Ҿ˹˹ѧ
PDF
ePub

κατά τους επί των κακούργων κειμένους νόμους. 1) Cases involved by these laws had come in Aristotle's time under the final jurisdiction of the Eleven, if these were unanimous, but, if they disagreed, the jury courts gave the decision.”) It implies increased jurisdiction for the Areopagus that in 1032 it is competent to deal with them.”)

An examination of the list of those holding important offices at Athens and Delos from 102 1-95/4 B. C. reveals some instructive facts. In the first place the total absence from office of any member of the Eurykleides-Mikion family is noteworthy, and all the more so, now that the lot was less widely employed. The family had influential members left. Thus in the list of important Athenians posted at c. 125 B. C. it had three representatives.) In Demochares' archonship (108/7 B. C.)") it had sufficient standing to get Lysistrate, a daughter of Mikion, selected as one of the noble maidens honored with the task of weaving Athena's peplos.") From that point on the family disappears.") And the same general period (103—86 B. C.) seems to have been fatal to a number of families distinguished in the public service for centuries e. g. the Diokles-Dromeas family") and the Xenon-Asklepiades family.") The

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Areopagus once more acquired power to do this: Επειδάν δε τεθώσιν οι νόμοι επιμελείσθω ή βουλή ή εξ Αρείου Πάγου των νόμων, όπως εν αι αρχαί τοις κειμένοις vouons zoù vrai. The practical supervising by the Areopagus would cease when the new laws were thoroughly accepted. See Andocides I 84, and Meyer, Gesch. d. Altert. V, S 818. The psephisma found in Andocides is confirmed by the Anonymus Argentinensis edited in 1901 by Bruno Keil; cf. Sybel's Hist. Zeitschr. 89 (1902), p. 477. At this time a determination of the weights and measures was also made; cf. Andocides I. c.

1) CIA. II 476, 11. 56–62.

2) Arist. Ath. Pol. 52; cf. Meier und Schoemann, Der attische Process (Lipsius), p. 85 ff., 270 ff., esp. p. 284.

3) Perhaps the Eleven no longer existed. It is evident that trouble was anticipated in introducing the new system of weights and measures. The revolution of 103,2 B. C. caused frietion here as well as elsewhere. The kosinetes for 101,0 B. C., for example, had a conflict with the treasury over the disposal of certain funds.

4) CIA. II 1047 Mikion and Eurykleides, sons of Eurykleides, two elderly brothers, and Eurykleides, the son of Mikion, a younger man whose name is a later addition to the list.

5. Kirchner (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 473) suggests 94/3 for Demochares. But he very properly locates Nikandros, Apolexis, and Polycharmos (CIA. II 478, 479, 480) "bald nach 95/4" i. e. between 95/4 and 91:0, a period of three years. I, therefore, adhere to my own dating of Demochares.

6) CIA. IV 2, 477 d. A. Mommsen (Feste der Stadt Athen im Altertum, p. 112 f.) makes it clear that in the 3rd century the peplos was dedicated yearly. That it was subsequently given every four years only is purely a conjecture. His reason - the poverty of Athens is no reason for 108/7 B. C.

7) Weil (Athen. Mitt. VI, p. 325 f.) dates an issue of coins with the inscription Eurykleides-Ariarathes in c. 90, but see Head, list. Vum. p. 320. 8) Cornell Studies X, p. 46; Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 445. 9) Ibid. X, P.

46.

Mnesitheos-Echedemos family') disappears between c. 125 and the time of Augustus. Chief among the office holders for 102 1-95/4 B. C. were Sarapion, Sarapion's son, of Melite,)) Medeios, Medeios' son, of the Peiraieus,') Andreas, the son of Andreas, of the Peiraieus (Schoeffer, 0. C. p. 226), the family to which Byttakos and Pyrrhos, sons of Pyrrhos, of Lamptrai“) belonged, Dionysios, the son of Nikon, of Pallene (Schoeffer l. c.), Argeios, Argeios' son, of Trikorynthos, ") the family to which Athenodoros, Athenodoros' son, of Aixone, and Kallimachos of Leukonoe, his brotherin-law, belonged,“) Hestiaios, son of Theocharis, of Kerameikos, and Theocharis his cousin,") Theobios, son of Dionysios, of Acharnae, 9) Dositheos of Myrrhinoutta") and Lakrateides, son of Sostratos, of Ikaria.'') As far as we can determine them, the family relations of none of these 11) with

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1) Ibid. X, p. 54; CIA. II 1220, 1375; III 1672. Cf. Hermes XXVIII, p. 145.

2) CIA. II 465, 595, 985, 1047; IV 2, 1374b; BCH. III (1879), p. 294; Hermes XXVIII (1893), p. 620; cf. BCH. XX (1896), p. 639; BCH. XI (1887), p. 262; cf. v. Schoeffer, Dc Deli insulae rebus, p. 213 n. 159.

3) CIA. II 467, 985, 1046, 1047; IV 2, 626 b, l. 65, 1205 b?, 1206 b; III 1014; BCH. IV (1880), p. 190f.; BCH. VII (1883), p. 12; Athen. Mitt. XXIII (1898), p. 26; Plut. Sulla XIV and Zhebelev, On the Hist. of Athens p. 325; cf. below p. 16 n. 3.

4) CIA. II 451, 985 E. I, 1. 11, E. II, 11. 44 and 58, 1048; IV 2, 477d; BCH. XVI (1892), p. 376 f.; cf. Cornell Studies X, p. 75 f.

5) CIA. II 468, 985, 1206, 1339; BCH. XXII (1898), pp. 148 and 160.

6) CIA. II 985 D, II l. 7 (It is probable that Athenodoros died in the course of the year 97/6 and that Pyrrhos of Lamptrai succeeded him as herald of the Areopagus; cf. 1. 17), 985 A, II 1. 8, 2300, 594, 863 (This list of archons undoubtedly belongs earlier than 97/6 B. C.), 469, 1. 105; BCH, VI (1882), p. 346.

7) CIA. II 469, l. 47, 985 E. I ll. 27 and 62.
8) CIA. II 985 E. I l. 58, II 11. 3 and 29.

9) CIA. II 985 A. II I. 11, 1389, 1390, 2361, 1044, 956, 11. 9; BCH. III, p. 158, VIII, p. 150.

10) CIA. II 985 D. II I. 26, 1047, Add. 1620 c. 955.

11) Of the officers mentioned in CIA. II 985 we know the following: Xenokles of Rhamnous was priest of Apollo ? in Delos in 102/1 and thesmothete in 99/8. Aristonymos (son of Phanias) of Eleusis was a thesmothete in 101/0. He also made a motion at Salamis in 106/5 (CIA. II 470, I. 53). Timouchos of Rhamnous was a general in 101/0. Lamios, the son of Timouchos, of Rhamnous was secretary in 112/1 (CIA. II 475). Philon of Paiania was herald to Delos in 101/0: his wife Moscharion was the daughter of Aristoboulos of Paiania (CIA. II 2281). Artemidoros of Berenike was a thesmothete in 100/99. In the archonship of Achaios (170—160 B. C., CIA. II 433) Diochares, son of Artemidoros, of Berenike made a motion. Antikrates of Epikephisia was priest of Apollo at Delos in 100/99 and polemarch in 95/4. Demetrios of Aixone was priest of Roma in 100/99. A Demetrios, son of Dionysios, of Aixone is mentioned in CIA. II 1756. As the inscription is restored, his son Dionysios, son of Demetrios, of Aixone was a general in 97/6. Theodosios of Lakiadai was archon in 99/8. In 9817 a son of Theodosios of Lakiadai was in some unknown office. Lapbaes of Sounion was a thesmothete in 100/99. His son Stratonikos was ephebe in 119/8 (CIA. II 469). For Philon of Eleusis see above p. 6 n. 1. For others see below p. 12 n. 3, and V. von Schoeffer, De Deli insulae rebus p. 226 ff.

[ocr errors]

the exception of Medeios') - extend back of 167 B. C. Many of them we know to have had intimate relations”) with Delos for the period preceding 1032 B. C. and we may conjecture that they belonged to the class which the slave traffic on Delos enriched, and which was brought through business into intimate relations with the Romans resident on the island.") The Romans always favored a timocratic government,“) in their dependencies, so that it is likely that it was through Roman influence that the constitutional changes of 1032 B. C. were effected at Athens. The whole tendency of these changes was to increase the functions of the 600 and of the Areopagus, to weaken the control of the jury courts over the magistrates, and by substituting election by vote for election by lot to place influential men in the chief magistracies and hence through the archonships in the Areopagus.") To control the elections it is probable that a limited franchise was introduced. Otherwise the old families with democratic leanings would have retained the government. It was an aristocracy that the Romans desired but not one of nobles whose traditions were all in favor of democracy, autonomy and neutrality.

We can hardly hope to ascertain the occasion for Roman interference. The conjecture may be ventured that it was in consequence of the revolt of the slaves in the mines at Sounion which took place in 104-100 B. C.") Again and again the Macedonian governor and the Roman senate had been called upon in the last half of the 2nd century to settle Athenian affairs.") Thus in 1121 B.C. on the occasion of a

[ocr errors]

1) For the family of Medeios see Zhebelev 0. c. p. 324, and Toepfer, Attische Genealogie p. 318.

2) For Sarapion see BCH. XXIII (1899), p. 80; for Medeios ibid. p. 68 f.; for Byttakos BCH. XVI (1892), p. 376 f.; for others see Schoeffer, De Deli insulae rebus, p. 226 ff. Sarapion, Medeios, Andreas, Dionysios, Kallimachos, and Protimos, son of Dositheos were at one time or other chief magistrates of Delos.

3; Those prominent after 8613 were naturally pro-Romans. Hence we may ascertain some of the men with Roman leanings before 86/3. Dionysodoros of Deiradiotai was gymnasiarch at Delos in 100/99. In c. 50 B. C. (CIA. II 1049, 1. 39) -phon son of Dionysodoros of Deiradiotai heads the list of his demesmen. Epigenes, son of Dios, of Melite was superintendent of Delos before 88 B. C. (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 478; BCH. IV, p. 220, XI, p. 263). His two sons Epigenes and Xenon were ephebes in c. 80 (CIA. II 481). Medeios himself was superintendent of Delos in 97/6 (BCH. IV, p. 190). His son was archon in c. 62/1 B. C. Archonides of Kerameikos (see also BCH. VI, p. 491) was king archon in 97/6 and went as one of the Kerykes to Delphi in 106/5 (Hermes XXVIII, p. 624); his son Nausistratos was ephebe in c. 80. Nikanor, Nikanor's son, of Leukonoe was ephebe in 105/4 (CIA. II 465) the ephebes belonged mostly to well-to-do families and superintendent of Delos in c. 80.

4) Pausanias VII 16, 6.

5) For the effects of virtual election upon the Areopagus see above p. 2. In Plutarch's time the Areopagus was probably constituted in some other way; cf. Per. IX.

6) Cf. Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, E. T. III, p. 171f.; Zhebelev 0. c. p. 219.
7) See the history of the Dionysiac artists given by Colin, BCH. XXIII (1899), p. 36 ff.

dispute between the Athenian branch of the league of Dionysiac artists and the head management in Thebes a decision was given in Athens' favor. Upon this occasion the senate decreed :-) Agrvaiois ngeopeutais φιλανθρώπως αποκριθήναι άνδρας καλούς κα[i] αγαθούς και φίλους παρά δήμου καλού κάγαθού και φίλου συμμάχου τε ημετέρου προσαγορεύσαι χάρι[τα], φιλίαν, συμμαχίαν τε ανανεώσασθαι. That meant to renew the Foedus Aequum made when Athens became a Roman ally. In 1032 B. C. perhaps it was renewed but with the request that the constitution be modified in a timocratic sense. Undoubtedly the senate's action followed a demand made by the rich Delian magnates who desired to have their position in the state established de iure as well as de facto. Perhaps it was the same senate which constituted Cilicia a province.

Year after year the some 140 Athenian ephebes, fashionable young men, students of military science, athletics, and philosophy went to escort into the city the Roman “friends and benefactors” who chanced to pass that way. And no doubt the governing clique welcomed them, and had them address the assembled people. But they brought more and more clearly home to the demos its loss of independence and privilege. There were merchants in Athens who came to hate the Romans because of trade rivalries at Delos. The Diaeus? mentioned below was such a one. There were many influential men among the old Athenian families and in the Peripatetic and Epicurean”) schools of philosophy to whom the government of the slave-dealers was as distasteful as it was to the disfranchised masses. Then for three years in succession the chief archonship came into the hands of Medeios, Medeios' son, of the Peiraieus. It seemed as though he were aiming at a tyranny. An anarchy ensued. Hence an embassy was sent to the Roman senate to get the constitution definitely determined or further modified. The senate deferred consideration and the anarchy continued.)

The situation at Athens had already become acute') when Mithri

1) CH. XXIII (1899), p. 20 and p. 25 f.

2) The Stoics on the other hand were partisans of Rome; see Niese, Rh. Mus. XLII, p. 578. Hence the contemptuous attitude of Poseidonios towards Athenion and his following. The Akademicians were also pro-Romans. Philon, the head of their school escaped to Rome during the troubles. See Cicero Brutus, 89 ff.; Mahaffy, Greek World under Roman Sway, p. 119.

3) See below p. 14.

4) The 4th archonship of Medeios is now fixed in 89/8 B. C. (Kirchner, Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 476 ff.). The pro-Roman faction, therefore, was in control in Hekatombaion of 89. It was probably in the spring of 88 — the victories of Mithridates having already taken place that the anti-Roman faction raised itself and sent Athenion to Asia. During his absence the quarrel continued hence εν ομονοία ζήν promised in the letters of Athenion. The Roman senate when requested, by its friends no doubt, to settle the strife, through anxiety lest the democrats should in that event put Athens into the hands of Mithridates, promised to investigate. Then Athenion returned, was

[ocr errors]

dates drove the Romans out of Asia and seemed in a fair way to destroy permanently Roman power in the East. To him accordingly the anti-Roman party turned for help. Its ambassador was the Peripatetic philospher Athenion and of his doings his Stoic contemporary Poseidonios gives the following report.") "He was chosen by the Athenians as an envoy to Mithridates when matters turned the king's way and insinuating himself into his good graces he became one of his "friends”. His promotion was rapid. And because of it he gave in his letters the Athenians the impression that his influence was paramount with the Cappadocian and inspired them with the wild hope, not only of getting rid of the debts with which they were burdened") and (of living in concord i. e.) of restoring domestic peace, but also of regaining their democratic institutions and of obtaining generous donations for public and private needs.") This made the Athenians talk big; for they felt certain that the Roman hegemony would be overthrown.” Poseidonios then goes on to describe the return of Athenion and his ostentatious entry into the city. He was carried on a litter with silver feet and purple coverings. Never had a Roman even made such a haughty display in Attica. A

[ocr errors]

elected strategos and chose officers who of course did not rule longer than their patron. Athenion did not openly break with Rome (συνάγων δε και εκκλησίας πολλάκις τα Pouclov qpoveiv Apogenoteiro Athenaeus V 214). But some pro-Romans fled and their property was confiscated. Delos sided with Rome. Apellikon failed to reduce it. Athenion was overthrown after a rule of at most a month or so.

Hence Appian neg. lects him and Strabo (see below p. 17 n. 5) refers to him but not by name.

Then came Archelaos and Aristion.

The issues of money attributed to the revolutionary era by Rud. Weil (Athen. Mitt. VI, p. 324) cannot easily be fitted in. That of Mithridates and Aristion belongs to 87/6 undoubtedly. That of Aristion and Philon must have been made in 88/7. It has the letters A to M on the amphora. Does that mean that Aristion became a magistrate at the beginning of 8817? It is quite possible. Even though elected at the regular time the magistrates for 8817 would not be recognized by the restored aristocrats. The archon for 87/6, Philanthes, is of course the magistrate for the part of the year 87/6 following the 1st of March. In this respect the anarchy of 88,7 is like that of 404/3. Of the other two issues attributed by Weil to this period, one

that of Eurykleides-Ariarathes has already been disposed of by Head (Historia Nummorum, p. 320). The one with the inscription Apellikon-Gorgias must be put along with that of Apellikon-Aristoteles (Head, p. 323). It seems to me unlikely that either of them belongs to 89/8.

1) Athenaeus V 2110 ff. Though the professional, political, and class animosity of Poseidonios towards Athenion and the Athenians of 88 whom he ironically calls Kekropidai is obvious in every line of this narrative, modern writers seldom make allowance for it. Niese (Rh. Mus. XLII, p. 579 f.) and Beloch (Sybel's Hist. Zeitschr. 84, 1900, p. 19) are notable exceptions.

2) At the rate of interest exacted by the Romans a debt might casily become a serious burden.

3) ώστε μη μόνον των επιφερομένων οφλημάτων απολυθέντας εν ομονοια ζή», αλλά και την δημοκρατίαν ανακτισμένους και δωρεών μεγάλων τυχεϊν ιδία και δημοσία.

1

[ocr errors]
« ͹˹Թõ
 »