An opportunity for the generals and the boule to operate together occurred in 286 when the generals together with the boule worked out the details of the negotiations with Demetrios Poliorketes. This case is perhaps more notable, because at first sight it seems to mark a shift of power from the ekklesia to a few men of expertise. However, it is imperative to note that there were more people involved in the negotiations, apart from those immediately interested. There was for one thing Sostratos, a representative of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, and possibly Pyrrhos, king of Epeiros. The decree for Kallias records that Sostratos was acting in Athens’ best interest; it also records that the boule and the generals instructed Kallias to act as Athens’ envoy (11.36-39).!^^ At this point it is essential to discuss the views of C. Habicht about the nature of
108 jn Plut., Demetr. 46.1-2 there appears the philosopher Krates, who according to Plutarch was responsible for the lifting o f the siege. The decree for Kallias has rendered the situation even more complicated since it reveals that Ptolemy offered military help to the revolt o f 287 and that a representative of his, Sostratos, participated in the negotiations. All these accounts should be regarded as complementary rather than contradicting; see also. Appendices, Chapter II, 3. Philosophers as envoys: Xenokrates and Krates.
the negotiations and the contents of the treaty or treaties that were concluded. Instead of the single treaty that Shear had envisaged between Demetrios and all of his adversaries, Habicht has argued quite convincingly that there was a bilateral treaty between Ptolemy and Demetrios Poliorketes and another between the latter and Pyrrhos; this latter treaty however, always according to Habicht, was conducted after Demetrios had left Athens; both these treaties were essentially directed against L y s i m a c h o s . ^ 0 9 That there had been two treaties, I find quite
plausible; their precise contents, on the other hand, is a quite intriguing problem. For our purposes, however, Habicht’s most challenging view is that Athens was not actually a signatory to the peace because most probably Demetrios would not tolerate the presence of second rank Athenian officials, all the more so because Athens was defeated.^^^ According to Habicht Athens’ interests were represented solely by Ptolemaic officials, Sostratos and Kallias. On the other hand, M. J. Osborne has argued that the Athenian general Phaidros most probably participated in the negotiations. He thought that the erased lines referring to Phaidros’ second hoplite generalship in 287/6 could only mention something in connection with the peace negotiations which took place precisely in that year, since they definitely referred to Demetrios. Though an argument ex silentio, it is quite reasonable if we take into account that the lines were erased deliberately in 200 as a sign of protest against the house of the Antigonids. In support of Osborne’s argument we can add the testimony of Plutarch {Demetr. 46.1-2) about the embassy of the philosopher Krates to Demetrios on Athens’ behalf. Plutarch goes as far as to attribute to Krates the lifting of the siege, which should not be completely overlooked. If Demetrios was willing to hear a non-
109 J L Shear (“Kallias”, p.76) actually conjectures that the decree for Artemidoros of Perinthos ( / G i f 662 + i f 663), an official in the service of Lysimachos who had been sent by the king in connection with certain embassies, was the result o f his successful representation o f Athenian interests; in the negotiations o f 286. Objecting to this, F. Landucci Gattinoni {Lisimaco, pp.l95ff) has argued convincingly that Artemidoros is not honoured in his capacity as plenipotentiary representative o f Lysimachos, which is an indication that Lysimachos did not participate in the negotiations. I would have thought that a peace treaty between all the Diadochoi take some time to be concluded; furthermore, the events to follow indicate that there was no peace at least between Demetrios and Seleukos..
Athenian representative of Athenian interests, then it is quite possible that he would have conceded the presence of Athenian envoys.
It is true that Athens’ revolt took place while Lysimachos, Pyrrhos, Seleukos and Ptolemy have created a united front against D em etrios.^ Thus the revolt could be regarded by them as being only a part of the hostilities, a m atter that could be dealt with among themselves. It is equally true that Athens was not granted the possession of the garrison forts and of the Peiraieus, which could be seen as a result of lack of representation. But one has to bear in mind that Athens had been under siege and that she did benefit from the peace: Demetrios withdrew his forces and left for Asia and the astu remained free and democratic. Could this have been solely the result of pressure by the representatives of Ptolemy? Mention has already been made of Sostratos and Kallias, and Pyrrhos had actually been invited by Athens, though it is uncertain whether he arrived in Athens before or after Demetrios’ departure for Asia.
In the decree for Phaidros it is mentioned that during his second hoplite generalship he obeyed the decrees of the boule and the ekklesia {IG 11^ 682,11.45-7). These decrees must have been related to the on-going negotiations; Phaidros, therefore, was somehow involved. If he was not officially authorised by the Athenian demos, then there remains the possibility that he was watching the evolution of the proceedings, acting unofficially via his brother Kallias and because of his previous connections with the Ptolemaic court in general (IG i f 682, 11.28-9) At this point Landucci Gattinoni’s conclusion on the nature of the peace can be of considerable help. Contrary to C. Habicht who thought that the treaties were essentially directed against Lysimachos, she argued plausibly that both treaties were limited to defining Athens’ status and did not aim at isolating Lysimachos. Admittedly, her argument is much more convincing with regard to the treaty concluded between Demetrios and Ptolemy. Habicht’ s point was that the Ptolemaic fleet did not obstruct
Plut, Demetr. 44; Pyrrh. 11; Pa us. 1.10.2; Polyaenus, IV.12.2; Justin XVI.2.1-2; Pompeius Trogus XVI Prologue.
Demetrios’ departure for Asia; this line of argument was adopted by Marasco who argued additionally that at about the same time Demetrios married Ptolemais, the daughter of Ptolemy I and Eurydike;!^^ consequently, it has been concluded that Ptolemy and Demetrios concluded a peace treaty which defined relations between them. Against this Landucci Gattinoni has maintained that the first argument is an argument ex silentio, and has underlined that it was Eurydike, estranged wife of Ptolemy I, who gave Ptolemais to marriage; more significantly, Ptolemy decided to have his son and heir married to Lysimachos’ daughter.113 therefore, there is neither proof of Ptolemy’s favourable neutrality nor of a breach in his relations with Lysimachos. I would add that it would be a unique phenomenon if a treaty between two kings had not been concluded by the kings themselves, but by a king on the one side and a representative (Sostratos) on the other. Consequently, the treaty between Ptolemy and Demetrios would have to concern Athens and Athens alone.^^^ This in turn suggests that if she was the only beneficiary from the treaty, then it seems quite probable that she was officially represented.
Habicht’s case, however, is stronger with regard to the treaty concluded between Pyrrhos and Demetrios (Plut., Pyrrh. 12.4-5). That Pyrrhos invaded Thessaly shortly after the departure of Demetrios for Asia, does not offer proof that the treaty he had concluded was not directed against Lysimachos, as Landucci Gattinoni thought.^l^ Plutarch states clearly that Pyrrhos concluded a treaty which he shortly afterwards breached. At least part of the treaty then concluded between Pyrrhos and Demetrios defined relations between themselves. It is very difficult to establish whether it concerned Athens as well.
112 “L ’ ultima spedizione di Demetrio Poliorcète in Asia”, Res Publica Literarum 8,1985,149- 163.
112 Lisimaco, pp.195-6.
11^ An additional argument by Landucci Gattinoni {Lisimaco, p.l93) concerns the subsequent relations between Athens and Lysimachos. It runs as follows: if the treaties were directed against Lysimachos, then Athens, being a protégé of Ptolemy, could not have continued being on favourable terms with Lysimachos. Athens though was neither under the rule of Ptolem y nor had she conducted a formal alliance with him; even if Lysimachos and Ptolemy had parted company, this would not necessarily bring about the form er’s hostility against Athens. 112 Lisimaco, p.l94.
* * *