No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2017
The manuscript of Andocides' speech On the Mysteries contains a series of documentary inserts culminating in the decrees of Patroclides (§§77–9), Tisamenus (§§83–4) and Demophantus (§§96–8). These decrees seem to fit their historical context and they are presented at length, with at least a few of the formalities that we would expect to find in the official record. Modern commentators have relied upon them as substantially genuine, allowing for the usual errors in transmission, but now their authenticity is contested. A close reading by Mirko Canevaro and Edward Harris rejects all three of these documents as products of feckless ‘forgery’. Alan Sommerstein responded with a strong defence of Demophantus' decree, and Mogens Hansen has recently defended Patroclides' decree and Tisamenus' as well. On many points the defenders are persuasive, but the sceptics make a good case, and so it seems reasonable to reconsider how these documents took shape.
1 Canevaro, M. and Harris, E.M., ‘The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries ’, CQ 62 (2012), 89–129 Google Scholar; cf. Harris, E.M., ‘The authenticity of the document at Andocides On the Mysteries 95–98’, Τεκμήρια 12 (2013–2014), 121–53Google Scholar. To the contrary: Sommerstein, A.H., ‘The authenticity of the Demophantus decree’, CQ 64 (2014), 49–57 Google Scholar; Hansen, M.H., ‘Is Patroclides’ decree (Andoc. 1.77–79) a genuine document?’, GRBS 55 (2015), 884–901 Google Scholar; id. ‘Is Teisamenos’ decree (Andoc. 1.83–84) a genuine document?’, GRBS 56 (2016), 34–48 Google Scholar. Hansen (this note ), 898–901 defends Demophantus’ decree; cf. Carawan, E., The Athenian Amnesty and Reconstructing the Law (Oxford, 2013), 47–9, 180–201 Google Scholar.
2 Thus, Sommerstein (n. 1), 50–2 suggests Craterus as a source and defends the document as ipsissima verba of Demophantus’ decree, though the latter is not what Andocides cited; Hansen (n. 1 ) defends Teisamenus’ decree as the original text that Andocides describes in hindsight.
4 The exchange with Diognetus was not among the documents for the clerk to read (as testimony would have been). On this item, cf. MacDowell (n. 3 ), 96–8. Andromachus was a slave who claimed to have been present at the private celebration of the Mysteries involving Alcibiades.
5 MacDowell (n. 3 ), 114–15, rendering Mysteries §47:
τῶν δ’ ἄλλων ἀκούσεσθε τὰ ὀνόματα. καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀναγίγνωσκε.
Χαρμίδης Ἀριστοτέλους· οὗτος ἀνεψιὸς ἐμός· ἡ μήτηρ <ἡ> ἐκείνου καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί.
Ταυρέας· οὑτοσὶ ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ πατρός.
Νισαῖος· υἱὸς Ταυρέου.
Καλλίας ὁ Ἀλκμέωνος· ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ πατρός.
Εὔφημος· Καλλίου τοῦ Τηλοκλέους ἀδελφός.
Φρύνιχος ὁ ὀρχησάμενος· ἀνεψιός.
Εὐκράτης ὁ Νικίου ἀδελφός· κηδεστὴς οὗτος Καλλίου.
Κριτίας· ἀνεψιὸς καὶ οὗτος τοῦ πατρός· αἱ μητέρες ἀδελφαί.
τούτους πάντας ἐν τοῖς τετταράκοντα ἀνδράσιν ἀπέγραψεν.
6 Thus, preceding the list in §13, four of the nine names are mentioned in the narrative (beginning with Alcibiades); for the lists given by the metic Teucrus (under grant of immunity), §§15 and 35, the informant ‘himself’ and one other (Euphiletus) are identified in the narrative. Then in §§52–4 Andocides recounts his own denunciation (ἐμήνυσα), identifying the four men he implicated.
7 E.g. IG ii² 1635.24–5, εἰσεπράχθη μηνυθέν. IG i3 34 = Meiggs and Lewis 46.72 (decree of Clinias for collection of tribute, 448/447) apparently mentions a πίνα]κα τες μενύσεος, which might have included simple lists of names but surely with patronymics and/or demotics.
8 As acknowledged by Canevaro, M., The Documents in the Attic Orators: Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus (Oxford, 2013), 340–1Google Scholar; Harris, E.M., ‘The plaint in Athenian law and legal procedure’, in Faraguna, M. (ed.), Archives and Archival Documents in Ancient Societies (Trieste, 2013), 143–72Google Scholar, at 159–60; and Hansen (n. 1 ), 885. See also A. Pippin's appendix to Pritchett, W.K. and Pippin, A., ‘Attic Stelai: part II’, Hesp. 25 (1956), 178–328 Google Scholar, at 318–28 (tracing the tenuous link with Craterus). The names that can be confirmed are fifteen in all, listed by MacDowell (n. 3 ), 71–2. Five that are found in the documents are not mentioned in the narrative: IG i3 421 names Hephaestodorus, Cephisodorus (Andoc. 1.15) and Oeonias (restored from Andoc. 1.13); ΙG i3 422 also names Phaedrus and Eurymachus (223–9).
9 Harris in particular (n. 1) treats official usage as a dialect defined by the epigraphic evidence and often at odds with the language at large (illustrated below, esp. nn. 37, 40). But of course the extant inscriptions are a tiny sample of the output, and Hansen rightly argues against this approach, notably (n. 1 ), 886, comparing variant formulae for nomothetic decisions, such as would point to ‘forgery’ if they were not preserved on stone.
10 Mysteries §73: ἐβουλεύσασθε περὶ ὁμονοίας, καὶ ἔδοξεν ὑμῖν τοὺς ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους ποιῆσαι, καὶ εἶπε τὴν γνώμην Πατροκλείδης. οἱ δὲ ἄτιμοι τίνες ἦσαν, καὶ τίνα τρόπον ἕκαστοι; ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς διδάξω. The document begins §77: ψήφισμα. Πατροκλείδης εἶπεν, ἐπειδὴ ἐψηφίσαντο Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν ἄδειαν περὶ <τῶν ἀτίμων καὶ> τῶν ὀφειλόντων, ὥστε λέγειν ἐξεῖναι καὶ ἐπιψηφίζειν, ψηφίσασθαι τὸν δῆμον ταὐτὰ ἅπερ ὅτε ἦν τὰ Μηδικά, καὶ συνήνεγκεν Ἀθηναίοις ἐπὶ τὸ ἄμεινον.
11 Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 103 conclude that the measure ‘restoring rights to the atimoi must be an invention of Andocides’ and that the forger of the document at 77–9 ‘naively took this invention as historical fact’. Hansen (n. 1 ), 887, 896–7 acknowledges the uncertainty but suggests that Patroclides himself might well have supposed the Persian-War amnesty was real.
12 As in Solon's amnesty law, Plut. Sol. 19.4. Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 107–9 suggest that the document was based in part on the Solonian model; but surely the ‘forger’ would have copied the most essential provision, ὅσοι ἄτιμοι ἦσαν … ἐπιτίμους εἶναι.
13 Mysteries §77 (continuing from n. 10): περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐγγεγραμμένων εἰς τοὺς πράκτορας ἢ τοὺς ταμίας τῆς θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν ἢ τὸν βασιλέα, [ἢ] εἴ τις μὴ ἐξεγράφη, μέχρι τῆς ἐξελθούσης βουλῆς ἐφ’ ἧς Καλλίας ἦρχεν, (§78) ὅσοι ἄτιμοι ἦσαν [ἢ] ὀφείλοντες, καὶ ὅσων εὔθυναί τινές εἰσι κατεγνωσμέναι ἐν τοῖς λογιστηρίοις ὑπὸ τῶν εὐθύνων καὶ τῶν παρέδρων, [ἢ] μήπω εἰσηγμέναι εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον, <ἢ> γραφαί τινές εἰσι περὶ τῶν εὐθυνῶν, ἢ προστάξεις, ἢ ἐγγύαι τινές εἰσι κατεγνωσμέναι, εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον χρόνον· καὶ ὅσα ὀνόματα τῶν τετρακοσίων [τινὸς] ἐγγέγραπται, ἢ ἄλλο τι περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πραχθέντων ἐστί που γεγραμμένον·
14 Mysteries §78 (continuing from the previous note): πλὴν ὁπόσα ἐν στήλαις γέγραπται τῶν μὴ ἐνθάδε μεινάντων, ἢ ἐξ Ἀρείου πάγου ἢ τῶν ἐφετῶν ἢ ἐκ πρυτανείου ἢ Δελφινίου καταδικασθεῖσιν [ἢ] ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων [ἢ] ἐπὶ φόνῳ τίς ἐστι φυγή, ἢ θάνατος κατεγνώσθη ἢ σφαγεῦσιν ἢ τυράννοις·
15 Mysteries §79: τὰ δὲ ἄλλα πάντα ἐξαλεῖψαι τοὺς πράκτορας καὶ τὴν βουλὴν κατὰ τὰ εἰρημένα πανταχόθεν, ὅπου τι ἔστιν ἐν τῷ δημοσίῳ, καὶ εἰ ἀντίγραφόν που ἔστι, παρέχειν τοὺς θεσμοθέτας καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρχάς. ποιεῖν δὲ ταῦτα τριῶν ἡμερῶν, ἐπειδὰν δόξῃ τῷ δήμῳ. ἃ δ’ εἴρηται ἐξαλεῖψαι, μὴ ἐκτῆσθαι ἰδίᾳ μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι.
16 Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 104–9 argue that few such copies would have been available or actionable. But elsewhere Harris (n. 8), 168–9 has argued persuasively that copies of plaints and verdicts were kept by outgoing officers and could be cited in subsequent proceedings, even from moot cases. So, one might suppose, lists of persons indebted or subject to some penalty might also be kept and submitted in contentious proceedings, even if the originals were erased. On the adaptation in P, cf. Boegehold, A.L., ‘Andokides and the decree of Patrokleides’, Historia 39 (1990), 149–62Google Scholar.
17 Hansen (n. 1 ), 890–1, on items 7–8, citing IG i3 84.9–10.
18 Andocides mentions only the deleting of decrees (§75, ἐξαλεῖψαι πάντα τὰ ψηφίσματα); that would include the προστάξεις, which P mentions among the penalties and debts listed in §§77–8. These would be ‘direct orders’ by decree, for council or other officers to bar the men listed.
19 Conversely, Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 102 question Sauppe's emendation and allow for ‘the mistake of a clumsy forger’, who would not have omitted τῶν ἀτίμων if he had known better.
20 MacDowell (n. 3 ), 194–9; Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 110–16; Hansen (n. 1 ).
21 Tisamenus is not named by Andocides but mentioned by Lysias (30.27–8) among the transcribers (ἀναγραφεῖς) who reconstructed the body of law after the Thirty. As Canevaro and Harris (n. 1) suggest, the editor may have taken his cue from such references.
22 Mysteries §81: δόξαντα δὲ ὑμῖν ταῦτα εἵλεσθε ἄνδρας εἴκοσι· τούτους δὲ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς πόλεως, ἕως ἂν οἱ νόμοι τεθεῖεν· τέως δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος νόμοις καὶ τοῖς Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς. (§82) ἐπειδὴ δὲ βουλήν τε ἀπεκληρώσατε νομοθέτας τε εἵλεσθε, εὕρισκόν τε τῶν νόμων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενομένων. (εὕρισκόν τε A: εὑρίσκοντες Reiske)
23 Mysteries §83: ἔδοξε τῷ δήμῳ, Τεισαμενὸς εἶπε, πολιτεύεσθαι Ἀθηναίους κατὰ τὰ πάτρια, νόμοις δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος, καὶ μέτροις καὶ σταθμοῖς, χρῆσθαι δὲ καὶ τοῖς Δράκοντος θεσμοῖς, οἷσπερ ἐχρώμεθα ἐν τῷ πρόσθεν χρόνῳ. ὁπόσων δ’ ἂν προσδέῃ, οἵδε ᾑρημένοι νομοθέται ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς ἀναγράφοντες ἐν σανίσιν ἐκτιθέντων πρὸς τοὺς ἐπωνύμους σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλομένῳ, καὶ παραδιδόντων ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ἐν τῷδε τῷ μηνί. (προσδέοι, οἵδε A: προσδέῃ, †οἵδε† Bekker)
24 As do Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 110–11; but cf. Hansen (n. 1 ), 43 with n. 25 and, for further references, see Carawan (n. 1), 199 with n. 42.
26 Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 110–11. Their reading relies on Reiske's emendation, εὑρίσκον<τες>, to agree with ‘you (Athenians)’, but most editors retain the reading of A, the Cripps MS (Burney 95), with the imperfect εὕρισκον (or ηὕρισκον) and the νομοθέται just mentioned as the subject.
27 As Hansen (n. 1 ), 35–6 points out.
28 Canevaro and Harris (n. 1), 115 reject the clause for Solonian weights and measures, but some such guarantee against devaluation would be sensible, as Hansen (n. 1 ), 47 points out.
30 On the ideological implications of δοκιμασία in its various forms, see C. Feyel, ΔΟΚΙΜΑΣΙΑ: La place et le rôle de l’ examen préliminaire dans les institutions des cités grecques (Nancy, 2009), esp. 35–40, sorting out Tisamenus’ decree and Andocides’ testimony.
31 The odd πρότερον may be a vestige of a two-stage procedure: πρότερον ἡ βουλὴ καὶ <ὕστερον> οἱ νομοθέται, etc.: amendments are vetted first in council and <later> by the five hundred lawmakers. Later tradition took the two bodies for one, as in Pollux 8.101: νομοθέται δ’ ἦσαν χίλιοι, οἷς ἐξῆν λῦσαι νόμον παλαιόν.
32 Lexica Segueriana N 282, νομοθέται: καὶ οἱ τοὺς νόμους εἰσηγούμενοι νομοθέται καλοῦνται, καὶ ἐκκλησία τις Ἀθήνῃσι νομοθέται καλεῖται, οἳ τοὺς εἰσφερομένους ἐδοκίμαζον νόμους, καὶ δι’ ὧν οἱ ἀσύμφοροι ἐλύοντο. Cf. schol. ad Dem. 3.64a–65: νομοθέτας δὲ λέγει τοὺς κρίνοντας τοὺς νόμους καὶ τιθέντας νόμον καινόν. … νομοθέτης ἐλέγετο παρ’ αὐτοῖς καὶ ὁ νόμον καινὸν εἰσφέρων καὶ πάλιν ὁ κρίνων τοὺς νόμους.
33 In describing the second body as νομοθέται, etc., T may have borrowed glosses from scholia. In the MS this sequence of phrases is set off by raised dots, here underlined for emphasis: δοκιμασάτω πρότερον ἡ βουλή· καὶ οἱ νομοθέται· οἱ πεντακόσιοι· οὓς οἱ δημόται εἵλοντο· ἐπειδὴ ὀμωμόκασιν. See http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Burney_MS_95, fol. 10r.
34 Cf. Hansen (n. 1 ), 41–2 and Carawan (n. 1), 193; following Hedrick, C.W. Jr., ‘For anyone who wishes to see’, AncW 31 (2000), 127–35Google Scholar.
35 Mysteries §95: ἄλλο τι οὖν, ὦ Ἐπίχαρες, ἢ νῦν ὁ ἀποκτείνας σε καθαρὸς τὰς χεῖρας ἔσται, κατά γε τὸν Σόλωνος νόμον; ‘Isn't it the case, Epichares, that anyone who kills you would have clean hands, at least by the law of Solon?’ [if not for the amnesty law]. Epichares served in council under the Thirty.
36 Mysteries §96: ἐάν τις δημοκρατίαν καταλύῃ τὴν Ἀθήνησιν, ἢ ἀρχήν τινα ἄρχῃ καταλελυμένης τῆς δημοκρατίας, πολέμιος ἔστω Ἀθηναίων καὶ νηποινεὶ τεθνάτω, καὶ τὰ χρήματα αὐτοῦ δημόσια ἔστω, καὶ τῆς θεοῦ τὸ ἐπιδέκατον· ὁ δὲ ἀποκτείνας τὸν ταῦτα ποιήσαντα καὶ ὁ συμβουλεύσας ὅσιος ἔστω καὶ εὐαγής.
37 Harris (n. 1), 141–2 rejects the phrase κατὰ φυλὰς καὶ κατὰ δήμους as requiring two ceremonies, one in deme and another in tribal meeting. But it is plausible shorthand for a process in which citizens grouped by deme (for face-to-face recognition) within an assembly of the tribe.
38 Mysteries §§97–8: ‘κτενῶ καὶ λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ καὶ ψήφῳ καὶ τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ χειρί, ἂν δυνατὸς ὦ, ὃς ἂν καταλύσῃ τὴν δημοκρατίαν τὴν Ἀθήνησι. καὶ ἐάν τις ἄρξῃ τιν’ ἀρχὴν καταλελυμένης τῆς δημοκρατίας τὸ λοιπόν, καὶ ἐάν τις τυραννεῖν ἐπαναστῇ ἢ τὸν τύραννον συγκαταστήσῃ. καὶ ἐάν τις ἄλλος ἀποκτείνῃ, ὅσιον αὐτὸν νομιῶ εἶναι καὶ πρὸς θεῶν καὶ δαιμόνων, ὡς πολέμιον κτείναντα τὸν Ἀθηναίων, καὶ τὰ κτήματα τοῦ ἀποθανόντος πάντα ἀποδόμενος ἀποδώσω τὰ ἡμίσεα τῷ ἀποκτείναντι, καὶ οὐκ ἀποστερήσω οὐδέν. (§98) ἐὰν δέ τις κτείνων τινὰ τούτων ἀποθάνῃ ἢ ἐπιχειρῶν, εὖ ποιήσω αὐτόν τε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐκείνου καθάπερ Ἁρμόδιόν τε καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα καὶ τοὺς ἀπογόνους αὐτῶν. ὁπόσοι δὲ ὅρκοι ὀμώμονται Ἀθήνησιν ἢ ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ ἢ ἄλλοθί που ἐναντίοι τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Ἀθηναίων, λύω καὶ ἀφίημι.’ Dem. 20.159 confirms that ‘the stele of Demophantus’ included an oath that ‘anyone who suffers defending democracy’ receive the same rewards as the tyrannicides.
39 Leocrates §124: οὐ μὴν ἀλλ’ ἔτι βούλομαι τῆς στήλης ἀκοῦσαι ὑμᾶς τῆς ἐν τῷ βουλευτηρίῳ περὶ τῶν προδοτῶν καὶ τῶν τὸν δῆμον καταλυόντων· τὸ γὰρ μετὰ πολλῶν παραδειγμάτων διδάσκειν ῥᾳδίαν ὑμῖν τὴν κρίσιν καθίστησι. Leocrates §126: ταῦτα ὦ ἄνδρες ἔγραψαν εἰς τὴν στήλην, καὶ ταύτην ἔστησαν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον, ὑπόμνημα τοῖς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συνιοῦσι καὶ βουλευομένοις ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος, ὡς δεῖ πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους ἔχειν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄν τις αἴσθηται μόνον μέλλοντας αὐτοὺς τούτων τι ποιεῖν, ἀποκτενεῖν συνώμοσαν, εἰκότως.
40 Ostwald, M., ‘The Athenian legislation against tyranny and subversion’, TAPhA 86 (1955), 103–28Google Scholar, at 111–15; id. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law (Berkeley, 1986), 414–18Google Scholar. To the contrary, Harris (n. 1), 126–7 claims that Δημόφαντος συνέγραψεν is a forger's error, as συγγράφειν must mean ‘write jointly’ and have a plural subject, as in the epigraphic examples. But that is likely to be an accident of the evidence; cf. LSJ s.v. In any event, the source historian may have named Demophantus as the spokesman who presented συγγραφαί, as Lampon was in the First Fruits Decree (IG i3 78.47, 60).
41 As emphasized by Sommerstein (n. 1), 56.
42 On the argument, see Whitehead, D., ‘Absentee Athenians: Lysias Against Philon and Lycurgus Against Leocrates ’, MH 63 (2006), 132–51Google Scholar.
43 Eucrates barred the Areopagites from meeting but condemned only the person(s) who convene them. For detailed comparison with D and Lycurgus’ testimony, see Ostwald (n. 40 ), 121–8.
44 As in the oath at Telus (c.300 b.c.), IG xii.4 1.133–5, αἰ δέ κα αἴσθωμαί τινα νεωτερίζοντα ἢ συλλόγους συνάγοντα ἐπὶ καταλύσει τοῦ δᾶμου, δηλωσέω τοῖς ἄρχουσιν. See Thür, G., ‘Amnestie in Telos (IG XII 4/1, 132)’, ZRG 128 (2011), 339–51Google Scholar, at 349.
45 Neither the document in Leocrates nor the version in Diodorus derives from the Acharnae inscription (SEG 21.519); cf. Rhodes and Osborne 85, at pages 446–7. Indeed, Krentz, P.M. may be right to suggest that certain features of the Acharnae oath were inspired by Marathon: ‘The oath of Marathon, not Plataia?’, Hesp. 76 (2007), 731–42Google Scholar. Of course, all three versions reflect Athenian propagandizing, as Cartledge, P. shows in After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Graeco-Persian Wars (Oxford, 2015), esp. 12–40 Google Scholar; in an appendix, 169–71, Cartledge discounts Krentz's theory, but some conflation of traditions on Marathon and Plataea seems likely.
46 The brief law in Isae. 11 (Hagnias) 11 is obviously concocted from the orator's summary. The verse quotations in Leocrates were recited by the speaker himself (not read out by the clerk) and so were most probably included in the version for circulation.
47 νόμος. ἔδοξε τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ. Αἰαντὶς ἐπρυτάνευε, Κλειγένης ἐγραμμάτευε, Βοηθὸς ἐπεστάτει. τάδε Δημόφαντος συνέγραψεν. ἄρχει χρόνος τοῦδε τοῦ ψηφίσματος ἡ βουλὴ οἱ πεντακόσιοι <οἱ> λαχόντες τῷ κυάμῳ, οἷς Κλειγένης πρῶτος ἐγραμμάτευεν.
48 Hansen (n. 1 ), 899–900, anticipated by Ostwald (n. 40). One could argue that the starting date was original to the enactment of 410 and emphatic, to pinpoint the moment from which retribution applies; but that concern for strict limitation seems more likely seven years later.
49 Starting dates are found in IG i3 402 (Tod 54) 14–15 and in later material, as noted by MacDowell (n. 3 ), 136. As a regular feature of leases and deeds, χρόνος ἄρχει is added at conclusion: SEG 24: 203 = Schwenk 32: 27–8; or in connection with particular provisions: IG i3 403.14, 16–17, 21.
50 For instance, IG i3 82, 102, 104, 111, 114 and 115, of the period 421–407/406.
51 The document was included in the stichometric edition and has a strong claim to authenticity: Canevaro (n. 8), 121–7; cf. Carawan, E., ‘Documents in the case: Demosthenes 23–24’, TAPhA 146 (2016), 39–62 Google Scholar, at 53–4.
52 On the measures against Phrynichus, Antiphon et al., see N. Karkavelias, ‘The end of the Four Hundred’, AHB 29 (2015), 28–56.
53 As Sommerstein (n. 1), 56 described it.
54 With Canevaro (n. 8), 37–76, cf. Carawan (n. 51) on παραγεγραμμένοι.
55 P. Krech, De Crateri Ψηφισμάτων Συναγωγῆι et de locis aliquot Plutarchi ex ea petitis (Diss. Berlin, 1888; repr. Chicago, 1970); Krech was routinely followed in Meritt, B.D., Wade-Gery, H.T. and McGregor, M.F., The Athenian Tribute Lists, 4 vols. (Cambridge, MA and Princeton, 1939–1953)Google Scholar. To the contrary, Jacoby, F., ‘342. Krateros der Makedone’, FGrHist IIIB Kommentar (Leiden, 1955), 94–10Google Scholar. Jacoby's characterization is followed in the main by Carawan, E., ‘Krateros the Macedonian (342)’, in Worthington, I. (ed.), Brill's New Jacoby (Leiden and online, 2007)Google Scholar, with review of scholarship.
56 Higbie, C., ‘Craterus and the use of inscriptions’, TAPhA 129 (1999), 43–83 Google Scholar emphasized epigraphic sources. Erdas, D., Cratero il Macedone. Testimonianze e Frammenti, I Frammenti degli Storici Greci II (Rome, 2002)Google Scholar argues for archival sources in at least a few major fragments.
57 FGrHist/BNJ 342. Frr. 1–3, 6–8, 19–20 yield Δῶρος, Φασηλῖται, Ληψίμανδος and Χαλκήτορες (in Caria), Γρυνεῖς (?), Πιταναῖοι, Καρηναῖοι (in Mysia), Τυροδιζηνοὶ (in Thrace), Νύμφαιον (in Pontus) and Ἀρταίου τεῖχος (in ‘Persian territory’). Craterus is cited for diverging from conventional identification (such as Hecataeus’ Δῶρος in Phoenicia); or for the ethnic where others named the town, as for Herodotus’ Καρήνη (F 2) and Hellanicus’ Τυρόδιζα (F 3).
58 Schol. Ar. Av. 1073: ἐκηρύχθη δὲ τοῦτο διὰ τὸ ἀσεβὲς αὐτοῦ, ἐπεὶ τὰ μυστήρια πᾶσι διηγεῖτο, κοινοποιῶν αὐτὰ καὶ μικρὰ ποιῶν καὶ τοὺς βουλομένους μυεῖσθαι ἀποτρέπων, καθάπερ Κρατερὸς ἱστορεῖ. … Μελάνθιος δὲ ἐν τῶι Περὶ μυστηρίων προφέρεται τῆς χαλκῆς στήλης ἀντίγραφον. ‘This proclamation was made because of his sacrilege, since [Diagoras] explained the Mysteries to everyone, making them common and insignificant and dissuading those who wanted to join in the Μysteries, just as Craterus reports. … But Melanthius produces a copy of the bronze stele.’
59 In Aristides 26 (F 12) on the supposed exile of Aristides for corruption, Plutarch protests that ‘Craterus has given no written evidence, neither court verdict nor decree, though it is his usual and reasonable practice to record such details and to adduce the authors who report on them’. In Cimon 13.4 (F 13), on the ‘Peace of Callias’, Plutarch seems to register some suspicion about ἀντίγραφα συνθηκῶν that Craterus collected.
60 As Jacoby (n. 55) concluded. For the νόμος εἰσαγγελτικός, see F 636; Fortenbaugh, W., Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence 2 (Leiden, 1992), 478–83Google Scholar = F 2 in Szegedy-Maszak, A., The NOMOI of Theophrastus (New York, 1981), 19–21 Google Scholar. Theophrastus’ usual arrangement is illustrated in F 21 Szegedy-Maszak (F 650 Fortenbaugh), marketing-laws from Stobaeus 4.2.20, with little that looks like verbatim copy of the statutes: ‘a complete notice of a law includes a statement of its terms, a specific example of its use, and an explanation of its intent’ (Szegedy-Maszak [this note], 65).
61 Lexicon Rhetoricum Cantabrigiense p. 337,15: συνομολογεῖ δὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ Θεοφράστου ἡ κατὰ Θεμιστοκλέους εἰσαγγελία, ἣν εἰσήγγελεν, ὡς Κρατερός, Λεωβώτης Ἀλκμαίωνος Ἀγρυλῆθεν. Lex. Rhet. Cant. apparently aims to improve upon Harpocration, regularly citing Philochorus, the Peripatetics and ‘Aristotle in the Athēnaiōn Politeia’. The references to Caecilius are garbled but unmistakable; see Houtsma, E.O., Lexicon Rhetoricum Cantabrigiense (Leiden, 1870), 102–3Google Scholar.
62 Krech (n. 55) concluded that all the documents attached to [Plut.] X orat. derive from Craterus, pushing his active period down to 270 b.c.; but it seems more likely that the later documents (illustrating Demosthenes and Lycurgus) derive from Caecilius’ periegetic source, Diodorus or Heliodorus; on the latter, see J. Sickinger's concluding essays in BNJ 372–3 (2009). For Caecilius, see now Woerther, F., Caecilius de Calè-Actè. Fragments et Témoignages (Paris, 2015)Google Scholar.
63 On the false documents in Dem. 18, see Canevaro (n. 8), 237–318. The major documents in Mysteries seem closer to the ‘constructed’ decrees, loosely based on tradition, that A. Chaniotis outlines: ‘Archival research, formulaic language and ancient forgeries of legal documents’, in Matthaiou, A.P. and Papazarkadas, N. (edd.), ἌΞΩΝ: Studies in Honour of Ronald S. Stroud (Athens, 2015), 2.669–90Google Scholar, at 2.683–4. For the variety of fabrications and supposititious texts in antiquity, see Martinez, J. (ed.), Fakes and Forgers of Classical Literature, vol. 2 (Leiden, 2014)Google Scholar.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
No CrossRef data available.