Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:15:25.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and Orontes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Michael J. Osborne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Amongst the somewhat meagre array of inscriptions illustrating Athenian relations with Persia in the middle of the fourth century there is one substantial document which merits particular attention. This is the decree which records details of Athenian relations with a certain Orontes who is generally identified with the well-known Persian satrap of that name. This decree, published as IG ii2. 207, consists of four fragments. Three of these are extant and are housed in the Epigraphical Museum at Athens (fragments (b)+(c)+(d) = EM 7035, 7035 (α), 7036), the other piece has long been lost (fragment (a)).

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 66 , November 1971 , pp. 297 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1971

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

Abbreviations, in addition to those current in the Annual:

Kirchner = Kirchner, Inscriptiones Graecae ii–iii ed. minor.

ML = Meiggs, and Lewis, , Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969).Google Scholar

PA = Kirchner, , Prosopographia Attica (Berlin, 1901).Google Scholar

Tod = Tod, , Greek Historical Inscriptions, vol. ii (Oxford, 1948).Google Scholar

Acknowledgements. I should like to thank Mrs. D. Delmouzou-Peppas, the Director of the Epigraphical Museum in Athens, for extending to me the facilities for a first-hand study of the inscriptions covered in this article. I also owe a special debt of gratitude to Mr. P. M. Fraser and to Mr. E. I. McQueen who kindly read earlier drafts of this paper and made a number of suggestions for its improvement. Neither, of course, is responsible for the deficiencies that remain.

1 The heights of the letters are also somewhat variable.

2 Fragment (a) was first published on its own by Pittakys, , L'Ancienne Athènes (Athens, 1835) 500 f.Google Scholar The join with (b) and (c) was first made by Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques (nos. 397, 398, and 399). This was followed by Koehler, (IG ii. 108).Google Scholar Wilhelm added fragment (d), and the whole group of four was published as a single decree by Kirchner, (IG ii 2. 207).Google Scholar This has been followed by Parke, , Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy xliii (1935–1937) 370 ff.Google Scholar, and more recently Bengtson has printed the whole document as no. 324 in Die Staatsverträge des Altertums ii. The reasons adduced for the joining of (a) to the other fragments are discussed more fully below.

3 Cf. (e.g.) Bergk, , Rh. Mus. xxxvii. 355 ff.Google Scholar (assigning (b)+(c) to 360 B.c.); Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien 213 ff. (assigning (b)+(c) to early 352 B.c.); cf. J. Miller, RE s.v. Orontes' (6), and Pistorius, Lesbos 116 ff. for a summary of these and similar views.

4 Cf. (e.g.) Cawkwell, , CQ N.S. xii (1962) 131 f.Google Scholar He notes that in this year (349/8 B.C:) Phocion was in command in Euboea in Elaphebolion (IX). Hence he must have been called away from here by Thargelion (XI) of the same year for the dealings with Orontes, the satrap of Mysia. On the identity of Orontes cf. p. 314 below.

5 Not unnaturally discussion has tended to centre on the contents of fragments (b)+(c)+(d), as they appear to shed some light on Athenian policy in 349/8 B.C. Also, of course, the text of these fragments (which clearly belong together) is more securely established. Fragment (a) has for the most part been accepted as it was recorded by Rangabé, Antiquités helléniques, no. 397. So (e.g.) Parke, op. cit. Bengtson, however, apparently has some reservations about its contents (op. cit. no. 324).

6 (Athens, 1835) 500 f.

7 Antiquités helléniques ii, nos. 397, 398, 399.

8 Cf. Rangabé, op. cit. 73. ‘Le marbre S.N. 397, que M. Pittaki avait copié en 1820, s'est perdu depuis, et il m'a été impossible de rectifier sa copie qui malheureusement laisse beaucoup à desirer. Cependant, malgré que n'aie pu obtenir aucun renseignement sur la forme et la dimension de ses lettres, je ne conserve aucun doute que le fragment que je joins ici S.N. 398, et qui est placé dans le Musée d'Athènes, n'en eût fait partie.’

Pittakys did not record any physical details at all in his edition of (a).

9 Koehler, (IG ii. 108)Google Scholar, Kirchner, (IG ii 2. 207)Google Scholar, and Bengtson (op. cit., no. 324) all settle for Rangabé' version of (a), though Koehler does cite Pittakys for variant readings at two points. The question of the join has excited more dispute. Cf. n. 3 above.

10 Cf. n. 8 above.

11 Op. cit. 72, no. 397. ‘Fragment de marbre emprunté au livre de M. Pittaki, intitulé “L'Ancienne Athènes”, p. 500.’ I can find no record of any edition of this work other than the 1835 edition (from which the information in this paper comes).

12 Figs. 1 and 2.

13 Cf. p. 304 below for a full discussion of this possibility.

14 Cf. Parke, op. cit. 370 ff.

15 For examples of this type of formula cf. Larfeld, , Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik ii. 2. 738 ff.Google ScholarKirchner, (IG ii 2. 207)Google Scholar restores along these lines.

16 There are plenty of examples of both forms. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii.2 206 for the shorter form; IG ii2. 77 for the longer form. Cf. Larfeld, loc. cit. for fuller lists.

17 The clause always seems to be qualified thus. Another possibility is that the word is concealed in the garble. This word does occur in such clauses periodically (e.g. IG ii2. 133, Cf. Larfeld, op. cit. 738 ff.

18 Cf. Larfeld, op. cit. 738 ff. for lists. The phrase always seems to have the words attached.

19 On the question of the defectively worded citizenship award (if such it is) cf. p. 307 below. Assuming for the moment that it is such an award, the normal formula requires the inclusion of the word Cf. p. 309 below.

20 Rangabé's version offers no improvement on this situation.

21 Op. cit. 73. ‘Dans 1. 11 de N. 397 on voit figurer dans la copie de M. Pittaki les mots: qui doivent être .’

22 Koehler, (IG ii. 108)Google Scholar actually gives as a variant of Pittakys, with the comment ‘Pittakys … scilicet e coniectura’. He then settles for Callimachus (349/8 B.C.) because (1) the decree cannot be later than Ol. 108 ‘propter praescripturae formam’ (cf. p. 311 below), and (2) it cannot be older than Ol. 107 ‘propter rationem scribendi’.

23 Quite the reverse, in fact. Cf. n. 11 above.

24 In any case, if Pittakys' published facsimile was a ‘touched-up’ version of notes to which Rangabé gained access, it is a little surprising, to say the least, that some of the putatively ‘additional’ or ‘speculative’ material in Pittakys' version is so unintelligible. Besides, Rangabé should have made it clear that he was adopting such a procedure, if indeed he was.

25 The reference to the archon in line 11 almost certainly must refer either to the current archon or to an earlier archon. The context, vague as it is at this point, suggests the former alternative. References to the archon of the coming year are not unknown, though they are rare: cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 496 + 507. The circumstances in which such a reference may be made are fairly obviously restricted. The decree quoted was passed in the twelfth prytany of the year.

26 This official regularly appears in this period without a patronymic: cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 208, and many other examples.

27 Cf. p. 311 below for further discussion.

28 Rangabé stops short at in his facsimile. If Pittakys has added the rest, then his reasons defy comprehension. In Pittakys' copy the ΗΣ of would be ‘correctly’ placed.

29 It is printed without question or note in IG ii2. 207 by Kirchner; also by Bengtson (op. cit. no. 324). Cf. Kirchner, PA no. 12027, with stemma.

30 IG ii2. 1747. 18.

31 Rangabé' text perhaps invites such a restoration. But the name occurs frequently enough in the fourth century to call for some caution. Kirchner (PA) lists twenty-two persons who had this name (nos. 12005–27), and a large number of these come from the fourth century. There is even another in the quoted list of prytaneis from the tribe Aegeis, (IG ii 2. 1747. 45)Google Scholar, though admittedly he is not the one required here. But even if it is admitted that Pittakys has made an error at this juncture (though it is not easy to see how this point could be demonstrated) and Rangabé's text is upheld, the point would still hardly be settled, as is not the only possibility by far. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 5442 (Tit. sep. of the fourth century) for a and IG ii2. 6551 (Tit. sep. of die fourth century) for a There is also a Polycrates (not in PA) who is mentioned in the Letter of Philip (= [Dem.] xii.) 16. Unfortunately he is an exceedingly shadowy figure, and it is not possible to identify him positively with any other known Polycrates. But it is interesting to note that he was the proposer of the decree that dispatched the Athenian settlers to the Chersonese in c. 342 B.C. (cf. Philochorus F 158 (Jacoby) for the date). In other words he was an active politician in the late 340s.

32 Cf. IG ii2. 208 (349/8 B.c.) IG ii2. 212 (347/6 B.C.; cf. IG ii2. 213 (347/6 B.c.), 220 (344/3 B.C), etc.

33 Koehler, following Rangabé, restores similarly (IG ii. 108), though he postpones the verb to line 4.

34 The awkwardness seems to centre on the word ποεῖν, which cannot be made intelligible in its context. If it is taken as an error, there are still difficulties as to how the clause runs. It could be that the clause runs on to this point and that Pittakys's conceals a (second) reference to someone speaking. Otherwise a new clause could have begun. It seems fairly profitless to speculate on the point, though it would seem to be the case that lines 3 and (most of) 4 are taken up with some kind of motivation clause(s).

35 Pittakys reads but it is hard to see how this can stand, as only one crown seems to be in question for Orontes. If the text is emended to the extra clause could perhaps have laid down some regulations about its announcement, or its dispatch, or perhaps the payment for it. A slight difficulty is that the word for crown normally appears in the accusative case in such clauses; e.g. (dispatch) (IG ii2. 103); (payment) (IG ii2. 223). The clause in which the word regularly appears in the genitive case—i.e. the clause about the making of the crown (τῆς δὲ ποιήσεως τοῦ στεφάνου κτλ.)—does not seem to occur before the very last years of the fourth century (though analogous forms with a verb and t he accusaqualitive are found earlier). Cf. Larfeld, op. cit. 775; Kirchner, IG ii2. Sermo Publicus s.v.

36 The award of a crown with further honours is not especially common in the earlier part of the fourth century (as can be seen from a glance at the Corpus). But in the later fourth century such awards are common enough and the order in the decrees is generally ‘praise—crown—further honours’.

37 e.g. Rangabé, op. cit., no. 397; Koehler, , IG ii. 108Google Scholar; Kirchner, PA and IG ii2. 207; Billheimer, , Naturalization in Athenian Law and Practice (Gettysburg, 1922)Google Scholar; Pope, Foreigners in Attic Inscriptions; Parke, op. cit.

38 Bengtson (loc. cit.) published the text approximately as Kirchner, but in line 6 he reads

39 The first datable appearance is in IG ii2. 103 of the year 369/8 B.C. It appears regularly thereafter. Cf. p. 308 below for discussion.

40 It does, of course, appear in other contexts; e.g. in IGii2. 21 in connection with the making of an alliance.

41 Block grants are slightly different. Cf. n. 46 below.

42 Cf. p. 305 below.

43 As expressed by the phrase (or its equivalent). A discussion of the significance of this qualification is reserved for separate treatment.

44 For brief comments on this requirement in the fourth century cf. BSA lxvi (1971) 325 ff.

45 e.g. by Billheimer, op. cit.; Johnson, , AJA xviii (1914) 174.Google Scholar

46 The situation differs slightly in block grants (as e.g. IG i2, i). In these cases no doubt it was thought impolitic to allow a large group to be enrolled freely, for fear that it would unbalance a particular tribe or deme. Hence assignation is normal in these cases.

47 Such as (e.g. IG i2. 113 though not as commonly as Johnson's comments would suggest (AJA xviii (1914) 163 ff.). The only fourthcentury examples are IG ii2. 25+SEG xv. 86; IG ii2. 237 (confirmation of a grant); IG ii2. 336 (confirmation of a grant). In IG ii2. 553 the rather strange word is used. In IG ii2. 109 the clause reads In IG ii2. 350 (318/17 B.C) no word at all is used, and the enrolment is simply tacked on to the granting clause with the connective καί. This variety argues against any idea that the formula was stereotyped by the middle or later part of the fourth century.

48 Wilhelm, , Mélanges Nicole (Genève, 1905) 597–602.Google Scholar

49 Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 151 ff. I have tried to show there that the decree could be restored rather differently from the currently accepted manner if it is a citizenship grant.

50 Besides, it would presumably be impossible for one to become a member of a tribe (and a phratry) without becoming a member of a deme. Cf. ML 85; BSA lxv (1970) 151 ff.

51 Cf. ibid, for discussion of this point. In any case, in this instance there is the further point that the phratry membership was not a necessary, but only a desirable, concomitant of citizenship; hence its omission would not invalidate the grant of citizenship, though it might prove socially embarrassing for the recipient.

52 Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 283–5Google Scholar, Bürgerrechtsverleihungen der Athener, arguing with special reference to the clauses concerning the and the

53 To the year 369/8 B.C. belongs the first preserved decree to record the clause concerning the (IG ii2. 103 = Tod 133). The clause appears regularly thereafter in the fourth century—and indeed well into the third century. It only disappears with the basic change of granting formula (from to ) which occurs late in third century B.C.

54 Cf. n. 47 above for details.

55 Cf. pp. 308 ff. below for further details. This clause is apparently omitted in IG ii2. 395 (321/20–318/7 B.C.) and in IG ii2. 405 (334/3 B.C.; cf. Schweigert, , Hesperia ix (1940) 339 f.)Google Scholar, but it could have been added as an amendment in both cases. Cf. p. 306 below.

56 IG ii2. 336 (SEG xv. 97; xxi. 273 and 278) consists of two fragments. Decree I is recorded on fragment (a), and the rest on fragment (b). Decree I, which confirms an award of citizenship, is dated to 334/3 B.c. There is no qualification. The rest of the inscription contains the bottom of a decree followed by an insertion which apparently qualifies the enrolment into a phratry; below this is preserved the prescript of a further decree. As this further decree has a defective prescript (in that no archon is mentioned, and the secretary's name is tacked on—very strangely—to the date), it has become customary to assume that the fragments of the end of a decree preserved at the top of this piece (i.e. (b)) form the conclusion not of the first decree (on (a)) but of a second decree. It is then possible to hold that the defective opening of the next decree (III) is to be explained by the fact that it was passed in the same year as the preceding decree (II), and, since this has a full dating formula, it was not deemed necessary to repeat it again. On this whole problem cf. Dow, S., Hesperia xxxii (1963) 341 f.Google Scholar He would date Decrees II and III to 333/2 B.C. This suggests that the clause was introduced c. 334/3 B.c. The fact that IG ii2. 405, which has now been dated to 334/3 B.C. by Schweigert, (Hesperia ix (1940) 339 f.)Google Scholar, does have this clause perhaps confirms this. Indeed, if it is granted that the subscript is an addition to Decree II (333/2 B.C.) then the date of the change may be assigned with some precision to the period between prytany IV of 334/3 B.c. (= date of Decree I) and prytany IX of 334/3 B.c. (= date of IG ii2. 405). If, however, the subscript is taken as correcting Decree I of IG ii2. 336, then the clause may go back rather earlier, though hardly earlier than IG ii2.237 (338/7 B.c.). This latter decree, which, like IG ii2. 336 (I), confirms an award of citizenship, does not have the qualifying clause. Cf. n. 69 below.

57 The clause has also been restored in IG ii2. 336, but strong doubts have been expressed about this, e.g. by Wilhelm, op. cit. 266 f. Certainly it is not a necessary restoration. On this and on the problem of IG ii2. 398, cf. pp. 323 ff. below.

58 The extremes of opinion concerning the find voice in Ferguson, , Klio v. 172Google Scholar, arguing that the requirement of the follows political trends, and Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 257 ff.Google Scholar, arguing against the correlation of the with the periods of oligarchic rule in Athens. For a brief discussion of this problem see pp. 325 ff. below. The clause has also been interpreted in a number of ways, but discussion of this point is reserved for a full examination of citizenship grants.

59 In a few cases (IG ii2. 395, 405) the clause is not found in its place. But it is quite possible that, as elsewhere, it was added as an amendment. In both of the instances quoted here the stone breaks before the bottom is reached.

60 Op. cit. 283 f.

61 Cf. also IG ii2. 682 for a rider adding a clause that has been omitted in the main decree. Again, in IG ii2. 336, the fact that a clause has been very awkwardly interposed in a non-stoichedon line between two decrees in stoichedon order suggests that it was of some importance to have this clause inserted.

62 This fragment was published by Woodward, , JHS xxviii (1908) 311.Google Scholar It is recorded in the editio minor as being ‘in arce, nunc in museo arcis’, but I have so far been unable to locate it either there or in the Epigraphical Museum.

63 It is interesting too that the enrolment clause is never the one omitted in any of the verifiable instances. It is always the clause. Probably the enrolment clause was too closely bound up with the very idea of the grant to be omitted.

64 i.e. the clause requiring a and the qualification On the former cf. pp. 325 ff. below; as regards the latter, Pečírka has recently demonstrated the vagaries of the phrase as applied to very clearly in his excellent book The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague, 1966). This may be the case with citizenship grants too. But, whatever the situation may be over this clause, the facts clearly indicate that the statement of the grant, the enrolment, and the vote were important and probably essential parts of the awarding formula.

65 Whether or not such a decree was actually defective, in the sense of lacking full validity, is more difficult to determine. A few instances of amendments might suggest that omissions on the stone could cause difficulties. Cf. (e.g.) IG ii2. 17 where Sthorys seems to have experienced difficulties about the erection of the two stelai which had been decreed, apparently because of a lack of precision in the original decree that mentioned the setting up of the stelai. Hence the need for an amendment to clarify the situation. Cf. BSA lxv (1970) 151 ff.

66 Underlying this are some very basic questions such as how far the epigraphic formulae can be used to assess practice and changes in actual procedure, and how far epigraphic omissions affect things in practice. Such basic points call for separate discussion.

67 Excluding the very doubtful IG i2. 160, of course. Cf. p. 305 above.

68 Cf. (e.g.) IG i2. 113 (c. 410 B.C.) for Evagoras of Salamis; IG ii2. 103 (369/8 B.C.) for Dionysius of Syracuse. Neither of these is likely to have made practical use of his grant (i.e. actually come to Athens and exercised his citizen rights), but the full formula of the citizenship grant is contained in the decrees recording their honours.

69 For other examples of enrolment formulae longer than usual cf. (e.g.) IG ii2, 109, 251, 169+472 (with Addendum. Cf. Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 288ff.Google Scholar). The briefer kind of formula would seem to give too few letters for the line, unless there was clause. There is no convincing reason for thinking this to be the case. For the present purposes it might be sufficient to recall that the first appearance of this clause comes in IG ii2. 336 (Decree II subscript. Cf. n. 56 above). Various views are possible regarding this subscript and its date. On the one hand it may be argued that, as Decree I of IG ii2. 336 (334/3 B.C.) does not have the clause, it would seem that the requirement implied in the clause came in after that date. Otherwise one has to suppose that the inserted line in IG ii2. 336 (b) is an emendation of the first decree (i.e. correcting an omission in Decree I). This might have awkward consequences for the dating problem of Decree III (the deficiencies of which are seemingly explained by the supposition that Decree II has already provided a full prescript). On the other hand it might be argued that, if the correction applies to Decree II, then it is reasonable to expect that Decree II contained a relevant clause requiring this correction—i.e. that it contained a citizenship award or a confirmation of one. But it is hard to think of the circumstances that would require a further confirmation in 333/2 B.C. of an award already confirmed as recently as 334/3 B.C. Hence the subscript could refer to Decree I. Assuming all of the decrees to have been cut at once (which is likely), then it could be suggested (e.g.) that the subscript was postponed until this point because there was not enough room between Decrees I and II to fit it in. On this view, the appearance of this clause could antedate 334/3 B.C. If the former view is taken and the appearance of the clause can be put as late as 334/3 B.C., then clearly IG ii2. 207 (a) will not have had the clause. The problem remains, however, if the legislation underlying the clause is dated earlier as (e.g.) by Pritchett, (Hesperia x (1941) 272)Google Scholar who connects it with the decree of Demophilus, or rather the enabling legislation for it. But it is noteworthy that IGii2.237 (338/7 B.C.) does not have the limitation clause. Nor is the fact that the latter is a confirmation (as opposed to a grant) relevant, as IG ii2. 336 is not a grant either. Hence, even on the latter view, it is hard to take the appearance of the clause back earlier than 338/7 B.C.

70 Though this will mean that Pittakys will have had a considerably longer line available for copying here than elsewhere on the fragment.

71 e.g. IG ii2. 103 (SEG xvi. 46; Tod 133), 185, 251, 336 (SEG xv. 97, xxi. 273 and 278), 448; SEG xxi. 298; etc.

72 e.g. IG ii2. 109 (SEG xvi. 47), 393, 553.

73 e.g. Hesperia xiii (1944) no. 3; IG ii2. 558, 696; etc. An oddity is IG ii2. 663 which refers to the prytaneis of the calendar month . Cf. Wilhelm, , AM xxxix (1914) 277.Google Scholar

74 e.g. IG ii2. 538, 394, 398, 496+507 (+Addendum to 496); SEG xxi. 310; etc. IG ii2. 222 also has this form of reference but its date is disputed. Kirchner dates it to 344/3 B.C., but Johnson, (CP (1914) 248 ff.)Google Scholar argues strongly for a date post 334/3 B.C.

75 The first dated instance is IG ii2. 643+Hesperia ix (1940) 80, no. 13 (298/7 B.C.). Cf. Meritt, , Hesperia ix (1940) 80 ff.Google Scholar

76 There are a few instances in die third century, e.g. IG ii2. 652.

77 Hesperia xiii (1944) no. 5 (dated shortly before 321/20 B.C. by Meritt ad. loc.); IG ii2. 394 (which belongs to the period 321/20–319/18 B.C.).

78 e.g. IG ii2. 103, 109; Hesperia xiii (1944) no. 3; IG ii2. 336.

79 The phrase occurs in a number of decrees that may belong earlier than c. 334/3 B.C.: e.g. IG ii2. 297, 301. It also occurs in IG ii2. 222, on which cf. n. 74 above.

80 Cf. Diodorus xv. 90. 3 for the designation of Orontes as ‘satrap of Mysia’. See also p. 314 below.

81 The identification was first proposed by Rangabé, op. cit. 73 f. It has been followed by (e.g.) Kirchner (PA and the editio minor), Billheimer (op. cit.), Pope (op. cit. s.v. ‘Orontes’), Parke (op. cit.), Cawkwell, (CQ, N.S. xii (1962) 131 f.)Google Scholar, etc.

82 It is possible that he was still active in Armenia, however, and his presence there might help to explain his son's ‘succession’ to the control of that satrapy. But this would not affect the situation regarding his availability for the honours of IG ii2. 207, since it is clear that the recipient of these honours must have held office in an area somewhat further west than Armenia.

83 Rhosaces held this command by 344 B.C. according to Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte iii. 2. 138 ff.Google Scholar, quoting Diodorus xvi. 47. 2. Diodorus actually records this under the year 350/49 B.C. (Apollodorus), but this date is difficult to accept because the mention of Rhosaces is made in Diodorus' account of the (later) reconquest of Egypt, which he has, by common consent, misdated. (On the date and the details of the reconquest cf. Cawkwell, , CQ, N.s. xiii (1963) 120 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 136 ff.). There is no clear way of determining how long Rhosaces had been in command of his augmented province before the Egyptian expedition, but clearly he must have obtained it by the middle of the 340s at the latest.

What actually constituted the ‘satrapy of Mysia’ is a somewhat disputed point. Judeich, Kleinasiatische Studien 193 ff., and Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire 415, for instance, refer to a ‘sub-satrapy’; on which see n. 117 below. Beloch, op. cit. 139, Parke, op. cit. 370 ff., and Hammond, History of Greece 514, however, take it to be Ionia. Alii alia. There are a number of difficulties, though clearly it must have included some of the coastal area. Quite possibly Diodorus uses the word rather carelessly in describing Orontes' position, as he does elsewhere. Otherwise it has to be assumed that the term Mysia is used loosely to designate one of the regular satrapies of Asia Minor (though it is hard to find a convincing candidate), or else that a new satrapy of ‘Mysia’ had been organized for Orontes. Equally problematic are the circumstances of Orontes' acquisition of ‘Mysia’. These problems will be discussed in a forthcoming article. See also p. 315 below.

84 Arrian, , Anabasis iii. 8. 5.Google Scholar

85 Diodorus xix. 23. 3.

86 Such as the date at which the younger Orontes took over the satrapy of Armenia.

87 The earliest possible date is more difficult to determine because Orontes apparently lived to a ripe old age and spent much of it in office, or revolt, in the western part of the empire. Cf. p. 314 below for further details.

88 The point has been discussed by Glotz, , REG xxxiv (1921) 1 ff.Google Scholar He assigns the change to the year 378/7 B.C. The whole question has been re-examined by Lewis, D. M. (BSA xlix (1954) 31 ff.)Google Scholar, who argues that the change could belong equally well to a point soon after the restoration of democracy as to 378/7 B.C.

89 IG ii2. 44.

90 A similar situation, where two forms run concurrently for a while, is met in the case of the secretary of the boule. Earlier references to this official regularly style him but from about the middle of the fourth century onwards the form appears, and this latter gradually supplants the older form.

91 Cf. Johnson, , CP (1914) 248 fr.Google Scholar Prior to this the form apparently occurs in IG ii2. 225 (343/2 B.C.).

92 e.g. IG ii2. 233 (340/39 B.C.). Cf. IG ii2. 230 (dated to 341/40 B.C. by Kirchner).

93 Though Athenian activity in such an area as late as 341/40 B.C. might call for some reappraisal of Athenian policy in the late 340s. But in Philippics iii and iv Demo sthenes advocates seeking the assistance of the King in the city' efforts against Philip. Indeed, an embassy was sent to the King on this very mission (Aeschines iii. 238) and, while this initiative cannot be termed successful, the western satraps did come to the aid of Perinthus. However, the satraps in question do not include an Orontes—and if he had been involved, his name would surely have been mentioned in view of his distinction. In Dem. xiv. 31 (354 B.C.) he is instanced as a well-known figure. Cf. Plutarch, , Aratus iii. 4Google Scholar which also implies a well-known figure.

94 The generals mentioned in (b)+(c)+(d) could probably be more easily accommodated at a later date than an earlier. The crucial point would be what precisely the Athenians were up to at so late a date (though certainly there were ample reasons for Athenian generals to be in and around the Hellespont area in the late 340s).

95 Rangabé, op. cit. 73.

96 Cf. Parke, op. cit.; also Wallace, , Phoenix ii (1949) 70 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. IG ii2. 141 (= Tod 139, with notes). In this case the Boule is instructed to make σύμβολα for Strato, king of Sidon, ὅπως ἂν ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων εἰδῆι ἐάν τι πέμπηι ὁ Σιδωνίων βασιλεὺς δεόμενος τῆς πόλεως καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ Σιδωνίων εἰδῆι ὅταμ πέμπηι τινὰ ὡς αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίων. Cf. p. 313 below.

97 Cf. p. 314 below for further comments.

98 It is noteworthy that the only other person to whom were sent (as far as can be ascertained) was a king, namely Strato of Sidon, (IG ii 2. 141 = Tod 139).Google Scholar

99 Parke, op. cit.; Wallace, , Phoenix ii (1949) 70 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

100 It is, of course, true that no position for such a clause is readily discernible on the fragment as recorded. But it could have come at the very end of the decree, as indeed is the case in the decree for Strato, (IG ii 2. 141 = Tod 139).Google Scholar

101 Cf. p. 319 below.

102 This is not, of course, to say that the join is impossible.

103 It is, of course, possible to argue this point from entirely the opposite side, i.e. to maintain that (b)+(c)+(d), with their specific provisions, precede (a). Fragment (a) may then be taken as regularizing the situation and, in addition, giving Orontes the honours by way of thanks for his services. But this seems a much less likely sequence of events. It means that yet another decree has to be hypothesized for the exchange of Also, if (b)+(c)+(d) precede (a), and (a) is put in 349/8 B.C., then one runs into the wellknown difficulties about the likelihood of the persons mentioned in (b)+(c)+(d) being generals together prior to 349/8 B.C. Cf. Parke, op. cit.; but see also p. 317 below.

104 His name appears in a number of forms, most frequently as either or Cf. Dittenberger, OGIS 391 (with notes on the variants).

105 Plutarch, Artaxerxes 12. Cf. Dittenberger, OGIS 264, where Orontes is referred to as

106 Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 17. Cf. iv. 3. 4. Cf. Beloch, (Griechische Geschichte iii. 2. 138 ff.)Google Scholar and Judeich (Kleinasiatische Studien 221 ff.) for arguments in favour of identifying the Orontes mentioned as satrap in 401 B.C. with the protagonist in the later satrap revolts. The case for the identification was first argued by Reinach, , REG iii (1890) 362 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The decisive point is the fact that both the Orontes mentioned in Plutarch (Artaxerxes xxvii) and Xenophon, (Anab. ii. 4. 8)Google Scholar and the Orontes mentioned in the Nemrud-Dagh inscriptions (Dittenberger, OGIS 391 and 392; cf. 264) are said to have married Rhodogune, the daughter of Artaxerxes II Mnemon. This makes it quite clear that there is only one Orontes in question in this period.

107 Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 8. Cf. Plutarch, Artaxerxes 27; Diodorus xv. 2.2.

108 Diodorus xv. 2. 2. He puts this under the year 386 B.C.

109 Polyaenus vii. 14. 1 presumably refers to this incident.

110 Diodorus xv. 8—11.

111 Diodorus xv. 90. 3. He dates this to the year 362/1 B.C.

112 Pace Sherman (Loeb edition of Diodorus, vol. vii. 205). Cf. n. 119 below.

113 e.g. by Meyer, , Geschichte des Altertums v. 312 ff.Google Scholar A similar view is taken in the Cambridge Ancient History vi. 21. Cf. also Glotz-Cohen, , Histoire grecque iv. 1. 9.Google Scholar

114 Trogus, Prol. x. ‘Ut Artaxerxes Mnemon pacificatus cum Evagora rege Cyprio bellum Aegyptium in urbe Ace comparavit, ipse in Cadusiis victor, defectores in Asia purpuratos suos persecutus, primum Datamem praefectum (Paphlagoniae): Paphlagonon origo repetita: deinde praefectum Hellesponti Ariobarzanem, deinde in Syria praefectum Armeniae Orontem, omnibusque victis decesserit filio successore Ocho.’

On the basis of this passage some would emend Diodorus xv. 90. 3 from So (e.g.) Krumbholz, , De Asiae Minoris Satrapis Persicis (Leipzig, 1883).Google Scholar For reasons discussed in the text this attempt to argue Orontes out of Mysia (and hence out of western Asia Minor) altogether does not seem very profitable. Besides, the facts that Orontes certainly had been satrap of Armenia in the early fourth century, that he possibly still was in addition to holding a further command, and that he quite probably was again later or continued to be such later, are quite sufficient to explain Trogus' reference to him as ‘satrap of Armenia’.

115 Sherman (Loeb edition of Diodorus, vol. vii. 204 n. 2) suggests that Orontes was satrap of Mysia only by 362/1 B.C. and that (pace Trogus) he had lost Armenia. Olmstead (History of the Persian Empire) apparently takes the same view, to judge from his words on p. 415: ‘With the accession to the rebel cause of Aroandas, dissatisfied at his demotion from satrap of Armenia to subsatrap of Mysia, the situation became extremely dangerous (353).’ (The date is presumably a misprint for 363.) If this is so, his family apparently regained control of Armenia later, since his son is found in command there under Darius (cf. Arrian, , Anab. iii. 8. 5).Google Scholar

116 Op. cit. 139.

117 Olmstead's solution to this problem appears to be that he was demoted from the satrapy of Armenia to the ‘subsatrapy’ of Mysia (op. cit. 415; so too Sherman, loc. cit.). However, it is surely most unlikely that Orontes would have been selected as leader of the revolt by the other rebels if he held a post inferior to theirs. This makes it virtually impossible to believe that Orontes was ‘subsatrap of Mysia’ only at this juncture. On the nature of the ‘satrapy of Mysia’ see n. 83 above.

118 Cf. Diodorus xv. 90. 1 ff. He lists the major participants and twice mentions that it was who were responsible for the revolt.

119 The uncertainty as to what the ‘satrapy of Mysia’ actually comprised makes discussion awkward. But it is perhaps the case that he aspired to an appointment such as Cyrus had held earlier, or such as Mentor was to hold later. The latter, according to Diodorus xvi. 52. 2, was appointed as and his office seems to have involved a general supervision of the coastal area. It was in this capacity that he arrested Hermeias of Atarneus.

Of course since Orontes did not actually gain anything over and above Mysia at this stage, as far as can be seen, this might be taken to back up the view that the satrapy of Mysia constituted his ‘reward’ for returning to his allegiance to Artaxerxes at this crucial juncture. But the considerations adduced in the text seem to make this unlikely. Also it could be argued that the words of Diodorus (xv. 91. 1) suggest that Orontes already held some of the coastal area under his control.

120 Pace Olmstead, op. cit. 421.

121 Dem. xiv. 31 (354 B.C.). The story in Polyaenus (vii. 14. 2 ff.) is generally associated with this revolt. But cf. n. 126 below.

122 Dittenberger, OGIS 264 (cf. Fraenkel, M., Altertumer von Pergamon viii. 2, Die Inschriften von Pergamon (Berlin, 1895) 378 ff.Google Scholar with facsimile). Cf. OGIS 390–1.

123 Cf. Dittenberger, loc. cit. But cf. n. 126 below.

124 Diodorus xvi. 47. 2. Cf. n. 83 above.

125 On the date of Philippic i cf. Cawkwell, , CQ N.s. xii (1962) 122 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is perhaps worth noticing too that the speech On the Symmories was delivered after the victory that Artabazus and Chares combined to achieve—a victory that impelled Chares at any rate to describe the engagement as Schol. Dem. iv. 19. Cf. Plutarch, , Aratus xvi. 3.Google Scholar

126 It is perhaps worth while to record in more detail at this juncture the exceedingly unimpressive nature of the total evidence for Orontes' second revolt. The comments in the Pergamene Chronicle are not securely dated, and could very easily be taken to refer to the earlier revolt, especially in view of the words of Diodorus xv. 91. 1. The tales in Polyaenus (vii. 14. 2 ff.) are of course undated, and depend solely on the fact that Orontes is described as being in opposition to Autophradates for their being assigned to the later date; according to Diodorus xv. 90. 3 Autophradates was in league with Orontes in the Great Satrap Revolt (cf. Parke, Greek Mercenaries 124 f.). But it is not absolutely certain that Autophradates' turn to revolt was exactly simultaneous with that of Orontes, nor for that matter that he returned to his allegiance to the King at exactly the same moment. Hence a possible occasion might be found for these stratagems at an earlier date. As for Demosthenes' comment (xiv. 31), he merely lists Egypt and Orontes as the kind of country and individual respectively that the Greeks might be prepared to help the King against. This comment could easily be retrospective, and it is hardly sufficient evidence on which to base a case for a second revolt. Artabazus' revolt, of course, is firmly attested, but it is noteworthy that the sources never associated him with Orontes. In short, then, the evidence for a second revolt on the part of Orontes in the 350s is exceedingly flimsy—flimsy enough indeed to raise considerable doubts about the very occurrence of such a revolt.

Since Orontes' son succeeded to the satrapy of Armenia at some point, it might be the case that Orontes returned to Armenia after the Great Satrap Revolt. Whether or not he had lost Armenia before the Revolt is problematic, and discussion of this point is reserved for a forthcoming article.

127 Of Proxenus we have virtually no information in this period at all. The first mention of him (if it is the same man) is as a general in connection with the Athenian forces stationed off Euboea in 346 B.C. Cf. Kirchner, PA, no. 12270 for details. Clearly there is an equal difficulty about references to him at any stage in or prior to 349/8 B.C.

128 Parke, , Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy xliii (1935–1937) 370 ff.Google Scholar According to Parke elsewhere (CR xlii (1928) 170) Charidemus acquired the citizenship in 357/6 B.C. He dismisses the of IG ii2. 118 (dated by Kirchner to c. 361/60 B.C.) as another Charidemus. But cf. Kirchner, PA, no. 15380.

129 Rh. Mus. xxxvii. 357 ff. Cf. n. 3 above.

130 Fragment (d) had not yet been associated with (b)+(c).

131 Dem. xxiii.

132 This is the time and sequence suggested by Kirchner, PA, no. 15380. So too Schaefer, Demosthenes i2. 419; Stein, PW s.v. ‘Charidemus'.

133 e.g. Billheimer, op. cit., Parke, , CR xlii (1928) 170Google Scholar (cf. Greek Mercenaries 125 ff.). Both give 357/6 B.C.

134 So Parke, , CR xlii (1928) 170.Google Scholar Cf. Hypothesis ii. 3 ad Dem. xxiii.

135 Dem. xxiii. 144 ff. and passim thereafter.

136 Presumably much would depend on the circumstances. But if a general was acting for Athens, it seems reasonable enough that specific instructions should be given concerning his activities.

137 As for the others, Chares was certainly a general in 361/60 B.C. As such he was responsible for the outbreak of stasis in Corcyra. Cf. Diodorus xv. 95. 3, Aeneas Tacticus xi. 7. Phocion was also probably a general in 361/60 B.C. Cf. Kirchner, PA, no. 15076; he dates Phocion's defeat by Athenodorus to this period (cf. Polyaenus v. 21). Cf. Tod 149 (an honorary decree for Athenodorus from Cius) with notes; Parke, Greek Mercenaries 129.

138 This assumes that any correction must be based on Pittakys's original reading. If Rangabé's reading had any independent value (which it has not) it would be relevant to note that the nearest alternative name to Callimachus is Callimedes (360/59 B.C.).

139 A later date would seem to be best if the date of Charidemus' acquisition of the citizenship is taken to have been 357/6 B.C. rather than earlier.

140 The apparent difficulty about when precisely Orontes gained the satrapy of Mysia might prove a significant point here (cf. p. 315 above). If, as is often suggested (cf. n. 113 above), Orontes only acquired the area of Mysia after the Great Satrap Revolt, then a problem might arise as to how he could reasonably be involved with Athens in the manner implied by IG ii2. 207—especially so if he was only the satrap of Armenia before this. But as the leader of the revolt he could presumably be in evidence in the area at the requisite period. However, it remains the case that Diodorus' account is not inherently absurd at this point, even if the details of Orontes' rehabilitation are wholly obscure on that account. Indeed, there are good grounds for thinking that Diodorus' version is to be preferred, since, for reasons already adduced (p. 315 above), it seems necessary to assume that Orontes had some official position in the west before the Great Satrap Revolt. In addition, the evidence for his activities after the Great Satrap Revolt is far from impressive (cf. n. 126 above).

141 Austin, R. P., JHS lxiv (1944) 98–100.Google Scholar

142 Loc. cit.

143 Cf. Parke, , Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy xliii (1935–1937) 370 ff.Google ScholarWallace, , Phoenix ii (1949) 70 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

144 P. 314 above.

145 Austin (loc. cit.) attempts to date IG ii2. 141 on the strength of the peculiar formula for the inscription that it contains, viz.

The phrase ‘within ten days’ seems to be otherwise found only between the dates 355/4 B.C. and 349/8 B.C. Hence Austin would date the decree for Strato as near as possible to this period. As Strato died c. 360 B.C., he tries to date it as closely to this as possible. However, as Tod has pointed out (JHS lxiv (1944) 100; Tod 139, with notes), these arguments are not free from difficulties. In particular there is the problem raised by the formula used in lines 15–18, which, according to Johnson, A. C. (CP ix (1914) 423)Google Scholar, dates the decree to c. 378/7 B.C.; cf. Ferguson, , Treasurers of Athena (Harvard, 1932) xiii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also there is the problem of the socalled ‘Reply to the Satraps’ (IG iv. 556 = Tod 145). Cf. n. 147 below. The former point in particular (pace Cawkwell, , CQ N.s. xiii (1963) 138Google Scholar) constitutes a real difficulty to the later date. In any case it might be noted that, even on Austin's view, there is a fairly substantial gap between IG ii 2. 141 and the next decree with the peculiar formula by which he seeks to date it. This of itself surely weakens his case considerably.

146 in 365 B.C. Timotheus had gained Sestus and Crithote for Athens, perhaps as a result of some sort of deal with Ariobarzanes, the satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia. Cf. Nepos, , Timotheus i. 3Google Scholar; Isoc. xv. 112. Ariobarzanes was also made an Athenian citizen at some point (Dem. xxiii. 141, 202), and it is interesting that he and Orontes are the only certain examples of Persian officials being accorded the Athenian citizenship. Cawkwell, (CQ N.S. xi (1961) 85)Google Scholar, however, suggests that Timotheus may have been given the two cities under the terms of the Common Peace of 366/5 B.C. rather than as a reward for services to Ariobarzanes. The Athenian activity was on any account somewhat circumspect, as is clear from the conditions imposed on Timotheus. According to Demosthenes (xv. 9) he was dispatched to aid Ariobarzanes

147 IG iv. 556 = Tod 145, q.v for a full discussion and a summary of views. Tod dates the document to the year 362/1 B.C. and identifies the Common Peace as that sworn by all the Greeks except Sparta in 362/1 B.C. The circumstances of the ‘Reply’ have more recently been discussed by Ryder, Koine Eirene, App. viii. How long the Athenians maintained such an attitude is, of course, another question.

148 Gf. Austin, op. cit. 98 ff.; Tod 145, with notes. Sparta apparently sent aid to Tachos. Chabrias rendered it on a purely unofficial basis. Cf. Plutarch, , Ages, xxxvii. 5Google Scholar; Nepos, Chabrias ii. In Plutarch's account Agesilaus answers Chabrias' request that he stand by Tachos by reminding Chabrias that he, unlike the latter, is not acting as a private individual but is on duty for his country. To judge from Chabrias' earlier experience, however, the fact that he was strictly acting as a private individual did not necessarily exempt his city from responsibility. Cf. Diodorus xv. 29. 3; Nepos, , Chabrias xii. 3. 6Google Scholar; Parke, Greek Mercenaries 62.

149 Cf. [Dem.] 1.4 ff. The speaker here enlarges on Athens' difficulties, not the least of which were current problems with the corn supply. The date is specified as the archonship of Molon (= 362/1 B.C.). This is especially interesting in view of the fact that IG ii2. 207 (b)+(c)+(d) is concerned with the provision of corn.

150 This is borne out clearly enough by the way in which Demosthenes deals with the topic. The speech On the Symmories is an excellent example. Here Demosthenes finds it necessary to emphasize as strongly as possible that he, as much as anyone else, is hostile to the King, even if his proposals are not very aggressive. The possibility of over tures to the King for aid against Philip is also broached in a very gingerly manner in Philippics iii and iv. Cf. Treves, P., REA xlii (1940) 360 ff.Google Scholar

151 i.e. firstly because they may not go with (a), and secondly because, even if they do, the date of (a) is uncertain.

152 As is done (e.g.) by Parke, op. cit., Cawkwell, , CQ N.S. xii (1962) 131 f.Google Scholar, etc.