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

Decree-making is a defining aspect of ancient Greek political activity: it was the means by which city-state communities

253 92 8MB

English Pages 1000 [1326] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

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

Table of contents :
Volume 1 The Literary Evidence
Contents
Acknowledgements
text Editions
Conventions and Abbreviations
Introduction
Inventory A Checklist: Decrees and Proposals of the Athenian Assembly Attested in Literary Sources
Checklist by Genre-Type
Introduction Bibliography
Inventory A1: 403/2–353/2
Inventory A2: 352/1–322/1
Inventory B Checklist: Probable Decreesand Proposals of the Athenian Assembly attested in Literary Sources
Inventory B1: Testimonia that can be Identified as Probable Decrees (DP)
Inventory B2 Other Possible Decrees
Appendix 1 Decrees of the Athenian boule
Appendix 2 Honorific Decrees attested in the Literary Sources
Indexes
Volume 2 Political and Cultural Perspectives
Contents
tables
Introduction
The Social Capital of the Decree
Appropriation and Aspiration: Decrees in the Pursuit of Political Self-Interest
The Dissemination of Fourth-Century Athenian Decrees: Local Audiences
The Audiences of Decrees Beyond Athenian Citizens
Literary Representations of Athenian Decrees
Conclusion
Appendix 1Proposers of Decrees at the Athenian Assembly 403/2–322/1
Appendix 2 Literary Inventions
Bibliography
Index Locorum
General Index

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 repr