to have been judicious. That citizen continued to administer
Athens, as satrap or despot under Kassander, for ten years. He
was an accomplished literary man, friend both of the philosopher
Theophrastus, who had succeeded to the school of Aristotle—and of
the rhetor Deinarchus. He is described also as a person of expensive
and luxurious habits; towards which he devoted the most of the
Athenian public revenue, 1200 talents in amount, if Duris is to
be believed. His administration is said to have been discreet and
moderate. We know little of its details, but we are told that he made
sumptuary laws, especially restricting the cost and ostentation of
funerals.[837] He himself extolled his own decennial period as one
of abundance and flourishing commerce at Athens.[838] But we learn
from others, and the fact is highly probable, that it was a period
of distress and humiliation, both at Athens and in other Grecian
towns; and that Athenians, as well as others, welcomed new projects
of colonization (such as that of Ophellas from Kyrênê) not simply
from prospects of advantage, but also as an escape from existing
evils.[839]
[837] Cicero, De Legg. ii. 26, 66; Strabo, ix. p. 398; Pausanias,
i. 25, 5. τύραννόν τε Ἀθηναίοις ἔπραξε γενέσθαι Δημήτριον, etc.
Duris ap. Athenæum, xii. 542. Fragm. 27. vol. iii. p. 477. Frag.
Hist. Græc.
The Phalerean Demetrius composed, among numerous historical,
philosophical, and literary works, a narrative of his own
decennial administration (Diogenes Laert. v. 5, 9; Strabo,
ib.)—περὶ τῆς δεκαετίας.
The statement of 1200 talents, as the annual revenue handled by
Demetrius, deserves little credit.
[838] See the Fragment of Demochares, 2. Fragment. Historic.
Græc. ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 448, ap. Polyb. xii. 13. Demochares,
nephew of the orator Demosthenes, was the political opponent of
Demetrius Phalereus, whom he reproached with these boasts about
commercial prosperity, when the liberty and dignity of the city
were overthrown. To such boasts of Demetrius Phalereus probably
belongs the statement cited from him by Strabo (iii. p. 147)
about the laborious works in the Attic mines at Laureium.
[839] Diodor. xx. 40. ὥσθ᾽ ὑπελάμβανον μὴ μόνον ἐγκρατεῖς ἔσεσθαι
πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν παρόντων κακῶν ἀπαλλαγήσεσθαι.
What forms of nominal democracy were kept up during this interval,
we cannot discover. The popular judicature must have been continued
for private suits and accusations, since Deinarchus is said to have
been in large practice as a logographer, or composer of discourses
for others.[840] But the fact that three hundred and sixty statues
were erected in honor of Demetrius while his administration was
still going on, demonstrates the gross flattery of his partisans,
the subjection of the people, and the practical abolition of all
free-spoken censure or pronounced opposition. We learn that, in
some one of the ten years of his administration, a census was taken
of the inhabitants of Attica; and that there were numbered, 21,000
citizens, 10,000 metics, and 400,000 slaves.[841] Of this important
enumeration we know the bare fact, without its special purpose or
even its precise date. Perhaps some of those citizens, who had
been banished or deported at the close of the Lamian war, may have
returned and continued to reside at Athens. But there still seems
to have remained, during all the continuance of the Kassandrian
Oligarchy, a body of adverse Athenian exiles, watching for an
opportunity of overthrowing it, and seeking aid for that purpose from
the Ætolians and others.[842]
[840] Dionys. Halic. Judicium de Dinarcho, p. 633, 634; Plutarch,
Demetrius, 10. λόγῳ μὲν ὀλιγαρχικῆς, ἔργῳ δὲ μοναρχικῆς,
καταστάσεως γενομένης διὰ τὴν τοῦ Φαληρέως δύναμιν, etc.
[841] Ktesikles ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 272. Mr. Fynes Clinton
(following Wesseling), supplies the defect in the text of
Athenæus, so as to assign the census to the 115th Olympiad.
This conjecture _may_ be right, yet the reasons for it are not
conclusive. The census may have been either in the 116th, or
in the 117th Olympiad; we have no means of determining which.
The administration of Phalerean Demetrius covers the ten years
between 317 and 307 B. C. (Fast. Hell. Append. p. 388).
Mr. Clinton (ad ann. 317 B. C. Fast. Hell.) observes
respecting the census—“The 21,000 Athenians express those who
had votes in the public assembly, or all the males above the age
of twenty years; the 10,000 μέτοικοι described also the males of
full age. When the women and children are computed, the total
free population will be about 127,660; and 400,000 slaves, added
to this total, will give about 527,660 for the total population
of Attica.” See also the Appendix to F. H. p. 390 _seq._
This census is a very interesting fact; but our information
respecting it is miserably scanty, and Mr. Clinton’s
interpretation of the different numbers is open to some remark.
He cannot be right, I think, in saying—“The 21,000 Athenians
express those who had votes in the assembly, _or_ all the males
above the age of twenty years.” For we are expressly told, that
under the administration of Demetrius Phalereus, all persons who
did not possess 1000 drachmæ were excluded from the political
franchise; and therefore a large number of males above the age of
twenty years would have no vote in the assembly. Since the two
categories are not coincident, then, to which shall we apply the
number 21,000? To those who had votes? Or to the total number of
free citizens, voting or not voting, above the age of twenty?
The public assembly, during the administration of Demetrius
Phalereus, appears to have been of little moment or efficacy; so
that a distinct record, of the number of persons entitled to vote
in it, is not likely to have been sought.
Then again, Mr. Clinton interprets the three numbers given, upon
two principles totally distinct. The two first numbers (citizens
and metics), he considers to designate only males of full age;
the third number, of οἰκέται, he considers to include both sexes
and all ages.
This is a conjecture which I think very doubtful, in the absence
of farther knowledge. It implies that the enumerators take
account of the _slave_ women and children—but that they take no
account of the _free_ women and children, wives and families
of the citizens and metics. The number of the free women and
children are wholly unrecorded, on Mr. Clinton’s supposition. Now
if, for the purposes of the census, it was necessary to enumerate
the _slave_ women and children—it surely would be not less
necessary to enumerate the _free_ women and children.
The word οἰκέται sometimes means, not slaves only, but the
inmates of a family generally—free as well as slave. If such be
its meaning here (which however there is not evidence enough to
affirm), we eliminate the difficulty of supposing the slave women
and children to be enumerated—and the free women and children
_not_ to be enumerated.
We should be able to reason more confidently, if we knew the
purpose for which the census had been taken—whether with a view
to military or political measures—to finance and taxation—or to
the question of subsistence and importation of foreign corn (see
Mr. Clinton’s Fast. H. ad ann. 444 B. C., about another
census taken in reference to imported corn).
[842] See Dionys. Halic. Judic. de Dinarcho, p. 658 Reisk.
The acquisition of Athens by Kassander, followed up by his capture
of Panaktum and Salamis, and seconded by his moderation towards the
Athenians, procured for him considerable support in Peloponnesus,
whither he proceeded with his army.[843] Many of the cities,
intimidated or persuaded, joined him and deserted Polysperchon;
while the Spartans, now feeling for the first time their defenceless
condition, thought it prudent to surround their city with walls.[844]
This fact, among many others contemporaneous, testifies emphatically,
how the characteristic sentiments of the Hellenic autonomous world
were now dying out everywhere. The maintenance of Sparta as an
unwalled city, was one of the deepest and most cherished of the
Lykurgean traditions; a standing proof of the fearless bearing and
self-confidence of the Spartans against dangers from without. The
erection of the walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne
out by the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
foreigner had become so overwhelming as hardly to leave them even
safety at home.
[843] Diodor. xviii. 75.
[844] Justin, xiv. 5; Diodor. xviii. 75; Pausan. vii. 8, 3;
Pausanias, i. 25, 5.
The warfare between Kassander and Polysperchon became now embittered
by a feud among the members of the Macedonian imperial family. King
Philip Aridæus and his wife Eurydikê, alarmed and indignant at the
restoration of Olympias which Polysperchon was projecting, solicited
aid from Kassander, and tried to place the force of Macedonia at
his disposal. In this however they failed. Olympias, assisted not
only by Polysperchon, but by the Epirotic prince Æakides, made her
entry into Macedonia out of Epirus, apparently in the autumn of 317
B. C. She brought with her Roxana and her child—the widow
and son of Alexander the Great. The Macedonian soldiers, assembled by
Philip Aridæus and Eurydikê to resist her, were so overawed by her
name and the recollection of Alexander, that they refused to fight,
and thus ensured to her an easy victory. Philip and Eurydikê became
her prisoners; the former she caused to be slain; to the latter she
offered only an option between the sword, the halter, and poison. The
old queen next proceeded to satiate her revenge against the family
of Antipater. One hundred leading Macedonians, friends of Kassander,
were put to death, together with his brother Nikanor;[845] while the
sepulchre of his deceased brother Iollas, accused of having poisoned
Alexander the Great, was broken up.
[845] Diodor. xix. 11; Justin, x. 14, 4; Pausanias, i. 11, 4.
During the winter, Olympias remained thus completely predominant in
Macedonia; where her position seemed strong, since her allies the
Ætolians were masters of the pass at Thermopylæ, while Kassander
was kept employed in Peloponnesus by the force under Alexander,
son of Polysperchon. But Kassander, disengaging himself from these
embarrassments, and eluding Thermopylæ by a maritime transit to
Thessaly, seized the Perrhæbian passes before they had been put
under guard, and entered Macedonia without resistance. Olympias,
having no army competent to meet him in the field, was forced to shut
herself up in the maritime fortress of Pydna, with Roxana, the child
Alexander, and Thessalonikê daughter of her late husband Philip son
of Amyntas.[846] Here Kassander blocked her up for several months by
sea, as well as by land, and succeeded in defeating all the efforts
of Polysperchon and Æakides to relieve her. In the spring of the
ensuing year (316 B. C.), she was forced by intolerable famine
to surrender. Kassander promised her nothing more than personal
safety, requiring from her the surrender of the two great fortresses,
Pella and Amphipolis, which made him master of Macedonia. Presently
however, the relatives of those numerous victims, who had perished by
order of Olympias, were encouraged by Kassander to demand her life in
retribution. They found little difficulty in obtaining a verdict of
condemnation against her from what was called a Macedonian assembly.
Nevertheless, such was the sentiment of awe and reverence connected
with her name, that no one except these injured men themselves could
be found to execute the sentence. She died with a courage worthy of
her rank and domineering character. Kassander took Thessalonikê to
wife—confined Roxana with the child Alexander in the fortress of
Amphipolis—where (after a certain interval) he caused both of them to
be slain.[847]
[846] Diodor. xix. 36.
[847] Diodor. xix. 50, 51; Justin, xiv. 5; Pausan. i. 25, 5; ix.
7, 1.
While Kassander was thus master of Macedonia—and while the imperial
family were disappearing from the scene in that country—the defeat
and death of Eumenes (which happened nearly at the same time as the
capture of Olympias[848]) removed the last faithful partisan of
that family in Asia. But at the same time, it left in the hands of
Antigonus such overwhelming preponderance throughout Asia, that he
aspired to become vicar and master of the entire Alexandrine empire,
as well as to avenge upon Kassander the extirpation of the regal
family. His power appeared indeed so formidable, that Kassander of
Macedonia, Lysimachus of Thrace, Ptolemy of Egypt, and Seleukus of
Babylonia, entered into a convention, which gradually ripened into an
active alliance, against him.
[848] Even immediately before the death of Olympias, Aristonous,
governor of Amphipolis in her interest, considered Eumenes to be
still alive (Diodor. xix. 50).
During the struggles between these powerful princes, Greece appears
simply as a group of subject cities, held, garrisoned, grasped at,
or coveted, by all of them. Polysperchon, abandoning all hopes in
Macedonia after the death of Olympias, had been forced to take
refuge among the Ætolians, leaving his son Alexander to make the
best struggle that he could in Peloponnesus; so that Kassander was
now decidedly preponderant throughout the Hellenic regions. After
fixing himself on the throne of Macedonia, he perpetuated his own
name by founding, on the isthmus of the peninsula of Pallênê and
near the site where Potidæa had stood, the new city of Kassandreia;
into which he congregated a large number of inhabitants from the
neighborhood, and especially the remnant of the citizens of Olynthus
and Potidæa,—towns taken and destroyed by Philip more than thirty
years before.[849] He next marched into Peloponnesus with his army
against Alexander son of Polysperchon. Passing through Bœotia,
he undertook the task of restoring the city of Thebes, which had
been destroyed twenty years previously by Alexander the Great,
and had ever since existed only as a military post on the ancient
citadel called Kadmeia. The other Bœotian towns, to whom the old
Theban territory had been assigned, were persuaded or constrained
to relinquish it; and Kassander invited from all parts of Greece
the Theban exiles or their descendants. From sympathy with these
exiles, and also with the ancient celebrity of the city, many Greeks,
even from Italy and Sicily, contributed to the restoration. The
Athenians, now administered by Demetrius Phalereus under Kassander’s
supremacy, were particularly forward in the work; the Messenians
and Megalopolitans, whose ancestors had owed so much to the Theban
Epaminondas, lent strenuous aid. Thebes was re-established in the
original area which it had occupied before Alexander’s siege; and
was held by a Kassandrian garrison in the Kadmeia, destined for the
mastery of Bœotia and Greece.[850]
[849] Diodor. xix. 52; Pausanias, v. 23, 2.
[850] Diodor. xix. 52, 54, 78; Pausan. ix. 7, 2-5. This seems an
explanation of Kassander’s proceeding, more probable than that
given by Pausanias; who tells us that Kassander hated the memory
of Alexander the Great, and wished to undo the consequences of
his acts. That he did so hate Alexander, is however extremely
credible: see Plutarch, Alexand. 74.
After some stay at Thebes, Kassander advanced toward Peloponnesus.
Alexander (son of Polysperchon) having fortified the Isthmus, he was
forced to embark his troops with his elephants at Megara, and cross
over the Saronic Gulf to Epidaurus. He dispossessed Alexander of
Argos, of Messenia, and even of his position on the Isthmus, where
he left a powerful detachment, and then returned to Macedonia.[851]
His increasing power raised both apprehension and hatred in the
bosom of Antigonus, who endeavored to come to terms with him, but in
vain.[852] Kassander preferred the alliance with Ptolemy, Seleukus,
and Lysimachus—against Antigonus, who was now master of nearly
the whole of Asia, inspiring common dread to all of them.[853]
Accordingly, from Asia to Peloponnesus, with arms and money Antigonus
despatched the Milesian Aristodemus to strengthen Alexander against
Kassander; whom he further denounced as an enemy of the Macedonian
name, because he had slain Olympias, imprisoned the other members of
the regal family, and re-established the Olynthian exiles. He caused
the absent Kassander to be condemned by what was called a Macedonian
assembly, upon these and other charges.
[851] Diodor. xix. 54.
[852] Diodor. xix. 56.
[853] Diodor. xix. 57.
Antigonus farther proclaimed, by the voice of this assembly, that all
the Greeks should be free, self-governing, and exempt from garrisons
or military occupation.[854] It was expected that these brilliant
promises would enlist partisans in Greece against Kassander;
accordingly Ptolemy ruler of Egypt, one of the enemies of Antigonus,
thought fit to issue similar proclamations a few months afterwards,
tendering to the Greeks the same boon from himself.[855] These
promises, neither executed, not intended to be executed, by either
of the kings, appear to have produced little or no effect upon the
Greeks.
[854] Diodor. xix. 61.
[855] Diodor. xix. 62.
The arrival of Aristodemus in Peloponnesus had re-animated the party
of Alexander, (son of Polysperchon), against whom Kassander was again
obliged to bring his full forces from Macedonia. Though successful
against Alexander at Argos, Orchomenus, and other places, Kassander
was not able to crush him, and presently thought it prudent to gain
him over. He offered to him the separate government of Peloponnesus,
though in subordination to himself: Alexander accepted the offer,
becoming Kassander’s ally[856]—and carried on war, jointly with him,
against Aristodemus, with varying success, until he was presently
assassinated by some private enemies. Nevertheless his widow
Kratesipolis, a woman of courage and energy, still maintained herself
in considerable force at Sikyon.[857] Kassander’s most obstinate
enemies were the Ætolians, of whom we now first hear formal mention
as a substantive confederacy.[858] These Ætolians became the allies
of Antigonus as they had been before of Polysperchon, extending
their predatory ravages even as far as Attica. Protected against
foreign garrisons, partly by their rude and fierce habits, partly by
their mountainous territory, they were almost the only Greeks who
could still be called free. Kassander tried to keep them in check
through their neighbors the Akarnanians, whom he induced to adopt a
more concentrated habit of residence, consolidating their numerous
petty townships into a few considerable towns,—Stratus, Sauria, and
Agrinium—convenient posts for Macedonian garrisons. He also made
himself master of Leukas, Apollonia, and Epidamnus, defeating the
Illyrian king Glaukias, so that his dominion now extended across from
the Thermaic to the Adriatic Gulf.[859] His general Philippus gained
two important victories over the Ætolians and Epirots, forcing the
former to relinquish some of their most accessible towns.[860]
[856] Diodor. xix. 63, 64.
[857] Diodor. xix. 62, 67.
[858] Diodor. xix. 66. Ἀριστόδημος, ~ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν~
δικαιολογησάμενος, προετρέψατο τὰ πλήθη βοηθεῖν τοῖς Ἀντιγόνου
πράγμασιν, etc.
[859] Diodor. xix. 67, 68; Justin, xv. 2. See Brandstäter,
Geschichte des Ætolischen Volkes und Bundes, p. 178 (Berlin,
1844).
[860] Diodor. xix. 74.
The power of Antigonus in Asia underwent a material diminution,
by the successful and permanent establishment which Seleukus now
acquired in Babylonia; from which event the era of the succeeding
Seleukidæ takes its origin. In Greece, however, Antigonus gained
ground on Kassander. He sent thither his nephew Ptolemy with a
large force to liberate the Greeks, or in other words, to expel
the Kassandrian garrisons; while he at the same time distracted
Kassander’s attention by threatening to cross the Hellespont and
invade Macedonia. This Ptolemy (not the Egyptian) expelled the
soldiers of Kassander from Eubœa, Bœotia, and Phokis. Chalkis in
Eubœa was at this time the chief military station of Kassander;
Thebes (which he had recently re-established) was in alliance with
him; but the remaining Bœotian towns were hostile to him. Ptolemy,
having taken Chalkis—the citizens of which he conciliated by
leaving them without any garrison—together with Oropus, Eretria,
and Karystus—entered Attica and presented himself before Athens. So
much disposition to treat with him was manifested in the city, that
Demetrius the Phalerean was obliged to gain time by pretending to
open negotiations with Antigonus, while Ptolemy withdrew from Attica.
Nearly at the same epoch, Apollonia, Epidamnus, and Leukas, found
means, assisted by an armament from Korkyra, to drive out Kassander’s
garrisons, and to escape from his dominion.[861] The affairs of
Antigonus were now prospering in Greece, but they were much thrown
back by the discontent and treachery of his admiral Telesphorus,
who seized Elis and even plundered the sacred treasures of Olympia.
Ptolemy presently put him down, and restored these treasures to the
god.[862]
[861] Diodor. xix. 77, 78, 89.
[862] Diodor. xix. 87.
In the ensuing year, a convention was concluded between Antigonus,
on one side—and Kassander, Ptolemy (the Egyptian) and Lysimachus, on
the other, whereby the supreme command in Macedonia was guaranteed
to Kassander, until the maturity of Alexander son of Roxana; Thrace
being at the same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and
the whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted
by all, that the Hellenic cities should be free.[863] Towards the
execution of this last clause, however, nothing was actually done.
Nor does it appear that the treaty had any other effect, except to
inspire Kassander with increased jealousy about Roxana and her child;
both of whom (as has been already stated) he caused to be secretly
assassinated soon afterwards, by the governor Glaukias, in the
fortress of Amphipolis, where they had been confined.[864] The forces
of Antigonus, under his general Ptolemy, still remained in Greece.
But this general presently (310 B. C.) revolted from Antigonus, and
placed them in co-operation with Kassander; while Ptolemy of Egypt,
accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by garrisoning
various Grecian cities, renewed the war and the triple alliance
against him.[865]
[863] Diodor. xix. 105.
[864] Diodor. xix. 105.
[865] Diodor. xx. 19.
Polysperchon,—who had hitherto maintained a local dominion over
various parts of Peloponnesus, with a military force distributed
in Messênê and other towns[866]—was now encouraged by Antigonus to
espouse the cause of Herakles (son of Alexander by Barsinê), and to
place him on the throne of Macedonia in opposition to Kassander.
This young prince Herakles, now seventeen years of age, was sent
to Greece from Pergamus in Asia, and his pretensions to the throne
were assisted not only by a considerable party in Macedonia itself,
but also by the Ætolians. Polysperchon invaded Macedonia, with
favorable prospects of establishing the young prince; yet he thought
it advantageous to accept treacherous propositions from Kassander,
who offered to him partnership in the sovereignty of Macedonia, with
an independent army and dominion in Peloponnesus. Polysperchon,
tempted by these offers, assassinated the young prince Herakles,
and withdrew his army towards Peloponnesus. But he found such
unexpected opposition, in his march through Bœotia, from Bœotians and
Peloponnesians, that he was forced to take up his winter quarters
in Lokris[867] (309 B. C.). From this time forward, as far
as we can make out, he commanded in Southern Greece as subordinate
ally or partner of Kassander;[868] whose Macedonian dominion, thus
confirmed, seems to have included Akarnania and Amphilochia on the
Ambrakian Gulf, together with the town of Ambrakia itself, and a
supremacy over many of the Epirots.
[866] Messênê was garrisoned by Polysperchon (Diodor. xix. 64).
[867] Diodor. xx. 28; Trogus Pompeius—Proleg. ad Justin. xv.
Justin. xv. 2.
[868] Diodor. xx. 100-103; Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 6. King Pyrrhus
was of προγόνων ἀεὶ δεδουλευκότων Μακεδόσι—at least this was the
reproach of Lysimachus (Plutarch, Phyrrhus, 12).
The assassination of Herakles was speedily followed by that of
Kleopatra, sister of Alexander the Great, and daughter of Philip
and Olympias. She had been for some time at Sardis, nominally at
liberty, yet under watch by the governor, who received his orders
from Antigonus; she was now preparing to quit that place, for the
purpose of joining Ptolemy in Egypt, and of becoming his wife. She
had been invoked as auxiliary, or courted in marriage, by several
of the great Macedonian chiefs, without any result. Now, however,
Antigonus, afraid of the influence which her name might throw into
the scale of his rival Ptolemy, caused her to be secretly murdered
as she was preparing for her departure; throwing the blame of the
deed on some of her women, whom he punished with death.[869] All
the relatives of Alexander the Great (except Thessalonikê wife
of Kassander, daughter of Philip by a Thessalian mistress) thus
successively perished, and all by the orders of one or other among
his principal officers. The imperial family, with the prestige of its
name, thus came to an end.
[869] Diodor. xx. 37 compare Justin, xiii. 6; xiv. 1.
Ptolemy of Egypt now set sail for Greece with a powerful armament. He
acquired possession of the important cities—Sikyon and Corinth—which
were handed over to him by Kratesipolis, widow of Alexander son of
Polysperchon. He then made known by proclamation his purpose as a
liberator, inviting aid from the Peloponnesian cities themselves
against the garrisons of Kassander. From some he received encouraging
answers and promises; but none of them made any movement, or seconded
him by armed demonstrations. He thought it prudent therefore to
conclude a truce with Kassander and retire from Greece, leaving
however secure garrisons in Sikyon and Corinth.[870] The Grecian
cities had now become tame and passive. Feeling their own incapacity
of self-defence, and averse to auxiliary efforts, which brought upon
them enmity without any prospect of advantage—they awaited only the
turns of foreign interference and the behests of the potentates
around them.
[870] Diodor. xx. 37.
The Grecian ascendency of Kassander, however, was in the following
year exposed to a graver shock than it had ever yet encountered—by
the sudden invasion of Demetrius called Poliorketes, son of
Antigonus. This young prince, sailing from Ephesus with a formidable
armament, contrived to conceal his purposes so closely, that he
actually entered the harbor of Peiræus (on the 26th of the month
Thargelion—May) without expectation, or resistance from any one;
his fleet being mistaken for the fleet of the Egyptian Ptolemy. The
Phalerean Demetrius, taken unawares, and attempting too late to guard
the harbor, found himself compelled to leave it in possession of the
enemy, and to retire within the walls of Athens; while Dionysius,
the Kassandrian governor, maintained himself with his garrison
in Munychia, yet without any army competent to meet the invaders
in the field. This accomplished Phalerean, who had administered
for ten years as the viceroy and with the force of Kassander, now
felt his position and influence at Athens overthrown, and even his
personal safety endangered. He with other Athenians went as envoys
on the ensuing day to ascertain what terms would be granted. The
young prince ostentatiously proclaimed, that it was the intention
of his father Antigonus and himself to restore and guarantee to the
Athenians unqualified freedom and autonomy. Hence the Phalerean
Demetrius foresaw that his internal opponents, condemned as they
had been to compulsory silence during the last ten years, would now
proclaim themselves with irresistible violence, so that there was no
safety for him except in retreat. He accordingly asked and obtained
permission from the invader to retire to Thebes, from whence he
passed over soon after to Ptolemy in Egypt. The Athenians in the city
declared in favor of Demetrius Poliorketes; who however refused to
enter the walls until he should have besieged and captured Munychia,
as well as Megara, with their Kassandrian garrisons. In a short
time he accomplished both these objects. Indeed energy, skill, and
effective use of engines, in besieging fortified places, were among
the most conspicuous features in his character; procuring for him the
surname whereby he is known to history. He proclaimed the Megarians
free, levelling to the ground the fortifications of Munychia, as an
earnest to the Athenians that they should be relieved for the future
from all foreign garrison.[871]
[871] Philochor. Fragm. 144, ed. Didot; Diodor. xx. 45, 46;
Plutarch, Demetrius, 8, 9. The occupation of Peiræus by Demetrius
Poliorketes is related somewhat differently by Polyænus, iv. 7,
6.
After these successes, Demetrius Poliorketes made his triumphant
entry into Athens. He announced to the people, in formal assembly,
that they were now again a free democracy, liberated from all
dominion either of soldiers from abroad or oligarchs at home. He
also promised them a farther boon from his father Antigonus and
himself—150,000 medimni of corn for distribution, and ship-timber
in quantity sufficient for constructing 100 triremes. Both these
announcements were received with grateful exultation. The feelings
of the people were testified not merely in votes of thanks and
admiration towards the young conqueror, but in effusions of
unmeasured and exorbitant flattery. Stratokles (who has already been
before us as one of the accusers of Demosthenes in the Harpalian
affair) with others exhausted their invention in devising new
varieties of compliment and adulation. Antigonus and Demetrius
were proclaimed to be not only kings, but gods and saviors: a high
priest of these saviors was to be annually chosen, after whom each
successive year was to be named (instead of being named after the
first of the nine Archons, as had hitherto been the custom), and the
dates of decrees and contracts commemorated; the month Munychion was
re-named as Demetrion—two new tribes, to be called Antigonis and
Demetrias, were constituted in addition to the preceding ten:—the
annual senate was appointed to consist of 600 members instead of
500; the portraits and exploits of Antigonus and Demetrius were to
be woven, along with those of Zeus and Athênê, into the splendid and
voluminous robe periodically carried in procession, as an offering
at the Panathenaic festival; the spot of ground where Demetrius had
alighted from his chariot, was consecrated with an altar erected in
honor of Demetrius Katæbates or the Descender. Several other similar
votes were passed, recognizing, and worshipping as gods, the saviors
Antigonus and Demetrius. Nay, we are told that temples or altars
were voted to Phila-Aphroditê, in honor of Phila wife of Demetrius;
and a like compliment was paid to his two mistresses, Leæna and
Lamia. Altars are said to have been also dedicated to Adeimantus and
others, his convivial companions or flatterers.[872] At the same
time the numerous statues which had been erected in honor of the
Phalerean Demetrius during his decennial government, were overthrown,
and some of them even turned to ignoble purposes, in order to cast
greater scorn upon the past ruler.[873] The demonstrations of
servile flattery at Athens, towards Demetrius Poliorketes, were in
fact so extravagantly overdone, that he himself is said to have
been disgusted with them, and to have expressed contempt for these
degenerate Athenians of his own time.[874]
[872] Plutarch, Demetrius, 9-11; Diodor. xx. 47; Demochares ap.
Athenæum, vi. p. 253.
[873] Diogen. Laert. v, 77. Among the numerous literary works
(all lost) of the Phalerean Demetrius, one was entitled Ἀθηναίων
καταδρομή (ib. v. 82).
[874] Demochares ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 253.
In reviewing such degrading proceedings, we must recollect that
thirty-one years had now elapsed since the battle of Chæroneia,
and that during all this time the Athenians had been under the
practical ascendancy, and constantly augmenting pressure, of foreign
potentates. The sentiment of this dependence on Macedonia had been
continually strengthened by all the subsequent events—by the capture
and destruction of Thebes, and the subsequent overwhelming conquests
of Alexander—by the deplorable conclusion of the Lamian war, the
slaughter of the free-spoken orators, the death of the energetic
military leaders, and the deportation of Athenian citizens—lastly,
by the continued presence of a Macedonian garrison in Peiræus or
Munychia. By Phokion, Demetrius Phalereus, and the other leading
statesmen of this long period, submission to Macedonia had been
inculcated as a virtue, while the recollection of the dignity and
grandeur of old autonomous Athens had been effaced or denounced as
a mischievous dream. The fifteen years between the close of the
Lamian war and the arrival of Demetrius Poliorketes (322-307 B.
C.), had witnessed no free play, nor public discussion and
expression, of conflicting opinions; the short period during which
Phokion was condemned must be excepted, but that lasted only long
enough to give room for the outburst of a preconceived but suppressed
antipathy.
During this thirty years, of which the last half had been an
aggravation of the first, a new generation of Athenians had grown
up, accustomed to an altered phase of political existence. How
few of those who received Demetrius Poliorketes, had taken part in
the battle of Chæroneia, or listened to the stirring exhortations
of Demosthenes in the war which preceded that disaster![875] Of
the citizens who yet retained courage and patriotism to struggle
again for their freedom after the death of Alexander, how many must
have perished with Leosthenes in the Lamian war! The Athenians of
307 B. C. had come to conceive their own city, and Hellas
generally, as dependent first on Kassander, next on the possible
intervention of his equally overweening rivals, Ptolemy, Antigonus,
Lysimachus, etc. If they shook off the yoke of one potentate, it
could only be by the protectorate of another. The sentiment of
political self-reliance and autonomy had fled; the conception of a
citizen military force, furnished by confederate and co-operating
cities, had been superseded by the spectacle of vast standing armies,
organized by the heirs of Alexander and of his traditions.
[875] Tacitus, Annal. i. 3. “Juniores post Actiacam victoriam,
seniores plerique inter bella civium nati: quotusquisque
reliquus, qui rempublicam vidisset?”
Two centuries before (510 B. C.), when the Lacedæmonians
expelled the despot Hippias and his mercenaries from Athens, there
sprang up at once among the Athenian people a forward and devoted
patriotism, which made them willing to brave, and competent to avert,
all dangers in defence of their newly-acquired liberty.[876] At that
time, the enemies by whom they were threatened were Lacedæmonians,
Thebans, Æginetans, Chalkidians, and the like (for the Persian force
did not present itself until after some interval, and attacked not
Athens alone, but Greece collectively). These hostile forces, though
superior in number and apparent value to those of Athens, were yet
not so disproportionate as to engender hopelessness and despair.
Very different were the facts in 307 B. C., when Demetrius
Poliorketes removed the Kassandrian mercenaries with their fortress
Munychia, and proclaimed Athens free. To maintain that freedom by
their own strength—in opposition to the evident superiority of
organized force residing in the potentates around, one or more
of whom had nearly all Greece under military occupation,—was an
enterprise too hopeless to have been attempted even by men such as
the combatants of Marathon or the contemporaries of Perikles. “Who
would be free, themselves must strike the blow!” but the Athenians
had not force enough to strike it; and the liberty proclaimed by
Demetrius Poliorketes was a boon dependent upon him for its extent
and even for its continuance. The Athenian assembly of that day was
held under his army as masters of Attica, as it had been held a few
months before under the controlling force of the Phalerean Demetrius
together with the Kassandrian governor of Munychia; and the most
fulsome votes of adulation proposed in honor of Demetrius Poliorketes
by his partisans, though perhaps disapproved by many, would hardly
find a single pronounced opponent.
[876] Herodotus, v. 78.
One man, however, there was, who ventured to oppose several of
the votes—the nephew of Demosthenes—Demochares; who deserves to
be commemorated as the last known spokesman of free Athenian
citizenship. We know only that such were his general politics, and
that his opposition to the obsequious rhetor Stratokles ended in
banishment, four years afterwards.[877] He appears to have discharged
the functions of general during this period—to have been active
in strengthening the fortifications and military equipment of the
city—and to have been employed in occasional missions.[878]
[877] Plutarch, Demetr. 24.
[878] Polybius, xii. 13; Decretum apud Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt.
p. 851.
The altered politics of Athens were manifested by impeachment
against Demetrius Phalereus and other leading partisans of the
late Kassandrian government. He and many others had already gone
into voluntary exile; when their trials came on, they were not
forthcoming, and all were condemned to death. But all those who
remained, and presented themselves for trial, were acquitted;[879]
so little was there of reactionary violence on this occasion.
Stratokles also proposed a decree, commemorating the orator Lykurgus
(who had been dead about seventeen years) by a statue, an honorary
inscription, and a grant of maintenance in the Prytaneum to his
eldest surviving descendant.[880] Among those who accompanied
the Phalerean Demetrius into exile was the rhetor or logographer
Deinarchus.
[879] Philochori Fragm. 144, ed. Didot, ap. Dionys. Hal. p. 636.
[880] Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 842-852. Lykurgus at his death
(about 324 B. C.) left three sons, who are said, shortly
after his death, to have been prosecuted by Menesæchmus, and
put in prison (“handed over to the Eleven”). But Thrasykles,
supported by Demokles, stood forward on their behalf; and
Demosthenes, then in banishment at Trœzen, wrote emphatic
remonstrances to the Athenians against such unworthy treatment of
the sons of a distinguished patriot. Accordingly the Athenians
soon repented and released them.
This is what we find stated in Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 842.
The third of the so-called Demosthenic Epistles purports to be
the letter written on this subject by Demosthenes.
The harsh treatment of the sons of Lykurgus (whatever it may have
amounted to, and whatever may have been its ground) certainly did
not last long; for in the next page of the very same Plutarchian
life (p. 843), an account is given of the family of Lykurgus,
which was ancient and sacerdotal; and it is there stated that his
sons after his death fully sustained the dignified position of
the family.
On what ground they were accused, we cannot make out. According
to the Demosthenic epistle (which epistles I have before stated
that I do not believe to be authentic), it was upon some
allegation, which, if valid at all, ought to have been urged
against Lykurgus himself during his life (p. 1477, 1478); but
Lykurgus had been always honorably acquitted, and always held
thoroughly estimable, up to the day of his death (p. 1475).
The friendship of this obnoxious Phalerean, and of Kassander also,
towards the philosopher Theophrastus, seems to have been one main
cause which occasioned the enactment of a restrictive law against
the liberty of philosophizing. It was decreed, on the proposition of
a citizen named Sophokles, that no philosopher should be allowed to
open a school or teach, except under special sanction obtained from a
vote of the Senate and people. Such was the disgust and apprehension
occasioned by the new restriction, that all the philosophers with
one accord left Athens. This spirited protest, against authoritative
restriction on the liberty of philosophy and teaching, found
responsive sympathy among the Athenians. The celebrity of the schools
and professors was in fact the only characteristic mark of dignity
still remaining to them—when their power had become extinct, and
when even their independence and free constitution had degenerated
into a mere name. It was moreover the great temptation for young
men, coming from all parts of Greece, to visit Athens. Accordingly,
a year had hardly passed, when Philon, impeaching Sophokles the
author of the law, under the Graphê Paranomôn, prevailed on the
Dikastery to find him guilty, and condemn him to a fine of five
talents. The restrictive law being thus repealed, the philosophers
returned.[881] It is remarkable that Demochares stood forward as one
of its advocates; defending Sophokles against the accuser Philon.
From scanty notices remaining of the speech of Demochares, we gather
that, while censuring the opinions no less than the characters of
Plato and Aristotle, he denounced yet more bitterly their pupils, as
being for the most part ambitious, violent, and treacherous men. He
cited by name several among them, who had subverted the freedom of
their respective cities, and committed gross outrages against their
fellow-citizens.[882]
[881] Diogen. Laert. v. 38. It is probably to this return of the
philosophers that the φυγάδων κάθοδος mentioned by Philochorus,
as foreshadowed by the omen in the Acropolis, alludes
(Philochorus, Frag. 145, ed. Didot, ap Dionys. Hal. p. 637).
[882] See the few fragments of Demochares collected in Fragmenta
Historicorum Græcorum, ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 445, with the notes
of Carl Müller.
See likewise Athenæus, xiii. 610, with the fragment from the
comic writer Alexis. It is there stated that Lysimachus also,
king of Thrace, had banished the philosophers from his dominions.
Demochares might find (besides the persons named in Athenæ. v.
21, xi. 508) other authentic examples of pupils of Plato and
Isokrates who had been atrocious and sanguinary tyrants in their
native cities—see the case of Klearchus of Herakleia, Memnon ap.
Photium, Cod. 224. cap. 1. Chion and Leonides, the two young
citizens who slew Klearchus, and who perished in endeavoring to
liberate their country—were also pupils of Plato (Justin, xvi.
5). In fact, aspiring youths, of all varieties of purpose, were
likely to seek this mode of improvement. (Alexander the Great,
too, the very impersonation of subduing force, had been the pupil
of Aristotle).
Athenian envoys were despatched to Antigonus in Asia, to testify the
gratitude of the people, and communicate the recent complimentary
votes. Antigonus not only received them graciously, but sent to
Athens, according to the promise made by his son, a large present of
150,000 medimni of wheat, with timber sufficient for 100 ships. He
at the same time directed Demetrius to convene at Athens a synod of
deputies from the allied Grecian cities, where resolutions might be
taken for the common interests of Greece.[883] It was his interest
at this moment to raise up a temporary self-sustaining authority
in Greece, for the purpose of upholding the alliance with himself,
during the absence of Demetrius; whom he was compelled to summon into
Asia with his army—requiring his services for the war against Ptolemy
in Syria and Cyprus.
[883] Diodor. xx. 46.
The following three years were spent by Demetrius—1. In victorious
operations near Cyprus, defeating Ptolemy and making himself master
of that island; after which Antigonus and Demetrius assumed the
title of kings, and the example was followed by Ptolemy, in Egypt—by
Lysimachus, in Thrace—and by Seleukus in Babylonia, Mesopotamia,
and Syria[884]—thus abolishing even the titular remembrance of
Alexander’s family. 2. In an unsuccessful invasion of Egypt by land
and sea, repulsed with great loss. 3. In the siege of Rhodes. The
brave and intelligent citizens of this island resisted for more
than a year the most strenuous attacks and the most formidable
siege-equipments of Demetrius Poliorketes. All their efforts
however would have been vain had they not been assisted by large
reinforcements and supplies from Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Kassander.
Such are the conditions under which alone even the most resolute
and intelligent Greeks can now retain their circumscribed sphere of
autonomy. The siege was at length terminated by a compromise; the
Rhodians submitted to enrol themselves as allies of Demetrius, yet
under proviso not to act against Ptolemy.[885] Towards the latter
they carried their grateful devotion so far, as to erect a temple to
him, called the Ptolemæum, and to worship him (under the sanction
of the oracle of Ammon) as a god.[886] Amidst the rocks and shoals
through which Grecian cities were now condemned to steer, menaced on
every side by kings more powerful than themselves, and afterwards by
the giant-republic of Rome—the Rhodians conducted their political
affairs with greater prudence and dignity than any other Grecian city.
[884] Diodor. xx. 53; Plutarch, Demetr. 18.
[885] Diodor. xx. 99. Probably this proviso extended also to
Lysimachus and Kassander (both of whom had assisted Rhodes) as
well as to Ptolemy—though Diodorus does not expressly say so.
[886] Diodor. xx. 100.
Shortly after the departure of Demetrius from Greece to Cyprus,
Kassander and Polysperchon renewed the war in Peloponnesus and its
neighborhood.[887] We make out no particulars respecting this war.
The Ætolians were in hostility with Athens, and committed annoying
depredations.[888] The fleet of Athens, repaired or increased by
the timber received from Antigonus, was made to furnish thirty
quadriremes to assist Demetrius in Cyprus, and was employed in
certain operations near the island of Amorgos, wherein it suffered
defeat.[889] But we can discover little respecting the course of the
war, except that Kassander gained ground upon the Athenians, and
that about the beginning of 303 B. C., he was blockading
or threatening to blockade, Athens. The Athenians invoked the
aid of Demetrius Poliorketes, who, having recently concluded an
accommodation with the Rhodians, came again across from Asia, with
a powerful fleet and army, to Aulis in Bœotia.[890] He was received
at Athens with demonstrations of honor equal or superior to those
which had marked his previous visit. He seems to have passed a year
and a half, partly at Athens, partly in military operations carried
successfully over many parts of Greece. He compelled the Bœotians
to evacuate the Eubœan city of Chalkis, and to relinquish their
alliance with Kassander. He drove that prince out of Attica—expelled
his garrisons from the two frontier fortresses of Attica,—Phylê
and Panaktum—and pursued him as far as Thermopylæ. He captured, or
obtained by bribing the garrisons, the important towns of Corinth,
Argos, and Sikyon; mastering also Ægium, Bura, all the Arcadian towns
(except Mantineia), and various other towns in Peloponnesus.[891] He
celebrated, as president, the great festival of the Heræa at Argos;
on which occasion he married Deidameia, sister of Pyrrhus, the young
king of Epirus. He prevailed on the Sikyonians to transfer to a
short distance the site of their city, conferring upon the new city
the name of Demetrias.[892] At a Grecian synod, convened in Corinth
under his own letters of invitation, he received by acclamation
the appointment of leader or Emperor of the Greeks, as it had been
conferred on Philip and Alexander. He even extended his attacks
as far as Leukas and Korkyra. The greater part of Greece seems to
have been either occupied by his garrisons, or enlisted among his
subordinates.
[887] Diodor. xx. 100.
[888] That the Ætolians were just now most vexatious enemies to
Athens, may be seen by the Ithyphallic ode addressed to Demetrius
Poliorketes (Athenæus, vi. p. 253).
[889] Diodor. xx. 50; Plutarch, Demetr. 11. In reference to this
defeat near Amorgos, Stratokles (the complaisant orator who
moved the votes of flattery towards Demetrius and Antigonus) is
said to have announced it first as a victory, to the great joy
of the people. Presently evidences of the defeat arrived, and
the people were angry with Stratokles. “What harm has happened
to you? (replied he)—have you not had two days of pleasure and
satisfaction?” This is at any rate a very good story.
[890] Diodor. xx. 100; Plutarch, Demetr. 23.
[891] Diodor. xx. 102, 103; Plutarch, Demetr. 23-25.
[892] Diodor. xx. 102; Plutarch, Demetr. 25; Pausanias, ii. 7, 1.
The city was withdrawn partially from the sea, and approximated
closely to the acropolis. The new city remained permanently: but
the new name Demetrias gave place to the old name Sikyon.
So much was Kassander intimidated by these successes, that he sent
envoys to Asia, soliciting peace from Antigonus; who, however,
elate and full of arrogance, refused to listen to any terms short
of surrender at discretion. Kassander, thus driven to despair,
renewed his applications to Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleukus. All
these princes felt equally menaced by the power and dispositions of
Antigonus—and all resolved upon an energetic combination to put him
down.[893]
[893] Diodor. xx. 106
After uninterrupted prosperity in Greece, throughout the summer
of 302 B. C., Demetrius returned from Leukas to Athens,
about the month of September, near the time of the Eleusinian
mysteries.[894] He was welcomed by festive processions,
hymns, pæans, choric dances, and bacchanalian odes of joyous
congratulation. One of these hymns is preserved, sung by a
chorus of Ithyphalli—masked revellers, with their heads and arms
encircled by wreaths,—clothed in white tunics, and in feminine
garments reaching almost to the feet.[895]
[894] That he returned from Leukas about the time of these
mysteries, is attested both by Demochares and by the Ithyphallic
ode in Athenæus, vi. p. 253. See also Duris ap. Athenæ, xii. p.
535.
[895] Semus ap. Athenæum, xiv. p. 622.
This song is curious, as indicating the hopes and fears prevalent
among Athenians of that day, and as affording a measure of their
self-appreciation. It is moreover among the latest Grecian documents
that we possess, bearing on actual and present reality. The poet,
addressing Demetrius as a god, boasts that two of the greatest
and best-beloved of all divine beings are visiting Attica at the
same moment—Demeter (coming for the season of her mysteries), and
Demetrius, son of Poseidon and Aphroditê. “To thee we pray (the hymn
proceeds); for other gods are either afar off—or have no ears—or do
not exist—or care nothing about us; but _thee_ we see before us,
not in wood or marble, but in real presence. First of all things,
establish peace; for thou hast the power—and chastise that Sphinx who
domineers, not merely over Thebes, but over all Greece—the Ætolian,
who, (like the old Sphinx) rushes from his station on the rock to
snatch and carry away our persons, and against whom we cannot fight.
At all times, the Ætolians robbed their neighbors; but now, they rob
far as well as near.[896]”
[896] Athenæus, vi. p. 253.
Ἄλλοι μὲν ἢ μακρὰν γὰρ ἀπέχουσιν θεοὶ,
ἢ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ὦτα,
ἢ οὐκ εἰσὶν, ἢ οὐ προσέχουσιν ἡμῖν οὐδὲ ἕν·
σὲ δὲ παρόνθ᾽ ὁρῶμεν,
οὐ ξύλινον, οὐδὲ λίθινον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθινόν.
Εὐχόμεσθα δὴ σοί·
πρῶτον μὲν εἰρήνην ποιῆσον, φίλτατε,
κύριος γὰρ εἶ σύ.
Τὴν δ᾽ οὐχὶ Θηβῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἑλλάδος,
Σφίγγα περικρατοῦσαν,
Αἰτωλὸς ὅστις ἐπὶ πέτρας καθήμενος,
ὥσπερ ἡ παλαιὰ,
τὰ σώμαθ᾽ ἡμῶν πάντ᾽ ἀναρπάσας φέρει,
~κοὐκ ἔχω μάχεσθαι~·
Αἰτωλικὸν γὰρ ἁρπάσαι τὰ τῶν πέλας,
νυνὶ δὲ καὶ τὰ πόῤῥω—
μάλιστα μὲν δὴ κόλασον αὐτὸς· εἰ δὲ μὴ,
Οἰδίπουν τιν᾽ εὗρε,
τὴν Σφίγγα ταύτην ὅστις ἢ κατακρημνιεῖ,
ἢ σπίνον ποιήσει.
Effusions such as these, while displaying unmeasured idolatry and
subservience towards Demetrius, are yet more remarkable, as betraying
a loss of force, a senility, and a consciousness of defenceless
and degraded position, such as we are astonished to find publicly
proclaimed at Athens. It is not only against the foreign potentates
that the Athenians avow themselves incapable of self-defence, but
even against the incursions of the Ætolians.—Greeks like themselves,
though warlike, rude, and restless.[897] When such were the feelings
of a people, once the most daring, confident, and organizing—and
still the most intelligent—in Greece, we may see that the history of
the Greeks as a separate nation or race is reaching its close—and
that from henceforward they must become merged in one or other of the
stronger currents that surround them.
[897] Compare Pausanias, vii. 7, 4.
After his past successes, Demetrius passed some months in enjoyment
and luxury at Athens. He was lodged in the Parthenon, being
considered as the guest of the goddess Athênê. But his dissolute
habits provoked the louder comments, from being indulged in such a
domicile; while the violences which he offered to beautiful youths
of good family led to various scenes truly tragical. The subservient
manifestations of the Athenians towards him, however, continued
unabated. It is even affirmed, that, in order to compensate for
something which he had taken amiss, they passed a formal decree,
on the proposition of Stratokles, declaring that every thing which
Demetrius might command was holy in regard to the gods, and just in
regard to men.[898] The banishment of Demochares is said to have
been brought on by his sarcastic comments upon this decree.[899]
In the month Munychion (April) Demetrius mustered his forces and
his Grecian allies for a march into Thessaly against Kassander;
but before his departure, he was anxious to be initiated in the
Eleusinian mysteries. It was however not the regular time for
this ceremony; the Lesser Mysteries being celebrated in February,
the Greater in September. The Athenians overruled the difficulty
by passing a special vote, enabling him to be initiated at once,
and to receive in immediate succession, the preparatory and the
final initiation, between which ceremonies a year of interval was
habitually required. Accordingly, he placed himself disarmed in the
hands of the priests, and received both first and second initiation
in the month of April, immediately before his departure from
Athens.[900]
[898] Plutarch, Demetr. 24.
[899] Such is the statement of Plutarch (Demetr. 24); but it
seems not in harmony with the recital of the honorary decree,
passed in 272 B. C., after the death of Demochares,
commemorating his merits by a statue, etc. (Plutarch, Vit. X.
Oratt. p. 850). It is there recited that Demochares rendered
services to Athens (fortifying and arming the city, concluding
peace and alliance with the Bœotians, etc.) ἐπὶ τοῦ τετραετοῦς
πολέμου, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐξέπεσεν ὑπὸ τῶν καταλυσάντων τὸν δῆμον. Οἱ
καταλύσαντες τὸν δῆμον cannot mean either Demetrius Poliorketes,
or Stratokles. Moreover, we cannot determine when the “four
years’ war”, or the alliance with the Bœotians, occurred. Neither
the discussion of Mr. Clinton (Fast. H. 302 B. C., and
Append. p. 380), nor the different hypothesis of Droysen, are
satisfactory on this point—see Carl Müller’s discussion on the
fragments of Demochares, Fragm. Hist. Gr. v. ii. p. 446.
[900] Diodor. xx. 110. παραδοὺς οὖν αὑτὸν ἄνοπλον τοῖς ἱερεῦσι,
καὶ πρὸ τῆς ὡρισμένης ἡμέρας μυηθεὶς, ἀνέζευξεν ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν.
The account of this transaction in the text is taken from
Diodorus, and is a simple one; a vote was passed granting special
license to Demetrius, to receive the mysteries at once, though it
was not the appointed season.
Plutarch (Demetr. 26) superadds other circumstances, several of
which have the appearance of jest rather than reality. Pythodôrus
the Daduch or Torch-bearer of the Mysteries stood alone in his
protest against any celebration of the ceremony out of time:
this is doubtless very credible. Then (according to Plutarch)
the Athenians passed decrees, on the proposition of Stratokles,
that the month Munychion should be called Anthesterion. This
having been done, the Lesser Mysteries were celebrated, in which
Demetrius was initiated. Next, the Athenians passed another
decree, to the effect, that the month Munychion should be called
Boêdromion—after which, the Greater Mysteries (which belonged to
the latter month) were forthwith celebrated. The comic writer
Philippides said of Stratokles, that he had compressed the whole
year into a single month.
This statement of Plutarch has very much the air of a caricature,
by Philippides or some other witty man, of the simple decree
mentioned by Diodorus—a special license to Demetrius to be
initiated out of season. Compare another passage of Philippides
against Stratokles (Plutarch, Demetr. 12).
Demetrius conducted into Thessaly an army of 56,000 men; of whom
25,000 were Grecian allies—so extensive was his sway at this moment
over the Grecian cities.[901] But after two or three months of
hostilities, partially successful, against Kassander, he was summoned
into Asia by Antigonus to assist in meeting the formidable army
of the allies—Ptolemy, Seleukus, Lysimachus, and Kassander. Before
retiring from Greece, Demetrius concluded a truce with Kassander,
whereby it was stipulated that the Grecian cities, both in Europe
and Asia, should be permanently autonomous and free from garrison or
control. This stipulation served only as an honorable pretext for
leaving Greece; Demetrius had little expectation that it would be
observed.[902] In the ensuing spring was fought the decisive battle
of Ipsus in Phrygia (B. C. 300), by Antigonus and Demetrius,
against Ptolemy, Seleukus, and Lysimachus; with a large army and
many elephants on both sides. Antigonus was completely defeated and
slain, at the age of more than eighty years. His Asiatic dominion was
broken up, chiefly to the profit of Seleukus, whose dynasty became
from henceforward ascendent, from the coast of Syria eastward to the
Caspian Gates and Parthia; sometimes, though imperfectly, farther
eastward, nearly to the Indus.[903]
[901] Diodor. xx. 110.
[902] Diodor. xx. 111. It must have been probably during this
campaign that Demetrius began or projected the foundation of
the important city of Demetrias on the Gulf of Magnesia, which
afterwards became one of the great strongholds of the Macedonian
ascendency in Greece (Strabo, ix. p. 436-443, in which latter
passage, the reference to Hieronymus of Kardia seems to prove
that that historian gave a full description of Demetrias and its
foundation). See about Demetrias, Mannert, Geogr. v. Griech. vii.
p. 591.
[903] Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hell. B. C. 301) places
the battle of Ipsus in August 301 B. C.; which appears
to me some months earlier than the reality. It is clear from
Diodorus, (and indeed from Mr. Clinton’s own admission) that
winter-quarters in Asia intervened between the departure of
Demetrius from Athens in or soon after April 301 B. C.,
and the battle of Ipsus. Moreover Demetrius, immediately after
leaving Athens, carried on many operations against Kassander in
Thessaly, before crossing over to Asia to join Antigonus (Diodor.
xx. 110, 111).
The effects of the battle of Ipsus were speedily felt in Greece.
The Athenians passed a decree proclaiming themselves neutral, and
excluding both the belligerent parties from Attica. Demetrius,
retiring with the remnant of his defeated army, and embarking at
Ephesus to sail to Athens, was met on the voyage by Athenian envoys,
who respectfully acquainted him that he would not be admitted. At
the same time, his wife Deidameia, whom he had left at Athens, was
sent away by the Athenians under an honorable escort to Megara, while
some ships of war which he had left in the Peiræus were also restored
to him. Demetrius, indignant at this unexpected defection of a city
which had recently heaped upon him such fulsome adulation, was still
farther mortified by the loss of most of his other possessions in
Greece.[904] His garrisons were for the most part expelled, and the
cities passed into Kassandrian keeping or dominion. His fortunes
were indeed partially restored by concluding a peace with Seleukus,
who married his daughter. This alliance withdrew Demetrius to
Syria, while Greece appears to have fallen more and more under the
Kassandrian parties. It was one of these partisans, Lachares, who,
seconded by Kassander’s soldiers, acquired a despotism at Athens
such as had been possessed by the Phalerean Demetrius, but employed
in a manner far more cruel and oppressive. Various exiles driven out
by his tyranny invited Demetrius Poliorketes, who passed over again
from Asia into Greece, recovered portions of Peloponnesus, and laid
siege to Athens. He blocked up the city by sea and land, so that the
pressure of famine presently became intolerable. Lachares having
made his escape, the people opened their gates to Demetrius, not
without great fear of the treatment awaiting them. But he behaved
with forbearance, and even with generosity. He spared them all,
supplied them with a large donation of corn, and contented himself
with taking military occupation of the city, naming his own friends
as magistrates. He put garrisons, however, not only into Peiræus and
Munychia, but also into the hill called Museum, a part of the walled
circle of Athens itself[905] (B. C. 298).
[904] Plutarch, Demetr. 31.
[905] Plutarch, Demetr. 34, 35; Pausan. i. 25, 5. Pausanias
states (i. 26, 2) that a gallant Athenian named Olympiodorus (we
do not know when) encouraged his fellow-citizens to attack the
Museum, Munychia, and Peiræus; and expelled the Macedonians from
all of them. If this be correct, Munychia and Peiræus must have
been afterwards reconquered by the Macedonians: for they were
garrisoned (as well as Salamis and Sunium) by Antigonus Gonatas
(Pausanias, ii. 8, 5; Plutarch, Aratus, 34).
While Demetrius was thus strengthening himself in Greece, he lost
all his footing both in Cyprus, Syria, and Kilikia, which passed
into the hands of Ptolemy and Seleukus. New prospects however
were opened to him in Macedonia by the death of Kassander (his
brother-in-law, brother of his wife Phila) and the family feuds
supervening thereupon. Philippus, eldest son of Kassander, succeeded
his father, but died of sickness after something more than a year.
Between the two remaining sons, Antipater and Alexander, a sanguinary
hostility broke out. Antipater slew his mother Thessalonikê, and
threatened the life of his brother, who in his turn invited aid
both from Demetrius, and from the Epirotic king Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus
being ready first, marched into Macedonia, and expelled Antipater;
receiving as his recompense the territory called Tymphæa (between
Epirus and Macedonia), together with Akarnania, Amphilochia,
and the town of Ambrakia, which became henceforward his chief
city and residence.[906] Antipater sought shelter in Thrace with
his father-in-law Lysimachus; by whose order, however, he was
presently slain. Demetrius, occupied with other matters, was more
tardy in obeying the summons; but, on entering into Macedonia,
he found himself strong enough to dispossess and kill Alexander
(who had indeed invited him, but is said to have laid a train for
assassinating him), and seized the Macedonian crown; not without the
assent of a considerable party, to whom the name and the deeds of
Kassander and his sons were alike odious.[907]
[906] Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 6.
[907] Plutarch, Demetr. 36; Dexippus ap. Syncell. p. 264 _seq._;
Pausan. 7, 3; Justin, xvi. 1, 2.
Demetrius became thus master of Macedonia, together with the greater
part of Greece, including Athens, Megara, and much of Peloponnesus.
He undertook an expedition into Bœotia, for the purpose of conquering
Thebes; in which attempt he succeeded, not without a double siege of
that city, which made an obstinate resistance. He left as viceroy in
Bœotia the historian, Hieronymus of Kardia,[908] once the attached
friend and fellow-citizen of Eumenes. But Greece as a whole was
managed by Antigonus (afterwards called Antigonus Gonatas) son of
Demetrius, who maintained his supremacy unshaken during all his
father’s lifetime; even though Demetrius was deprived of Macedonia
by the temporary combination of Lysimachus with Pyrrhus, and
afterwards remained (until his death in 283 B. C.) a captive in the
hands of Seleukus. After a brief possession of the crown of Macedonia
successively by Seleukus, Ptolemy, Keraunus, Meleager, Antipater, and
Sosthenes—Antigonus Gonatas regained it in 277 B. C. His descendants
the Antigonid kings maintained it until the battle of Pydna in 168 B.
C.; when Perseus, the last of them, was overthrown, and his kingdom
incorporated with the Roman conquests.[909]
[908] Plutarch, Demetr. 39.
[909] See Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, Append. 4. p. 236-239.
Of Greece during this period we can give no account, except that the
greater number of its cities were in dependence upon Demetrius and
his son Antigonus; either under occupation by Macedonian garrisons,
or ruled by local despots who leaned on foreign mercenaries and
Macedonian support. The spirit of the Greeks was broken, and their
habits of combined sentiment and action had disappeared. The invasion
of the Gauls indeed awakened them into a temporary union for the
defence of Thermopylæ in 279 B. C. So intolerable was the
cruelty and spoliation of those barbarian invaders, that the cities
as well as Antigonus were driven by fear to the efforts necessary
for repelling them.[910] A gallant army of Hellenic confederates
was mustered. In the mountains of Ætolia and in the neighborhood of
Delphi, most of the Gallic horde with their king Brennus perished.
But this burst of spirit did not interrupt the continuance of the
Macedonian dominion in Greece, which Antigonus Gonatas continued
to hold throughout most of a long reign. He greatly extended the
system begun by his predecessors, of isolating each Grecian city from
alliances with other cities in its neighborhood—planting in most of
them local despots—and compressing the most important by means of
garrisons.[911] Among all Greeks, the Spartans and the Ætolians
stood most free from foreign occupation, and were the least crippled
in their power of self-action. The Achæan league too developed itself
afterwards as a renovated sprout from the ruined tree of Grecian
liberty,[912] though never attaining to anything better than a feeble
and puny life, nor capable of sustaining itself without foreign
aid.[913]
[910] Pausanias, i. 4, 1; x. 20, 1. Τοῖς δέ γε Ἕλλησι
κατεπεπτώκει μὲν ἐς ἅπαν τὰ φρονήματα, τὸ δὲ ἰσχυρὸν τοῦ δείματος
προῆγεν ἐς ἀνάγκην τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἀμύνειν· ἑώρων δὲ τόν τε ἐν τῷ
παρόντι ἀγῶνα, οὐκ ὑπὲρ ἐλευθερίας γενησόμενον, καθὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ
Μήδου πότε ... ὡς οὖν ἀπολωλέναι δέον ἢ ἐπικρατεστέρους εἶναι,
κατ᾽ ἄνδρα τε ἰδίᾳ καὶ αἱ πόλεις διέκειντο ἐν κοινῷ. (On the
approach of the invading Gauls.)
[911] Polyb. ii. 40, 41. πλείστους γὰρ δὴ μονάρχους οὗτος
(Antigonus Gonatas) ἐμφυτεῦσαι δοκεῖ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. Justin, xxvi.
1.
[912] Pausanias, vii. 17, 1. Ἅτε ἐκ δένδρου λελωβημένου,
ἀνεβλάστησεν ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος τὸ Ἀχαϊκόν.
[913] Plutarch, Aratus, 47. ἐθισθέντες γὰρ ἀλλοτρίαις σώζεσθαι
χερσὶν, καὶ τοῖς Μακεδόνων ὅπλοις αὑτοὺς ὑπεσταλκότες (the
Achæans), etc. Compare also c. 12, 13, 15, in reference to the
earlier applications to Ptolemy king of Egypt.
With this after-growth, or half-revival, I shall not meddle. It
forms the Greece of Polybius, which that author treats, in my
opinion justly, as having no history of its own,[914] but as an
appendage attached to some foreign centre and principal among its
neighbors—Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, Rome. Each of these neighbors
acted upon the destinies of Greece more powerfully than the Greeks
themselves. The Greeks to whom these volumes have been devoted—those
of Homer, Archilochus, Solon, Æschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides,
Xenophon, and Demosthenes—present as their most marked characteristic
a loose aggregation of autonomous tribes or communities, acting and
reacting freely among themselves, with little or no pressure from
foreigners. The main interest of the narrative has consisted in the
spontaneous grouping of the different Hellenic fractions—in the
self-prompted cooperations and conflicts—the abortive attempts to
bring about something like an effective federal organization, or to
maintain two permanent rival confederacies—the energetic ambition,
and heroic endurance, of men to whom Hellas was the entire political
world. The freedom of Hellas, the life and soul of this history from
its commencement, disappeared completely during the first years of
Alexander’s reign. After following to their tombs the generation of
Greeks contemporary with him, men like Demosthenes and Phokion, born
in a state of freedom—I have pursued the history into that gulf of
Grecian nullity which marks the succeeding century; exhibiting sad
evidence of the degrading servility, and suppliant king-worship,
into which the countrymen of Aristeides and Perikles had been driven,
by their own conscious weakness under overwhelming pressure from
without.
[914] Polybius, i. 3, 4; ii. 37.
I cannot better complete that picture than by showing what the
leading democratical citizen became, under the altered atmosphere
which now bedimmed his city. Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes,
has been mentioned as one of the few distinguished Athenians in
this last generation. He was more than once chosen to the highest
public offices;[915] he was conspicuous for his free speech, both
as an orator and as an historian, in the face of powerful enemies;
he remained throughout a long life faithfully attached to the
democratical constitution, and was banished for a time by its
opponents. In the year 280 B. C., he prevailed on the Athenians
to erect a public monument, with a commemorative inscription, to
his uncle Demosthenes. Seven or eight years afterwards, Demochares
himself died, aged nearly eighty. His son Laches proposed and
obtained a public decree, that a statue should be erected, with an
annexed inscription, to his honor. We read in the decree a recital of
the distinguished public services, whereby Demochares merited this
compliment from his countrymen. All that the proposer of the decree,
his son and fellow-citizen, can find to recite, as ennobling the last
half of the father’s public life (since his return from exile), is as
follows:—1. He contracted the public expenses, and introduced a more
frugal management. 2. He undertook an embassy to King Lysimachus,
from whom he obtained two presents for the people, one of thirty
talents, the other of one hundred talents. 3. He proposed the vote
for sending envoys to King Ptolemy in Egypt, from whom fifty talents
were obtained for the people. 4. He went as envoy to Antipater,
received from him twenty talents, and delivered them to the people at
the Eleusinian festival.[916]
[915] Polybius, xii. 13.
[916] See the decree in Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt. p. 850. The
Antipater here mentioned is the son of Kassander, not the father.
There is no necessity for admitting the conjecture of Mr. Clinton
(Fast. Hell. App. p. 380) that the name ought to be _Antigonus_,
and not _Antipater_; although it may perhaps be true that
Demochares was on favorable terms with Antigonus Gonatas (Diog.
Laert. vii, 14).
Compare Carl Müller ad Democharis Fragm. apud Fragm. Hist. Græc.
vol. ii. p. 446, ed. Didot.
When such begging missions are the deeds, for which Athens both
employed and recompensed her most eminent citizens, an historian
accustomed to the Grecian world as described by Herodotus,
Thucydides, and Xenophon, feels that the life has departed from his
subject, and with sadness and humiliation brings his narrative to a
close.