Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:03:23.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and the Hellenistic kings (338–261 b.c.): the language of the decrees1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ioanna Kralli
Ioanna Kralli
Affiliation:
University of Crete, jkralli@hol.gr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been a widespread belief among historians of antiquity that Athens’ importance on the political scene declined rapidly after 338, and especially after 322; Athens, so it is assumed, succumbed to the will of Alexander and, later on, of his Diadochoi. Of course, it cannot be denied that Athens found itself in a very precarious and sometimes impossible position. Yet the attitudes of Athens towards one king or the other, as well as its status, vary considerably until 261, the end of the Chremonidean War against Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedon.

Certain aspects of the Athenian relationship with the various monarchs are reflected in the decrees of the assembly, passed in honour of royal officials, as well as in the decrees conferring the highest honours (proedria of the games, sitesis in the Prytaneion, and a statue) upon Athenian citizens who belonged to a king's court. My purpose is to examine precisely the image that Athens projects through the above-mentioned decrees with regard to its relations with the various rulers and their officials; and these in relation to its perception of its own position on the military and political scene on different historical occasions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , May 2000 , pp. 113 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The war broke out in 268/7 and ended in the spring of 261: Heinen, H. -J., Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts. v. Chr.: zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg. Hist. Einz. 20 (Wiesbaden, 1972), 95ff.Google Scholar, 139–40, 180–9, 199–202.

3 Diod. 17.111; 18.8–10, 14–17.

4 P.Oxy. 17.2082; Pausanias 1.25.7. I follow Osborne's chronology of Lachares’ regime; he dates its establishment before the death of Kassandros in 297 and its fall in Elaphebolion 295 (Naturalization II, 146–52).

5 For the date of the revolt see M. J. Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros and the revolt of Athens in 287 b.c.’, ZPE 35 (1979), 182–94.

6 It is possible that the Athenians did not inscribe their decisions on stone but simply informed the kings of them.

7 Plut. Demosthenes 22.3; Demades, On the Twelve Years 9; Pausanias 1.9.4 (statue). The erection of a statue for Philip marks a significant development in Athenian practice: only once in the past had a foreign king been awarded a statue (Evagoras of Salamis; see Lewis, D. M. and Stroud, R. S., ‘Athens honors King Evagoras of Salamis’, Hesp. 48 [1979], 180–93).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Decrees for people in the service of Philip and Alexander (proposed by Demades): Tod 180; IG ii2 240 + SEG 31.77; IG ii2 353; Osborne I, 21; for Euthykrates see Suidas, s.v. Δημάδης, and Hypereides, fr. 76 (Against Demades for Illegal Proposals). In addition, literary evidence records citizenship for Harpalos (treasurer of Alexander; Athenaios 586b) and probably for Antipatros as well (Hypereides, fr. 77); (probably) heroic honours for Hephaistion (Hypereides, Funeral Speech 21–2).

9 Schol. Aristeides, Panathenaikos 178.16 (Dindorf); Justin 9.4.5. It is highly disputable whether the Athenians deified Alexander in 324/3; see Habicht, Gottmenschentum, pp. 28–36; Badian, E., ‘The deification of Alexander the Great’, in Dell, H. J. (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honour of C. F. Edson (Thessalonike, 1981), 27–71Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., ‘The divinity of Alexander’, in Griffith, G. T. (ed.), Alexander the Great: The Main Problems (Cambridge, 1966), 179–204Google Scholar; Cawkwell, G. L., ‘The deification of Alexander the Great’, in Worthington, I. (ed.), Ventures into Greek History (Oxford, 1994), 293–306.Google Scholar

10 Osborne I, 29.

11 Osborne II, 97.

12 M. J. Osborne has associated IG ii2 513 with IG ii2 457 in ‘Lykourgos again?’, ZPE 42 (1981), 172–4. As a whole the manuscript version of the decree ([Plut.], X. Oral. Vit. 851f–852e) is more informative than the epigraphical version, but as regards Lykourgos’ attitude towards Alexander, the latter is more detailed. The tradition represented by [Plutarch] has been doubted: A. N. Oikonomides argues that there are traces of a ‘supra lineam note’ (‘The epigraphical tradition of the decree of Stratokles honoring “post mortem” the orator Lykourgos. IG II2 457 and IG II2513’, AncW 9 [1986], 51–4, at 54). However, these are minor interventions; where the manuscript tradition can be checked it can be shown to be in general agreement with the inscription (note also that a considerable part of IG ii2 457 is lost).

13 Rosen, K., ‘Ehrendekrete, Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung. Zum Wandel der griechischen Polis im frühen Hellenismus’, Chiron 17 (1987), 277–92, at 292.Google Scholar

14 W. Will (Athen und Alexander Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Stadt von 338 bis 322 v. Chr. [Munich, 1983], 98–9) dismisses the decree of Stratokles as a late fourth-century forgery, aiming at creating a tradition of hostility towards Macedon. However, he offers no proof for this view; rather he discards this evidence because the image of Lykourgos resisting Alexander's plans does not fit the main (highly disputable) thesis of his book, according to which the whole programme of Lykourgos aimed at getting Athens into the new world empire created by Alexander.

15 Osbornel, 38.

16 Ibid., 43.

17 The decree is quite vague as to the actual way in which Demosthenes died. In fact, the information provided by Plutarch in Demosthenes 30 is equally vague; he reports that Demochares, contrary to what other historians said, attributed his uncle's death to divine providence and not to poison.

18 Plut. Demetrios 10.3–1, 12.1–2, 26.1; Diod. 20.46, 110.3.

19 Actually, those who opposed Demetrios were driven into exile: Plut. Demetrios 24.

20 Shear, Kallias, 16–17.

21 Osborne I, 78.8.

22 According to M. J. Osborne, an additional example might be provided by the decree for Neaios (IG ii2553): Osborne II, 118–19 and ‘The damnation of Neaios’, ZPE 19 (1975), 143–58.

23 The accession of Demetrios to the throne of Macedon and his ambitions in the Aegean and in Asia Minor alarmed the other Diadochoi and coalitions were formed against him; see Plut. Demetrios 44, Pyrrhos ll; Pausanias 1.10.2; Polyainos 4.12.2; Justin 16.2.1–2.

24 After the battle of Ipsos Lysimachos offered Athens 10,000 medimnoi of wheat (IG ii2 657) and was honoured with an aristeion crown: see S. M. Burstein, ‘IG II2 1485A and Athenian relations with Lysimachus’, ZPE 31 (1978), 181–5. For Lysimachos’ statue, see Pausanias 1.9.4; statues for Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II: 1.8.6; for Pyrrhos: 1.11.1; for Seleukos: 1.16.1.

25 See Burstein, ‘Bithys’, 41, 47, n. 13; also Franco, C., ‘Lisimaco e Atene’, in Virgilio, B. (ed.), Studi ellenistichi (Pisa, 1990), 113–34Google Scholar; on Athens’ relations with the Ptolemies, see Habicht, , Athen in hellenistischer Zeit (Munich, 1994), 140–63.Google Scholar

26 For the ambitions of the Antigonids and the Ptolemies in the Aegean and the long struggle between them, see Buraselis, K., Das hellenistische Makedonien und die ägäis. Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) im ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien (Munich, 1982).Google Scholar

27 It remains a crux whether Athens ever regained control of the Peiraieus and, if so, for how long: Habicht believes that she did not (Untersuchungen, 98–107); contra Reger, G., ‘Athens and Tenos in the early Hellenistic age’, CQ n.s. 42 (1992), 365–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Erskine, A. has observed the influence of Stoic ideals on Chremonides’ decree (The Hellenistic Stoa. Political Thought and Action [London, 1990], 92–5)Google Scholar; there is also a fragment of the comic poet Alexis’ Hypobolimaios where Ptolemy II, his wife Arsinoe, and ὁmu;óνoια are grouped together (Kock, T., Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta III [Leipzig, 1880], fr. 244).Google Scholar

29 Citizenship was given to Amyntor (Osborne I, 21), who in all probability was Hephaistion's father (Osborne II, 86–7). Furthermore, Hypereides states that ’Aντíπατρoν καì ’AλκíμαΧoν πρoξÉνoυς καì πoλíτας ༐πoιησάμεθα (Hypereides, fr. 77 = Harpokration, s.v. ’AλκíμαΧoς, the obvious difficulty with this passage is that no one was ever honoured by the Athenian demos simultaneously with both proxeny and citizenship. There have also been preserved the first clauses of a decree for Alkimachos, which offer no illuminating information as to the nature of the honours (Tod 180). Osborne offers two interpretations with a preference for the second one: either Hypereides is speaking loosely or the two honorands were first made proxenoi and subsequently citizens (Osborne III, 70–1). In any case, the attribution of citizenship to Antipatros would correspond to his high rank in the Macedonian court. See Gauthier, Bienfaiteurs 44, for the correspondence between status and honours: statue for the king, citizenship for the son and high-ranking officials, proxeny for the lesser officials.

30 Lykourgos was elected to take charge of the preparations for war (probably a civic and not a military office); his other great programme concerned the reorganization of the ephebeia. From 332/1 to 326/5 Demades was concerned with the maintenance and improvement of the Athenian navy; see Mitchel, F. W., ‘Lykourgan Athens’, Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple II (Cincinnati, 1973), 165–214Google Scholar; id., ‘Demades of Paiania and IG II21493, 1494 and 1495’, TAPA 93 (1962), 213–29.

31 See above n. 8.

32 Tracy, S. V., ‘De Antipatro et Archedico Lamptrensi. IG II2 402 + Agora I 4990’, Hesp. 62 (1993), 249–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the date and the identification of the king with Philip Arridaios, see Bosworth, A. B., ‘Perdiccas and the kings’, CQ n.s. 43 (1993), 420–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Badian, E., ‘A reply to Professor Hammond's article’, ZPE 100 (1994), 388–90.Google Scholar

33 See Appendix for a list of Antigonid officials honoured by the Athenians.

34 Demochares, FGrH 75, Fl.

35 Asklepiades of Byzantion (IG ii2 555); Aristonikos of Karystos (Osborne I, 49); Herodoros (Osborne I,68); the unknown honorand of IG ii2 648 also received the highest honours.

36 Osborne IV, 207.

37 Eupolis: IG ii2 486; Sotimos:SEG 36.164. Fifteen years earlier Sonikos and Eu- had most probably been awarded citizenship (Osborne I, 35) on the request, or rather order, of Polyperchon (again by means of a letter).

38 IG ii2 471.14–15, 492.17–19, 495.11–13, 498.11–14, 560.7–9, 562.3–5; Osborne I, 51.2.

39 Ergon 40 (1993), 7 (non vidi).

40 On the regular use of the διατρíβων form see Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 260.

41 IG ii2 492, 498, 553, 555, 558; 559 + 568 + add. p. 662.7–10; Osborne I, 51; SEG 16.58;ISE 9.

42 SEG 36.164: εὖνoυν ε[ỉς τà τŵν] βασιλÉων πράγματα καì τ⋯ν τ[oû δήμo]υ τoû ’Aθηναíων ༐λευθερíων καì [συναγ]ωνιστήν ὑπέρ τῆς δημoκρατíας (lines 12–15). Osborne I, 51.4: τŵν ὑπέρ τῆς δημ [κρατíας συστρ]ατευoμÉνων; IG ii2 559 + 568 + add. 662.8–10: συνηγωνíήετo ὑπέρ τῆς ༐λευθερíας κας καì τῆς δημoκρατíς; IG ii2 561.12–14 + SEG 31.80.

43 Osborne (IV, 208) observes that ‘from ca. 321/0 onwards there are almost no attested cases of the proxeny being granted without the accompaniment of some further privilege(s)’. The policy of the Athenian demos in this period has to be distinguished from the general trend in the Hellenistic world towards a massive increase in the number of proxenoi; for the political function of proxeny, see Marek, C., Die Proxenie (Frankfurt, Bern, and New York, 1984), 333–57, 387.Google Scholar

44 See Gauthier, Bienfaiteurs, 150–2 on the double value of citizenship (practical and/or honorific) as well as on the importance attached to it by the beneficiaries.

45 One more was probably voted for Sostratos, the Ptolemaic representative in the peace negotiations of 286. It is disputable whether the decree and the statue in honour of Philokles were also voted in the immediate aftermath of the revolt or at the end of the 280s; see Shear, Kallias, 33–4 and n. 79.

46 Εὔνoια towards the demos alone does appear in the decree for Philokles (Osborne I, 77), but the greatest part of the stone is lost and we cannot know whether there was any reference to his relationship with Ptolemy.

47 For the identification of Bithys and the date of the decree, see Burstein, ‘Bithys'; Henry, A. S., ‘Bithys, son of Kleon of Lysimacheia: formal dating criteria and IG II2 808’, in Craik, E. M. (ed.), ‘Owls to Athens’, Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (Oxford, 1990), 179–89Google Scholar; Hatzopoulos, M. B., Une Donation du roi Lysimaque. Meletemata 5 (Athens, 1988), 18–21, 38–9.Google Scholar

48 Burstein, ‘Bithys’, 45–6.

49 This formula is attested in the third and second centuries b.c. AS regards Athenian decrees it is also attested in the decree for Herodoros, official of Demetrios Poliorketes (Osborne I, 68); see Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 261.

50 Habicht, Untersuchungen, 80; cf. Osborne (II, 156–7) who has argued that the Athenian embassies referred to in the decree should be identified with those undertaken by Demochares. This seems possible, but it seems to me quite puzzling that the decree does not mention the outcome of these missions—the gifts of corn and money—while other decrees are quite explicit about this problem.

51 Shear, Kallias, 21, 63, 69; in lines 17–18 Shear restores ༐πιμελεîται δέ [τῆς συνκoμιδῆς τo]û σíτυ τŵι δήμωι ὃπως ἂ[ν ảσøαλÉστατα εἰσ] κoμíζηται, whereas Habicht restores διà instead of εἰς in line 18 (Untersuchungen, 48–50)

52 Shear, Kallias, 23, 67–9, 74 on Zenon. On the hierarchy of Ptolemaic officials, see Merker, I. L., ‘The Ptolemaic officials and the League of the Islanders’, Historia 19 (1970), 141–60, at 148–51.Google Scholar Many scholars believe that Philokles’ title was ‘nauarch’; contra Hauben, H., ‘Philocles, King of the Sidonians and General of the Ptolemies’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22 (1987), 413–27.Google Scholar

55 The collective character of the effort for Athens’ salvation in 287 is again underlined in the decree for the mercenary leader Strombichos (Osborne I, 78) some twenty years after the revolt: Strombichos was συναíτιoς and συνεπoλιóρκει the Mouseion Hill (lines 13–14).

54 Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 275; on the institution under the Argead dynasty, see ibid., 291–307;, on the συνέδριoν of the øíλoι, see Hatzopoulos, M. B., Macedonian Institutions under the Kings I, Meletemata 22 (Athens, 1996), 287–9, 323–36.Google Scholar

55 Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 251–354.

56 See above n. 40.

57 Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 277–9; Savalli-Lestrade's argument is directed against the argument of G. Herman who thought that inscriptions systematically avoid recording precise offices because the Greek cities held a pejorative view of the officials’ position (‘Friends’, 103–49).

58 Savalli-Lestrade, Philoi, 336–44.

59 Ibid., 263.

60 Herman, ‘Friends’, 111, 117.

61 According to Savalli-Lestrade, there is no marked change in the use of titulature after 280 (Philoi, 275), contrary to what Herman thought (‘Friends’, 124–6).

62 In a recently discovered decree for a certain Medon and his father (dating to 304), A. P. Matthaiou restores in lines 14–15: Mέδων στρ[ατη]/[γŵν (Horos 4 [1986], 19–23); the ‘στρατηγŵν is a description of the activities pertaining to an office, not the actual office. On the other hand, P. Gauthier (REG 101 [1988], 363–4, no. 430) restores στρτευóμενoς which is equally or even more plausible, given the fact that it is not recorded below in which capacity Medon has been dispatched now (at least not in the preserved part of the stone).

In SEG 31.80 (dating from the same period) Philippos and Iolaos are referred to as σωματoøúλακες of Alexander. No evidence has survived, though, of the actual office they held at the time the decree was passed; on the identification of the ‘Alexander’ in the decree, see Burstein, S. M., ‘IG II2 561 and the court of Alexander IV’, ZPE 24 (1977), 223–5Google Scholar; Habicht, C., ‘Liter-arische und epigraphische Überlieferung zur Geschichte Alexanders und seiner ersten Nachfolger’, in Akten des VI. Intern. Kongr. für griech. und latein. Epigraphik (Munich, 1973), 367–77Google Scholar; Heckel, W., ‘IG II2 561 and the status of Alexander IV’, ZPE 40 (1980), 249–50.Google Scholar

63 I. Calabi Limentani argued that Adeimantos’ office was that of the στρατηγó of the League who was the second-in-command after Demetrios (‘I proedroi nella lega di Corinto e la carica di Adimanto di Lampsaco’, Athenaeum n.s. 28 [1950], 55–66, at 63–5). Objecting to this, G. Daux restores either πρóεδρoς or, alternatively, σúνεδρoς (‘Adeimantos de Lampsaque et le renouvellement de la ligue de Corinthe par Démétrios Poliorcète’, AEph [1953–1954], I, 245–54). C. Habicht is also uncertain as to whether Adeimantos was a στρατηγóς or πρóεδρoς (Gottmenschentum, 56, n. 4).

For the importance of Adeimantos, see Robert, L., ‘Adeimantos et la Ligue de Corinthe’, Hellenica II (Paris, 1946), 15–33.Google Scholar

64 On lines 15–17, see Moretti, ISE I, 20; also G. De Sanctis ‘Un decreto del Sinedrio di Corinto’, RFIC, 19 n.s. (1941), 194–7. The decree for Adeimantos should be read together with the foundation decree (IG 2 iv, 1.68) of the League.

65 It is possible that the decree for Bithys recorded his office, given the military nature of his services.

66 Schwenk 1; Osborne I, 38; Osborne I, 43; IG ii2 505. We could add IG ii2 456 for the Kolophonians and IG ii2 566 + SEG 3.86 for the Prienians; both record previous relationships with the Athenian demos.

67 Athenian citizens rewarded with the highest honours: Demades: Dinarchus 1.101 (post 338 or 336). Phokion: Plut. Phokion 38.5; [Plut.] X. Oral Vit. 850b (ante 322). Lykourgos: IG ii2 457; IG ii2 513; [Plut.]X Oral. Vit. 851f–2e (306). Philippides of Paiania: IG ii2 649 + Dinsmoor, Archons, 7–8 (293/2). Philippides of Kephale: IG ii2 657 (283/2). Demosthenes: [Plut.] X Orat. Vit. 850f–lc (280/79). Demochares: ibid., 851d-f (271/0). Kallias of Sphettos: Shear, Kallias, 2–5 (270/69). Phaidros of Sphettos: IG ii2 682 (250s). Olympiodoros: Pausanias 1.26.1–3 (unknown date). Kephisodoros: ISE 33 (early second century b.c.). Most probably the fragmentary decree for Eurykleides (IG ii2 834) awarded him the highest honours as well (in 229 or slightly later).

68 See n. 8 above for literary evidence testifying to more honours.

69 Reference is made to various editions of the inscriptions; where editions are identical I employ the equation symbol (=), whereas where there are variations I employ the semicolon (;). Textual differences between editions do not normally affect the argument.

70 A number of decrees proposed by Stratokles report only his name: IG ii2 455, 460, 461 (307/6); 499, 503, (302/1); 640 (301/0);Hesp. 11 (1942), 241 no. 46 (307–301); IG ii2 474 + S. Dow, , AJA 37 (1933), 412–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar (306/5); a list of most of Stratokles’ decrees is provided by Dinsmoor, Archons, 13–14. Additionally, there are numerous decrees, dating to the last decade of the fourth century and to c. 295, which record only the grant of citizenship; it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the honorands were Antigonid officials; for the texts see Osborne I, 48, 52–8, 62–5, 69–73; Agora XVI, 144 possibly records citizenship for an official of Demetrios.

For a prosopography of Antigonid officials and more details on their career, see R. A. Billows, Antigonus the One-eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Los Angeles and London 1990), appendix 3, nos. 1, 7, 8, 12, 16, 19, 23, 31, 40, 49, 57, 62, 68, 69, 82, 86,93, 107, 110, 122, 125, 127, 130, 134.

71 Contra Osborne, Tracy, S. V. notes that an earlier date, such as 338 or 323/2, is more likely (though ‘Osborne's dating is not impossible’): Athenian Democracy in Transition. Attic Letter-cutters of 340 to 290 b.c. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995), 119.Google Scholar

72 Habicht suggests that Apollonides could be one of the honorands in SEG 16.58 (Gottmenschentum, 57, n. 9).

73 For the date, see Traill, J. S., The Political Organization of Attica. Hesp. Suppl. 14 (Princeton, 1975), 129–32Google Scholar; Habicht, Untersuchungen, 1–2, 4, and n. 18.