Desktop versionMobile version
OpenEdition Books

Studies in Greek epigraphy and history in honor of Stefen V. Tracy

 | 
Gary Reger
, 
Francis X. Ryan
, 
Timothy Francis Winters

1. Athens and Attica

Chapter 11. Inscribed Treaties ca. 350-321: An Epigraphical Perspective on Athenian Foreign Policy

Stephen Lambert

Full text

I am very grateful to Peter Rhodes for reading a draft and for valuable suggestions.

  • 2 For the few which fall outside them see Lambert 2007b.
  • 3 See Lambert 2004, 2005, 125-9, 2006, and 2007a.
  • 4 Lambert 2005, 129-151.

1It is a welcome feature of Tracy’s Athenian Democracy in Transition (Tracy 1995) that he prefaces his meticulous analysis of letter cutters of 340-290 BC with a concise “Historical Overview” in which he embeds the inscriptions of the period into a historical narrative, “Chaironeia to Ipsos and Beyond” and specific studies of “The Lamian War”, “The Inscriptions and the Food Supply” and “The Inscriptions and Demetrios of Phaleron”. Nearly all inscribed Athenian state laws and decrees of this period fall into one of three categories2. By far the most numerous are the honorific decrees, including both decrees honouring foreigners and, a new genre in the 340s and fewer in number, decrees honouring Athenians3. Regulations concerning festivals and other religious matters, several of them laws, are a second category4, inter-state treaties a third. Nearly all the inscriptions referred to by Tracy in his Historical Overview are honorific decrees or religious regulations. Treaties, in contrast, are not much in evidence. He refers to two at the beginning of his Overview: the treaty establishing the League of Corinth, IG, II2, 236 (Tracy 1995, n. 1) and the agreement with Alexander the Great about troop supply, IG, II2, 329 (Tracy 1995, n. 2); and at p. 24 n. 11 he mentions IG, II2, 370, the heading of an alliance between Athens and Aetolia, which may date to the Lamian War period. My purpose in this paper is not so much to fill the gap – it reflects a real hiatus in inscribed Athenian treaties between Chaironeia and the Lamian War – but to emphasise it by contrasting this period of treaty-silence with the busier one that preceded it and to illumine it with a glance at that other, much more numerous, genre of diplomatic decree, the honorific decree for foreigners.

  • 5 For more detail, photographs and some new readings see Lambert forthcoming.

2The following inscribed treaties and other decrees dealing with interstate relations are extant from the period ca. 350-322/15:

Before 338/76

  • 6 One might add to this list IG, II2, 207, probably of 349/8, which awards Athenian citizenship and (...)

31. Mid-fourth cent. IG, II2, 281; Dreher 1995, 150-1 (SEG, 46, 125). Oaths from a treaty, apparently relating to settlement of a dispute by arbitrators (l. 4).

42. Mid-fourth cent. IG, II2, 258+ 617; Schweigert 1937, 327-329 (ph.). Decree about (alliance with?) Chalkis or cities of Chalkidike. Mentions allies, enemies, generals and oaths.

  • 7 In Wilhelm’s restoration of ll. 10-13 the decree establishes an alliance between Akanthos and Dion (...)

53. c. 349/8? IG, II2, 210+ 259; Schweigert 1937, 329-332 (ph.); Wilhelm 1942, 132-133; Pečírka 1966, 266-9 (SEG, 23, 52); Walbank 1989, 119-122 (SEG, 39, 75). Cf. Zahrnt 1971, 108, 146-150, 182-185. Decree about Akanthos and Dion (ll. 4 and 14), cities of eastern Chalkidike (Hansen and Nielsen (eds.) 2004, no. 559 and no. 569), whose envoys are praised ll. 13-15. Mentions allies (l. 3) and Philip (l. 13)7. Decree followed by text in larger letters (names of envoys/oathtakers?). Perhaps dates to Olynthian War.

64. 349/8. IG, II2, 208; Staatsverträge II no. 325. Photograph at ZPE, 140 (2002), 78. Decree based on representations from envoys of the Echinaioi (from Akarnania, cf. Hansen and Nielsen (eds.) 2004, no. 118). The decree was, or related to, a judicial convention (symbola, l. 14).

75. 347/6. IG, II2, 213; Syll.3, 205; Accame 1941, 135; Tod 1948, 168; Staatsverträge II no. 328. Renews alliance between Athens and Mytilene which had apparently lapsed after the Social War. Cf. Brun 1988, 381-3; Dreher 1995, 28, 124, 177.

86. 48 or 343? IG, II2, 125; Syll.3, 191; Knoepfler 1984, 152-161, 1987, 312-319, 1995, 309-64; Dreher 1995, 154-180 (SEG, 46, 123); Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 69. Not a treaty, but a decree discouraging attacks on Eretria and other allied cities.

97. 343/2. IG, II2, 225 + Add. p. 659; Staatsverträge II no. 337. Alliance with Messenians (and others?). One of several Peloponnesian states which made alliances with Athens at this time (Schol. Aeschin. 3, 83).

108. 341?. IG, II2, 230 + Add. p. 659; IG, XII, 9, 162; Staatsverträge II no. 340; Wallace 1947, 145; Knoepfler 1971, 223-244, 1985, 243-259, 1995, 346; P. Gauthier, Bull. ép. 1987, 274; 1996, 168 (SEG, 45, 1210); Dreher 1995, 45-56 (SEG, 46, 119). “Cutter of IG, II2, 334” (ca. 345-ca. 320), Tracy 1995, 84. Alliance with Eretria, followed by list of oath-takers. Perhaps on occasion of ejection of the tyrant Kleitarchos and the establishment of democracy there (Aeschin. III 103).

Between 338/7 and 322/1

119. 338/7. IG, II2, 236; Staatsverträge III no. 403; Heisserer 1980, 8-12; Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 76. Athenian copy of multilateral treaty with Philip II establishing League of Corinth. Tracy 1995, 7 n. 1.

1210. 336? IG, II2, 329; Tod 1948, 183; Staatsverträge III no. 403 II; Heisserer 1980, 3-8, 12-24; Rosen 1982, 354-355; Tronson 1985, 15-19 (SEG, 35, 66); Worthington 2004, 2007. Fragment of Athenian copy of (multilateral?) agreement with Alexander (l. 8) about provision and supply of troops. Tracy 1995, 7 n. 2.

1311. 323/2 (or 307/6?). IG, II2, 370; Mitchel 1964, 13-17 (SEG, 21, 299); Moretti 1967, no. 1; Staatsverträge III no. 413; Worthington 1984, 139-44 (SEG, 34, 69). Heading of an alliance with Aetolians (and others?). Tracy 1995, 24 n. 11.

  • 8 Cf. Lambert 2005, 136.

14From mid-century through to the battle of Chaironeia, therefore, we have eight inscribed treaties or other decrees dealing with interstate relations. Fairly predictably they concern the maintenance and management of the Second Athenian League (Mytilene 5, Eretria and other allies 6, Eretria again 8) and alliance building aimed more or less directly against Philip, in northern Greece (Chalkidike? 2, Akanthos and Dion 3), Euboea (Chalkis? 2, cf. 6 and 8) and the Peloponnese (Messenians, 7). 1 appears to relate to an interstate arbitration, but we know nothing of the context. 4 was or related to a judicial convention with the Echinaioi, one of a striking number of inscriptions documenting Athens’deliberate concern at this period to maintain longstanding good relations with Akarnania8.

  • 9 Tracy 1995, 78 ascribes SEG, 16, 55 to his style, “litt. volg. 345-320”.
  • 10 Athenian? Panhellenic, organised by the Macedonians? (Lambert 2005, 147-148).
  • 11 IG, II2, 333 = Lambert 2005, no. 6; SEG, 32, 86 = Lambert 2005, no. 9. The law fragment, IG, II2, (...)
  • 12 For this and other reasons Tronson’s argument that IG, II2, 329 relates not to Alexander the Great (...)

15The period between Chaironeia and the Lamian War shows a very different picture. At one end we have two treaties with the dominant power–one with Philip, one with Alexander. They differ from the other documents in the above list in important respects. While the others are bilateral treaties, or multilateral treaties in which Athens is the leading party, these are Athenian copies of multilateral agreements in which Macedon is the leading party. The treaty with Philip, IG, II2, 236, includes a fragmentary list of the contracting parties in which Athens (her name is not preserved) apparently rubbed shoulders with the cities whose names we can read: Thessalians, Thasians, Thracians, Ambrakiots, Phokians and Lokrians, Oitaians and Malians etc. Uniquely, the surviving fragment of the inscribing clause of the treaty with Alexander, IG, II2, 329, provided for it to be set up at Pydna (since our copy was found on the Athenian acropolis, the missing portion of the clause presumably provided for copies in allied cities). Very unusually, the back of the treaty with Philip was not roughpicked, like normal stelai, but smooth, as if to take another inscription. There are only seven stelai with smooth backs among the over 250 stones inscribed with Athenian state laws and decrees of this period (see Lambert 2005, 129-132). Most of them are laws rather than decrees. Does this signify that the treaty with Philip was “law-like” in its constitutional status, permanence and importance? Perhaps. But what determines this physical attribute may be another inscription which belongs in a pair with IG, II2, 236, SEG, 16, 55 = Lambert 2005, no. 8. In the first line after the heading, SEG, 16, 55 refers directly to IG, II2, 236 (“the stele about the peace”). It too has a smooth back. Moreover its thickness (0.132 m.) is precisely the same as IG II2 236 and it is inscribed in a very similar style of lettering9 and the same stoichedon grid. SEG, 16, 55 makes new arrangements for a festival10; and (apparently by virtue of their quality as laws) other stelai inscribed with festival and religious regulations of this period also have smooth backs11. The back of the treaty with Alexander, IG, II2, 329, is not preserved, but its lettering is very similar to that on IG, II2, 236 and SEG, 16, 55 and the stoichedon grid has the same dimensions. These three inscriptions belong in a group both thematically and physically12.

  • 13 A possibility raised by Moretti, cf. Paus. I 26, 3, IG, II2, 358 with Tracy 1995, 152.
  • 14 A fragment published by Stroud 1971, 187-189 no. 34 (ph.) (revised Lambert 2007b, no. 11) concerns (...)

16At the other end of this period we have what may be a fragment of the anti-Macedonian alliance system of the Lamian war, IG, II2, 370 (unless it belongs rather to the Aetolian-Athenian detente of 307/613). There is no inscribed Athenian treaty dating between the set of three inscriptions that inaugurate the post-Chaironeia world and the one which may mark Athens’attempt to escape from it14.

  • 15 For a full list of the over 160 extant inscribed decrees of 352/1-322/1 which honoured foreigners (...)

17It would seem reasonable enough to interpret this silence as indicative of Athenian impotence on the international stage and of her lack of scope for manouevre as a subordinate ally of the Macedonians; but a more nuanced picture emerges if we bring into the frame that other diplomatic genre of inscribed decree, the decree honouring foreigners15. Most such decrees honoured individual foreigners, but a few honoured whole cities and, as such, are documents of interstate relations comparable to treaties. They are:

Pre-Chaironeia

181. Elaious?, 345/4, IG, II2, 219; Schweigert 1939, 172-173; Lambert 2007a, no. 65. Elaious (in Chersonese, member of Second Athenian League) had honoured Athens the previous year, IG, II2, 1443, 93-5; cf. no. 3.

192. Pellana, 345/4 and 344/3, IG, II2, 220 = Rizakis 1995, 345-346 no. 615; Lambert 2007a, no. 66.

203. Elaious, 341/0, IG, II2, 228 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 71; Lambert 2007a, no. 70. Elaious was consistently loyal to Athens (Dem. XXIII 158; cf. no. 1; Agora XVI 53).

214. Tenedos, 340/39, IG, II2, 233 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 72 (and IG, II2, 232, of 345-338, cf. Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 361); Lambert 2007a, no. 67 and no. 72.

225. An allied city?, ca. 340 or a little later, IG, II2, 543. Apparently honoured a city which had taken measures against pirates in accordance with a policy sponsored by Moirokles (cf. Dem. LVIII 53, 56). See revised text and discussion, Lambert 2007a, no. 73.

Between Chaironeia and Lamian War (or Lamian War?)

236. People of Kyth[nos], ca. 330-320, IG, II2, 549 + 306, cf. Tracy 1995, 36 n. 2, 98, 99, 103; Lambert 2007a, no. 99. I confirm from autopsy Tracy’s tentative association of the two fragments. A work of Tracy’s “Cutter of IG II2 244”, 340/39-320. The allocation of 50 dr. for the inscribing costs indicates a date after c. 330 (Loomis 1998, 163-164).

Lamian War

247. People of Sikyon, honoured together with Euphron of Sikyon by a decree of 323/2, reinscribed in 318/7. IG, II2, 448, 1-34. See most recently Oliver 2003, 94-110 (ph.). IG, II2, 575 = Lambert 2007a, no. 12 is apparently a fragment from the original version of the decree.

25Note also: 8. People of Tenos, ca. 350-300, IG, II2, 660, decree 1; Lambert 2007a no. 110. The date is uncertain (Reger 1992, 365-383, suggests ca. 306).

  • 16 Cf. SEG, 3, 83; Rizakis 1995, 29-30.

26The pattern is strikingly similar to the treaties: before Chaironeia Athens is busy rewarding and encouraging loyal allies. 1 and 3, for Elaious, support a bulwark against Philip in the Chersonese; 4, the latest document of the Second Athenian League, rewards League member Tenedos for assistance, apparently in resisting Philip’s attack on Perinthos and Byzantium. The city honoured by 5 had apparently participated in League measures against pirates, aimed principally at improving the grain supply. The context of 2, for Pellana, is obscure (anti-Macedonian alliance-building in the Peloponnese?)16. After Alexander’s death, she returns to the same mode, honouring a city which, under the influence of Euphron, was offering support to the rebellion against Macedon. In between there is little or nothing (the context of no. 6 is obscure. It mentions? Kythnian general(s) and might date to the Lamian War period).

27A rather different picture, however, emerges from the honorific decrees for individual foreigners (see Lambert 2006 and 2007a for a full catalogue). Such decrees may properly be regarded as diplomatic levers. After mid-century this becomes explicit in the wording, which, from then on, frequently emphasises the value of philotimia and incorporates ‘hortatory intention’ clauses, encouraging others to emulate the honorands in the expectation that they will be similarly honoured. Overt diplomatic intention is also apparent in the opening clause of a decree like Lambert 2007a no. 105 (late 320s):

28“In order that as many as possible of the friends of the king and of Antipater, having been honored by the Athenian People, may benefit the city of Athens....”

  • 17 Certain or possible instances include: IG, II2, 235 = Lambert 2007a, no. 29, for Apelles of Byzant (...)
  • 18 E. g. IG, II2, 218 = Lambert 2007a, no. 64, for Dioskourides and his brothers, of Abdera (346/5); (...)
  • 19 E. g. IG, II2, 240 = Lambert 2007a, no. 33, for a son of Andromenes (337/6); perhaps IG, II2, 239 (...)
  • 20 Decrees of this type were helpfully listed and discussed by Tracy 1995, 30-35. Some additions and (...)
  • 21 I discuss the ten decrees in this category and their historical context in a paper in Lambert 2008 (...)

29Decrees honouring individual foreigners do not let up in frequency after Chaironeia. The impression of diplomatic activity that emerges from them is not one of decreased intensity, but rather of a shift of emphasis and direction. Macedon is the dominant preoccupation, implicitly or explicitly, and they show Athens relating to it in, broadly, three ways: before (and briefly after) Chaironeia and again after the death of Alexander, the objective is to support and encourage individuals who were influential in their home cities on behalf of Athens and against Macedon17; both before and in the few years after Chaironeia and again during and after the Lamian War she honours opponents of Macedon seeking refuge at Athens18; and between Chaironeia and the Lamian War (and again after it) she can be seen exerting herself to maintain good relations with the newly dominant power and those who were influential there19. After Chaironeia, two new genres of decree emerge: decrees honouring grain traders, a response to Athens’ sudden loss of international power and influence following the defeat and the consequent dissolution of the Second Athenian League, and to increased vulnerability to the acute supply problems of the 30s and 20s20; and, the third most numerous category, decrees for theatrical benefactors and celebrities aimed at maintaining Athens’ status as the the most important centre of theatre in an increasingly competitive international environment21.

  • 22 This may easily be seen from a perusal of the Staatsverträge.
  • 23 There are also suggestions, in the epigraphical record of the post-Chaironeia period, of an aspira (...)

30Apart from a few years after the Peloponnesian War, being a subordinate member of an alliance led by someone else was a new experience for Athens and required fundamental adjustments, not only in the direction of her foreign policy, but in her modes of operation on the international scene. If membership of the League of Corinth did not prohibit alliances, it certainly reduced the scope for making them and when Athens was not fighting any wars and had not got her own league to maintain, there was likewise little occasion to praise whole states. No inscribed Athenian alliance is extant after the Peloponnesian War until Athens’ break from Sparta in the mid-90s; and after the Peace of Antalkidas in 386 she had also been obliged to show restraint. The terms of the alliance with Chios of 384/3 (IG, II2, 34 = Rhodes and Osborne 2003, 20) are notably defensive, explicitly within the framework of the Peace and “on terms of freedom and autonomy”. In fact the battle of Chaironeia represents a long term watershed. In the fifth century and the fourth century to 338 alliances are a fairly common component of the Athenian epigraphical corpus, after Chaironeia a very rare one22. In the immediate post-Chaironeia period, however, what the epigraphical record shows is not so much a complete Athenian withdrawal from international diplomacy, but significant modifications in foreign policy objectives in response to the new circumstances and a marked shift of emphasis from the interstate level of operation to a focus on achieving those objectives through relations with individual foreigners. The overall impression is one of a radical diminution of Athens’ role on the international stage, but not of a decrease in diplomatic energy23.

Notes

2 For the few which fall outside them see Lambert 2007b.

3 See Lambert 2004, 2005, 125-9, 2006, and 2007a.

4 Lambert 2005, 129-151.

5 For more detail, photographs and some new readings see Lambert forthcoming.

6 One might add to this list IG, II2, 207, probably of 349/8, which awards Athenian citizenship and other honours to Orontes, satrap or former satrap of Mysia, and which goes on to deal with other aspects of relations, including a symbola agreement (Gauthier 1972, 82-83, 168-169 no. XIII) and supply of grain for Athenian troops on campaign. See Lambert 2006, no. 2.

7 In Wilhelm’s restoration of ll. 10-13 the decree establishes an alliance between Akanthos and Dion and Athens and provides for Akanthos and Dion to “[destroy] the stele [about the alliance] with Philip”, [καθελεῖν δ’ αὐ]τοὺς την στή[λην τὴν περὶ τῆς συμμαχίας πρ]òς Φίλιππον, cf. IG, II2, 116, 39.

8 Cf. Lambert 2005, 136.

9 Tracy 1995, 78 ascribes SEG, 16, 55 to his style, “litt. volg. 345-320”.

10 Athenian? Panhellenic, organised by the Macedonians? (Lambert 2005, 147-148).

11 IG, II2, 333 = Lambert 2005, no. 6; SEG, 32, 86 = Lambert 2005, no. 9. The law fragment, IG, II2, 412 (on which see Hansen 1981-2, 119-123 and Lambert 2007b, no. 34) is opisthographic.

12 For this and other reasons Tronson’s argument that IG, II2, 329 relates not to Alexander the Great but to Alexander II of Macedon (early 360s) is unconvincing.

13 A possibility raised by Moretti, cf. Paus. I 26, 3, IG, II2, 358 with Tracy 1995, 152.

14 A fragment published by Stroud 1971, 187-189 no. 34 (ph.) (revised Lambert 2007b, no. 11) concerns relations with Tenos. It might belong to the late 320s, but is as likely to date to the last two decades of the century (after 307/6?) Cf. IG, II2, 279, 660 (see below), 466 (similar script). Note also IG, II2, 2378.

15 For a full list of the over 160 extant inscribed decrees of 352/1-322/1 which honoured foreigners and further discussion of individual texts see Lambert 2006, 2007a.

16 Cf. SEG, 3, 83; Rizakis 1995, 29-30.

17 Certain or possible instances include: IG, II2, 235 = Lambert 2007a, no. 29, for Apelles of Byzantium (340/39?); IG, II2, 231 + SEG, 51, 75 = Lambert 2007a, no. 30, for Phokinos, Nikandros and Dexi-(of Megara?, 340/39); IG, II2, 238 = Lambert 2007a, no. 32, for Drakontides and Hegesias of Andros (338/7); IG, II2, 276 = Lambert 2007a, no. 77, for Asklepiodoros son of Poly-(337/6?); IG, II2, 575 = IG, II2, 448 decree 1 = Lambert 2007a, no. 12, for Euphron of Sikyon (323/2); IG, II2, 368 decree 2 = Lambert 2007a, no. 13, for Theophantos (323/2); IG, II2, 365 = Lambert 2007a, no. 107, for Lapyris of Kleonai (323/2).

18 E. g. IG, II2, 218 = Lambert 2007a, no. 64, for Dioskourides and his brothers, of Abdera (346/5); IG, II2, 226 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 70 = Lambert 2007a, no. 4, for Arybbas, former king of Molossia (342?); IG, II2, 237 = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 77 = Lambert 2007a, no. 5, for Akarnanian exiles (338/7); IG, II2, 545 + 2406 = Tracy 1995, 87-88, for Thessalian exiles (321/0?); IG, II2, 448 decree 2, for descendants of Euphron of Sikyon (318/7).

19 E. g. IG, II2, 240 = Lambert 2007a, no. 33, for a son of Andromenes (337/6); perhaps IG, II2, 239 = Lambert 2007a, III no. 55, for Alkimachos (337/6); IG, II2, 402 + SEG XLII 91 = Lambert 2007a, no. 105, for “friend(s) of the king and Antipater” (late 320s).

20 Decrees of this type were helpfully listed and discussed by Tracy 1995, 30-35. Some additions and adjustments to his list and further discussion at Lambert 2006, 2007a (inscriptions marked [G]).

21 I discuss the ten decrees in this category and their historical context in a paper in Lambert 2008 (marked [Theat.] in Lambert 2006, 2007a).

22 This may easily be seen from a perusal of the Staatsverträge.

23 There are also suggestions, in the epigraphical record of the post-Chaironeia period, of an aspiration to return to a world in which Athens is again capable of fighting wars and making alliances, consistent with the attention that was paid at this period to naval works and (re-)creation of the ephebeia (on these see most recently Humphreys 2004, chapter 3). For example, marked attention is paid to the cult of Athena Nike (IG, II2, 403 = Lambert 2005, no. 3; [Plut.], X Orat., 852b, cf. Paus. I, 29, 16; IG, II2, 334 + = Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 81, 20-22 = Lambert 2005, no. 7; Lambert 2007a, 130). I explore this further in Lambert forthcoming.

Author

School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales UK

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Terms of use: http://www.openedition.org/6540