Date, context, and world

As for the date of the Characters, the date of the work’s publication, the date of composition of the individual anecdotes, and the dramatic dates of the individual sketches are all heavily disputed.⁴⁸ Besides its ascription to Theophrastus, the only criteria for dating the text are references to political actors and circumstances found in the work’s intradiegetic narratives. Gaining an idea of the relationship between the different references is crucial for any reconstruction of the dramatic date(s) of the Characters and consequently for their time of composition. On the one hand, the unified narrative of the Rumour Monger’s tale (λογοποιός) details his invention of a battle in or near Macedon between Polyperchon and the King on the one side, and Kassander on the other, which allegedly affects the com-posure of those ἐντοῖς πράγμασιν, who act secretively.⁴⁹ The narrative suggests that the newsmonger expects sympathy for Kassander from his listeners, which places the events during Kassander’s protectorate of Athens and narrows down the internal date of this tittle-tattle’s episode to 317-307 BC.⁵⁰ The mention of the king in the singular rather than plural may refer to Herakles, son of Barsine and Alexander the Great, who was briefly instrumentalised by Polyperchon in his direct confrontation with Kassander.⁵¹ This would effectively place the dramatic

48 For discussion of dating see Diggle 2004, 1-3, 27-37, esp. 36f., and Stein 1992, 21-45, esp. 44f., who also discusses the historicity of the occurrence of liturgies. Cf. also the extensive discussion of the historical contexts of the individual datable passages by Lane Fox 1996, 129-139, and the brief notes by Jebb 1909², 5 and Habicht 1995a, 127.

49 Theophr. Char. 8, esp. 5-7. 8.5 may be spurious, see Diggle 2004, 283. Oἷ ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν means “those in state office”, cf. Thuc. 3.28; Dem. 9.56 (LSJ s.v. III.2), and does not in itself suggest oligarchy. Cf. also Dem. 25.23, where the boulē and areop-agus are necessarily secretive even in a very “democratic” context.

50 Theophr. Char. 8.7. Technically 319/8-318 BC could also be possible, during the pre-eminence of Phokion, but the reference is to a single king, rather than two. See also Diggle 2004, 32.

51 Diod. 20.201-2; 28.1-3. This is the preference of Lane Fox 1996, 138, tentatively accepted by Diggle 2004, 32. The problem is complicated by the difficulty of assessing the degree of knowledge possessed by the cities and the various parts of the Mace-donian Empire about who was king. In Babylon and Egypt, for instance, Alexander IV continued to be counted as king after his death (Mehl, Andreas. Seleukos Nikator und sein Reich. Leuven 1986, 131f., 139-147; Boiy, Tom. “Royal Titulature in Hellenistic Babylonia”, in: ZAVA 92 (2002), 241-257, esp. 247f.; Boiy, Tom. “The Diadochi

date of this particular passage between 310 and 309 BC. On the other hand, some passages also allude to events of the 330s and 20s BC, such as to Alexander’s campaigns, Antipater as strategos of Europe, and the grain shortages in Athens.⁵² In my view, the references to events of the 320s offered by the Boastful Man (ἀλαζών) seem to be largely retrospective in nature, unlike the necessarily con-temporaneous account of the Rumour Monger, although they are obviously akin in being fictitious. They are presented as being part of a not immediately verifiable past, which is obviously in the character’s interest, and thus their temporal rela-tionship to the setting of the intradiegetic narrative is deliberately obscured.⁵³ An exception here is the reference to Antipater, which seems to affect the narrative present and implies a possible continuation of contact, if the Boastful Man was not also scared of the consequences of involvement with Macedon.⁵⁴ As Conrad Cichorius first argued in 1897, the most plausible dramatic date for that anecdote is indeed 319 BC, before Antipater’s death.⁵⁵ The positive internal evidence thus provides two specific dates, 319 and 310/309 BC.

The third and thorniest problem of dating regards the evaluation of the political system and mentality expressed in the text. These have previously been used as indicators for dating, but invariably lead us into the murky waters of the debate about democracy and oligarchy in the fourth and third centuries BC, the depths of which were already hinted at above in discussing the Aeschines passage.

History in Cuneiform Documentation”, in: Anson and Alonso Troncoso (eds.) 2013, 7-16). On the other hand, Athenian politicians demonstrated detailed knowledge of who was in power in Macedon after 287, see Paschidis 2008, 157.

52 Theophr. Char. 23.3-5.

53 With Diggle 2004, 28f., I differ here from Lane Fox 1996, 134f., who argues that such boasting would necessarily be related to relatively current events. When his audience is explicit, the Boastful Man invariably speaks to strangers (23.2, 3, 6, 9), who cannot possibly test what he says. The splendour of his deeds and the names he associates himself with (campaigned with Alexander, gained rich booty, his company and busi-ness coveted by Antipater, his generosity during the famine) are quite unspecific in that they hold value throughout Greece at the time (cf. e.g. Diod. 18.71.2; 19.11.2; 19.51.1).

As Lane Fox himself notes, the city was also almost continuously hungry in the 330s and 20s (Kingsley 1986, 171; and again after the Antigonid defeat at Ipsos, see Habicht 1995, 89f.); the boaster’s unspecific reference can easily refer to a coalesced memory loosely related to actual events (IG II² 457:9-12, for example, shows how alive memory of Alexander’s campaigns was in 307/6 BC). The allusions to the orator Aristophon and the time of Lysander at 7.7 are similarly marked as references to the remote past (on these see Millett 2007, 45 with n. 151 and Diggle 2004, 271-273, who suggest dates of 365/5 and 400 BC).

54 Theophr. Char. 23.4.

55 Bechert, Malwin et al. (eds.). Theophrasts Charaktere. Herausgegeben, erklärt und übersetzt von der Philologischen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Leipzig 1897, lvii-lxii; Diggle 2004, 28f. On the date of Antipater’s death see Boiy 2007, 136.

Since this is precisely what this chapter is about, however, we can use the question of dating as a guide to a full discussion of these political intricacies.

The first point one might make is that attestations of ‘democracy’ within the text would seem to exclude a date under Demetrios of Phaleron and would gen-erally sit uncomfortably with the many changes of constitution, political person-nel, and possibly mentality Athens underwent between 322 and 287 BC, i.e. within the time-frame during which the lifetime of its author and the interests of this study overlap. One way of evaluating these political changes is by briefly analysing their institutional implementation, especially as regards the census required for political rights, and combining this with what is known about the discourse of political mentality. The sequence of ‘regimes’ experienced by Theophrastus in the period under discussion here includes the following, all decorated with inverted commas to highlight the contested discourse that affects their labelling:

1) The ‘oligarchic’ years from 322/1-318 BC were ushered in with the violent deaths of leading Athenian politicians, notably Demosthenes,⁵⁶ and exhibit var-ious centralising and restrictive tendencies, including the franchise census of 2000 drachmae,⁵⁷ the possible restriction of the dikasteria,⁵⁸ and the introduction or reform of the office of anagrapheus that interrupted the tribal cycle of grammateis.⁵⁹ The establishment of a Macedonian garrison in the Munychia constituted the first foreign occupation of Athens after 403 and began a history of interference in the

56 See generally Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. Phokion. Studien zur Erfassung seiner historischen Ge-stalt. Munich 1976, 92-95; Grieb 2008, 51-60; Bayliss 2011, 150f. The violent deaths of the leading Athenian politicians are most prominently documented in Plut. Dem. 28.

57 Diod. 18.18.1-6 not only attests further fracturing of the demos in that Antipater alle-gedly offered the disenfranchised land in Thrace, while suggesting also that this was the general strategy of Antipater after the Lamian War (18.18.8), but also that the census line was a manifestation of a long-standing faultline in the Athenian demos (18.10.1). See further Plut. Phoc. 28.4 and cf. Aristot. Pol. 1292a39-b7, 1300b1-3 on census restrictions as oligarchic.

58 Suda s.v. Δημάδης (Adler Delta 414).

59 On the anagrapheus, an office that may even have effectively controlled legislation (Bayliss 2011, 86) see Dow, Sterling. “The Athenian Anagrapheis”, in: HSCPh 67 (1963), 37-54, esp. 40f., 50, and the overview of recent discussion in Boiy 2007, 109f.

and Bayliss 2011, 85f. Decrees passed between 321/0 and 319/8 suggest that the anagrapheus functioned as an oligarchic office, harkening back to fifth century pre-decessors of the nomothetai, since its holder precedes the eponymous archon in the dating formulae (archonships of Archippos (e.g. Meritt, Benjamin D. “Greek Inscrip-tions”, in: Hesperia 30 (1961), 205-292, here 289-291; Agora XVI 97) and Neaichmos (e.g. IG II² 380). In the prescripts of 319/8 it first comes to be placed on the same level as the archon but is then relegated to last place (archonship of Apollodoros, e.g.

IG II² 387 with SEG XXI 314), suggesting that the office became contested before it vanished.

sacral and political topography of the city.⁶⁰ The resulting unrest was probably intensified by the uncertainty about the possession of Samos.⁶¹

2) The ‘democratic’ period between 318 and 317, during which the anagrapheus was abolished and regular grammateis reinstated. Various individuals who had co-operated with Antipater, most notably Phokion, were executed. IG II² 448:35-86 documents honours for Euphron of Sikyon on account of his efforts for the liberation of Athens and Greece in the Lamian War and the restoration of these honours in the fourth prytany of 318/7 with explicit democratic language.⁶²

3) The ‘regime’ of Demetrios of Phaleron from 317 to 307 was of course still backed by the Macedonian garrison, but seems to have largely retained the insti-tutions of the state, as it derived from more bilateral negotiations. The most clearly oligarchic aspects are the census of 1000 drachmae,⁶³ the existence of nomophylakes who managed the graphē paranomōn and thereby prevented ‘un-welcome’ politically-motivated accusations from being heard in court, the streng-thening of the areopagus,⁶⁴ and its legislative and institutional interference in

60 The garrison is attested by Diod. 18.18.5; on the religious consequences of the inter-ference see Mikalson, Jon D. Religion in Hellenistic Athens. Berkeley 1998, 50-53, who points to the changes in the cult of Artemis Mounichia and Artemis in general.

61 Diod. 18.18.9. Samos was promised to the Athenians as part of Polyperchon’s edict (18.56.7), which was never implemented. There may, however, have been fighting on Samos; see generally Shipley, Graham. A History of Samos 800 – 188 BC. Oxford 1987, 165-172.

62 The unrest in the city during the transition period and the uncertainty about the gar-rison and the outcome of the various possible alliances is well captured by Diod.

18.64.1-67.6, who also describes the execution of Phokion and his friends, on which see in greater detail Plut. Phoc. 33.1-35.2. For commentary on IG II² 448 see e.g.

Osborne, Michael J. Naturalization in Athens. Volume 2. Brussels 1982, 103-108. On the events of 318 see Habicht 1995a, 58-62; Bayliss 2011, 98-101.

63 Garrison and census of 1000 drachmae: Diod. 18.74.1-3; Parian chronicle for 317/16 (IG XII,5 444:116). On the significance of the census see van Wees, Hans. “Demetrius and Draco: Athens’ property classes and population in and before 317 BC”, in: JHS 131 (2011), 95-114.

64 Nomophylakes are attested by Philochorus FGrH 328 F 64; strengthening the areopagus:

Pollux 8.102 (see O’Sullivan, Lara. “Philochorus, Pollux and the νομοφύλακες of Demetrius of Phalerum”, in: JHS 2001 (121), 51-62).

matters pertaining to individual oikoi, a trait of anti-radical democratic politics.⁶⁵ Demetrios himself also held the eponymous archonship of 309/8.⁶⁶

4) Ushered in with an overwhelming, sincere sense of gratitude, the ‘protect-orate’ of Demetrios Poliorketes from 307/6-301 was reasonably ‘democratic’, though the pressures exercised by the ‘protector’ became increasingly apparent.⁶⁷ The garrison, the census and the nomophylakes were removed, the cycle of the tribal

65 Legislative and institutional interference in the ‘private’ sphere, e.g. in the form of the gynaikonomoi: Athen. 6.245b and Philochorus FGrH 328 F 65 with commentary (other sources in Williams, James. “Ideology & the Constitution of Demetrius of Phalerum”, in: Charles D. Hamilton and Peter Krentz (eds.). Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, and History in Honor of Donald Kagan. Claremont, CA 1997, 327-346, here 335 n. 24); cf.

Aristot. Pol. 1300a4-10; Plat. Rep. 344a-b; Lys. 12.20-22 with Cohen, David. Law, Sex-uality, and Society. Cambridge 1991, 230-234.

66 Diod. 20.27.1 and the Parian Marble FGrH 239 B19. The regime also seems to have been frugal, although it is by no means certain that the allowances for attending as-semblies, courts, and festivals were actually abolished, since the argument rests mainly on the invective by Duris (Athen. 12.542b-c =FGrH 76 F 10), the lack of payment provisions in IG II² 450 and his alleged financial skills at Diog. Laert. 5.75. At the same time, the liturgies of chorēgia and trierarchy may have been abolished, an ‘oligarchic’

measure in that it must have favoured the rich (see Williams 1997, 338f. for sources).

In essence, Demetrios may thus have aimed to consolidate the wealthier section of the citizen body, preventing internal strife by asserting the equal rule of law and collective assignment of honour, but simultaneously instituting oligarchic control over these democratic features. On the other hand, the honorary decree IG II² 1201 suggests that he modelled himself on Lykurgos and was certainly viewed as positive by some sec-tions of the populace for bringing peace and establishing good laws (on the decree see O’Sullivan, Lara. The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317-307 BCE. A Philosopher in Politics. Leiden 2009, 298); Diog. Laert. 5.5.77 suggests that he received many honours, though much is probably exaggerated; confusion with Demetrios Poliorketes is very likely. His regime thus emerges as a fascinating blend of democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic features, symptomatic of the instability of the time. For a detailed and cautious recent assessment of the evidence for changes to the constitution under Demetrios of Phaleron see O’Sullivan 2009a, 108-163, who shows just how paper-thin it is. See also the important evaluations by Gehrke, Hans-Joachim. “Das Verhältnis von Politik und Philosophie im Wirken des Demetrios von Phaleron”, in:

Chiron 8 (1978), 149-193; Habicht 1995a, 62-69; Grieb 2008, 61-68. Bayliss 2011, 73f., 77-88, 90f. argues against O’Sullivan in emphasising the oligarchic elements. On the religious developments of this period see Mikalson 1998, 72-74, who paints a picture of general stability.

67 See for this esp. Habicht 1995a, 78-89. On the gratitude of the Athenians see Mikalson 1998, 84f., citing IG II² 3424, SEG XXV 149; XXX 69. The restoration of democracy is attested by Diod. 19.45.1-46.1; Plut. Demetr. 8.4-9.2.

secretaries was resumed,⁶⁸ a corps of soldiers was created to protect the Piraeus,⁶⁹ and the uniquely copious decrees have a democratic flavour in that they stress transparency and collective control.⁷⁰ The citizen body also fought Kassander in Attica on its own behalf in the Four Years War, during which the ‘protectorate’

showed its weaknesses.⁷¹ Nevertheless, the collective and individual actions pre-served in the decrees clearly accommodate Antigonid interests, most visibly in the fact that Demetrios’ main supporter in the city, Stratokles of Diomeia, figures as the proponent of numerous honorary decrees for Antigonid officers; he also fiddled with the Athenian calendar to make it possible for Demetrios to be ini-tiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. As time went on, Demetrios increasingly interfered in domestic politics, backing Stratokles in 304/3 and forcing his op-ponent Demochares, son of Demosthenes, into exile until 286/5. The latent schism within the city is most visible in the fact that Stratokles vanishes from the epigraphic record immediately after the Antigonid defeat at Ipsos.⁷²

5) The subsequent ‘tyranny’ of Lachares is obscure in date, extent, and impact, with positions differing substantially, mainly regarding the dates. The institutional structures seem to have remained unchanged.⁷³ Lachares’ rise to political dom-inance in Athens was probably a gradual result of internal strife. The process seems to have extended from 302/1 to 295, with Lachares eventually (297?) ex-ploiting his position as commander of the foreign mercenaries (ὁ τῶν ξένων ἡγούμενος) to stage a coup. He defeated the hoplite corps stationed on the Acro-polis and had their commander Charias and three others executed, drawing on Kassander’s support to cement his position. The Piraeus seceded from the city,

68 See O’Sullivan 2009a, 121.

69 On the creation of the Peiraikoi soldiers to protect the Peiraieus see Bayliss, Andrew J. “Curse-tablets as Evidence: Identifying the Elusive «Peiraikoi soldiers»”, in: ZPE 144 (2003), 125-140, esp. 137f.

70 Habicht 1995a, 79; Hedrick, Charles W. “Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit”, in: Hesperia 68 (1999), 387-439, here esp. 413f.; 423.

71 See Oliver, Graham J. War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens. New York and Oxford 2007, 117f.

72 On Stratokles of Diomeia see Billows 1990, 149f., 170; Habicht 1995a, 80; Paschidis 2008, A19, now in detail Bayliss 2011, 152-186; on his reconfiguration of the Athenian calendar see Plut. Demetr. 26.1-3; SEG XXXVI 165. Demetrios’ interference in domes-tic polidomes-tics is attested by Plut. Demetr. 24.3-5. Dion Hal. Dein. 3 (=Philochorus FGrH 328 F 66) also records trials and death sentences in absentia for the circle of Demetrios of Phaleron. On the significant religious changes that resulted from the Antigonid protectorate see Mikalson 1998, 78-104, who paints the popular experience of Anti-gonid action as functionally godlike (82f.).

73 On the institutional structures see Habicht 1995a, 91.

thus causing a famine in the asty and allowing Demetrios Poliorketes to oust Lachares, who may have fled to Lysimachos’ court.⁷⁴

6) The second Antigonid ‘protectorate’ from 295/4-287/6 seems to have been harsher than the first, since garrisons were installed in Munychia and on Museion hill. It also shows oligarchic institutional elements in the return of the office of anagrapheus, and the iteration of Olympiodoros in the archonship.⁷⁵ Demetrios Poliorketes also recalled individuals exiled by the democracy, further suggesting an oligarchisation of the political system. Meanwhile, democratic elements (e.g.

full franchise) persisted and IG II² 646:22f. (295/4) remarkably praises Herodoros, philos of Demetrios Poliorketes, for adorning the city with eternal democracy – an expression that reinforces our earlier impression that by now such terms had become detached from any anchorage in institutional reality and functioned as mere discursive tags.⁷⁶

74 The sources for the dates are Plut. Demetr. 33.1-4; Paus. 1.25.7f., 29.10; P.Oxy 10.1235;

17.2082 (=Phlegon FGrH 257a F 1-3; F 1 with the emendations by Thonemann, Peter.

“Charias on the Acropolis”, in: ZPE 144 (2003), 123-124); Polyaen. Strat. 3.7.1-3; IG II² 644). For discussion see Habicht 1979, 1-21; Osborne 1982, 144-153; Habicht 1995a, 88-94, esp. 90 with n. 58; cf. also the protracted, but ultimately unconvincing argument by Dreyer 1999, 17-110; see further Bayliss 2003, 139f.; Thonemann 2005;

Paschidis 2008, A41; O’Sullivan, Lara. “History from Comic Hypotheses: Stratocles, Lachares, and P.Oxy. 1235”, in: GRBS 49 (2009b), 53-79. On Lachares’ doubtful links to Lysimachos cf. also Lund 1992, 92f. The dramatic impact of Lachares’ re-circulation of the precious metals tied up in the dedications on the Acropolis on the prestige of Athena Polias is highlighted by Mikalson 1998, 90-92.

75 See now Paschidis 2008, 138f.; Bayliss 2011, 65. On the reappearance of the anagrapheus see Habicht 1995a, 97. Olympiodoros’ iteration and the anagrapheis are attested in Dion.

Hal. Dein. 9; IG II² 649:1; IG II² 389:1 (with SEG XXI 354); Agora XVI 167; see for discussion Dinsmoor, William B. The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge, MA 1931, 37-44. Dion Hal. Dein. 2f., 9 also attributes the recall of the exiles to the initiative of Demetrios Poliorketes.

76 Bayliss 2011, 65 n. 8 explains IG II² 646:22f. (=Osborne 1981-1982, D68) by stating that the regime was initially ‘democratic’. This rests on an alternative and ingenious solution to the problem of Nikias’ double (?) archonship (IG II² 644:1; cf. Gauthier, Phillipe. “La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias”, in: REG 92 (1979), 348-399; modified and redated by Osborne, Michael J. “The Archonship of Nikias Hysteros”, in: ZPE 58 (1985), 275-295). This solution was proposed by Thonemann, Peter. “The Tragic King: Demetrios Poliorcetes and the City of Athens”, in: Olivier Hekster and Richard Fowler (eds.). Imaginary Kings. Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome. Stuttgart 2005, 63-86, esp. 66-74. Assuming that Elaphebolion 296/5 marked the ousting of Lachares by Demetrios Poliorketes, Nikias might have become the sole eponym of a condensed intercalary year, while the original archon of that year was cut from history. This would also account for the double election of Phaidros of Sphettos as general (IG II² 682:21-24). Besides placing great weight on the grammar of IG II² 644, Thonemann’s explanation requires that the city’s