Atthis - the local chronicles of ancient Athens

Citation preview

ATTHIS· '

. I

THE$LOCAL CHRONICLES OF ANCIENT ATHENS ..

11/N"

BY

FELIX JACOBY

OXFORD/

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS..· 1949

,,. ./

PREFACE Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C. 4 GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON . BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS CAPE TOWN

Geoffrey Cumberlege, Publisher to the University

PRlNTED IN GRKAT BRITAIN

,.

· THE purpose of this book, which was originally intended ,to form an introduction to an edition of the Ancient Chroniclers of Athens with a full commentary, is simple. I have tried to prove that the' Atthis ', i.e. the history of Athens, as written by Athenians between c. 350 and 263 B.C., does not derive from an old and semi-official chionicle kept by the· priestly board of Exegetai, but was èreated in the· lifetime of Thukydides by a leamed man, the foreigner Hellanikos of Lesbos. He, while relying on living memory and to a certain extent on documents (among which the archons' list seems by far the most important), had in the main to use his imagination in order to fit a mass of isolated, often contradictory, and mostly undatable evidence into the framework of a continuous history. The consequences of this thesis, when we corne to evaluate the materials on which the history of ancient Athens is based, are obvious. As all local histories in Greece seem to have had the same character as the' Atthis ', or a similar one, the detailed examination of the Athenian books, some of which are fairly well known to us, throws a light on the earlier Ionian chronicles. This book may therefore be regarded at the same time as an introduction to my edition of the Greek Local Historians, which is now being printed as Vol. iii B of Die F.rag­ . mente der Griechischen Historiker (Leiden, E. J. Brill). I have quoted throughout by the new collection, adding a Concordance for the Atthi­ dographers with the numbers in C. Mueller's Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, and a very full index of the subject-matter with which I have had to deal more or less circumstantially in the course of this investigation. The opinion about the foundations of Athenian history which I have argued in this book entailed a good deal of polemic. I have tried to keep this distasteful part of the work in reasonable bounds, and have con­ fined it'as far as possible to the annotations. Obviously my own view } · forced me in the ftrst place to criticize Wilamowitz's famous book Ari­ < �( stoteles �nd Athen and incidentally Mommsen's theory about the origü1 of the Roman annals, a theory from which (as I have tried to show) the theory of Wilamowitz derives. I differ particularly from both in regard : to· the relation to each other in time of great and local history. The usual i 'view is that local history (literary or pre-literary) is the earliest genre \"·of historical writing and the primary source of great history. I have \1 become more and more convinced that the local chronicle is a rather late �... ,. : creation and (to put it quite crudely) an offshoot frεv τον Μητpώιοv - - -

6 . IG 2 • ii. 1672 (329/8 B.C.): / 137) Λόγοςέπιστατων'Ελεvσιvόθεvκαίτα.μιωv τοίν θεοιν · - - - Το πε/pι6ν - - - /

'

•

\

•

1\

Λ

•

. . . ,

το μεν αpγνpιοv εμε εκεf\ευεν εvεγκε ιv

1

\

δ

,/.. J

αΠΕιf\Τ)ψεναι

'

\

ι υμιv ψασκοντες ου εν με εις την ταψ, ν ανrι(\ωκεναι, 7ΌV ε 7JΎ7Jτην εpομενος

,

...

,1..'

έκ.ε'ιvου

κελενσαντος ανrιf\ωσα

'

' '\

τε κάλλιστα παpασκεvάσας, ίνα αύτων έκκ6ψαιμι ταύτην την lεpοσvλίαν, κα, tt

,..

δ

\

1" \ 1 '\ J / 1 \' δ 'δ Ι 'λλ' t Ι 1 Ι οκο ιεν οvτοι μεv ανrι(\ωκεναι παντα, εγω ε ου εν, α ομοιως καγω.

\

ιvα μη

3. [Demosth. ] Κατά. Evέpγov κα, Μνrισιβούλου 47. 68 έπειδη τοlνvν έτελε~σεν (scil. the freedwoman of the < \ 'ξ J " 'δ Ι Η ως τους ε 7Jγητας, ινα ει ειην ο-τι με 1

""

fl

Ι

\

'δ J ποιειν πεpι τοvτων, και ιηΎ7Jσαμrιν

XP7J \

Ι

(353/2 B. C. ?) :44 speaker), ήλθον

""

\

\

JιΙ,J... ξ

/

/

\ \

,ι

αυτο ιs απαντα τα γενομενα, την τε αψι ιν την του-των και την ευvοιαν τfjς

Όpω'Που Ι ' 1' ' ' ' ' ' ' δ ια \ το• κvμβ'ιοv αv και\ ως ειχον αvrην εν τψ οικιαι και\ ως ι'φ :ι

Λ

ιεισα

1

Τεf\ευτησειεv.

)

\

δ

/

ακουσαντεs

/

/

\

'ξ

f

Λ

ε μου οι ε ηΎ7Jται

(ούκ

W

J

ταντα, ηpοντο

με

π6τεpον έξηγ-ήσωvταί μοι μ6vον η κα, σvμβουλεύσωσιν. (69) άΤΤοκpιvαμέvον δd μου αύτοιs άμφ6τεpα, εl7T6v μοι "ήμεις τοlνvν σοι 'ΤΟ. μεv: v6μιμα έξrιΎΤJσ6μ.ιθα, τα δε σύμφορα παpαινέσομεν. πpωτον μεν έπεvεγκεί:ν δ6pυ έπ, τfjι 41 .J..

'

,...

\

κψοpαι

/

θ

αv pωποv,

' ' β ουλ εvομεν Wλλ

α

οι

δ

J

ε

W

σοι

ιι1

....,

•

το

Λ

μαpτνρεs

/

φ

Ι

,...

τωι

\/

Vf\αΤΤειν

' \

\

,ι

μνrιματι 1

ει

τις

Λ

\

επι

t

τpεις

'

'

)

)

/

)

\

Ι

J

\

,..

εστι δ'

J~

τασε

ε

της σvμ-

δ'ε γvνrι\ και\ τα\ ΤΤαιδ'ια, δ

\

1

πpοσrικων

ημεpας.

'

αvτοs μεν ον παpεγενου, η

\

/

1 λ αγχανειv·

ον' δ' ε

Λ

ουκ εισιν, ονομαστι μεν μιη ενι πpοαγοpενειν, τοις

Τ ειτα

1

\ και

\

επι

μνrιμα

. ε'Πει ' δ'7) /

σοι

1

)

πpοαγοpεvειν

επειτα

δ ε δpακοσι σε ~\ •

Ι

και

κτεινασι~•.

W

(

τωι νομωι εστι σοι.

70

)

)

' ' πpος τον /

1 βασιλ εα

Ί

1

' μη

I

f

ον γαρ εστιν εν γενει σοι

' γαρ

Ν θ

>

t

ε

ε μοι τα.ντα, α μεν υπ I

ι > Q ι • c:-> , Q ι ~,:, , φ ι ιιιιι ι ηιιωι 11ιzυκω ι . .. και εισχεαι αμ,-,pοσιαv . ."1 ο αμ,-,pοσια νοωp ακpαι νεs-, lλ,111,ιι, 1Τιιγκαpπία . απεp έμβαλε. (c) Plutarch, Nikias 23. 9: αλλω!, ΤΕ και ι ι,ι,ι ιttιpl -,jλιοv και σελ-ήνηv έπί τpείs- ήμέpα!, έποιοi}ντο φνλακ:ήv, ιiJS Αύτο­ ι. ,\, l1!rις διlγpαψεν έv τοί:s 'Εξηγητικοί,. 12 (d) Harpokr. s.v. Πα'λαμvαίοι;; 'I. V . πpοκώvια; glossarium Ρ. Οχ. 1802, fr. 3, col. iii. 6r .73 '1. Timosthenes. 74 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 3. 847: ότι δέ: Την Δaϊpav ~11111\

Ι fφσcφ6νηv καλουσι Τιμοσθέvη, έv τωι Έξηγητικώι συγκαταΤίθεται.

5. Habron (c. rooB.c.?). Steph. Byz. s.v. Baτ-ή· δijμosrijς Αlγηίδο,φvλij,, 00t11 ήv 'Άβρων ό Καλλlον, έξηγητηs, Περί Jορ-των κaί θvσιωv γεγpaφώ,.,s 6 . Εύμολπιδων Πά-rpια. Cicero, Ad Att. 1. 9. 2 (67 B.c.): Thyillus te rogat et ego eius rogatu Εύμολπιδωv Πό.-rpιa.16 7. Εύπατpιδωv Πάτρια. Athen. 9. 78, p . 4ro ΑΒ : (Ε r) παρέθετα ταίhα ' Λ των Λ Ε' '!:! - 77 πατpιοις ' Ταοε ,,:, γεγpα-' και' Δ ωpο'θεοs-, ,1.,' ψασκων και' εν τοις νπατpιοων φθαι πεpί τηι, TWV lκεTWV καθάρσεως• έπειτα άπονιψάμενο, αύτός και ο[ α'λ'λοι οί σπλαγχvεύοντεs ύδωρ λαβών κiθaιpε, άπόνιζε τό αfμα του καθαιpο­ μέvου. καί μετα. Τό ά1Τόνψμα άνακιν-ήσα!, εlς Τα~ό έγχεε.78

(b)

STUDY OF ΤΗΕ EVIDENCE;

Ιη e~amining the evidence the first point that surpήses us is the contrast between the epigraphic· and the literary evidence. As aga:inst

§2

ΤΗΕ

EXEGETAI

17

twenty inscήptions (Α) there are seven mentions only in the whole of literature if we omit, as we necessarily must, the witness P lato (C) as a Utopist, and of course the definitions of the lexicographers (D). It is another point of contrast that the evidence from literature is compressed into the fourth century B.c.-if we leave aside Plutarch, whose source goes back at least to the time of Theophrastos, and the more or less incidental mention in Theophrastos even into its first half-whereas in the inscήptions we have a survey of ahnost seven centuήes , from ,:. 440 B.c. until c. A.D. 250. But it should be noticed that the inscriptions are distinctly divided into two groups b etween which there is an empty spa:ce of about two centuήes. The earlier group,79 unfortunately very small, is more important not only οη account of its antiquity but also because each inscήption yields some information about the institution itself; it is confined to the years from c. 440 to c. 320 B.c., and thus roughly to the same space of time to \vhich belong the mentions of exegetai in literature and which, without any doubt, the definitions of the grammarians have in view. The later group, 8ο which begins in 128/7 Β. c.~so not until Roman times-is of greater vaήety. It comprehends, besides the people's decree from the Akropolis, an ' epheboi-inscription, the documents of the processions to Delp~, and two inscήptions of theatre-seatsB1 (which yield at least some details for the offi.cial activity of the exegetai in tlιis late time), a number of inscriptions, honorary and οη tombs, which do not give much more .t han the names of some exegetai, but ίη doing so coπoborate the continuance of the institution down to the third century A.D. 8:ι. This state . of affairs at once compels us to put a question which we can anyhow not avoid in view- of the far-reaching 1neasures of reorganization in the political, social, and cultural conditions ίη Athens duήng the Roman (late Hellenistic) period, viz. whether the institution c.o ntinued to exist unchanged during the early Hellenistic peήod. The authors of the two most recent investigations, who had the full use of the epigraphic · .mateήal, did not put this question, but forthwith drew from the conditions attested for Roman times conclusions with regard to the classic, ~i. :and even to the archaic peήod. 83 Ιη consequence (though not only ~;. in consequence) of this84 they did not put to the earlier material the } q'hestions of which it admits, and which one ought to put, . ηο ma~ter (;ι whether they can be answered or not. Of course Ι mean the questιons ~:ϊ with regard to the nature, the ~is~o~, and the antiquity of the institu;:, tion, which are necessary prelimmanes for the problem that actually ·~ .- alone interests us at present, viz. whether the exegetai stand in any ';,· connexion (and if so what) with the pre-literary keeping of a chronicle ,;. · in Athens, or with the literary chronicle, the Attlιis. Before we put these :; questions we must ascertain the nature of t l1e material, i.e. we must 4775 D

("

Ι8

ΤΗΕ

ATTHIS

CH,

Ι

examine the other groups of evidence by themselves as ·we did the inscriptions. !η considering the mentions of the exegetai in literature a number of poιnts must be observed: (r) the limitation of the mentions to the fourth century upon which we touched above; (2) the fact that the majority comes from the orators _while the isolated mention in Plato (Β r) may be gr?uped as ~ο the matter with those of the orators; (3) the correspondιng negatιve fact that the exegetai-in contrast to the μάVTεις-hardly occur in Comedy, 8 5 and not at all in the historians neither in those who wήte the history of their own time nor in thos; · who _treat the past, :1e~r or r e1?-ote. 86. This point has been iη.sufficiently consι?ered because ιt 1~ negatιve; still it is particularly important in a certaιn respect. Even ιn the fragments of the Atthides we do not come upon either the name of an exegetes or any statement about the significance or the history of the office, 81 not even where we should most likely expect it, viz. in the fairly considerable remains of what they said about the constitutions of Solon, Kleisthenes, and Demetrios of Phaleron. 88 The only 'historical' mention of exegetai occurs in the alleg~d constitution of Tpeseus in Plutarch (Β 7), who.se source was certaιnlf ηο~ Aristotle's ~θ1Τ., and probably not an . Atthis.89 (4) The few ~est1m~1:1es (apart from the case of Andokides, Β 5-6, which holds a sp~c1al pos1t1on) talk of 'the exegetes (-ai)' simply; they give no qualifyιng _phrase and are therefore no help for solving the main problem in t]1e hιstory of the institution, viz. what relations existed between the έξ71γψaί 1ΤVθόχpψτοι and the έξηγψαί. έξ εύπατpιδων.90 If we take these ~ualifica~ions into account the lίterary evidence supplies the fόllowing 1nformat10n: (α) the case of Andokides confirrns what the name of the boar~ έξ71γψαί 1ξ Εύμολ1Τ_ιδων shows, viz. that in certain matters (probably ιη everythιng referrιng to the cult of Eleusis) exegesis appertains to the genos of the Eumolpidai alone, not to the other Eleusinian genέ who s~are the cult. Ιη regard to the matter of sacred law we become acqυaιnted with a single νόμος πάτpίος of this clan which shows that these cf.γpaφo~ νόμοι went into great detail; incidentally we learn that they were neιther unchangeable nor free from interference οη the part of the State. Qι After the Αthenian State had acknowledged the cult of the goddesses of Eleusis as a State-cult and t aken charge of it, the laws of S~lon became valid for this cult, also later popular decrees, as e.g. JGz. 1: ~ and (unl~ss it is the same as the inscription) the στήλη in the Elensιnι?n _to. whιch Andokides refers. The exegesis p:ractised by the Eυm_ol~1da1, ι.e. the application of their cf.γραφοι νόμοι, moves within the J1m1ts of these special regulations of the State those admitted into the Solonian code and those decreed later, as the 'exegesis of the 17 vθό­ ΧΡ7Jστοι and/or the έξ71Ύ7Jταί. έξ εύπατpιδων moves within limits marked

§2

ΤΗΕ

EXEGET ΑΙ

19

out by the general regulations of the State. The Eumolpidai practise the exegesis not only of their πάτρια but also of the State regulations which, even when they go into the details, conς:ern externals (the administration, we might say), not the cult proper or the rites to be observed in it. IG 2 • i. 6 is (for all its mutilated condition) a useful guide for learning what the State arranged and (if we make the qυali­ fications resulting from the natυre of the work) perhaps even more so is Plato's manner of distingυishing repeatedly between the general r egulations given by the laws and the details which are left to the discretion of the secular and sacred officials, primarily to the exegetai. It is in the light of these facts that we must see the designation of the Sacred Laws as cf.γpαφοι νόμοι as used by Perikles and Meletos (and frequently misused by moderns); they are called (and are) α.γpαφοι νόμοι becaυse they are different, ·as to the conception and as to the matter, from the code of State laws which were put up οη the axones for general information and accessible to everyone. But the name does not imply that those parts of them which the State had arranged for certain reasons and altered in certain cases were not put down in \Vήting and set up for public info,r mation in sacred places, as for instance in the Eleusinion.. The term even less precludes , the assumption that the ·exegetai themselves had long since fixed in wήting, and thus secured, the complίcated mateήal; there may have existed υπομνήματα of the exegetai, preserved in the archives of the board, long before publίca­ tions made the \νhole ήtual generally known. In order to reduce the matter to a formυla which approximately covers the facts we may put it like this: the πάτριοι νόμοι are άγραφοι νόμοι only so far as they were not put up publicly by the State or by the religious officials in a profane or in a sacred place, and were not published in books by the religioυs officials. They ceased to be άγραφοι νόμοι when publίshing in books began, which was done for the ήtυal of the πνθόχpηστοι of the State (at least in my opinion) by Kleidemos as early as the middle of the fourth century B.C., for the 1Τάτpια of the Eumolpidai and eupatridai not until Hellenistic or Roman times. 9z Exegesis was evidently never considered to be secret knowledge proper, at least not in the modern State; this m;:ι.y have been different in early times( aήd actually was so in so far as the eupatridai alone knew the πάτρια. Also there does not seem to have ',ι:'· been any compulsion to consult the exegetai in certain matters. -~ .. , (b) As to the rest of the first group (Β r-4) (we may be fairly certain , · that Β contains all that the grammarians found in literature) it does not '"i . yiel~ anyfhing of importance for the institution itself, but important :; .. detaιls (although confined to one domain) for the activity of the :, ;,: Athenian exegetai, as distingυished from the Eleusinian, 93 details about · which the inscήptions tel1 us almost nothing. Tbe value of the passage

20

ΤΗΕ

ATTHIS

CH.

Ι

in Theophrastos, for instance, consists in showing that the exegetai of . Lhe State may be consulted by private people in matters which do not concern either the State or the laws. What we learn from Β 1-3 contraclίcts in ηο point the tasks assigned to the exegetai in the scanty lci$iimonies of the grammaήans, in the not quite so scanty remains of l'Xcgetίc literature, and finally in the regulatίons οί Plato, which are ιl c l ni led, and in some degree systematic. We content ourselves here witlι tl1is negative statement. In view of Plato's evidence we need not ιιΗ lc wl1ether he copied institutions and laws of the Athenian State in his . Ι a1rι.~ ιιt all, for there is no doubt that he did. We can only ask how . ι•κtΙ ("( ly the details coπespond to the facts, which οί his regulations are . Ι ιιlιι•ιι fι·om the laws of his own time, which from earlier, particularly '-..olonian, law, and what belongs to the philosopher himself.94 Ιη ι t'H•' Ι'(\ to tl1e activity of the Platonic exegetai in particular, a fairly ι Ιιι•,t' fol1owing of existing real conditions :ιίas been assumed long since, · Ι' ι ι 11 y l1ccause the tasks which Plato assigns to them are well in accord \\·Ι Ι Ιι wlι :ιt we learn about their role from the orators and from the Ιι ιt~{ιιιι•11ts of exegetίc literature, partly because Plato, 'although he , ι ι, Ι, •. ι vω ιri=i to ennoble and simplify religίon does not suggest essentίally ιιι·,ν iι ιstil ιιtions, but orders expressly that former oracles and former , ΙΙ "Ι lοιnι,ι ιιrc to be acknowledged' (as Petersen formulated).9s We may ,ι llrM Ι Ιιi τας τε upειας τας εν pγει 'Ι'Ί ' ' ιγ ( ί1 'Η λ 'δ 'Π ' )Η και 'TOV', ποιητα.ς και 'TOV', μοvσικοvς ονομα.,,ει sc . pακ €L ης ο οvτικος may be no early document at all but 'a chronicle inscrib~d ~η a stone and dedicated by some scholar' :ιs Wh~t is alon_e esse1;-tιal 1s the fact that all these were not chronicles but lists (possιbly wιth a few n~tes referring to the names, but wbether there were such notes at all ιs a question by no means easily answered)46 and the further fact tbat e':en the lists (real or alleged) kept in t~e sa:1ctuaries h~:7e no co~nexιon wίth the local chronicles or local hιstones of the cιtι:s to whιc~ ~he sanctuaries belong-for t~ey are not_ autonom?us 'Pontific~ ~tat~ li~~ Delphi \νhose local histones were wntten only ιη the Hellenιstιc peno.d. The •όλvμπιοvικων άvαγpαφ-ή was edited by Hippias and, as ancιe~t , , , • l ' ' τι ,48 ·this cή tics contend, άπ' ονδ ιvος οpμωμενον αvαγκα ον πpος πισ v. · · \

•

§3 s\ιows

ATTHIDOGRAPHERS, EXEGETAI, ETC.

59

\Vith certainty · at least that he could not refer to an official c~1ronicle. of festivals_or _of priests, perhaps not to any existing cont1nuons 11st at all, a list like that which Hellanikos perhaps had for the Καpvεοvί:ιcαι. 49 Moreover, an Όλvμπιοvικωv άvαγpαφή is not a cl1ronicle · loca.1 histories of Elis do not appear until later, probably after Aristotle'~ Ήλιlωv πολιτεtα, which was certainly not written in the form of a clπonicle. 50 Matters are similar in regard to Argos : the Ίlpειαι of B:ellanikos ,vas a chronicle neither of the Heraion nor of Argos but (like the Iater 'Ολvμπιdδες which must be clearly distinguished from tbe Όλvμπ,οvί:και) s 1 a universal chronicle of Hellas, tbe dates in Hellanikos' book being determined by the series of pήestesses of Hera.sz But the sa~e H ~llanikos, treated t!1e local history of Argos ·in a book by itself entιtled :Αpγολικα, and, as m Athens, local authors followed him as early as the fourth century.s3 We know nothing of tbe form of the :Αpγολικd, but events were certainly not dated by the priestesses of Hera more likely by kings who still existed in Argos in the fi.fth century.H Ι t is selfevident that a list of the victors at the Karneia could not furnish even a scaff?ld~g for a ~ocal chronicle of Sparta: Hellanikos edited (or treated) the list ιη a spec1al work wbich was a kind of musical history of Hellas lί~e the άναγpαφή of Sikyon; but Charon, approximately contemporary ,νιth Hellanikos, built his history of Sparta on tbe foundation of the π~ντdvεις Λσ.κεδσ.ιμοvίωv, and it does not rnatter whether by this title thc kιngs or tbe ephors are meant or both.ss These attempts all carry us to approximately the s;μ~e t~e: in ~he iast decades of the fifth century authors began to publish lists part1cularly of musical contests in order to write with the assistance of these lists the history of Greek music and poetry: If these writings are to be described by a general t erm,·this must be _Hιstory of Culture, in which the sophists weΓe interested, not Local H1story, and the editors are in no case tbe priests of the sanc~aή~ or th~ cult-officials of the cities, but foreign 'sophists' and histonans, partly the same to whom we ο,νe the first local chronicles (or local histoήes) of the mother country. This evίdence attests nowhe~e the pre-lite~ary _keeping of a chronicle, and it is in this respect not. suι table. for eluc1datmg the problern concerning the oήgin of the Attιc chromcle. At the best the evidence places us before the same problern in regard to other_places in t he mother country: when and by whom was the documentary material publisbed which had been compiled i-n the sanctuaries and in the citίes, and what kind of rnaterial was _it? T_he same Hellanikos who developed the list of Κapvεονί:και in a mus1cal hιstory of Hellas rnade the list of the priestesses of H era the framework of a universal history of all Hellas (he may have extended the auth:ntic list so far back υιat be could use it. for the purpose); he also publιshed the first chronicle of Athens ,vith the aid of a list of the

60

ΤΗΕ ΛΤΤΗ ΙS

CH.

Ι

kings (this ·he certainly constructed himself) and the documentaiy archons' listsδ from whicl1 the cl1ronicle of the Asklepieion, published approximately at the same time, also got its dates.s1 The manifest result is that there did not exist ίη Greece chronicles kept by priests such as Wilamowitz assumed. Since we need not consider here the Orient or perhaps Etruήa, there remains the earliest chronicle of Rome, which was ke.pt by the pontifices, sacred officials of the State and not pήests of one deity, and therefore comparable ίη this respect to the Attic exegetai. We must give verbatiI? the two main pieces of evidence for this chronicle: (1) Cicero, De Or. 2. 52 'erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio; cuius rei memoriaeque publicae retinendae causa ab initio rerum Romanarum usque a:d Ρ. Mucium pontificem maximumss res omnis singulorum annorum mandebat litteris pontifex maximus referebatque in album et proponebat tabulam domi ;s9 qui nunc Annales Maximi nominantur.' (2) Serv. Verg. Α. 1. 373 'ita autem annales conficiebantur: t abulam dealbatam quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescήptis consulum nominibus et aliόrum magistratuum digna memoratu n:otare consueverat domi militiaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies. cuius diligentiae annuos commentarios in octoginta libros veteres retulerunt eosque a pontificibus maximis, a quibus fiebant, Annales Maximos appellarunt.' Because of the way in which Cicero and the authority of Servius60 dwell upon the size and the conteήts of the Annales Maximi (they ιnean of course the literary publication of the old tables) we may add , tl1e contemporary evidence of the elder Cato,61 in order to illustrate the true nature of this chronicle: 'ηοη lubet scribere, quod in tabula apud pontincem maximum est,· quotiens annona cara, qu~tien~ .l ~nae aut solis lumini caligo aut quid obstiteήt'. As is natural ιη cntιcιsm, and in accord with his· manner, Cato may have characterized somewhat one-sidedly the keeping of the chronicle by the p ontifices, and we pι-obably must strike a balance between his evidence and that of ~he fιι-st two writers (particularly the reputable grammarian whom Servιus follows) but there can be ηο doubt that the Annales Maximi dealt largely with portents and sacrinces; the few citations we have show the same.62 Nor do any doubts seem possible as to the main facts stated Cicero by Cato (contrasted e.g. with' the purpose which accordin~ the pontifices had in making their entήes ; the beginning ab initio rerum Romanarum also attested by Cicero alone, and contrasted with t he explanation of the title for the publication as a book). Cauti_ously iormulated it is certain that the pontifex-maximus frorn somc partιcular time onward in (or before) his office, the Regia, annually (i.e. οί course at the beginning of each year) put up a whitewashed boar,1 with. the na1nes of the officials of that year; further that he inscrίbι'ιl οη this

!~

§3

ATTH IDOGRAPHERS, EXEG ET ΑΙ, ETC.

61

1

boar~ certain_ events w~ch came to pass in the course of that year, pe, singiιlos dies; that-thιs custom ceased in the twenties of the second ce~t~ry when the pontifex maximus Ρ. Mucius Scaevola published the exιstιng records from t hese boards in the eighty volumes of the A nnales Maxin:ι,i. 63 Ι _do not intend to present here the vaήous opinίons (all of them 1nsuffic1ently founded and partly fantastic) about the nature and the history of this 'chronicle kept by the priests'; Ι shall not even discuss the question which is the most important in t his context and which has been answered in very different ways, viz. what the relations were betwe~n the lit~rary compiling of annalistic records which began in the war wιth Hannιbal, and the chronicle of the priests which is older by at -Ieast a century and a half. 64 It is perfectly sufficient for our purpose to refer to the theory of Ο. Seeck6s in the form into which C. Cichoήus developed it in his succinct and excellent article Α nnales in the Rea~-Ency~lop~d~e.66 _For_that theory has the indisputable advantage of ?ot ιndul~g ιη unaψna~ιon but. keeping st rictly to the_evidence; with ιts sober ιnterpretatιon ιt explaιns credibly the two main questions : how and wherefore the priests came to note events at all and how it · was possible that these notes, about which Cicero state~ that nihil potest esse ieiunius, 61 could fill eigMy volumes when published as a book. Actually the view of Seeck-Cichoήus is not a theory but a simple st~tement of the facts of t he case68 which can be reduced to quite a bnef. formula: the tabula dealbata is the calendar which the p ontifex maximus put up every year in a public place69 and on the days of which ?e. entered notes~ for that alone can be meant by per singulos dies, wιt~ a statement of the date' ;70 and the publication by the pontifex maximus Scaevola consisted in the editing as a book of 'the complete calendars of past years which still existed'.1 1 We need not enter here ~nto the particulars of the differences ίη position between the pontifιces ιη Rorne, who were priests dominating permanently the wholc οί 1io111;1.11 sacred matters, and the exegetai in Athens, who wcrc restιίct ι·, Ι ,ι·•,iι!cs this they had mateήal of the greatest ~anety: apart from the t ; 1 ιΨk historians (Timaios and ephemeral wnters of the sta~φ ~: l) ί(.)]{les, whose importance has become ίη recent times_~ore manι.fest) ι Ιιcy had the Twelve Tables and other la"':s; t.he tra:litιon of ~heιr own rι ιιd otlιer families, mythical tradition (whιch 1s partιcularly diffi~ult ~ο jιιςlge here), aitiology, etc. Mutatis mutandis they lιad at th~ιr. dιs­ posal the same mateήal that the fιrst Atthidographers had ; this 1s so wJ1 ether or ηο the mateήal of the latter included a chronicle kept by the cxegetai, which, if it existed, cannot have been thc only so11rce for

64 Etruήa

~ §3 . ATTHIDOGRAPHERS, EXEGETAI, ETC . 1 re~onstructing the history of Athens. 9 Here we come back to our prob!em : wh~ther or ηο the exegetai had historical not es (Wilamowitz a_dmιts that ~f they had, the notes were not o:ffιcial) they cannot be sιmply explarned as a result of the keeping of a calendar. We may leave out of account the fact that the Greek calendars known to us are desig~e~ differently ίη princiρle from the Roman, 92 and could not lead to a sιmilar development either ίη Athens or elsewhere. (This different design explains why we hardly have real dates of days, comparable to . _the Roman, for Greek events of a profane or religious nature; i.e. we know dates of festivals, and days of the inonths sacred t o gods, but hardly one date for the foundation of a sanctuary an eclipse οι' anything of the kind.) We may confine ourselves t~ Athens : ~e know next to nothing about the keeping of the Athenian calendar in archaic tiines, or about_an annual putting up or any other notification in public. What we know ιs that the code of Solon settled the festivals and sacrifices ?f the St~te οη c:rtain days and months, and that in the fifth century mtercalatιon, wh1ch more than anything else decides the course of the calendar, was in the hands of the archon. It is su:ffιcient to cite for t his fact the additional motion of Larnpon to the dπapχή decree of 41 6/s B.c. ; 93 ~ ,:,, εμ 'β'λλ ~ Ν μηνα οε α ειν 'Εκατομ.βαι~να τον vεον αpχοντα. The direction by a decree of the people shows mdιsputably that the Athenian calendar then ~as the af_fair of laymen, not of priests, and probably this had been so smce the tιrne of Solon. It was the archon who det ermined the calendar not the βασιλεύς, who ίη the next sentence of the same additional rnotio~ is given a direction όpLσaι τd. lιφd. τd. έν τωι Πελαpγικωι. From t he person of t~e rnover wrong c?:iclusions are generally drawn as to the participatιon of the exegetaι ιη the keeping of the calendar ;94 Ι therefore state tha:t although both instructions, being given for religious reasons, belong t? Larnpon's s~here of interest he is not called exegetes in the inscriptιon, and even ιf he was exegetes9s he acted ίη this matter not as snch but as a citizen and a member of the Assembly. 06 Had the έξηγηταί πvθόχpηστοι been concerned in any way with the calendar and t he inteι-­ calation, the instruction would have been formulated like that abo ut the πελανός ίη the sarne decree : θvειν δJ dπό μJν TOU πελανοu καθόη αν Εvμολπtοaι έξηγωνται. It is evident here as ίη all other cases that the archon had a free hand in intercalating except when for particular reasons he received directions from the people, which in t he p resent case voted on the motion of a religious expert. Ιt is of course possible that the archon consώted experts (although the evidence only shows that he did not ask scientific men) ; 97 it is equally possible that he · regarded the exegetai as experts (if so, of course the πνθόχp11 στο,, not because of the alleged ρrigin from Delphi of the Athenian calendar, but because they were the exegetai of the State). T l1at wc do not know ; ,Ye 1

4775

κ

'

66

ΤΗΕ

CH. l

ATTHIS

can only state with certainty that the board of the exegetai as su~~· and officially, was not concerned with the c.μendar. The course wbich in Rome quite naturally led from the keeping of a calendar to the 98 'chronicle' (even if perhaps a chronicle restricted to. religious matte~s) did not exist in Athens; the Athenίan calendar neιther developed π_ιtο a chronicle nor was in itself an historical document in the sense ιη which the Roman became such by the added notes. Tbe result is again quite clear and entirely negative: the Roman · parallel helps no more towards an explanation for the origin of the Atthis than do the alleged divine chroniclers of the Peloponnese. The~e is nothing at Olympia, or Sparta or Sikyon (or for that matt er at Delphi), even remotely comparable t o the pήestly 'chronicle' (if we may call the yearly tables of the.calendar a chronicle be~ause they had notes about events of religious importance), and there ιs ηο trace of a reason ~ha~ would justify us in as~uming ~hat in Athe.ns 'where ~ο such.god liv~s the .exegetai, as Atheman pontifices, took his place. Wilamowι~ s ch~ of arguments for a pre-literary chronicle kept by the exegetaι, a~ distinguished οη the one hand from the iiτ-τικη ξυyγpα_φή of the for~ιgner Hellanίkos and on the other from the 11-rθι'δες of Kleιdemos and hιs successors, is weak not in one place, but in all its links. Cήticism r~ed serioμs objections against Wilamowitz's detailed and careful. analysιs of Atthidographic tradition and the conclusions dra.wn from ιt ~ to tbe existence and the contents of the alleged pre-literary chronιcle, by putting questions as to the reliability and the origin of the . chronological framework . of the Atthis, or of its statements about the ~arly constitutions or of the 'secular' mateήal altogether. But later wnters, remarkably, are almost without exception under the influence of his compaήson so casually made of the exegetai to the pontifices, and .hardly a voice has been raised against the equation of the foπner wιth the literary Atthidographers. 99 · • • · Tbe more or less direct evidence for a pre-literary prιests' chroαιcle in Athens (and for tbat matter in the whole of Greece proper) having roelted away under our very hands, we might now try the ind~~ct course ;100 that ίs, ,ve might put the question whether th,e tra~tιo~ about the history and· institutions of Athens suggests such a pnests chronicle (to use that convenient term, which is inaccurate in any case 101 'b ecause the exegetai, although sacred officials, were not pήests). Cήticism exercised οη these lines upon the thesis of Wilamowitz amounted in each case to a qualification of the contents or the volume of the chronicle kept by the exegetai. 1oz In view of that situation the indirect course ,vould mean that we divided up the presumed contents of the Atthis103 into its mateήal elements (e.g. chronological framework, histoήcal facts, religious institutions, etc.), putting the same question 1

§3

ATTHIDOGR APHERS, EXEGETAI, ETC.

67

i~ regιιrd to each domain and consideήng all possibilities. Το express it diifercntly : as we treated above 1o+ the thesis of Wilamowitz that all Atthidograp]ιers were exegetai we should have tό start by reducing the hypothesis of Wilamowitz to the simplest form, which is at least capab~e οί discussio~, viz. were there among the sources, with the help ο! wh:ich the Atthιdographers · reconstructed the history of Athens, bιstoncal notes made by the exegetai (we bave good reason to call tbem thus instead of a 'chronicle') which were of particular value because they were made at the tjm.e of the events and were to a great extent documentary? And if there were such notes, what did they provide for the Atthidographers? Naturally this course could be taken, but it would b e long a11d dull; .we should have to treat doubly all questions which aήse as soon as we make an attempt (as sball be done in Ch. ΙΙ) at comprebending the special achievement of the Attbidographers and forrning an idea of the Atthis as a whole and the individual Atthidograpbers in particular; finally the result (to anticipate) would not coπespond with the pains bestowed on such an investigation : we can conceive a somewhat solid picture of the literary Atthis (at least Ι hope we can) and to a certain degree we can recognize the individual peculiarities of, its authors alongside of the general resemblance given by the literary species ; but when we subsequently raise the question about the origin of the mateήal they used10s it will appear that neither facts nor inferences suggest the exegetai or their archives. We may therefore, in rny opinion, dispense with the indirect course, leaving the domain of a destructive criticism which had to be so detailed because the hypothesis concerned even now represents general opinion. Instead we may at last proceed positively by putting the counter-question to which Ι alluded above : 1 ο6 did the α P,i Mi hypothesis about the oήgin of Atthidography from the chronicle kept by tbe exegetai perhaps cause to be overlooked (or rather, deliberately put aside) real facts or indicatίons of facts? The answer to this counter-question is emphatically in the affirmative: the hypothesis not bnly iso1ated1D7 Athens and the Athenian local chronicle; it not only (by assuming parallels where there are none) tήed to _support by other phantoms the phantom of the exegetic chronicle ; but at the same time the hypothesis care'rully avoided touching that domain · where the true parallels and facts are to b e found. This becomes quite manifest when, immediately before the appendix in which the chronicle kept by the exegetai suddenly tums up as the ξllleged solution of all alleged ήddles, . Wilamowitz puts the fuiιdamental question: 'by what other occuπence was the definit e character formed of this literary species than th'at someone created a schedule for it ? None of the ·Atthidographers known to us had the qualifications for such an action; therefore, where is he ?'ιοs

68

ΤΤΙΕ

ATTHIS

CH.

Ι

The question is correct and self-evίdent as to method, but it is \Varped in order to prevent a straight answer. 10 0 This answer is obvious when one does away with the preconceίνed ideas, nor is it new, but it is to such a degree coνered oνer by hypotheses that it ~ust be d~g up labo~ously. Anyone trying to comprehend the Athenιan chrorucle as a li_terary phenomenon has at his disposal two certain facts: (1) the Atthis as a lίterary form is not a specifically Attic product (apart, of course, from its specifically Attic contents) but can easily be grouped together with that species of Greek histoήcal writing which the ancients called ώpογpαφ{αι, ιcατα εθvη καί π6Αεις {στοpίαι, ΟΓ the like,11 ~ and WhΪCh• \Ve Cail Local Chronicle or better with a rhore comprehensιve expressιon (because the forrn ~f the chronicle is not present in all cases) Local.History. This is really a genus of literature, not a species or sub-species. It begins in Ionίa in the second half of ~he fifth ce~tury_, 1 ιι on the :whole independent of, though connected wιth, great histonography; ιη the last decades of that century it was transferred by scholars from the East to the rnother country, wherewe rnay state that in (or in the second half of) the fourth century it reached its height,. f~r in that p:riod all important cities (or distήcts) carne to h~ve theιr local ~~ronιcles (or Iocal histories) wήtten no longer by foreιgners but by cιtιzens of the city in each case. Rarely there is but on:; ea~h of the ~ore irnport~nt citics (or distήcts) shows a seήes of local histones often quιckly followmg each otlιer; as in Athens 11 2 with her Atthidography and at Miletos. and EpJ1esos in Ionia. We cannot enter here into the de_tails which we do ιιοt know so well as in Athens; but the same applies, e.g. to Argos, T11cbes (or Boeotia), Megara; characteήstically not to Sparta, although for tlιίs city a scholar from the East ab_ont the turn ο~ the ce1;1turf wrote ;ι cl)ronicle unfortunately almost entirely lost, havιng as ιts tιtle the Ι lριrτrί.νεις [ή αpχοντας] τους των Λακεδαιμον~ν.ΙΙ3 ~2) The rna~ ..y~o ι ιι·n lcd ' the sch edule' (to use the phrase of Wιlamowιtz) , and agaιn dιd ,. 0 not for Athens alone but for Argos and the distήcts Arcadia, Boeotia, Ι Ιιι•!Ιsalίa as well, is the older contemporary of Thukydides, Hellanikos ιιl ιesbos, a notable scholar and histoήan even if not a great_ writer, ,1:-1 Herodotos and Thukydides were (who with him form the tήad of the ι• ι cat :fi.fth-century histoήans) and as was in some degree (i.e. taking ί;ιtο account his tiriιe and his Ionic nature) Hekataίos of Miletos,II• the father of Greek histoήography, on whom the three depend even if in very different \vays. Anyone taking a survey of Hellanikos' literary production cannot doubt that he 'was qualified' for creating the scheme ;IIs and anyone who does not :fi.xedly direct bis view to Athens (or even those who do) must acknowledge the parallel of the Atthis to the city chronicles of Argos, Thebes, Megara , etc. The :Α.πιιcη ξιryγpαφ,f of thιs highly distinguished man appeared towards the end of the fifth ccntury,

§3

ATTH IDOGRAPHERS , EXEG ETA I , ETC.

69

~bout fifty yeaι-s earliet tban t~c :fi.rst Atthis written by an Athenian: it thus produced for itself, in Atliens as in other cities, its siιccessors and cont!n1!ers. _This ii. 'a n~tuial phenomenon which ,ve observe equally ?r sιmilarl;γ ιn tbe ~om3:111 of g~e~t history, genealogy, ethnograpby, i.e. ιn all sectιons of histoncal wrιtιng. If a problem is involved in these rna~ters it is at the utrnost the unanswerable question why Athens was satιsfied for :fi.fty years with the chronicle of the foreign scholar or, t o turn the questi~n ~ore positively (and then there is an answer to it),116 why a? A~henιan JUSt in the fifties of the fourth century replaced Hellanikos book by a new work, the :fi.rst Athenian Atthis. . There is no doubt of these two facts, and it must be adrnitted that ιf _w~ take our de~arture from them we arήve quite naturally at the ongιn of the Atthis (as at that of the local chronicle in the mother country in general). This is not the place, nor does it seem to me necessary, to ente.r further into the details of the όrigin or the history of the Local Chronιcle than has been done in the introduction to H ellanikos. This introduction and the commentary on the individual fr.agments of the :fi.rst Att/ι.is will also show indisputably that 'the schedule' was in fact created by Hellanikos. There runs an unbroken line, both as to the form and as_ to t~e contents, frorn the :Α.ττιιcη ξιryγpαφή of the foreign scholar to hιs Attιc successors ; naturally this line is rnore recognizable ~ Androtion and Philochoros (of whom we have more fragments) than ιη the.- scanty legacy ~f Kleidernos; and of the direct evidence (i.e. the fra~rnent~ of the Atthidographers) nothing contradicts the literary connexιon _gιven by the tw~ facts, which show Atthidograpliy to be α subspecies of Greek local history. The learned antiquaries of the t hird centu~ B.c., and the _later lexicographers also, were quite aware of this connexιon: they all cιte Hellanikos as the :fi.rst in the seήes of Atthidographers, not as an outsider or as the representative of another forrn of literature ; they cite hirn together with Androtion, Philochoros, Istros, but s~parate him frorn e.g. Aήstotle, who descήbed the 'Αθηναίων πολιτεια, and from Apollodoros the learned grammarian who was concerned with the rnatter only. Again Ι state expressly that even so the hypothesis of the existence of a pre-literary chronicle in Athens does not becom~ absolutely impossible ίη the simple form we gave it above111 (i.e. without the α priori indication of the exegetai). 'But it has become a single point in the treatment of the question about the sources of the 18 Atthis.~ We shall do better to discuss this question, like all others regarding the subspecies, in a second chapter which concerns itselfwith Atthidography. This treatment must not take its departure from, or be founded on, hypotheses, nor must it moνe in μvpμ:ήιcωv άτpαπο{. It must work with facts and with the only real evίdencc wc have, viz. the fragments of the various Atthides and the l (•stiωo11iι•s about tl1eir

ΤΗΕ

ATTHIS

CH,

Ι

. . f the fr entary condition of this evidence doubts authors. In vιe_w ο agm . ~ often be conjectural : but these will not be lacking, and the answers ' . . not the whole doubts and these conjectures concern sιngled pomhts, to take is the . . al h omenon The roa we ave literary and hιston~ , Ρ :n . th · thod is that of induction from όδος ιίvω, not the οδος κατω • e me . . . observed facts, not of deduction from an α pnori theory.

ΙΙ

70

.

ATTHIDOGRAPHY 1.

ΤΗΕ POLITICAL CHARACTER OF ΤΗΕ AΠHIDES

Wi

have removed the hypothesis of the existence of a pre-literary chronicle of the exegetai which supplied .t he Atthidographers with the form, and to a great extent with the contents, of their histoήcal accounts; or (to speak very cautiously at present) we have admitted only the possibility of a pre-literary chronicle of some kind which was merely one source among many. 1 Now,the ground is clear for an attempt at forming a true idea of the Attic local chronicle, i.e. of those books about the history of Athens which, following the first ~"'IC1J ξυγγpαφή wήtten by the foreign scholar Hellanikos c. 400 B.c., \vere published in quick succession in the course of about ninety years from the end of the fifties of the fourth century by, and as the work of, Athenians, both laymen and religious officίals.z Our business ίs no longer with the more or less independent revisers of an hypothetical 'pήmary' chronicle, 'the' Atthis in the sense defined above,3 which dealt mainly with religion and con·stitutional law ;-i we have instead a number of histoήans,s wήters of individual personalities whose peculiaήties we must recognize as far as the scanty testίmonies and fragments perrnit. This is the correlative of another task, that of deterrnining the traits proper to the whole 1iterary species of local chronicle (or loccJ.1 history) as such, and therefore coml mon to all its representatives, n?t to the Athenian chroniclers alone. · We must expect such common traits when a number of authors treat .the same mateήal in the same kind of book. They are easily to be found and enumerated. But it would be impracticable to separate the two tasks, closely interlaced as they are, because the special features of the individual Atthidographers can be established (as far as this is possible at all} only on the genera.J, background of Atthidography which is more easily recognized. Ι shall therefore deal first with t h at feature which shows particularly well the divergences and the agreements, a feature which deserves the fi.rst place for another reasι>n too, be~ause the comprehension of this whole literature depends οη it to a considerable degree. This is the political character of the Atthides, and it is obvious that here we have to speak of divergences, since a common attitude does not exist. It was generally asserted formerly (and the view still prevails) that the Atthis is 'democratic'.6 This rnay mean only that the three eaz-liest Atthidographers (Κleidemos, Androtion, Phanodemos) wrote in the time of radical democracy, when άπ&vτωv aύ-ro, ,at)TOV 'ΠΕ'ΠΟ{ηκεv ό δfjμ.ος κύpιοιι, καί πάVΤα διοικε,ται ψηφ[σμασιιι Και δικα­

στηp{οις, έv οlς ό δfjμός έστ,ιι ό κpατωιι.'

But if more than this is meant,

72

Λ TTHIPOGRAPHY

cH. ΙΙ

the contention not only prejudices the examination of the individ?al wήter5 but make5 impo55ible the an5wer to the .fundamen~al qu~5tιon why the wήting by Athenians of these books did not begιn until the mίddle of the fourth century.s The correct question would be whether they were all politically intere5ted, or which of t~em were ~C?-? and of what kind were theίr political conviction5. It i5 not 5Urpn5ιng that the fιr5t Atthis was wήtten in the clo5ing year5 of the fifth century not by an Athenian but by a foreign 5cholar (who5e political 5~an~point i5 therefore unimportant)9 as one of hi5 many book5; ηο~ 15 it 5urpή5ing that the Atthides of the fourth century had Atheman author5,10 or that the5e men wrote no hi5tory but that of Athen5 and places closely connected with her11-even those of the~ who wrote other books. But what ί5 surprising (and should be 50 ιn partίcular to tho5e who 5tre55 50 greatly the difference between Hellanikos and the Athenian Atthίdographers, and who explain_it ~rom the po~ition of the latter a5 exegetai) ί5 the fact that in th15 tιme, w~en life moved at 50 rapid a pace, it was half a cen~u~ befo~e an Athe?1an felt the need .of replacing the book of the foreιgn 5ophi5~ f~om hι5 ?etter knowledge of t he antiquitie5 of hi5 city and hi5 5pecιal ιntere5t ιη. the cult5 of hi5 ance5tor5. It ί5 no 5olution of thi5 problem to st ate ιn a well-5ounding phra5e: 'as long ,as the Athenian5 made ~ 5tory, their politician5 had ηο time to wήte it, and their tal~n~ed wnters had ηο time as long a5 Tragedy was living'.12. ~hi5 phrase 1~ ιndeed not even an explanatίon of the fact 'that the foreι~er Hellaniko5 .wrote the·fir5t Attίc chronicle' because the 5tate'm ent ιs not coπect eιther for Hellas generally, wher~ it was exceptional at all tim~5 (the differenc~ fr~m Rome should be noted) if 'politicians' wrote hi5tory ; when they did, they mostly, or often, were retired politicians. Νο~ doe~ the phrase apply to Athens, where politician51 although they dιd ~~ιte and even publish (and that astonishingly early in view.o! the condιtιon5 of Gr:ek prose), did not write histoήcal work5 bu~ politιcal pamphl~t5, πολ~τειαι, or 5peeches of importance for home policy (later for foreιgn pol~cy as well).13 What must be established here ί5 not at all _a ques~o~ of the leisure or the inclination of individuals but a ques.tιon of 5I_)ιnt~al di5position (apart, of cour5e, from the general developmen~ of _hi5tonography). The 'Athenian by choice', Herodotos, wrote hι5 hi5tory οί 'modern Hellas'r• under the stress of strong political emotion when the clouds of war were gatheήng ; the Athenian Thι1kydίdcs, who ~as a younger contemporary of Sόphokles and Euri~idcs, ~roιc_ the hi5tory of the war of hi5 time (perhaps under the ιmmcdιn.tc ιnfiucnce of Herodotos),rs no political handbook b ιιt a gcnιιinc lιiMtorlcrιι work, with a well-marked attitude toward5 political ant:ιgoni11111,; of l1i11 ιtay, although we have to infer thi5 attitude from llιc 1111111111•1 111 w\ ιiι:11 he 1

§

1

POLITICAL CH ARACTER OF ΤΗΕ ATTHIDES

73

tells hi5· tale. He wrote this book not for the accidental reason that he had the time to write in hi5 exile from 424 B.C. onward5, but άpξάμενος εύθvς καθεσταμένου for the genuinely hi5toήcal reason which he 5tate5 him5elf. It is doubtful ,vhether there are Athenian5 in the 5erie5 of tho5e who directly and indirectly continued his work.16 It ha5 sometime5 been 5aid that Athen5' 5hare ίη great hi5toήography i5 5mall.· Ι leave open the que5tion whether thi5 5tat ement remain5 coπect when one compare5 other citie5 of the. motl1er country, Thebe5 for example, or even Argos and Sparta. But if it i5 correct, it i5 50 not becau5e the Athenian5 had ηο 'time', but (1) because hi5toήography was a science and an Ionic product and corre5pondingly b y far the majoήty of the great work5 were, down to the Roman time, wήtteri by men from the coloni~5; .(2) and.chiefl.y because hi5tory for the Athenian5 i5 the hi5tory of t;11~ιr cιt~, which they wrote ju5t becau5e, and as long as (this is the decι51ve poιnt) they had, and made, hi5tory themselve5. Men from Lampsako5 or Sigeion, from Olyntho5 and even from Chios or Samo5 might wήte Κοινat lcrropίaι or 'Ελληνικά a5 hi5toήan5 'by profession: becau5e they had no native country that was of any interest to p eople abroad: everybody laugh5 to-day {and probably laughed in antiquity) at Ephoro5' 5tatement Κυμα'ίοι δJ κατά. τούτους -τους καιpοvς ήσυχίaν ηγον ; but nobody laughs at the native histoήans of the great island in the we5t, Antiocho5, Phili5to5, Timaio5, or for that matter at the authors of Μα~εδονι.κ&.. We. expect book5 concerned with hi5tory ,vήtten by Atheruans ιη the tιme of the Corinthian War, of the 5econd Naval Federation, of the Social War, and further of the war5 with Philip and the Di~doc~5. Nobody can 5eήously contend that the 140 year5 from the Connthian War to the Chremonidean were a peήod without hi5tory fro?'l the Athenian point of view (which alone i5 deci5ive), a peήod in whιch the Athenian5 had the 'time' to be absorbed in the past whether in contemplation or in romantic regret; and anybody ,vho maintaincd that they were would be 5et right by the contents of the book5 about Athenian hi5tory .17 For the Atl1enίans clid write histoήcal books, only the5e book5 were ~τθίδε,, not 'Icrroplaι. Anyon~ who con5iders these thing5 will not put the general que5tion whether the Athenian5, and if any, which, wrote hi5toήcal book5, but will make a point of t he fact that about the middle of the fourth century in les5 than two decade5 the three great Atthides of Kleidemo5, Androtion, and Phanodemo5 appeared and that thi5 5eήe5 continued until the downfall of Athenian independence. That ί5, book5 about the hi5tory of Atben5 did not begin to .appear until a .certain point of t ime, but then they appeared in an unιnterrupted 5equence as long a5 Athen5 5till had any hi5tory at all. Attention 5hould al5o be paid t o the fact that t be last great Atthidographer forfeίted hi5 own life, not for the political attitude adopted in 4775

L

74

ATTHIDOGRAPHY

CH,

ΙΙ

his book, but because he belonged to the circle of those politicians ,vho made the last attempt to avert from Athens the fate of becoming subject to Macedonia. 18 Moreover, it is, Ι think, uncertain whether the stimulus to the rise of an Attic Atthidography came at all, or only, from the side of literature or historiography, or whether it can be explained by t he fact that it was not until the fourth century that the mother country came to have a local history of her own. Personally Ι cannot believe it to be accidental that this writing set in with the beginning of tlιe last act of Athenian history and continued to the end of that act, viz. the contest against Philip and Macedonia. The correct qriestion tlιcrefore is not what 'the Atthis' was as to its political standpoint, but ,vhether the single Atthidographers were interested politically, and whether this interest found an expression in their books οη history. Ίhe decade in which the battle for the freedom of Athens (as it is ι.;encrally called) began witnessed not only the appearance of the first Λthenian Atthis but also, presumably a few years earlier, the renewal of lίterary attacks on the rule of radical democracy. This was begun ί ιι ι,vο pamphlets of Isokrates;the 'speeches' Πεpί είpήvηs and ~pεοπα­ ,,vrικ6s which brought before the public ideas upon wηich Isokrates Ι ιηιl lcctur ed in his school for more than a quarter of a century.19 That ι \ι•cnclc witnessed also the first entrance of Demosthenes upbn the ι ω l ίιical scene and his swift going over to the war-party and thus to , ηι \ίc:ιι democracy. 20 The school of Isokrates was the training-place of Λιιcl.rotion, the second Atthidographer, who published soon after JιΗ /3 B.C. T11e remnants of his work, to which we may add the generally 11ι·kιiowledged use Aristotle made of his Atthis in the ~θηvα{ωv πολι-rεlα, • lιc>w Androtion to have shared. the pήncipal political ideas of his 1l':ιcher. Ιη his· account of the past (which owing to the state of tradi1ίοrι involved a considerable amount of interpretation) he carήed them Ι l ιrough with so little regard for facts that Aristotle had to correct him t,\citly οη some points :21 it was perhaps Androtion who made Solon the fo nnder of the Areopagos, and it was certainly he who in accord with t he conservative party interpreted Solon's t ruly revolutionary liquida1ίο rι of debts (a demand for \Vhich was raised again in the fourth century to tl.ιe terror of the propertied classes) as a relatively harmless change of 1l1c coinage and reduction of the rate of interest. 22 . Ι shall not contend i l1at Kleidemos' Atthis (wh-i ch appeared not earlier than 354 B.c., aηά J1ardly much later) 23 is an answer to Isokrates' pamphlets, or to his teaching, the coιιnterstroke as it were of radical democracy. But it is not impossible, either as to the time or as to the matter, that an answer to the programme of the most prominent political writer was considered necessary, and it is at the least most probable, if not certain, tha t t his fιrst Atthis gave expression to the opinions of the dοιηίnιωι ι·adical

§

Ι

POLITICAL CHARACTER OF

ΤΗΕ

ATTHIDES

democracy. We have ver f h' . 75 Atthis, and we had perhaps~et~w ιs~~ncal fragments of Kleidemos' the description of the myth' elrTchau ιously leave_out of consideration ιca eseus where ιt · . ' . ap~ears wιth except ιonal clearness that with re d Atthidographers were less g: .to the preh1stonc times24 the in which they could be pr;::~:i;e Itw.ιth th~ fact~ than with the ligJ1t that Aristotle means Kleidemos .whe is ~o~s1ble, ιf not demonstrable, may be ηο mere accident of η. cιtιng the οημοτικοt,2s and it . the constitution of Kleisthenef:es~r:a~ιo\that he evidently recorded in the fragments zδ Ther . . ιη e a w ereas Solon does not occur · · . · e 15 ιη any case one fragm t h' h · opιnιon ιndicates Kleidemos' l't' Ι en w ιc ~η my tainty: Aristotle relates (almts~ ι ic~ .stlandpoint with sufficient certhe Areopagos procured the fi ~: a1n Υ following Androtion) that battle at Salamis. that the me 1:~n~\h m~ans to_ keep the fleet ready for and that for this Ύery reason η ο, , e;1~to7 ιs due to this institution,

πάγωι βοvλη καl οιώικει rήv π6λι~;::ιi~α

η ικα πάλι~ ίηv':εv ή έv ~pείωι

Kleidemos, οη the other hand, inc:lude~;~fwofEphιaltes ιη 462/ r Β.?.).21 . .ments of Themistokles 28 It . f s measure among the ach1eveb . · ιs one ragment only b t 't · d · · ecause it concerns Themistokle d th Α , u ι is ec1s1ve Themistokles, the creator of the ; e:~ h e reopagos; the estimate οΙ sea, and of the so-called Areo a ' w ο ~ad .led the Athenians to thc party attitude wh · ·· Ρ go~ ~onst~tutιon are the tests of the en opmιons are. d1vided29 in pon· 111 . 462/ r B.c.-and in political and historical 1· ι ιca Ι e ~η an~ aft: r matter be counted as political).- I sub ι.terature {Plato must ~η tl11s honoured Kleidemos3o for this mιt that fhe demos publicly of his being the first, Ath . vetry re~son: not (or not only) because enιan ο wnte an Athen. h . b ecause of the spiήt and the . . 1an c ron1cle, but democrat and..defender of thfu~~~e ~η which he wrote, as a stauncJ1 reaction which· just at that t· exιs 1:llg order of .the State against the mending by its mouthpiecel~: ~ga~n v;~tured 1nto publicity, recomcon_stitution as being the πάτ } r\es , e re:urn to the Areopagos do not know who in this case ~ο~;ο ι-rεια. It _ιs a great pity that we case of Herodotos which oth . d _the pseph1sma (as we know in the Demosthenes had a part in it er~ι~e is much less clear)3ι nor wl1ether IS regrettable that we can only speak conjecturally. but the que tempted to vi~w under the sa~;:: must at lea_st ~e asked. One fee]s \Vhich ίη itself is much mor pkecbtl the publ1cat1on of an E xegetikon · e remar a e because the ' for ιt, as ther e was for the Atth. Th . r: was ηο precedent domains of daily life was it . t is. e ntual, wh1ch permeated all cease.d to. be exclusiv'eiy (~r e::nrue: not.:ec~et knowledge and had long έξ εύπ~-rpιδωv ·3 2 but the θ, prunan Υ) ιη tl1e hands of the έξηγψαl Kleidemos pr~bably wasπ~nοχ~ηστοι, the exegetai of the State, of whom th . e, were, we may assume al t k f e upper classes. Their office wa f 11 . . ' so a en rom . s or Ι e, ιt- was of greater influence

t'

76

ATTIIID OGRAPHY

§

CH. 11

and les.s democratic (if onc considcrs the mode of election) than that of the Areopagitai of the fourth ccnt11ry. If a ~ember of tha~ college published the prescriptions ίη his own name (1.e.. probably wιth?ut a formal authoήzation) in a book gcnerally access1ble, clearly _wntten, and arranged by subjects (we ιnay assume that he published 9nly the proceedings still valid), he de]ivered the com~on ~an_from the necessity of consulting the exegetes ίη matters of h1s daily l1fe. The rule~ of justice had been public for centuήes; anybody cou~d at a~y tιme inform himself in the market about the cuπent law without difficulty since the new codificatioiι of 403 B.C.; Kleidemos' act removed the last remnants of the pήvilege which the upper classes still held in the domain of sacred matters by their knowledge inheήted or acquired (ίη the 34 archives to which the members of the college alone had access). Ιη view of the small number of fragments from -the first Atthis that are capable of a political interpretation, Ι ~hall not maint~ that its attitude is stήctly proved to have been radically democratic, although Ι find it difficult to give the fragment about Themistokles any other interpretation than that presented above. The ·~olitical' (as. ;1e may call it) conception of the Atthis means the assumpt1on that polit1cal war was ,vaged from the fifties of the fourth century ?~ward not only by speeches of the politicians ίη the Assemb~y or p~litιcal pamp~ets ?ut also (in a wider frame and perhaps more 1mpress1vely) by an h1s.ton:al descήption of the whole development of the State. and the const1~ut1on of Athens. This conception finds support both 1n general consιdera­ tions and ίη the particular evidence of the Atthides, fragment~ though our knowledge of th~m is.35 Α political atti!ud~ is charactenst1c ο~ the general line of ancient history as far as this li~er~ture concerns ιtself ,vith its own time · it is easier to enumerate, begmnιng from Herodotos, those hίstoήans who thought politically and wished to exercise influence οη politics (the word for the present being taken in its widest sense) than to make it appear certain that some of them (as e.g. Ephoros) were altogether indifferent to politics. Ιη a city like Athens (and pl'esumably not only in At~ens) political int_erest found. its ~atu.r~ expre_~~ sion in local history which for the Atheωan was plaιnly the h1~tory, and it is equally natural that histoήcal happenings ~er~ conceιved ?Υ the average local histoήan not so much fro1n a sc1entifιc standpoιnt (by well-informed thought) as from that of his own paτ·ty. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the Great Hi~tory or tlι b fourι1ι century until the new idea of personal loyalty was 11ιtrοι\ '.ιι'Ι'ιl: bί,ιt the _ele~e~t leaning οη home politics was naturally s~rongcr ιη. 1IΗΙ lor:ι1111ston~ns of Athens whether or no they had an activc sl11ιn• 111 110\lt\n1l 1ife. Ί~e cήsis in the history of .Athens, which began wltlι 1111· ι ι•Ικιι ur 1η111ιp, appears as a struggle of the parties about ίοη• iι,:11 1111111 y, w lι iι· \1 \\11\S

.

1

P OLITICAL CHARACTER OF

ΤΗΕ

ATTHIDES

77

dependent to a great extent οη the attitude in home policy of the parties and their leaders. This was not the first occuπence of such a situation ίη the city-states 37 of Greece: the Great War, which decided the fate of !fellas,. was at least as much a contest between different political 1deologι~s as a ·war b~tween Athens and Sparta, the Empire and the Federat1on. (Recent events have sharpened our perception of tbis ~spect ;_ the fact, though often stressed, has seldom been appreciateά in 1ts full ιmportance.) Partly under the influence of economic conditions the antagonism of ideologies became rather more than less poίnted in t~e fourth century. Of course the conception of the Atthis as partylite~ature, and as a weapon in the political combat of the day, is deliberately one-sided, because the Attic local chronicles treated wide domains that have ηο connexion with the political attitude of tbeir authors or may have none; for we are seldom or never in a position to tel1 how far, e.g., cults and antiquities (not those of constitutional law) wer~ de~cήb_ed unpolitically, for their own sake, or frorn a purely ant1quanan mterest, not because of their political implications. This one-sidedness does not matter as we are at the moment discussing the fundamental ripatos it is conceivable that he descήbed the_ last ~e~ad_es 1n a proM:ιcedonian, or at least not in an anti-Macedonιan spιnt : ιn that case ιι,c sharp rejection by Philochoros would be un?erstandable ; but ~he (oυndation of this inference is nothing but a conJ_ect~re.44 As_ to Ph~oclιoros his death attests his deep as well as actιve ιnterest m foreιgn ρolicy: his party-political attitude becomes manifest by the fa?t th~t tιc madeAndrotion's Atthis (as faras it extended) somuch t~e basιsof h~s own \vork that we might actually descήbe the first part of h~s own Atthis ω:1 a revision and the second as a continuation o_ f Androtιon . He was 11 0 ι a right-wing extremist , but we cannot place him accurately because wc J1ave ηο fragments from his own time, and t oo fe~ from the_ea_rly tιistorical period whicl1 he seems to have already seen ιη the glonfymg Jίght of the 'great past'.~s The fo~mer labels h_ad anyhow s?mewhat clιanged their significance and theιr character ~ιηc~ the Lam~an. War, and the crude contrast 'pro-Macedonian' and antι-Macedonιan does 11ot help us much.

§Ι

POLITI CA L CHARACTER OF ΤΗΕ ATTHIDE S

~~~e

2. ΝΑΜΕ AND TITLES OF ΤΗΕ ATTHIDES Athenian Iocal chronicles, from Hellanikos down to Philochoros, are cited as ~-τθlς or ~-τθlδες by grammarians and lexicographers, to whom we owe nea.r ly all the fragments. The individual chronicle appears as ό δεtvα έv rijι ~-τθlδι (ένα ~-τθι'δος or the like),1 the sum as οί -τας ~-τθι'δας (την ~-rθlδα, τα ~τ-rικά) σνγγεγpaφ6τες. These collective citations, with which we have dealt above, 2 signify that the Atthides were felt to constitute a unity as to their contents, and as to their form, if not a species in itself, stiH a group (subspecies): the Atthidographers belong to the σνγypαφεις Ka-r' εθνη καί π6ι\εις διαιpοίJVΤες (scil. Τας ίσ-rοp[ας) καί χωpίς άλλήλωv έκφέpοVΤες. 3 There is no doubt (or there should be none) about this point. But the form of the title ~-rθίς dίffers remarkably from both the specitic titles of the (earlier) Ionic local chronicles (viz. "'Ωpοι Μιλησlωv, Naςlωv, etc.) 4 and the Ioca] chronicles and local histories of t he mother country, which arc dcsignated almost without exceptίon by the neuter plural of the posscssivc αdjective, as ~pγολικά, Μεγapικά,

80

Α TTH IDOGRAPHY

CH.II

Θηβaικά,s when they treat t11e lιistory of a city; when they ar,e concerne? with a dίstrict, by such titles as Αlολικά, Λεσβιακά, Θε1σσaλικa,Β~ιω-τιaκa, •Λ δ ' etc ., which coπespond with the ·'Ελλrιvικa ίοr the· h1story 1of n.pκa ικα, the whole people, the Σικελικά, and the histories of the b_arb~rιa~ p~op es (Περσικά, Λνδιaκά, Σκυθικά, Αlyνπ-τιaκά, etc.). ~he t1tle ~τθιs 1s not sjmply taken from the form of dati~g like the t1tle5 of un1νer5al and . loca1(?)6 chronicles frorn the last third of the fi.fth century, e.g .• He;lanίko5• ' Ιέpειaι τfjς "Hpaς aZ έv :4pyει, or Charon's Πpυτάvεις οι των ' Λaκεδaιμ.οvlωv: there are books called ~pχοvτες (or )4pχόvτωv )4va..ι. ') 1 but these books are not Atthides, because they do not coνer ypaψ'TJ ' · · al peno · d οnlΥ ίrorn the the whole hίstory ·of Athen58 but the hιstonc fιr 5t archon, Kreon 683/2 B.C. (or even frorn Solon 594/3 B.c.) onward. Be5ides, these books seern to haνe been 5horter (though that _need not imply a dίfference of specίe5), not hί5tories proper but surnmarιes, book5 which later would perhaps have been called 'Επιτομaί. 9 Thus the ν~ry tίtle of the Attίc local chronicle place5 us before _a p~o~lem which involves two que5tions : fa) how 5hall we explain the linguιstιc forrn and the meaning of the title )4τθlς? (b) who gave thi5 title to the account5 . . . . of Attίc hi5tory ίη chronicle forrn ? (α) The forrner que5tion alone has receιved attentιon l11therto. Α5 far a5 it is purely linguistic it is ea5ily to be answered. It : eern~ to _be unίver5 ally agreed that )4τθlς is the 5hort forrn of the etbnιc adJect1ve0 'Αθηvalς, to which ίt stands as )4Τrικός stands to the (unu5ed) ~θηvaικός.: The formation is not late : ίη rnythography a daughter of Kranaos. 15 called )4τθίς (the king himself having a descriptive name); 5he was ιn­ vented as the eponymou5 heroine of the ~τθ~s-. γτj, 11 and the narne does not 5ίgnify 'the Athenian wornan' .1z Α pupil of as early a poet as 3 Sappho bear5 the narne ~τθίς; we'do not know her native place.~ ~he word, which is by ηο mean5 frequent, appears in poetry ~ an adJec~ιv~ fιrst in the tragedie5 of Euripide5, and only in tho5e of ~15 lat.er pen~d , primarily certainlywith the5i~nifιcatioD: ~τθls-γτj; and ~th thismean_mg sometimes without a substantινe,14 but ιt 1s also u:e~ wιth a. s~bstantιv:, for in the chorus of Iph. Aiu. 247 f. )4τθίδος δ aγωv / εξ71κοVΤa vaνς Dobree's emendation ~τθίδaς seems certain. The word becomes more frequent in the Hellenistic poets from Apoll. Rhod. ι. 93 onward (Τελaμωv μέv έv ~τθίδι vάσσaτο vήσωι) . 1 s Ιη prose .the word ap~arently occurs in two uses only, viz. t o designate the Attic local c~ronιcle. ai:d the Attic dίalect. Ιη the latter use, which is hardly pre-Helle~1st1c, γλωπa or διάλεκτος rnust be supplied, 16 in the ίorn:ιcr ξuγγpα.φ_rι or a imίlar word.11 Consequently, if (it i5 a big ίί) Hc.llιιnιkn!I g{l.~C h1s boo~ 5about Athens the title ~Tθls-, we should surely 1,~νι~ ιο l,ι1!1rvc ~1,at ~t wa5 he who introduced the adjective into prosc Jι tι•1 11Ι 11ιι'. :111ι\ ιf so ιt is hardly possible to evade the general assumpiίoo wl ιίι 11 ιι•ι.:ιιrιl'Ι Lhc

ΝΑΜΕ

AND TITLES OF

ΤΗΕ

ATTHID ES

81

~τθί~, )4σωπlς, ~τλαV'Τ'lς, Φοpωvίς as 'a deliberate repetition of of ep1c poern5 like Φωκaίς, Φοpωvlι; '. 1 8 Ενeη apart frorn the fact that ηο epic paem with the name Atthis exists,19 the assumption is by ηο means as self-eνident as it appears to tho5e who uphold it ;zo but consideήng what we know of Hellanikos' style21 it is at least defi.nitely preferable to the suppό5ition of artifιciality in the title.22 For rny part Ι should prefer to assurne that Hellanikos forrn~d ~τθlς simply after Θησηίς, the only Attic epos that existed. (b) But the assumption that the titles cited above oήginate from Hellanikos himself is by ηο means 5elf-eνident . 23 We need not treat here the general question in what dornain of literature the giνing of a title to a book came fιrst into use, and how long the usage took to spread to other kinds of literature ;24 nor need we deal with the special question of how old the various titles of epic poems are, or which of them rnay have been known to Hellanikos. We may confιne ourselves to hίs Atthis: it is never cited otherwise, but all citations come from a lexicographer of the Empire25 and' therefore are Helleni5tic at the earliest . The only earlier witness, νίz. Thukydides, 26 says έv τη, ~τηκfjι ξvγ­ γpaφηι. That need not mean anything different from what is expressed by Herodotos (whose citation also is polernical and also unique) of the Πεpίοδ.ος Γfίς (or t}:ιe Γεvεaλοyία,) of his predeces5or, when he says Έκa­ τaίΌς ό Ήγησάvδpον ;φrισε έv τοί:σι λ6γοισι λέγωv άδlκως/7 νίz. that it was a prose book. For these books and their writers λόγοι a~d λογο~οι6s were the ordinary Ionic terms, which Thukydides translated into Attic by ξυγypα.φή and λογογράφος, at the 5ame time rnoderniziήg them.28 The difference between the two citations έv τοίσ, λ6γοισι and έv rij, ~τηκηι ξυγypαφηι consists ίη this alone that Thukydides singled out one from the rnass of Hellanikos' writings, because it touched upon the contents of his dίgression and he felt that he mu5t cήticize ίt: his citation consequently is rnore accurate than that οί Herodotos as to whom \Ve doubl which of Hekataios' two great works he meant.z9 Also, there is no difference of meaning between ~τθίς (scil. ξυγypαφή)3Ο and ~τηκ~ ξυγypαιf,ή : both titles denote a book which concerns Athens, which deals ~th Athens, and the contents of which are therefore Άttic',3 I and it is not impossible that sorne Atthidographers even inscήbed their books ' ~πικά '.32 Not until ~τθ{ς became the established title for the local Attic chronicles can we distinguish between the book and its contents, calling the latter ~Τ'Τ'ικά : Clement, for example, 5ay533 ηvες των τα ~Τ'Τ'ικα. σuγγpαιfιaμέvωv instead οί the Hellenistic ,expre5sion ol τας ~τθlδas- σνγγεypaφ6τες, and IosephosH (even rnore instructively) states that πεpι TWV ~ΤΤικωv οί 'TιJ.S" ~τθίδaς σνγγεγpaφrJ'ΤΕS" contradίct each other. It is probableϊhat as early an au thor as Istros ίη the second half οί the third century inscήbed the name :ΑΤ'Τ'ικ& on his collection of 4775 Μ

t~tlcs tιtles

82 .

ATTHIDOGRAPHY

CH. ΙΙ

material from the Atthides which was not itse1f an ~:τθίς.3s The form of Thukydides' citation from the book of Hellanikos certainly cannot prove that Hellanikos himself gave a title to this book (~-τ'ΤιΚ'ΤJ ξvγypaφή, ~-τθίs-, or whatever it might be) as the citation of Herodotos doe..c; not prove that Hekataios inscribed one of his works as λ6γοι (and perhaps a qualification πφ, -των ήpώωv or something of the kind). Ιη the latter case we positively know that Hekataios did not: he began with a whole sentence in which he, οη hίs part, cήticized the λ6γοι 'Ελλήνων, proving by this cήticism the right of his own work to exist,36 quite in the same manner as Herodotos and Thukydides, who gave other reasons, and before them the prototype of all Greek (not by any means only epic) prooimia, the poet of the Iliad.31 The histoήcal works of the fifth century that have been pteserved had no titles (and their authors did not number the books). 38 Therefore titles by which later wήters cite those books did not oήginate from their authors. We cannot argue α priori that matters were different in regard to Hellanikos. Of course it is conceiνable that he proceeded differently from his predecessors, and that he was the first histoήan to give his books ,real 'titles', for whatever reason (perhaps because they were so numerous). But that is a possibility .for which we have ηο evidence since we do not possess the opening of any of Hellanikos' books. We must in any case consider the other altemative, viz. that it was the later librarians and gram111arians who made titles for the works of Hellanikos as well as for those of H ekataios, Herodotos, and Thukydides. They needed titles for the catalogue and even more for the σtλλνβοι, and they hardly had at their disρosal many citations from fifth-century books in the wήtings of tl1ose who used them in the fourth century and in the time of the Diadocbs- citations that would have mad~ their work·easier.39 Ιη any case, wben Kallimachos began to work at the Πίνακες, approximately at the same time that Phi1ochoros began his great work, in the seventies of the third century,1° he evidently catalogued those books which gave the local chronicle of Athens under the title ~-τθίς, in order to distinguish them 'not only from, e.g., works called Πολι-τειαι and ~pxoJl'Tt'ς4 1 UUt frOin fue ~'Τ'ΤLΚαι ίσ-τοp{αι, Whίch re}ated StOήeS, and frOffi Si.rnilar l>ooks as well.42 We can infer such i proceeding froriι the usage of the 1lcllenistic grammaήans. Ιη my opinion this other alternative has a fαr greater probability, not only because of the evidence as to titles in •ιιι·ly literature and the inferences to be drawn from it, bu~ particularly because it is extremely doubtful whether the earliest Athenian Atthidographer, Kleidemos, gave the title Atthis to his book; consideήng the inftuence of tradition as to externals in particular, we should expect him to have done so if the book of his predecessor Hellanikos, whom he followed closely in every respect, had had that title,43

~ΑΜΕ AND TITLES OF ΤΗΕ ATTHIDES

8

3 The Atthis of Kleidemos as the . usι1α.IJy cite the work 44 is qu~ted .rf'amma:ιans and lexicographers once by Harpokratio~ .4s Athe _as ~ω-τογ{νια once by Athenaios and in fact, included the pήmeval h~~~s r: (;eth us to the first book which , ave,tro~ ~he ~ame authors a nυmber of fragments from this b:k c· kration to the third. Of course it would ~ed .as -τηι ~-τθιδι), 47 Harpobυt the alteration would not b b e s1mp e to alter here !' to Α, refers to the tirne of Kleisthe:e~7 a~l~clbeςause F 7 almost certainly it would not meet the case and cer n~t to the archaic time) ; titles, because Athenaios cit~ the s':i: f out ( ~t~:ave two altemative F 5) in the same chapter fi.rst as a verb~~ vιz. e_role ~f th; κήpνκt"ς, γονlας πpώ-τωι, and subsequentl with έν ~uotat;on wι~h ~ν Πfω-το­ Τhe suggestion that the late gr Υ . ( -τωι πpω-τωι rης ~-τθιδος.18 authorities, to whom Harpok atimmanan or fo~ th~t ~atter one of his .t ril ra οη must owe his cιtatιon F . 11) ~rb 1 ra Υ replaced the ordinary title ~-τθt . , 7 ~ we ιnvented, may unhesitatingly be ll d . ς by_ Πpω-τογον,a, wh1ch he expedient in such cases viz th ca e 1:11poss1ble; and the favourite by the quotation from the thirde ξ;~~m~~on of a sub-title: i~ .P:ecluded (α) Κlei:Iem~s 'gave no title at all to ·h is ;~~:;e4;wo poss1b11it1es only: assume ιη th1s case too that the lib . . . We should have to Πpω-τογον{α perhaps from some ~:iexan~ria ~ormed the title work, e.g. dpςάμt"νος έκ -mς πpω-τογ ' ιnTh 'e openIΠg.sentence of the . . ., ονιας. ιs assumptιon wo ld ·1 exp1a1n an occasional use of that title b h . . u easι Υ and Harρokration in th . Υ t e authontιes of Athenaios published his book wίthetκ=~~~;~~~lle;ism. (~) Kleidemos ~ctually not fi.nd anything that contradicts 1:he ected t1tle 1!pω-τ~γονια. Ι do points seem to favour it even apart f a:r s_uggestιon; indeed soιne tion.so There can hardly be d bt rom e sιmple facts of the tradiexpresses one proud claim ·ofaΑ: as .to t~e mean.ing ο~ the title ;sι it immigrate like those. of the Dori:~; ;~· .t. at her 1_nhab1tants did not resident in their country from prim al t'ncιzed reg1ons, but had been 5 the title really is nierely affected ~~ ~{ · We may doubt whether e;u t or, ~ho was pre-eminently a rationalist,s2. may haνe chosen with its mythical tinge Κleide ΙΠ ,or. e~ b avoιd the term αύ-τ6χ.θονt"ς haps used that term unh . . mos pre ecessor H ellanikos had p er3 I thίnk, deliberately. 54 esιtatιngly,s whereas Thukydides avoided it,

7

:1 .fd

::;/.s f

it'.

It is unfortunate, but a fact that w k . genuine Atthidographers, not ~ven to ;h~o~ ιη ,egard to none of tl1e selves called their chronicles Th . h ο~ oros,ss what they themPhilocooros gave a title to hi~ wore:.e lS ar ~ d?ubt that at least same of Androtion Phanode ; d one is ιncl1ned to believe the and if there were titles we ::~~~ knoewmothn. ButKwle'hdave no evidence, call d h · kπ em. eι emos may ha e IS wor pωΤογονtα . still that is no fo d t. f . . ve ' un a ιοn or re1ect1ng the

d

r

ATTHIDOG'RA P HY

CH.

ΝΑΜΕ AND ΤΙΤ.ί,ΕS OF ΤΗΕ ATTHIDES 85 title :4.:τθlς is certain is the pseudepigraphon of a man ;hΌ . presumably pretended to be a very anc~enf E~eusini.an and who, calleι~mseli by a n~e unheard of for a human bemg, νιz. Amelesag01;aβ,:«i~ "This book, "':'hich appar~ntly treated th~ ipxaιa'λ.aγίa a_nd perhaps th~ primeval tιmes (the kings before the Trojan War) alone, was pub1ished about 300 B.c. (hardly much e~lier), and Antigonos of Karystos, ,vhose activity began about 250 B.C., m the only fragment we have to which a number ?f a 1book is assign1ed, calle.d ~he author. :4.με'λ.ησaγ6pas ό 'Αθηνaιαs ό την 'Ατθιδσ. σvγγεγpaφωs. 66 This ιs the earliest of all direct citations frorn Attic local chronicles (we need not count the use made of thern without the .mention of the source) , and there is no reason for doubting that Antιgonos gave the correct title. In view of the scantiness of the tradit ion we must not venture to speak with certainty; but we should at least consider the possibility that this man, who invented a name for hiΩ;'self, invented the title for his book as well, one of those fancy titles w~ch began to becotne fashionable during the fourth century,61 a title which was to appear surprisingly new, and archaic68 at the sarne time. It is a fact hardly to be doubted that Kallimachos used the book in the 69 Hekale. ~Υ suggestion, therefore, is that when cataloguing the Attic local chromcles he extended this title to them all : it was convenient for citations; 'ΑΤ"Τικά derioted (as early as in Istros, i.e. in the school of Kallimachos) the material with which the Attic local chronicles had 70 worked; :4.τηκα~ Ίστορtαι which possibly began to be written as early as th~ end of the fourth century,71 were something different from the chromcles. Of course Kallimachos entered for each individual work its individual title~ perhaps given to it by its author; moreover this title o~cuπed on the σtλλvβas of each book. But because of the principle of hιs catalogue he needed an inclusive title for all representatives of the subspecies,12 and for this purpose the form Atlltis (όσοι -τιls :Α.τθlδσ.s σvνέγραφσ.ν) was very conνenient, particularly so because tlιe indίνίιlιι.ιl title~ were so ~d~ly different: Πpωτaγονlσ., :Α.-τηκά, 'ΑΤ"Τικη 'Λpχαιοληγln. If thιs suggestιon ιs correct the amusing fact presents itself tlυιt wl1ι•rι•ι1