ÀҾ˹éÒ˹ѧÊ×Í
PDF
ePub

great crowd went to see the spectacle. The Dionysiac playwrights invited him as the new Dionysos to the town hall. He became the guest of Diaeus? who got large revenues from Delos, and was sumptuously entertained. The city was in a white heat of expectation. On the following day a spontaneous gathering of the demos took place. This Athenion addressed from the bema erected by the Roman generals in front of the stoa of Attalos. He enumerated the countries over which Mithridates ruled Bithynia, Upper Cappadocia, all Asia Minor as far as Pamphylia and Cilicia. The kings of Armenia and Parthia were in his train. All the nations round about the Pontus in a circuit of 3000 stades were his subjects. The Roman generals were his prisoners. The governor of Asia, Manius Aquillius, the hero of the Sicilian war, was being led in chains through the land. The Roman citizens were seeking refuge at the altars. All the cities of Asia were greeting him as a god. Oracles promised to him the lordship of the world. A great army was on the way through Thrace and Macedon to Greece. Envoys were at his court from the ends of the earth to offer aid for the destruction of Rome. Then after a pause he continued': "What advice shall I give to you? Let us not tolerate the anarchy which the Roman senate has had prolonged while by investigation it ascertains how we ought to be governed. Let us not observe with indifference the temples closed, the gymnasia foul through disuse, the theatre but no town-meeting in it, the jurycourts. silent, and the pnyx, sanctified by the oracles of the gods, destitute of the demos. Let us not observe with indifference, men of Athens, the sacred cry of Iacchos silenced, the revered shrine of the twain goddesses closed, and the schools of the philosophers voiceless.") 'More of a like character the foretime slave said. The mob then swarmed into the theatre. and chose him hoplite general. He nominated the other officers and so the anarchy ended. Athenion did not at once precipitate a conflict with Rome. But sensible people saw it to be inevitable and began to leave. the city. Athenion closed the gates and a reign of terror ensued. An expedition was sent under the command of Apellikon to recover Delos which had deserted to the Romans. It was an ignominious failure.' At this point the quotation from Poseidonios ends. Appian) continues the narrative. Archelaos, the general of Mithridates, while crossing from Asia, sacked Delos and sent Aristion an Epicurean philospher") to Athens

1) On this passage Mahaffy (Greek World under Roman Sway p. 97) says: “If this language was used, it was surely intended to be understood in a loose sense. Athens had upon the whole been better treated by the Romans than any other Greek city." I take it that Poseidonios puts into the mouth of Athenion a perhaps exaggerated but in the main truthful description of the situation in Athens. 2) Mith. 28.

3) Niese, Rh. Mus. XLII 574 has shown that Aristion and Athenion are two distinct personages. Wilcken (P.-W. s. v. Athenion), Zhebelev (o. c. p. 230ff.), Kirchner (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1900, p. 477) accept NIESE's conclusions.

with the sacred moneys and 2000 troops. (We may surmise that the disaster of Apellikon had led to the downfall of Athenion).1) Aristion made himself tyrant, and the city joined Mithridates. Then came the siege of Athens by Sulla and its final capture. Men, women, and children were alike slain. The noblest voluntarily gave themselves to destruction, and after the fatal kalends of March 86 B. C. many old Athenian families are absent from the honor list of their people.) At the intercession, says Plutarch, of Medeios) and Kalliphron,*) two Athenian exiles, and of some senators, the remnant was spared. It was however disfranchised. The city was plundered but not burned. Sulla restored the constitution practically as it had earlier been extablished by the Romans) i. e. as it had been left in 103/2 B. C., not, as is frequently asserted, and as Appian perhaps thought, as it had been determined in 146 B. C.) For in 146 B. C. Rome had no reason to alter the institutions of Athens and we have not one jot of evidence that she did

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

3) The MSS. give Meidias. A Meidias appears among the thesmothetes for 102/1 (CIA. II 985 I B, 1. 2). But the emendation of Zhebelev (On the History of Athens p. 325) should be accepted.

4) The name Kalliphron appears on an issue of money made between 146 & c. 50 B. C. (rather c. 83); cf. Hill, Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins 1899, p. 123. 5) Νόμους ἔθηκεν ἅπασιν ἀγχοῦ τῶν πρόσθεν αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν Ρωμαίων ὁρισθέντων, Appian, Mith., 39.

[ocr errors]

6) Hertzberg, Gesch. Griechenlands I, p. 308 ff.; Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen I, p. 650 ff.; E. Curtius, Die Stadtgesch. v. Athen I, p. 249 ff.; Gilbert, Gk. Const. Ant. E. T., p. 161 f.; Colin, BCH. XXIII (1899), p. 26. Another view frequently asserted is that the institutions of Athens were not altered till 48 B. C.; cf. Kochler, CIA. II 481; Hermann, Griech. Antiq. (Thumser) I, p. 780 ff. Holm (Hist. of Greece IV E. T. pp. 545 & 549) and Mahaffy (Greek World under Roman Sway p. 97 f.) are non-committal in their statements. Zhebelev (On the Hist. of Athens p. 312) sums up the results of his investigation thus: "Sulla completed and confirmed that order in the Athenian constitution which had begun to arise there in the epoch next after 146". (For this and other translations of Zhebelev's book (which is written in Russian) I am indebted to Prof. Noyes of the Dept. of Slavonic Philology of the University of California). Whereupon V. von Schoeffer (Berl. Phil. Woch. XIX (1899), p. 1032) remarks: Alle Urkunden aber, welche der Wende des II. und I. Jahrh. sicher angehören, ihrem Formular und Inhalt nach keineswegs irgendwelche Abänderung der Verfassung merken lassen; allenfalls liesse sich denken an eine gewisse Hebung der Autorität des Areopags." The democracy (in Schoeffer's opinion) was limited because of the disturbances which occurred not long after Sulla's capture of the city. Rud. Weil says that between 146 and 88 B. C. die Verfassung Athens hat, in welchem Zeitpunkt lässt sich noch nicht genauer feststellen, eine Umgestaltung erfahren, die später wenigstens als eine wesentliche Einschränkung der althergebrachten Demokratie angesehen worden ist“ (Athen. Mitt. VI, p. 315). Niese (Rh. Mus. XLII, p. 580) says: Es ist deutlich, dass diese Verfassungsänderung, die durch eine bei den Römern angesehene aristokratische Minderheit in Athen selbst veranlasst worden war, damals als Athenio seine Rede hielt, erst vor kurzem geschehen sein kann, da man noch einen endgültigen Bescheid erwartete."

so. Whereas I think it is now clear that the Athenian constitution was transformed so as to meet Rome's wishes in the year 103/2 B. C. The restoration by Sulla was, however, not quite complete. For after 86/3 B. C. the senate alone had the right to enact decrees.') The probouleuma became equal to the senatus consultum. That remedied the weak point in the constitution of 103/2 B. C. For the self-assertion of the ekklesia had, no doubt, led to the anarchy of 88 B. C. The occasion for that assertion was probably the suspicious conduct of Medeios. In consequence of it the Roman partisans lost control of affairs. Sulla had no desire to foster a tyranny. Hence in 86-3 B. C. the prohibition against repeated tenure of other than military offices was re-enacted.) In other respects the restored constitution was the same as that in existence between 103,2 and 88/7 B. C. The chief magistracies were elective. The Areopagus with its enlarged jurisdiction and its influential personnel obtained so dominant a position in the state that already in Cicero's time it could be referred to as the governing body.) The senate of 600 added to its old powers final judgment upon the conduct of the magistrates and full legislative functions. Among the magistrates the στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα and the κῆρυξ βουλῆς τῆς ἐξ ̓Αρείου πάγου became as preeminent as the consuls in Rome. The franchise (yngos xai quooTovia) was at first limited to the restored exils but at a later period') it was granted to the descendants of the anti-Romans i. e. to all the Athenians. But the functions of the ekklesia can hardly have extended beyond the election of certain officials and the functions of the once omnipotent jury courts became so unimportant that we hardly know whether jury courts existed at all or not.5)

University of California, Berkeley, U. S. A.

[ocr errors]

1) CIA. II 481, 482, Add. 489 b. 2) See above p. 5. 3) Cicero de nat. Deorum 2, 29, 74. 4) At that time the Mnesitheos-Echedemos family reappeared. 5) Strabo (IX 398) says the following: Poucio d'oùr nagalaßóvtes avrovs dquoκρατουμένους ἐφύλαξαν τὴν αὐτονομίαν αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν. ἐπιπεσὼν δὲ ὁ Μιθριδάτικος πόλεμος τυράννους αὐτοῖς κατέστησεν οἷς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐβούλετο· τὸν δ ̓ ἰσχύσαντα μάλιστα τὸν Αριστίωνα καὶ ταύτην βιασάμενον τὴν πόλιν ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐλών Σύλλας ὁ τῶν Ρωμαίων ἡγεμὼν ἐκόλασε, τῇ δὲ πόλει συγγνώμην ἔνειμε· καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν ἐλευθερία τέ ἐστι καὶ τιμῇ παρὰ τοῖς Ρωμαίοις. That is quite correct. It in no way makes inadmissable internal changes such as those attributed by me to 103,2 and 86/3 B. C.

Had I had access to Kirchners admirable Prosopographia Attica while writing this paper, I might have determined who was who at Athens in 103,2 B. C. with more precision and much less labor. W. S. F.

Beiträge z. alten Geschichte IV 1.

2

18

Die eigenhändigen Unterschriften in den delphischen Freilassungsurkunden.

Von A. D. Keramopullos.

Die folgende Untersuchung verdankt ihre Entstehung der Beobachtung, dass die Freilassungsinschriften des delphischen Einflusskreises oft die Erklärung enthalten, die Urkunde habe sei es der Freilasser selbst, sei es ein anderer geschrieben. Das legt den Schluss nahe, dass die eigenhändige Schrift des Freilassers hier eine Bedeutung für die Rechtsgültigkeit des Vertrages hat. Weiter aber haben unser Interesse die Unterschriften der an dem Vertrage beteiligten Personen erregt und wir sind zu Ergebnissen gelangt, welche das in dieser Hinsicht Bekannte teils berichtigen, teils vervollständigen.

Bis jetzt hatte man angenommen, dass wir Unterschriften von Kontrahenten und Zeugen unter griechischen Verträgen erst in der späteren Zeit des römischen Rechtes, speziell seit Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts n. Chr., finden1), dass die Rechtskraft der Kontrakte nicht von der Handschrift, sondern von der Mitwirkung der Zeugen abhängig sei) und dass deren Namen, besonders in den Freilassungsurkunden, nicht eigenhändig geschrieben gewesen seien.")

Ich gedenke, hier die Freilassungsinschriften von Delphi und Umgegend zu berücksichtigen, welche eine selbständige Gruppe in Nordgriechenland bilden, und werde versuchen festzustellen, was dort, wenigstens in der Zeit, welcher die in Betracht kommenden Inschriften angehören, Gebrauch war.

Betrachten wir zunächst die Rolle des Freilassers beim Abschlusse des Vertrages.

Im Bulletin de correspondance hellénique [BCH] 1898 (Colin), S. 133, No. 116 (64 5 n. Chr.)'), Z. 4 erklärt gleich nach dem typischen Präscriptum im Anfange des Aktes der Freilasser oder Verkäufer, dass er selbst den Vertrag geschrieben hat: «χειρόγραφον Μηνοδώρου τοῦ Μηνοδώρου· ἀπέδοτο

1) Gneist, Die formellen Verträge S. 351, 458, 467.

2) Ebda. S. 448.

3) Philippi, De syngraphiis et ovoius notione 1871, S. 10. Thalheim, Gr. Rechtsalterthümer 1895, S. 108 Anm. 1.

4) Die Daten der hier zitierten delphischen Inschriften sind den delphischen Archonten- und Beamtenverzeichnissen von Pomtow bei Pauly-Wissowa Art. „Delphi“ entnommen. Die endgültige Feststellung derselben ist freilich noch nicht erreicht.

99

Z.

Μηνόδωρος" κλ. In No. 104, Ζ. 15 (65 n. Chr.) giebt der erste der vier Freilasser am Ende des eigentlichen Aktes die gleiche Erklärung ab: χεὶρ Ζωίλου τοῦ Ζωίλου γέγραφα τὰ προγεγραμμένα. ἐὰν δέ τι γεννηθῇ ἐξ αἵματος, δώσει ἁμεῖν. In zwei anderen Fallen steht die Erklärung im Kontexte des Aktes; No. 87, Ζ. 15 (17 n. Chr.): τὰν νὰν τιθέμεθα κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τὴν μὲν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐνχαράξαντες, τὴν δὲ Νίκων γράψας ἐν τὸ δαμόσιον γραμματοφυλάκιον διὰ τοῦ γραμματέως Λυσιμάχου Νικάνορος. Nikon ist einer der Freilasser und schrieb eigenhändig, während der Grammateus Lysimachos nur die offiziell angestellte Person ist, durch welche die Urkunde in dem betreffenden Archiv niedergelegt wurde. Dies wird klarer durch ein anderes Beispiel, No. 91, Z. 11 (20 n. Chr.): Τίθεμαι τὴν ὠνὴν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, τὴν μὲν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ ̓Απόλλωνος ἐνχαράξας, τὴν δὲ τῇ ἰδίᾳ χειρὶ γράψας εἰς τὸ δημόσιον γραμματοφυλάκιον διὰ τοῦ γραμματέως Λυσιμάχου του Νικάνορος". S. auch No. 83, Z. 13 (15 n. Chr.). Die letzten Beispiele scheinen mir besonders wichtig, weil sie uns die für die Freilassungsverträge geltenden gesetzlichen Bestimmungen klar angeben. Danach war der Freilasser (κατὰ τὸν νόμον verpflichtet, den Vertrag eigenhändig zu schreiben, diesen eigenhändig geschriebenen Vertrag durch den Grammateus im öffentlichen Archiv niederzulegen und eine Kopie davon am Tempel des betreffenden Gottes eingraben zu lassen. Auf die Verpflichtung des Freilassers, den Akt eigenhändig zu schreiben, deuten auch die in erster Person vorkommenden Ausdrücke, von denen Colin a. a. O. S. 191 spricht; vgl. auch Philologus LX (1901) S. 73.

2

Wenn der Freilasser des Lesens und Schreibens unkundig war, so liess er einen anderen an seiner Stelle und nach seinem eigenen Wunsche schreiben, indem er dabei stand und erklärte γράμματα μὴ εἰδέναι. So Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Graeciae septentrionalis [== IGS.] III 318, 4 (ans Amphissa), χειρόγραφον Κριτοδάμου Δωροθέου Δελφοῦ ὑπὲρ Ζωπύραν Μενάνδρου θυγατέρα Αμφισσίδα παροῦσαν καὶ κελεύουσαν γράφειν ὑπὲρ αὐτὰν, ἐπεὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτὰ γράμματα μὴ εἰδέναι.“ Dasselbe No. 1066, 4 (,,Tituli primo a. Chr. n. saeculo utique non antiquiores, fortasse etiam recentiores, vgl. Sylloge 844 Titulus utique principatus temporibus non antiquior"). Einfacher BCH. 1898 No. 94 bis (24 n. Chr.) Ζ. 3 ηχείο Θεοφίλου το[ϋ...]ρου ὑπὲρ Νικόμαχον Εἰδίκου παρόντα καὶ κελεύοντα γράψαι ὑπὲρ αὐτόν· ἀπέδοτο" κλ. Auch No. 95 (31 n. Chr.) Z. 2, No. 96 (22 n. Chr.) Z. 2, No. 99 (59 n. Chr.) Z. 1, No. 110 (61 n. Chr.) Z. 25, No. 85 (16 n. Chr.) Z. 14, IGS. III 194 (aus Tithorea vom Anfang des II. Jahrh. n. Chr.) und eine unedierte Amphissäische Inschrift) Z. 3-4 ὑπὲρ Νικασίπολιν παροῦσαν καὶ κελομέναν χειρόγραφον Νυμφηδώρου".

[ocr errors]

1) Diese wird, mit anderen Amphissäischen Inschriften zusammen in einem Aufsatze vereinigt, bald von mir veröffentlicht werden.

2*

« ¡è͹˹éÒ´Óà¹Ô¹¡ÒõèÍ
 »