Desde la doctrina nacional y extranjera.

Katéatrj.”.

{AtL P ol 22.3-4).l23

On the contrary, a rhetor is able to lead the people but he can never acquire excessive power because he lacks military skills. In other words persuasive skills come second to generalship; skill in speeches comes second to the prestige of generalship in terms of influence on the people:

“èjui Ôè tcov otpxalcov, ô te y év o ito 6 a û tô ç ôrmaycoyôç Kal atp attjy ô ç elç tu p a v v iô a petèpaXov a itio v Ôè tou tô te yiyveaG ai vûv Ôè pfj, & t t ô t e |ièv o l ôripaycoyol fjaav èK tcov atpatTjyouvtcov (où yàp 71C0 ô eiv o l fjaav Xèyetv), vùv Ôè tfjç prjtopiKfjç r|ù^Ti|iévr|ç ol Ôuvàjievoi Xéyeiv ÔTipaycoyoùai pév, Ôi’ ocTueiplav Ôè tcov TtoXepiKcov, oÙK èTiitlGevtai, nXi]v e l tcou Ppa%ù t i yéyovev to io ù to v .” {Pol 1305a 4-5).124

Lachares falls precisely in the category of someone being simultaneously a demagogue and a military man who reached supreme power. He is labelled a tyrant by both Pausanias (1.25.7) and Plutarch

123 “xhe people feeling confident, they put in force for the first time the law on ostracism which was enacted due to the suspicion raised against those in power; because Peisistratos, being at the same time a general and a demagogue, then became a tyrant”.

134 "In the ancient times, whenever the same man was a demagogue and a general he would then become a tyrant And the cause of this happening then but not now is that then the demagogues were generals (because they had not developed rhetoric). On the contrary, now that rhetoric has developed com petent orators can become demagogues (= leaders o f the people) but due to their lack o f experience in military matters they cannot acquire predominance, with the exception o f a few instances”.

{Demetr. 33-34). However, the problem of his disposition cannot accept a final solution and we should allow for retrospective application of the politically controversial characterisation ‘tyrant’.

Chronology has been a most intriguing problem. Apart from the testimonies of Plutarch and Pausanias, there is also the most valuable evidence provided by the Papyrus Oxyrynchus XVII 2082 which describes the events preceding the regime of Lachares as well as events during his regime but it provides us with only a single chronological indication (Kassandros’ death). Views as to the chronology of Lachares’ period range from 300 to 295.1^5 Apparently there was a constitutional change in 296/5 when a miniature prytany year was introduced on Elaphebolion (roughly March) 12th. An archon year started in that month and it was divided into twelve prytanies which lasted only a few days; the archon, Nikias, retained his position but was designated as H y s t e r o s . 1 2 6 Scholars in favour of a late date for the regime of Lachares attribute the miniature prytany year to its establishment whereas those in favour of an early date attribute it to its fall. Furthermore, there is the problem concerning the length of time that it took Demetrios Poliorketes to ‘liberate’ Athens from Lachares and re-establish his authority. If we accept that the tyranny began in 295 and ended in 294, we have to squeeze the events described in the papyrus plus the intervention of Demetrios Poliorketes in a single year: the stasis of the generals, the short lived regime of Charias, the starvation of the demos, Charias’ overthrow by Lachares, the siege of the Peiraieus by the latter and finally the siege laid by Demetrios. Also we have to ignore the dearth of decrees

a. G. De Sanctis (“Atene”, pp.134-53 & 252-73); T. L. Shear (“Kallias”, pp.53, 56, 65 ) and C. Habicht {Untersuchungen, pp. 2-8) date the tyranny in Elaphebolion 295 and its fall in 294; Lately, however, Habicht {Athen, pp.140-1, n.2) appears to have changed his mind and to be in favour o f Ferguson’s and Osborne’s view o f an earlier chronology.

b. W. S. Ferguson. (“Lachares and Demetrius Poliorcetes”, CP 24, 1929, 1-31) dates its establishment in 300; A. Hunt (ad Pap. Oxyr XVII, 2082). Meritt {Hesp. 11, 1942, p.279) and M. J. Osborne, {Naturalization II, pp.146-152) date it before the death of Kassandros in 297 and its fall in Elaphebolion 295.

IG II 644, 645 and Hesp. 11, 1942, 281, no.54. P. Gauthier (“La réunification”, pp.379-92) advances the view that Nikias Hysteros is the Nikias o f 282/1 and connects the designation Hysteros with re-acquisition of the Peiraieus in 282/1; for a convincing refutation o f his views see Osborne, “Nikias Hysteros”, pp.278-81, especially with regard to the chronology of Phaidros’ double tenure o f the generalship epi ten paraskeuen in the archonship o f Nikias.

in the archon-years 298/7, 297/6, and in the first half of 296/5. The suggestion of De Sanctis that Lachares himself re-established democracy in the second half of 296/5 in order to placate the people at the Peiraieus and create a united front against Demetrios seems quite i m p r o b a b l e . ^ ^ ?

As M. J. Osborne has remarked, Lachares had neither reason nor time to celebrate his accession to power by introducing a miniature year.128

The precise context and the causes of the internal upheaval have to remain obscure. Pausanias mentions that the tyranny was brought about at the instigation of Kassandros and in Pap. Oxyr., XVII 2082 (frg. 3, 1.15) the establishment of Lachares’ regime precedes the death of the ruler of Macedonia. Yet, unfortunately there is no evidence of Kassandros’ actual help. Therefore, we cannot establish to what extent Kassandros was really interested in establishing Lachares as a tyrant. It is legitimate to suggest, however, that Lachares could have met Kassandros in the course of one of those embassies referred to in IG lŸ 641, but other than that there is no explicit evidence for any contact between the two.

The usurpation of power by Lachares is described as a direct result of his conflict with Charias, the hoplite general and the other generals who seized the Akropolis /frg. 1, 11.3-8). We are in the dark as to the cause of the stasis. Accepting the statement of Pausanias as to the involvement of Kassandros and taking into account the fact that an embassy was dispatched to the ruler of Macedonia in 299 (IG 641), it is possible to see the cause of the stasis in a reaction of a faction of the generals (under the leadership of Charias) against a rapprochement with Kassandros. The involvement of Kassandros should be seen in this perspective of his interest to keep Athens by his side and prevent a renewal of the bonds with Demetrios.

In the Lachares episode we watch the generals trying to acquire ultimate power and thus creating a tremendous upheaval. It is the culmination of a process of increasing intrusion of military men in the

127 “Atene”, p.255.

administration of political life in Athens.129 it is imperative to underline that there were more than one general involved in the Lachares episode, who were later on executed, having taken sides with Charias.

It is worth pointing to the actual role of Charias. It is he who took the initiative and seized the Akropolis. Could he have become a tyrant, instead of Lachares, had he succeeded? G. De Sanctis was the first to notice that Charias’ conduct was worthy of criticism and wondered whether the taking up of arms against Charias was a defence of democracy. Thus he pointed to another dimension of Lachares’ character, that of a defender of the constitution.1^0 Though it is still possible to argue that Charias seized the Akropolis in order to prevent Lachares from doing it, it is noteworthy that at first people did not resist Lachares’ establishing himself in power. Instead they condemned Charias to death (frg. 2, 11.11-12). One reason could be that he proved unable to provide food for them (frg. 1, 11.8-9). There arises the question concerning the extent to which Lachares was regarded as a tyrant by his fellow Athenians. Immediately connected with this problem is the identification of the Peiraikoi stratiotai (frg. 2 11.3-4, 15). Were they on the side of Lachares at first or did they fight against him from the start? At any rate, it emerges from the papyrus that a faction of the people did leave the astu and withdrew to the Peiraieus, thus causing a split between the

astu and the harbour. There might be a clue as to who actually followed Lachares in frg. 1, 1.15 where the hippeis are mentioned. It is significant that those who remained in the astu resisted stoutly the siege of Poliorketes to the point of starvation (Plut, Demetr. 33). Is it that even a tyrant’s regime was to be preferred to a new intervention by a foreign ruler? In the past the Athenians had thrown their doors open to Demetrios Poliorketes to liberate them from Demetrios of Phaleron and.

^29 It is in the same period (after 301) that we find military officials in charge of Athenian finance: IG 11^ 641 and B. D. Meritt, Hesp 11, 278-9 no. 53. They are also attested in IG iP 646, 649 but not as paymasters; M. J. Osborne, Naturalization II, p.l38 and n.597. In three inscriptions o f the period we find the exetastes (inspector) and the trittyarchoi (leaders o f one third o f the tribe) being in charge of the disbursement of funds for the setting up o f the inscriptions.

indirectly, from Kassandros. Lachares’ regime caused a division of mind and attitude in the Athenian people to become apparent: there were those who would rather prefer any kind of genuinely Athenian regime, but there were also those who would rather be ruled by a foreign king than by an Athenian whose political conduct they strongly disapproved.

* * *