Lysias 12 and Lysias 31: Metics and Athenian citizenship in the aftermath of the thirty Bakewell, Geoff Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1999; 40, 1; ProQuest pg. 5 Lysias 12 and Lysias 31: Metics and Athenian Citizenship in the Aftermath of the Thirty Geoff Bakewell HE SPEECHES LYSIAS 12 Ken·a. 'Epa'tocrSevou<; and Lysias 31 Ka'ta. <l>iA,(J)vo<; date to roughly the same time period, T403--401 B.C.! The former was likely delivered at the ac­ countability proceeding (EuSuva) of Eratosthenes, one of the Thirty who sought to remain in Athens under the terms of the reconciliation agreement of 403.2 The latter formed part of the competency hearing (ooK1Ilacria) for Philon, a man selected by lot to serve on the reconstituted boule. 3 Both speeches fault the defendants for their actions during the tyranny.4 Moreover, they lK. J. Dover, Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley 1968), holds that most Lysian speeches apart from 12 were products of consultation and collaboration between logographer and client. S. Usher, "Lysias and His Clients," GRBS 17 (1976) 31-40, defends the traditional view of independent composition by Ly:sias. M. Weissenberger, Die Dokimasiereden des Lysias (orr. 16, 25, 26, 31) (Beitr.z.klass.Phil. 182 [Frankfurt 1987]) 149-152, accepts Lysias as the author of 31. S. Usher and M. Najock, "A Statistical Study of Authorship in the Corpus Lysiacum," Computers and the Humanities 16 (1982) 85-105, at 104, are less certain, assigning it "a marginal position" in this regard. The rhetorical similarity between speeches 12 and 31 addressed below constitutes another argument for the authenticity of the latter. 2T. Murphy, "The Vilification of Eratosthenes and Theramenes in Lysias 12," AlP 110 (1989) 40-49, at 40, places the speech in the "twenty-day period following 12 Boedromion, 403." 3Weissenberger (supra n.1) 401 argues for a date shortly before 401/0 B.C. "spatestens zur Dokimasie des Friihjahres 401." 4 Under the terms of the reconciliation agreement, Athenians were not to pursue grievances against one another which dated to the rule of the Thirty. On orators' frequent disregard of this principle of Ill, I1VT1<HKUK£'iv (Ath.Pol. 39.6), see P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia 2 (Oxford 1993) 472. Greek, Roman, and ~yzantine Studies 40 (1999) 5-22 ©2000 GRBS 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 LYSIAS 12 AND LYSIAS 31 employ a similar rhetorical gambit: they use metics as a point of reference in evaluating the deeds of the accused, who were citizens. In particular, the speeches note that some metics acted better than did some citizens.s One implication of this argument is that from the point of view of the polis, good 1l£'t01KOl are preferable to bad not-1ml. Lysias takes this good metic/bad citizen comparison one step further. In casting Eratosthenes and Philon as individuals devoted to money and inclined to place their own good above that of the polis, he assimilates them to the worst of metic stereotypes. These speeches of Lysias pro­ vide valuable evidence for Athenian attitudes towards citizen­ ship during the restoration of the democracy. In particular, they suggest that at least some Athenian citizens saw shortcomings in distinctions based solely on heredity. The fact that the city subsequently reinstated Perikles' citizenship law of 451/0 should not obscure the importance of Lysias' claim that birth alone is insufficient for citizenship. Indeed, the orator's explicit formulation that people must also want to be citizens, and the apparent willingness of some of his citizen listeners to countenance it, deserves just as much notice as Athens' famed political moderation after the overthrow of the Thirty. 1. Bad citizens and good metics One prominent claim of both Lysias 12 and Lysias 31 is that in the turbulent times of the rule of the Thirty, civic status was an unreliable predictor of men's behavior. He argues that under the circumstances, some metics proved to be better Athenians than did some citizens. In Lysias 12, the orator says that his father Kephalos was persuaded to immigrate to Athens by SLysias' speech Opo<; 'Imto8£pcH\v employs the same gambit (fr.1.135-206 Gernet-Bizos), but is not treated in this article because its date mar be substan­ tially later (e.g., after 394). If T. Loening, "The Autobiograyhica Speeches of Lyslas and the Biographical Tradition," Hermes 109 (198 ) 287-289, is cor­ rect that it dates to 403 or 402, this further strengthens the arguments advanced here. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GEOFF BAKEWELL 7 Perikles, and that his family lived there quietly for many years. They were supporters of the democracy and stayed out of the law courts, neither harming anyone nor being harmed. The ad­ vent of the Thirty changed all that. The oligarchs executed his brother Polemarchos and would have done the same to Lysias had he not escaped. He fled to Megara, and his family's prop­ erty was confiscated. He summarizes this period in his family history thus (12.20): aU' OUtffie; de; fH.taC; oux to. XPtlJ.Lata E~llJ.Laptavov, WCJ1tEP (Xv £tEPOt J.LqaAffiv aOtKllJ.Latffiv opyTjv EXOVtEC;, ou tOUtffiV a~ioue; yE ovtae; til ltOAEt, aAAa ltacrae; (J.LEV) tae; XOPllyiae; XOPTj­ ytlaavtae;, ltOAAaC; 0' d(j(popae; £laEvqKoVtae;, KoaJ.Liouc; 0' "wac; autoue; ltapExovtae; Ka!. to ltpoatattoJ.LEvOV ltowuvtac;, EXOpOV 0' ouOEva KEKtllJ.LEVOUC;, ltOAAOUe; 0' 'AOTjvaiffiv £K trov ltOAEJ.LiffiV AUaaJ.LEVouc;· tOWUtffiV iJ~iffiaav OUX OJ.LOiffiC; J.LEtotKOUVtae; WaltEp auto!' EltOAltEUovtO. But they were wronging us on account of money, in the way that others might who are angry at great injustices. We did not deserve these things with respect to the city, but had fulfilled all our choregic duties, and had paid many special taxes; we were orderly and did what was assigned us, made no enemies, and ransomed many Athenians from our foes. They deemed us worthy of such treatment, and as citizens conducting the govern­ ment behaved far differently than we who were metics.6 Throughout the passage Lysias emphasizes the differences be­ tween his family and the Thirty. He and his relatives acted like the best sort of citizens; their civic virtue shone all the more brightly when viewed against the actions of Eratosthenes and his cohorts. The final phrase sums up these differences in con­ duct: the opposition between ll£t01KOUY'tW; and E7tOAt't£UOY'to is pronounced, and is strengthened by the OUX Ollotm<; ... wcr7t£p construction. The conduct of Lysias and his family, who were 1l£'t01KOt, was unlike, i.e., superior to, that of the Thirty, who were 7tOAt'tat governing Athens. 6The text is that of Hude. All translations are my own. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 LYSIAS 12 AND LYSIAS 31 Lysias 31 adopts the same tactic, attacking Philon by com­ paring his conduct with that of the metics who fought alongside Thrasyboulos. While they risked life and limb to help the demos, Philon took no side in the struggle, fleeing to Oropos. At one point in the trial, the unnamed accuser urges the jurors to punish Philon on the following grounds (31.29): 'til; 0' oln~ av dlCO'tO)<; f7ttn!lTtcr£t£V U!ltV, d 'to\><; !l£'toilCou<; !lEV, on OU lCU'ta 'to 1tPOcr11lCOV euu'tot<; f~OTteTJcruv 'tip OTt!lCP, fn!lTt(w't£ a~iO)<; 'tT\<; 1tOA£o)<;, 't01hov OE, on 1tUpa 'to 1tPOcrT\lCOV euu'tf{> 1tPOU­ OO)lC£ 't~v 1tOAtV, !l~ lCoAacr£'t£, d !lTt y£ UAACP nv! !l£i~ovt, 'tn y£ 1tUpoucrn an!l itt; Who would not rightly blame you, if you honored in a fashion worthy of the city the metics because they assisted the people out of proportion to their obligation, but will not punish this man because he betrayed the city contrary to his obligation, if not with some greater penalty, then at least with the present dishonor? As in the passage from Lysias 12, antitheses drive home the point. The 'tOUC; !l€Wll(OUC; !lEV is balanced by the 'to\)'tov 8E: on the one hand the me tics, on the other this man Phil on (who as a prospective ~oUA€u'tilc; was a citizen). The me tics helped the people, the citizen betrayed the city; the metics acted out of proportion to their obligation, Philon acted contrary to his obli­ gation. Whitehead has categorized remarks of this sort as an a fortiori topos resting on a largely negative stereotype of metics at Athens: "if (mere) metics do or suffer something, then surely citizens ... "7 According to him, such comparisons focus atten­ tion primarily on citizen behavior; Lysias is urging his listeners to raise their expectations for citizens. Yet the comparisons here also have the effect of ennobling metic behavior. In Lysias 12.20, for instance, the lines leading up to the metic/ citizen compari- 7D. Whitehead, The Ideology of the Athenian Metic (Cambridge 1977: here­ after WHITEHEAD) 55. While he specifically includes Lys. 31.29 in this topos, he does not mention Lys. 12.20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GEOFF BAKEWELL 9 son stress that the orator and his family served as choregoi, paid taxes, were orderly,S made no private enemies, ransomed Athen­ ian prisoners. In a phrase, they did what was assigned to them by the city, 'to rtpoa'tu't'to~EVOV rtOlOUV'tUC;.9 Likewise, Lysias 31.29 reminds the audience that metics comprised a substantial portion of Thrasyboulos' support.lO In fighting for the city, these men went beyond the call of duty (ou KU'tU 'to rtpoallKov Euuw'iC;).