A Note on the Administration of Lycurgus Markianos, Sophocles S Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1969; 10, 4; ProQuest pg. 325 A Note on the Administration of Lycurgus Sophocles S. M arkianos THE EXTANT SOURCES attest clearly that Lycurgus held control of the finances of Athens for three consecutive administrative periods,! each one of which is defined by the word 7rEVTaeT7JP{S in Plutarch, while all together they are called OWOEKa €T7) by Diodorus.2 This period is generally thought to have extended from 338 to 326 B.c.;3 these dates are used in the following discussion, since a variation of a year or two should have no effect on the argument. The literary sources do not explicitly name the office which Lycurgus held in that period, but they use expressions such as [€]~, T~V O£[OLK7JU£V TW]V aVTOU " []" '[] ( • ~~ ) 4 e \ <:'\ ,\ ~ <;' I (x7rauav TaJL tav EXE£POTOV7jU EV sc. ° 07JJLO~; TaX €L~ OE E7rL TTl OWtK7J- GEt TWV XP7JJLd.TWV EVPE 7r(;pOV~ (Hyperid. fr .118) ; Td:~ 7rpou6Sov~ Tfj~ 7r6'\EW~ oWLK~ua~ (Diod. 16.88.1); 7rtaTEVUd.JLEVO~ T~V OW{K7JUtV TWV XP7JJLd.TWV, I \' ",. .... , ~ I , \ I I -raJLtas ••. Taf\aVTWV, ••• aVTO~ E7rO£ELTO T7)v OWLK7JULV, •.. JL7J 7rf\ELW E , ~ <:' ~ \ e ' ,\, <:" I (P PI X t ETWV OWLKELV TOV XELPOTOV7j EVT(X E7rL Ta 07JJLOULa XP7Jp.aTa S.- ut. ora., Lycurg. §3 [841B-C]); Tfj~ KOLvfjS 7rpou6Sov TaJLLa~, ••• S6~a~ OE cX7raVTa Tafha SLKaLw~ OLCfJK7JKEVat (Ps.-Plut. X orat., Rog.Strat. [852BJ). They make clear that, whatever the name of the office, he was in charge of 1 PS.-Plut. X orat., Lycurg. §3 [841B] (Lycurgi Oratio in Leocratem, ed. F. Blass [BT, Leipzig 1899] xxiii), T(xp.las yap €Y£V€TO €7Tt TP€'iS 7T€iJTa€TrJpl8a.s; PS.-Plut. X orat., Rog.Strat. [852B] (ed. Blass, op.cit. xxxii), jI£vop.£vos riis KOtvijS 7TpoaoSov Tap.Las rfi 7ToA£t "7T' Tp£is 7T£VT€TrJPLSas; Diod. 16.88.1, 8dJ8£Ka p.iv ;rt} TaS 7Tpoao8ovs riis 7ToA£ws 8totK?}aas. 2 For the word 7T€VTa.€TTJpls as a Greek idiom which indicates a period of four years. see RE 19 (1937) 537ff S.V. PENTETERIS. 3 G. Busolt / H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde II (MUnchen 1926) 1147. G. Colin. "Note sur l'administration financiere de l'orateur Lycurgue," REA 30 (1928) 189-200, suggested that the first year of Lycurgus' administration was 337/6. Colin's suggestion was based on the doubtful restoration of the word ;TOVS in the corrupt fragment of Hyperid. Contra Dem. 28.17 (ed. C. Jensen), but in his Bude edition (Hyperide. Discours [Paris 1946] 223) he rejects that view. proposes the restoration of the word p.TJvo" and accepts 338 as the first year ofLycurgus' office. J. J. Buchanan. Theorika (Locust Valley [N.Y.] 1962) 75-77, inclines toward 337/6. 'Hyperid. Contra Dem. 28.17-20 (ed. C. Jensen [BT, Leipzig 1917]). See also Lycurgue Contre Uocrate, ed. F. Durrbach (Paris 1932) xxi. 325 326 A NOTE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF LYCURGUS public finances. From a passage in Plutarch we know that, although Lycurgus had control of these finances from 338 to 326, he did not hold office continuously, but that for a certain period "he entered the name of one of his friends" for that office while actually "he himself had the administration" (Ps.-Plut. X orat., Lycurg. §3 [84Ic]). This passage has raised much discussion, and because of it a number of doubtful conjectures concerning the administration of Lycurgus have been offered. In Blass' edition the passage reads: TO fLEV TTPWTOV atp£(J£~s aVT6s. " ~ .J.. 1\ , .1. I I '" A '~I ~" £TT£LTa TWV 'f'LI\WV £TTLypa'f'afL£VOS TLva aUTOS £TTOLHTO TrJV OLOLKTJULV. OLa TO .J..(J , , , A' \' "~ ~ A' (J , 'f' aUaL vOfLov HU€V€YKHV, fL'TJ TTI\€LW € €TWV OLOLK€LV TOV X€LPOTOV'TJ €VTa €TT~ T~ S'TJfL6ULa xp~fLaTa.6 The key word which concerns us here is the infinitive 4>(JauaL. It constitutes, with the preposition SLa and the article T6, an adverbial expression modifying the preceding phrase: ~ .J.. !\ , .1. " '" A ,~, I h TWV 'f'LI\WV €7T'Lypa'f'afL€VOS Ttva aUTOS €TTOL€LTO T'TJV OLOLKTJULV. t as generally been interpreted to mean that Lycurgus "was elected in his own person the first time, but afterwards he entered the name of one of his friends, though he himself administered the office, because a law had previously been introduced forbidding anyone elected treasurer of the public funds to hold the office more than four years."6 The historical consequences of such an interpretation are that during the first administrative period of Lycurgus (338-334) a law had been passed preventing anyone who held the office of the treasurer (TOV X£LPOT0V'TJ(J'vTa €TT~ T~ S'TJfL6uLa xp~fLaTa) from keeping it more than four years CJL~ TTA€LW €' ETWV). About this two questions have been raised: (I) Who proposed the law or, grammatically speaking, what is the subject of 4>(JauaL? (2) Does the phrase fL~ TTA€tw £' €TWV mean "not for two successive penteterids" or "for not more than five years"? With regard to the first question Boeckh accepted that the subject of 4>(JauaL has dropped from the text and may have been Twa or a certain name; he seems to suggest that the mover of the law should have been one of the opponents of Lycurgus.7 Bernardakis remarks that "nomen rogatoris excidisse vid. R[eiske], nisi Lycurgus 5 In his Teubner ed. of the Moralia. V (Leipzig 1893) at 841c, G. Bernardakis has a different punctuation, which H. Fowler follows in the Loeb ed., X (Cambridge [Mass.] 1936) p.396. 6 Fowler's translation, op.cit. (supra n.5) p.397, accepted by B. Meritt in his article "Greek Inscriptions," Hesperia 29 (1960) 4. 7 A. Boeckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener I (Berlin 1886) 201 n.g. SOPHOCLES S. MARKIANOS 327 ipse legis auctor fuerit";8 Blass, on the other hand, suggests that Lycurgus himself might have been the mover of the law but Hid vix probabile est."9 Durrbach thinks that the text "signifierait que Lycurgue etait lui-meme l'auteur de cette loi restrictive,"lo and Malcovati that Lycurgus himself was the mover of the law.ll With regard to the second question raised above, Blass suggested that the phrase JL~ 7TAE{W E' ETWV should be understood as Hnot for two successive penteterids," considering that Lycurgus "suo nomine curam harum rerum gessisse" (330-326 B.C.),12 as seems evident from IG II2 1672, line 11, 0 7Tpo'Aa{3Ev AVKOVpyOV KEAEvuavTos. However the text of Plutarch does not allow such an interpretation. On the contrary it should be understood Hfor not more than five years," which suggests that if such a law had passed Lycurgus could not hold the office for a second penteteris (330-326) in his own name. On that basis Ferguson inferred that Lycurgus "can ... have served from Hekatombaion 28th, 338 B.C., to Hekatombaion 28th, 334 B.C. and have had dummies elected for the two following penteterides ... , while he himself was Chairman of various commissions-on the Nikae, dermatika, public buildings, etc.-after 334 B.C."13 This opinion led Meritt to date the tenure of the office by Xenoc1es of Sphettos, who was also E7T!. Tfi SLOLK~UEL TfjS 7T6AEWS, at sometime between 334 and 326.14 The obscurity of the passage lies in the phrase Sux T6 cfoOd.uaL, which has been interpreted in a causal sense so that the action indicated by the infinitive cfoOd.uaL precedes that of the phrase TWV cfo{AWV E7TLypatfd.JLEv6s TLva aVT6s E7TOLELTO T~V SLO{K'Y'jULV. But the phrase affords a different 8 0p.cit. (supra n.5) app.crit. ad loc., p.17!. 9 op.cit. (supra n.l) app.crit. ad loc., p.xxiii. 10 op.cit. (supra n.4) xxi n.4. n Licurgo, Orazione contro Leocrate eframmenti, ed. E. Malcovati (Roma 1966) 10 n.l. In a review of that edition N. Conomis remarks that the motion of the law by Lycurgus himself "seems unlikely" (Gnomon 40 [1968] 437). See also ed. A. Petrie, Lycurgus, the Speech against Leocrates (Cambridge 1922) xvii n.2. 1210c.cit. (supra n.9): "Id est non per duas pent. continuas." See also Petrie, loc.cit. (supra n.ll), who accepts that view and adds that Lycurgus' "vicarious administration" (334- 330 B.C.) was perhaps held by his son Habron, who was <> En, Tjj &OtK'l/O'££ in 307/6. Such an assumption cannot be attested. 13 W. S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena (Cambridge [Mass.] 1932) 139 n.2. It seems to me that Ferguson assigned to Lycurgus these minor commissions after 334 B.C. because he probably thought that the law forbidding anyone to hold the office for more than four years had previously been passed. 14 0p.cit. (supra n.6) 4. 328 A NOTE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF LYCURGUS interpretation which can better explain the related facts; it can very well have indicated purpose. That the preposition SLCX with accusative may express purpose is attested as early as Thucydides,15 but its use in that meaning becomes more common in later times.16 Although in Plutarch the use of Sux with accusative is frequent in its causal mean­ ing, often the context or an explanatory note makes it express , ..... ~ \ , 1\ tI " \ _ ,\ purpose: KaL TOVTO OLa rYJV 7TOI\LV, 07TWS' LUXVOL TO uWfLa 7TpOS' TaS' UTpaT€taS' (Cat.Mai. 4.4), oLoauKoVTaL yap al uVVTp€c/>6fL€VaL Ked. fLavfJa­ VOVULV, 013 OLa fLLUfJ6v ovSJ. 7Tp6S' S6gav (Mor. 973B), TWVSLa c/>LAouoc/>tav 7TA7JuLa­ ~6VTWV (Dem. 2.2), T6V fLJ.v yap tmaTOv N17Jc/>tuaVTo YVfLV6V Kat O€O€fLlvov '" - - 1\1 I - "',.", '.J..' I '" \ ", Q I 7TapaoovvaL TOLS' lvofLaVTLVoLS', TWV 0 al\l\Wv €~€LUaVTO 7TaVTWV OLa .L LfJ€PLOV (Ti.Gracch. 7.4). In the two last examples the adverbial expressions with SLa and accusative vacillate between cause and purpose, and there is no grammatical factor which points conclusively to one or the other mean­ ing. What makes them more likely to indicate purpose is that in both cases we discern the will of the subjects of the modified verbs (7TA7JULa,6vTwv, ec/>€tuaVTo) to achieve an end, namely the first "to learn philosophy" and the second "to please Tiberius." But this is exactly what differentiates purpose from cause: the existence of a will to achieve an end.17 Therefore, it remains to examine whether the phrase 15 2.89.4, AaK£aaLP.OVLOL •.• au): n7v urp£Ttpav ao~av aKOVTas" 'TTpouaYOVUL Tove; 'TTo,uove; £e; TOV Klvavvov; also 5.53.1, 'TTap£UK£va'oVTo o[ 'Apy£uJL we; atiTot £'i n7v 'E'TTlaavpov £U{3aJ..ofiVT£e; aUI n7v Tofi 8vp.aTO'i £tU'TTpa~Lv. See G. Hadjidakis, M£UaLWVLKa Kat Nta 'E,uT}vLKa I (Athens 1905) 458, and 'AKaa'1]P.£LKa 'Avayvwup.a-ra III (Athens 1915) 464; E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik II (Munchen 1950) 454; H. W. Smyth/G. M. Messing, Greek Grammar (Cambridge [Mass.] 1956) §1685.2c; J. Humbert, Syntaxe grecque (Paris 1945) §436, p.299. Humbert, examining the development of purpose from causality, remarks: Hil est probable que la formule interrogative aLa Tl; 'pourquoi t, par laquelle on demande aussi bien les raisons d'un etat de choses existant que les intentions qui cherchent ala realiser, a beaucoup contribue a ce glissement de sens." 16 See Schwyzer, loc.dt. (supra n.15); Hadjidakis, lac. cit. (supra n.15); A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York 1914) 584; E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit Il.n (Berlin &: Leipzig 1934) 426; R. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago 1961) §222. 17 The phrase TWV aLa rp,).ouorpfav 'TTA'1ULa,6VTWV can be translated 'those who approach for . . .' or 'those who approach because they want to . . .' According to Schwyzer, loc.dt. (supra n.15), auf + ace. indicated at first an "objective Grund," but later the confusion of the mean­ ing of purpose and cause gave ground to the development of the "Zweckgrund." Hadjidakis, 'AKaaT}P.£LKa 'Avayvwup.aTa (supra n.15) Ill.464, explains clearly the transition from cause to purpose: " 'E'TT£La.;, 'TTo,uaKL'i TO avaYKaUTLKOV ar'TLOV 1javvaTo va £KA'1]rp8fj Kat we; T£MKOV, 7}TOL 1} alTfa aL' 7}V TL £'TT£''1]T£'iTO, va TavTl'T}'TaL 'TTpOS TOV UKO'TTOV aL' OV £'TT£''1]T£'iTO, aLa TOVTO 'r1 8L" + alT. 1} a'1]Aoiiaa TO avaYKaUTLKOV atTLov £a~AOV £VlOT£ Kat TOV UKO'TTOV." SOPHOCLES S. IvIARKIANOS 329 Dux 'TO cp8au(u (vof'ov dUEVEYKELV) indicates the will of a subject to achieve an end or not. The construction c/>M.vw+ infinitive is not uncommon in the post­ classical period,ls and Plutarch makes use of it very often without, however, abandoning the use of ¢Ocivw+ participle: Ka, UVVEL80v fEY ot TWV 'PwfLalwv aTpaTTJyoL 'TOV 06'\ov, €7TtaXELV OE TOUS; aTpanW'Tas; OVK ec/>8"1aav (Mar. 26.2), OV yap Ec/>8"1 'Tijs EKK'\TJaLas '\V8ELG'Y]S o Av'\os; Els; olKov bravEA8ELV, Ka1. 7rVPETOS; E~r}v8TJaEV (Mar. 17.11), Kat fLLKpOV ec/>8TJ T~V 7TOALV EPTJfLOV E~ ECPOOOV KaTaAaf3ELv Ka1. KaTaaXELV (Mor. 346c), c/>8aaav'Tos OE 'TOV L'vAAa OLac/>VYELV Els 'TO a'TpaT07TEOOV (Sullo 9.1); on the other hand, c/>8avw+ participle is also employed: 0 DE c/>8avEL fLLKPOV Els lEPOV a'\aos 'EpLVVWV KaTac/>vywv, KCX:KEL oLac/>8ELpETaL (Ti.Gracch. 38.3), c/>8auaL oE TctS 'E7Tt7TOActS KaTaaxwv (Nic. 17.1), Kat 7TapE'ABwv fLEV Els; "Apyos ec/>8TJ Kat Tp07Tr}V nva TWV 7rO,\EfLlwv E7rOL"IaEV (Arat. 44.2). Humbert has pointed out that there is a significant difference between these two types of expressions, which he analyses as follows: ccXen. An. 3, 4. 49 c/>8avovaLv E7Tt T0 aKpCP YEvofLEVOL TOUS 7rOAEfLlovs 'ils previennent l' ennemi en occupant la hauteur' ne se comporte pas autrement au participe puisque, la aussi, il s'agit d'un fait reel. Mais l'injinitif est quelquefois atteste, parce que l'idee de volante, qui existe a l'etat latent dans 'prevenir', prend de 1'importance au detriment de la consideration de la realite: ainsi Ar. Cav. 935 07rWS .•. cp8a{TJS fT' Els EKKATJalav E'ABELV 'pour que tu veuilles encore arriver Ie premier a l'assemblee."19 Thus in the examples cited above, OUK ec/>8TJaav E7TtaXELV, OUK fcp8TJ E7ravE'ABELv, fLLKpOV ecp8TJ KaTaAaf3ELV Kat KaTaaXELV, c/>8aaavTos DtaCPVYELV, the idea of will to achieve an end expressed by the infinitive is considered more important than its reality. In the phrase 8Lct 'TO c/>8auaL vOfLOV ElaEvEYKELV, what the author emphasizes more is the will of Lycurgus (the subject of c/>8aaaL) to achieve an end, not the reality of his action. The phrase is best translated, therefore, 'because he wanted to anticipate' or 'in order to anticipate'.2o In classical Greek, and in later times as well, the subject of an 18 See A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar (London 1897) §2121; Robertson, op.cit. (supra n.16) ll20. ID Humbert, op.cit. (supra n.15) §265 p.190; cf Schwyzer, op.cit. (supra n.15) 395-396. 20 The translation of the word r/>o&.vw as 'anticipate' is quite conventional; it means to 'do something first' in an actual or supposed competition and consequently 'to prevent some­ one from something'. Its meaning corresponds to the modern Greek word 1TP0q,O&.vw; cf. Jannaris, op.cit. (supra n.18) §2121. 330 A NOTE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF LYCURGUS articular or non-articular infinitive is not expressed when it is identical with the subject of the main verb;21 thus the subject of 'TO cpO&'uaL is identical with that of the governing verb €1Tou:i'To. By the same reasoning one would expect that the subject of elueveYKeiv should be the same, but in certain cases, when the subject of the infinitive (here elueveYKeiv) is indefinite, it can be omitted.22 If our phrase is given this meaning in its context, the sentence would then signify that HLycurgus entered the name of one of his friends, though he himself had the administration, in order to anticipate (or because he wanted to anticipate) a law being introduced by some­ one ... " It seems that Lycurgus, foreseeing that it was quite possible for one of his opponents to move a law preventing him from being elected for a second time to the newly created office,23 put forward one of his friends to hold the office for the second period (334-330) in order to prevent a law being introduced forbidding anyone who had been elected for the administration of the public funds to remain treasurer more than five years. Thus Lycurgus not only could have the actual administration during the second period, but he could also be reelected for a second time, as is indicated in IG IJ2 1672. This inter­ pretation explains the problems raised above: (1) the subject of cp(}&.uaL is Lycurgus, and he did not move a law against himself but forestalled it; (2) the subject of elueveYKeiv (nv&.) is omitted as indefinite; (3) no law had been introduced forbidding anyone to hold office more than five years during the period 338-326; (4) Lycurgus held the office twice, 338-334 and 330-326; (5) during the period of 334-330 Lycurgus did not hold the office in his own name but rather entered the name of a friend, through whom he continued to influence the administra­ tion of public finances. It seems quite probable that this friend was 21 Mayser, op.at. (supra n.16) II.I.334; Funk, op.at. (supra n.16) §405; Jannaris, op.at. (supra n.18) App. VI §21. 22 Mayser, op.at. (supra n.16) II.I.336-337; Funk, §407; A. Wifstrand, "ElK(h«. Emenda­ tionen und Interpretationen zu griechischen Prosaikern der Kaizerzeit, II.4. Plutarch," Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Arsberattelse 1932-1933, 1.19, remarks: "Es ist aber eine nicht ungewohnliche Erscheinung, dass nach einem Verbum voluntatis oder einem damit gleichgestellten Ausdruck ein Subjekt bei dem Infinitiv nicht ausgesetzt wird, wenn als Subjekt etwas Allgemeines gedacht wird, dass wir mit 'man' wiedergeben konnen, oder auch wenn das Subjekt ohne Schwierigkeit aus dem Zusammenhang erganzt wird." It is evident that our case falls under the first category. Wifstrand cites among others two similar cases from Plutarch, Sol. 20.1 and Mor. 166B. 23 See Meritt, loc.at. (supra n.6). SOPHOCLES S. MARKIANOS 331 Xenocles of Sphettos, whose name is known from the inscription mentioned above (n.6 and p.327) and whose tenure in office can now be defined more accurately as from 334 to 330.24 UNIVERSITY OF CI~CINNATI Novemher. 1969 24 To Professor D. W. Bradeen I express my gratitude for reading the manuscript and improving my English. and to Professor F. W. Mitchell for making the problem known to me.