TEXT 4
ΣΤΟΙΧ. 17
vac. Φιλλίπω. vac. | αἱ μὲν κατὰ τῶν φυγά|δων κρίσεις αἱ κριθε[ί]|σαι
25 ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου || κύριαι ἔστωσαν. καὶ | [ὧ]ν κατέγνω φυγὴν
φε[υ|γ]έτωσαμ μέν, ἀγώγιμο[ι] | δὲ μὴ ἔστωσαν. vac.
Of Philip. The trials of the exiles tried by Alexander shall be valid; and those whom he condemned to death shall be exiled but shall not be liable to seizure.
TEXT 5
ΣΤΟΙΧ. 17
30 πρότανις Μελίδωρος. || βασιλεὺς Ἀντίγονος | Ἐρεσίων τῆι βουλῆι|
35 καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. | παρεγένοντο πρὸς ἡ|μᾶς οἱ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν πρέ[σ]||β̣εις
καὶ διελέγοντ[ο], | φάμενοι τὸν δῆμον | κομισάμενον τὴν παρ᾿ [ἡ]|μῶν
40 ἐπιστολὴν ἣν ἐγρ[ά|ψ]αμεν ὑπὲρ τῶν Ἀγωνίπ||[π]ου υἱῶν ψήφισμά
τε π[οι|ήσ]ασθαι, ὃ ἀνέγνωσα[ν | ἡμῖ]ν, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἀπε|[σταλκέναι] . .
λσ[ --c.5 --]|-------------
TEXT 5, CONCLUDED
ΣΤΟΙΧ. 36
1 [ …. δη]μο . ηκ[-----------15-----------ἐ]πὶ τῆ[ι …. ]
[-----------------23-----------------]ν̣ Ἀ̣λεξάν[δρωι ἐν]-
τυγ[χ]άν[ετε-----------16----------] ἔρρωσ[θε]. vac.
Prytanis Melidoros. King Antigonos to the council and dēmos of Eresos, greetings. The envoys from you came before us and made speeches, saying that the dēmos had received from us the letter which we wrote about the sons of Agonippos and had passed a decree, which they read to us, and had sent them … dēmos … you encounter Alexander (?) … Farwell.
These texts document three failed attempts by descendants of tyrants to return to Eresos in the years after the trial of Agonippos and Eurysilaos. The first attempt (recorded in text 3) likely came in the wake of Alexander’s famous “exile decree” of 324 (Diod. Sic. 18.8.2–5). Upon hearing of the decree, descendants—grandsons—of the “former tyrants” apparently traveled to meet with the king in order to ascertain whether or not they could end their period of exile. The Eresian dēmos, in response, sent envoys to Alexander to explain why the descendants should not be allowed to return. Presumably to counter the Eresians’ response, the exiles expressed their willingness to stand trial in order to determine whether or not they would be allowed return home.24 Alexander thus sent a transcript ordering the Eresians to conduct a trial on the matter. The exiles, as revealed in text 6 of the dossier, lost their case.
The second failed attempt (recorded in text 4) likely came in the wake of King Philip Arrhidaios’s exile proclamation of 319 (Diod. Sic. 18.56.1–8). Announced in the tough, chaotic times of the early period of Alexander’s successors (the diadochoi), this text too ordered exiles—except those exiled for blood guilt or impiety, and certain named individuals—to return to their native poleis. Apparently, although not explicitly stated in the dossier, the same descendants who tried and failed to return to Eresos five years earlier requested permission from Philip to return.25 In response, the Eresians most likely sent envoys once again to officially contest the exiles’ request. And Philip acquiesced to the dēmos, issuing a transcript that slightly altered Alexander’s decision of 324: the descendants of the former tyrants were to remain in exile, but they would no longer be susceptible to arrest.
The particular context for the third attempt (recorded in text 5) is not known. The letter, however, must have been written between 306 (when Antigonos assumed the title of king) and 301 (when Antigonos died). Antigonos is not known to have issued an exile decree, but it is certainly possible that he did so. It is also possible that the descendants of Agonippos thought that the new king might acquiesce to an individual request not pursuant to a royal proclamation. In any case, it appears that King Antigonos wrote a letter to the Eresians in their support.26 In response, the dēmos of Eresos passed a decree that their ambassadors read to the king. The content of that decree is not known, but it almost certainly both praised the king and requested that the descendants of Agonippos not be allowed to return to Eresos. King Antigonos granted their request.
THE PROBLEM
It is quite clear that the Eresians were concerned with the prospect of the exiles’ return home. The basis of that concern, however, is not clear. What were the Eresian democrats so worried about?
To understand the basis of their concern, it first is important to realize that pro-democrats likely would interpret the exiles’ return as an indication that the exiles had strong political support from the king. The key point here, of course, is that the king would have personally granted the permission—the exiles went directly to him. Pro-democrats thus would naturally have wondered why the king overruled their earlier decisions. And it would have been reasonable to conclude, even if incorrectly, that the exiles and the king cut some sort of deal whereby Eresos would be governed by a “pro-monarch,” nondemocratic regime—a regime in which the exiles would play an important role. First, why would the king grant the exiles’ (descendants of tyrants, it must be remembered) request in the first place? Second, some kings (e.g., Lysimachos) were known to support oligarchy.27 And finally, the exiles likely had supporters in the city: they likely would not have wanted to return if they had no supporters; seven people had the courage to vote for the acquittal of Agonippos and Eurysilaos (that might suggest deeper support for a nondemocratic regime); in text 2 (lines 20–22), concern is expressed that someone might propose the recall of the tyrants’ descendants; in text 6 (lines 35–39), concern is expressed that the descendants of former tyrants might somehow return to Eresos.
If there was even the perception that the king supported the exiles, the democrats’ threat credibility would have been diminished and the recently established democratic equilibrium potentially jeopardized. The democrats’ threat required individuals to believe that, should they risk their lives to defend the democracy, a sufficient number of additional individuals would follow them. If the exiles returned, however, people would reasonably conclude that others would not follow them, should they defend the democracy in response to a coup attempt: it would be foolish to (potentially) confront the king. And it is important to note that, even if it an individual doubted that the king actually would support an anti-democratic coup, he might think that other Eresians believed that he would. Thus individual pro-democrats would raise their personal revolutionary thresholds; a greater number people would now have to defend the democracy before they do. And if that dynamic were perceived, the democrats’ threat would not be deemed credible and the anti-democrats would be more likely to defect and reestablish a nondemocratic regime.
THE SOLUTION
The democrats had to respond to these challenges vigorously. They had to ensure the exiles’ attempt to return would not result in individual democrats raising their revolutionary thresholds and thus diminishing the credibility of their collective threat.
In each of the instances, the democrats’ response consisted of two complementary parts. First, they generated common knowledge of continued widespread credible commitment to defend the democracy (i.e., to enforce their anti-tyranny law). They achieved that end by means of both a thorough discussion of the matter in the citizen assembly—gathered as a law court in the first instance—and a concluding vote. Like in the original trial of Agonippos and Eurysilaos, the pre-vote discussion ensured that every citizen was fully aware of what was happening and understood its significance for the survival of the democracy. Thus each meeting was, essentially, a referendum on whether or not the Eresians wanted to keep (and were thus willing to defend) the democracy—to uphold their anti-tyranny law. And each time, of course, the
answer was “yes.”
Second, the Eresians made common knowledge the fact that the particular king in question (first Alexander, then Philip, then Antigonos) decided not to support the exiles’ request. The Eresians accomplished that objective by engraving each king’s decision on a stele; and they no doubt announced that decision in a meeting of the assembly. All citizens thus could read what the king decided. But inscribing the king’s decision performed another important function: it increased the likelihood that the king would not renege on his promise; were he to contemplate a change in policy, the Eresians could show him his earlier decision. It was literally written in stone.28
In hindsight, the exiles’ repeated attempts to return likely strengthened the Eresian democracy. Simply put, those attempts provided opportunities for each citizen to publically reaffirm his commitment to defend the democracy and to learn of his fellow citizens’ continued commitment. Individuals would thus be more likely to trust that their fellow citizens would, in fact, follow them should they defend their democracy against a coup d’état. Individuals, that is, lowered their personal revolutionary thresholds even lower than they were immediately after the initial tyranny trials. As a consequence, the pro-democrats’ threat was that much more credible and anti-tyranny ideology sunk that much deeper into the Eresians’ collective consciousness.
The New Game’s Basis Definitively Secured
This section interprets the action recorded in the sixth text of the dossier. The text and translation are those of Rhodes and Osborne.29
TEXT 6
ΣΤΟΙΧ. 36
[ἔ]γν[ω δᾶμος. περὶ ὦν ἀ βό]λ[λα] προεβόλλε[υσε ἢ ἔδο]-
5 [ξ]ε̣ ἢ̣ [μ]ετέδ[οξε τᾶ βόλλα, καὶ οἰ] ἄ̣νδ̣[ρ]ες οἰ χ[ειροτο]-
[ν]ή[θεν]τε[ς πάν]τα [τὰ γράφεντα] κατὰ τῶν τυρ[άν]-
ν̣ων [κα]ὶ τ[ῶν ἐ]μ πό[λει οἰκη]θέντων καὶ τῶν ἐκγ[ό]-
[νω]ν [τῶν τούτων παρέχ]ονται καὶ ταὶς γράφαι[ς]
[ε]ἰσ[κομίζοισ]ι ε̣ἰς τὰν ἐκλησίαν· ἐπειδὴ καὶ π[ρό]-
10 [τε]ρον ὀ βασίλευς Ἀλέξανδρος διαγράφαν ἀποσ-
[τέ]λλαις π[ροσέτ]αξε [Ἐρ]εσίοις κρῖναι ὐπέρ τ[ε]
[Ἀγ]ω̣νίππω καὶ Εὐ[ρυσ]ιλ[ά]ω, τί δεῖ πά[θ]ην αὔτοις· [ὀ]
[δὲ δᾶμος ἀκο]υ[σ]αις τὰ[ν] διαγράφαν δικαστήριο[ν]
[καθί]〈σ〉σα[ι]ς κ[ατὰ] τοὶς νόμοις ὀ ἔκριν[ν]ε Ἀγώνι[π]-
15 [π]ομ μὲν καὶ Εὐρυσιλ[αο]ν τε[θ]νάκην, τοὶς δὲ ἀπο[γό]-
[νοις] αὔτων ἐνόχοις [ἔμμε]ναι τῶ νόμω τῶ ἐν τᾶ
[στ]άλλα, τὰ [δ]ὲ ὐπάρχον[τα π]έπρασθαι αὔτων κατὰ
[τ]ὸν νόμον· ἐπιστέλλ[αντος] δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρω καὶ ὐ-
πὲρ τῶν Ἀπολλ[οδ]ωρε[ίων] 〈κ〉αὶ τῶν κασιγνήτων [αὔ]-
20 [τ]ω Ἔρμωνος καὶ Ἠραίω τῶν πρότερον τυραννη-
σάντων τᾶς πόλιος καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων αὔτων, γ[νω]-
ναι τὸν δᾶμον πότερο[ν δόκ]ει καταπορεύεσθ[αι]
αὔτοις ἢ μή· [ὀ] δὲ δᾶμος ἀκούσαις τᾶς διαγράφα[ς]
δικαστήριόν τε αὔτοισι συνάγαγε κατὰ τὸν [νό]-
25 [μο]ν καὶ τὰν διαγράφαν τῶ βασιλέω̣ς Ἀλεξάνδρ[ω],
[ὂ ἔ]γνω λό[γ]ων ῥηθέντων παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τόν τε ν[ό]-
[μο]ν τὸν κατὰ τῶν τυράννων κύριον ἔμμεναι κα̣[ὶ]
[φ]εύγην αὔτοις κὰτ [τὰ]μ π[όλιν]. δέδοχθαι τῶ δάμ[ω]·
[κ]ύριομ μὲν ἔμμεναι κατὰ [τῶν] τυράννων καὶ τῶ[ν]
30 [ἐ]μ πόλι οἰκηθέντων καὶ τῶν ἀπογόνων τῶν το[ύ]-
[τ]ων τόν τε νόμον τὸμ περὶ [τ]ῶν τυράννων γεγρά[μ]-
[μ]ενον ἐν τᾶ στάλλα τᾶ̣ [παλαί]α καὶ ταὶς διαγρά-
[φ]αις τῶν βασιλέων ταὶς κατὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ ψα-
[φ]ίσματα τὰ πρότερον γράφεντα ὐπὸ τῶν προγό̣-
35 [ν]ων καὶ ταὶς ψαφοφο[ρ]ίαις ταὶς κατὰ τῶν τυράννων. [αἰ]
[δ]έ κέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ἀλίσκηται τῶν τυράννω[ν ἢ]
τῶν ἐμ πόλι οἰκηθέντων ἢ τῶν ἀπογόνων τῶν [τού]-
τ̣ων τις ἐπιβαίνων ἐπὶ τὰν γᾶν τὰν Ἐρεσίων [ … ]
[.]ω τὸν δᾶ̣μ̣ο̣ν̣ βουλεύσασθαι καὶ πρ̣[---
--- c.9------ ]
40 [. .]α̣λλ[--- 5--- ]τα̣[--------------c. 24--------------]
----------------
The damos decided. Concerning the matters about which the council made a preliminary consultation [probouleuma], or the council made a resolution or a revised resolution, and the men who have been elected produce all that has been written against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants, and convey the documents to the assembly: Since previously also King Alexander sent back a transcript and ordered the Eresians to hold a trial concerning Agonippos and Eurysilaos, as to what should be done to them; and the damos heard to transcript and set up a law-court in accordance with the laws, which sentenced Agonippos and Eurysilaos to death, and that their descendants should be liable to the law on the stele, and their belongings should be sold in accordance with the law; And when Alexander sent a letter also about the family of Apollodoros and his brothers Hermon and Heraios, who were previously tyrants over the city, and their descendants, that the damos should decide whether it resolved that they should journey back or not; and the damos heard the transcript and convened a law-court for them in accordance with the law and the transcript of Alexander, which decided after speeches had been made on both sides that the law against the tyrants should be valid and that they should be exiled from the city; Be it resolved by the damos: That there shall be valid against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants, the law against the tyrants that is written on the old stele and the transcripts of the kings against them and the decrees previously written by our ancestors and the votes against the tyrants. If contrary to this any of the tyrants, either those who lived in the city or their descendants, is caught setting foot on the land of Eresos --- the damos shall deliberate and ---
Text 6 records a decree of the Eresian dēmos validating “all that has been written against the tyrants, both those who lived in the city and their descendants.” Four documents are mentioned. The first document is “the law against the tyrants that is written on the old stele.” As noted at the beginning of this chapter, we do not know for certain the date of that law’s promulgation; and we know very little about its provisions. The second group of documents listed in the decree is “the transcripts (diagraphai) of the kings” against the tyrants. The only explicitly mentioned transcripts in the dossier are from Alexander: one ordering the Eresians to try Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2), the other ordering the Eresians to try the descendants of the “former tyrants” in order to determine whether or not they will be allowed return to Eresos (text 3). But Philip Arrhidaios’s judgment (text 4) is almost certainly a transcript, and Antigonos’s letter (text 5) might have contained one too. The third group of writings mentioned consists of previous decrees promu
lgated against the tyrants. Texts 3 and 6 are clearly decrees: they contain the generic motion formula “the dēmos decided.” And texts 1 and 2 are likely parts of decrees too: they publicly declared how the dēmos will try the two tyrants. And there were likely additional decrees that are no longer extant: formal decrees of banishment and property confiscation, for example.30 The fourth group of documents listed in text 6 consists of “the votes against the tyrants.” That obviously refers to the jury votes in the trial against Agonippos and Eurysilaos (texts 1 and 2) and the trial of the descendants of the “former tyrants” (text 3).
The most salient context for this decree (text 6) is the widespread conclusion that, in the future, kings would not interfere in Eresos’s interior game. The fact that three different kings in one generation decided not to interfere supports that conclusion, of course. But the Eresians had more to rely on than simply the particular decisions of individual kings: the logic of the modern legal concept of stare decisis seems to have taken root. The only legitimate action for a king vis-à-vis involvement in Eresos’s interior game concerning tyrants and their descendants, that is, was to follow Alexander’s precedent—namely, to let the Eresians decide the matter for themselves. In support of that conclusion, one might note, first, that both Philip’s transcript (text 4) and Antigonos’s letter (text 5) refer to Alexander. The exact context of the Antigonos’s reference is unknown. But he quite likely was explaining the rationale of his own decision: he will follow the precedent established by Alexander.31 Second, the decree recorded in text 6 cites Alexander’s rulings as the source of authority of both the Eresians’ decisions and the decisions of the subsequent two kings:
Death to Tyrants! Page 21
