Demetrius the Law-Giver: the Moral Programme

CHAPTER TWO

DEMETRIUS THE LAW-GIVER: THE MORAL PROGRAMME

While it was Demetrius’ nomination by Cassander in early 317 that marked the beginning of his term of pre-eminence, it was for his activ- ities as a legislator that he was renowned in later antiquity. Syncellus (Chronological Abstract p. 251 Dind. = Demetr. 20B SOD) labels him the “third lawgiver” (nomothetês) of Athens, while Cicero (De Re Publica 2.1.2 = Demetr. 56 SOD) groups him with those lawgivers who “set up the state with their laws and institutions, as did Minos of the Cretans, Lycurgus of the Spartans, and of the Athenians . . . Th eseus, then Draco, then Solon, then Cleisthenes.” But what kind of laws did Demetrius enact, and what kind of a lawgiver was he? Were the laws he promulgated designed to eff ect some fundamental constitutional change, a replacement of democracy with oligarchy? We have, from Demetrius of Phalerum himself, a suggestion that he did not want his legislation to be perceived in that light: Strabo (9.1.20 = Demetr. 19 SOD), quoting from Demetrius’ own (no doubt self-justifi catory) memoirs, records that Demetrius did not overthrow the democracy, but “bettered” or “strengthened” it. But if Demetrius’ aim was not con- stitutional change outright, what else might have been the thrust of his legislation? Th e answer to these questions is fundamental to any understand- ing of Demetrius’ regime. It may be of great importance, too, for our appreciation of the relationship between Athens and her Macedonian hegemon, Cassander, and may off er us an insight into the level of Macedonian control. Was Demetrius, we might ask, altering Athenian law to suit the demands of his backer, just as earlier the lawgivers appointed in Chios by Alexander the Great (RO 84) were instructed to redraw the law code to facilitate Alexander’s own imposition of democracy on that formerly oligarchic state? Or was Demetrius’ agenda a more narrowly Athenian one: was he, once established in power by Cassander, free to implement domestic changes of his own which had no necessary ramifi cations for Cassander’s interests? Th is chapter seeks to engage with some of these issues, to delineate the extent of Phalerean legislation and to assess its intent. As so oft en, 46 chapter two however, the evidence upon which we must rely is fragmentary and contentious. Th ere is only a single law (on the regulation of burials) that is explicitly stated as having been introduced by Demetrius, and some questions remain about the scope and meaning of this law. Other laws and legislated changes (such as the creation of new magis- tracies) are attested only tangentially, and there is oft en dispute about Demetrius’ authorship of them as well as about their purpose. With limited direct evidence, the date(s) of Demetrius’ enactments is also unclear, although the indications favour an early start. Th e Mamor Parium (B15–16 = Demetrius F20A) lists his legislative activity under the year 317/16; with its simple equating of the date of Demetrius’ installation in power with that of his law-framing, this may be sus- pect, although the same impression is given by a more worthy source, the Axione decree honouring Demetrius (IG ii2 1201 = Demetr. 16B SOD, esp. ll.9–12). Th ere, the record of Demetrius’ legislation follows directly from Demetrius’ reconciliation of the city and harbour, a ref- erence undoubtedly to the part he played in eff ecting the settlement with Cassander in early 317. While the direct testimonia to the laws themselves are frustrat- ingly few, there is an extensive passage in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae (542b–543a = Demetr. 43A SOD) which sheds light on the issues. It is a passage of calumny against Demetrius, and it is drawn from sources contemporary with him.1 Cited is Duris of Samos, who was in Athens (with his brother, Lynceus) probably soon aft er Demetrius’ expulsion from the city and who may even have been there during his rule.2 Quoted too is Antigonus of Carystus (known also as Carystius of Pergamum). Carystius is not himself a contemporary (his fl oruit ought be placed ca. 240), but his information on Demetrius here and elsewhere comes from Demochares, the chief opponent of Demetrius to emerge in 307.3 Duris and Carystius/Demochares level a number

1 Th e application of this material by Aelian, V.H. 9.9 (= Demetr. 43B SOD) to Demetrius Poliorcetes is erroneous. Confusion between the two Demetrii occurs else- where: compare Diog. Laert. 5.76 (= Demetr. 1 SOD), Diogenianus ap. Choeroboscum Anthog. s.v. Loimia (= Demetr. 6 SOD) and Aelian V.H. 12.17. 2 For discussion of possible dates for the arrival of Duris and Lynceus in Athens, see below 307 n. 7. 3 Demochares was, in 306, the author of a speech supporting the regulation of philosophical schools in Athens (the law of Sophocles, on which see 213ff ); that the material against Demetrius of Phalerum probably comes from this speech is argued below, 306–7, where Demochares’ antipathy to Demetrius is further discussed.