richly attested in the works of comedians, orators and Hellenistic antiquarians, was to Athenaios and others an important aspect of classical culture; they presumed that their audience of readers were familiar enough to appreciate their exploration of it. Yet as we will see from the next author to be briefly discussed, not every Second Sophistic writer was fascinated by decrees. The most detailed extant physical description of Athens extant from antiquity is that of Pausanias book 1; Pausanias was deeply interested in inscriptions, dedications and honorific statues,154 and while he is usually thought of as a travel writer (periegetes), in this sense he might be viewed as an antiquarian collector of inscribed information. But his eye was rarely caught by decrees and he did not fabricate information about them: one of the rare references to a decree in his work is that to Oinobios’ decree, probably of 404/3 (Develin 1989: 186), which permitted the return of the historian Thucydides to Athens (Paus. 1.23.9: ψήφισμα γὰρ ἐνίκησεν Οἰνόβιος κατελθεῖν ἐς Ἀθήνας Θουκυδίδην). On this occasion, Pausanias was led into mentioning the decree as he was reporting a statue of the proposer close to the Athenian acropolis. Later on, in his fifth book, his description of the terms of the 30-year peace of 446/5 crops up owing to the fact that the bronze stele containing its terms stood in front of Olympian Zeus (5.23.4). While they contribute an element of detail to his description, there is, therefore, little to suggest that Pausanias was interested in Athenian decrees for their own sake: they seem to have had little significance for someone whose interests were primarily in the material aspects of the Greek world. Only on one occasion, his mention of the Athenian decree associated with Miltiades before the battle of Marathon – granting their slaves who died in battle a public burial and allowing the inscription of their names on stone (Paus. 1.29.7; cf. 7.15.7) – did he use a decree to contribute to his portrayal of Athenian character.155

5.4.4  The Fabrication of Documentary Decrees by Rhetoricians The later fabrication of decrees in literature is not restricted to antiquarian or biographical works. Certain manuscripts of Andocides and Demosthenes

154 On Pausanias’ use of inscriptions, see Habicht 1984; Whittaker 1991; Zizza 2006; Tzifopoulos 2013. 155 A version of this decree is offered in Andocides 1.107, who says that it restored exiles and reinstated disenfranchised citizens; see also [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 22.8; Plu. Them. 11.1; Plu. Arist. 8.1 and MacDowell 1962: 140.

232

decrees of fourth-century athens

contain passages which appear to represent documentary versions of decrees, such as that of Kallisthenes ordering the evacuation of Attica in Skirophorion 346 (Dem. 18.37–8: see D135), or that of the decree of Ktesiphon for Demosthenes (Dem. 18.118: see D179). The inauthenticity of such decrees has been confirmed by Canevaro’s landmark study of them.156 But it is important to note that their creation is a phenomenon quite separate from that of the development of historic documents with patriotic intent. There appears to have been little political motivation behind their fabrication. The wide range of standards and subjects of forged documents leads Canevaro to envisage different contexts in which the texts of decrees, especially those which were referred to in Demosthenes’ speeches, were fabricated, including engagement with the system of rhetorical education of the era before the second century AD in which ‘it was standard practice to compose fictitious laws and decrees to form the subject of oratorical exercises’.157 As Canevaro notes, ‘one of the preliminary exercises (progymnasmata) for students of rhetoric, according to our sources, was called nomos and involved arguing for and against a law or decree, which had been invented by the teacher for the purpose of the exercise. This was one of the most advanced exercises in the rhetorical curriculum, directly connected with the preparation for composing and delivering a proper declamatio (μελέτη), a fictitious speech which was the centre of the production of professional rhetoricians from the Hellenistic age on.’158 The ‘Art of Rhetoric’, a work of the third-century AD Greek rhetorician Apsines of Gadara – which will be discussed in Chapter 5.5 below – is perhaps the clearest indication of the continuation of such practice; Canevaro points also to Hellenistic scholarly and antiquarian interest in the history of Athens as the likely origin of such documents.159 He suggests that such documents  – invented by knowledgeable teachers – came to be inserted into the manuscripts of speeches by editors who were troubled by the lack of authentic documents that appeared in the texts; their fictitious nature was soon forgotten by users of their texts and accordingly they found their way into the historical tradition. The process by which such texts came to be incorporated in certain manuscripts of the orators has already been discussed extensively by Canevaro, but there is more 156 For a list of documentary versions of decrees: see Appendix 2 note 1 below. 157 Canevaro, 2013: 333; cf. Canevaro forthcoming. Carawan 2017 argues that whereas the documents that appear in Demosthenes’ On the Crown are the creations of rhetorical schools, those in Andocides’ On the Mysteries are more likely to have been reconstructed by over-zealous editors with historical interests working on the basis of sources such as Krateros’ work on decrees. 158 Canevaro forthcoming; on these fictitious classicisng speeches, see Cribiore 2001: 231–8. 159 Canevaro 2013: 338; cf. Canevaro forthcoming.

literary representations of decrees

233

to say on the advice given by rhetoricians on the deployment of decrees in the construction of arguments.

5.5  Decrees and Argumentation in Later Rhetorical Works It was argued in Chapter 2 above that Athenian political activity of the fourth century demonstrates the existence of a ‘decree-minded’ sentiment among politicians, which is to say that not only were they involved in the proposal and challenge of decrees, but also that they deployed knowledge of decrees as an important and pliable tool in invective and in the formulation of arguments. Epigraphical evidence indicates that the decree played a prominent rhetorical role in interstate negotiations in the Hellenistic period,160 and the public announcement of decrees was an important aspect of honorific transactions in that era.161 From the fourth century onwards, there was some explicit recognition of the role of the decree in persuasion: Aristotle in the Rhetoric, on occasion, offers examples of decrees drawn upon in argumentation; most of these examples, as Trevett points out, drew upon oral tradition, or even collections of sayings attributed to famous men.162 Equally pertinent to our exploration of the representation of fourth-century Athenian decrees is the fact that post-classical rhetoricians recognised their potential as sources of ‘non-artistic’ proof. They drew, in all likelihood, upon Hellenistic and Roman-era rhetorical handbooks.163 The Anonymous Seguerianus, author of a work with the title The Art of Political Speech, wrote as follows: Non-artistic proofs (atechnoi pisteis) are, for example, witnesses, decrees, contracts, such things, as many are written down. They are called ‘non-artistic’ since nothing comes from the thought of the speaker but is what any ordinary person might discover. The task of the orator in non-artistic proofs is to amplify and confirm those that aid his case and to diminish and attack those against us as not credible. (3.145)

According to this author, therefore, decrees were one of a number of instruments that were accessible and could be deployed effectively without specialist knowledge; in doing so the author went a step further than Aristotle by

160 On the performance of decrees in the Hellenistic period, see Massar 2006; Rubinstein 2013. 161 Ceccarelli 2010: 106–38 (announcement of honours at tragic contests); Chaniotis 2013. 162 Trevett 1996a. See Arist. Rh. 1411b6–10 (= D46 T6); 1384b32 (= D65 T1), 1411a6–10 (= D82 T2), 1399b 1 ff (= D100 T2). 163 Dilts and Kennedy 1997: ix.

234

decrees of fourth-century athens

classifying decrees as atechnoi pisteis in their own right.164 Further on in his work, he advised that the refutation of arguments formulated on the basis of decrees be carried out by means of alternative interpretation, or in making points about the intention (dianoia) of the proposer (3.188). The seriousness which later writers attached to decrees is reflected by the popularity in the Hellenistic and Roman periods of a number of speeches that were pertinent to the proposal or the indictment of decrees, among them Demosthenes’ On the Crown and Against Leptines.165 This legacy is apparent in the work of the fourth-century AD rhetorician Apsines of Gadara who, in his handbook on political rhetoric, drew upon texts of the Attic orators and offered advice on the ways in which to use decrees in order to make key points of argumentation (for his decrees, see Appendix 2 X3–7 below). He made reference to the decree that was the subject of Demosthenes Against Aristokrates (on Charidemos’ inviolability: D94) in his discussion of how to deal in a speech with things spoken or written (1.46–7); his suggestion was to raise the subject of the consequences of the decree (1.57). He gave advice about the refutation of arguments based on decrees, suggesting the ‘scrutiny of intent (dianoia)’ (3.10–11). He advised orators to prepare judges for a verdict by reminding them of the defendant’s services, which could take the form of the proposal of laws and decrees (10.18). He recommended that speakers should, after persuading an audience on some matter, go on to introduce another theme: he offered several (some of them imaginary) proposals to illustrate this point: Whenever, after persuading the hearers of something, we introduce some different second thing; for in these cases it will be fitting to praise the hearers for having been persuaded on the previous matter. For example, you might say: ‘First, it is right to praise you, gentlemen, in that you have recently paid attention to those of us speaking the best advice to you and have disregarded those speaking the opposite and deceiving you; but then let us think to add also what follows from this (from your earlier decision)’, as in those problems for declamation where Pericles, after persuading the people to remain within the walls, then seeks to persuade them to lay waste Attica. Or again: Themistocles, after persuading them to abandon the city, introduces a motion for them to burn the citadel. Or again: some individuals have destroyed a city. The exiles bring the destroyers to trial before the Greeks and are successful in their prosecution, after which, when a speech is made concerning punishment, they propose for them to suffer the same 164 For Aristotle’s view of laws as atechnoi pisteis, see Rh. 1375a22–b25 with discussion at Chapter 2.2.1 above. 165 See, for instance Kremmydas 2007b, discussing a third-century declamation steeped in knowledge of Attic oratory; Kremmydas 2012: 62–4; Wankel 1976: I. 63–82; generally, on the ancient reception of Demosthenes’ speeches, see Drerup 1923; Canevaro 2013: 329–42.

literary representations of decrees

235

things. Or again: after successfully prosecuting Timarchos, Aeschines introduces a motion to abolish the trierarchic law. As you see, he has already persuaded the judges to condemn Timarchos and he will praise them for this. Or again: after Hypereides successfully introduced a motion that when Philip was in Elateia Demosthenes alone should be the adviser to the city, then he proposes to give Demosthenes a bodyguard as well. Apsines, Art of Rhetoric, 1.4–9 (trans. Dilts and Kennedy 1997)

In cases where a proposer’s initial suggestion was rejected, Apsines recommended the use of barytes (‘heaviness’), that is, claiming that one was forced to speak because of circumstances. When Demades’ motion that Philip be made a Thirteenth God was rejected, instead he proposed that a temple be dedicated to Philip (1.19). Apsines cited blatantly fabricated decrees to support his arguments about the refutation of reputations (1.27: Isocrates’ decree about refraining from naval operations) and to advise about the argumentation from the benefit of the city (1.72 and 3.16: Demosthenes’ proposal about digging a canal through the isthmus of Corinth). He also refers at several points to a parody of a decree, allegedly attributed to the Athenian politician Aristogeiton at a time of scarcity, to turn a blind eye to bribery (2.13, 19; 3.11).166 The texts of the anonymous rhetorician and of Apsines suggest that they were directly imitating the classical tendency to use decrees as rhetorical proofs which we have discussed at length (see Chapter 2.6 above). But they also indicate the emergence of a readiness to fabricate or expand on stories about decrees with a view to persuading an audience. Overall, while offering advice about creating arguments pertaining to decrees and showing knowledge of episodes containing debates about historical decrees, Apsines also shows a readiness to fabricate historically implausible decrees. While, therefore, Apsines’ use of the decree as a rhetorical yardstick demonstrates an interest in their fourth-century deployment, his readiness to invent decrees also underlines the existence of a more imaginative approach to the decree – one which had an earlier manifestation in the comic parody of Old Comedy.

5.6  Parody Beyond Comedy We have already established that decrees of the Athenian demos – even though they could sometimes be represented as manifestations of unity of purpose – could also be parodied in comedy and other genres (Chapter 5.3.2 above). The 166 For the view that ‘none of Apsines’ quotations are reliable sources for the texts of authors he cites’ see Dilts and Kennedy 1997: xvii.

236

decrees of fourth-century athens

second-century AD satirist Lucian, inspired perhaps by the classical parody of decrees, was able to create humour out of them. The language of Athenian documents was, for instance, deployed in his portrayal of Timon the misanthrope. Not only did Timon declare his misanthropy by way of a speech set out as a mock law (Timon, 42–4),167 but he was mocked by the imaginary orator Demeas, who praised him with a long and ridiculous parody of an honorific decree ‘resolved by the council, assembly, the jurors, the tribes and demes, both individually and in common’ to set up a golden statue of Timon beside Athena on the acropolis with a thunderbolt in his hand and a halo above his head, justified on the basis that he continuously did his best for the city’ (50–2).168 In the Menippos (19–20), the satire against wealth and power was heightened by way of a verbatim citation of a motion of the demagogues against the rich, which led to a parody both of content of decree and its reception: Be it resolved by the council and the people (‘δεδόχθω τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ’), that when they die their bodies be punished like those of the other malefactors, but their souls be sent back up into life and enter into donkeys until they shall have passed 250,000 years in the said condition, transmigrating from donkey to donkey, bearing burdens, and being driven by the poor; and that thereafter it be permitted them to die. On the motion of (‘εἶπε τὴν γνώμην …’) Scully Fitzbones of Corpsebury, Cadavershire. ‘After this motion had been read, the officials put it to the vote (“ἐπεψήφισαν αἱ ἀρχαί”), the majority indicated assent (“ἐπεχειροτόνησε τὸ πλῆθος”) by the usual sign, Brimo brayed and Cerberus howled. That is the way in which their motions are enacted and ratified.’ (trans. Harmon adapted)

In his Parliament of the Gods (14–18) the Gods passed decrees of their own too, and an enactment was fabricated which arranged for a meeting of the Gods and allocated duties to each one individually. Besides these examples, Lucian, famously, in his True History (1.20) introduced a peace-treaty to put an end to the war between the Moon-ites and Sun-ites, which was to be set up on an electrum stele in space. As Ní Mheallaigh observes, the use of such documents illustrates one of Lucian’s classicising interests,169 and may be viewed 167 For discussion of the language of the ‘Misanthrope’s Charter’, which Hopkinson (2008: 188, 193) suggests echoes the Athenian decrees like those quoted in Demosthenes’ On the Crown, see Householder 1940, Delz 1950: 134-50. 168 Hopkinson 2008: 193 suggests that the decree praising Demeas was ‘couched in the conventional language of such proposals’, pointing to the phrase ‘he continues doing the best things for the city’ (‘διατελεῖ τὰ ἄριστα πράττων τῆι πόλει’: section 50; cf. Dem. 18.118). 169 Ní Mheallaigh 2008. For a useful survey of Lucian’s knowledge of the Athenian assembly, see Delz 1950: 115–50. On his ‘inscription-fiction’ see Ní Mheallaigh 2014: 254–8. For his criticism of Hypereides and Lycurgus for framing ‘little proposals and probouleumata’ when Philip threatened Athens, see Parasit. 42.

literary representations of decrees

237

as part of his wider attempt to appreciate – occasionally through accounts of the Athenians’ decrees  – the past glories of classical Greek culture,170 a phenomenon which surfaced also in the work of Plutarch, Aelius Aristides and Athenaios (see, Chapters 5.2 and 5.4 above). As with those authors, Lucian’s parody of Greek decree-activity shows his desire to demonstrate the depth of his immersion in Greek culture171 and his anticipation that his audience of readers would be familiar enough to appreciate the parody of the decree. But the satirical aspect of them demonstrates that Lucian’s perspective on the classical period went beyond straightforward nostalgia,172 and might be read as a critique of the democratic Athenian culture of accomplishing things and granting rewards by decree. Moreover, these passages must be seen within the wider context of the literary deployment of decrees: Lucian’s fabrications demonstrate engagement not only with classicising documentary habits, but also the tradition – the first manifestation of which appears in Old Comedy – of fabricating and parodying them.173

5.7 Conclusion The idea, enunciated by Aristotle, that the decree was the political tool of an unreflective mob and a transaction that undermined the wellbeing of political communities was an image that appealed not only to those who described the history of fifth-century Athens but to later writers too. It remained an important model of analysis to those who bought into an anti-democratic tradition: Cicero, in defence of Flaccus, dismissed the psephismata read out in court by his opponent Laelius as the products of intimidation, claiming that ‘they are not based upon considered votes or affidavits nor safeguarded by an oath, but produced by a show of hands and the undisciplined shouting of an inflamed mob’ (15); this argument was extended with the claim that such a tendency was responsible for the decline of the Greek world: ‘that Greece of ancient times, once so flourishing in its wealth, dominion and glory, fell through this single evil, the excessive liberty and licence of its meetings’ (16). Accordingly, Cicero

170 Cf. Hopkinson 2007: 7; generally on the revival of Greek culture in the era of the Second Sophistic see Bowie (1970). 171 We might compare this with his complex engagement with the Greek idea of philotimia, as worked out by Mossman (2012). 172 Cf. Hopkinson 2007: 8. 173 Hopkinson 2007: 8: ‘Timon is set in Classical Athens; but the existence there already of spongers, charlatans and ingratiating hangers-on gives the lie to idealising views of that time. The language of Attic Greece is turned against its own origins, and a new Old Comedy arises, burlesquing the gods and treating self-important citizens with irreverence.’

238

decrees of fourth-century athens

dismissed the arguments of Flaccus’ opponents claiming that ‘what you call Greek resolutions (psephismata) are not evidence at all, but the clamour of the impoverished and some reckless impulse of a meeting of Greeklings’ (23).174 The image that Cicero offers of the decree could not be further from the calm serenity of the stele inscribed on white stone. Cicero’s vision, that of the decree as a reckless measure, born of political desperation and popular whim, and put to irresponsible use by a self-seeking politician, had its origins in hostile literary traditions about Athenian decrees. I began this chapter by asking how widespread such a negative characterisation of Athenian decrees – as a tool of an out-of-control mob with excessive political power – was in Greek writers. Some fifth- and fourth-century writers, such as Thucydides, in his account of the Mytilenean debate and Xenophon in his account of the controversy on the treatment of the generals after the battle of Arginusae certainly make this association (5.2.1). And the pivotal role of decrees in the Ath. Pol.’s account of the anti-democratic revolutions at the end of the fifth century certainly represents the view of their capacity for committing acts of institutional self-harm (5.2.2). Moreover, Aristophanes’ parody of decrees certainly also plays on a wider disillusionment in decrees as a tool of self-seeking politicians and a product of the short-sighted demos (5.3.2). But as we have seen, this portrayal of decree-­ making in a critique of democratic activity represents only one of a number of representations of the decree which occur in the literary sources. They reflect the poet’s belief that his audience would be sensitive enough to the language of decrees for it to engage them. The other perspective with which we opened discussion in this chapter – that of Athenian decrees as unfulfilled and inane – does not appear to have taken root in the literary traditions about decrees. When we move into the fourth-century parts of Xenophon’s Hellenika and the works of fourth-century Atthidographers, we find accounts of decrees playing a role in the unfolding of narrative accounts of the past, with little to suggest they support a critique of democratic activity (5.1.2). In the Suppliants of Aeschylus too we see the enactment of the decree of the Argive assembly as a pivotal development in the plot as well as a reflection on the responsibility of Pelasgos for its enactment (Chapter 5.3.1 above). When we turn to Plutarch, we find decrees deployed extensively in biographical narration, as a way of characterising the political activity of individuals (5.2.3; cf. 5.4.2).175 We see that authors working on a range of genres were sensitive to engaging with the debate about the balance of responsibility between proposer and demos. The potential 174 Translations of Cicero are those of MacDonald 1977. 175 For the deployment of the form and language of the Greek decree as an empowering narrative tool in Luke’s Preface, see Moles 2011.

literary representations of decrees

239

that decrees offered in the construction of arguments (deployed extensively by Attic orators in political and litigious contexts; see Chapters 1 and 2 above) may have been influential upon the tendency among biographers to draw upon the evidence of decrees in apologetic works and literary characterisation. It may have informed also later rhetorical writers who fabricated decrees as a way of showing how they might be used in persuasion (Chapters 5.4.4 and 5.5 above) We can observe how certain antiquarians, such as Krateros and later Athenaios (Chapter 5.4.3 above), developed a taste for exotic decrees and inscriptions, an interest stimulated perhaps by the fourth-century Athenians’ own fabrication of patriotic documents relating to the Persian war era (5.4.1). Athenaios’ interest in obscure and extraordinary Athenian decrees might be viewed as an expression of interest in idiosyncratic things from the classical period and of the view that an audience of intellectuals would have been sufficiently interested in the history of decrees to be entertained by them. But this survey of the occurrence of decrees in literature suggests also a distinct tradition, which had its origins in the fabrication of mock-decrees of Old Comedy: Aristophanes appears to have drawn a great deal of humour from the assumption that his audience would have been familiar with the language of decrees. And this presentation of decrees may have been among the forces that gave rise to the classicising enthusiasm of Aelius Aristides, Athenaios and Lucian (Chapters 5.4 and 5.6 above) for decrees. What we see, therefore, is that the representation of decrees in post-classical literature builds upon several tendencies of the classical period: the deployment of decrees in logical argumentation, in accounts of historical narratives, and their critique and parody. Decrees, therefore, in the classical period and beyond, were a rich source of literary engagement for a wide range of writers; moreover, we have seen clear evidence for a fertile tradition in elaborating and fabricating stories about decrees. These provide a clear indication of the broad cultural significance of the ancient Athenian decree and its legacy. What was originally a political institution was transformed, over the course of antiquity, into a theme of great cultural significance.

Conclusion

Are there any decrees or any laws which have not brought him money? … Would you tell me, men of the jury, do you believe that he proposed that there should be upkeep at the prytaneion and a statue set up in the agora for Diphilos as a present? Or that he made Chairephilos, Pheidon, Pamphilos, Pheidippos, and even Epigenes and Konon the bankers citizens as a present? Or to set up bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros, and Gorgippos, the tyrants from the Bosporos, from whom he receives a thousand medimnoi of wheat per year, this man who will straightaway allege that there is nowhere for him to flee? (Din. 1.43; cf. DD 227, 234, 235, 236)

Thus, Dinarchus, in his speech against Demosthenes attacking his involvement in the scandal arising out of the receipt of the fugitive Macedonian treasurer Harpalos and his monies, alleged that his opponent took bribes in return for proposing honorific decrees, and implied that he put his own interests above those of the Athenians. This is a rich passage for what it says about several decrees apparently proposed by Demosthenes the orator over the course of his political career; moreover, it demonstrates also how allegations about the motivations of decrees might be used in an attack on an individual. It is, however, a piece of evidence that evokes two methodological challenges: that concerning the ‘hard’ data for the content of Athenian decrees and that concerning the ‘soft’ data concerning the political interpretations of decree-proposers’ intentions. The first of these methodological challenges is treated over the course of the Inventory of Decrees (Volume 1 Inventory A). It concerns the question of how to move from the literary sources’ claims about the content of decrees to the reconstruction of the likely substance of decrees as they were resolved by the assembly at a point in the fourth century (the ‘hard’ data). The literary evidence suggests that there was a certain degree of attention paid by those with political interests to the substance and language of decrees, but that argumentation was based not always on close familiarity with their texts but rather on awareness of their approximate content. This means that, with some exceptions, it is rarely possible to confidently reconstruct the precise wording of decrees; on many occasions it is hard to be certain that the testimonia amount to secure evidence for a decree (see Volume 1 Inventory B). Yet our problems are mitigated by the fact that orators were aware that their audiences had some – perhaps sketchy – awareness of the substance of specific decrees: this meant that they generally avoided making false claims about the content of decrees. Moreover, 240

conclusion

241

the fact that our literary sources (chiefly oratory) were very much interested in offering ‘soft’ data in the form of accounts of the intentions behind decrees and their consequences is what enables us to ask the questions pursued in Volume 2 about the deployment and reception of decrees in fourth-century Athens. The second methodological challenge is confronted in Volume 2 and concerns the interpretation of this ‘soft’ data just identified. To put it crudely, our sources claim that the proposal of individual decrees was either aligned with the interests of the community (in other words, it followed the informal constraints of decree-making), or alternatively, that a decree was proposed for self-interested reasons which were against the interests of the city-community. While it has been possible to identify individuals such as Demosthenes (and others, including Androtion, Aristophon and Demades) who proposed decrees that would have obliged their associates in other communities, such self-interested explanations of decrees were never acknowledged by proposers, even if some politicians, like Demosthenes, were visibly eager to draw symbolic capital from accounts of their own proposals. The subjectivity of accounts of decrees is what stands in the way of achieving secure knowledge of the balances of interests that were at stake in the proposals behind them. But yet the variegated nature of the soft data is what allows us to write a history of the decrees of the fourth-century Athenians which uncovers the cultural status of this institution and its legacy and enriches the picture of decrees that can be drawn out on the basis of the epigraphical record. Over the course of this volume I have drawn upon epigraphical and literary texts to develop a set of interrelated perspectives on Athenian decrees of the fourth century. I have made a case for both their practical and symbolic significance to ancient Athenian politics and have argued that their profile in epigraphical and literary contexts indicates their cultural significance to the ancient Athenians in the fourth century and to Greek writers in the classical period and beyond. The foundation of the decree’s status, in ancient Athens, was the collective acknowledgement (which had its roots in formal rules but which was enunciated in literary contexts and epigraphical formulae) that they were authoritative decisions of the Athenian demos; yet responsibility for them could be placed alternatively upon the shoulders of their proposers. The trusted status of decrees as accurate records of past decisions, sometimes underscored by monumental presence, meant that they offered value as proofs in the Athenian courts and elsewhere. This was an element of the ‘decreeminded’ mentality among the politically active in fourth-century Athens. Accordingly, decrees and stories about them were available for manifold uses in the context of arguments made in the Athenian lawcourts and other institutional contexts. Decrees – both contemporary and historic – could be used to

242

decrees of fourth-century athens

support paradigmatic narratives about civic unity and accounts of the actions of the Athenian people in the face of crisis; decrees were drawn on to support defences of, or attacks upon, individual political records. But in a number of speeches – especially those related to challenges to laws or decrees – orators focussed closely upon decrees in the construction of their arguments. In contrast to the established laws (in particular those associated with ancient lawgivers), contemporary decrees were frequently prone to criticism and hostility: their status was therefore potentially unstable and they were generally viewed as subordinate to laws. However, decrees that were associated with bygone eras, preserved in collective memory and then instantiated in inscribed versions (or accounts of inscribed versions), such as the decree against Arthmios or that associated with Demophantos, appear to have acquired a more resilient status by being deployed as paradigms of the moral standards put in front of Athenian audiences at the assembly and lawcourts. Orators made claims which implied the perception of a timeless relevance of decrees to their arguments; such a perception of institutional continuity and stability with respect to the system of decree-enactment assured their sustained high status in setting moral standards. Arguments built on decrees, therefore, went well beyond the ideology of them as pertinent to only short-term and specific matters: they demonstrate one way in which decrees could be used to posit informal rules. Accounts of activities related to decrees were extensively used as evidence in the character evaluation of their proposers and challengers. These assessments consisted alternatively of praise or criticism; they were formulated sometimes in terms of the relationship of decrees to established values such as honour, shame and reciprocal exchange but also in terms of their benefit to the community. While we have encountered expressions of a consensus that decrees which had been carefully enacted using the appropriate channels possessed a high level of authority, new decrees were prone to attack by way of the graphe paranomon process, and the value of other past decrees enacted within living memory too was prone to criticism. The readiness to attack and criticise decrees, then, was an aspect of decree-minded political activity: whereas Athenian citizens conformed with it by proposing decrees and boasting about them, they could also object to others’ associations with decrees. Another aspect of the decree-minded mentality we have identified among the fourth-century Athenians consisted of the readiness of a broad spectrum of citizens to undertake the proposal of decrees; this activity appears not to have required any great degree of expertise beyond that which would be gleaned through civic activity or discussions with other Athenians. If it is appropriate to talk about an expertise in decree-related activity, we should think of it as

conclusion

243

a specialism which was within reach of the broad spectrum of Athenian citizens who were involved in some capacity in civic institutions. As argued in Chapter 5 above, the fact that Aristophanes frequently reached to the language of decrees in the production of humour strongly suggests that he presumed his audience was familiar enough with such language to find it funny. The relative accessibility, therefore, of activity relating to the proposal of decrees was an important expression of the positive liberty of the Athenian citizen. While we have found much evidence in the literary texts for broad engagement with knowledge about decrees, it has not always been clear how far that engagement was founded upon detailed accounts of their texts. With some exceptions, orators and historians appear to cite decrees in the hope of making general or moral points rather than building detailed arguments on the basis of close readings of their texts. Accordingly, debates about Athenian decrees that occur in literary texts tend to focus on the broad interpretation of their relevance to a case rather than arguments about close detail (though, as we have seen, there are a number of disputes that took place in the fourth century which concerned the legality of specific provisions within a decree). This phenomenon leads us back to a point already made: that knowledge of, and ideas about, decrees, was something that circulated socially rather than being based on autopsy of documentary authority. Knowledge about decrees circulated through both institutional and non-institutional routes, more often than not through human interaction in the form of socialisation or official activity carried out by magistrates. A small number of decrees (those leading to the award of statues in recognition of outstanding service to the Athenians) gained a reputation for offering persuasive value in the courts; this sustained a general awareness, rather than detailed knowledge, of them. The archive in the agora offered a source of authoritative texts; it is likely that it provided a resource for those litigants who wanted to have the texts of decrees read aloud in the lawcourts, but we should not pretend that it was a starting-point for awareness of decrees: those who used the archive in this way probably knew what they were looking for. It is evident also that the Athenians passed many more decrees than those which they inscribed, and that the epigraphical habit was about monumentalising those Athenian decree-making activities which had enduring significance rather than providing a comprehensive archive of them. References to inscribed versions of decrees in the literary sources were made on those occasions when orators wished to exploit the persuasive capital offered by knowledge of a physical version of a text. When it comes to inscriptions, ancient authors appear to have been attracted very much to celebrity inscriptions of bygone eras: relatively little attention was paid to the more everyday types of decree that we encounter in the epigraphical record.

244

decrees of fourth-century athens

The emphasis among decrees preserved in both the literary and epigraphical records on interactions with individuals and communities beyond Athens (in the shape of alliances and honorific decrees) is indicative of the importance of decrees for Athenian engagement with the world beyond Attica. Both literary sources and epigraphical testimonia suggest the view that some Athenians believed that there was a significant audience of non-Athenians who were interested in their decrees; the size and makeup of these audiences in reality was, however, heavily contingent on the nature of the decree and also Athens’ geopolitical standing at the time. Dissemination of knowledge of Athenian decrees beyond Attica was undertaken through a range of means. It is clear that the epigraphical publication of decrees concerning non-Athenians had monumental significance and was important for Athenian expressions of hope that future benefactors might pay attention to their honorands. Moreover, the inscription of honours was prized by some non-Athenians, but it is clear that it was not the primary medium for the spreading of news about decrees. The richness of the decree as a social practice is demonstrated when we consider in combination the political and literary contexts in which they loom large. Our literary sources indicate a much wider context for the deployment of knowledge about decrees: they could be drawn upon in the manufacture of (real and hypothetical) arguments in rhetorical contexts, in the construction of historical narrative or biographical apology, in the recreation of particular scenarios, and in discourses about, and critiques and parodies of, political behaviour and morality. Literary authors elaborate, imagine, or even fabricate decrees, emphasising their rhetorical and political, or even their comic significance, but not always their physically inscribed presence. Their widespread presence in performative genres suggests that authors would have presumed the Athenian audience’s familiarity with the language of decrees and the process of decree-making. How can such a legacy be accounted for? In historical terms, despite the preoccupation of Athenian decrees with the pursuit of interstate relations, the decree-making activity of the fourth-century democratic Athenians evidently failed to restore the geopolitical standing of the fifth-century city-state. But the assembly’s perseverance with decree-making as a primary instrument of diplomacy (in terms of alliances, acts of aggression, and honorific transactions) assured them a prominent place in narratives about Athenian politics and democracy. Moreover, the symbolic value of decrees to individual political legacies meant that they became lodged not only in narratives of Athenian politics but also biographical accounts of individuals. We can explain the perseverance of the decree as an institution by reference to the fact that it provided for the Athenians a way of making decisions and reacting to particular scenarios

conclusion

245

while also opening up routes of political self-promotion for those who sought them. At this point it is appropriate to recall the ‘path-dependence’ dynamic of Historical Institutionalist thought which was explored in the Introduction above: the institution of the decree appears to be one that has considerable influence on guiding the behaviour of self-interested political actors. Aware of the significance of the decree in Athenian history and incentivised by the potential rewards that decree-making offered, politicians and orators themselves participated in the decree-minded mentality by engaging in the proposal of, and attacks on, decrees and by telling stories about them. And in turn their legacy precipitated the emergence of a wider cultural interest in decrees. Finally, it remains to consider the broader implications of a decree-centred approach to ancient Athens. Its conclusions are relevant to understanding the nature of epigraphical publication: we have confirmed that it was not the case that all Athenian decrees were automatically inscribed and that the decision to write up particular decrees on stone was one which was supplementary to the original decree. Some Athenians took an interest in inscribed decrees, but their attention was drawn primarily to ‘celebrity’ inscriptions. This investigation has emphasised important distinctions between the inscribed and literary views of decrees: the default setting for the erection of those Athenian decrees of the fourth century which were written up on stone stelai was their acropolis, a cluster of sanctuaries and the spiritual home of their city. In an important sense, the setting up of an inscription on the acropolis was a practice saturated with religious significance: decisions of the Athenian demos were accordingly granted supernatural protection, and its decisions were set out in front of the eyes of the deities. The literary sources, however, offer us a very different insight: the act of making a decree is one that offers to bestow upon its proposer a type of fame. But this fame does not follow automatically as the result of the processes of decree-making: it was a kind of capital that was available for extraction in contexts of political persuasion and invective; moreover, association with a decree was at times turned against those associated with a particular measure. As already noted, the status of the decree was potentially unstable and was open to debate. In terms of democratic activity, our investigation demonstrates the centrality of foreign policy and honorific transactions to decree-making activity at the Athenian assembly; accordingly, such subjects must have taken up a considerable portion of the time dedicated to discussion undertaken at the council and the assembly. In terms of the rules of politics, the decree-making system is evidently one which created an informally regulated system of accountability: both proposer and the demos were liable to be called to account for any decree and its consequences. But it was also a system which allowed individuals a route

246

decrees of fourth-century athens

of political self-promotion by way either of advocating decrees or by attacking them. This form of self-promotion was evidently extensively deployed by some orators, but the breadth of attested proposers indicates that less prominent citizens were able to partake in the decree-making system. Moreover, we have argued that the type of expertise involved in engagement with the rhetoric of decrees was one which could be built up through engagement with civic institutions. We have detected a tendency in the literary sources to associate the process of decree-making and other activities relating to decrees with the problems of democracy, including the capriciousness of the demos and its failure to act on decrees that it had enacted. But we can note also that according to most critics, decrees and the decree-making system appear not to be the cause of democracy’s problems but an expression of the wider issue of being ruled by the people who could change their mind and were swayed by proposers who could be guided by selfish interests. Indeed, decrees of the Athenian assembly amounted to an institution which permitted the Athenians to address crises with decisions agreed by the people; in the medium term, even if the system did not allow them to restore their former supremacy over the Aegean, it enabled them to adapt to the emergence of new and different forms of geopolitical situation at the dawn of the Hellenistic period. Yet within the period of this study, only in the first year of the restored democracy do the Athenian people appear to have deployed decrees as a way of initiating far-reaching institutional change; perhaps this goes some way to explaining the stability of the democratic decision-making system of fourth-century Athens.

Appendix 1 Proposers of Decrees at the Athenian Assembly 403/2–322/11

This inventory lists named proposers of decrees at the assembly in the period 403/2–322/1. It updates that of Hansen 1989: 34–72; epigraphical references are based on those of Lambert 2018: 205–23. Cases in which attribution to a particular proposer is uncertain are marked with an asterisk (*). Where there is uncertainty about the authenticity of a particular example as a decree, or other serious problems with its identification, this is indicated with a dagger (†). Literary attestations are followed by epigraphical attestations.

Aleximachos Charinou Pelekes PA 545, PAA 120375 (1 literary decree) D132 Decree that an envoy coming from Kersobleptes should partake in the oaths for the Peace of Philokrates; date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6; Aeschin. 2.83–5.

Alkimachos eg Myrrinouttes PA 622, PAA 121995 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 331 Honours for Nikostratos; date: 335/4.

Andokides Leogorou Kydathenaieus PA 828, PAA 127290, APF (1 literary decree) D26† Proposal of peace with Spartans (rejected; authenticity doubtful); date: 392/1; Hypothesis to Andocides 3 On the Peace (= FGrH328 F149b).

Androtion Andronos Gargettios PA 913 + 915, PAA 129125, APF (3 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D57 The repair of processional vessels; date: 368/7 or later; Dem. 22.69–70. 1 Note: this list does not include decrees of the council, which are included in Hansen 1989: 34–72. See Volume 1 Appendix 1.

247

248

appendix 1

D88 Decree arranging the recovery of arrears of eisphora; date: 356/5; Dem. 24.160. D89 Decree for honours for council of 356/5; date: 355/4; Dem. 22.5. IG II2 216-17 Concerning temple treasures; date: before 365/4. IG II3 1 298 Honorific decree for Bosporan rulers; date: 347/6.

Antimedon PA 1134, PAA 134485 (1 literary decree) D212 Decree for the people of Tenedos; date: before 340; Dem. 58.35.

Apollodoros Pasionos Acharneus PA 1411, PAA 142545, APF (1 literary decree) D115 Decree (probouleumatic) concerning the theoric fund; date: spring 348; [Dem.] 59.4.

Archedemos Archiou Paionides PA 2325, PAA 209125 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 296 Treaty with, or honours for, the Echinaioi; date: 349/8.

Archedikos Naukritou Lamptreus PA 2336, PAA 209325 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 484 Honours for friends of the King and Antipater; date: 324–322/1.

Archinos ek Koiles PA 2526, PAA 213880 (2 literary decrees) D15 Decree honouring those who returned from Phyle; date: 403/2 or 401/0; Aeschin. 3.187. D16 Decree concerning the Ionian alphabet; date: 403/2; Scholiast to Dionysius Thrax (Hilgard Grammatici Graeci, vol. 1.3. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901, 183) lines 16–20.

Aristion PA 1734, PAA 166265 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 72 Honorary decree; date: 378/7.

Aristogeiton Kydimachou PA 1775, PAA 168145 (1 literary decree) D237 Decree concerning the punishment of those stealing sacred garments; date: 335–330; [Dem.] 25.87.

appendix 1

249

Aristokrates PA 1897, PAA 170830 (1 literary decree) D94 Decree of protection for Charidemos; date: 353/2 or 352/1; Dem. 23.16.

Aristonikos Aristotelous Marathonios PA 202 + 2028, PAA 174070 (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D156 Decree honouring Demosthenes; date: late 341/early 340; Dem. 18.83. IG II2 1623 line 282 Decree on pirates; date: 335/4. Note: The decree on pirates is presented in the accounts of the naval epimeletai as proposed jointly by ‘Lykourgos Bouta(des)’ and Aristonikos: IG II2 1623 line 280–3.

Aristophon Aristophanous Azenieus PA 2108, PAA 176170, APF (7 literary decrees; 5 epigraphical decrees) D9 Decree to re-enact a Solonian law concerning the xenikon; date: 403/2; Dem. 57.32. D12 Proposal concerning the repayment of debt to Gelarchos; date: 403/2; Dem. 20.149. D66 Proposal relating to Keos; date: late 360s; Schol. Aeschin 1.64 Dilts 145. D67 Decree concerning the mobilization of triremes; date: 24th Metageitnion, 362/1; [Dem.] 50.3–7. D91 Decree appointing commission of inquiry; date: before 353/2; Dem. 24.11. D215–216 Two decrees formulating policy towards Philip; date: 346–338; Dem. 18.75. IG II2 111 Relations with Ioulis; date: 363/2. IG II2 118 Concerning Poteidaia; date: 361/0. IG II2 121 Unknown content; date: 357/6. IG II2 130 Proxeny for Lachares; date: 355/4. IG II3 1 307 Honours for Kephallenians; date: 343/2. Note: Aristophon is said to have been acquitted 75 times for making illegal proposals (Aeschin. 3.194), which suggests that Aeschines was able to make a credible claim about him as an extremely prolific proposer of decrees. Two fragments of Hypereides’ speech against Aristophon for making an illegal proposal survive: Jensen FF. 41, 44.

Aristoteles Marathonios PA 2065, PAA 174985 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 43 Decree on Second Athenian Confederacy; date: 378/7.

250

appendix 1

Aristoxenos Kephisodotou PA 2044, PAA 174440 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 347 Honours for Amphis of Andros; date: 332/1.

Astyphilos Philagrou Halaieus PA 2662 + 266 + 2664, PAA 223310 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 42 Alliance with Methymna; date: 378/7. Agora 16.42 Unknown content; date: 378/7.

Athenodoros PA 259, PAA 110940 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 26 Decree concerning honours for Iphitos; date: 394–387.

Athenodoros PA 260, PAA 110945 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 47 Concerning the Asklepieion; date: early fourth century.

Autolykos P--- PA 2746, PAA 239810 (1 epigraphical decree in the form of an amendment) IG II2 107 Amendment concerning Mytilene; date: 368/7.

Blepyros Peithandrou Paionides PA 2881, PAA 267030 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 189 Amendment: subject unknown; date: c. 353/2.

Brachyllos Bathyllou Erchieus PA 2928, PAA 268840 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 306 Honorific decree; date: 343/2.

Chairedemos PA 15112 + 15113, PAA 971980 (1 literary decree) D85 Decree concerning collection of naval equipment; date: 357/6; Dem. 47.19.

Charikleides PA 15396, PAA 982760 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 1673 line 9 Decree of unknown content; date: 333/2.

appendix 1

251

Chairionides Lysaniou Phlyeus PA 15269, PAA 978120 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 338 Honours for Pytheas; date: 333/2.

Demades Demeou Paianieus PA 3263, PAA 306085, APF (9 (or more) literary decrees; 14 epigraphical decrees2) D171 Proposal of peace and alliance with Philip; date: late 338; Demades; [Demades’] On the Twelve Years 9. D172 Decree relating to common peace and Athenian membership in the League of Corinth; date: late 338; Pl. Phoc. 16.4–5. *D173 Award of proxeny-status and citizenship for Antipater; date: autumn 338; Harpokration, s.v. ‘Alkimachos’. D177 Decree awarding proxeny-status to Euthykrates of Olynthos; date: 338– 336; Hypereides F76 Jensen. *D178 Award of proxeny-status to Alkimachos; date: Gamelion 337/6; Harpokration, s.v. ‘Alkimachos’. D180 Decree granting honours (statue, citizenship, and crown) for Philip of Macedon; date: summer 337 and 336; Demades [Demades’] On the Twelve Years 9. D185 Decree for the election of ten ambassadors to be sent to Alexander; date: 335/4; Arrian Anab. 1.10.2–3. D186 Decree responding to Alexander’s demands for statesmen; date: 335/4; D.S. 17.15.3. D188 Proposal of peace with Alexander; date: 335/4; [Demades’], On the Twelve Years 14. D197 Decree to deify and set up a statue of Alexander; date: autumn 324; Aelian Hist. Misc. 5.12. D201 Decree sending envoys to Antipater; date: after Metageitnion 322; Plu. Phoc. 26.3–5. *D202 Decree imposing death or exile on anti-Macedonian politicians; date: Metageitnion–Boedromion 322; Plu. Dem. 28.2. IG II3 1 321 Content unknown; date: 337/6. IG II3 1 322 Honours for a courtier of Philip II; date: 337/6. IG II3 1 326 Concerning Lemnos; date: 337/6. IG II3 1 330 Honorific decree; date: 335/4. IG II3 1 334 Content unknown; date: 334/3. IG II3 1 335 Honours for Amyntor son of Demetrios; date: 334/3. IG II3 1 346 Honours for Aristeides; date: 332/1. 2 Brun 2000: 176-7 lists also those decrees of the post 322/1 period.

252

appendix 1

IG II3 1 356 Honours for a Larisan; date: 329/8. IG II3 1 358 Honours for Eurylochos of Kydonia; date: 328/7. IG II2 1629 lines 859–69 (cf. 1628 339–49) Concerning sitonika; date: 326/5. IG II2 1627 lines 246–65 Multiple decrees concerning activity and support of triremes; date: 326/5. IG II2 1629 lines 516–43 Concerning vessels bringing produce from Chalkis; date: 325/4. IG II3 1 929 lines 9–16 Honours for a (Theban?) flute-player; date: c. 325. IG II3 1 384 Honours for a foreigner; date: 322/1.

Demeas Demadou Paianieus PA 3322, PAA 306870, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 480 Honours for a Plataean; date: c. 325–322/1.

Demetrios Euktemonos Aphidnaios PA 3392, PAA 310410 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 348 Honours for Phanodemos; date: 332/1.

Demomeles Demonos Paianieus PA 3554, PAA 317410, APF (1 literary decree) D166a Decree of honours for Demosthenes; date: 339/8; Dem. 18.223.

Demon Demomelous Paianeus PA 3736; PAA 322730, APF (1 literary decree) D200a–b Decree recalling Demosthenes; date: 323/2; Plu. Dem. 27.6.

Demophantos PA 3659, PAA 320600 (1 literary decree) D19 Decree protecting democracy; date: 403/2 or later; Lycurg. 1.127.

Demophilos PA 3664, PAA 320855 (1 literary decree) D137 Scrutiny of the citizen body (introduced probably by decree); date: 346/5; Scholiast to Aeschin 1.77 Dilts 169b.

Demophilos Demophilou Acharneus PA 3675, PAA 321330, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 419 Honours for an Amphipolitan; date: c. 340–320.

appendix 1

253

Demosthenes Demokleous Lamptreus PA 3593, PAA 318530 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II3 1 355 Honours for managers of Amphiaraia; date: 329/8. IG II3 1 367 Honours for Herakleides of Salamis; date: 325/4.

Demosthenes Demosthenous Paianieus PA 3597, PAA 318625, APF (39 or 40 literary decrees; 1 epigraphical decree) D108 Proposal on mobilisation against Philip; date 352/1 or 350; Dem. 4.33. D124 Decree praising Aristodemos; date: 347/6; Aeschin. 2.17. D126 Decree calling for truce for Philip’s envoys; date: late Anthesterion/ Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; Aeschin. 2.53. D127 Decree organising meetings of the assembly; date: Anthesterion/ Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; Aeschin. 2.67. D128 Decree honouring Athenian envoys; date: Anthesterion/Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; Aeschin. 2.45–6. D139 Decree proposing an embassy to be dispatched to the Peloponnese; date: 344; Dem. 18.79. D145 Decree to execute Anaxinos of Oreos; date: 343; Aeschin. 3.223–4. D146 Crowning of an embassy; date: 343/2; Aeschin. 3.83: στεφανώσας τοὺς μετὰ Ἀριστοδήμου εἰς Θετταλίαν καὶ Μαγνησίαν παρὰ τὰς τῆς εἰρήνης συνθήκας πρεσβεύσαντας. D147 Decree of alliance with Chalkis; date: 344/3 or 343/2; Aeschin. 3.92–3. D148a Proposal for ambassadors to go to Euboia; date: 343/2; Dem. 18.79. D148b (= 148a?) Decree for ambassadors to go to Eretria and Oreos; date: 343/2 or summer 341; Aeschin. 3.100–102. D149 Alliance with Achaians and others; date: 343/2; Dem. 18.237. D151 Alliance with Byzantines; date: spring 341; Dem. 18.302. D152 Alliance with the Abydians; date: spring 341; Dem. 18.302. D154 Proposal for expedition to Oreos; date: summer 341; Dem. 18.79. D155 Decree dispatching expedition to Euboia; date: summer 341; Dem. 18.79. D158 Proposal to dispatch forces to Byzantion, Chersonese, and other places; date: summer 340; Dem. 18.88. D159 Decree of mobilisation against Philip; date: 340/39; Dion. Hal. ad Amm. 1.11.741 (= FGrH 328 F55a). D160 Decree establishing nomothetai; date: 340; Dem. 18.105. D161 Decree concerning the attendance of the Athenian representatives at the meetings of the Delphian Amphictyony; date: autumn 340/spring 339; Aeschin. 3.125–8.

254

appendix 1

D162 Decree about marching to Eleusis and sending envoys to Thebes; date: 339/8; Dem. 18.179. D163 Decree of alliance with the Thebans; date: spring–late 339; Aeschin. 3.142–3. D164 Decree for transfer of funds to the stratiotic fund; date 339/8; Dion. Hal. To Ammaeus 1.11.741f (= FGrH 328 F56a). D169 Decree(s) for military improvements; date: autumn 338; Dem. 18.248. D170 Decree for dispatch of embassies and organisation of citizens; date: August 338; Din. 1.78. D176 Decree prescribing meetings of the tribes for the repair of the walls; date: 29th Thargelion 338/7; Aeschin. 3.27. D182 Honours for Pausanias; date: late 337/6 or early 336/5; Plu. Dem. 22.1. D184 Alliance with Thebans and preparations for war; date: 335/4; Aeschin. 3.239. D193 Decree detaining Harpalos; date: early summer 324; Din. 1.68. D195 Decree ordering the Areopagus to investigate politicians involved in the Harpalos affair; date: summer 324; Din. 1.4 D198 Proposal that only established deities be worshipped; date: 324/3; Din. 1.94. *D203 Award of citizenship for Antiphanes; date: between 388 and 330; Anon de Com. 12 p. 9 (Kaibel). D206 Decree of unknown content; date: 353–340; Dem. 58.36. D214 Decree empowering the Areopagos; date: 340s or later; Din. 1.62–3. D227 Bronze statues in the agora of Pairisades, Satyros and Gorgippos, the tyrants from the Bosporos, and possible alliance; date: 330s or earlier; Din. 1.43. D231 Proposal of citizenship for Taurosthenes and Kallias of Chalkis; date: c. 341/0 or early 330s; Aeschin. 3.85. D234 Decree of sitesis and statue for Diphilos; date: c. 334–324; Din. 1.43. D235 Decree(s) making Chairephilos and his sons citizens; date: 330s; Din. 1.43. D236 Decree(s) making the bankers Konon and Epigenes citizens; date: 330s–320s; Din. 1.43. D242 Proposal of unknown content; date: 340s–320s; Dionysius of Halicarnassus On Dinarchus 11 p. 317 2 R. IG II3 1 312 Honours for a Megarian; date: 340/39.

Demotion PA 3646, PAA 320127 (1 literary decree) *D63 Alliance with Arcadians; date: 366/5; Xen. Hell. 7.4.2.

appendix 1

255

Diogeiton PA 3790, PAA 325585 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 152 Honours for Timaphenides; date: c. 370.

Diopeithes Diopeithous Sphettios PA 4328, PAA 363695, APF (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D217 Decree formulating policy towards Philip; date: 346–338; Dem. 18.69–70. IG II3 1 302 Honours for Abderites; date: 346/5.

Diophantos Phrasikleidou Myrrinousios PA 4435, PAA 367500, APF (3 epigraphical decrees) IG II3 1 324 Honours for Euenor of Akarnania; date: 337/6. IG II3 1 324 Honours for Euenor of Akarnania; date: 322/1. IG II3 1 325 Honours for an Athenian; date: 337/6.

Diophantos Thrasymedous Sphettios PA 4438, PAA 367640 (1 literary decree; 2 epigraphical decrees) D105 Decree celebrating a military victory; date: late summer 352; Dem. 19.86. IG II2 106 Honours for Koroibos; date: 368/7. IG II2 107 Honours for envoys from Mytilene; date: 368/7.

Emmenides PA 4687, PAA 387540 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 1544 line 30 Relating to Eleusinion; date: 332/1 or earlier.

[Father of] Epichares Cholleides APF pp. 58–9 (1 literary decree): D209 Decree awarding sitesis to Charidemos; date: 357–340; Dem. 58.30.

Epichares PA 4976, PAA 399220 (1 epigraphical decree in the form of an amendment) IG II2 188 Amendment to a proxeny decree; date: 353/2.

Epikrates Menestratou Palleneus PA 4909, PAA 394105, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IDélos I 88 line 15 Amendment to an honorary decree for Pythodoros; date: 369/8.

256

appendix 1

Epikrates ---otetou Palleneus PA 4863, PAA 393525, APF (1 literary decree) *D93 Decree concerning establishment of nomothetai; date: 11th of Hekatombaion of 353/2; Dem. 24.26–9.

Epiteles Soinautou Pergasethen PA 4963, PAA 398510 (1 epigraphical decree IG II3 1 375 Honours for Lapyris of Kleonai; date: 323/2.

Euboulides Antiphilou Halimousios PA 5323, PAA 427825 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 302 Honours for Abderites; date: 346/5.

Euboulos Spintharou Probalisios PA 5369, PAA 428495 (3 or 4 literary decrees) *D98 Decree exiling Xenophon; date: 399–394/3; Diogenes Laertius 2.59 (= Istros FGrH 334 F32). Proposer Euboulos or Euboulides. D101 Decree recalling Xenophon; date: 386 or 371–362; Diogenes Laertius 2.59 (= Istros FGrH 334 F32). D116 Decree dispatching envoys across Greece; date: 348/7; Dem. 19.303–4: ὁ μὲν γράφων τὸ ψήφισμ’ ’Εὔβουλος ἦν. D218 Decree formulating policy towards Philip; date 346–338; Dem. 18.69–70.

Euetion Autokleidou Sphettios PA 5463, PAA 430885, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 359 Honours for priest of Asklepios; date: 328/7.

Euktemon PA 5784, PAA 438085 (1 literary decree) D92 Decree ordering the collection of money; date: before Skirophorion 354/3; Dem. 24.11–14.

Euphiletos Euphiletou Kephiseus PA 6054, PAA 450035, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 378 Honours for Euphron of Sikyon; date: 323/2.

appendix 1

257

Eurippides or Heurippides Adeimantou Myrrinousios PA 5949 + 5955 + 5956, PAA 444540, APF (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D97 Decree concerning the eisphora tax; date: before 393; Scholiast on Ar. Eccl. 825. IG II2 145 Honours for Eukles; date: 403/2.

Euthymachos PA 5624, PAA 433505 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 138 Honours for Xennias; date: 353/2.

Euxitheos PA 5901, PAA 441185 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 60 Honours for Xanthippos; date: before 378/7.

Exekestides PA 4710, PAA 388085 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 116 Alliance with Thessaly; date: 361/0. SEG LIX 107 Concerning Thessalians; date: 361/0.

Glaukon PA 3011, PAA 276730 (1 literary decree) D81 Decree sending embassy to Kersobleptes; date 358/7; Dem. 23.172.

Gnathon Lakiades PAA 279215 (1 epigraphical decree) Agora XVI 38 Unknown content; date: early 4th century.

Hagnonides Nikoxenou Pergasethen PA 176, PAA 107455 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 1629 lines 13–15 Concerning naval equipment; date: 325/4.

Hegemon PAA 480755 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 385 Honorific decree; date: 322/1.

Hegesandros Hegesiou Sounieus PA 6307, PAA 480930, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 123 Concerning Andros; date: 357/6.

258

appendix 1

Hegesippos Hegesiou Sounieus PA 6351, PAA 481555, APF (4 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D87 Decree of alliance with the Phokians; date: 356/5 or 355/4; Aeschin. 3.118. D140 Decree in response to Philip’s ambassador concerning amendments to the peace; date: 344/3; [Dem.] 7.18–19. D144 Proposal to respond to Philip’s letter; date: late 344/3; [Dem.] 7.46. D219 Decree formulating policy towards Philip; date: 346-338; Dem. 18.75. IG II3 1 399 Treaty with Eretria; date: 348 or 343. IG II3 1 316 Honours for Akarnanians; date: 338/7.

Hierokleides Timostratou Alopekethen PA 7463, PAA 531940 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II3 1 294 Honours for Theogenes of Naukratis; date: 349/8. IG II3 1 297 Concerning Eleusis; date: 349/8.

Hieronymos Oikophelous Rhamnousios PA 7570, PAA 534235 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 469 Honours for Kallikratides; date: c. 330.

Hippochares Alopekethen PA 7670, PAA 539220 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 327 Honours for Phyleus; date: 336/5.

Hippostratos Etearchidou Palleneus PA 7669, PAA 539190 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 309 Concerning people of Elaious; date: 341/0.

Hypereides Glaukippou Kollyteus PA 13912, PAA 902110, APF (2, 3 or 4 literary decrees) D166b Modification of honours for Demosthenes; date: 339/8; [Plu.] X Or. 846a: ἐστεφανώθη. D167a Decree proposing that slaves, aliens and disenfranchised slaves be enfranchised; date: summer 338; Lycurg. 1.41.

appendix 1

259

D167b Decree to evacuate women and children from the countryside to within the walls and that the generals should appoint any Athenians or other residents to defence duties as they saw fit; date: summer 338; Lycurg. 1.16. D167c Decree providing that the boule of 500 should go to the Piraeus armed to meet for the protection of that harbour and that it should be ready to do whatever seemed to be in the people’s interests; date: summer 338; Lycurg. 1.36–7.

Kallias Hipponikou Alopekethen PA 7826, PAA 554500, APF (1 literary decree) D52 Proposal for peace put to the vote; date: 371; Did. in D. Col 7.71–4.

Kallikrates Charopodou Lamptreus PA 794 + 797 + 8213, PAA 556845 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II3 1 301 Honours for Kephisodotos; date: 346/5. IG II3 1 313 Concerning Tenedians; date: 340/39.

Kallippos Paianieus PA 8078, PAA 559430 (1 literary decree) D208 Decree concerning property in Kardia; date: 357–340; Dem. 7.42–3.

Kallisthenes PA 8090, PAA 559815 (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D135 Decree ordering the evacuation of Attica; date: 27th Skirophorion 346; Dem. 19.86. IG II2 127 Alliance with Ketriporis, Lyppeios and Grabos; date: 356/5.

Kallistratos Kallikratous Aphidnaios PA 815 + 812 + 8130, PAA 561575, APF (2 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D27 Decree impeaching ambassadors who negotiated with the Spartans; date 392/1 or 387/6; Dem. 19. 276–9. D55 Decree for armed assistance to the Lakedaimonians; date: 369/8; Xen. Hell. 6.5.49; [Dem.] 59.27. IG II2 84 Rider to honours for Polychartides and Alkibiades; date: 378–376. IG II2 107 Response to Mytilenean ambassadors; date: 369/8.

260

appendix 1

Kephalos Kollyteus PA 8277, PAA 566650 (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D44 Decree for armed intervention in Thebes; date: winter 379/8; Din. 1.39. IG II2 29 Rider to honours for Phanokritos; date: 387/6. Kephalos, according to Aeschines, boasted that he was the author of more decrees than any other Athenian, but had never been once indicted for making an illegal motion (Aeschin. 3.194).

Kephisodotos ek Kerameon PA 8331, PAA 567790 (2 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D56 Decree concerning the command of the forces in the alliance; date: 369/8; Xen. Hell. 7.1.14. *D82 Dispatch of force to Euboia (apparently by decree: Ar. Rhet. 1411a6–10); date 358/7; Dem. 8.74–5. Hesperia 8 (1939: 5–12) no. 3 Concerning Aetolian League; date: 367/6. IG II2 141 Honours for Straton of Sidon; date: c. 364.

Kephisodotos (not in PA, PAA 576485) (1 literary decree) D187 Decree granting statue and sitesis to Demades; date: 335/4; Din. 1.101.

Kephisophon Kallibiou Paianieus PA 8417, PAA 569315, APF (2 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D129 Decree dispatching Antiochos to an Athenian general; date: Anthesterion or Elaphebolion 1–4 347/6; Aeschin. 2.73. D220 Decree formulating policy towards Philip; date 346–338; Dem. 18.75. IG II3 1 306 Honours for boule; date: 343/2. IG II3 1 418 Rider to honours for Asklepiodoros; date: c. 340–320.

Kephisophon Lysiphontos Cholargeus PA 8419, PAA 569375 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 370 Dispatch to Adriatic; date: 325/4.

Kratinos PA 8752, PAA 584320 (3 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 109 Honours for Astykrates; date: 363/2. IG II2 134 Honorific decree; date: 354/3.

appendix 1

261

IG II2 172 Honours for Demochares; date: before 353/2.

Kritios PA 8798, PAA 585380 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 96 Alliance with Kerkyrians; date: 375/4.

Ktesiphon PA 8894, PAA 587570 (1 literary decree) D179 Decree of honorific award for Demosthenes; date: winter 337/6; Aeschin. 3.49.

Kydias PA 8924, PAA 588215 (1 literary decree) * D65 Decree sending cleruchs to Samos; date: 366/5; Arist. Rh. 1384b32–5.

Lykourgos Lykophronos Boutades PA 925 + 9247, PAA 611335, APF (up to 5 literary decrees; 7 epigraphical decrees) D190 Decree honouring Diotimos; date; 338/7 or 334/3; [Plu.] X Or. 844a. D230 Decree of honours for Neoptolemos; date: c. 338/7 or later; Dem. 18.114; [Plu.] X Or. 843f. D233 Proposal of unknown content; date: before 330; Hyp. Against Diondas, p. 3 line 19. *D240 Decree concerning piety; date: before 331; Lycurg. 1.146. *D241 Decree on the behaviour of priestesses; 330s–320s; Lycurg. Fr 51 ap. Suda s. v. ‘συσσημαίνεσθαι’. IG II3 1 329 Honorific decree; date: 336/5 or 335/4. IG II3 1 336 Honours for Diotimos; date: 334/3. IG II3 1 337 Concerning Kitian temple; date: 333/2. IG II3 1 345 Honours for a Plataean; date: 332/1. IG II3 1 352 Honours for Eudemos of Plataea; date: 330/29. IG II3 1 357 Honorific decree; date: 328/7. IG II3 1 432 Honours for Sopatros of Akragas; date: 337–325. The decree on pirates is presented in the accounts of the naval epimeletai as proposed jointly by ‘Lykourgos Bouta(des)’ and Aristonikos: IG II2 1623 lines 280–3.

Lysanias. Identity uncertain (1 epigraphical decree) SEG LXIII 74 Concerning Corcyra; date: 373/2?

262

appendix 1

Meidias Meidiou Anagyrasios PA 9720, PAA 637275, APF (1 literary decree) D136 Decree honouring Phokion; date: 24th Gamelion 346/5; [Plu.], X Or. 850b.

Melanopos Lachetos Aixoneus PA 9788, PAA 638765 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 145 Appointment of a herald; date: 366/5.

Menexenos PA 9972, PAA 644845 (2 epigraphical decrees, 1 in the form of an amendment) IG II2 141 Amendment to decree for Straton of Sidon; date: 364/3. IG II2 111 Arrangements for Ioulis on Keos; date: 363/2.

Moirokles Eleusinios PA 1040 + 10401, PAA 658480 (1 literary decree) D207 Decree against those who threaten merchants; date: 357–340; Dem. 58.56.

Monippides PA 10414, PAA 658780 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 7 Honours for Kleonymides; date: 403/2.

Nausikles Klearchou Oethen PA 10552, PAA 701680, APF (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decee) *D223 Decree of unknown content; interpretation of the passage is uncertain; date: after 338; Aeschin. 3.159. IG II2 1623 line 313 Decree concerning naval equipment; date: 334/3.

Nikomenes PA 10968, PAA 716940 (1 literary decree D14 Decree concerning citizenship; date: 403/2 or later; Schol in Aeschin, 1.39.

Nothippos Lysiou Diomeieus PA 11131, PAA 720955 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 351 Honours for Rheboulas; date: 331/0.

appendix 1

------, son of Oinobios of Rhamnous PAA 741140 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 204 Honours for Pellanians; date: 344/3.

Pandios PA 11575, PAA 763635 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 103 Honours for Dionysios; date: 369/8. IG II2 105 Alliance with Dionysios; date: 368/7.

Periandros Polyaratou Cholargeus PA 11800, PAA 772185, APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 112 Alliance with Peloponnesian cities; date: 362/1.

Phanias PA 14010, PAA 915070 (1 literary decree) D99 Decree of unknown content; date: c. 400-380.

Phanodemos Diyllou Thymaitades PA 14033, PAA 915640 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 349 Crowning of Amphiaraos; date: 332/1.

Philagros PA 14203, PAA 921960 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 2 Honorific decree; date: 382/1.

Philippides PA 14351, PAA 928850 (3 literary decrees) D181 Decree of honours for proedroi; date: 336/5; Hyp. Phil. 4. D224–225 Proposals of unknown content; date: before 336: Hyp. 4 Phil. 11.

Philodemos Autokleous Eroiades PA 14488, PAA 933905, APF (1 epigraphical decree in the form of an amendment) IG II3 1 401 Amendment to an honorific decree for Aratos; date: 345–338.

263

264

appendix 1

Philokles Phormionos Eroiades PA 1452 + 14541, PAA 935990, APF (1 literary decree) D196 Decree concerning Harpalos’ money; date: summer 324; Din. 3.2.

Philokrates Ephialtous PA 14586; PAA 937130 (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D107 Decree concerning the sacred orgas; date: 352/1; Didymos col. 13.42-58 = Philochoros FGrH 328 F155. IG II3 292 lines 54–3 Concerning the sacred orgas (perhaps = D107); date: 352/1.

Philokrates Pythodorou Hagnousios PA 1459 + 14576, PAA 937530 (6 literary decrees; 2 epigraphical decrees) D121 Decree allowing Philip to send herald and ambassadors; date: 348/7; Aeschin. 2.13: δίδωσι ψήφισμα Φιλοκράτης ὁ Ἁγνούσιος. D125 Decree dispatching ambassadors to Philip (the ‘First Embassy’; date: 347/6; Aeschin. 2.18. D130 Decree for peace and alliance with Philip: the ‘Peace of Philokrates’; date: 19th Elaphebolion 347/6; Aeschin. 3.54. D131 Decree on the swearing of oaths of the ‘Peace of Philokrates’; date: 25th Elaphebolion 347/6; Aeschin. 3.73–5. D134 Decree honouring Philip, extending the peace to posterity, inserting a clause against the Phokians; date: 16th Skirophorion 347/6; Dem. 19.47–9. D213 Decree formulating policy towards Philip; date: 346–343; Dem 18.75. IG II2 182 Honorific decree; date: before 353/2. IG II2 182 Amendment to honours for Apollodoros.

Philotades Philostratou Palleneus PA 14927, PAA 958025 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 136 Honours for Apollonides; date: 354/3.

Phokion Phokou Potamios PA 15076, PAA 967590 APF (up to 3 literary decrees) *D143 Decree concerning intervention at Megara; date: 344/3; Plu. Phoc. 15.1–2. *D157 Dispatching forces to Hellespont (probably by decree); date: 340/39; Pl. Phoc. 14.3.

appendix 1

265

*D202 Decree imposing death or exile on anti-Macedonian politicians; date: 322/1; Arrian FGrH 156 F9.13.

Phormisios PA 14945, PAA 962695 (1 literary decree) D4 Proposal concerning restriction of the franchise; date: 403/2; D.H. Lys. 32.

Phoxias PA 14942, PAA 962590 (1 epigraphical decree) I Délos I 88 Honours for Pythodoros; date: 369/8.

Phrynon Diognetou Rhamnousios PA 15032, PAA 966010 (1 literary decree) D117 Decision to send envoys to Philip; date: summer–late summer 348; Aeschin. 2.12.

Poliagros PA 11893, PAA 776850 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 28 Concerning Klazomenai; date: 387/6.

Polyeuktos Kydantides PA 1194 + 1192 + 11927, PAA 778230 (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D238 Decree concerning the apportionment of land at Oropos; date: after 338/7–336/5; Hyp. Eux. 14–18. IG II2 1628 lines 38–9 Decree concerning triremes; date: 326/5.

Polyeuktos Sostratou Sphettios PA 1192 + 1193 + 11950, PAA 778285 (4 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 128 Concerning Neapolis; date: 356/5. IG II3 1 342 Honours for Theophantos; date: 332/1. IG II3 1 343 Honours for Theophantos; date: 332/1. IG II3 1 439 Honours for Dionysios; date: 337–322.

Polyeuktos Timokratous Krioeus PA 11946, PAA; APF (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 298 Honours for Bosporan rulers; date: 347/6.

266

appendix 1

Polykrates Polykratous PA 12027, PAA 779315 (see also seangb.org, s.v. ‘Polykrates’) (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) *D150 Decree on settlers at Chersonese; date: 343/2 or later; [Dem.] 12.16. IG II3 1 295 Honours for Orontes; date: 349/8(?).

Prokleides Pantaleontos ek Kerameon PA 12200, PAA 788752 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 359 Honours for priest of Asklepios; date: 328/7.

Pyrrandros Anaphlystios PA 12496, PAA 796155 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 44 Alliance with Chalkidians; date: 378/7.

Satyros PA 12575, PAA 812970 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 110 Honours for Menelaos; date: 363/2.

Skiton (PAA 824360, LGPN, s.v., cf. APF 12728) (1 literary decree) D210 Decree of unknown content; date: before 347; Dem. 21.182–3.

Smikros PAA 825720 (1 literary decree): D211 Decree of unknown content; date: before 347; Dem. 21.182-3.

Sophilos PA 13414, PAA 870920 (2 epigraphical decrees) IG II2 19 Honorific decree for Phil---; date: 394/3. IG II2 20 Honours for Evagoras; date: 394/3.

Stephanos PA 12879, PAA 833430 (2 literary decrees) D226 Proposal, perhaps on water-pipes; date: before 335; Dionys. Halic. De Din. 10, p. 312, 1 R. D239 Decree(s) of unknown content; date: before 360s; [Dem.] 59.43.

appendix 1

267

Stephanos Antidoridou Eroiades PA 12887, PAA 834250 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II3 1 299 Alliance with Mytilene; date: 347/6.

Teisamenos Mechanionos PA 13443, PAA 877610 (possibly 1 literary decree) *D7 Decree concerning the revision of laws; date 403/2; And. 1.82.

Telemachos Theaggelou Acharneus PA 13562, PAA 881430 (3 epigraphical decrees) IG II3 1 315 Unknown content; date: 339/8. IG II3 1 36 Honours (two decrees) for Herakleides of Salamis; date: 330/29–328/7.

Theomenes Oethen PA 6957, PAA 508585 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 3207 (with Lambert AIO Paper 6: 10) Honours for Lycurgus; date: before 324.

Theozotides PA 6913 + 6914, PAA 507785, APF (1 literary decree; 1 epigraphical decree) D17 Decree concerning war-orphans; date: 403/2 (?); Lys. F130 Carey lines 72–82. IG II2 5 Honorific decree; c. 400.

Thoukydides PA 7265, PAA 515410 (1 literary decree) D205 Decree concerning the contribution of the Ainians to the naval confederacy; date 357–342; Dem. 58.37–8.

Thrasyboulos Lykou Steirieus PA 7310, PAA 517010, APF (2 or 3 literary decrees; 1 epigraphical decree) D5 Decree extending citizenship to those who had taken part in the return; date 403/2; Ath. Pol. 40.2. D6† Proposal of citizenship for Lysias (authenticity uncertain); date: 403/2; [Plu.] X Or. 835f–6a.

268

appendix 1

D20 Decree concerning alliance with Boiotians; date: 395/4; Xen. Hell. 3.5.16. IG II2 10 Second grant of citizenship to democrats; date: 401/0.

Timarchos Arizelou Sphettios PA 13636, PAA 884310 (2 literary decrees) D122 Decree concerning the export of weapons to Philip; date: 347/6; Dem. 19.285–7. D138 Decree concerned with public works on the Pnyx Hill; date 346/5; Aeschin. 1.81. Timarchos is said to have proposed more than one hundred decrees (Aeschin. 1 hypoth.).

Timonides PA 13855, PAA 891020 (1 epigraphical decree) IG II2 139 Decree of unknown content; date: 353/2.

Appendix 2 Literary Inventions

The biggest source of fabricated versions of documentary of decrees is the corpus of Attic orators. These documents have been discussed and analysed in detail in the work of Canevaro and Harris,1 which has shown that they were fabricated by Hellenistic or later rhetoricians for the sake of creating literary exempla and were inserted into manuscripts by later editors. This appendix, however, focuses on accounts – which arose in a range of circumstances – of further fabricated decrees associated with the fourth-century Athenians. They emerge in a number of different biographical, antiquarian and rhetorical contexts.

X1 Decrees brought by the Athenians to Alexander Plutarch (Phoc. 17.5-6: see D186 T2), after reporting Phokion’s advice to the Athenians about responding to Alexander’s demand of Athenian

1 Decrees are to be found in some versions of the Demosthenes MSS at the following references: Dem. 18.29 (= BD 5, decree of Demosthenes concerning the envoys: Canevaro 2013: 239– 43); Dem. 18.37–8 (= D135, decree of Kallisthenes: Canevaro 2013: 243–8); Dem. 18.73–4 (= D218, the decree of Euboulos and the twenty ships: Canevaro 2013: 249–53); Dem. 18.75 (= D215/D216, decree of Aristophon: Canevaro 2013: 253–5); Dem. 18.84 (= D156, decree of Aristonikos in honour of Demosthenes: Canevaro 2013: 255–60); Dem. 18.90–1, 92 (Byzantine, Perinthian and Chersonitan decrees for Demosthenes: Canevaro 2013: 261–7); Dem. 18.105 (= D160, decree about Demosthenes’ trierarchic law: Canevaro 2013, 267–71; Dem. 18.115 (= D190, honours to Nausikles: Canevaro 2013: 275–9); Dem. 18.116 (= DD 190, 228 decrees for Diotimos and Charidemos: Canevaro 2013: 279–83); Dem. 18.118 (= D179, decree of Ktesiphon: Canevaro 2013: 283–90); Dem. 18.154–5 (Amphictyonic decrees: Canevaro 2013: 295–304); Dem. 18.164–5 (decrees about Philip’s approach towards Attica: Canevaro 2013: 304–10); Dem. 18.181–7 (= D162, decree of Demosthenes: Canevaro 2013: 310–18); Dem. 24.27 (= D191, decree of Epikrates: Canevaro 2013: 104–13); [Dem.] 59.104 (fifth-century decree of naturalisation for Plataeans: Canevaro 2013: 196–208). On the decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries: And. 1.77–9 (decree of Patrokleides: Canevaro and Harris 2012: 100–10; Harris 2013–14; Hansen 2015; Canevaro and Harris 2016: 10–33; Carawan 2017: 404–7); And. 1.83–4 (= D7, decree of Teisamenos: Canevaro and Harris 2012: 110–16; Hansen 2016; Canevaro and Harris 2016: 33–47; Carawan 2017: 404–11); And. 1.87 (law about laws: Canevaro and Harris 2012: 116–19; Hansen 2017); And. 1.96 (= D19, decree of Demophantos: Canevaro and Harris 2012: 119–25; Sommerstein 2014b; Harris 2013–14; Carawan 2017: 411–17).

269

270

appendix 2

politicians, omits discussion of Demades’ proposals (cf. D186), and moves from Phokion’s (probably rejected) proposals to surrender the statesmen, to an account of Alexander’s reception of Athenian decrees. He says that when Alexander received the first decree that the Athenians passed, he cast it down, but accepted the second because it was brought by Phokion. This represents a rival account to that preserved in Diodorus, in which Demades does the ­persuading on the embassy (D17.15.2 = D186 T1). There is no reason to believe that the content of the decree envisaged by Plutarch was anything other than that proposed by Demades, to resist Alexander’s demands. It is likely, then, that Plutarch’s account of a decree of Phokion was based on stories he had encountered about Phokion’s political activity. Date: 335/4, after the fall of Thebes.

X2 Honours for Iolas According to [Plutarch], Hypereides proposed honours for Iolas the son of Antipater, who was supposed to have poisoned Alexander ([Plu.] X Or. 849f: ‘ἐψηφίσατο δὲ καὶ τιμὰς Ἰόλᾳ τῷ δοντι Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τὸ φάρμακον δοῦναι’). Iolas is otherwise attested as Alexander’s chief cupbearer (Plu. Alex. 74.1); his father was indeed honoured by the Athenians (see D173). The motivation of the decree is problematic: even if it was the case that Alexander was poisoned by his cupbearer, it is hard to believe that the Athenians would have openly praised the assassin. The story about this decree appears to have existed in biographical accounts of Hypereides. For discussion, see Chapter 5.2.3 above. Date: after June 323. X3–7 Fourth-Century decrees in Apsines’ Art of Rhetoric Dilts and Kennedy write that ‘none of Apsines’ quotations are reliable sources for the texts of the authors he cites’.2 Therefore we cannot follow Apsines’ claim of a decree unless there is another, earlier, testimony: they are literary fabrications cited for the sake of rhetorical advice. It is, however, worth listing the probably false decrees accounted for by Apsines relating to this period: X3 Aeschines’ proposal, after the acquittal of Timarchos, to abolish the trierarchic law (Apsines 1.7); X4 Hypereides’ proposal that when Philip was at Elateia, Demosthenes alone should be the adviser to the city and his proposal of a bodyguard for Demosthenes (Apsines 1.9); 2 Dilts and Kennedy 1997: xvii.

appendix 2

271

X5 Demosthenes’ proposal that a temple should be dedicated to Philip (Apsines 1.19); X6 Demosthenes’ proposal to dig a canal through the Isthmos (Apsines 1.72); X7 Aristogeiton’s proposal to overlook illegal actions in return for a bribe (Apsines 2.13, 19).

X8 Annual Sacrifices to Sophocles According to Diogenes, Istros said that the Athenians made a decree that Sophocles was to receive annual sacrifices on account of his virtue (FGrH 334 F38: ‘῎Ιστρος δέ φησιν ᾽Αθηναίους διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ ψήφισμα πεποιηκέναι κατ᾽ ἔτος αὐτῶι θύειν’). This measure is usually (but hardly definitively) dated to 405; however, Connolly suggests that this could be a cult that started around the time that the statues of the three tragedians were set up, that is during the 330s;3 however, it may well be a later Hellenistic invention, perhaps even based on the comic parody of the idea. Another Byzantine source says that the Athenians built a heroon for him and named him Dexion ‘because of his reception of Asklepios’ (TrGF 4 T69).

X9 Statue of Kallimedon See Chapter 5.3.2 above.

X10 Decree that Women and Men Should Sit Apart According to Suda (cited in the Scholion to Aristophanes Ekklesiazousai 22), a certain Sphyromachos introduced a decree that women and men should sit apart (Suda, s.v. ‘Σφυρόμαχος’: ‘οὗτος ψήφισμα εἰσηγήσατο, ὥστε τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας χωρὶς καθέζεσθαι’). As Whitehead notes in the online Suda: ‘The name, unparalleled, should be Phyromachos. But more important, there can never have been such a decree, since women could not attend the Athenian Assembly. The Aristophanic text is uncertain and does not demonstrably presuppose a decree – on any subject – at all; rather, what may be involved is merely a remark by Ph. involving hetairai.’

3 Connolly 1998.

272

appendix 2

X11 Decree for Aristotle An Athenian honorific decree for Aristotle, transmitted in the work of the Arabian scholar Ibn Abī Usaybi‘a, the text of which suggests that it was made for him as a return for the benefits that he had bestowed upon the Athenians and in particular his interventions with Philip on their behalf. Haake has demonstrated, however, that this decree is a forgery, fabricated by a Hellenistic forger (writing probably in the third, second or first centuries BC) upon which the Arabic scholar drew:4 it was fabricated originally as part of a biographical defence of Aristotle; as Haake shows, not only did the forger fabricate a decree for Aristotle, but he also developed a story, which aimed to blacken the reputation of Aristotle’s opponents.5

X12–15 Decrees (and Similar) in Athenaios’ Deipnosophistai For discussion of these decrees, see Chapter 5.4.3 above. X12 Ath. 171d: decree of the Athenian council on the protenthai: see BD 8. See Davies 2000: 212–13; X13 Ath. 234d–f: Athenian decree about parasitoi proposed by Alkibiades: see Davies 2000: 215. X14 Ath. 587c (Polemon F3) and Harpokration, s.v. ‘Νεμέας’: decree (?) against naming women after four-yearly festivals: see Davies 2000: 215. X15 Ath. 590d–e: decree banning appeals to pity and the display of men or women on trial: see Davies 2000: 213–14; Filonik 2016: 132–3; Chapter 5.4.3 above.

4 Haake 2006: 332–6; 348-50; cf. Haake 2007: 55–60. 5 Haake 2013: 94–6.

Bibliography Adamidis, V. (2017) Character Evidence in the Courts of Classical Athens: Rhetoric, Relevance and the Rule of Law. London and New York. Allen, D.S. (2005) ‘Greek tragedy and law’ in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Law, eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen. Cambridge: 374–93.  (2006) ‘Talking about revolution: on political change in fourth-century Athens and historiographic method’ in Rethinking Revolutions through Ancient Greece, eds. R. Osborne and S. Goldhill. Cambridge: 183–217.  (2010) Why Plato Wrote. Oxford. Alonso Troncoso, V.A. (2013) ‘Olympie et la publication des traités internationaux’ in War, Peace and Panhellenic Games, eds. N. Birgalias, K. Buraselis, P. Cartledge, A. Gartziou-Tatti and M. Dimopoulou. Athens: 209–31. Alwine, A. (2015) Enmity and Feuding in Classical Athens. Austin. Arnaoutoglou, I. (2003) Θυσίας ἕνεκα καὶ συνουσίας: Private Religious Associations in Hellenistic Athens. Athens. Arnott, W.G. (1996) Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary. Cambridge. Asmonti, L. (2004) ‘Il retore e il gabelliere: il ruolo di Democare di Leuconoe nella transmission dell’ideale democratico’, Acme 57: 25–42. Assman, J. (1995) ‘Collective memory and cultural identity’, trans. J. Czaplicka. New German Critique 65: 125–33. Atkinson, J. (1992) ‘Curbing the comedians: Cleon versus Aristophanes and Syracosius’ decree’, CQ 42: 56–64.  (2003) ‘Athenian law and the will of the people in the fourth century BC’, Acta Classica 46: 21–48. Austin, C. and Olson, S.D. (2004) Aristophanes’ Themophoriazusae: Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Aviles, D. (2011) ‘“Arguing against the law”: non-literal interpretation in Attic forensic oratory’, Dike 14: 19–42. Azoulay, V. and Ismard, P. (2011) Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes: autour du politique dans la cité classique. Paris. Badian, E. (1992) ‘The ghost of empire’ in W. Eder, ed., Die Athenische: Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart: 79–106 Bakewell, G. (1997) ‘Metoikia in the Supplices of Aeschylus’, ClAnt 16: 209–28. Bearzot, C. (2003) ‘L’uso dei documenti in Tucidide’ in L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica, eds. A.M. Biraschi, P. Desideri, S. Roda and G. Zecchini. Naples: 267–314.  (2014), ‘The use of documents in Xenophon’s Hellenica’ in Between Thucydides and Polybius: The Golden Age of Greek Historiography, ed. G. Parmeggiani. Washington, DC: 89–114.

273

274

bibliography

Bedernab D.J. (2001) International Law in Antiquity. Cambridge. Behr, C.A. (1981–6) P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works. 2 vols. Leiden. Bers, V. (2002) ‘What to believe in Demosthenes 57, Against Eubulides’, Hyperboreus 8: 232–9.  (2013) ‘Performing the speech in Athenian courts and assembly: adjusting the act to fit the bema?’ in Profession and Performance, eds. C. Kremmydas, J. Powell and L. Rubinstein. London: 27–40. Biagi, C. (1785) Tractatus de Decretis Atheniensium in que Illustratur Singula Decretum Atheniense ex Museo Equitis ac Senatoris Iacobi Nanii Veneti. Rome. Biles, Z.P., and Olson, S.D. (2015) Aristophanes: Wasps. Oxford. Blanshard, A. (2004a) ‘What counts as the demos? Some notes on the relationship between the jury and “the people” in classical Athens’, Phoenix 58: 28–48.  (2004b) ‘Depicting democracy: an exploration of art and text in the law of Eukrates’, JHS 124: 1–15.  (2007) ‘The problems with honouring Samos: an Athenian document relief and its interpretation’ in Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, eds. Z. Newby and R. Leader-Newby. Cambridge: 19–37. Bleicken, J. (1987) ‘Die einheit der athenischen Demokratie in klassischer Zeit’, Hermes 115: 257–83. Blok, J. (2017) Citizenship in Classical Athens. Cambridge. Blyth, M. (2002) The Great Transformations. Cambridge. Boegehold, A. (1972) ‘The evolution of a public archive at Athens’, AJA 76: 23–30.  (1996) ‘Resistance to change in the law at Athens’ in J. Ober and C. Hedrick eds., Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies Ancient and Modern, Princeton: 203–14. Bolansée, J. (1999) Hermippos of Smyrna and his Biographical Writings. Leuven. Bolmarcich, S. (2007) ‘The afterlife of a treaty’, CQ 57: 13–25. Bommas, M. (2011) ‘Introduction’ in M. Bommas ed. Cultural Memory and Identity in Ancient Societies. London and New York: 1–9. Bosworth, A.B. (1990) ‘Plutarch, Callisthenes and the Peace of Callias’, JHS 110: 1–13.  (2000) ‘The historical context of Thucydides’ funeral oration’, JHS 120: 1–16. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge.  (1979) La Distinction: critique sociale du jugement.  (1986) ‘The forms of capital’ in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richardson. New York: 241–58  (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford.  (1998) Practical Reason. Oxford.  (2010) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Oxford. Bouyssou, G. (2013) ‘Parasites/flatteurs et mauvais banquet’ in À la table des rois: luxe et pouvoir dans l’oeuvre d’Athénée, eds. C. Grandjean, A. Heller and J. Peigney. Rennes: 87–105. Bowen, A.J. (2013) Aeschylus: Suppliant Women. Oxford. Bowie, E.L. (1970) ‘The Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic’, Past and Present 46: 3–41. Braund, D. (2000) ‘Learning, luxury and empire: Athenaeus’ Roman patron’ in Athenaeus and his World, eds. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter: 3–22.

bibliography

275

Brauw, M., de (2001) ‘“Listen to the laws themselves”: citations of laws and portrayal of character in Attic oratory’, CJ 97: 161–76. Brillant, M. (1911) Les secrétaires Athéniens. Paris. Brock, R. (1998) ‘Mythical polypragmosune in Athenian drama and rhetoric’ in M. Austin, I. Harries and C. Smith, eds., Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman. BICS Supplement 71. London: 227–38. Brüggenbrock, C. (2006) Die Ehre in den Zeiten der Demokratie: Das Verhältnis von athenischer Polis und Ehre in klassischer Zeit. Frankfurt am Main. Burian, P. (2007) ‘Pelasgus and politics in the Danaid trilogy’ in M. Lloyd ed. Aeschylus. Oxford: 199–210.  (2011) ‘Athenian tragedy as democratic discourse’ in Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics, ed. D. Carter. Oxford, 95–117. Burnett, A.P. and Edmondson, C.N. (1961) ‘The Chabrias monument in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 30: 74–91. Byrne, S. (2004) ‘Proposers of Athenian state decrees 286–61 BC’ in ΑΤΤΙΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΑΙ, eds. A. Matthaiou with G. Malouchou. Athens: 141–54. Calhoun, G.M. (1914) ‘Documentary frauds in litigation at Athens, CPh 9: 134–44. Cammack, D. (2013) ‘Rethinking Athenian democracy’, PhD dissertation. Harvard University. Campa, N.T. (2018) ‘Positive freedom and the citizen in Athens’, Polis 35: 1–32. Canevaro, M. (2010) ‘The naturalisation decree for the Plataeans (Ps.-D. 59.104)’, GRBS 50: 337–69.  (2011) ‘The twilight of nomothesia: legislation in early-Hellenistic Athens (322–301)’, Dike 14: 59–92.  (2013) The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. With a chapter by E.M. Harris. Oxford.  (2016a) Demostene, Contro Leptine: Introduzione, traduzione e commento storico. Berlin and Boston.  (2016b) ‘Making and changing laws in ancient Athens’ in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, eds. E.M. Harris and M. Canevaro. Oxford (Online publication).  (2018) ‘Majority rule vs. consensus: the practice of deliberation in the Greek poleis’ in Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Sciences, eds. M. Canevaro, A. Erskine, B. Gray and J. Ober. Edinburgh.   (forthcoming) ‘The fortune of the false documents in the Attic orators: early antiquarians and unintentional forgers’ in Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, eds. J. Papy and E. Gielen. Canevaro, M. and Esu, A. (2018) ‘Extreme democracy and mixed constitution in theory and practice: nomophylakia and fourth-century nomothesia in the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia’ in Athenaion Politeiai tra storia, politica e sociologia: Aristotele e Ps-Senofonte, Quaderni di Erga-Logoi, eds. C. Bearzot, M. Canevaro, T. Gargiulo and E. Poddighe, Milan: 105–45. Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M. (2012) ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries’, CQ 62: 98–129.

276

bibliography

 (2016) ‘The authenticity of the documents at Andocides’ On the Mysteries 77–79 and 83–8’, Dike 19: 9–49. Carawan, E.M. (1985) ‘Apophasis and eisangelia: the role of the Areopagus in Athenian political trials’, GRBS 26:115­­–39.  (2013) The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Law. Oxford.  (2015) ‘The Athenian rule of law’, CR 65: 175–6.  (2017) ‘Decrees in Andocides’ On the Mysteries and “latent fragments” from Craterus’, CQ 67: 400–21. Carey, C. (1994) ‘Artless proofs in Aristotle and the orators’, BICS 39: 95–106.  (1996) ‘Nomos in Attic rhetoric and oratory’, JHS 116: 33–46. Cargill, J. (1981) The Second Athenian Confederacy: Empire or Free Alliance? Berkeley and London. Carlsson, S. (2010) Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in Some East Greek City-States. Stuttgart. Carter, D.M. (2007) The Politics of Greek Tragedy. Exeter.   (ed.) (2011) Why Athens? A Reappraisal of Tragic Politics. Oxford.  (2013) ‘Reported assembly scenes in Greek tragedy’, ICS 38: 230–63. Carter, L.B. (1986) The Quiet Athenian. Oxford. Ceccarelli, P. (2010) ‘Changing contexts: tragedy in the civic and cultural life of Hellenistic city-states’ in Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages, eds. I. Gildenhard and M. Revermann. Berlin and New York: 99–150. Champion, C. (2018) ‘Polybius on “Classical Athenian Imperial Democracy”’ in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, eds. M. Canevaro and B. Gray. Oxford: 123–38. Chaniotis, A. (2013) ‘Paradoxon, enargeia, empathy: Hellenistic decrees and Hellenistic oratory’ in Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, eds. C. Kremmydas and K. Tempest. Oxford: 201–17.  (2016) ‘History as an argument in Hellenistic oratory: the evidence of Hellenistic decrees’ in La rhétorique du pouvoir: une exploration de l’art oratoire délibératif grec, ed. P. Derron. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 62. Vandoeuvres: 129–74. Christ, M.R. (1998) The Litigious Athenian. Baltimore and London.  (2006) The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (2012) The Limits of Altruism in Democratic Athens. Cambridge. Clarke, C. (2008) Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis. Oxford. Clements, A. (2014) Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae: Philosophizing Theatre and the Politics of Perception in Late Fifth-Century Athens. Cambridge. Cohen, D. (1991) Law, Sexuality and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (1995) Law, Violence and Community in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (2003) ‘Writing, law and legal practice in the Athenian law courts’ in Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece, ed. H. Yunis. Cambridge: 78–96. Connolly, A. (1998) ‘Was Sophocles heroised as Dexion?’, JHS 118: 1–21.

bibliography

277

Connor, W.R. (1971) The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens. Princeton. Constantakopoulou, C. (2017) Aegean Interactions: Delos and its Networks in the Third Century. Oxford. Cooper, C.R. (1995) ‘Hyperides and the trial of Phryne’, Phoenix 49: 303–18. Cribiore, R. (2001) Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton. Culasso Gastaldi, E. (2014a) ‘“To destroy the stele”: epigraphic reinscription and historical revision in Athens’, AIO Papers 2, trans. C. Dickman-Wilkes. Originally published as ‘Abbattere la stele: riscrittura epigrafica e revisione storica ad Atene’, Cahiers Glotz 14 (2003) 241–62.  (2014b) ‘“To destroy the stele”, “To remain faithful to the stele”: epigraphic text as guarantee of political decision’, AIO Papers 3, trans. C. Dickman-Wilkes. Originally published as ‘“Abbattere la stele”, “Rimanere fedeli alla stele”: il testo epigrafico come garanzia della deliberazione politica’ in Philathenaios: Studies in Honour of Michael J. Osborne, eds. A. Tamis, C.J. Mackie and S.G. Byrne. Athens (2010): 139–55. Davies, J.K. (1994a) ‘Accounts and accountability in classical Athens’ in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. S. Hornblower and R. Osborne. Oxford: 201–12.  (1994b) ‘On the non-usability of the concept of sovereignty in an ancient Greek context’ in Federazioni e federalismo nell’Europa antica, ed. L. Aigner Foresti. Milan: 51–65.  (1996) ‘Documents and “documents” in fourth-century historiography’ in Le IVe Siècle av. J-C: approches historiographiques, ed. P. Carlier. Nancy and Paris: 29–40.  (2000) ‘Athenaeus’ use of public documents’ in Athenaeus and his World, eds. D. Braund and J. Wilkins. Exeter: 203­–17.  (2004) ‘Athenian fiscal expertise and its influence’, Mediterraneo Antico 7: 491–512.  (2005) ‘The origins of the inscribed Greek stela’ in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour of Alan R. Millard, eds. P. Bienkowski, C. Mee and E. Slater. New York: 283–300.  (2015) ‘Retrospect and prospect’ in Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World, eds. C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos. Oxford: 239–56. Day, J.W. (1980) The Glory of Athens: The Popular Tradition as Reflected in the Panatheaicus of Aelius Aristides. Chicago.  (2010) Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representaton and Reperformance. Cambridge. De Brauw, M. (2001–2) ‘“Listen to the laws themselves”: citations of laws and portrayal of character in Attic oratory’, CJ 97: 161–76. De Laix, R.A. (1973) Probouleusis at Athens: A Study of a Political Decision-Making. Berkeley and Los Angeles. De Tocqueville, A. (2003) Democracy in America and Two Essays on America. London and New York. Deene, M. (2016) ‘Who commissioned and paid for the reliefs on honorary stelai in classical Athens? Some new thoughts’, ZPE 198: 75–9. Delz, J. (1950) Lukians Kenntnis der Athenischen Antiquitäten. Freiburg.

278

bibliography

Detienne, M. (1998) ‘L’ espace de la publicité: ses opératures intellectuels dans la cité’ in Les savoirs de l’écriture en grèce ancienne, ed. M. Detienne. Lille: 29–81. Develin, R. (1989) Athenian Officials 684–321 BC. Cambridge. Dilts, M.R. and Kennedy, G.A. (1997) Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire: Introduction, Text, and Translation of the Arts of Rhetoric, Attributed to Anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara. Leiden and Boston. Domingo Gygax, M. (2016) Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism. Cambridge. Dorjahn, A.P. (1946) Political Forgiveness in Old Athens: The Amnesty of 403. Evanston. Dover, K.J. (1976) ‘The freedom of the intellectual in Greek society’, Talanta 7: 24–54.  (1980) ‘The language of classical Attic documentary inscriptions’, Transactions of the Philological Association 79: 1–14. Dreher, M. (1995) Hegemon und Symmachoi: Untersuchungen zum zweiten athenischen Seebund. Berlin and New York. Drerup, E. (1898) ‘Über die bei den Attischen Rednern eingelegten Urkunden’, Jahrbuch für Classische Philologie Supplementband, 24: 221–365.  (1923) Demosthenes im Urteile des Altertums. Würzburg. Dunbar, N. (1995) Aristophanes’ Birds: Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford. Dyck, A.R. (1985) ‘The function and persuasive power of Demosthenes’ portrait of Aeschines in the speech “On the Crown”’, G&R 32: 42–8. Easterling, P.A. (1985) ‘Anachronism in Greek tragedy’, JHS 105: 1–10.  (1989) ‘City settings in Greek poetry’, PCA 86: 5­–17.  (2005) ‘The image of the polis in Greek tragedy’ in The Imaginary Polis: Symposium, January 7-10, 2004, ed. M.H. Hansen. Copenhagen: 49–72. Edwards, M. (2016) ‘Greek political oratory and the canon of ten Attic orators’ in La rhétorique du pouvoir: une exploration de l’art oratoire délibératif grec, ed. P. Derron. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 62. Vandoeuvres: 15–40. Ehrenberg, V. (1950), ‘The origins of democracy’, Historia 1: 515–48. Eidinow, E. (2016) Envy, Poison and Death: Women on Trial in Classical Athens. Oxford. Engels, J. (2008) Lykurg: Rede gegen Leokrates. Darmstadt. Engen, D.T. (2010) Honor and Profit: Athenian Trade Policy and the Economy and Society of Greece, 415–307 BCE. Ann Arbor. Erdas, D. (2002) Cratero il Macedone: testimonianze e frammenti. Rome. Erskine, A. (2018) ‘Standing up to the demos: Plutarch, Phocion, and the democratic life’ in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, eds. M. Canevaro and B. Gray. Oxford: 238–59. Esu, A. (2018) ‘Divided power and deliberation: decision-making procedures in the Greek city-states (434–150 BC)’, PhD dissertation. Edinburgh. Euben, J.P. (1990) The Tragedy of Political Theory: The Road not Taken. Princeton. Faraguna, M. (2003) ‘I documenti nelle “Vite dei X oratori” dei Moralia plutarchei’ in A.M. Biraschi, P. Desideri, S. Roda and G. Zecchini (eds.), L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica. Naples, 479–503.

bibliography

279

 (2006) ‘Alcibiade, Cratero e gli archivi giudiziari ad Atene’ in M. Faraguna and V. Vedaldi Iasbez (eds.), Δύνασθαι διδάσκειν: studi in onore di Filippo Càssola. Trieste: 197–207.  (2015) ‘Archives, documents, and legal practices in the Greek polis’ in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, eds. E.M. Harris and M. Canevaro (Electronic publication).  (2017) ‘Documents, public information and the historian: perspectives on fifth-­ century Athens’, Historika 7: 23–52. Farrell, C.A. (2016) ‘Xenophon Poroi 5: securing a “more just” Athenian hegemony’, Polis 33: 331–55.  (forthcoming) The Social and Political Thought of Xenophon of Athens. Ferrario, S.B. (2017) ‘Xenophon and Greek political thought’ in The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, ed. M.A. Flower. Cambridge: 57–83. Filonik, J. (2016) ‘Impiety avenged: rewriting Athenian history’ in Splendide Mendax. Rethinking Fakes and Forgeries in Classical, Late Antique and Early Christian Literature, eds. E.P. Cueva and J. Martinez. Groningen: 125–40. Finley, M. (1962) ‘The Athenian demagogues’, P&P 21: 3–24.  (1975) ‘The problem of the unity of Greek law’ in M. Finley, The Use and Abuse of History. London: 134–52 (= 129–42 in Atti del III Congresso Internazionale della Società italiana di Storia del Diritto, 1966). Fisher, N. (1994) ‘Sparta re-(de)valued: some Athenian public attitudes to Sparta between Leuctra and the Lamian War’ in The Shadow of Sparta, eds. S. Hodkinson and A. Powell. Swansea: 347–400.  (2007) ‘Lykourgos of Athens: Lakonian by name, Lakoniser by policy?’ in The Contribution of Ancient Sparta to Political Thought and Practice, eds. N. Birgalias, K. Burasalis and P. Cartledge, Athens: 327–44. Flaig, E. (2013) ‘Die Versammlungsdemokratie am Nadir: Entscheidungstheoretische Überlegungen zum Arginusenprozess’, Historische Zeitschrift 297: 23–63. Forrest, W.G. (1963) ‘Aristophanes’ Acharnians’, Phoenix 17: 1–12. Forsdyke, S. (2005) ‘Revelry and riot in archaic Megara: democratic disorder or ritual reversal?’, JHS 125: 73–92. Foster, E. (2017) ‘Military defeat in fifth-century Athens: Thucydides and his audience’ in Brill’s Companion to Military Defeat in Ancient Mediterranean Society, eds. J. Clark and B. Turner. Leiden and Boston: 99–122. Frier, B.W. and Kehoe, P. (2007) ‘Law and economic institutions’ in The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, eds. W. Schiedel, I. Morris and R. Saller. Cambridge: 113–43. Friis Johansen, H. and Whittle, E.W. (1980) Aeschylus: The Suppliants, 3 vols. Copenhagen. Frost, F. (1961) ‘Some documents in Plutarch’s Lives’, C&M 22: 182–94. Funke, P. (1980) Homonoia und Arche: Athen und die griechische Staatenwelt vom Ende des Peloponnesischen Krieges bis zum König frieden (404/3–287/6 v. Chr.). Wiesbaden.

280

bibliography

Gabrielsen, V. (2015) ‘Naval and grain networks and associations in fourth-century Athens’ in Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World, eds. C. Taylor and K. Vlassopoulos. Oxford: 177–205. Gagarin, M. (2011) Writing Greek Law. Cambridge. Garvie, A.F. (2006) Aeschylus’ Supplices: Play and Trilogy, 2nd ed. Exeter. Gauthier, P. (1985) Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, BCH Suppl. 12. Athens and Paris. Gehrke, H.-J. (2001) ‘Myth, history and collective identity: uses of the past in ancient Greece and beyond’ in The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, ed. N. Luraghi. Oxford: 286–313. Gerolymatos, A. (1986), Espionage and Treason: A Study of the proxenia in Political and Military Intelligence Gathering in Classical Greece. Amsterdam. Giannadaki, I. (2014) ‘The time limit (prothesmia) in the graphe paranomon’, Dike 17: 15–34. Giessen, K. (1901) ‘Plutarchs Quaestiones graecae und Aristoteles’ Politien’, Philologus 60: 446–71. Goldhill, S. (1987) ‘The Great Dionysia and civic ideology’, JHS 107: 58–76.  (2000) ‘Civic ideology and the problem of difference: the politics of Aeschylean tragedy, once again’, JHS 120: 34–56. Gomme, A.W. (1938) ‘Aristophanes and politics’, CR 52: 97–109.  (1956) A Historical Commentary on Thucydides: The Ten Years’ War. Volume III. Books IV–V24. Oxford.  (1962) More Essays in Greek History and Literature. Oxford. Gotteland, S. (2016) ‘Passions et raison dans les prologues de Démosthène’, REG 129: 1–16. Gottesman, A. (2014) Politics and the Street in Democratic Athens. Cambridge. Graeber, D. (2001) Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York. Gray, B. (2013) ‘The polis becomes humane? Philanthropia as a cardinal civic virtue in later Hellenistic honorific epigraphy and historiography’, Studi ellenistici 27: 137–62.  (2015) Stasis and Stability: Exile, the Polis, and Political Thought, c.404–146 BC. Oxford.  (2018) ‘A later Hellenistic debate about classical Athenian civic ideals? The evidence of epigraphy, historiography and philosophy’, in M. Canevaro and B. Gray, eds. The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought. Oxford: 139–76. Gray, V. (2004) ‘Le Socrate de Xénophon et la démocratie’, EPh 2: 141–76  (2007) Xenophon on Government. Cambridge. Greif, A. (2006) Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade. Cambridge. Grethlein, J. (2014) ‘The value of the past challenged: myth and ancient history in the Attic orators’ in Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the

bibliography

281

Penn Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, eds. C. Pieper and J. Kerr. Leiden: 326–54. Grieb, V. (2009) Hellenistiche Demokratie: politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Grossen. Stuttgart. Grote, G. (1849) A History of Greece, vol. 5. London. Guth, D. (2014) ‘Rhetoric and historical narrative: the Theban–Athenian alliance of 339 BCE’, Historia 63: 151–65. Haake, M. (2004) ‘Documentary evidence, literary forgery or manipulation of historical documents? Diogenes Laertius and an Athenian honorary decree for Zeno of Citium’, CQ 54: 470–83.  (2006) ‘Ein athenisches Ehrendekret für Aristoteles? Die Rhetorik eines pseudo-epigraphischen Dokuments und die Logik seiner Geschichte’, Klio 88: 328–50.  (2007) Der Philosoph in der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Rede über Philosophen und Philosophie in den hellenistischen Poleis. Vestigia 56. Munich.  (2013) ‘Illustrating, documenting, making-believe: the use of psephismata in Hellenistic biographies of philosophers’ in Inscriptions and Their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford: 79–124. Haake, M. and Jung, M. (eds.) (2013) Griechische Heiligtümer als Erinnerungsorte. Stuttgart. Habicht, Ch. (1961) ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens in Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes 89: 1–35.  (1984) ‘Pausanias and the evidence of inscriptions’, ClAnt 3: 40–56.  (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. Schneider Cambridge, MA and London. Hagermajer Allen, K. (2003) ‘Intercultural exchanges in Attic decrees’, ClAnt 22: 199–346. Hakkarainen, M. (1997) ‘Private wealth in the Athenian public sphere during the late classical and the early Hellenistic period’ in Early Hellenistic Athens: Symptoms of a Change, ed. J. Frösén, Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 6. Helsinki: 1–32. Hall, E. (1995) ‘Lawcourt dramas: the power of performance in in Greek forensic oratory’, BICS 40: 39–58. Hammer, D. (2002) The Iliad as Politics: The Performance of Political Thought. Oklahoma. Hanink, J. (2014) Lycurgan Athens and the Making of Classical Tragedy. Cambridge. Hansen, M.H. (1974) The Sovereignty of the People’s Court in Athens in the Fourth Century BC and the Public Action Against Unconstitutional Proposals. Odense.  (1975) Eisangelia. Odense.  (1976) Apagoge, Endeixis and Ephegesis Against Kakourgoi, Atimoi and Pheugontes in Classical Athens. Odense.  (1978) ‘Demos, ecclesia and dicasterion in classical Athens’, GRBS 19: 127–46.  (1980) ‘Seven hundred archai in classical Athens’, GRBS 21 (1980) 151–73.  (1983) The Athenian Ecclesia: A Collection of Articles 1976–1983. Copenhagen.  (1985) ‘Athenian nomothesia’, GRBS 26: 345–371.

282

bibliography

 (1987) The Athenian Assembly. Oxford.  (1988) Three Studies in Athenian Demography. Copenhagen.  (1989) The Athenian Ecclesia II: A Collection of Articles 1983–9. Copenhagen.  (1990) ‘Solonian democracy in fourth-century Athens’ in Aspects of Athenian Democracy, ed. J.R. Fears. Copenhagen: 71–99.  (1991) The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford.  (1996) ‘Reflections on the number of citizens accommodated in the assembly place on the Pnyx’ in B. Forsén and G. Stanton, eds., The Pnyx in the History of Athens: Proceedings of an International Colloquium Organised by the Finnish Institute at Athens, 7–9 October, 1994. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 2. Helsinki: 23–33.  (2000) ‘Conclusion: the impact of city-state cultures on the world’ in M.H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. Copenhagen: 597–623.  (2010) ‘The concepts of demos, ekklesia, and dikasterion in classical Athens’, GRBS 50: 499–536.  (2015) ‘Is Patrokleides’ decree (Andoc. 1.77–79) a genuine document?’, GRBS 55: 884–901.  (2016) ‘Is Teisamenos’ decree (Andoc. 1.83–84) a genuine document?’, GRBS 56: 34–48.  (2017) ‘Nomos ep’ andri in fourth-century Athens: on the law quoted at Andocides 1.87’, GRBS 57: 268–81. Harding, P. (1994) Androtion and the Atthis: The Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.  (2008) The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attica. London and New York. Harris, D. (1994) ‘Freedom of information and accountability: the inventory lists of the Parthenon’ in S. Hornblower and R. Osborne (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis. Oxford: 213–23. Harris, E.M. (1989) ‘Demosthenes’ speech against Meidias’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 92: 117–36.  (1994) ‘Law and oratory’ in Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. I. Worthington. London: 130–50.  (1995) Aeschines and Athenian Politics. Oxford.  (2000a) ‘The authenticity of Andocides’ De Pace: a subversive essay’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History, ed. P. Flensted-Jensen, T. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen: 479–506.  (2000b) ‘Open texture in Athenian Law’, Dike 3: 27–78.  (2006a) ‘The rule of law in Athenian democracy: reflections on the judicial oath’, Dike 9: 157–81.  (2006b) Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens: Essays on Law, Society, and Politics. Cambridge.  (2006c) ‘Was all criticism of Athenian democracy anti-democratic?’ in Democrazia e anti-democrazia, ed. U. Bultrighini. Alessandria: 11–24.

bibliography

283

 (2007) ‘Who enforced the law in classical Athens?’ in Symposion 2005, ed. E. Cantarella. Vienna: 159–76.  (2010) ‘Introduction’ in Law and Drama in Ancient Greece, eds. E.M. Harris, D.F. Leão and P.J. Rhodes. London: 1–24.  (2012–13) ‘Review of Gottesman, Politics and The Street in Democratic Athens’, Classical Ireland 19–20: 156–60.  (2013a) The Rule of Law in Action in Democratic Athens. Oxford.  (2013b) ‘The Against Meidias (Dem. 21)’ in M. Canevaro, The Documents in the Attic   Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus. Oxford: 209–36.  (2013–14) ‘The authenticity of the document at Andocides On the Mysteries 96–98’, Τεκμήρια 12: 121–53.  (2016a) ‘From democracy to the rule of law? Constitutional change in Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE’ in Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert: Zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition, ed. C. Tiersch. Berlin: 73–87.  (2016b) ‘Alcibiades, the ancestors, liturgies, and the etiquette of addressing the Athenian assembly ’ in The Art of History. Literary Perspectives on Greek and Roman Historiography, eds. V. Liotsakis and S. Farrington. Berlin and Boston: 145–56.  (2017a) ‘Applying the law about the award of crowns to magistrates (Aeschin. 3.9– 31  ; Dem. 18.113–117): epigraphic evidence for the legal arguments at the trial of Ctesiphon’, ZPE 202: 105–17.  (2017b) ‘How to “act” in an Athenian court: emotions and forensic performance’ in The Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratory and Rhetoric, eds. S. Papaioannou, A. Seraphim and B. de Vela. Leiden and Boston: 223–4)  (2017c) ‘Rhetoric and politics’ in The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, ed. M.J. MacDonald. Oxford: 53–61.  (2018) Demosthenes: Speeches 23–26. Austin. Harris, E.M., Leão, D.F. and Rhodes, P.J. (2010) Law and Drama in Ancient Greece. London. Harrison, A.R.W. (1971) The Law of Athens, vol. 2. Oxford. Hartmann, A. (2013) ‘Cui vetustas fidem faciat: inscriptions and other material relics of the past in Graeco-Roman antiquity’ in Inscriptions and their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford: 33–63. Hedrick, C.W. (1999) ‘Democracy and the Athenian epigraphical habit’, Hesperia 68: 387–439.  (2000) ‘For anyone who wishes to see’, AncW 31: 127–33. Henderson, J. (1987) Aristophanes Lysistrata: Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.  (2000) Aristophanes: Birds; Lysistrata; Women at the Thesmophoria. Cambridge, MA.  (2002) Aristophanes: Frogs; Assemblywomen; Wealth. Cambridge, MA.  (2007) ‘Drama and democracy’ in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, ed. L.J. Samons. Cambridge: 179–95.

284

bibliography

Henry, A.S. (1977) The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees. Mnemosyne Suppl. 49. Leiden.  (1996) ‘The hortatory intention in Attic state decrees’, ZPE 112: 105–19.  (1983) Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim and New York. Herman, G. (1987) Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge.  (2006). Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens: A Social History. Cambridge. Hesk, J. (2000) Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (2012) ‘Common knowledge and the contestation of history in some fourth-century Athenian trials’ in Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians, eds. J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn-Jones and C. Maciver. Edinburgh: 207–26. Higbie, C. (1999) ‘Craterus and the use of inscriptions in ancient scholarship’, TAPhA129: 43–83.  (2017) Collectors, Scholars, and Forgers in the Ancient World: Object Lessons. Oxford. Hobart, M. (1975) ‘Orators and patrons: two types of political leader in Balinese village society’ in Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, ed. M. Bloch. London, New York and San Francisco: 65–92. Hobden, F. (2007) ‘Imagining past and present: a rhetorical strategy in Aeschines 3, Against Ctesiphon’, CQ 57: 490–501. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (1992) ‘Written law in archaic Greece’, PCPhS 38: 97–117.  (2000) ‘(In-)Schrift und Monument: Zum Begriff des Gesetzes im Archaischen und Klassischen Griechenland’, ZPE 132: 73–96. Holton, J. (2018) ‘Philanthropia, Athens, and democracy in Diodorus Siculus: the Athenian debate’ in The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, eds. M. Canevaro and B. Gray. Oxford: 177–207. Hopkinson, N. (2008) Lucian: A Selection. Cambridge. Hornblower, S. (1996) A Commentary on Thucydides: Volume II. Books IV–V.24. Oxford.  (2004) ‘This was decided (edoxe tauta): the army as polis in Xenophon’s Anabasis – and elsewhere’ in The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand, ed. R.J. Lane Fox. New Haven and London: 243–63.  (2008) A Commentary on Thucydides: Volume III. Books 5.25–8.109. Oxford.  (2009) ‘Thucydides and the Athenian boule (council of five hundred)’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea: 251–65. Horváth, L. (2014) Der Neue Hypereides: Textedition, Studien und Erläuterungen. Berlin. Householder, F.W. Jr (1940) ‘The mock decrees in Lucian’, TAPhA71: 199–219. Huber, J.D. and Shipan, C.R. (2002) Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundation of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge. Humphreys, S. (2004) The Strangeness of the Gods. Oxford. Hunt, P. (2010) War, Peace, and Alliance in Demosthenes’ Athens. Cambridge. Hunter, V. (1991) ‘Gossip and the politics of reputation in classical Athens’, Phoenix 45: 299–325.  (1994) Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits. Princeton.

bibliography

285

Huntington, S.P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven and London. Irwin, E. (2005) Solon and Early Greek Poetry: The Politics of Exhortation. Cambridge. Ismard, P. (2015) La démocratie contre les experts: les esclaves publics en Grèce ancienne. Paris. Jackson, C.N. (1919) ‘The decree-seller in the Birds: the professional politicians at Athens’, HSCP 30: 89–102. Jacob, C. (2013) The Web of Athenaeus, trans. A. Papaconstantinou. Washington, DC. Johnstone, S. (1996) ‘Greek oratorical settings and the problem of the Pnyx’ in Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory, ed. C. Johnstone. Albany: 97–127.  (1999) Disputes and Democracy. Austin. Johnstone, S. (2011) A History of Trust in Ancient Greece. Chicago and London. Jones, N. (1987) Public Organisation in Ancient Greece. Philadelphia.  (1999) The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy. New York and Oxford. Jovanović, M. and Henrard, K. (2008) ‘Sovereignty, statehood and the diversity challenge’ in Sovereignty and Diversity, eds. M. Jovanović and K. Henrard. Portland: 1–12. Joyce, C. (2016) ‘The Athenian reconciliation agreement of 403 BCE and its legacy for Greek city-states in the classical and Hellenistic Age’ in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, eds. M. Canevaro and E.M. Harris (Online publication).  (2018) ‘Atimia and outlawry in archaic and classical Greece’, Polis 35: 33–60. Kallet-Marx, L. (1994) ‘Money talks: rhetor, demos and the reserve of the Athenian empire’ in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. S.N. Hornblower and R. Osborne. Oxford: 227–51. Keaney, J.J. (1993) ‘Theophrastus on ostracism and the character of his ΝΟΜΟΙ’ in Aristote et Athènes: Aristoteles and Athens. Fribourg (Suisse) 23–25 mai 1991, ed. M. Piérart. Paris: 261–78. Klaffenbach, G. (1960) Bemerkungen zum griechischen Urkundenwesen. Berlin. Koerner, R. (1993) Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis: Aus dem Nachlass von Reinhard Koerner, ed. K. Hallof. Cologne. Konstan, D. (2000) ‘Pity and the law in Greek theory and practice’,  Dike 4: 124–45. Kostakopoulou, D. (2002) ‘Floating sovereignty: a pathology or a necessary means of state evolution?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22: 135–156. Kremmydas, C. (2007a) ‘P. Berl. 9781: the early reception of Demosthenes 20’, BICS 50: 19–48.  (2007b) ‘Logical argumentation in Demosthenes’ Against Leptines’ in Logos: Rational Argument in Classical Rhetoric, ed. J. Powell. London: 19–34  (2012) Commentary on Demosthenes Against Leptines: With Introduction, Text, and Translation. Oxford.  (2016) ‘Demosthenes’ Philippics and the art of characterisation for the assembly’ in La rhétorique du pouvoir: une exploration de l’art oratoire délibératif grec, ed. P. Derron. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 62. Vandoeuvres: 41–70.

286

bibliography

Krentz, P.M. (1989) Xenophon: Hellenika I–II.3.10. Warminster.  (2007) ‘The oath of Marathon, not Plataea?’, Hesperia 76: 731–42.  (2009) ‘The Athenian treaty in Theopompos F153’, Phoenix 63: 231–8. Lalonde, G.V. (1971) ‘The publication and transmission of Greek diplomatic documents’, Ph D diss. University of Washington.  (1977) ‘A Boiotian decree in Athens’, Hesperia 46: 268–76. Lambert, S.D. (1998) The Phratries of Attica, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor.  (2008) ‘Polis and theatre in Lykourgan Athens: the honorific decrees’ in Μικρός Ιερομνήμων: Μελέτες εις Μνήμνη Michael H. Jameson, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya. Athens: 52–85.  (2010) ‘Connecting with the past in Lykourgan Athens: an epigraphical perspective’ in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, eds. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke and N. Luraghi. Stuttgart: 225–38.  (2011a) ‘What was the point of inscribed honorific decrees in classical Athens?’ in Sociable Man: Essays in Ancient Greek Social Behaviour, in Honour of Nick Fisher, ed. S.D. Lambert. Cardiff: 193–214.  (2011b) ‘Some political shifts in Lykourgan Athens’ in Clisthène et Lycurgue d’Athènes, ed. V. Azoulay and P. Ismard. Paris: 175–90.  (2012a) Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 BC: Epigraphical Essays. Leiden.  (2012b) ‘Inscribing the past in fourth-century Athens’ in Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians, eds. J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn-Jones and C. MacIver. Edinburgh: 253–75.  (2015) ‘The inscribed version of the decree honouring Lykourgos of Boutadai (IG II2 457 and 3207)’, AIO Papers 6.  (2017) ‘Two inscribed documents of the Athenian empire: the Chalkis decree and the tribute reassessment decree’, AIO Papers 8.  (2018) Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the Age of Demosthenes: Historical Essays. Leiden and Boston. Lane Fox, R.J. (1994) ‘Aeschines and Athenian politics’ in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. S.N. Hornblower and R.G., Osborne. Oxford: 137–55.  (2010) ‘Thucydides and documentary history’, CQ 60: 11–29. Lanni, A. (1997) ‘Spectator sport or serious politics? Hoi periestekotes and the Athenian lawcourts’, JHS 117: 183–9.  (2004) ‘Arguing from precedent: modern perspectives on Athenian practice’ in The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, eds. E. Harris and L. Rubinstein. London: 159–71.  (2006) Law and Justice in the Courts of Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (2012) ‘Social sanctions in classical Athens’ in Symposion 2011, ed. G. Thür. Vienna: 99–110.  (2016) Law and Order in Ancient Athens. Cambridge. Larfeld, W. (1902–7) Handbuch der Griechischen Epigraphik, 2 vols. Leipzig.

bibliography

287

Lavelle, B.M. (1988) ‘Adikia, the decree of Kannonos, and the trial of the generals’, C&M 39: 19–41. Lawton, C. (1995) Attic Document Reliefs. Oxford. Leão, D.F. and Rhodes, P.J. (2015) The Laws of Solon: A New Edition with Introduction, trans. and commentary. London and New York. Leppin, H. (1999) ‘Argos: Eine griechische Demokratie des funften Jahrhunderts v. Chr.’, Ktema 24: 297–312 Lewis, S. (1996) News and Society in the Greek Polis. London Liddel, P. (2003) ‘The places of publication of Athenian state decrees from the fifth century BC to the third century AD’, ZPE 134: 79–93.  (2007) Civic Obligation and Individual Liberty in Ancient Athens. Oxford.  (2008) ‘Scholarship and morality: Plutarch’s use of inscriptions’ in The Unity of Plutarch’s Work: ‘Moralia’ Themes in the ‘Lives’. Features of the ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’, ed. A. Nikolaidis. Berlin: 125–37.  (2010) ‘Epigraphy, legislation, and power within the Athenian empire’, BICS 53: 99–128.  (2016) ‘The honorific decrees of fourth-century Athens: trends, perceptions, controversies’ in Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert: Zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition, ed. C. Tiersch. Berlin: 335–57.  (2018) ‘Exploring inter-community political activity in fourth-century Greece’ in Ancient Greek History and the Contemporary Social Sciences, eds. M. Canevaro, A. Erskine, B. Gray and J. Ober.   (forthcoming) ‘Rules, practices, narratives: managing decrees and decree-making in classical Athens’, in The Institutional History of the Greek Polis. New Approaches, eds. M. Barbato and M. Canevaro. Livingstone, N. (2016) Athens: The City as University. London. Loening, T.C. (1987) The Reconciliation Agreement of 403/402 in Athens: Its Content and Application. Hermes Einzelschrift 53. Stuttgart. Longworth, P. (1969) The Cossacks. London. Loomis, W.T. (1998) Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor. Loraux, N. (2002) The Divided City: On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens, trans. C. Pache with J. Fort. New York. Lotze, D. (1981) ‘Zum Begriff der Demokratie in Aischylos’ Hiketiden’ in Aischylos und Pindar: Studien zu Werk und Nachwirkung, ed. E.G., Schmidt, Berlin: 207–16. Lougovaya, J. (2013) ‘Inscriptions on the Attic stage’ in Inscriptions and their Uses in Ancient Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford: 255–70. Low, P. (2005) ‘Looking for the language of Athenian imperialism’, JHS 125: 91–111.  (2007) Interstate Relations in Classical Greece. Cambridge.  (2016) ‘Lives from stone: epigraphy and biography in Classical and Hellenistic Greece’ in Creative Lives in Classical Antiquity: Poets, Artists and Biography, eds. R. Fletcher and J. Hanink, eds. Cambridge: 147–74. (forthcoming) ‘Remembering, forgetting, and rewriting the past: Athenian inscriptions and collective memory’ in Shaping Memory in Ancient Greece: Poetry, Historiography and Epigraphy, eds. C. Constantakopoulou and M. Fragoulaki. London.

288

bibliography

Lowndes, V. and Roberts, P. (2013) Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. New York. Luraghi, N. (2010) ‘The demos as narrator: public honors and the construction of future and past’ in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, eds. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke and N. Luraghi. Stuttgart: 247–63. Ma, J. (2003) ‘Peer polity interaction in the Hellenistic age’, P&P 180: 9–39.  (2013) Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World. Oxford. MacCormack, N. (2007) Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford. MacDonald, C. (1977) Cicero: In Catilinam I–IV. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Cambridge, MA and London. MacDowell, D.M. (1962) Andokides: On the Mysteries. Oxford.  (1998) ‘Andocides’ in Antiphon and Andocides, ed. M. Gagarin. Austin: 93–170.    (2000) Demosthenes: On the False Embassy. Oxford.  (2009) Demosthenes the Orator. Oxford.  (2010) ‘Aristophanes and Athenian law’ in Law and Drama in Ancient Greece, eds. E.M. Harris, D.F. Leão and P.J. Rhodes. London: 147–57. Mack, W. (2015) Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World. Oxford.  (2018) ‘Vox populi, vox deorum? The Athenian document reliefs and the theologies of public inscription’, ABSA 113. MacLean, B.H. (2002) An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337). Ann Arbor. Mader, G. (2006) ‘Fighting Philip with decrees: Demosthenes and the syndrome of symbolic action’, AJPh 127: 376–86. Maidment, K.J. (1952) Minor Attic Orators I: Antiphon, Andocides. Cambridge, MA. Makkink, A.D.J. Andokides’ Eerste Rede. Amsterdam. Malouchou, G.E. (2014) ‘Τὸ ἐνεπίγραφο βάθρο ἀπὸ Φυλῆς τὸν δημὸν καταγαγόντων’, Hόρος 22–5 (2010-13) [2014]: 115–44. Mansbridge, J.J. (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York. March, J.G. and Olsen, P.J. (1984) ‘The New Institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, APSR 78.3: 734–49.  (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York. Marincola, J., Llewellyn-Jones, L. and Maciver, C., eds. (2012) Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians. Edinburgh. Martin, G. (2014) ‘Interpreting instability: considerations on the lives of the ten orators’, CQ 64: 321–36.  (2016) ‘The Gods in the Athenian assembly’ in Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion, eds. E. Eidinow, J. Kindt and R. Osborne. Cambridge: 281–300. Massar, N. (2006) ‘La circulation des décrets dans les cités et entre cités à l’époque hellénistique’ in La circulation de l’information dans les états antiques, eds. L. Capdetrey and J. Nelis-Clément. Bordeaux: 73–87.

bibliography

289

Matthaiou, A.P. (2011) ‘The Theozotides decree on the sons of those murdered in the Oligarchy’ in Τὰ ἐν τῆι στήληι γεγραμμένα: Six Greek Historical Inscriptions of the Fifth Century BC ed. A.P. Matthaiou. Athens: 71–81.  (2017) ‘Παρατηρήσεις εἰς ἐκδεδομένα Ἀττικὰ ψηφίσματα (7ο τεῦχος)’, Γραμματεῖον 6: 11–19. Mauss, M. (2006) Techniques Technology and Civilization. New York and Oxford. Meiggs, R. (1972) The Athenian Empire. Oxford. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D.M. (1988) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, rev. ed. Oxford. Meritt, B.D., and Traill, J.S. (1974) Inscriptions: The Athenian Councillors. The Athenian Agora volume XV. Princeton. Meyer, E. (2013) ‘Inscriptions as honours and the Athenian epigraphical habit’, Historia 62: 453–505.  (2016) ‘Posts, kurbeis, metopes: the origins of the Athenian “documentary” stele’, Hesperia 85: 323–83. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1991) ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’ in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. W.W. Powell and P.J. Di Maggio. Cambridge: 41–62. Meyer-Laurin, H. (1965) Gesetz und Billigkeit im Attischen Prozess. Weimar. Mhire, J.J. and Frost, B.-P. eds. (2014) The Political Theory of Aristophanes. New York. Miller, J. (2016) ‘Euergetism, agonism, and democracy: the hortatory intention in late classical and early Hellenistic Athenian honorific decrees’, Hesperia 85: 385–435. Mitchell, L. (1997) Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323. Cambridge.  (2006) ‘Greek government’ in A Companion to the Classical Greek World, ed. K. Kinzl. Oxford: 367–86. Moles, J. (1999) ‘Anathema kai ktema: the inscriptional inheritance of ancient historiography’, Histos 3: 27–69.  (2011) ‘Luke’s preface: the Greek decree, classical historiography and Christian redefinitions’, New Testament Studies 27: 461–82. Momigliano, A. (1950) ‘Ancient history and the antiquarian’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13: 285–315. Monoson, S. (2000) Plato’s Democratic Entanglements: Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton. Moreno, A. (2007) Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC. Oxford. Morris, I. (2015) Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve. Princeton and Oxford. Moroo, A. (2016) ‘The origin and development of acropolis as a place for erecting public decrees: the Periclean building project and its effect on the Athenian epigraphic habit’ in The Parthenon Frieze: Ritual Communication between the Goddess and the Polis, ed. T. Osada. Vienna: 31-48.

290

bibliography

Morwood, J. (2007) Euripides: Suppliant Women, with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford. Mossé, C. (1979) ‘Citoyens actifs et citoyens “passifs” dans les cités grecques: une approche théoretique du problème’, REA 81: 241–9.  (1989) ‘Lycurge l’Athénien: homme du passé ou précurseur de l’avenir?’, QC 30: 25–36. Mossman J. (2012) ‘Philotimia and Greekness in Lucian’ in The Lash of Ambition: Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia, eds. G. Roskam, M.De Pourcq and L. Van der Stockt. Paris and Walpole: 169–82. Müller, F.L. (1997) Das Problem der Urkunden bei Thukydides: Die Frage der Überlieferungsabsicht durch den Autor. Stuttgart. Müller, K.O. (1853) Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, vol. 3. Paris. Murray, O. (1990) ‘Cities of reason’ in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, eds. O. Murray and S. Price. Oxford: 1–25.  (1995) ‘Forms of sociality’ in The Greeks, ed. J.-P. Vernant, trans. C. Lambert and T.L. Fagan. Chicago: 218–53. Nikolaidis, A.G. (2012) ‘Aspects of Plutarch’s notion of philotimia’ in The Lash of Ambition: Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia, eds. G. Roskam, M.De Pourcq and L. Van der Stockt. Paris and Walpole: 31–53. Ní Mheallaigh, K. (2008) ‘Pseudo-documentarism and the limits of ancient fiction’, AJP 129: 403–31.  (2014) Reading Fiction with Lucian: Fakes, Freaks and Hyperreality. Cambridge. North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge. Nouhaud, M. (1982) L’Utilisation de l’histoire par les orateurs attiques. Paris. O’Rourke, S. (2007) The Cossacks. Manchester and New York. Ober, J. (1989) Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Princeton.  (1996) The Athenian Revolution. Princeton.  (1998) Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule. Princeton.  (2008) Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton.  (2015) The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece. London and Princeton. Oikonomides, A.N. (1986) ‘The epigraphical tradition of the decree of Stratocles honoring “post mortem” the orator Lykourgos’, AW 14: 51–4. Olick, J.K. (2007) The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility. New York and Oxford. Oliver, G.J. (2007) ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis: the award of portrait statues in decrees in Athens’ in Early Hellenistic Portraiture: Image, Style, Context, eds. P. Schultz and R. von den Hoff. Cambridge: 181–204. Olson, S.D. (2010) ‘Comedy, politics and society’ in Brill’s Companion to the Study of Greek Comedy, ed. G.W. Dobrov. Leiden and Boston: 35–69. Oost, S.I. (1977) ‘Two notes on Aristophon of Azenia’, CPh 72: 238–4.

bibliography

291

Osborne, M.J. (1974) ‘Two Athenian decrees for Delians’, Eranos 72, 168–84.  (1981–3) Naturalization in Athens, 4 vols. Brussels.  (2012) ‘Secretaries, psephismata and stelai in Athens’, Ancient Society 42: 33–59. Osborne, R.G. (1985) Demos: The Discovery of Classical Attica. Cambridge.  (1999) ‘Inscribing democracy’ in Performance Culture in Athenian Democracy, eds. R. Osborne and S. Goldhill. Cambridge: 341–58. Ostrom, E. (1986) ‘An agenda for the study of institutions’, Public Choice 48.1: 3–35. Ostwald, M. (1986) From Popular Sovereignty to Sovereignty of the Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. London; Berkeley. Papadopoulou, T. (2011). Aeschylus: Suppliants. Bristol. Papazarkadas, N. (2009) ‘Epigraphy and the Athenian empire: reshuffling the chronological cards’ in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, eds. J.Ma, N. Papazarkadas and R.C.T. Parker. London: 67–88.  (2014) ‘Athens, Sigeion, and the politics of approbation during the Ionian War’ in ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΣ: Studies in Honour of Harold B. Mattingly, eds. A.P. Matthaiou and R.K. Pitt. Athens: 215–38. Parker, R.C.T. (1996) Athenian Religion: A History. Oxford.  (2005) Polytheism and Society at Athens. Oxford. Pasquino, P. (2010) ‘Democracy ancient and modern: divided power’ in Démocratie athénienne: démocratie moderne. Tradition et influences neuf exposés suivis de discussions, ed. M.H. Hansen. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 56. Vandoeuvres: 1–49. Patterson, C. (1981) Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451–50 B.C., New York. Pattoni, M.P. (2017) ‘Democraic paideia in Aeschylus’ Suppliants’, Polis 34: 251–72. Payen, P. (2014) ‘Plutarch the antiquarian’ in A Companion to Plutarch, ed. M. Beck. Oxford: 235–48. Pébarthe, C. (2006) Cité, démocratie et écriture: histoire de l’alphabétisation d’Athènes à l’époque classique. Paris and Brussels. Pelling, C. (2000) Literary Texts and the Greek Historian. London and New York. Peters, B.G. (2005) Institutional Theory in Political Science: The ‘New’ Institutionalism. London.  (2008) ‘Introduction’ in Debating Institutionalism, eds. J. Pierre, B. Guy Peters and G. Stoker. Manchester: 1–17. Petre, Z. (1986) ‘Le décret des Suppliantes d’Eschyle’, Studii Clasice, 24, 25–32. Petrovic, A. (2010) ‘True lies of Athenian public epigrams’ in Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, eds. M. Baumbach, A. Petrovic and I. Petrovic. Cambridge: 202–15.  (2013) ‘Inscribed epigrams in orators and epigrammatic collections’ in Inscriptions and Their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford, 197–213. Piérart, M. (2000) ‘Argos: une autre democratie’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Greek History, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen, T. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen: 296–314.  (2004) ‘Qu’est-ce qu’être Argien? Identité civique et régime démocratique à Argos au Ve s. avant J.-C.’ in Poleis e politeiai: esperienze politische, tradizioni letterarie,

292

bibliography

progetti costitutionali. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Storia Greca, Torino, 29 maggio–31 maggio 2002, ed. S. Cataldi. Alessandria: 167–85. Pitcher, L.V. (2005) ‘Narrative technique in the Lives of the Orators’, CQ 55: 217–34. Plassart, A. (1950) Inscriptions de Délos: périodes de l’amphictyonie ionienne et de l’amphictyonie attico-délienne. Paris. Podlecki, A.J. (1966) The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy. Ann Arbor.  (1986) ‘Polis and monarch in early Attic tragedy’ in Greek Tragedy and Political Theory, ed. J.P., Euben. Los Angeles: 76–100  (1993) ‘Κατ’ ἀρχῆς γὰς Φιλαίτιος λεώς: the concept of leadership in Aeschylus’ in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18–20 July 1990, eds A.H. Sommerstein, S. Halliwell, J. Henderson and B. Zimmermann. Bari: 55–79. Pope, M. (1988) ‘Thucydides and democracy’, Historia 37: 276–96. Pownall, F. (2008) ‘Theopompos and the public documentation of fifth-century Athens’ in Epigraphy and the Greek Historian, ed. C. Cooper. Toronto: 119–28. Preller, L. (1838) Polemonis Periegetae: Fragmenta. Leipzig. Pritchett, W.K. (1996) Greek Archives, Cults and Topography. Archaia Hellas, 2. Amsterdam. Quass, F. (1971) Nomos und Psephisma. Munich. Quillin, J. (2002) ‘Achieving amnesty: the role of events, institutions, and ideas’, TAPA 132: 71–107. Raaflaub, K. (2004) ‘Homer and the beginning of political thought in Greece’ in Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources, ed. E. Robinson. Oxford: 28–40. Rhodes, P.J. (1972) The Athenian Boule. Oxford.  (1981) Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.  (1984) ‘Nomothesia in fourth-century Athens’, CQ 35: 55–60.  (1986) ‘Political activity in classical Athens’, JHS 106: 132–44.  (1990) ‘The Atthidographers’ in Purposes of History. Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC, eds. H. Verdin, G. Schepens and E de Keyser. Leuven: 73–81.  (1991) ‘The Athenian code of laws, 410–399 BC’, JHS 111: 87–100.  (1998) ‘Enmity in fourth-century Athens’ in Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, eds. P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. von Reden. Canbridge: 144–61.  (2000) ‘Who ran democratic Athens?’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen: 465–77.  (2003a) ‘Sessions of nomothetai in fourth-century Athens’, CQ 53: 124–9.  (2003b) ‘Nothing to do with democracy: Athenian drama and the polis’ JHS 123: 104–19.  (2004a) ‘Aristophanes and the Athenian assembly’ in Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of D.M. MacDowell, eds. D.L. Cairns and R.A. Knox. Swansea: 223–37.

bibliography

293

 (2004b) ‘The laws of Athens in the Athenaion Politeia’ in Nomos: Direito e Sociedade na Antiguidade Classica, eds. D.F. Leão, L. Rosseti and M. do Céo Fialho. Madrid: 75–87.  (2006) ‘Political activity in democratic Athens’, JHS 106: 132–44.  (2008) ‘Making and breaking treaties in the Greek world’ in War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History, eds. P. de Souza and J. France, Cambridge: 6–27.  (2010) ‘The “assembly” at the end of Aristophanes’ Knights’ in Law and Drama in Ancient Greece, eds. E.M. Harris, D.F. Leão and P.J. Rhodes. London: 158–68.  (2011) ‘Appeals to the past in classical Athens’ in Stability and Crisis in the Athenian Democracy. Historia Einzelschriften 220, ed. G. Herman. Stuttgart: 13–30.  (2013) ‘The organisation of Athenian public finance’, G&R 60: 203–31.  (2014) Atthis: The Ancient Histories of Athens. Heidelberg.  (2016a) ‘Demagogues and demos in Athens’, Polis 33: 243–64.  (2016b) ‘Heraclides of Clazomenae and an Athenian treaty with Persia’, ZPE 200: 177–86. Rhodes, P.J., with Lewis, D. (1997) The Decrees of the Greek States. Oxford. Rhodes, P.J. and Osborne, R.G. (2003) Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404–323 BC. Oxford. Richardson, M.B. (2000) ‘The location of inscribed laws in fourth-century Athens’ in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen and L. Rubinstein. Copenhagen: 601–16. Richardson, M.B. (2015) ‘Polis inscriptions and jurors in fourth-century Athens’ in Cities Called Athens: Studies Honoring John McK. Camp II, eds. K.F. Daly and L.A. Riccardi. Lanham: 351–68. Roberts, J.T. (1994) Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought. Princeton. Robertson, N. (1990) ‘The laws of Athens, 410–399 BC: the evidence for review and publication’, JHS 110: 43–75 Robinson, E.W. (1997) The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens. Stuttgart.  (2011) Democracy beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age. Cambridge. Robson, J. (2017) ‘Humouring the masses: the theatre audience and the highs and lows of Aristophanic comedy’ in L. Grig (ed.), Popular Culture in the Ancient World. Cambridge: 66–87. Roisman, J. (2006) The Rhetoric of Conspiracy in Ancient Athens. Berkeley and London. Roisman, J. and Worthington, I. (2015) Lives of the Attic Orators: Texts from PseudoPlutarch, Photius, and the Suda. Oxford. Rosen, K. (1987) ‘Ehrendekrete, Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung’, Chiron 17: 277–92. Rosenbloom, D. (2012) ‘Scripting revolution: democracy and its discontents in late fifth-century drama’ in Crisis on Stage: Tragedy and Comedy in Late Fifth-century Athens, eds. A. Markantonatos and B. Zimmermann. Berlin: 403–39.

294

bibliography

 (2014) ‘Argos/Mycenae’ in The Encyclopedia of Greek Tragedy, vol. 1, ed. H.M. Roisman: 127–8. Rothwell, K.S. (1990) Politics and Persuasion in Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae. Mnemosyne Supplement 111. Leiden. Rubinstein, L. (1998) ‘The Athenian political perception of the idiotes’ in Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, eds. P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. von Reden. Cambridsge: 125–43.  (2013) ‘Spoken words, written submissions, and diplomatic conventions: the importance and impact of oral performance in Hellenistic inter-polis relations’ in Hellenistic Oratory: Continuity and Change, eds. C. Kremmydas and K. Tempest. Oxford: 165–99.  (2016) ‘Envoys and ethos: team speaking by envoys in classical Greece’ in La rhétorique du pouvoir oratoire: une exploration de l’art délibératif grec, ed. P. Derron. Fondation Hardt Entretiens 62. Vandoeuvres: 79–128. Rydberg-Cox, J. (2003) ‘Oral and written sources in Athenian forensic rhetoric’, Mnemosyne 56: 652–65. Said, S. (1993) ‘Tragic Argos’ in Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis: Papers from the Greek Drama Conference, Nottingham, 18–20 July 1990, eds. A.H. Sommerstein, S. Halliwell, J. Henderson and B. Zimmermann. Bari: 167–89. Ste Croix, G.E.M. de (1963) ‘The alleged secret pact between Athens and Philip II Concerning Amphipolis and Pydna’, CQ 13: 110–19.  (1972) Origins of the Peloponnesian War. London.  (2004) Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays, eds. D. Harvey and R. Parker, with the assistance of P. Thonemann. Oxford. Salmond, P.D. (1996) ‘Sympathy for the devil: Chares and Athenian politics’, G&R 43: 43–53. Sanders, E. (2006) ‘Historical institutionalism’ in The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions eds. S.A. Binder, R.A.W. Rhodes and B.A. Rock. Oxford (Electronic Publication).  (2016) ‘Persuasion through emotions in Athenian deliberative oratory’ in E. Sanders and M. Johncock, eds., Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity. Stuttgart: 57–73. Saxonhouse, A. (1996) Athenian Democracy: Modern Mythmakers and Ancient Theorists. Notre Dame. Schaps, D. (1979) The Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh. Schmitt Pantel, P. (2014) ‘Political traditions in democratic Athens’ in Patterns of the Past: Epitedeumata in the Greek Tradition, eds. A. Moreno and R. Thomas. Oxford: 93–120. Schoemann, G.F. (1819) De comitiis Atheniensium: libri tres. Greifswald. Scholz, P. (2009) ‘Der “gute” Bürger in Lykurgs Rede gegen Leokrates’ in Rollenbilder in der athenischen Demokratie: Medien, Gruppen, Räume im politischen und sozialen System. Beiträge zu einem interdisciplinären Kolloquium in Freiburg i. Br., 24.–25. November 2006, eds. C. Mann, M. Haake and R. van den Hoff. Weisbaden: 171–92.

bibliography

295

Schuller, W. (1974) ‘Wirkungen des ersten attischen Seebunds auf die Herausbildung der athenischen Demokratie’ in Studien zum attischen Seebund. Xenia 8. Konstanz: 87–101. Seager, R. (2001) ‘Xenophon and democratic Ideology’, CQ 51: 385–97. Sealey, R. (1987) The Athenian Republic: Democracy or Rule of Law? London. Serafim, A. (2017) Attic Oratory and Performance. London and New York. Shear, J. (2007) ‘The oath of Demophantos and the politics of Athenian identity’ in Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society, eds. A.H. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher. Exeter: 148–60.  (2011) Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (2012) ‘The politics of the past: remembering revolution at Athens’ in Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians, eds. J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn-Jones and C. MacIver. Edinburgh: 276–300. Shepherd, A. (2016) ‘Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae and the remaking of the ΠΑΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ’, CQ 66: 463–83. Sickinger, J.P. (1999a) Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens. Chapel Hill and London.  (1999b) ‘Literacy, documents, and archives in the ancient Athenian democracy’, American Archivist 62: 229–46.  (2002) ‘Literacy, orality, and legislative procedure in classical Athens’ in Epea and grammata, Oral and Written Communication in Ancient Greece, ed. I Worthington. Leiden and Boston: 147–69.  (2004) ‘The laws of Athens: publication, preservation, and consultation’ in The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, eds. E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein. London: 159–71.  (2007) ‘Rhetoric and the law’ in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. I. Worthington. Malden and Oxford: 286–302.  (2009) ‘Nothing to do with democracy: “formulae of disclosure” and the Athenian epigraphic habit’ in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein, Swansea: 87–102. Sidwell, K. (2014) Aristophanes the Democrat: The Politics of Satirical Comedy during the Peloponnesian War. Cambridge. Simonton, M. (2017) Classical Greek Oligarchy: A Political History. Princeton and Oxford. Slater, N. (1996) ‘Literacy and old comedy’ in Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, ed. I. Worthington. Leiden: 99–112. Smarczyk, B. (2006) ‘Thucydides and epigraphy’ in Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, eds. A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis. Leiden and Boston: 495–522. Sobak, R. (2015) ‘Socrates among the shoemakers’, Hesperia 84: 669–712. Sommerstein, A. (1983) Aristophanes: Wasps. Warminster.  (1990) Aristophanes: Lysistrata. Warminster.  (1997) ‘The Theatre audience, the demos, and the Suppliants of Aeschylus’ in Greek Tragedy and the Historian, ed. C.B.R. Pelling. Oxford: 63–79.  (1998) Aristophanes’ Ecclesiasuzae: Edited with Translation and Commentary. Warminster.

296

bibliography

 (2014a) ‘The politics of Greek comedy’ in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, ed. M. Revermann. Cambridge: 291–305.  (2014b) ‘The authenticity of the Demophantus decree’, CQ 64: 49–57. Spatharas, D. (2011) ‘Self-praise and envy: from rhetoric to the Athenian courts’, Arethusa 44: 199–219. Stadter, P. (1989) A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles. Chapel Hill. Stanton, G. (1996) ‘The shape and size of the Athenian assembly place in its second phase’ in B. Forsén and G. Stanton, eds., The Pnyx in the History of Athens: Proceedings of an International Colloquium Organised by the Finnish Institute at Athens, 7–9 October, 1994. Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens, 2. Helsinki: 7–21. Starr, C. (1974) Political Intelligence in Classical Greece. Leiden. Steinbock, B. (2012) Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past. Michigan. Steinmo, T., Thelen, K. and Lonstreth, F. eds. (1992) Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge. Steiner, D.T. (1994) The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton. Stephens, S.A. (1983) ‘The “Arginusae” theme in Greek rhetorical theory and practice’, The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 20: 171–80. Stockton, D. (1990) The Classical Athenian Democracy. Oxford. Stroud, R. (1998) The Athenian Grain Tax Law of 374/3 BC. Hesperia Supplements 29. Princeton Sundahl, M. (2003) ‘The rule of law and the nature of the fourth-century Athenian democracy’, C&M 54: 127–56. Szegedy-Maszak, A. (1981) The Nomoi of Theophrastus. New York. Taylor, C. (2007a) ‘From the whole citizen body? The sociology of election and lot in Athenian democracy’, Hesperia 76.2: 323–46.  (2007b) ‘A new political world’ in The Anatomy of Cultural Revolution. Athens 430– 380 BC, ed. R.G. Osborne. Cambridge: 72–90. Taylor, M.C. (2002) ‘One hundred heroes of Phyle?’, Hesperia 71: 377–97. Teegarden, D.A. (2012) ‘The oath of Demophantos, revolutionary mobilization, and the preservation of the Athenian democracy’, Hesperia 81: 433–65.  (2014) Death to Tyrants! Ancient Greek Democracy and the Struggle Against Tyranny. Princeton. Thelen, K. and Steinmo, S. (1992) ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’ in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, eds T. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth. Cambridge: 1–32. Thomas, R. (1989) Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens. Cambridge.  (1992) Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge.  (1994) ‘Law and the lawgiver’ in Ritual, Finance, Politics: Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, eds. S.N. Hornblower and R.G. Osborne. Oxford: 119–33.

bibliography

297

Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Appraoch to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford. Thür, G. (2008) ‘The principle of fairness in Athenian legal procedure: thoughts on the echinos and enklema’, Dike 11: 51–74. Timasheff, N.S. (2010) ‘Free institutions and the struggle for freedom in Russian history’, Review of Central and East European Law 35: 7–21. Tober, D. (2017) ‘Greek local historiography and its audiences’, CQ 67: 460–84. Todd, S.C. (1990a) ‘The purpose of evidence in Athenian courts’ in Nomos: Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society, eds. P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. Todd. Cambridge: 19–39.  (1990b) ‘Lady Chatterley's Lover and the Attic orators: the social composition of the Athenian jury’, JHS 110: 146–73.  (1990c) ‘The use and abuse of the Attic orators’, G&R 37: 159–78.  (1993) The Shape of Athenian Law. Oxford.  (1996) ‘Lysias Against Nicomachus: the fate of the expert in Athenian law’ in L. Foxhall and A.D.E. Lewis, Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justifications not Justice. Oxford: 101–31.  (1998) ‘The rhetoric of enmity in the Attic orators’ in Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, eds. P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. von Reden. Cambridge: 162–9.  (2007) A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11. Oxford.  (2012) ‘The publication of voting-figures in the ancient Greek world: a response to Alberto Maffi’ in Symposion 2011, eds. B. Legras and G. Thür. Vienna: 33–48. Too, Y.L. (1995) The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates. Cambridge. Tracy, S. (2000) ‘Athenian politicians and inscriptions of the years 307-302’, Hesperia 69: 227–33. Trevett, J. (1992) Apollodorus, Son of Pasion. Oxford.  (1996a) ‘Aristotle’s knowledge of Athenian oratory’, CQ 46: 371–9.  (1996b) ‘Did Demosthenes publish his symbouleutic speeches?’, Hermes 124: 425–41.  (1999) ‘Demosthenes and Thebes’, Historia 48: 184–202.  (2011) Demosthenes: Speeches 1–17. Austin. Tsagalis, C. (2008) Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams. Berlin and New York. Tuplin, C.J. (1998) ‘Demosthenes’ Olynthiacs and the character of the demegoric corpus’, Historia 47: 276–320.  (2005) ‘Delian imperialism’, Archaiognosia 13: 55–111. Tzifopoulos, Y.Z. (2013) ‘Inscriptions as literature in Pausanias’ Exegesis of Hellas’ in Inscriptions and Their Uses in Greek and Latin Literature, eds. P. Liddel and P. Low. Oxford: 149–65. Usher, S. (1999) Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality. Oxford. Van Effenterre, H. and Ruzé, F. (1994–5) Nomima: recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’Archaisme Grec, 2 vols. Rome.

298

bibliography

Van Wees, H. (2011) ‘Demetrius and Draco: Athens’ property classes and population in and before 317 BC’, JHS 131: 95–114. Vatri, A. (2017) Orality and Performance in Classical Attic Prose: A Linguistic Approach. Oxford. Veblen, T. (2006) The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford. Vlassopoulos, K. (2007a) Unthinking the Greek Polis’: Ancient Greek History Beyond Eurocentrism. Cambridge.  (2007b) ‘Free spaces: identity, experience and democracy in classical Athens’, CQ 57: 33–52. Voutiras, E. (1998) ‘Athéna dans les cités de Macédoine’, Kernos 11: 111–29. Walbank, M.B. (2008) Fragmentary Decrees from the Athenian Agora: Hesperia Supplement 38. Athens. Wallace, M.B. (2003) ‘The inscribed copies of the Thirty Years’ Peace’ in Lettered Attica: A Day of Attic Epigraphy, eds. D. Jordan and J. Traill. Athens: 131–4. Wallace, R.W. (1989) The Areopagus Council, to 307 BC. Baltimore and London.  (1994) ‘Private lives and public enemies: freedom of thought in classical Athens in Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, eds. A.L. Boegehold and A.C Scafuro. Baltimore: 127–55.  (2012) ‘When the Athenians did not enforce their laws’ in Symposion 2011, ed. G. Thür. Vienna: 115–25. Wankel, H. (1976) Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz, 2 vols. Heidelberg. Watson, J. (2010) ‘The origins of metic status at Athens’, CCJ 56: 259–78. Weingast, B. (2002) ‘Rational-choice institutionalism’ in Political Science: The State of the Discipline, eds. I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner. New York and London: 660–92. Welles, C. Bradford (1934) Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. London and Prague. Welwei, K.-W. (1998) Die griechische Polis: Verfassung und Gesellschaft in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart. West, S. (1985) ‘Herodotus’ epigraphical interests’, CQ 35: 278–305. West, W.C. (1995) ‘The decrees of Demosthenes’ Against Leptines’, ZPE 107: 237–47. Westwood, G. (2017) ‘The orator and the ghosts: performing the past in fourth-century Athens’ in A Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-Roman Oratory and Rhetoric, eds. A. Serafim, B. da Vela and S. Papaioannou. London: 57–74. Whitehead, D. (1977) The Ideology of the Athenian Metic. Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 4. Cambridge.  (1983) ‘Competitive outlay and community profit: φιλοτιμία in democratic Athens’, C&M 34: 55–74.  (1986) ‘The political career of Aristophon’, CPh 81: 313–19. Whittaker, C. (1991) ‘Pausanias and his use of inscriptions’, SO 66: 171–86. Willey, H. (2016) ‘Gods and men in ancient Greek conceptions of lawgiving’ in E. Eidinow, J. Kindt and R. Osborne, eds., Theologies of Ancient Greek Religion. Cambridge: 176–204.

bibliography

299

Willi, A. (2003) The Languages of Aristophanes: Aspects of Linguistic Variation in Classical Attic Greek. Oxford. Wilson, P. (2009) ‘Tragic honours and democracy: neglected evidence for the politics of the Athenian Dionysia’, CQ 59: 8–29 Wilson, P. and Hartwig, A. (2009) ‘IG I3 102 and the tradition of proclaiming honours at the tragic agon of the Athenian City Dionysia’, ZPE 169: 17–27. Wohl, V. (2009) ‘Rhetoric of the Athenian citizen’ in The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rhetoric, ed. E. Gunderson. Cambridge: 162–77.  (2014) ‘Comedy and Athenian law’ in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, ed. M. Revermann, Cambridge: 322–5. Wolpert, A. (2002) Remembering Defeat: Civil War and Civic Memory in Ancient Athens. Baltimore and London.  (2003) ‘Addresses to the jury in the Attic orators’, AJPh 124: 537–55. Worthington, I. (1991) ‘Greek oratory, revision of speeches and the problem of historical reliability’, C&M 42: 55–74.  (2009) ‘IG II2 236 and Philip’s Common Peace of 337’, in Greek History and Epigraphy. Essays in honour of P.J. Rhodes, eds. L. Mitchell and L. Rubinstein. Swansea: 213–23. Young, J.E. (1993) The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven. Yunis, H. (1988) ‘Law, politics, and the graphe paranomon in fourth-century Athens’, GRBS 29: 361–82.  (1996) Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Classical Athens. Ithaca.  (2001) Demosthenes On the Crown. Cambridge. Zeitlin, F. (1986) ‘Thebes: theater of self and society in Athenian drama’ in Greek Tragedy and Political Theory, ed. J. Peter Euben. Berkeley and London: 101–41.  (2000) ‘Aristophanes: the performance of eutopia in the Ecclesiazusae’ in Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy, eds. S. Goldhill and R. Osborne. Cambridge: 167–200. Zizza, C. (2006) Le iscrizioni nella Periegesi di Pausania: commento ai testi epigrafici. Pisa.

Index Locorum

(a) Literary Sources Aelius Aristides III To Plato 249: 222 VI he Opposite Argument 9: 26 n. 48 Aeschines 1.33–5: 36 1.64: 84 1.77–9: 27 1.81: 56 1.88: 88 1.117–18: 171 1.178: 28, 91 1.188: 76 2.13: 36 2.19: 119, 122 2.32–3: 196 2.46: 60 2.53: 122 2.66: 60 2.67: 90 2.68: 22, 23, 76 2.73: 51, 60 2.83–5: 23–4, 90, 122 2.89: 118 2.104: 96, 162–3 2.109–10: 181 2.141: 90, 96, 168 2.142–3: 172 2.160: 81 2.169–70: 64 2.170: 119 2.171: 71 2.176: 90 3.3–4: 27, 36, 84 3.8: 84 3.13: 14 3.25: 89, 94 3.32–6: 63, 111 3.38: 34 3.50: 37, 60, 98

3.54: 90 3.63: 77 3.67: 97 n. 120 3.68: 77 3.73–4: 36, 90, 180 3.75: 60, 84, 90 3.76: 168 3.83: 90 3.92: 98 3.93: 61, 90 3.97–9: 98 3.100: 97 3.103: 37 3.116: 147 3.125–7: 22 n. 29, 82 n. 74 3.142: 96 3.153–5: 98 3.159: 82 3.180: 65, 102 3.183: 136, 147 3.187–8: 49–50, 76, 136, 140 3.191–4: 38, 137 3.194: 81 3.223–4: 90 3.227: 169 3.237: 96 3.243: 88 3.258: 147 Aeschylus Suppliants 600–24: 207–10 Aineias tacticus 9.2–3: 171 10.9: 171 Alexis F 57: 218–19 Andocides 1.45: 114 1.51: 147

300

index locorum 1.82–4: 47–8 1.86: 26 1.88–9: 25, 26 1.95: 141–2 1.108–9: 48 1.115–16: 147 2.23: 101 3.12: 145 Androtion FGrH 324: 200 Anonymous Seguerianus 3.145: 233 3.188: 234 Apsines of Gadara Art of Rhetoric: 234–5, 270–1 Aristophanes Acharnians 530–7: 212 Birds 1037–56: 178, 213–14; 1274–89: 214 Clouds 1016–19: 98, 212; 1198: 229; 1428–9: 212 Ekklesiazousai 1010–13; 216–18 Lysistrata 387–98: 214; 698–705: 214–15 Peace 608–9: 212 hesmophoriazousai 352–71: 20 n. 23, 215 Wasps 274–8: 212 Aristotle NE 1134b24: 26; 1137b13–14, 27–32: 25 Politics 1292a6–36: 35; 1299b30–1300a4: 35–6 Rhetoric 1361a28–9: 62; 1361a34–6: 62, 143; 1384b32–5: 163; 1400a32–6: 47 n. 131, 147 [Aristotle] Ath. Pol. 14.1: 3 n. 7, 198; 26.2: 35; 29.1–3: 199; 29.4: 38 n. 101; 34.3: 35 n. 93, 199; 40.2: 38 n. 101, 50; 41.2: 32–4; 43.3–4: 22 n. 34, 24 n. 43; 44.2: 22; 45.3: 77; 45.4: 21 n. 25; 54.3: 32, 93, 110 Athenaios Deipnosophistai 2d: 225, 171d–e: 228, 272; 211d–15b: 225–6; 234d–f: 227, 272; 245b–c: 230; 587c: 272; 590d–f: 230, 272 Cicero In defence of Flaccus 15–16, 23: 237–8 [Demades] On the Twelve Years 14–15: 81

Demosthenes/[Demosthenes] 1.17–18: 70 n. 26 3.4–5: 28, 41, 70, 121, 162, 189 3.14–15: 104–5 3.56: 171 4: 110–11 4.45: 169 5.24–5: 70 6.3: 80 7.18: 95, 169 7.25: 70, 92, 95, 112, 169 7.46: 69 n. 22 8.29: 25 8.34–5: 163 8.68–73: 70, 80 8.74–5: 104 n. 146 8.76: 70 9.19: 69 9.36–45: 148 9.41–3: 147 9.42–6: 70 9.71–3: 69 9.76: 69 n. 25 12.8–9: 92, 105 12.10: 135 13.32–3: 105 n. 147, 112 18.37–8: 232 18.63: 65 18.66: 62–3 18.69: 90 18.75: 79 18.79: 78, 79, 117 18.83: 88 18.88: 80 18.102: 57 18.114–15: 88 18.118: 232 18.120–2: 63, 101, 177 18.168: 169 18.173: 79 18.178: 79, 95 18.185: 111 18.188: 78 18.203: 62–3 18.204: 53 n. 152 18.222–3: 65 18.237: 78 18.239: 147 18.248: 79 18.289: 147 18.301–3: 78 19.31: 96

301

302 19.34–5: 96 19.47–50: 89, 95 19.61: 67 19.86: 28, 58, 119, 180 19.129: 118–19 19.167: 119 19.179: 30 19.185: 21, 23, 37, 68, 105 n. 149 19.271–2: 54 19.271: 147 19.272: 148 19.276–9: 50 n. 143, 55 20.1: 88 20.3: 14, 43, 85 20.9: 87 20.11–12: 49 20.34: 166 20.36–7: 30, 129, 165, 183 20.52–4: 102 n. 138 20.54–5: 87 20.58: 101–2 20.59: 139 20.60: 87, 101–2 20.64: 43, 86, 102, 143 20.69: 120, 143 20.78: 120 20.81: 165 20.82: 63 20.83: 43 20.84: 120 20.92: 30 20.93–4: 22 n. 34 20.102–3: 43 20.128: 147 20.131: 119–20 20.134–5: 166 20.149: 143 20.159: 122, 142 21.182–3: 84 22.5–6: 36 22.72: 141 n. 106 23.1–2: 88 23.2–3: 104 23.16–17: 61, 98 23.70: 23 23.87: 26 23.104: 84, 164 23.105: 104 23.109: 161 23.111–14: 102 23.118: 85, 102 23.123: 164

index locorum 23.126: 86, 164 23.140: 164 23.141: 85, 102 23.149–51: 67 23.151: 61 n. 3 23.196–7: 86, 102 23.198: 86 23.199–202: 86 23.201: 189 23.211: 86, 163 23.218: 26 24.11: 115 24.28: 102–3 24.35–6: 34 24.39: 26 24.41–4: 99 24.92–3: 41 24.142–3: 27 24.149: 30 25.37: 84 46.13: 67–8 47.20: 101 47.22–3: 147 47.34: 66, 114, 119 47.64: 141 n. 105 47.71: 147 49.19–20: 30, 66 n. 18 50.3: 61 50.3–8: 66, 105 50.13: 61, 64 50.29: 67 51.1: 115 57.6: 113–14 57.26: 113–14 57.64: 85 57.65: 65 58.30–1: 103, 114 58.34: 85 58.45–7: 84 58.53: 91 n. 102, 179–80 59.2: 65 59.4–6: 80–1 59.43: 82 59.76: 147 59.88: 33 59.90: 170 59.91: 28, 91, 121 59.104–6: 44 n. 119, 54–5, 61 Dinarchus 1.39–40: 55, 76 1.43: 91, 148, 240

index locorum 1.78–80: 90 1.84: 30 1.86: 119, 125 1.94: 90 1.94: 90 1.100–1: 84 2.24–5: 222 Dio Chrysostom 56.10: 35 n. 93 Diodorus Siculus 13.30.7: 196 13.69: 147 13.103.1: 195 14.82.2: 137 15.26.1: 198 15.28.2: 181 15.29.7: 139, 197 15.63.2: 197 16.22.2: 198 16.92.1–2: 180 17.5.3: 197, 206 17.15.1: 270 18.10.2–5: 180, 197 18.18.6: 197 Diogenes Laertius 7.6, 10–12: 202 Harpokration s.v. Atimos: 222 s.v. Nautodikai: 225 s.v. Nemeas: 272 s.v. Oxythumia: 143 s.v. Procheirotonia: 23 Hermippos FGrH 1026 F 46a: 230 Herodotus 1.59.4: 3 n. 7 3.80: 35 n. 92 5.97.3: 190 7.143.1–2: 189 9.5: 53 n. 152, 191 Hypereides Ath. 22: 26, 31–3: 55, 122, 171 Dem. Fr. 1 col. 1: 30 Diondas 6: 169, 20–1: 106 F 76: 219–20

303

F 79: 143, 219–20 Isocrates 4 Panegyrikos 176, 180: 146 7 Areop. 41: 48–9 9 Evagoras 57: 101 12 Panath. 144: 30 n. 72 16 Team of Horses 9 17 Trapezitikos 57: 138 Istros FGrH 334 F38: 271 Krateros BNJ 342: 223–5 Lucian Encomium of Demosthenes: 18, 37, 45: 80 n. 70 Menippos 19–20: 236 Parliament of the Gods 14–18: 236 Timon 40–2: 236, 50–2: 236 True History 1.20: 236 Lycurgus 1.12: 161 1.16: 52 1.36: 52 1.41–2: 52–3, 57 1.53: 52 1.76: 146 1.80–1: 146 1.112–15: 53 n 151 1.117–19: 53 n. 151, 147, 148 1.122: 53 n. 151, 191 1.124–6: 50, 142 1.127: 31 1.146: 52 F 18 1b: 89 F 58: 88 n. 95 Lysias 1.30: 147 1.47: 147 2.18: 161 12.73: 35 n. 93 13.71–2: 95 n. 115; 133 13.73: 170 28.5: 67 F 130: 77 Nepos hrasybulus 3.2: 200

304

index locorum

Pausanias 1.23.9: 231 1.29.7: 231 5.23.4: 231 Philochorus FGrH 328: 199–200 Plato Ap. 32b: 195 Deinitions 415b11: 25 Phdr. 258a–c: 75 Plutarch/[Plutarch] Alex. 74.1: 205, 270 Cim. 13.4: 224 Dem. 17.1: 203 Dem. 20.3: 80 n. 70, 105 n. 148, 203 Dem. 21.3: 203 Dem. 26.1: 203 Dem. 27.3: 203 Mor. 295c–d: 35 n. 91 Mor. 814a–b: 50 Nic. 1.5: 202 Pel. 7: 186 Per. 10.4–5: 202 Per. 13: 202 Per. 17: 178, 202 Per. 30: 202–3 Per. 32: 203 Phoc. 17.5–6: 269–70 hem. 6.4: 147 hem. 10.4–5: 202 hem. 11.1: 202 X Or. 833d–4b X Or. 833e–f: 204 X Or. 842c: 94 X Or. 843f: 205 n. 52 X Or. 848e–9a: 89 X Or. 849f: 205, 270 X Or. 850f–1c: 204 X Or. 851f–2e: 204–5 Polemon F 3 Preller: 226, 272 F 78 Preller: 227–8 Polybius 6.57.1–9: 197 38.13.7: 35 n. 93 heophrastus Characters 4.3: 114, 170, 7.8: 114, 117 n. 28

heopompos FGrH 115 F 154: 221–2 hucydides 1.139.1–2: 191 2.37.1: 161 2.61.2: 58 2.64.1: 58 3.36.3: 177 n. 60 3.37.3: 20 n. 23, 193 3.43.4–5: 58 4.118: 191–2 5.18–19: 191 5.29.2–3: 94 5.47: 133 n. 81, 185, 191 5.79: 191 6.8.2: 193 6.61.4–7: 115 8.11: 193 Xenophon Hell. 1.7.8–36: 22, 39, 194, 1.7.20: 217, 224, 2.1.31–2: 196, 3.5.16: 137, 5.4.37: 196, 6.2.2: 123, 6.55.3: 196, 7.1.1: 23 n. 36, 173, 7.1.14: 111, 173, 7.4.4: 111, 172 Mem. 3.3.11: 62–3, 3.5.5: 62–3 Poroi 3.11: 101 n. 137 (b) Inscriptions Agora XVI 36: 175–6 Agora XVI 48: 179 IDélos 88: 184 IG I3 1: 3 IG I3 8: 4 n. 16, 14 n. 4 IG I3 83: 133 n. 81 IG I3 102: 133–4, 140, 224 IG I3 110: 176 n. 56 IG I3 125: 133 n. 83 IG I3 1453: 182, 213 IG I3 1454: 178, 183 IG II2 6: 47 n. 130, 176 nn. 54–5 IG II2 14: 135, 137 IG II2 20: 135 IG II2 21: 135, 138 IG II2 22: 135, 138 IG II2 33: 135, 139 IG II2 40: 135, 139 IG II2 42: 173 IG II2 43: 127, 128, 139 IG II2 44: 185 IG II2 45: 133 n. 81 IG II2 47: 18 n. 16, 73, 93, 100, 115, 124 n. 49

index locorum IG II2 55: 185 IG II2 77: 77, 130 IG II2 96: 173 IG II2 107: 124 n. 49, 172, 174 IG II2 109: 172 IG II2 111: 129 IG II2 112: 23 n. 36 IG II2 116: 128, 135, 138, 173 IG II2 120: 128 IG II2 126: 135 IG II2 212: 23 n. 36 IG II2 448: 151 n. 132 IG II2 1623: 82 IG II2 3775: 135, 138 IG II3 1 292: 23 n. 38, 93, 100, 115 n. 24, 179 IG II3 1 295: 174 IG II3 1 297: 168 IG II3 1 298: 129, 135, 138, 165 n. 18, 174 IG II3 1 301: 150 IG II3 1 302: 174 IG II3 1 304: 130 n. 75, 174 IG II3 1 306: 12 n. 1, 32, 76, 124 IG II3 1 308: 135 IG II3 1 312: 78 IG II3 1 313: 174 IG II3 1 316: 128, 174 IG II3 1 318: 135 IG II3 1 319: 135, 138 IG II3 1 320: 31, 142 IG II3 1 324: 23 IG II3 1 325: 22 IG II3 1 325: 22 n. 28 IG II3 1 337: 19 IG II3 1 349: 19 IG II3 1 337: 22 n. 28, 172 IG II3 1 367: 12 n. 1, 17–19, 21, 100, 105 n. 150, 124, 130 n. 75, 166, 179 3 IG II 1 370: 12 n. 1, 115, 124, 151 n. 134 IG II3 1 399: 99–100, 127 IG II3 1 416: 127 IG II3 1 417: 126 IG II3 1 443: 185

IG II3 1 452: 166–7 IG II3 1 469: 32 IG II3 1 476: 22 IG II3 1 473: 32 IG II3 1 516: 126 IG II3 4 57: 150 n. 129 IG II3 4 460: 71 n. 35 IKErythrai 30–1: 186 ML 23: 44 n. 119, 221 ML 46: 178 ML 69: 178 ML 70: 139 n. 100 ML 85: 133–4 Or 153: 178 Or 154: 178 Or 155: 182, 213 Or 157: 139 n. 100 Or 178: 135 Or 182: 133–4 rO 2: 118, 172, 180 rO 4: 132 n. 79 rO 6: 135, 137 rO 11: 144 rO 17: 186 rO 22: 127, 128 rO 23: 173 rO 24: 173 rO 25: 32, 128 rO 31: 174 rO 33: 135, 137 rO 39: 129, 184, 186 rO 40: 179, 183 rO 44: 135, 138, 173 rO 47: 135, 138 rO 58: 135 rO 64: 135, 174 rO 76: 135 rO 76: 142 rO 88: 44 n. 119, 146 n. 122, 221 rO 91: 172 SEG XXVIII 85: 132 n. 79, 135, 136 SEG XXXII 43: 135 SEG XL 56: 135, 138

305

General Index

acropolis, 29, 54, 125, 145, 148, 157, 175, 181, 184, 222, 231, 236, 245 Aelius Aristides, 195, 222, 237 Aeschines, 23, 27, 36, 60, 61, 74, 84, 212, 235 Aeschylus, 207 agora, Athenian, 117, 124, 131, 136, 140, 170, 181 Agoratos, 95, 133 Agyrrhios, 74 Aigina, 163 Aineias tacticus, 171 Alcibiades, 78, 193, 227 alethestate prophasis, 191 Alexander the Great, 205 Alexis, 218 ambasssadors, 174 Amphipolis, 67, 169 Androtion, 168, 200 announcement of decrees, 63, 111, 233 Anonymous Seguerianus, 233 Antiphon, 224 antiquarian interest in decrees, 231 Apatouria, 229 Apollodoros, 61, 81, 121 Apsines of Gadara, 232, 234, 235, 270 Arabic scholarship, 201 Archinos, 199 archive, 10, 110, 120, 140, 243 Areopagus, 161 Arginusae, battle of, 38, 45, 122, 195 Argos, Argives, 207, 208 Aristeides, 77 Aristion, 3, 4, 198 Aristophanes, 220 Aristophon, 73, 168 Aristotle, 25, 35, 60, 163, 189, 201, 233, 234, 272 Arthmios, 53, 54, 70, 147, 221, 224 Arthmios stele, 10, 147, 148, 222 assembly (ekklesia), 2, 3, 15, 33, 69, 172, 182, 245 atechnoi pisteis, 60, 233 ateleia, 30, 43, 49, 86, 101, 138 Athenaion, 225

Athenaion Politeia, 198 Athenaios, 218, 231, 237 Athenian superiority, 161 Athenogenes, 171 atimia, 72 Atthidography, 200 audiences, non-Athenian, 188 autopsy, lack of evidence for, 137, 144, 192, 224 biblion, 118, 180, 211, 213 biography, 206, 223 Bosporos, Kings of, 166 Bourdieu, P., 5 bribery, 91, 133, 235, 240 Caecilius of Caleacte, 204 Canevaro, M., 232, 233, 269 Chabrias, 74, 120, 158, 165, 197 Chairephilos, 219 Chaironeia, atermath of, 53, 79, 90, 152, 168, 203 characterisation, 29, 55, 68 Chares, 73 Charidemos, 67, 98, 104, 163 charis, 65, 187 cheirotonia, 14, 36, 208 Cicero, 237 Cimon, 202 citizenship grants, 24, 54, 55, 61, 86, 121, 137, 150, 164 class struggle, 57, 236 Cleon, 193 cleruchies, Athenian, 185 collaboration, political, 18, 73, 82, 94 Comedy, 211–20 communism, by decree, 217 Congress decree, 178, 202 Cornelius Nepos, 200 Cossacks, 2 costs of inscribing, 31, 176 Council (boule), 14, 19, 21, 33, 37, 76, 112, 192, 228

306

general index crisis, 53 crowns, 88, 100, 124, 153 declamatio, 232 decree-mindedness, 61, 83, 233, 241 decree of Kannonos, 195, 224 decree of Miltiades, 221, 231 decree of hemistocles, 44, 221, 222 decree of the troizenians, 221 decrees abuse of, 213 Aeschines’ use of, 88, 90, 118 Andocides’ use of, 45, 48 as evidence, 62 as paradigms, 43, 56, 102, 142, 148, 221 as proofs, 62, 233 Athenian ethos and, 49 authority of, 32, 132 civilisation and, 212 close attention to, 106, 126, 157, 187 consequences of, 106 critique of, 28, 36, 41, 81, 92, 96, 97, 105, 107, 162, 169, 189 cultural signiicance of, 239, 245 Demosthenes’ use in Against Aristokrates, 86 Demosthenes’ use in Against Leptines, 43 Demosthenes’ use in Against Leptines, 88, 138, 234 Demosthenes’ use in On the Crown, 88, 90, 234 destruction of, 65, 89, 141 dissemination of, 120 enforcement of, 66 epigraphical publication of, 13, 155, 177, 185 expenditure upon, 31 fabricated, 44, 45, 50, 61, 142, 205, 223, 226, 230, 233, 234, 235, 242, 269, 272 formulae, 36, 192, 208, 215, 236 geopolitics and, 46 honoriic, 18, 30, 43, 45, 47, 65, 85, 89, 101, 111, 127, 145, 150, 164, 166, 180, 201, 236 humour and, 220, 243 inanity of, 189 inscribed Ag. XVI 36: 175–6 Ag. XVI 36: 175 Ag. XVI 48: 179 IDelos 88: 184 IG I3 1: 3

IG I3 8: 4, 14 IG I3 21: 14 IG I3 102: 133 IG I3 125: 133 IG I3 1453: 182, 213 IG I3 1454: 178, 183 IG I3 8: 4 IG II2 14: 135 IG II2 20: 135 IG II2 21: 135 IG II2 22: 135 IG II2 33: 135 IG II2 40: 135 IG II2 42: 173 IG II2 43: 127, 128 IG II2 44: 185 IG II2 47: 18, 73, 93, 100, 115 IG II2 55: 185 IG II2 77: 130 IG II2 96: 173 IG II2 107: 174 IG II2 109: 172 IG II2 111: 129, 184 IG II2 116: 128, 135, 173 IG II2 120: 128 IG II2 126: 135 IG II2 286: 208 IG II3 1 292: 93, 100, 135, 179 IG II3 1 295: 174 IG II3 1 298: 174 IG II3 1 298: 129, 135, 165 IG II3 1 302: 174 IG II3 1 304: 100, 174 IG II3 1 306: 76, 124 IG II3 1 308: 135 IG II3 1 312: 78 IG II3 1 313: 174 IG II3 1 316: 174 IG II3 1 318: 135 IG II3 1 319: 135 IG II3 1 337: 22, 172 IG II3 1 352: 22 IG II3 1 367: 18, 100, 105, 166, 179 IG II3 1 370: 115, 124 IG II3 1 399: 100, 127 IG II3 1 416: 127 IG II3 1 417: 126 IG II3 1 443: 185 IG II3 1 452: 167

307

308 IG II3 1 516: 126 Or 153: 178 Or 154: 178 Or 178: 135 rO 2: 172, 180 rO 4: 132 rO 17: 182, 186 rO 22: 127, 128 rO 23: 44 rO 33: 135 rO 35: 179 rO 39: 184, 186 rO 40: 179, 183 SEG XXVIII 85: 135 intention of, 106, 112, 234 liability for, 56, 86, 92, 246 literary BD 5: 168 BD 8: 229 D 1: 48, 50, 196 D 2: 48 D 5: 38 D 8: 25, 26 D 13: 49 D 14: 225 D 15: 49, 76, 135, 143 D 17: 57, 135 D 19: 31, 50, 142 D 20: 135, 196 D 23: 120, 143, 144 D 24: 101, 135 D 27: 55 D 28: 135 D 29: 135 D 30: 135 D 33: 196 D 37: 196 D 38: 67 D 39: 143, 165 D 40: 135 D 42: 65 D 43: 85 D 44: 55, 76, 81 D 45: 135 D 46: 144 D 47: 122, 144 D 48: 123, 196 D 49: 55, 61 D 54: 143, 144 D 55: 196 D 56: 23, 111, 173

general index D 58: 135 D 59: 85 D 64: 67 D 66: 84, 168 D 67: 28, 61, 66, 105 D 69: 67 D 70: 61, 64 D 71: 164 D 74: 92 D 76: 115 D 83: 135 D 85: 30, 66, 101 D 87: 67 D 88: 115 D 92: 23 D 93: 102 D 94: 61, 85, 104, 163, 234 D 103: 120 D 104: 120 D 105: 58, 119, 180 D 106: 28, 121 D 107: 115, 135, 178, 200 D 108: 69, 111 D 109: 28, 91, 121 D 110: 84, 91, 121 D 111: 28, 112, 200 D 112: 28, 112 D 114: 64, 119 D 115: 80 D 119: 119 D 121: 181 D 122: 68 D 124: 119, 122 D 126: 90, 122, 168, 181 D 127: 77, 90, 181 D 128: 60 D 129: 51, 61 D 130: 95, 120 D 131: 90, 180 D 132: 24, 90, 122 D 134: 89 D 135: 119 D 137: 113 D 138: 56, 122 D 139: 117 D 140: 70, 92, 95, 112 D 142: 92 D 144: 69 D 146: 58, 90 D 147: 61, 90 D 149: 135

general index D 151: 78 D 152: 78 D 156: 65 D 158: 80 D 159: 90 D 160: 57 D 161: 90 D 162: 79, 95, 168 D 166: 65 D 167: 52, 57 D 167b: 89 D 168: 52 D 169: 79 D 171: 94, 135 D 172: 135 D 175: 55, 122, 171 D 177: 143 D 178: 135 D 179: 49, 120, 143 D 180: 180 D 182: 90 D 184: 90 D 186: 206 D 187: 84 D 188: 81 D 192: 69 D 193: 90 D 194: 116 D 195: 90, 116, 119, 203 D 198: 90 D 204: 92 D 207: 179 D 209: 103, 114 D 211: 84 D 214: 90 D 223: 82 D 227: 91, 168, 240 D 234: 240 D 237: 84 D 240: 52 X 3: 205 Lycurgus’ use of, 43, 52, 53 misleading presentations of, 97, 220 non-Athenians and, 174 of associations, 15 of demes, 15 of tribes, 15 persuasion and, 30 Praxagora’s use of, 216 Pseudo-Demosthenes, use of in Philip’s Letter, 92

309

rational argument and, 120 reliability of, 62 religion and, 125, 245 resistance to, 187 timelessness of, 87 truth of, 60 dedications, 76 Delos, 167, 185 Demades, 73, 81, 84, 88, 153, 168, 206, 219, 235, 270 demagogues, 35, 196, 236 Demochares, 78, 204 democracy, 4 abolition of, 199 and decrees, 39 Argive, 209 extreme, 35, 189, 237 Plutarch and, 203 restoration of, 51, 136 systemic problems of, 107, 189, 200, 237, 246 tragedy and, 208 Demon, 203 Demophantos, decree of, 31, 50, 142 Demosthenes, 4, 23, 31, 36, 61, 62, 64, 72, 77, 79, 83, 84, 94, 117, 153, 168, 203, 212, 235, 241 diapsephisis, 113 Dinarchus, 76, 84, 119 Diodoros the Periegete, 226 Diodorus Siculus, 197 Diogenes Laertius, 201 Diopeithes, 73 Diopeithes’ decree, 203 diplomacy, 35, 244 documents and Xenophon, 194 deployment of, 119, 120, 180, 199 drating of, 93 inauthentic, 142, 230, 233 inscribed, 146 Persian war decrees, 44 storage of, 117 hucydides and, 192 Draco, 29, 34, 148 Drakontides’ decree, 203 education, decrees and, 232 eisangelia (impeachment), 15, 84 elite politicians, 73

310

general index

epigram, 137 epigraphical habit, 4, 32, 45, 62, 76, 155, 185 equality, 207 Erythrai, 4, 186 Eteokarpathians, 178 Euboulos, 73 Euripides, 216 exiles, 172 expertise, 99, 116, 129 ishmongers, 218 generals (strategoi), 114 gossip, 114, 170 graphe nomon me epitedeion thenai, 27, 113 graphe paranomon, 8, 15, 28, 34, 38, 81, 89, 103, 113, 151, 242 Greif, A., 7 gynaecocracy, 218 Hansen, M.H., 25, 33, 59, 69, 154 Harpalos, 240 Harris, E.M., 26, 33, 99, 269 Hegesippos, 73, 95, 169 Heliodoros, 226 heralds (kerykes), 114 Hermai, commemorative, 136 Hermippos of Smyrna, 230 Herodotus, 3, 53, 190, 191, 196 Hieronymos of Kardia, 197 Historical Institutionalism, 7 historiography, 200 homonoia, 46 hortatory clause, 100, 127, 175 humour, 220 Hypereides, 73, 106, 206, 219 Ibn Abī Usaybi῾a, 201 image, Athenian, 56, 188 imperialism, Athenian, 40, 196, 202, 213 inheritance, 103 inscribing costs, 176 inscriptions, appeals for, 177 inscriptions, cited by orators, 149 insecurity, Athenian, 43, 168, 169 Instiutionalism Historical Institutionalism, 16, 245 New Institutionalism, 7, 71, 74, 99 institutions, 7, 25 Iolas, 270 Ionian revolt, 190 Ioulis, 183

Iphikrates, 74, 197 Isocrates, 71, 101 isthmus of Corinth, 235 Kallias, 77 Kallimedon, 218 Keos, Keans, 84, 168, 179, 182, 183, 184, 186 Kephalos, 73, 81 Kersobleptes, 122, 163 kerugma, 207 King’s Peace, 87, 146 Kitians, 172 Konon, 120, 143 Krateros, 116, 203, 225 Kritias, 8, 53, 77 Kydias, 163 lability, political, 223 Lambert, S.D., 2, 42, 59, 72, 124, 150 law (nomos), 20, 21, 25, 26 and rhetoric, 28 comedy and, 211 enforcement of, 65 of Eukrates, 31, 142 rule of, 29, 34 lawcourt oratory, 92, 98 lawcourts (dikasteria), 33, 113 laws (nomoi) and decrees, 28, 30, 32, 33, 91, 216 inscribed, 29, 147 Leokrates, 43 Leptines, 30 liability, political, 19, 52, 57, 70, 90, 190, 210, 218, 246 liberation, of Greece, 180 lists of traitors, 147, 148 local historiography, 200 logopoioi, 75 Lougovaya, J., 214 Low, P.A., 132 Lucian, 236, 237 Lycurgus, 43, 73, 83, 88, 89, 94, 142, 146, 191, 204, 205 Lykidas, 191 Marathon, battle of, 86 Megara, 35, 100, 163, 191, 200 Megarian decree, 45, 191, 202, 212 Meidias, 74 Melians, Athenian treatment of, 195 memory, collective, 10, 44, 51, 102, 107, 123, 132, 242

general index metics, 171, 208 Metroon, 29, 45, 117, 118, 119, 134 Miletos, 4 Miltiades, 77 Miltokythes, 164 mysteries, Eleusinian, 212 Mytilenean debate, 58, 193, 238 Neoptolemos of Parion, 226 Nicias, 202 nomothesia, 8, 15, 20, 34 North, D., 6 oath, 30 Oath of Ephebes, 146, 221 Oath of Plataea, 44, 146, 221 Ober, J., 33 Oiniades, 176 Old Comedy, 211–20 Oinobios, 231 oligarchy, 4, 8, 37 Olynthos and Olynthians, 219 oral dissemination of decrees, 116, 181, 233 Oreos, 37, 163 Osborne, M.J., 127 Pallene, 227 parasitoi, 227 path-dependence, 245 Pausanias, 231 Peace of 392, 145 Peace of 446/5, 231 Peace of Antalkidas, 87, 146 Peace of Callias, 146, 221, 224 Peace of Nicias, 94 Peace of Philokrates, 23, 36, 51, 58, 70, 96, 122, 145, 168, 169, 179 Peisitheides of Delos, 166 Pelasgos, 207 Pellanians, 175 Pelopidas, 186 Peloponnesian war, 40, 191 Pericles, 58, 77, 88, 161, 178, 202, 212, 234 Persian war decrees, 3, 10, 44, 54, 222 Phanodemos, 76 philanthropia, 197 Philip, 24, 36, 68, 70, 105, 180, 201, 203, 235 Philippides, 73 Philochoros, 199, 226 Philokrates, 73 philotimia, 18, 81, 143, 202, 203

311

Phormio, 68, 128 Phryne, 230 Phrynichos, 224 piety, Athenian, 180 pinax, 211 Piraeus, 129, 138, 144, 165, 183 Pisistratus, 3, 198 Plato, 26, 75 Plutarch, 205, 237 Pnyx, 182 Polemon, 228 Polybius, 197 Poseidonios, 225 probouleuma, 94, 96, 99, 112, 194 probouleusis, 19, 25, 36, 37, 193 procheirotonia, 23 proclamation, 111, 181 proedroi, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27 progymnasmata, 232 proposers, 4, 23, 51, 83 protenthai, 228 proxeny awards, 150, 153 prytaneis, 22, 24, 97, 126, 129, 170, 203, 215 Pythodoros of Delos, 184 reconciliation, Athenian, 51, 131, 200 religious regulations, 152 rhetorical handbooks, 233 rhodes, P.J., 21 Salamis, battle of, 86, 202 Second Athenian Confederacy, 127, 128, 135, 168, 173, 179, 181, 184, 196 Second Sophistic, 206, 231, 237 secretaries (grammateis), 31, 93, 110, 116, 215 self-interest, political, 108, 189 sexual activity decrees about, 217, 230 Shear, J.L., 9, 46, 127, 131 Sicilian expedition, 193, 214 Skionians, Athenian punishment of, 195 social capital, 5 Social War, 45 Socrates, 75 Solon, 26, 29, 34, 148 Sophocles, 271 sovereignty, popular, 33, 34, 36, 208 statues, 52, 53, 86, 88, 137, 138, 144, 145, 148, 153, 204, 218, 231, 236, 240 Steinbock, B., 9 stelai, bronze, 224

312

general index

stelai, inscribed, 124, 144, 155, 214 stele electrum, 236 stele, inscribed, 176 Stephanos, 82 Sthorys of hasos, 175 summoner (kleter), 115 symbolic capital, 5, 106, 241 symbouleutic oratory, 69, 76, 80, 91, 92, 104, 106, 110, 163, 169 synegoroi, 65, 80 theatre of Dionysos, 63, 111, 138 hebans, 9, 55, 96, 137, 198 hemistocles, 77, 190, 202, 234 hemistocles decree, 10 heopompos, 221 heozotides, 135, 136 heseus, 207 thesmothetai, 34 hirty, the, 8, 35, 118

homas, r., 131 hrasyboulos, 133, 199 hucydides, 194, 231 timarchos, 73 time, 62, 86 timon, 236 timotheos, 74, 197 tragedy, 211 treaties, 34, 43, 146, 150 tribute, 178 trierarchy, 66, 114 tyranny, 35, 37 voting, 24, 194, 208 women decrees and, 214, 215 Xenophon, 38, 62, 122, 171, 197 Zeno, 201