Microsoft Word - Fornara.doc Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007) 31–37 © 2007 GRBS FGrHist 328 (Philochorus) F 181 Charles W. Fornara and David C. Yates Harpocration s.v. πομπείας καὶ πομπεύειν· … πομπεῖα δὲ λέγε- ται τὰ εἰς τὰς πομπὰς κατασκευαζόμενα σκεύη, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς ῥήτωρ <ἐν τῷ> Κατ᾿ Ἀνδροτίωνος ὑποσημαίνει. “πομπείοις δέ” φησι Φιλόχορος “πρότερον ἐχρῶντο οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν λ´ κατασκευασθεῖσιν. ὀψὲ δέ” [φησί] “καὶ Ἀν- δροτίων ἄλλα κατεσκεύασεν.”1 ——— 1 δὲ om. B Epit λέγονται Keaney 2 ὡς Epit Sud, καὶ Harp 3 <ἐν τῷ> Κατ᾿ Ἀνδροτίωνος Keaney 4 τοῖς ἐκ Epit Sud, ἐκ Harp 5 κατα- σκευασθεῖσιν Epit Sud, -εισῶν Harp φησί om. Epit Sud, del. Keaney ——— Processions and parading: … instruments made for the proces- sions are called πομπεῖα, as the same orator (Demosthenes) mentions in his Against Androtion. “Earlier,” Philochorus says, “the Athenians used as processional instruments those which had been fashioned out of the property of the Thirty. Late, An- drotion also fashioned others.” Philochorus F 181, its intrinsic character, provenience and imputed date, has attracted no direct attention since its pub- lication, after Müller (FGH I p.404 F 124), by Jacoby in 1954.2 1 FGrHist 328 F 181. The text given here, a modified version of Jacoby’s, takes into account the more recent work on Harpocration done by John Keaney, Harpocration, Lexeis of the Ten Orators (Amsterdam 1991) 217, Π 80. 2 M. W. Walbank, “The Confiscation and Sale by the Poletai in 402/1 B.C. of the Property of the Thirty Tyrants,” Hesperia 51 (1982) 74–98, at 96 n.57, in his discussion of the stelai of 402/1, which record the confiscation and sale of the property of the Thirty and their adherents (74–98), exam- ined the likely meaning of οὐσία and κατασκευάζω in Philochorus’ leading sentence. D. M. Lewis, “Notes on Attic Inscriptions,” BSA 49 (1954) 17–50, at 43–49, revised Jacoby’s date of the measure passed by Androtion, bring- ing it down from 377/6, where Jacoby erroneously placed it (IIIb Suppl. I 88.3–8), to just before 365/4. See further below, n.9. 32 FGRHIST 328 (PHILOCHORUS) F 181 Like Müller Jacoby printed Harpocration’s entry as a verbatim quotation. Again like Müller he concluded that the fragment derives from the Atthis rather than from one of the special monographs written by Philochorus,3 and he placed it in Book 5 of the reconstructed work at the year 403/2 (better, 402/1)4 rather than in Book 4 (where Müller set it), which ends (hypo- thetically) with the fall of the Thirty.5 In a rare instance of fundamental disagreement with the great historiographer, we venture to dissent from all these propositions, finding them impossible to reconcile with the language and implications of the text. We argue that the fragment resists classification as an Atthidographic entry whether at 402/1 (to amend Jacoby’s date) or in some later archon year; that it cannot be a quota- tion; and that its information was more probably culled from one of Philochorus’ other learned works. Assuming, argumenti causa, that the fragment is a verbatim quotation from the Atthis, Philochorus’ use of the adverb 3 For Jacoby the decisive consideration was the fact that Thucydides in 2.13.4 had introduced the subject of the πομπεῖα, ἱερὰ σκεύη περὶ τὰς πομπάς, into the historical record. See further n.7 below. 4 IIIb Suppl. p.550.31–32. The actual date was more probably, though not necessarily, in 402/1. The basis of Jacoby’s claim (unstated in his treat- ment of the fragment) presumably was the interpretation and placement of IG II² 1503. A. B. West and A. M. Woodward, “Studies in Attic Treasure Records, II,” JHS 58 (1938) 69–89, at 80–83, restored this fragment to refer to the receipt of ἱερὸν ἀργύριον for the construction of πομπεῖα and placed it with IG II² 1370, 1371, and 1384 in the year 403/2. This placement has been challenged by Walbank, Hesperia 51 (1982) 98, who attaches it to the record of 402/1, simply noting Lewis’ support for it per ep. The first ap- pearance of the new πομπεῖα in the treasury lists likely occurs in 402/1 (IG II² 1372: cf. W. S. Ferguson, Treasurers of Athena [Cambridge (Mass.) 1932] 113 n.2; West and Woodward 88–89; Walbank 97–98) and thereby argu- ably supplies the more plausable year for an entry relating to them in an Atthis. See further n.10 below. The process by which the property of the Thirty was converted into πομπεῖα has been convincingly described by Wal- bank (94–96). The real property was sold off by 402/1 (or 403/2), moveable property presumably at a slightly earlier stage. It is conceivable that articles made of precious metals were quickly melted down to make the πομπεῖα; more probably, perhaps, the vessels were fashioned and paid for out of the fund of money produced by the sales of real estate goods and chattels. 5 Müller, FGH I p.398, and Jacoby IIIb Suppl. p.254.3–6. CHARLES W. FORNARA AND DAVID C. YATES 33 πρότερον is sufficient to rule out Jacoby’s date for the entry.6 πρότερον in the (alleged) quotation makes it self-evident that the fragment appeared in the Atthis at a later year than 402/1; it specifies that Philochorus’ reference to the conversion of the property of the Thirty into πομπεῖα and the Athenians’ use of them is retrospective. Philochorus could not have described the use of πομπεῖα initiated by the event of 402/1 at the year 402/1 with the declaration that “previously the Athenians were wont to use as processional vessels those which had been fashioned out of the property of the Thirty.” He would need to say “the Athenians began in this year to use” such πομπεῖα. The fragment, if it is a quotation and was taken from the Atthis, must therefore have been embedded in a later entry. Were we not constrained by the language of the fragment, it would be natural to allocate it to the year in which Androtion fabricated other πομπεῖα by melting down gold crowns (Dem. 22.69–77, cf. 24.176–186) since his renovation would make the use of πρότερον intelligible as a backward reference to the earlier status quo. The date of Androtion’s legislation is un- known, but probably is to be set in the interval 368/7–365/4.7 Our fragment, however, cannot have been entered at the archon-year in which Androtion passed his decree, whatever its putative date. If the fragment is a quotation and was taken from the Atthis, its formulation necessitates its entry in a pre- ceding year. Just as πρότερον expresses reminiscence, so too does ὀψὲ δέ express anticipation. It guarantees that the refer- ence to Androtion occurred in the context of a report anterior 6 Jacoby did not comment on πρότερον; Müller addressed the implication of the adverb forthrightly (see below) by translating it as “primitus.” 7 For our purposes it is unnecessary to explore this complex question as the actual date is immaterial to our argument. The fundamental study is Lewis, BSA 49 (1954), esp. 43–47; cf. P. Harding, “Androtion’s Political Career,” Historia 25 (1976) 186–200, at 190–192 (more recently in his An- drotion and the Atthis [Oxford 1994] 19–20), and L. Moscati Castelnuovo, “La carriera politica dell’attidografo Androzione,” Acme 33 (1980) 251–278, at 257–259. Jacoby, perhaps following Kirchner’s comments on IG II² 216– 217 (= FGrHist 324 T 5), connects Androtion’s restoration of the πομπεῖα with the archonship of Kalleas (377/6), which is mentioned in the body of that decree (IIIb Suppl. I p.88.3–8), but this suggestion is no longer tenable. 34 FGRHIST 328 (PHILOCHORUS) F 181 to it. “Earlier, the Athenians used as processional instruments those fabricated out of the property of the Thirty. Late, Andro- tion also fabricated others.” Clearly, the phraseology requires a tertium quid occurring between 402/1 and 368–365 which will allow for both the reminiscence and the anticipation. One cannot shoehorn this “quotation” into 368–365 as if it be- longed in an Atthis at one of those years. That something unknown to us relevant to πομπεῖα took place at Athens in the thirty years or so separating our terminal dates such that it prompted these references backwards and forwards in time is too unlikely to be worthy of serious thought. For in that case we would need to postulate the creation of still other πομπεῖα in the interim. Perhaps needless to say, any other kind of entry—for instance, one that might have referred to a melting down of the “oligarchic” πομπεῖα when the new Nike was fabricated in 374/38 or their loss in the fire that de- stroyed the Opisthodomos9—will not suit. The entry which ex hypothesi we seek must refer to replacement, not destruction, since the fragment turns on the use (χρῆσθαι) of πομπεῖα, not on their removal. Though our record is not detailed or com- plete, the action of the reinstated demos after the fall of the Thirty and the psephisma of Androtion slightly more that a gen- eration later reasonably comprise the sum of actions dealing with the creation of πομπεῖα by the Athenians within that span.10 It follows that there is no tertium quid; if the fragment is a 8 For a brief discussion of the new Nike, see Ferguson, Treasurers 122–123 n.2 and 137. 9 The fire was previously assigned to the archonship of Kalleas (377/6) by A. C. Johnson, “An Athenian Treasure List,” AJA 18 (1914) 1–17, and W. B. Dinsmoor “The Burning of the Opisthodomos at Athens,” AJA 36 (1932) 143–172, but is now convincingly dated to between 370 and 354 by Lewis, BSA 49 (1954) 47–49. 10 Added support can be found in the record of the silver hydriai that Ferguson, Treasurers 113 n.2, suggests were made from the property of the Thirty. If we accept this connection, the treasury lists attest the presence of a considerable part, though probably not all (cf. Walbank, Hesperia 51 [1982] 97–98, and D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion [Oxford 1995] 29), of the “oligarchic” πομπεῖα down to 341/0 (IG II² 1444.1–8). For a full list of the attestations of the silver hydriai from 402/1 to 341/0, see Harris 161–162. In the years after 341/0 the lists are poorly pre- CHARLES W. FORNARA AND DAVID C. YATES 35 quotation it cannot be from the Atthis. But is it a quotation and, if not a quotation, can it then be from the Atthis? To us the answer to the first question is obvious enough, in spite of the word φησί. Philochorus would have been very careless, indeed, slipshod, to have made the state- ments imputed to him, at least in this form, for they present an erroneous simplification and other anomalies as well. There is something quite wrong about the leading sentence. It does not state (as it should) that some of the πομπεῖα used by the Athen- ians came out of the property of the Thirty. Instead (as Müller well understood) it tells us by necessary implication that the Athenian πομπεῖα originated in the property of the oligarchs— “primitus,” indeed, as Müller “translated.” Of course, Phi- lochorus did not need Thuc. 2.13.4 to know full well that processions with their πομπεῖα immemorially predated 402/1 and that πομπεῖα continued to exist throughout the final years of the Peloponnesian War, even if all the items made from precious metals among them were consigned to the melting pot.11 Indeed, the sweeping formulation given in the fragment suggests that Philochorus was misquoted as well as simplified. Furthermore, the reference to Androtion is inadmissibly vague, the kind of allusion we expect from an abbreviator, but hardly the precise terminology we require of Philochorus. We expect a patronymic and demotic along with other identifying remarks, and especially a date, not the very peculiar and un- informative word ὀψέ. Indeed, ὀψέ is absurd as coming from the mouth of Philochorus in an Atthis or out of it. By what process of the historical imagination could Philochorus have termed the new fashioning of πομπεῖα by Androtion some thirty-five years after the action in 402/1 a “late” develop- ___ served, but by 321/0 (IG II² 1468) a massive reorganization of the inventory is apparent. Almost none of the dedications from the earlier lists can be identified, prompting the inference that those objects were melted down in the general restoration sponsored by Lycurgus (Ferguson 122–124, Harris 33–34). Such a conclusion would necessarily contradict Jacoby’s suggestion that the πομπεῖα made by Androtion were those still used in Philochorus’s own time (IIIb Suppl. p.551.1). 11 Perhaps in 407/6 along with the golden Nikai (328 F 141): cf. Jacoby IIIb Suppl. p.550.34–35 and Ferguson, Treasurers 91. 36 FGRHIST 328 (PHILOCHORUS) F 181 ment?12 Should it have been earlier? It was when it was. Al- though it is well known that temporal adverbs are often used subjectively, the interval 402/1 to 368–365 certainly does not justify the use of ὀψέ by one to whom the lapse of one gen- eration was a short span of time in the history of Athens. With this word the author of the sentence seems perhaps to condemn the Athenians for a belated enactment—as if the πομπεῖα realized from the confiscation were improperly adventitious. Whoever was responsible for ὀψέ had a different temporal perspective from Philochorus just as he was imprecise about the tradition he transmitted when in effect he stated that the Athenians earlier used as their sacred vessels those fashioned from the property of the Thirty. Since the fragment looks like a poorly integrated summary, it may be that an original quo- tation was ground down into its present form, φησί remaining as a fossil.13 Thus the contents of the citation might be due to an intermediate source such as Didymus, subsequently abbrevi- ated and telescoped. For all these reasons, we must take φησί cum grano salis. At best, then, F 181 is a summary report in modified lan- guage of a formally different entry made by Philochorus in his Atthis either at the year 402/1 or at the year of Androtion’s psephisma. But, surely, if we are reduced to this extremity, it is unreason- able to insist upon it. If it does not look like a fragment from the Atthis and does not permit hypothetical interpolation into it without radical reformulation of its contents, it is not good method to insist that it must have originated in the Atthis— whether or not the Atthis included this subject at either of the terminal years or, for that matter, at an earlier time. On the other hand, it seems plausible to infer that our intermediate source gave a modified account in more or less strict alignment with the narrative before his eyes, that is, that he summarized 12 LSJ s.v. provides no instance of the adverb used to mean “later,” though it is rendered in this fashion (in a paraphrase) by Harding, Historia 25 (1976) 191, reasonably enough; Müller translates “multo vero post.” 13 It is not invariably the case that when Harpocration uses φησί he in- tends to provide an exact quote (though that is certainly its appearance here). See, e.g., Keaney, Harpocration 3, Α 13. CHARLES W. FORNARA AND DAVID C. YATES 37 material in the order in which he found it. What that narrative may have been, however, defies reconstruction because one cannot know the extent to which this fragment preserves the structure of the original text. Thus (for instance), if πομπείοις δέ … [ὀψὲ] δέ could be trusted, ὀψὲ having replaced, perhaps in an abbreviated form, more appropriate phraseology, it might follow that the data was given in a plain sequence, and that πομπείοις δέ immediately followed a discussion of some other feature of festivals as they evolved in the period after the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War. If so, it might have been taken from an antiquarian, not a historical, excursus in, per- haps, the Περὶ ἑορτῶν. But it is idle to guess. September, 2006 Department of Classics Brown University Providence, RI 02912 Charles_Fornara@brown.edu David_Yates@brown.edu