Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Coming to terms with (lambda)(iota)(pi)(omicron)(tau)(alpha)(zeta)(iota)(omicron)(nu) Hamel, Debra Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1998; 39, 4; ProQuest pg. 361 Coming to Terms with At1to'ta~toV Debra Hamel I T IS GENERALLY AGREED that the principal offense to which the term lipotaxion refers in Athenian law is the unauthor­ ized retreat of a soldier from his position in line.1 This is the definition to which the verbal components of the word itself point, and it is what we are told of the offense by Lysias in his first speech against the younger Alkibiades (14.5).2 A number of passages in our sources, however, suggest that offenses other than the desertion of one's taxis (in particular, desertion from the army and failure to appear for service) could be prosecuted by graphe lipotaxiou. As a result, scholars have been uncertain about the relationship among these offenses. Stephen Todd, for 1 See for example W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War I (Berkeley/los Angeles/london 1974) 233; D. M. MacDowell, Andocides On the Mysteries (Oxford 1962) 110-111, The Law in Classical Athens (Ithaca 1978) 160, and Demosthenes Against Meidias (Oxford 1990: hereafter MACDOWELL) 325 ; S. C. Todd, The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford 1993) 183. Pritchett includes rhipsaspia-the offense of throwing away one's shield-under the rubric of lipotaxion, but this is, I think, mistaken (cf. T. Schwertfeger, "Der Schild des Archilochos," Chiron 12 [1982] 265 n.41). Rhipsaspia seems clearly to have been viewed as a distinct offense (e.g. Andoc. 1.74; Plato, too, clearly distinguishes between lipotaxion and rhipsaspia in the Laws, 942A5-945B2). It was evidently considered particularly odious, so much so that it was a prosecutable offense to say of someone that he had thrown away his shield (lysias 10 passim; MacDowell, Law 128-129). As far as I am aware, no ancient source conflates lipotaxion and rhipsaspia, and I have not discussed that offense in this paper. 2lysias' presentation of Athens' military offenses in this speech is distorted, but as I argue below the information he provides in §5 is reliable. See also Lex.Seg. 277.1 Amo'ta~io1J' 0 AmolV 't~v 'ta~lv. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 39 (1998) 361-405 © 2000 GRBS 361 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 362 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOTA:::ION example, writes in the introduction to his recent translation of Lysias 14 that "it is not wholly clear that lipotaxion and astrateia were regarded as different offenses .... "3 In this paper I discuss the evidence for lipotaxion with a view to defining the semantic range of the term as closely as the ancient testimonia permit. Given the much remarked-upon "open texture" of Athenian law-the Athenians did not attempt to define precisely the actions proscribed in their statutes, which means that a jury panel's collective understanding of what constituted a par­ ticular offense amounted to the "definition" of that offense-we cannot expect to define lipotaxion with a precision that would satisfy modern jurists.4 We can hope, however, to arrive at a more satisfactory understanding of what the popular concep­ tion of lipotaxion was. 1. At1t01a~lOV and failure to appear for service Three passages from the orators-Lys. 14.5-7, Lycurg. 1.147, and Oem. 39.16-175-have suggested to scholars that the term lipotaxion could refer to a conscripted soldier's failure to appear for service, an offense referred to also, in these 3 Lysias (Austin 2000) 162. He translates lipotaxion as "deserting the army" at 14.5 and as "deserting the ranks" at 14.7. 40n the open texture of Athenian law see D. Cohen, Theft in Athenian Law (Munich 1983) 6-7; Todd (supra n.1) 64-67; E. M. Harris, "Law and Ora­ tory," in 1. Worthington, ed., Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action (London 1994) 138-140; C. Carey, "Legal Space in Classical Athens," GaR 41 (1994) 178-179, and "The Shape of Athenian Laws," CQ N.S. 48 (1998) 98-99. See also Ath.Pol. 9.2. 5Carey, "Shape" (supra n.4) 144, includes Dem. 21.103 in a short list of passages in which "the action for evasion of service [is] described in­ differently as ypacpTj acrtpatElac; and ypa oEtAia~ EVEKa, llaXOIl€VO>V 'troY aAAo>v, 7tEpt 'tou'tou 'tou~ o'tpa'ttrota~ OtKa~Etv. 0 oe VOllo~ ou 7tEpl W\l'tO>V KEAEUEt 1l0VOV, aAAa Kat 07tOOOt av Ill] 7tapWOtv EV 'til 7tE~il o'tpa'tti;t. 365 The pertinent law is then read out in court, and Lysias sum­ marizes it in §6: the nomos, he writes, concerns "those who retreat to the rear during battle and all those who do not appear in the infantry" (ocrOt UV I.HXXlle; oucrlle; de; 't01mlcr(j) ava­ X(j)pf!cr(j)crt, Kat ocrot UV EV 't11 1td~n cr'tpa'ttct Il'h 1tapfficrt). The implication of 14.5 is that Alkibiades is liable to prosecution under the statute to which Lysias is referring because he did not appear in the infantry. (The question of his guilt is of course complicated by the fact of his having served instead in another branch of the military.) For us, seeking to demarcate the semantic range of the term lipotaxion, the important question is: did failure to show up for service in the infantry constitute lipotaxion? A careful reading of §§5 and 6 suggests that it did not-the offenses were addressed by the same law but were distinct. But this relatively neat presentation is soon com­ plicated. c. Lysias 14.7: inclusion of At1to'ta1;lou in text perhaps correct At 14.7 Lysias applies the law he has been discussing in §§5 and 6 to the particular case of the defendant. I think, gentlemen, that he alone of the citizens is liable to the whole law: he would justly be convicted of astrateia, because, though enrolled as a hoplite, he did not go out with you, he alone camp did not present himself with the others for formation, and of deilia, because he was required to run risks with the infantry but elected to serve as a hippeus. ~youl!at 0', i1 avopE~ otKao'tai, OACfl 'tip VOIlCfl 1l0VOV au'tov 'troY 7tOAt'trov EVOXOV dV(lt, acr'tpa't£ia~ Ilev yap otKalO>~ av au'tov aAWVat, on KataA£yd~ o7tAi'tTJ~ OUK E~i1A8E IlE8' ullrov, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 366 COMING TO TERMS WITH AmOTA3ION ~6vo~ OU 1tapEO"XE ~ETa TroV aAAc.ov eaUTOV Ta.~al, oElAia~ O£, OTl OE1V aUTOV ~ETa Trov 01tAHroV KlVOUVEUElV 1.1t1tEUElV dAETO. Before discussing the implications of §7 for the term lipotaxion it is necessary to consider whether a reference to that offense belongs in the passage at all. Its appearance is not inevitable: the phrase Auto'ta~iou Of, Ott EV tip appears in one manuscript of Lysias, the fifteenth-century Laurentianus (C). It has been regarded by many as an interpolation,12 but was accepted by Dobree. Nor is a reference to lipotaxion necessary: the text could be restored so as not to name the offense while yet making good sense. See, for example, the text of Scheibe: acrtpan:ias; /lEV yap oucairos; av autov aAroVat, on Ka'taAfyds; cl1tAitllS; OUK E~flAef /lfe' U/lrov crtpat01tfOfucrO/lfVOS; OUOE 1tap£crXf /lfta trov aAArov EaUtOV 'ta~at, oftAias; OE .... Certainly the passage would be easier to understand if lipotaxion were not mentioned in it. Two considerations suggest, however, that lipotaxion may in­ deed have been named in the passage. (1) At 15.11 Lysias writes: "it has been shown that Alkibiades was enrolled in the hoplites and left his taxis" (At1tCllV 't~v ta~tv). The passage suggests that at least one of those who spoke against Alkibiades during the trial, Archestratides himself or one or another synegoros, had explicitly claimed that the defendant was liable to punishment for lipotaxion. This in tum makes more likely the possibility that that charge was made at 14.7. (2) Anyone favoring an emendation which does not name lipotaxion in §7 would need to explain how Lysias could write in that passage that Alkibiades is liable to OA

~v KUtEcrKEUucrEv KUt' E~OU) and hired the man who brought it, the disgusting and too rash, the filthy Euktemon-I won't mention this. For that sykophant did not bring the case to anakrisis, and Meidias hired him for no other reason than so that it might be posted in front of the statues of the Epon­ ymous Heroes and everyone might see: "Euktemon of the deme Lousia has brought a graphe lipotaxiou against Demosthenes of Paiania." And it seems to me that he would have been happy to add this, if it was possible, that the graphe was brought with Meidias doing the hiring. But I let this pass. For I require no further satisfaction in addition to the atimia which he has brought against himself by not pursuing the charge; rather, I have enough.48 We do not know much about the circumstances which led to the graphe Jipotaxiou against Demosthenes. It is likely, given that the charge was dropped, that Demosthenes had not in fact done anything illegal. Would Meidias' associates have failed to follow through with a case they were likely to win? Presumably, the charge was brought simply for the purpose of harassing the would-be defendant, and the original plan was for the prosecutor to misrepresent as lipotaxion some defensible act of Demosthenes', either a legitimate absence from service in Euboea or a premature but lawful departure from the army stationed there.49 Whatever the particulars of the incident, 48The incident became uglier yet. Nikodemos of Aphidna, a supporter of Meidias, was murdered, and a certain Aristarchos was charged with the crime. Meidias reportedly attempted to implicate Demosthenes in the murder, both by slandering him in private conversations in the Agora and by offering money to the dead man's relatives to induce them to charge Demosthenes rather than Aristarchos (§§104, 106). In the end, Meidias was unable to connect Demosthenes with the crime (110). On Nikodemos and Demosthenes' alleged involvement in his murder see also: Oem. 21.116-121; Aeschin. 1.172,2.166; Din. 1.30, 47; Athen. 13.592-593. For discussion see Schaefer (supra n.47) 96-99; Worthington (supra n.47) 179-180. 490n the circumstances of the charge MacDowell (9), writes: "We are not told what grounds were given for this charge; but since we know that Demosthenes was in Athens for the Dionysia of 348, most likely he was accused of leaving the army in Euboia without permission. Of course he could Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 391 however, it provides the necessary background for interpreting the charge Demosthenes levels against Meidias in §11O: "He brought a graphe lipotaxiou against me, having abandoned three taxeis himself ... !" That Demosthenes had been vilified by Meidias' cronies as a lipotaktes provides adequate explanation both for his hyperbolic statement in §11O and for his more specific charge of lipotaxion in §§164 and 166,50 where the term is used to describe an in­ cident that would more credibly be labeled lipostration. We need not conclude from the speech against Meidias, therefore, either that any of the offenses described in §§160-166 in fact con­ stituted lipotaxion, or that the terms lipotaxion and lipostration could be used interchangeably to refer to the offense of deser­ tion, as §166 might suggest. 3. Al1to'ta~tov in a nautical context It remains to consider whether the graphe lipotaxiou could be used to prosecute nautical offenses. I discuss four offenses to which the term might be thought to refer. 3.1. A trierarch's departure from his ship before the arrival of his successor The speaker of Dem. 50, Apollodoros, son of Pasion, served as a trierarch in 361/0 and was to be succeeded in this duty by a certain Polykles. Polykles failed to take over the ship, however, which led to an extension of Apollodoros' service by some four months (§36). He sued Polykles for the expenses he incurred during this additional period. In §§59-63 of Apol- have argued that it was his duty as a chorus-producer to be present at the festival; that would probably have been accepted as a good excuse for leaving the army, and in fact Euktemon in the end did not proceed with the case." On the exemption of choristers from military service see also MacDowell (supra n.34) 70-72. soCf. a scholiast's comment on A.l1tWV tTJV ta~lV in 164: tautllv tTJv qnA.otq.liav d~ A.Et7tota~iav KatEOt1l0E. Kat 01tEP auto~ EVEKaA.EttO 1ta.pa EUKtill.lOVO~, touto 6la.~aA.A.et tOY Met6iav. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 392 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOTA3ION lodoros' speech from that trial he discusses the circumstances which made his absence from home during those months par­ ticularly grievous-his mother's final illness, his wife's sickness, mounting debts, etc. He concludes this litany in §63: Although such things had befallen me, I did not consider my private affairs more important than your concerns, but I thought that I should be stronger than my wasting finances and the neglect of things at home and my wife and mother being ill, so no one would accuse me of having abandoned my taxis and so my trireme would not be useless to the polis (waH ~fJ'tE 't~V 'ta~lV at'ttu0'8ai ~E nva Atm:tV ~fJ'tE 't~v 'tptfJPll 'til 1t6A€t aXPllO''tov YEVE0'8at). Gabrielsen (80) has suggested from the evidence of Dem. 50 and this passage in particular that if a trierarch left his ship without his successor formally acknowledging that he was assuming his liturgical responsibilities, he could be "charged with desertion and probably ... indicted in a graphe lipotaxiou." But I am not convinced that the act Gabrielsen describes is the offense Apollodoros is suggesting could have led to prosecution. In the penultimate section of his speech Apollodoros considers what the response of the Athenians would have been had he abandoned the campaign on which he was engaged before he was relieved of his trierarchy by Polykles (§67): I would like to find out from you, gentlemen of the jury, what opinion you would have had about me if, when my time had run out and this man did not come to the ship, I did not serve as trierarch beyond my term but sailed off home. Would you not have been angry with me and thought that I was doing wrong (Kat i]YEt0'8E av &OtKEtV)? So, if you would have been angry then, because I did not serve beyond my term, how is it not appropriate now that you exact from him my expenses, which I spent on his behalf, this man who did not take over the ship? The jurors, Apollodoros hypothesizes, would have been angry and would have thought their trier arch adikos if he had abandoned the campaign before Polykles succeeded him. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 393 Apollodoros does not say in this passage that he might in addition have been condemned by the Athenians in a court of law, although that claim would, if true, have bolstered the point he is making here. He is suggesting that the negative reaction the jurors would have had to his adikia be directed instead against the defendant in the present trial. So much the better for Apollodoros if the jurors' hypothetical reaction could have included condemnation for lipotaxion. That he does not mention the possibility of prosecution suggests that the scenario here de­ scribed-Apollodoros' departure from the fleet before Polykles relieved him-would not have constituted an actionable offense. 3.2. A trierarch's withdrawal during battle to a safe position It remains possible that Apollodoros is alluding in §63 to some other nautical offense that did in fact constitute lipotaxion. By analogy with what we know of lipotaxion on land, I suggest that this offense was a trierarch's withdrawal during battle from his taxis to a relatively safe position. The term taxis could refer, after all, to the battle order of ships in a squadron (e.g. Aesch. Pers. 380-381, Thuc. 6.34.4). Admittedly, the connection between this offense and the act Apollodoros labels as action­ able in §63-his return to Athens after the expiration of his term but before the arrival of Polykles-is not apparent. We have seen, however, that Athens' orators were not loath to identify as lipotaxion acts which hardly resemble the description of the offense given at Lys. 14.5. That litigants misrepresented the offense as it suited their needs means that we need only con­ sider whether Apollodoros can have been suggesting that his withdrawal from the fleet with his trireme would have been the equivalent of, or could have been perceived as, the act of a trierarch withdrawing his ship from a dangerous position during battle. If we consider that Lycurgus, for example, felt free to describe as lipotaxion Leokrates' flight from Athens before he had even set foot in the field (1.147), it is not difficult to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 394 COMING TO TERMS WITH AIITOTA:::ION imagine that Apollodoros is misrepresenting a nautical version of lipotaxion in the manner here suggested. With some hesitation I will suggest something further about the passage. In §60, Apollodoros claims that while he was serving as trier arch his mother often urged him to come home by himself if he was unable to return with the trireme: 1tOA.A.aKt~ oe 1tpon:pov IlE'tE1tEIl1tE'tO IlE, (hptKEcreat OEOIlEVll atl'tov, d Ilil 't11 'tptTlPEl oi6v 'tE dll. An implication of the passage is that there is some important distinction between Apollodoros returning to Athens on his own and his returning with his trireme: the former would have been possible, he suggests, but the latter was for some reason problematic. With this passage in mind let us consider again the result clause of §63: Apollodoros says he remained with the campaign 1/ so no one would accuse me of having abandoned my taxis and so my trireme would not be useless to the polis." It is possible that the two scenarios en­ visioned here correspond to the two modes of return allegedly referred to by Apollodoros' mother: if, that is, Apollodoros had left for home with his trireme, he would-or so he implies-have been vulnerable to a charge of lipotaxion, while if he left his trireme with the rest of the fleet (in its taxis, so to speak) but without a commander (and financier), the ship would have been achrestos. An explanation for Apollodoros' misrepresentation of lipo­ taxion in §63 is provided by his discussion in §67 of the reaction the jurors would have had if he had refused to serve as trierarch beyond his term: he wants to suggest to the jurors that the defendant in the present case should meet with the full force of the anger they would have felt toward him had he been less obliging in his trierarchic service. A reference to the possibility of a graphe lipotaxiou bolsters his argument. Of course, as I men­ tioned above in arguing against Gabrielsen's interpretation of §63, Apollodoros does not refer in §67 to this potential lawsuit. The omission is readily explained, however, if we assume that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 395 the nautical version of lipotaxion alluded to in §63 was a trierarch's withdrawal of his ship during battle. While the act which Apollodoros claims could have led to prosecution is not specified in that passage, the plaintiff spells out in §67 precisely what circumstances he is referring to. After the scenario is described so clearly, the suggestion that the act under discussion is tantamount to nautical lipotaxion would have been too easily spotted by the jurors as a misrepresenta­ tion of that offense. It may be suggested, finally, if the above argument for a highly distorted reference to a real charge of nautical lipotaxion fails to convince, that Apollodoros' mention of lipotaxion in §63 is only a metaphorical usage of the expression (for other meta­ phorical references to the offense see Oem. 15.33, 18.173, etc.). It is teamed in a bipartite result clause with a reference to Apollodoros' trireme as, potentially but not in fact, achrestos to the polis. Apollodoros plays off of both expressions in §64, where he describes himself, in contrast both to his hypothetical behavior and to the defendant's actual behavior, as EU't«K'tO~ and Xpl)crlJ.lO~/XPllcr't6~. The desirability of engaging in this particular bit of verbal play may have informed Apollodoros' choice of words in the preceding section. 3.3. The leasing of trierarchies After the Athenian defeat at Peparethos in 361/0 certain trierarchs who had let out their trierarchies51 rather than serving in person were held responsible for the defeat and prosecuted, evidently by an eisangelia eis ten boulen (Oem. 51.8-9}.52 They were charged with having betrayed the fleet and abandoned their posts. We do not know what the final verdict was, but in a preliminary vote before the case was sent to the dikasteria for trial the bouleutai decided that the defendants were guilty: K«'t«- 51 On this practice see Gabrielsen 95-102. 52See Hansen (supra n.27) cat. no. 142. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 396 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOTA:::ION XElpo'tov~aavn:~ 1tPOO£OWKEVat 'ta~ vau~ Kat A,£A,Ot1tEVat 't~v 'tu;tV (51.8).53 Had the trierarchs been prosecuted by graphe lipotaxiou, we could assume that the hiring out of trierarchies was thought by a fair number of Athenians to constitute lipotaxion: the prosecutor in that case would presumably have at least some expectation of persuading a jury that the defendants were guilty as charged. But after Peparethos the defendants were prosecuted by eis­ angelia, a type of action that could be brought for any number of offenses, and the trierarchs were accused also of betraying the fleet. It is conceivable that the prosecutor added lipotaxion to his enumeration of the defendants' offenses in order to make the accusation against them more weighty. There may well have been no expectation that a jury would believe the defendants guilty of lipotaxion in fact. Gabrielsen (99), at any rate, suggests that the hiring out of trierarchies never amounted to a prosecut­ able offense: Demosthenes' equation of misthosis trierarchias with deser­ tion (i.e., lipotaxia, strateias apodrasis, 21.164-66) should not be taken au pied de La Lettre . ... On the whole, the hiring out of trierarchies was not, and to the best of my knowledge never became, a right warranted by law; but neither was it directly discouraged, and the incident just mentioned is best understood as a singular reaction to the defeat at Peparethos rather than as a reflection of the systematic prosecution of "lessor" trierarchs. Given that misthosis trierarchias was evidently widely practiced in the fourth century, it is likely that the reference to lipotaxion in the charge against the trierarchs was metaphorical, and that the hiring out of trierarchies did not constitute that offense in the view of most Athenians. 3.4. A crewman's failure to take up his shipboard position One may suggest that the term iipotaxion could refer to the 530n the incident see Gabrielsen 99. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 397 offense of a crewman-whether an oarsman or an epibates­ failing to take up his shipboard position before a battle. For this possibility see also my discussions of liponaution and anaumachion in the ApPENDIX below. I know of no evidence which suggests that the temporary absence of crewmen from their ships was in fact a problem for the Athenian navy-save for when an emergency prompted immediate embarkation, and crewmen were too scattered to man their ships at short notice (cf Xen. Hell. 2.1.28), but that is a different phenomenon. It may be that despite having the opportunity to absent themselves from their ships (cf infra n.65), sailors tended not to do so. It must also be admitted that while the posited failure of a sailor to take up his shipboard position was analogous to a soldier's lipotaxion in some respects, the act would necessarily take place before the sailor's boat became engaged in battle. He would therefore have to abandon his taxis at an earlier stage than a soldier, who could withdraw from his own position in the midst of the battle itself. As a consequence, it is less likely that a sailor's absence from his vessel would be occasioned by the same panic that inspired lipotaxion on land. For this reason I lean toward labeling the offense here described anaumachion rather than lipotaxion. These reservations aside, it remains possible that the term lipotaxion can have referred to a sailor's temporary absence from his vessel. And with less hesitancy I would suggest that, if such an offense ever was committed by an Athenian sailor, he will have rendered himself vulnerable to a charge of lipotaxion, even if that allegation may not have held up in a court of law. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 398 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOT A~ION Conclusion Athenian males swore as ephebes not to abandon their line-mates,54 and it is likely that every general who ever harangued them thereafter reminded them that the cohesion of the phalanx depended on their not deserting their taxeis. Most Athenian men, I suspect, shared for this reason a very similar impression of precisely what action constituted the offense of lipotaxion: a retreat during battle, motivated by fear, from one's taxis to a relatively less dangerous position in the field. This, I argue, is the nuclear 1/ definition" of lipotaxion, the one action that all Athenians polled in the agora on a given afternoon would agree constituted that offense. Reasonable men might differ in their classification of offenses not matching the paradigm exactly. Was a soldier who deserted the army when the enemy were just out of bowshot guilty of lipotaxion as well as lipostration? A jury panel composed of soldiers who had stayed for the battle might well be persuaded that he was. And prosecutors, as we have seen, could attempt to portray as lipotaxion all manner of offenses-astrateia and desertion, for example-however unlike the paradigmatic lipotaxion they might be. Their rhetorical machinations, however, do not imply that these offenses were likewise equated with lipotaxion in the collective consciousness of the Athenians. Whether graphai lipotaxiou could be used to prosecute nautical offenses is a matter of guesswork, but I have discussed above without a great deal of conviction two offenses which might have been perceived by the Athenians as lipotaxion: a trier­ arch's withdrawal of his trireme during battle from his assigned position to a relatively safe location, and the failure of a crew­ man to take up his shipboard position before an engagement. 54 At least after the introduction of the ephebic oath, on which see Rhodes (supra n.26) 494. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 399 ApPENDIX 1. Al1tOO"'tpC:X.wv The existence of a graphe lipostratiou is attested at Pollux 6.151 and 8.4055 and at schol. ThUc. 6.91.7. 56 The Suda s.v. A£l1toO"tpatlov de­ fines the offense as refusal to serve in the military, 57 which we may imagine as a reference either to desertion or to a refusal to muster. The former is the more likely referent, since A£l1toO"tpatlo<; in the same entry is defined as a deserter from the army. Hesychius glosses Al1tocrtpatill as Al1tOta~ia, but I am inclined not to trust this identifi­ cation. At Leg. 943D Plato writes that anyone who returns horne prematurely from a campaign, without leave, is liable to indictment by graphe lipotaxiou (cf. §2.1}.58 This definition of lipotaxion, how­ ever, is at odds with that which Lysias provides at 14.5 (see §1.1), since Plato refers to the abandonment of the entire stratos rather than of one's taxis only. In devising the laws for his fictional Mag­ nesia, Plato seems to have subsumed desertion under the rubric of lipotaxion, a conflation which may reflect Athenian thinking and judicial practice regarding the two offenses, but need not.59 Hesych­ ius, I suggest, equated lipostration and lipotaxion under the influence of Plato's discussion or some similar passage no longer extant. 556.151, E~ aOtKT]~.l(XtWV QVOl!utu, Eq>' ott; dot OtKat KUt ypuq>ai. KA£7t'tT]t; ... 1tpo06'tT]<;, pl1vao1ttt; ... au'tOI!OAO~ '" OElAO~, ao'tpa'tE\)"CO<;, At1tOo'tpanw'tT]<;. 8.40, ypaq>ai OE ... At1tOo'tpatlo\), At1to'ta~to\), ao'tpa'tda~, At1tOvaU'tto\), aVa\)­ l!aXto\), 'tOu plljlat 'tl,v a01ttOa. 56q>aI!EV o-ov ro~ ~v n~ 1tpoooOo<; a1to 'trov OtKao'tT]ptwV, o'ia T, a1tO 'trov ypaq>rov OWpoOoKta~, U~PEW~, O\)Koq>av'tta~, I!otxda~, IjIE\)Ooypaq>ta<;. 1tapa- 1tpEO~da<;, AEt1tOO'tpa'ttO\). 57 AEt1tOo'tpanov' to Ill, EeEAElV O'tpa'tEVEOeal, Kat AEl1tOO'tpano<;, 0 'tl,V o'tpanuv Ka'taAW1tUVWV. So also Lex.Seg. 276.33: Al1tOO'tPU'ttO\)' 0 At1trov 'tr,v o'tpunav. Cf schol. Thuc. 1.99.1. 58 A scholiast on the passage repeats the information provided by Plato: At1tO'tU~tO\) otKT] Eo'tt ypaq>l, KU'tU 'tou o'tpa'tE\)OaIlEVO\) IlEV. At1tOV'tO~ OE 'to o'tpa't01tEOOV Kat 'tl,V 'ta~LV a\l'tou. G. BusoH and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde II (Munich 1926) 1127 n.2, write that the offense of desertion "auch unter den Begriff des At1to'ta~tOv fiel. ... " 59Note, however, that while for Plato lipotaxion could refer to lipostration, the reverse was not necessarily true. See further §2.1. Given this conflation of lipotaxion and lipostration, Saunders (supra n.36) 324-328, I suggest, is not quite right when he writes that "Plato recognizes the same three offenses as Attic law" (328). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 400 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOT A2ION Other references to lipostration in the classical period are com­ patible with one or both of the explanations of the term suggested by the Suda. (1) Herodotus (5.27.2) reports that the man whom the Persians in­ stalled as governor of Lernnos accused some of the Lernnians of At1tO­ cr'tpcx'tlll~ bd. Ldecx~1 evidently while Darius' army was fighting in Scythia. The phrase may mean "desertion [in the campaign] against the Scythians" (with EV 'tn cr'tpcx'td~ or the like readily supplied from the context) or "refusal to serve against the Scythians." (2) At Thuc. 1.99.1 (cf. 6.76.3) lipostration is listed as one of the principal reasons for the defection of the allies from Athens during the pentakontaetia: cxi'tlcxl Of aAAcxt 't£ ncrcxv 'trov a1tocr'tacrfO>v KCXt 1.H~Ylcr'tal CXt 'trov q>opo>v KCXt v£rov £Koncxl KCXt Al1tocr'tpanov rt 'tIP Ey£V£'tO. Comme (infra n.65) concludes in his discussion ad loc. that lipostration implies '''return horne in the middle of a campaign'; not on the part of individual men or regiments or crews, but of whole contingents, recalled by their authorities." Dover, on the other hand, suggests that lipostration refers to a failure to participate in cam­ paigns rather than defection from an expedition already under­ taken. 6o In fact, either explanation of the term fits the passage. (3) According to a scholiast to Ar. Eq. 226, Kleon, having been in some way provoked by the cavalry, accused them of lipostration: Kcx'tllYO­ pEt yap cxu'trov ro~ At1tocr'tPCX'touv'to>v. 61 While this passage could refer to either desertion or refusal of service, the former possibility makes more sense: it is difficult to imagine how an Athenian military unit could have refused service en masse. (And if one had, we would ex­ pect to hear about the incident from some other source.) It is possible, then, that lipostration referred in some contexts to refusal of service. I am inclined to believe, however, from the ad­ mittedly late evidence of the scholium to Ar. Eq. 226, that it did not bear this meaning in the context of Athenian law but referred rather to desertion. The prefix of lipostration, moreover, would seem to 60 Cf B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists III (Princeton 1950) 246. E. C. Marchant, Thucydides Book I (London 1905) ad loc., writes that lipostration here refers to the allies' "failure to furnish any ships as distinct from EKOEtUl, which means that part only of the number was supplied." 61 The charge may have been related to cavalry action in the campaigning season of 427. See Bugh 113. For discussion of the scholium see also C. W. Fornara, "Cleon's Attack Against the Cavalry," CQ N.S. 23 (1973) 24; Spence (supra n.9) 213-214. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 401 suggest an offense committed after the offender had joined the expedition. Graphai lipostratiou, I suggest, were brought only for the offense of desertion, while the failure of soldiers to serve when obliged could be addressed in graphai astrateias. Scholars have been reluctant to follow Pollux in recognizing the existence of a graphe lipostratiou. Thalheim (supra n.7: 271) is exceptional in including lipostration in his reconstruction of the Athenian law governing military offenses. The term is, admittedly, ill-attested, but liponaution is as obscure and is accepted by Carey (supra n.7: 143-144), who does not so much as mention lipostration. Harrison (supra n.33: 32) likewise ignores lipostration while listing aponautou-the word is not attested in our sources to my knowledge-among other graphai for military offenses. My suspicion is that Plato's definition of lipotaxion at Leg. 943D is responsible for this modern prejudice. Lipsius cites the Laws as evidence that lipostration was subsumed under lipotaxion in Attic usage.62 Martin, though he does not link his conclusion to Plato, similarly suggests that lipostration was a synonym of lipotaxion and was not itself found in Athenian law.63 But the conclusion that there was no graphe lipostratiou is not warranted. (1) While Plato based his Magnesian law code on Athenian practice to an extent, he did not do so in every particular. (2) Our other sources for the definition of lipotaxion suggest that it did not connote desertion. It is reasonable to assume that the offense of desertion was addressed by Athenian law. If it was not covered by the graphe lipotaxiou, why not accept the evidence of Pollux for the existence of a graphe lipostratiou? 2. Al7tOVaUtlov Among the offenses listed by Pollux at 8.40 (cf. n.SS) is lipo- naution, which he describes further at 8.42-43: The man who abandons his ship was tried for iiponaution, just as the man who abandons his taxis was tried for lipotaxion. But the man who was tried for anaumachion does not desert his ship; rather, he does not fight at sea. 62 J. H. Lipsius, Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren ILl (Leipzig 1908) 453. 63"Liponautiou Graphe, Lipostratiou Graphe, Lipotaxiou Graphe," Dar. Sag. Dict. 3.2 (1904) 1264-1265. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 402 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOTA210N Kat Al1tOVo.UttOU Ilev EKpiVEtO 0 t~V Vo.Uv EKAl1tWV, romtEp 0 t~v ta;tv Al1toto.;iou, UVo.Ullo.XlOU Oe 0 t~v Vo.Uv IlEv Il~ At1tcOV, 111] IlEvtOt Vo.ullo.xTJao.~. The phrase 0 tilv vauv hAt1tcOV admits of two interpretations. It can refer either to a sailor's (or other crew member's)64 outright desertion of his ship or to his failure while on campaign to board before an engagement, resulting in his temporary absence from service.65 (This is the nautical analogue of a soldier's unauthorized retreat from his position in the front ranks of an infantry force, that is, of lipotaxion. On land, a soldier could offend by withdrawing during battle from a position to which he had been posted. For a sailor to likewise abandon his taxis, he could not take up his position to begin with.) That Pollux links liponaution with lipotaxion66 may seem to suggest that the term refers to the second of these possibilities. But Pollux appears chiefly concerned with illustrating the similarity in meaning of those terms prefixed by lipo- and their dissimilarity with the differently prefixed anaumachion. Two considerations suggest, moreover, that liponaution refers rather to desertion of the fleet. (1) At Oem. 50.65, toUS; Al1tov£O>S; refers to hired sailors who had deserted the speaker's trireme during his tenure as trierarch and who had to be replaced (§§11, 12, 15, 16).67 Demosthenes is not 64Triremes were manned not only by nautai (oarsmen), but by hyperesia (petty officers), epibatai (marines), and archers. See Gabrielsen 106. Presum­ ably, a trierarch also might desert his ship during the period for which he was responsible for its maintenance, but the scenario is inherently a less likely one. (Eratosthenes allegedly did just this in the period when the Four Hundred were coming to power [Lys. 12.42].) Gabrielsen (80) suggests that a trierarch who left his ship before he was relieved by his successor might be indicted by a graphe lipotaxiou. I consider this possibility above, §3.1. 65 It will be remembered that triremes hugged the shore by necessity and that sailors frequently put in to land (see A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides I [Oxford 1956] 19-20; Gabrielsen 119). This will have pro­ vided ample opportunity for nautai to absent themselves. 66Cf the scholium to Theoc. Id. 13.73, where Al1tOva{ltav is glossed as K0.9a1tEp Al1to'taK't1]v. 67S uda s.u. AEt1tOVo.Utat preserves an intriguing reference to liponautai whose offense was evidently more serious than a failure to take up their positions on a single occasion: EOoYllo.to1totTJao.vto oe tOV~ Ko.to. t1]V 'EAAaOo. AEt1tOVo.Uto.~ YEYov6to.~ Uvo.S1]t"aat Kat to.~ XElpo.~ u1tOK6",at 1tavtwv. These liponautai had abandoned their fleets and scattered. It is not clear, however, to what event this passage refers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEBRA HAMEL 403 referring to deserters in the context of a legal proceeding brought for that offense, and the hired sailors he mentions may not have been Athenian, but if for a fourth-century dikast tou~ A.tlt6v£ro~ meant "deserters,"68 it is reasonable to believe that liponaution similarly referred to the outright desertion of a ship by one of its crew rather than to that crewman's temporary absence from the vessel. (2) There are two other terms which arguably can have been used to refer to sailors who failed to board their vessels, lipotaxion and anau­ machion (see §3.4, and below). Liponaution, I suggest, was more accurately the analogue of lipostration than of lipotaxion.69 3. avaUIH1XtOV Anaumachion is somewhat better attested than liponaution. Andocides (1.74) mentions it alongside lipotaxion, astrateia, deilia, and rhipsaspia.70 The Suda (s.v. avaullaxiou) reports, none too help­ fully, that it was a punishable offense having something to do with fighting at sea: Just as there were penalties prescribed by law for not going on an expedition and for leaving one's taxis and for throwing away one's arms, so also for fighting at sea. This was called the penalty for anaumachion,71 as in Andocides. w<; 'tou Ill, O'tpatEUEOem Kat tou AEl1tEtV tl,v taSty KCXt tOu ta OltAa U1tOpaAElV ST]llicxl ~oav wplOIlEVat EK trov VOIlOOV, ou'tOO Kat tou vaullax1l0at. tOUtO 'to oq>AT]lla a.vaUllaxiou EKCXMltO, w<; 'AVOOKiOT]<;. 68Elsewhere in the speech the deserters are referred to by forms of the participle a.1tOAt1tOlV, and their desertion is U1tOAEt\jlt<;. 69Cj. Lipsius (supra n.62) 454: a graphe liponautiou might be brought against those who "eigenmachtig sich von der Plotte entfemten .... " Thalheim (supra n.7: 271) likewise seems to equate liponaution with lipostration rather than lipotaxion (also "At1tovamlou ypaq>r, und At1tOo'tpattou ypcxq>r, ," R E 13 [1926] 722-723). Frohberger (supra n.7: 2) and Busolt and Swoboda (supra n.58: 1127 n.2) equate liponaution with desertion from the army, though they term the latter offense lipotaxion. B. Jordan, The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1975) 119, and Gabrielsen (244 n.23) both regard liponaution as desertion. 70 01tOOOl At1tOlEV tl,v tasty i1 a.o'tpa'tEla<; i1 oEtAias i1 uvaUllcxxiou Oq>AOlEV i1 tl,v a.o1tioa a.1tOPaAOtEV ... otnol 1taVtE<; (X'ttIlOl iJoav 'ta OOlllatCX, ta OE xpr,llata dxov. 71 The appearance in Andoc 1.74 of the verb Oq>AOtEv may explain the Suda's unnecessarily wordy phrase 'to oq>AT]lla a.vaullaxiou. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 404 COMING TO TERMS WITH AInOT A3ION A virtually identical description appears at Lex.Seg. 217.21, though here I1lJ is inserted between tou and vaul1aXllO'at, which makes the passage more immediately intelligible. Pollux includes anaumachiou in his list of graphai at 8.40 and explains the term at 8.42-43: avaul1aXtou oE 0 tlJV vauv I1EV I1lJ At1tWV, Il~ Il£VtOt vaUllaxlJO'w;. A graphe anaumachiou, then, could be brought against a man who, while not deserting his ship, yet did not fight at sea. It has been suggested that anaumachion refers specifically to a trierarch's with­ holding a ship from action,72 and this may be right. But Pollux could also be describing the offense, discussed in Appendix 2, of a sailor's failure to take up his shipboard position before an engagement. A small argument in favor of this interpretation is that all of the military offenses mentioned by Pollux at 8.40-assuming that the interpretations argued in this paper are correct-would in that case pertain (in the majority of cases, cf n.64) to the rank and file rather than officers. MacDowell and others have suggested that anaumachion may correspond to astrateia, that is, that it may refer to a sailor's failure to report for duty when he was obliged to do so: "It is not clear what name was given to the offense of a man who failed to join the navy when required to do so; since a man who failed to join the army might be accused of either aO'tpan:ia or Al1tOtU~tov ... , perhaps failure to join the navy was termed indifferently avaulluxtov or At1tOVaUtlov.//73 This is possible. As we have seen, there is some reason to believe that lipostration could refer to refusal to serve (though, as I argue, not in a judicial context). One may imagine liponaution, at least, as bearing a comparable meaning in some contexts. This explanation of anaumachion, however, is hardly in accord with the evidence of Pollux 8.42-43 (which suggests that one had to join one's ship in the first place to be in a position to commit anaumachion). For an analogue in naval affairs to astrateia, moreover, neither liponaution nor anaumachion seem appropriate in terms of their etymology. Better would be a word such as anaution or anautikon (neither is attested), indicating absence from the fleet rather than either nMacDowell, Andoeides (supra n.1) 111; LSJ S.v. aVUUI-HXxlOU. See also §3.4. Jordan (supra n.69: 119) defines anaumachion as "cowardice in battle.// 73Andocides (supra n.1) 111-112. I argue against this assumption in §l. Cf Frohberger (supra n.7) 1; E. Caillemer, "anaumachiou graphe," Dar.5ag. Diet. 1 (1877) 265; Thalheim, "avuu/.1UxtOU ypa