Αμοιβές στους ξένους που πολέμησαν για την αποκατάσταση της δημοκρατίας στην Αθήνα το 403 π.Χ. (Journal article)

Καραμούτσου- Τέζα, Σοφία

It is not my purpose to re-examine in great detail the decree granting rewards to the foreigners who fought for the restoration of the Athenian democracy in 403 B.C. I would like only to argue that there are indications that lead to the probable conclusion that IG IF 10+ must be the first decree of Thrasybulus, έν ώ μετεόίδου τής πολιτείας πάσι τοίς εκ Πειραιέως συγ- κατελθοϋσι, ών ένιοι φανερώς ήσαν δούλοι (Ath. Pol. 40, 2), which was successfully attacked in a γραφή παρανόμων by Archinus in all probability as άπροβούλεντον. These indications are, in my opinion, the following: the tribal assignation of all the recipients, which shows that all were given Athenian citizenship; the impossibility of re-introducing later the same or modified proposal, if we take into consideration that in the archonship of Eucleides (403/2) Aristophon of Azenia re-affirmed Pericles’ citizenship law; the formula έψηφίσθαι Άθηναίοις, which is unparalleled and shows a revolutionary situation, that is shortly after the return from the Peiraeus, and probably the phrase εναι αύτοϊς καί έκγόν[οις πολιτεί]\[αν, which does not occur in the Athenian decrees; the non-assignment to demes-essential procedure in the naturalization-process— which indicates the haste on the part of the state; the fact that Lysias —who was included in the recipients— enjoyed citizenship for a brief period according to [Plut.] X. Or. 836a, which shows that Thrasybulus’ supporters were also given citizenship for a brief period, and, therefore, that the decree was inscribed on the stone; and, lastly, that Lysias is said that after the cancellation of Thrasybulus’ decree rov λοιπόν φκησε χρόνον ισοτελής ών ([Plut.] X. Or. 836a), namely that he was never given Athenian citizenship, although «everything that we know of Lysias’ part in the kathodos ... ought to have put him in the category of those whom lines 4-5 of the decree say συνκατήλθον άπό Φυλής ή τοΐς κατελ[θοΰσι συν-ελάβ\\[οντο ές την κάθοδον την ές Περαιά (Wilhelm/Osbome), i.e. those whom all except Krentz agree were enfranchized» (D. Whitehead). As regards the restoration in the beginning of 1. 3, since I accept that the decree is άπροβούλεντον, I would suggest: [ Έδοξεν Άθηναίοις' Πνθόδωρος ήρχε' Λεωντίς (or Αίαντίς) έπρυτάν]ενε or [Έδοξεν τωι δήμωΐ’ Πνθόδωρος ίρχε* Κεκροπίς (or Έρεχθηΐζ or Άντιοχίς) έπρντάν]ενε.
Institution and School/Department of submitter: Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας
Keywords: -
URI: https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/6149
http://dx.doi.org/10.26268/heal.uoi.9261
Publisher: Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας
Appears in Collections:Τόμος 19 (1990)



 Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/6149
  This item is a favorite for 0 people.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.