The Constitution of Dracontides

J. A. R. Munro

doi:10.1017/S0009838800025854

The Constitution of Dracontides

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

J. A. R. Munro

Show author details

J. A. R. Munro: Affiliation:
Lincoln College, Oxford

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

Lysias (XII. 73), describing how the Thirty were established in the government of Athens, begins with the sentence ναστς δ θηραμνης κλευσεν ὑμς τρι$κοντα νδράσιν πιτρΨαι τν πóλιν τῇ πολιτεᾳ χρσθαι ν Δρακοντδης πφαινεν Commenting on the last clause the judicious Thirlwall observes that ‘the precise meaning of these words is very doubtful. There is almost equal difficulty, whether we suppose that they refer to a proposition then made, or to one which was to be made, by Dracontides.’ Thirlwall has not expressed his meaning as precisely as Lysias; the uncertainty lies, not in the words, nor in the reference intended by Lysias, but in the mind of the historian, who is conscious that, whether he refers the proposition of Dracontides to the occasion indicated by Lysias or to another, he will encounter almost equal difficulty. The difficulty however, arising from the apparent inconsistencies in the evidence of the ancient authorities on the date of the appointment of the Thirty, is not Thirlwall's only, and after a century of discussion it still vexes every student of the period.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 3-4 , July 1938 , pp. 152 - 166

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800025854 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1938

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

^{page 152 note 1} History of Greece, ed. 1839, ch. xxxi, p. 175, note.

^{page 152 note 2} When I refer of Xenophon tout court, I refer to his Hellenica.

^{page 152 note 3} The year, Stripped of the amplifications where in the Interpolator has wrapped it, is of course the Thucydidean year, beginning from the spring. Munychion I6 (April 22) really falls within it, but Xenophon for historical reasons has anticipated that day; yet he no doubt includes the events of that day (cap. ii. 23) in τοúτω δέ πραχθέντων (cap. iii. 3). Whatever may be the Thirty here cannot be cut out of the genuine text, for it is implied in the opening sentence of section II.

^{page 152 note 4} Plut. Lys. 15. Cf. C. Q. XXXI, 1937, pp. 32–37.

^{page 152 note 5} Clearly distinct from ‘the meeting about the peace’, Lys. XIII. 17.

^{page 153 note 1} XII. 71, οú πρóτερον είασε τν κκλησίαν γνέσθαι, ἒως ώμολογημένος (so Westermann, for the MS ἓως λεγóμενος) ὑπ᾽ κείνου καιρς πιμελς ὑπ᾽ αὐτον τηρήθη, κα μετεπμψατο μν τς μετ Λνσνδρου νας κ Σάμον, πεδήμησε δ τ τν πολεμεμίων στρατόπεδον For ὑπ᾽ κείνου one would expect ὑπ Λυσάνδρον by a stretch of prolepsis one might so interpret it, but the reader would think first of Theramenes— (the conjunction of the pronouns with reference to the same person is not unparalleled, v. Colin, G., Xénophon historien, p. 36Google Scholar, note)—and Lysias is keen to represent Theramenes as the prime mover.

^{page 153 note 2} Lys. XII. 43. Cf, Xen. II. iii. 15, 36; Mem. I. ii. 24. (Was Theramens another? Xen, II. iii. 34. )

^{page 153 note 3} The mood and tense of the verb πέϕαινεν admit of nnno other interpretation, and Aristotle, (Ath. Pol. 34. 3)Google Scholar Strongly corroborates Lysias in this point—κατατλαγείς ó δμος ἠναλκσθη χειροτονεῖν ττήν λιγαρχίαν. ἒγραψε δ τψήϕισμα Δρακοντίδης Ἀϕιδναîος.

^{page 153 note 4} τῇ úστεραίᾳ, Xen. II. iv 23, Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 38Google Scholar. It Xenophon's τò τελενταîον Covers a longer interval, it cannot be mote than a few days.

^{page 153 note 5} Xen. II. iv. 25: ξúλα καì τώραν. The con-jecture οπρια is not convincing. I make an opponent the present of an alternative. καθ᾽μέραν but conjectural emendation is here in-admissible.

^{page 154 note 1} On my interpretation the difference between these termini a quibus is negligible, but at this stage I allow the distinction for the sake of the, argument.

^{page 154 note 2} Diodorus says that he brought Ioo ships, which would be onIy half fleet, if he still had the original number (Xen. II. ii. 5. 7. cf. 9.), but Xenonphon notes that he dismissed the navy of the allies and sailed for Lacedaemon with the Laconian ships. It is enough that he brought the residue.

^{page 154 note 3} Vide C. Q. XXXII. 1938, pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 4} With Beloch, , G. G. ² III. 2, 208–9Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 5} Diodorus (XIV. 4) paraphrases γσαντο παρ Λακεδαιμονίωò ϕρονρν, λέγοντες őτι τν πολι τείαν καταστήσονσιν έκείνοις συμϕέρουσαν.

^{page 155 note 1} So too the expression ν τοîς καινοἶς νóμοις (Xen. II. iii. 51), with referemce to the only law there quoted, suggests a constitution, and a recent constitution, Aristotle's, supplementary law (Ath. Pol. 37)Google Scholaris another question.

^{page 155 note 2} Xen. II. iii. 17, πολλοì δήλοι ἦσαν συνιστμενοι τε καì θανμάζοντες τί ἒσοιτο πολιτεία.

^{page 155 note 3} Lys. 15. We need not stop to unravel all Plautarch's perplexities.

^{page 155 note 4} Plut. ibid. Cf. C. Q. XXXI, 1937, p. 37.

^{page 155 note 5} Cf. C. Q. XXXII, 1938, pp. 23–4Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 6} Xen. II. ii. I. Aristotle, however (Ath. Pol, 35, 41)Google Scholar and even democratic Lysias (VII. 9) use the name of Phthodorus to denote the year.

^{page 155 note 7} G. G. 112. i. p. 431.

^{page 155 note 8} Thuc. VIII. 67.

^{page 156 note 1} Aristot, , Ath. Pol. 35. 1Google Scholar, γενóμενοι κúροϕηγησομένους τς πολι. τείας κα πάντα διοικήσοντας τ κατ τήν πόλιν…. διοικήσοντες τ κοιν τς πóλεως. The subsequent statement, ἔδει δέ τοúς ᾐρπμένους βουλήν τε καì τς ἂλλας ρχς καταστσαι κ.τ.λ. is merely derived from Xenophon and from the fact which he records.

^{page 156 note 2} Lys. XII. 34. 36; Xen, II. II. 12, 28, 38;of. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 35. 3Google Scholar; Diod. XIV. 4.

^{page 156 note 3} Xen. II. iii. II, 38; Cf. Aristor, . Ath. Pol. 35. 1Google Scholar; Diod. l. c.; Lys. XIII. 20.

^{page 156 note 4} Vide Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena, p. 148 (where, by the way, ‘one and one-half months’ is a slip of the pen for ‘two and one-half months’).

^{page 156 note 5} Xen. II. iii. 13, πεì δ ἢρξαντο βονλεúεσθαι őπως ὂπως ἂν ξεη αúτοῖς τῃ πóλει χρσθαι βοúλοιντο 28, νûν πεì κα ὑμεῖς καί μεῖς ϕανερς έχθροί τψ δμψ γεγενμεθα.

^{page 156 note 6} Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 35. 3Google Scholar, έπεì δ τήν πλιν έγκρατστερον ἔσχον. Diod. XIV. 4, μετ δ ταûτα βουλόμενοι κα παράνομα πρττειν Sall, Cat, 51, Post ubi paulatim licentia crevit.

^{page 156 note 7} Diod. XIV. 3; Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 34. 3 Cf.Google ScholarC. Q. XXXII. 1938, pp. 23–4Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 8} Xen. II. iii. 12, 38; Lys. XII. 5, XXV. 19 27; Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 35. 2, 3Google Scholar; Diod. XIV, 4; Sall. Cat. 51.

^{page 156 note 9} Cf. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 29. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 1} Lys. XIII. 20.

^{page 157 note 2} C. Q. XXXII. 1938, pp. 22–6Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 3} References in note 8, p. 156.

^{page 157 note 4} Xen. II. iii. 14–15, 21–2, 38–41, iv, 21; Les XLL, 6. 7, 32–3, 96–7, XVIII, 4–6; Andoc. I. 94, 101–2; Plato, Apol. 32c, Epist. vii, 324e; Isocr, VII. 67, XX. II, XXI. 12; Aristot, , Ath. Pol. 35. 4Google Scholar; Diod. XIV. 4, 5; Sall. Cat. 51.

^{page 158 note 1} Aristot, , Pol. IV. 1298a, VI. 1317b, VII, 1332bGoogle Scholar, Ath. Pol. 4. 3, 30. 3, 43. 2, 62. 2; Thuc. VII. 86, 92.

^{page 158 note 2} References in note 3, p. 156.

^{page 158 note 3} Ferguson, l.c.

^{page 158 note 4} Ath. Pol. 34. 3; Cf. 35. I, γενόμενοι δ κύριοιτής τ μν ἂλλα τ δόξαντα περί τς πολιτείας παρεὠρων, πεντακοσίους δέ βουλευτς κ. τ. λ. This sentence well illustrates the contamination in Aristtle's account: it corresponds to Xeno-phon's αίρεθέντες δ ϕ᾽ ψτε συγγράψαι νόμονς καθ᾽ οὓστινας πολιτεύσοιντο, τούτους μν ε ἔμελλον συγγράϕειν τε καì ποδεικνύναι, βουλήν δέ κ. τ. λ, but whereas Xenophon plainly states that the συγγραϕεîς were slow in producing their constitution, Aristotle, having already established the constitution, can only (or could only, if he were clear in his own mind) refer his own version of Xenophon's statement to the slowness of the (dominant section of the) Thirty äρχοντες in carrying out the whole of the provisions of the constitution or (for the clause is a nest of ambiguities) its requirements to the number of the fully privileged citizens. Diodorus has been misled into the same error, but has evaded this particlar pitfall.

^{page 158 note 5} Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 30, 3, 31. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 6} Hell. Oxyrh. xi. 2. Cf. Thuc. V. 38.

^{page 159 note 1} Compare Lysias, XII. 55, Χαρικλεî καì Κριτίᾳ καì τῇ κείνων έταιρεία, although the reference is not quite the same, In Thucydides' narrative V. 38 teh Boeotarchs put their proposal to the Councils, but as the story proceeds the four Councils become one. Was this a joint session of the four, or did the Boeotarchs deal throughout with only one Council represent in κατά μέρος all four, and got no further?.

^{page 159 note 2} Xenophon (II. ii. 13–14, 20, 42, 55 6, iv. 2) narrates the occupation of the Acropolis, the murder of Theramenes, and the seizure of Phyle, in that order. Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 37) reverses the sequence, but his account, teh source and intention of which are problematical, can hardly by upheld against Xenophon's. No doubt it serves to emphasize the collaboration of Theramenes with Thuasybulus against the oligarchs and to absolve him of any share in the introduction of the Laconian garrison, but I think there are also less recoundite reasons (see note 3, p. 160).

^{page 160 note 1} Lys. XIII. 30. 43.

^{page 160 note 2} My grounds are: (I) Lysias (XII. 76) places Theramenes' Ten first of the three Tens; (2) a substitute for the ten στρατηγοί would be needed during the first four months of the year of Pythoudorus, and one of the Tens would be the simplest and most obvious; (3)this preliminary ‘prytany’ would help to account for the error of Aristotle and Diodorus in antedating the constitution; (4) we might expect tje Thirty to adjust tje administration to the calendar andmake special arrangements for the fractional first year of the constitution so as to start fairon the next year (cf. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 31)Google Scholar.

^{page 160 note 3} This chronological dislocation may be the primary reasonwhy the seizure of Phyle by Thrasybulus is put before the execution of Theramenes. Theramenes' death would, wemay suppose, be pegged to a definite date by references independent of theauthority which has tempted Aristotle astray, and be therefore a fixed point common to Aristotle and Xenophon. The snowstorm at Phyle demanded a winter month, but Aristotle's ἢὂη το χειμνος νεσττος (Ath. Pol. 37. 1) may be an accommodation, where τελευτντος would have been nearer to the truth; the latter would fit in better with Xenophon's narrative.

The postponement of the arrival of the Lacomake nian guards is another question. The Ten, as the Thirty before them, had solicited aid from Lacedaemon (Xen. II. iv. 28; Lys. XII. 58–60; Aristot, . (Ath. Pol. 38.Google Scholar; Diod. XIV. 33), and ifCallibius and his men took a prominent part in supporting them, there was an opportunity for confusion.

^{page 161 note 1} Lys. XX. 7, 8. The editors, or most of them, from Taylor onwards have half a dozen lines thrice changed the MS reading from τριακοσίων into τετρακοσίων and τριοχιλίων into πεντακισχιλίων. Taylor's polemic against Stephanus may be justified on XXV. 9, But not bere, as Huds's apparatus criticus proves.

^{page 161 note 2} Cf. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 30. 3, 31. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 3} Cf. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 29, 5Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 4} Xen. II. iv. 2, 9, 10.

^{page 161 note 5} Xen. II. iii. 20. Aristotle's brief notice (Ath. Pol. 37. 2) τ πλα παρείλοντο πντων πλν τν τρισχιλίων repeats Xenophon's τ οπλα πάν των πλν τν τριοχιλίων παρείλοντο, but omits this preliminary restriction of the πάντων.

^{page 162 note 1} E.g. Thuc. VI. 43, VII. 20, VIII. 24; Aristoph, . Eq. 1369Google Scholar; Lys. XIV. 7, XV. 5, 7, 11.

^{page 162 note 2} Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 49. 2Google Scholar. Cf. Lys. XIV. 8–10, XV. 5, 7, 11; Xen, . Hipparch. i. 2, ix. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 3} Xen. II. iii. 18–20, 51–2; Lys. XXX. 8;Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 36. 1, 2, 37. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 4} Diodorus, XIV. 32, can with justice describe the rest cf Athenians as ἂσοι μ μετεῖχον τς τν τρισχιλίων πολιτείας.

^{page 162 note 5} Aristoph, . Eq. 225Google Scholar; Xen, . Hipparch. ix. 31Google Scholar; Philorchorus ap. Hesych. s. v. ίππς Cf. Thuc. II. I3, Andoc. III. 7, Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 24. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 6} Cf. Xen. Eq. ii. I, τάττονται μν γρ δ ν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἱππεύειν οί τοῖς χρήμασι τε ίκανώτατο καί τς πόλεως ούκ λάχιστον μετέχοντες. Hipparch. i. 11–12.

^{page 162 note 7} .Xenophon (Hipparch. i. 17; cf. ii. 3) alludes to πρεσβύτεροι, but (not to mention senior non-commissioned 0fficers) he wrote at a time whendesirablerecruits were scarce and superannuation was probably probably suspended (i. 19, ix. 3).

^{page 162 note 8} Aristotle, , Ath, Pol. 37. 1Google Scholar, (τν νόμων) ό μεν εἱς αὐτοκράτορας ποίει τοὺς τριάκοντα, τν πολιτν ποκτεῖναι τοὑς μ το καταλόγου μετέχοντας τν τριοχιλίων. Xenophon, II. iii, 51, ἒστι δέ ν τοῖς κανιοῖς νόμοις τυ μν έν τοίς τρισχιλίοις ὂντων μηδένα ποθνήσκειν ἂνευ τς ὑμετέρας ψήϕου, τν δ᾽ ἒξω το καταλόγου κυρίονς είναι τοὑς τριάκοντα θανατον. 52, νπερ νόμον ἓγραψαν περί τν έν τῷ καταλόγψ.

^{Page 162 note 9} Xenophon, II. iii. 48, puts into the mouth of Theramenes the defence of the constitution τό μέντοι σύν τοῖς δυναμένοις κα μεθ᾽ ἵππων μετ᾽ σπίδων ὠϕελεῖν διά τούτων τν πολιτείαν πρόσθεν ἂριστον ήγούμην εῖναι κα νν ού μεταβάλλομαι. Plato, , Leg. 753bGoogle Scholar, gives votes in the election of magistrates to all πόσοιπερ ἂν ἅπλα ίππικ ἣπεζικ τιθνται κα πολέμου κεκοινωνήκωσιν ν ταῖς σ ϕετέραις αὐτν τς λιτίας δυνάμεσιν.

^{page 163 note 1} Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 35, I.Google ScholarC. Q. XXXII. 1938, pp. 25–6Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 2} G. G. ² II. ii. pp. 3II. 324.

^{page 163 note 3} so τν έν έκάστῇτῇ βουλῇ.

^{page 164 note 1} Lys. XX. 13.

^{page 164 note 2} I read πρωτοις (not αστοις) in the photographic facsimile fo the papyrus; the scirbe has written πωτοις and inserted the above the π through which its tail passes.

^{page 165 note 1} Lex. Demosth. Patm. s. v. γεννήται. Cf. Suidas, s. v. γεννήαι Schol. Plato Phileb. 30d; et al.

^{page 165 note 2} Cf. Aristot, . Ath. Pol. 29. 5Google Scholar. and the charge of usurpation mad by aristocrates and Theramenes against The hundred (33. 2), απανταγάρ δί αύτῷν Ȅπραττον, ούδέν έπαναϕέροντες τόίς πευτακισχιλίοις.

^{page 165 note 3} Ath. Pol. 4. 3, βονλεύειν δέ τατρακσοίους καί ενιανος τούς λαχύντας έκ τής πολιτείας, where B. Lakon's emendation of the MS καί ένα τούς seems to me convicing; cf. 30. 2, 3I. I.

^{page 165 note 4} The transposition of letters or syllables in similar names is familiar; here are a few examples from the Archons-list—Νικόδημος μήδης, Ἀψεϕίων or Ἀϕεψίων., Ξεν- Ἐξαίνετος Δνσνικητος or. κίνητος.

Article contents

The Constitution of Dracontides

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests