Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, COL. XIII, 1–7: Ismenias and the Democratic Exiles

1

HELLENICA OXYRHYNCHIA COL XIII 1ndash7ISMENIAS AND THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRATIC EXILES

The fi rst four lines of the top of column XIII of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia papyrus are signifi cantly more damaged than the surrounding sections of text At this point the author lsquoPrsquo is explaining why the party of Ismenias in Thebes supported the Athenian exiles against the Thirty and against the wishes of Sparta The gaps in the text are large enough to have prevented reconstruction and we have only a very vague sense of what P is saying

I have re-examined the papyrus in the British Library and improved the transcript Bartolettirsquos edition and Chambersrsquos and all the more recent transcriptions all of which closely follow Grenfell and Huntrsquos editio princeps here contain several incorrect readings of individual letters as well as four mistakes in the conjectures modest as they are1 These mistakes make reconstructing the text impossible for any scholar working from any printed edition Consequently no editor except Kalinka has ever attempted more than one or two words of the lacunae Plus there are several legible letter traces that were never transcribed With the corrections we can improve the minimal transcript and reduce the lacunae to the point where we can reconstruct the text with moderate confi dence

Because of the diffi culty of describing fragments of letters I have provided facsimiles of the papyrus to illustrate all my claims about the readings and restoration The facsimiles show in black all the preserved ink A faint dotted line represents the edge of the papyrus These facsimiles were created from a high-reso-lution photograph (checked against the actual papyrus viewed under high magnifi cation to distinguish ink from holes and all other marks) and are extremely accurate2 The grey sections throughout are proposed restorations and are always derived from originals (I applied the standard that any reconstructed letter and its spacing had to match a good exemplar preserved elsewhere in the papyrus)3

1 The best text is Chambers (1993) who revised Bartoletti (1959) Grenfell and Hunt (1908 and 1909) did the main work of

the transcription so masterfully that their readings are often adopted by later editors without close scrutiny See Bruce (2007) p 109ndash13 for a detailed commentary on this section of the Hellenica Kalinka (1927) assumed that Grenfell and Huntrsquos tran-script was accurate and printed a bizarre reconstruction which subsequent editors largely ignored See below No other attempt has been made to reconstruct these lines

2 The section shown here is about 5cm across Letters are 2 to 3mm wide In reproducing the letters I used images that were about 10cm to 15cm across (ie per letter) and made an ink-only duplicate of the whole section (manually because no software can infallibly distinguish ink from other dark parts of the image) that is accurate to within about 001mm at the scale of the original Because it was checked against the original this facsimile is actually more accurate than the photo as a repre-sentation of the ink

3 Almost all letters for the reconstructions were taken from the fi rst thirteen lines of this column My high-resolution photograph covered only that section Images from other columns are at lower resolution The fi nal reconstructions in the fi rst

2 A Beresford

The following are lines 1ndash5 of the column in facsimile with the standard transcript (οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- are the last letters of the previous column) Below that is a new transcript For now I omit the portions of the fi fth line that are beyond the end of this sentence Readings that diverge from previous editions or add some-thing to the transcript are explained below with larger illustrations

1 Standard transcript (GrenfellndashHunt Bartoletti Chambers) οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- [τιζον] τ ῶ [ν Ἀ]θηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἶ χ[ον ] π [ ]έϲ χ ον ἐπεὶ του [ ] π ρ [οη]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον ]εϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ α [ ί]ζειν 4

2 Revised transcript οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- [τιζον ] τ ῶ [ν Ἀ]θηναίων ἀλλrsquo ει χ[ ]τ ε ϲ [νεωτ]ε ρ ε[ί]ζ ειν ἐπεὶ του [ ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον ]τ ε ϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ε [ ]ζειν

In what follows using close-up facsimiles I explain (a) the reading of -τ ε ϲ in the second line (b) the read-ing of -ε ρ ε[ι]ζ ειν in the second line (c) the reading of ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο in the third line and (d) the alternative reading ε of the fi nal trace of the fourth line

(a) The fi rst image here is the second (surviving) letter on the second line of the column This is certainly ε given the distinctive triple dot pattern The second is a better preserved ε from the -ειν termination later in the line (see below) Third and a good match for the second is the damaged second ε of εκαθειζεν in the previous column Dots of damaged letters seem to correspond to points where the pen touched down lifted off or formed a double

appendix makes use of letter combinations taken from several columns In a few cases I have used a colour-enhanced photo-graph rather than a facsimile

4 All these editors agreed as to the letters visible on the papyrus and the supplements I think later editors saw no need to check Grenfell and Huntrsquos reading There is disagreement only on the position of the left-hand edge Bartoletti (1959 p 24) moved it to the left by a couple of letters quite correctly Grenfell and Hunt proposed ἀττικί]ζειν for the last word of the sentence without saying what they had in mind Kalinka (1927 p 21) printed a full reconstruction as follows οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν[τιζον] τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἶχ[ον λόγον τοῦ κράτουϲ μόνον ὅ]π[ερ κατ]έϲχον ἐπεὶ το[ύτων ἐναντίων ὑπακούειν] πρ[οῃ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον αὐτοὶ δυναϲτεύοντ]εϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἂ[ν ὄνταϲ λακωνί]ζειν This is totally unintelligible Note that Kalinka himself printed the question mark as if puzzled by his own proposal

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia Col XIII 1ndash7 3

layer of ink by intersection5 For ε after starting with a single vertical stroke the scribe added a foot a cap and a crossbar resulting in thicker ink at three points as a result of those pen actions All three εrsquos here show this three-dot skeleton and in two of them other extremities are also preserved The uppermost tiny dot preserved in the fi rst ε is a remnant of the cap better preserved in the other two

The fi rst traces of the second line resemble those of the damaged τ that is above them in size angles and damage pattern There are other possibilities but τ or γ allows the simplest restoration assuming that the two dots are near the two extremities as is common To the right of ε is a fragment of a vertical in itself compatible with (at least) ϲ ι π or γ of which ϲ and ι are the most likely after ε It is highly likely to be partly erased ie even in the intact section of the papyrus like the two letters before it I have assumed that this letter extended lower than the fragment so as to reach closer to the rough base of the line and here I supply a ϲ in view of the wider reconstruction (see below) which suggests that a new word (νεωτερίζειν) begins after this letter

That makes τεϲ the most plausible option as the termination of a participle Previous editors printed π as a reading of this trace ndash incorrectly since the printed letter should imply a likely reading and π is at best a remote possibility

(b) This shows the reconstruction of ε ρ ε[ι]ζ ειν in the second line

The -ειν is certain Previous editors read χ ον here and printed -έϲ χ ον Apparently the top right of the probable ζ was read as the top left extremity of χ But the distinctive foot of ε and the point where εrsquos cross-bar meets the next let-ter are both clearly visible and the lower left diagonal of the proposed χ is too steep Also there is no possible ο here (the trace between ε and ν is quite clearly a section of ι) Finally the comparison between this fairly well preserved ε and the similarly damaged ε from the previous column (see above) is conclusive in itself

The traces to the left of the second ε are almost certainly ζ Tiny but defi -nite spots of ink reveal how the larger dots were joined indicating the top right portion of ζ (and for this scribe only ζ not ξ) The preceding ε and the space after it which is too large to be empty but only large enough for ι support this restoration in so far as -ειζειν is a common enough termination (probably representing -ίζειν) and the traces to the left of that are good for ρ suggesting νεωτ]ε ρ ε[ι]ζ ειν or π]ο ρ ε[ι]ζ ειν of which the former suits the context and fi lls the available space neatly The fi nal remaining trace is then interpretable as the

cross bar of ε or a fragment of ο δα]ν ε[ι]ζ ειν also seems possible as a reading of these traces in isolation ndash but it did not lead to a credible wider reconstruction Left is a comparison of the reconstructed ζειν and the same termination largely intact from elsewhere (three lines later) The size spacing and vertical position-ing of the letters all match well

5 The mechanism for this pattern is simple when letters suffered damage or erasure thicker layers were more likely to persist Of course not all surviving dots and traces can be explained in this way Elsewhere ink seems to have survived by being lodged in pits or ruts in the papyrus and that does not correspond to any pen action There is also pure chance

4 A Beresford

(c)

This shows the badly damaged section of the third line which contains traces of eight or nine letters and which I restore as ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ο ν [η]ρ part of ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο (For the spelling and meaning see below)

Previous editors all interpreted the end of this section (ie traces 5b 6 7 and 8 and following) as being fragments of π ρ [οῃ ]ρουντο Note that our scribe almost never includes iota adscript Trace 6 was thus read (strangely) as the right leg of π and trace 7 (plausibly) as the lower portion of ρ This reading is certainly wrong for two reasons (1) Trace 6 cannot be π The trace descends a short distance then shows a clear curvature upward and to the left back to the edge of the papyrus No right leg of π anywhere on the entire papyrus looks like that The trace is only compatible with ο (as shown) or perhaps though much less com-fortably the lower right of ν (though the resulting ν with 5b as its left leg is too small) Twenty columns of text fail to provide a single match for trace 6 as π but there is passable model for the trace read as ο in the very next line (the second ο of ετοιμουϲ) (2) The spacing for π ρ [οῃ ]ροῦντο is poor If trace 7 is read as ρ the space is really too small for οη to fi t before the next ρ unless the letters are small and cramped The right edge of a normal ρο with normal spacing would fall almost on the left upright of the η shown here It is then impossible to make a normal η fi t in the remaining space

Trace 7 should instead be read as part of ν and as this is the only satisfactory solution to the spacing problem the ν is as good as certain Trace 6 may then be read as ο its most probable per se reading and we then have an -ον termination before the more common verb ᾑροῦντο Right is a match for the proposed ν Not all νrsquos have this longer left leg but plenty do The fi rst ν here is taken from [α]θηναιων two lines above the second is trace 7 combined with the right portion of a ν from six lines below

To the left of -ον are two traces (5a 5b) that are suggestive from their position and orientation (one oriented towards the upper right one slightly towards the upper left) of the feet of μ On the traces alone I would not absolutely rule out ει αι λι ϲι but 5b is unlikely as ι and I consider μ a much better and more parsimonious explanation of the remnants Left is a comparison of the proposed reconstruction μο and an intact μο from the next line (note the very similar lower right portion of ο)

I read the set of traces above 4 as a ζ ζ can accommodate several separate marks here The largest mark at the upper right seems to have been formed in two parts (note the boomerang shape) and its position in the elbow of ζ explains that Four smaller marks fall on ζrsquos diagonal except for the lower portion of one of them which fi ts into the lower horizontal (at the other elbow) as shown in the reconstruction here which overall is an entirely standard ζ for this scribe The trace at the


top left appears plainly from its shape and from the ink spots to its right to be an extremity that continued horizontally to the right That rules out η which might otherwise seem faintly possible here I also think I can see a brownish ink remnant (invisible in the standard photograph but brought out here in this enhanced image) along the path of the top horizontal of the ζ

Trace 3 is a fragment of a descending bar with two largish dots on its right side The two dots probably indicate remnants of pen strokes or extremities as usual On that assumption I found that the position of the dots made only ε a feasible reconstruc-tion (as shown) in spite of great effort to make the traces fi t within other letters So we

may regard ε as very likely here Trace 2 to its left consists of three tiny fragments of ink which I hypoth-esize are part of the lower vertical of κ Closer examination of this section with photographic enhancement revealed a pattern of tiny dots of ink These microdots are shown here enlarged for visibility The pattern fi ts well with κε as shown The jutting lower left portion of ε is arguably also discernable in the enhanced photograph Of course this part of the reconstruction is no more than consistent with my hypothesis I concede that κ and ε are illegible without some prior theory as to what we are looking at But these traces constitute good supporting evidence

Traces 4ndash8 by contrast for all the reasons given strongly suggest -ζμον [η]ρ per se and that is enough to confi rm ἀττικειζμὸν ἡροῦντο with ἀττικειζμόν a spelling of ἀττικιϲμόν This phrase lsquothey favoured atticizingrsquo or lsquothey started a policy of atticismrsquo fi ts well into a wider reconstruction of the sense The com-bination of that fact and the good physical evidence seems compelling As for the spelling of ἀττικιϲμόν ει for ι presents no diffi culty and ζμ for ϲμ is well attested for this period in papyri (both documentary and literary) and inscriptions6 Though unusual it is not unusual enough to overrule the evidence here in its favour Overall the proposed reconstruction ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ρhellip produces evenly spaced regular let-ter forms out of the traces of ten separate letters (counting the gaps that are just the right size for ι and η) By contrast in exploring countless alternative reconstructions I found no satisfactory rendering of even far smaller sections of these traces (Eg even the modest π ρ [οη] is in fact decisively ruled out) Scholars might feel that such small fragments must allow any number of supplements But they should subject that view to a minimal test by making at least one specifi c alternative proposal and making it fi t all the traces This is much harder than it might at fi rst seem

(d) Finally regarding the last trace on the fourth line this has always been read as α plausibly But with this scribe the trace is also a perfectly credible ε because of the scribersquos tendency to give ε (not always but very often) a long base that projects down to the left (the last ε of the fi rst line and the fi rst ε on the fi fth line are clear examples) and I read ε here in the light of my wider reconstruction (see below)

The following is a restoration of all visible ink traces plus all the interior supplements to show the overall regularity of the reconstruction so far with transcript

6 See Gignac (1978) p 120 He reports that lsquoϲ is frequently replaced by ζ before a voiced consonantrsquo and gives several examples Almost all in fact are cases of ζμ for ϲμ (eg καταλοχιζμῶν for καταλογιϲμῶν ἀμφιαζμοῦ for ἀμφιαϲμοῦ) and all but one come from the fi rst three centuries CE In the Epicurean inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda dated to the reign of Hadrian (see Smith 1993 p 37ndash48) and hence to within perhaps fi fty years of our papyrus (dated by both GrenfellndashHunt 1909 p v and Bartoletti p VIII to the closing stages of the second century) among several other distinctive spelling habits that correspond well to those used by our scribe we fi nd seven instances of ζμ for ϲμ alongside the more familiar ϲμ spelling (see Smith 1993 p 117ndash8) There are no other surviving instances of ζμ in the Hellenica papyrus but there are only fi ve or six places where we might look to fi nd ζμ and only one intact instance of a noun ending in ϲμοϲ The sample size is too small to tell against the spelling In general ζμ is an oddity ndash a kind of minor spelling mistake For comparison we might note (see Croumlnert 1903 p 95ndash6) that there are fi ve instances of ζμ in the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία papyrus which dates to within a century of the Hellenica papyrus and is similar in form quality page size and provenance It is about four times as long as the surviv-ing portions of the Hellenica So at a rough estimate we should only expect one or two cases of ζμ in the whole of the latter It is also worth noting here that above the κ of ἀττικειζμόν is to my eye a defi nite letter (either α or κ) in a lighter brownish colour It is visible in the fi rst image of the papyrus above (I did not include it in the facsimiles) More ink is visible above the ζ It seems possible that a later scribe or reader corrected the odd spelling here (by writing κιϲμον above κειζμον) A few lines below above the ην of Ἀνδροκλείδην it is easy to make out α (possibly αν) in the same lighter ink (clearly a correction of the spelling) and there are several (probable) disambiguating accents and diereses in the same ink within the surrounding ten lines

6 A Beresford

]τ ῶ [ν Ἀ]θηναίων ἀλλrsquo ει χ[ ]τ ε ϲ [νεωτ]ε ρ ε[ί]ζ ειν ἐπεὶ του [ ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον ]τ ε ϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ε [ ]ζειν

These lacunae are now more manageable and we can attempt a fuller reconstruction of the sentence The sentence immediately before our text runs as follows

ἐφρόνουν δὲ τῶν πολιτευομένων οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Λεοντιάδην τὰ Λακεδαιμονίων οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ἰϲμηνίαν αἰτίαν μὲν εἶχον ἀττικίζειν ἐξ ὧν πρόθυμοι πρὸϲ τὸν δῆμον ἐγένοντο ὡϲ ἔφυγενmiddot οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν[τιζόν γε]7 τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo hellipOf the two political factions the party of Leontiades were pro-Spartan while the party of Isme-nias were labeled as atticizers as a result of their support for the [Athenian] dē mos in exile Not that they actually cared about the Athenians of course ratherhellip

In this context ἀττικίζειν refers to political leanings and party policy not to treachery or fi fth columnism P means that Ismenias was criticized in these terms by his oligarchic opponents just as he no doubt criti-cized them for lsquolaconizingrsquo As an ally of Sparta Thebes was expected to support the Spartans in foreign affairs But the war was over and the Theban refusal (in 404) to aid Sparta in suppressing the Athenian democrats and propping up the thirty tyrants was not a breach of their alliance It was just very annoying So in this context αἰτίαν εἶχον does not refer to a criminal charge8 Ismeniasrsquo pro-Athenian leanings were a little risqueacute for a Theban but not something he needed to hide In fact it is clear that he won a great deal of credit outside Thebes for supporting the exiles which he and the Thebans had done proudly and openly9 and P tells us that he was now (ie in 395) the dominant political force at home surely in part because of his lsquoatticizingrsquo which seems to have enjoyed popular support in Boeotia So αἰτίαν μὲν εἶχον ἀττικίζειν has a negative tone but should be taken in the milder party-political sense Something like lsquowere labeled as atticizersrsquo or simply lsquowere known as atticizersrsquo

Plutarch (Pel 521) says of Ismeniasrsquo party that it lsquohad a reputation for being freedom-loving and populistrsquo (ἑταιρείαν hellip φιλελεύθερον ἅμα καὶ δημοτικὴν εἶναι δοκοῦϲαν) It is clear that he and P agree that Ismenias was perceived as someone with populist leanings P chooses his less fl attering terms because of his own oligarchic sympathies Plutarch must be following a more democratic or neutral source But otherwise they are saying basically the same thing Note that Plutarch is not saying that Ismeniasrsquo party instituted (or even hoped to institute) actual democracy in Thebes He says only that his party was lsquopopu-

7 The spacing (see below) shows that there are a couple of extra letters here I supply γε γε is common and idiomatic after οὐ μὴν If we exclude cases of οὐ μὴν ἀλλά (a different idiom) then in 4th century prose γε occurs with οὐ μὴν in this position in more than a third of all instances of οὐ μὴν Xenophon adds γε in nine out of eleven cases

8 Indeed it typically does not refer to a criminal charge Cf Thucydides 1696 αἰτία μὲν γὰρ φίλων ἀνδρῶν ἐϲτὶν ἁμαρτανόντων κατηγορία δὲ ἐχθρῶν ἀδικηϲάντων But for my fuller view of Prsquos use of the term here see below note 18

9 As evidenced by both Xenophon and Plutarch See below note 17


listrsquo (δημοτική) which refers to the same general political colour that P labels as lsquoatticizingrsquo Likewise δοκοῦϲα is a more neutral way of saying αἰτίαν εἶχον10 and lsquofreedom-lovingrsquo is an allusion to the libera-tion of Athens brought about in large part by the Thebans which P sounding less impressed calls their lsquosupport for the exiled dēmosrsquo

As an illustration of this civilian political sense of lsquoatticizingrsquo consider these remarks from Isocratesrsquo De Pace in which he alludes to the very same events (1081)

Οὐχ ἡ μὲν τῶν ἀττικιζόντων πολυπραγμοϲύνη λακωνίζειν τὰϲ πόλειϲ ἐποίηϲεν ἡ δὲ τῶν λακωνιζόντων ὕβριϲ ἀττικίζειν τὰϲ αὐτὰϲ ταύταϲ ἠνάγκαϲεν Οὐ διὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν δημηγορούντων πονηρίαν αὐτὸϲ ὁ δῆμοϲ ἐπεθύμηϲεν τῆϲ ὀλιγαρχίαϲ τῆϲ ἐπὶ τῶν τετρακοϲίων καταϲτάϲηϲ διὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν τριάκοντα μανίαν ἅπαντεϲ δημοτικώτεροι γεγόναμεν τῶν Φυλὴν καταλαβόντων

Isocrates here speaks of the lsquomeddlingrsquo of lsquoatticizersrsquo in the Greek city states (including surely Ismenias) and in the next sentence of the lsquoknaveryrsquo of democratic leaders in Athens who by the symmetry of the pas-sage clearly correspond to the atticizers in the other cities And just as the brutality of laconizers (ie pro-Spartan oligarchs) throughout Greece lsquoforced those same cities to atticizersquo (ie turned them democratic again) so in Athens the fury of the Thirty lsquomade everyone more democratic than the men who captured Phylē rsquo ndash the latter being the Athenian equivalent to what happened elsewhere Thus lsquoatticizersrsquo clearly refers throughout to populist leaders outside Athens11 The accusation of lsquomeddlingrsquo is a familiar charge made against populist or democratic leaders whose foreign policies sometimes veered into military adven-turism and who always seemed (to conservatives) to be disruptive lsquotroublemakersrsquo at home

It is this usage that we have in Prsquos text certainly with the verb ἀττικίζειν and we must assume that the noun takes its sense from the preceding verb The tone is again negative (ἀττικιϲμόϲ elsewhere often implies at least a kind of sneer) but the content is political ἀττικιϲμὸν ᾑροῦντο lsquothey favoured atticismrsquo (or lsquobegan to favour atticismrsquo) means lsquothey adopted populist and pro-Athenian politicsrsquo12 This political sense of ἀττικιϲμόϲ is also plain in the opening sentence Ismenias was seen as an atticizer P says because he had enthusiastically supported the Athenian exiles against other Athenians Without the political sense of ἀττικίζειν this is baffl ing It would be as if one said lsquohe was seen as pro-Roman because he sup-ported Pompey against Caesarrsquo It was solidarity with the δῆμοϲ and proclamations against the oligar-

10 Plutarch is explaining why the Spartans loathed Ismenias and his party up until its destruction in 382 (Pel 521) hellip τῶν Ϲπαρτιατῶν hellip μάλιϲτα τὴν Ἰϲμηνίου καὶ Ἀνδροκλείδου μιϲούντων ἑταιρείαν hellip φιλελεύθερον ἅμα καὶ δημοτικὴν εἶναι δοκοῦϲαν hellip From the Spartan point of view δημοτικὴν εἶναι δοκοῦϲαν has not only the same basic meaning but even the same accusatory tone as Prsquos αἰτίαν μὲν εἶχον ἀττικίζειν As Bruce points out (2007 p 110) Ismeniasrsquo party was not a democratic party as such although it later morphed into one under Pelopidas But then the main reason for that is simply that Thebes at this time was not a democracy Ismenias might nevertheless have been sympathetic to democracy We need to distinguish the constitutional situation from Ismeniasrsquo perceived preferences We would never argue that Critias could not have been ὀλιγαρχικόϲ ndash sympathetic to oligarchy ndash in 407 on the grounds that Athens was a democracy at the time Likewise there is no sound objection to Ismenias being δημοτικόϲ exactly as Plutarch reports even when Thebes was an oligarchy

11 For this association of democracy with atticism oligarchy with laconizing cf also Thucydides 382 πᾶν ὡϲ εἰπεῖν τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν ἐκινήθη διαφορῶν οὐϲῶν ἑκαϲταχοῦ τοῖϲ τε τῶν δήμων προϲτάταιϲ τοὺϲ Ἀθηναίουϲ ἐπάγεϲθαι καὶ τοῖϲ ὀλίγοιϲ τοὺϲ Λακεδαιμονίουϲ

12 There are abundant excellent parallels for αἱρεῖϲθαι used specifi cally in reference to political parties and their poli-cies Cf Diodorus 1434 οἱ τὰϲ ὀλιγαρχίαϲ αἱρούμενοι [lsquothe pro-oligarchy partyrsquo] 17293 οἱ δὲ τὰ τῶν Περϲῶν αἱρούμενοι 18101 οἱ τὸν πόλεμον αἱρούμενοι [lsquothe pro-war partyrsquo] 13531 ᾑροῦντο τὸν πόλεμον [lsquowere in favour of warrsquo] 12273 ἐν δὲ τῇ Ϲάμῳ ϲτάϲεωϲ γενομένηϲ καὶ τῶν μὲν αἱρουμένων τὴν δημοκρατίαν [lsquowith one groupparty favouring democ-racyrsquo] 12813 τῶν τὴν ἀριϲτοκρατίαν αἱρουμένων [lsquothe pro-aristocracy partyrsquo] 12813 τοὺϲ μάλιϲτα δοκοῦνταϲ τὰ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων αἱρεῖϲθαι [lsquothe party known for being most strongly pro-Spartanrsquo] ἀττικιϲμὸν ᾑροῦντο seems to fi t with these examples very well and this distinctive use of αἱρεῖϲθαι reinforces the political sense of the noun The tense is also just right (all the examples are present or imperfect because they refer to on-going policy) It is signifi cant that several of the best examples of this idiom come from the sections of Diodorus that derive from P We also have one partial example surviving in P (21113) ὅϲοι μὲν οὖν [τῶν Μυ]ϲῶν μετέχειν ᾑροῦντο τῆϲ ϲτρατείαϲ In the light of the other examples this obviously means not lsquothose who chose to take part in the expeditionrsquo but lsquothose who favoured [as a policy] taking part in the expeditionrsquo (ie those who politically supported Agesilaus against Persia)

8 A Beresford

chic lsquotyrantsrsquo13 that cast Ismenias and his party as lsquoatticizersrsquo ndash ie pro-Athenian in a sense (because the democrats were somehow the real Athenians) but also populists and opponents of oligarchy Conversely P certainly means that their opponents the party of Leontiades favoured Sparta abroad and oligarchy in Thebes14

The phrase that briefl y describes Ismeniasrsquo support for the exiles (ἐξ ὧν πρόθυμοι πρὸϲ τὸν δῆμον ἐγένοντο ὡϲ ἔφυγεν) is more fl attering in its connotations and should be taken as a begrudging allusion to the plaudits that Ismenias had received Most of Greece including most Boeotians admired his lsquosupport for the dē mos in exilersquo But P oligarch that he is wants to pour cold water on that praise The main criticism of Ismenias comes in what follows (not in the reference to his atticism) οὐ μὴν ἐφρόντιζόν γε τῶν Ἀθηναίων means lsquoNot that they actually cared about the Atheniansrsquo Editors assumed at the start rightly that this is a claim about Ismeniasrsquo motives for atticizing rather than a denial of his atticism The suggestion is that he did not act for humanitarian reasons or out of dislike for tyranny but for some much less honourable reason15 On this theory P is saying something like this lsquoThe party of Ismenias were known as atticiz-ers because of the support they gave to the democrats in exile Not that they ever actually cared about the exiles They only became an atticizing party hellip [ for some other reason]rsquo

Elsewhere P is scathing in his accounts of the motives of populist politicians16 and this passage fi ts a marked political prejudice But he is also surely contradicting existing accounts of these events including Ismeniasrsquo own And for a good sense of what Ismenias himself claimed at the time we can turn to Plutarchrsquos absurdly glowing report He says (Lys 272ndash3) that the Thebans (under Ismenias) courageously defi ed Spar-tan threats and protected the exiles against arrest on humanitarian grounds they provided money arms and a secret base of operations from which to liberate Athens from a brutal tyranny their words and deeds matched the heroic philanthropy of Heracles and Dionysus17 Nonsense says P lsquoIsmenias didnrsquot give a

13 The thirty oligarchs installed by Sparta and led by Critias are always called lsquothe thirtyrsquo by Xenophon Isocrates Plato Lysias and Aristotle never lsquothe thirty tyrantsrsquo or lsquothe tyrantsrsquo They must have been called lsquothe tyrantsrsquo by their democratic opponents and the term became widely used only much later Hence it is signifi cant that the term occurs in the decree issued by Ismenias twice quoted virtually verbatim by Plutarch (Lys 273 Pelop 65 see below note 17 underlined) It shows that Ismenias was using democratic rhetoric As for P we cannot be sure if he did or did not call them lsquotyrantsrsquo but the following remark from Diodorus (1437) may well derive from him ᾑρέθηϲαν οὖν τριάκοντα ἄνδρεϲ οἱ διοικήϲοντεϲ τὰ κοινὰ τῆϲ πόλεωϲ ἁρμόζοντεϲ μὲν τῷ λόγῳ τύραννοι δὲ τοῖϲ πράγμαϲιν Note the authentic detail that the Thirty were nominally ἁρμοϲταί in the Spartan fashion

14 Cf Plutarchrsquos description of them (Pel 522) ἄνδρεϲ ὀλιγαρχικοὶ καὶ πλούϲιοι καὶ μέτριον οὐδὲν φρονοῦντεϲ15 GrenfellndashHunt (1908) p 229 lsquoThe general sense of this passage appears to be that Ismenias and his party favoured

Athens not from any regard for Athenian interests but from selfi sh motives helliprsquo Bartoletti (1959) p 23 lsquoSententia haec videtur Ismeniam ceterosque Thebanorum ἀττικίζονταϲ non amicitiae gratia suae vero utilitati consulentes Atheniensibus favissersquo This original reading of the basic logic of the sentence was quite right It carries the clear and slightly odd implication that P sees Ismeniasrsquo lsquoatticismrsquo as potentially praiseworthy ndash if it had been done for the right reason

16 He says (7217) that the democrats in Athens only agitated against Sparta so that they could provoke a new war so as to profi t from the public spending (ἵνrsquo αὐτοῖϲ ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ᾖ χρηματίζεϲθαι) This is absurdly cynical considering that just a few years earlier the Spartans had dismantled the democracy and installed the worst government in the history of the city Athenian democrats had excellent reasons to be against the hegemony of Sparta Indeed Prsquos account of their motives is not even coherent He begins by stating (no doubt accurately) that Athenian democrats hated the Spartans but ends by saying their only motive was to make money implying that they did not hate the Spartans Consider also 633 οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ καὶ δημοτικοί hellip ϲχεδὸν ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον ἐτάραττον τὰ πράγματα καὶ πολλὰ τοῖϲ Λακεδαιμονίοιϲ ἀντέπραττον The implication is that opposing Sparta is the same as lsquostirring up troublersquo

17 Λύϲανδρον δέ φαϲιν [ὀργίζεϲθαι τοῖϲ Θηβαίοιϲ] hellip μάλιϲτα ἐπὶ τῷ παραϲχεῖν ἀρχὴν Ἀθηναίοιϲ ἐλευθερώϲεωϲ ἀπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα τυράννων οὓϲ Λύϲανδροϲ μὲν κατέϲτηϲε Λακεδαιμόνιοι δὲ δύναμιν καὶ φόβον αὐτοῖϲ προϲτιθέντεϲ ἐψηφίϲαντο τοὺϲ φεύγονταϲ ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν ἀγωγίμουϲ εἶναι πανταχόθεν ἐκϲπόνδουϲ δὲ τοὺϲ ἐνιϲταμένουϲ τοῖϲ ἄγουϲι πρὸϲ ταῦτα γὰρ ἀντεψηφίϲαντο Θηβαῖοι ψηφίϲματα πρέποντα καὶ ἀδελφὰ ταῖϲ Ἡρακλέουϲ καὶ ∆ιονύϲου πράξεϲιν οἰκίαν μὲν ἀνεῷχθαι πᾶϲαν καὶ πόλιν ἐν Βοιωτίᾳ τοῖϲ δεομένοιϲ Ἀθηναίων τὸν δὲ τῷ ἀγομένῳ φυγάδι μὴ βοηθήϲαντα ζημίαν ὀφείλειν τάλαντον ἂν δέ τιϲ Ἀθήναζε διὰ τῆϲ Βοιωτίαϲ ἐπὶ τοὺϲ τυράννουϲ ὅπλα κομίζῃ μήτε ὁρᾶν τινα Θηβαῖον μήτε ἀκούειν καὶ οὐκ ἐψηφίϲαντο μὲν οὕτωϲ Ἑλληνικὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπα τὰϲ δὲ πράξειϲ τοῖϲ γράμμαϲιν ὁμοίαϲ οὐ παρέϲχον ἀλλὰ Θραϲύβουλοϲ καὶ οἱ ϲὺν αὐτῷ Φυλὴν καταλαβόντεϲ ἐκ Θηβῶν ὡρμήθηϲαν ὅπλα καὶ χρήματα καὶ τὸ λαθεῖν καὶ τὸ ἄρξαϲθαι Θηβαίων αὐτοῖϲ ϲυμπαραϲκευαϲάντων This testimony has been doubted by some historians but for no good reason See Lendon (1989) p302 and note 14 The decree seems to be quoted accurately its language closely matches con-temporary decrees (see eg Schweigert 1939) This important passage not only shows the effusive terms in which Ismenias


damn about the Athenians [ie the exiles]rsquo18 In what follows enough of the text is preserved for us to piece together a more cynical (but ultimately rather unconvincing) explanation for Ismeniasrsquo atticizing

The place to start is the fully preserved phrase near the end of the sentence κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ This phrase lsquowilling to make mischiefrsquo for reasons of space surely has to be grammatically connected with the fi nal infi nitive and easily the best verb to supply is παραϲκευά]ζειν lsquohellip to make [them] willing to do mischief helliprsquo For this use of παραϲκευάζειν in P cf 1515 παραϲκευά[ζειν προθύμουϲ τ]οὺϲ Ῥοδίουϲ (lsquohellip to make the Rhodians keen helliprsquo) 18110 αὑτοῖϲ ϲυμπαραϲκευάϲειν τοὺϲ πολίταϲ (lsquohellip would make their citizens [feel the same way] as themselves helliprsquo)19 The sequence of μᾶλλον followed by a participle then παραϲκευάζειν invites a reconstruction by way of the familiar μᾶλλον hellip ἄν idiom

hellip ἀττ]ικε[ι]ζμὸν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον οὕτωϲ ὑπολαμ|βάνον]τεϲ20 κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἐ[κείνουϲ ἂν21 παρα|ϲκευά]ζειν

hellip they began a policy of atticizing in the belief that that would be a better way of making them [ie the Thebans] willing to do mischief

was praised (or praised himself) but also provides strong evidence that his was a very popular policy in Thebes Ismenias and his party must have penned the highly provocative decrees but Plutarch implies that the Thebans in general welcomed and helped the exiles at considerable risk Xenophon confi rms this by the way he has the Thebans represent their actions later Cf Hell 358 ὅτε δὲ παρεκάλουν ἡμᾶϲ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἐπὶ τὸν Πειραιᾶ τότε ἅπαϲα ἡ πόλιϲ ἀπεψηφίϲατο μὴ ϲυϲτρατεύειν αὐτοῖϲ By contrast they disown the earlier attempt by Thebes to have Athens destroyed laying the blame on lsquoone manrsquo prob-ably Leontiades (ibid) οὐ γὰρ ἡ πόλιϲ ἐκεῖνα ἐψηφίϲατο ἀλλrsquo εἷϲ ἀνὴρ It might be argued that whatever the Thebans said at this later point was just a matter of political expedience (they were seeking help from Athens) But it rings true Support for the exiles would simply not have been logistically possible without general Theban enthusiasm

18 A more expansive paraphrase here will also help to explain the odd expression αἰτίαν εἶχον This is a puzzling phrase for P to use if Ismenias was praised for supporting the exiles ie for his atticism It is as if P is criticizing and praising Ismenias at once But there is nothing strange about that Ismenias was praised by democrats for helping the exiles he was hated by Spartans for the very same thing He was also criticized by oligarchs for his whole political career P is himself an oligarch and so cannot help speaking of atticism and Ismenias in negative terms It is his own attitude seeping through that explains αἰτίαν εἶχον The sentence works something like this lsquoAll reasonable people [ie oligarchs] saw Ismenias as a troublemaking atticizer after he supported the democratic exiles Mind you all that stuff about him being a humanitarian was nonsense he only switched to atticism because hellip [fi ll in cynical motive here]rsquo

19 The same idiom in Xenophon Mem 348 τοὺϲ ἀρχομένουϲ κατηκόουϲ τε καὶ εὐπειθεῖϲ ἑαυτοῖϲ παραϲκευάζειν 4512 ἑαυτὸν ἕτοιμον παραϲκευάζειν Oec 5152 δεῖ τοὺϲ ἐργαϲτῆραϲ καὶ προθύμουϲ παραϲκευάζειν καὶ πείθεϲθαι θέλονταϲ Notice that all the examples in both historians involve making people in some sense willing (κατηκόουϲ εὐπειθεῖϲ ἑτοίμουϲ προθύμουϲ πείθεϲθαι θέλονταϲ) Cf also Polybius 3335 βουλόμενοϲ ἑτοίμουϲ καὶ προθύμουϲ παρασκευάζειν 17115 τοὺϲ Καρχηδονίουϲ ἑτοίμουϲ παρεϲκεύαϲε πρὸϲ τὸ παραγγελλόμενον

20 Henceforth I assume the preceding readings of individual letters and omit all the sublinear dots for convenience until the complete transcript below The proposed ὑπολαμβάνον]τεϲ assumes a verb of thinking believing etc A verb of hoping or expecting (the only other credible option with μᾶλλον οὕτωϲ) would almost certainly have had a future infi nitive Since the participle ends in εϲ and assuming that μᾶλλ[ον οὕτωϲ is right ὑπολαμ|βάνοντεϲ is the best fi t (see below for the issue of spacing and line division) Note also Prsquos fondness for it (Flor) 12 χαλεπῶϲ εἶχον ὑπολαμβάνοντεϲ προπετῶς αὐτοὺϲ ἀνελέϲθαι τὸν κίνδυνον hellip 1816 οἰόμενοι δὲ ῥᾳδίωϲ τοῦτο πρ[άξειν ὑπολα]μβάνοντεϲ βασιλέα χρήματα παρέξε[ιν Of course there must be other possibilities but I have not found anything better The ἂν might have come at the front (eg μᾶλλ[ον ἂν οὕτω νο|μίζον]τεϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἐ[κείνουϲ παρα|σκευά]ζειν) but I fi nd the large gap between ἂν and its infi nitive unsatisfactory and it is probably unworkable given the intervening infi nitive ποιεῖν Whatever the exact text it seems extremely likely that the clause meant somehow lsquowith the idea that it [ie atticism] would help make them [ie the Thebans] more willing to do mischiefrsquo

21 I take ἐκείνουϲ to mean lsquothemrsquo ie as referring back to a subject mentioned earlier That seems to allow the sentence the most plausible ending We might have expected αὐτούϲ (somewhere) rather than ἐκείνουϲ and I explored reconstructions on that basis But it is not possible to reconstruct the sentence credibly with αὐτούϲ since it would have to come somewhere before the verb Eg α[ὐτοὺϲ ἂν παραϲκευά]ζειν throws emphasis onto αὐτούϲ and gives it the wrong sense (lsquothemselvesrsquo) On the other hand κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἂ[ν αὐτοὺϲ παραϲκευά]ζειν puts ἄν in an odd position It needs to follow the fi rst word of a verb phrase ἐ[κείνουϲ ἂν παραϲκευά]ζειν (assuming the alternative reading ε for α) avoids these problems It also gives a slightly different force to the lsquothemrsquo (them rather more emphatic) but in the fi nal reconstruction this turns out to be quite fi tting See below

10 A Beresford

κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ almost certainly refers here to willingness to break the peace to rebel against the Spartan hegemony and the status quo to engage in international lsquomischief-makingrsquo Elsewhere P repeat-edly accuses Ismenias and his party of striving to push Thebes into war against Sparta (and eventually of doing so)22 so that this way of taking the phrase is the obvious fi rst choice And for a close verbal parallel consider his description (7212) of the equivalent warmongering of the Athenian democrats [sc ἐμίϲουν τοὺϲ Λακεδαιμονίουϲ] ἐπιθυμοῦντεϲ ἀπαλλάξαι τοὺϲ Ἀθηναίουϲ τῆϲ ἡϲυχίαϲ καὶ τῆϲ εἰρήνηϲ καὶ προαγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ πολεμεῖν καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν Here the references to warmongering are blunt and the fi nal verb πολυπραγμονεῖν (lsquoto meddlersquo) is very similar in tone and sense to κακῶϲ ποιεῖν (lsquoto make mischiefrsquo) Both (on this view) refer in moralizing terms to disturbing the peace Consider also Xenophonrsquos descriptions of Ismenias he has Leontiades call him a πολεμοποιοῦντα (Hell 5230) then refers to him as a κακοπράγμων (lsquomischief makerrsquo) in reference to his warmongering23 Likewise as we saw Isocrates speaks of the πολυπραγμοϲύνη of lsquoatticizersrsquo in reference to their disruption of the peace and in the next breath of the πονηρία of reckless democratic leaders (the latter again lexically reminiscent of κακῶϲ ποιεῖν) So if we have this right Prsquos claim here is that Ismenias and his party wanted to start a war with Sparta (for some self-serving reason) and they were trying to get the Thebans to go along with them They needed to lsquomake them willing to do mischiefrsquo So they lsquotook up atticismrsquo ie a pro-Athenian and domestically populist political stance as a way of winning support Many Thebans it seems sided with the Athenian δῆμοϲ So Ismenias says P rode the wave His atticizing was a ploy to win support for his party and for his warmon-gering This explanation seems to make sense and to be in line with Prsquos disdain for populist politicians in general and his many accusations against Ismenias in particular It also fi ts well with the standard oligarchic prejudice (as expressed by Isocrates above) that lsquoatticismrsquo basically means demagoguery24

22 Cf 1611 Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Φωκεῖϲ τούτου τοῦ θέρουϲ εἰϲ πόλεμον κατέϲτηϲαν ἐγένοντο δὲ τῆϲ ἔχθραϲ αὐτοῖϲ [α]ἴτιοι μάλιϲτα τῶν ἐν ταῖϲ Θήβαιϲ τινέϲ [ie Ismenias and his party] 1812 οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Ἀνδροκλείδαν καὶ τὸν Ἰϲμηνίαν ἐϲπούδαζον ἐκπολεμῶϲαι τὸ ἔθνοϲ πρὸϲ τοὺϲ Λακεδαιμονίουϲ 18311 [the Phocians start the war against the Locrians] παροξυνόντων αὐτοὺϲ ἐκείνων τῶν ἀνδρῶν ο[ὓϲ οἱ] περὶ τὸν Ἀνδροκλείδαν καὶ τὸν Ἰϲμηνίαν παρεϲκεύαϲαν εἰϲ τὴν Λοκρίδα μετὰ τῶν ὅπλων ἐνέβαλον 1845 [ἁρπ]άϲαντεϲ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν ἀϲμ[ένωϲ hellip οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἰϲ]μηνίαν καὶ τὸν Ἀνδροκλε[ίδαν ἔπειϲαν τοὺϲ Βοι]ωτοὺϲ βοηθεῖν τοῖϲ Λοκροῖϲ

23 Hell 5235 τότε δὴ κατηγορεῖτο τοῦ Ἰϲμηνίου hellip ὅτι τῆϲ ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι ταραχῆϲ πάϲηϲ ἐκεῖνόϲ τε καὶ Ἀνδροκλείδαϲ αἰτιώτατοι εἶεν ὁ δὲ ἀπελογεῖτο μὲν πρὸϲ πάντα ταῦτα οὐ μέντοι ἔπειθέ γε τὸ μὴ οὐ μεγαλοπράγμων τε καὶ κακοπράγμων εἶναι It is striking that at this point Xenophon loses all semblance of objectivity He says that Ismenias defended himself but fails to give any detail of the defence and then hurls abuse at him He obviously disliked Ismenias as clearly did P and for that matter Plato (see Meno 90a) Evidently Ismenias was hated by the aristocratic writers who dominate the historical record to the permanent detriment of his reputation But we should be wary of trusting that record It may be no more reliable than an account of Abraham Lincolnrsquos motives written by his confederate enemies

24 This is the only historically signifi cant implication of the reconstruction It contradicts Grenfell and Huntrsquos view (1908 p 229) that P is saying that Ismenias helped the democrats only so as to gain support from the Athenians against his political opponents in Thebes In reality P is saying that Ismenias gained favour with Thebans (ie most Thebans) by being the champion of their sympathy for the exiles He is accusing Ismenias of rabble-rousing This accusation implies that Ismeniasrsquo party was perceived as having democratic sympathies and those perceptions imply some degree of substance They are probably more trustworthy than Prsquos attempt to undermine them The current consensus seems to be that Ismenias had no democratic leanings Even without the new evidence from P this was already an odd consensus given that such leanings would explain in a straightforward way (1) why he supported the exiles (2) why he was consistently friendly to Athens (3) why oligarchs in both Thebes and Athens hated him and (4) why he consistently opposed the Spartans And Prsquos text here shows that the consensus is wrong (As we noted above the fact that Thebes was at this time still constitutionally an oligarchy is irrelevant) Prsquos own view seems to be that Ismenias feigned populist leanings and his party opposed the Spartans only because lsquothey didnrsquot want to be killed by them through their supporters in Thebesrsquo 1811 ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῶϲιν ὑπrsquo ἐκείνων διὰ τοὺϲ λακωνίζονταϲ This explanation is both anachronistic and vacuous P is clearly thinking of the fact that Ismenias and several members of his party were eventually arrested by a passing Spartan army in 382 on the prompting of the Theban λακωνίζοντεϲ and taken to Sparta and murdered But they had no reason to fear such an unusual end back in 404 when they fi rst lsquoatticizedrsquo Plus the explanation gives Ismenias no actual political interests or motives and thus fails to explain why Spartans and other oligarchs hated him in the fi rst place If he had democratic sympathies and opposed oligarchy then there is no mystery about that Otherwise the explanation is circular lsquoThe Spartans killed Ismenias because of his years of opposition he only ever opposed them because he was afraid they would kill himrsquo This is silly It shows a desire on Prsquos part to avoid attributing respectable (or even intelligible) motives to Ismenias and his party ndash a desire he shares with other oligarchical writers


It should now be possible to restore the rest of the text So far we have this

οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν[τιζόν γε] τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἰχ[|helliphellip]τεϲ [νεωτ]ερε[ί]ζειν ἐπεὶ το[υ|hellip ἀττ]ικε[ι]ζμὸν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον οὕτωϲ ὑπολαμβάνον]τεϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἐ[κείνουϲ ἂν παραϲκευά]ζειν

Letrsquos pursue all our fi ndings and these hypotheses and their implications as far as they take us If they are right then the gaps should fi ll in without too much trouble and without major problems in the sense the Greek or the physical reconstruction of the papyrus If they are wrong we are bound to encounter some kind of decisive obstacle somewhere So if the fi nal section is right here is what follows

(a) ᾑροῦντο is our main verb No indicative verb comes after it and it cannot be part of the ἐπεί clause because the dependent ὑπολαμβάνοντεϲ could not hang from a subordinate clause That would be syntac-tically clumsy by any standard25 and P always writes with a plain clear syntax to the point of dullness It follows that there must be another indicative verb inside the ἐπεί clause (There is only very limited space for that missing verb which greatly limits the possible supplements) But it is a safe assumption again on grounds of simplicity economy and clarity that the subject of that verb will be the same as the subject of ἐφρόντιζον ᾑροῦντο and [ὑπολαμβάνον]τεϲ

(b) If ᾑροῦντο is our main verb the ἐπεί clause must look forward rather than back The syntax must be of the form (a) lsquoWhen they grew tired they stopped for the nightrsquo rather than (b) lsquoThey were tired since they had walked all dayrsquo ἐπεί can be used in either way but in our sentence with the main verb after the ἐπεί we must have (a) lsquowhen they [something or other] they favoured atticismrsquo In dry prose like this the (a) usage of ἐπεί is in any case the norm A backward looking ἐπεί is vanishingly rare26

(c) The claim that a policy of atticism was a lsquobetter way of making the Thebans willing to make mis-chief rsquo is cryptic (what mischief) unless there is a clearer reference to this aim earlier in the sentence We found parallels suggesting that κακῶϲ ποιεῖν means something like lsquoto break the peacersquo but in all those passages the context made the sense clear Eg πολυπραγμονεῖν got its sense by following πολεμεῖν and κακοπράγμων got its sense in a context of accusations of warmongering Here that function in the sentence is performed nicely by νεωτ]ερε[ί]ζειν which means lsquoto revoltrsquo (ie against Sparta) or lsquoto alter the political status quorsquo (ie Spartarsquos hegemony) Thus κακῶϲ ποιεῖν gets a perfectly clear sense from νεωτ]ερε[ί]ζειν

There was surely a participle before νεωτ]ερε[ί]ζειν the sense of which should be lsquoaimingrsquo lsquowishingrsquo lsquodesiringrsquo lsquostrivingrsquo or some such because the phrase should describe Ismeniasrsquo political goal On sense and Prsquos usage alone ἐπιχειροῦν]τεϲ ἐπιθυμοῦν]τεϲ or ϲπουδάζον]τεϲ would be ideal but for reasons of spac-ing (see below) those seem to be ruled out and I propose ζητοῦν]τεϲ For the resulting phrase ζητοῦντεϲ νεωτερίζειν cf 732 οἱ μεταϲτῆϲαι τὰ πράγματα ζητοῦντεϲ used of the Corinthian anti-Spartan party There the verb is used the same way (with an infi nitive) and with the right sense (in reference to a political goal) More than that μεταϲτῆϲαι τὰ πράγματα means the same thing as νεωτερίζειν and is used by P as a description of the same goal that he attributes to Ismenias ndash anti-Spartan revolution

(d) If we are roughly right in (a)ndash(c) then the syntax of the sentence after ἀλλrsquo does not permit an indicative verb up front So ειχ cannot be part of εἶχον plausible as that has always seemed We would need to have καὶ ἐπεί ἐπεὶ γάρ ἐπεὶ δέ ἐπεὶ οὖν etc Without that it seems ειχ cannot be an indicative verb27 Also it seems impossible to link εἶχον to the nearby infi nitive ]ίζειν without very poor Greek

25 It would be ambiguous The participle could be taken as hanging from the ἐπεί clause or from the preceding indicative verb And either way the resulting syntax would be awkward

26 It is a more colloquial usage more or less confi ned to dialogue or drama or Aristotlersquos lecturing style etc Take Thucy-dides Xenophonrsquos Hellenica and P as our sample exclude speeches and exclude ἐπεὶ καί (which is always backward look-ing but which we do not have here) out of about 700 remaining instances of ἐπεί only fi ve are backward looking So one can reasonably claim that absent any further evidence there is about a 99 chance that any given ἐπεί in P comes before its main verb

27 Strictly on my reconstruction εἰχ can be indicative only if the text contains an abrupt change of subject a minia-ture clause and an asyndeton like this οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν[τιζόν γε] τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἶχ[ε τὰ πράγματα ὧδε | ζητοῦν]τεϲ νεωτ]ερε[ί]ζειν hellip But that seems highly unlikely Such a clause would not mean anything more than ἀλλά on its own

12 A Beresford

Therersquos another possibility ἀλλrsquo ειχ might be the start of ἀλλrsquo εἰ χ[ρή and thus open up a parenthesis syntactically isolated from the rest of the sentence A common parenthesis that would fi t well here is ἀλλrsquo (εἰ χρὴ τἀληθὲϲ εἰπεῖν) or one of its close equivalents28 P is not averse to this kind of parenthesis Barely ten lines earlier (1645) he has ἁπλῶϲ δὲ δηλῶϲαι lsquoto explain it simplyrsquo And since here he is giving us the real reason the true explanation as opposed to the alleged reason that Ismeniasrsquo party adopted their atticizing policy it seems appropriate enough that he should begin with lsquoRather (to state the truth of the matter) helliprsquo or lsquoIn reality helliprsquo So if this is a fair possibility then on the basis of the several independent pieces of evidence for the wider reconstruction I assume here that some such parenthesis explains ἀλλrsquo εἰχ[ allowing us to leave the hypothesized syntax and content of the rest of the sentence intact The two best candidates for this parenthesis (εἰ χρὴ τἀληθὲϲ εἰπεῖν and εἰ χρὴ τἀληθῆ λέγειν) occupy the whole of the rest of the line which is one important reason for preferring ζητοῦντεϲ at the start of the next Only if the parenthesis were briefer (I have no suggestions) would ἐπι|χειροῦν]τεϲ or ἐπι|θυμοῦν]τεϲ fi t Any such parenthesis must go at least a couple of words beyond εἰ χ[ρὴ include an infi nitive and then end before the participle which must be at least as long as ζητοῦντεϲ

(e) The ἐπεί clause explains why Ismeniasrsquo party took up atticism given their lsquomischievousrsquo revolu-tionary goals More importantly for the reconstruction it also must contain the name of the people that they were trying to lsquomake willing to do mischiefrsquo if ἐκείνουϲ in the fi nal clause is right That is ἐκείνουϲ (lsquothemrsquo) which produces the cleanest and most idiomatic Greek in the fi nal phrase must get its reference from somewhere earlier in the sentence And the ἐπεί clause is the only place left We assumed above very safely that the only people that Ismeniasrsquo party could have been aiming to infl uence in this way were their citizens the Thebans But there are various ways that basic sense could be conveyed The most obvi-ous option is ἐπεὶ τοὺ[ϲ Θηβαίουϲ Or we might consider ἐπεὶ τοὺ[ϲ πολίταϲ (lsquotheir fellow citizensrsquo) Both seem fi ne but Prsquos usage leans quite strongly to the former ἐπεὶ τοὺ[ϲ Βοιώτουϲ though also acceptable is probably ruled out by the next sentence which raises as a new point the effect of these parties on the other Boeotians As for the missing verb there cannot be many that fi t the very small available space of ten or so letters (and the line division which imposes further restrictions) and make sense I think there is only one really good candidate ἐπεὶ τοὺ[ϲ Θηβαίουϲ οὐκ ἔπει|θον lsquowhen they could not persuade the Thebansrsquo That is the most idiomatic verb for talking people into rebellion or war29 and fi ts above all with the fi nal reference to lsquomaking [the Thebans] willing to do mischiefrsquo Making someone willing to do mischief is a matter of persuasion ndash it means persuading them to do mischief ndash and if Ismeniasrsquo party felt they needed to become a more populist party as a more effective way of persuading the Thebans to do mischief then it follows that they were having trouble persuading them up till then If the ἐπεί clause refers to that fact then it explains the need for a new strategy and the result is a clear overall structure for the train of thought We may paraphrase as follows lsquoDesiring rebellion against Sparta when they failed to persuade their citizens they tried X as a way of making them more willing to rebelrsquo

The pronoun ἐκείνουϲ in the light of this full reconstruction is arguably serving its usual function (or one of them) namely of pointing to subject A as opposed to subject B The point of the sentence is that Ismeniasrsquo atticism was not taken up for the sake of the exiles as one might expect and as people claimed but rather directed at the Thebans The following is a fair paraphrase lsquoHe didnrsquot care about the Athenians The truth is he was trying to stir the Thebans into mischief-making and his rabble-rousing atticism was

28 The idiom in this exact form is found only in later Greek (Galen Diodorus Lucian etc) where it is very common But almost identical parentheses are found much earlier in Isocrates we have ἀλλrsquo εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲϲ εἰπεῖν εἰ δεῖ τἀληθῆ λέγειν and parenthetical χρὴ γὰρ τἀληθῆ λέγειν and in Aeschines and Demosthenes εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲϲ εἰπεῖν

29 Cf eg Thucydides 812 ῥᾳδίωϲ πείϲειν τὰϲ πόλειϲ ἀφίϲταϲθαι Andocides De Pace 312 οἵπερ νῦν ἥκουϲι πείθοντεϲ πολεμεῖν Diodorus 1482 πείθειν ἀποϲτῆναι Λακεδαιμονίων Most important is Prsquos remark about Ismeniasrsquo other plan for provoking war with Sparta viz his (alleged) incitement of the trouble between the Locrians and Phocians (182) οὐδέποτε γὰρ [ἐνόμιζον] οὔτε Θηβαίουϲ οὔτε τοὺϲ ἄλλουϲ Βοιωτοὺϲ πειϲθήϲεϲθαι πολεμεῖν Λακεδαιμονίοιϲ ἄρχουϲι τῆϲ Ἑλλάδοϲ There too P says that Ismenias was having trouble persuading the Thebans to go to war The two passages complement each other First his atticism then the Locrian affair are presented as ways of driving Thebes into war Both are responses to the diffi culty of persuading them to do something so drastic The fi rst is a kind of preparation (lsquomaking them ready for mischiefrsquo) the second is the fi nal push


directed at themrsquo The emphasized them here gives the force of ἐκείνουϲ which seems just the right pro-noun for P to use

So a complete reconstruction of the sentence on the basis of our opening hypotheses does seem to be possible and to avoid all major diffi culties of sense language or spacing (for the latter see below)

ἐφρό- νουν δὲ τῶν πολιτευομένων οἱ μὲν περὶ τὸν Λεοντι- άδην τὰ Λακεδαιμονίων [οἱ] δὲ περὶ τὸν Ἰϲμηνίαν αἰτίαν μὲν εἶχον ἀττικίζειν ἐξ ὧν πρόθυμοι πρὸϲ τὸν δῆμον ἐγένοντο ὡϲ ἔφ⟨ε⟩υγενmiddot οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- || [τιζόν γε] τ ῶ ν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἰ χ[ρὴ τἀληθὲϲ εἰπεῖν ζητοῦν]τ ε ϲ [νεωτ]ε ρ ε[ί]ζ ειν ἐπεὶ τοὺ [ϲ Θηβαίουϲ οὐκ ἔπει- θον ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον οὕτωϲ ὑπολαμ- βάνον]τ ε ϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἐ [κείνουϲ ἂν παρα- ϲκευά]ζειν

The political situation was this the party of Leontiades were pro-Spartan [oligarchs] and the party of Ismenias were known as [populist] atticizers because of the keen support theyrsquod offered the exiled Athenian democrats mdash not that they actually cared about the Athenians of course In reality their aim was to disrupt the peace and it was when they couldnrsquot persuade the Thebans [to go along with them] that they became an atticizing party with the idea that it would be a better way of making them willing to do mischief

Appendix I Spacing

Above is a reconstruction of the fi rst seven lines of the column The grey portion shows the surviving papy-rus (including the section reconstructed above) The other sections are presented here as a careful check on the spacing of all the other proposed supplements to demonstrate that the reconstruction fi ts with all avail-able physical evidence and the substantial constraints of the papyrus The edges of the text were worked out before and independently of the reconstruction The edges of the column can be extended upwards from its lower half (which is very regular and survives with much of its full width intact) and as used throughout this reconstruction are both very accurate as to their position (but less certain on the right as to the avail-able space in terms of letters because there the size of the letters can vary signifi cantly) The edges are shown here in the image of the entire column Here the grey shading is used to show either the edge of the intact text (lower down) or the edge of the papyrus (higher up where it is not intact) The edge of the text is almost perfectly straight on the left more ragged on the right But even on the right it is clear the scribe used a ruled guideline in some form The dotted line shows its probable position The target edge can be extrapolated from the intact lines below Ιt runs alongside or through the fi nal μ α and υ in the 3rd 4th and 5th lines and this seems to fi t well with the reconstructed 6th and 7th lines with their intact fi nal αrsquos one of which is slightly squashed one very slightly stretched so as to fall on the line Scholars who reject my

14 A Beresford

reconstruction (even in its entirety) should in any case treat these edges as accurate for whatever alternative theory they might wish to test out

It is a rule for this scribe that no line ever falls short of the target edge and there are no space-fi llers but the lines very often go slightly beyond it and about half of all intact lines show squashing of the last three or four letters as the scribe tries to make the fi nal syllable end on or not too far beyond the target edge Hence in general the last fi ve or six letters of the lines are some-what smaller than elsewhere In my reconstruction I allowed myself slight squashing in three of the seven lines (1 2 and 4) There is also an original instance of such squashing in the 6th line the fi nal syllable τα Notice that the τ is tiny (about the size of the omicron above it) and the α about half-size If written at full size (eg like the τα of ἑταιρείαϲ earlier in the line) the syllable would have extended well beyond the other lines Note that I have generally transposed the restored letters in groups of two or three and in some cases in whole words (eg Θηβαίουϲ Θήβαιϲ) so that their spacing may be regarded as very closely matching the scribersquos usual practice

Appendix II Lines 6ndash7

I also re-examined the sixth line of the column (the next sentence) and we can improve the text there too Bartolettirsquos transcript of this section runs as follows

διακε[ιμ]έ νων δὲ τῶν ἐν [ταῖϲ Θήβαιϲ οὕ- τω κ]αὶ τῆϲ ἑταιρείαϲ ἑκατ[έρ]αϲ ἰϲχ[υούϲηϲ ]τ α [ πρ]οῆλθον πολλοὶ hellip

For the end of the 6th line and start of the 7th Grenfell and Hunt proposed ἔπει]τα | [πρ]οῆλθον But Bartoletti then correctly moved the edge two letters over to the left (in fact it is closer to three) making that proposal (and the others in his apparatus all based on the same edging) unworkable as he himself notes In any case ἔπει]τα adds nothing and is only marginally grammatical after a participle Bartoletti made no suggestion of his own

I suggest that the τα at the end of the line is part of a verb ending -ϲτάϲηϲ It can be clearly seen in my reconstruction above that -ϲηϲ can fi t comfortably at the start of the next line The best verb would be ϲυϲτάϲηϲ because ϲυνίϲτημι which P elsewhere uses several times is an especially appropriate verb for the forming of a ἑταιρεία Cf Demosthenes In Steph II 265 ἐάν τιϲ hellip ἑταιρείαν ϲυνιϲτῇ ἐπὶ καταλύϲει τοῦ δήμου Diodorus 10111 ἑταιρείαν μεγάλην ϲυνεϲτήϲατο 2581 ὕϲτερον δὲ hellipϲυϲτηϲάμενοϲ ἑταιρείαν τῶν πονηροτάτων ἀνθρώπων Plutarch Agesilaus 2026 τοῦ δὲ Λυϲάνδρου τετελευτηκότοϲ εὑρὼν ἑταιρείαν πολλὴν ϲυνεϲτῶϲαν ἣν ἐκεῖνοϲ εὐθὺϲ ἐπανελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆϲ Ἀϲίαϲ ϲυνέϲτηϲεν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἀγηϲίλαον Elsewhere P uses the verb with reference to the formation of political parties 727 καίτοι τινὲϲ λέγ[ουϲιν αἴτια γενέϲθ]αι τὰ παρrsquo ἐκείνου χρήματα τ[οῦ ϲ]υ [ϲτῆναι τούτουϲ (lsquoSome say it was the money from [Timocrates] that caused [the Athenian Boeotian and Argive anti-Spartans] to form their partieshelliprsquo) Thus the following revised text for the line end seems cleaner and more idiomatic and solves Bartolettirsquos spacing problem

διακε[ιμ]έ νων δὲ τῶν ἐν [ταῖϲ Θήβαιϲ οὕ- τω κ]αὶ τῆϲ ἑταιρείαϲ ἑκατ[έρ]αϲ ἰϲχ[υρῶϲ ἤδη ϲυϲ]τ ά- [ϲηϲ πρ]οῆλθον πολλοὶ hellip

That being the situation in Thebes and each of the parties now being fi rmly formed many people came forwardhellip30

Many thanks to Cinzia Bearzot George Pesely Mortimer Chambers Francesca Schironi Jonathan Barnes and Juumlrgen Hammerstaedt for a number of very helpful suggestions


References

Bartoletti V (1959) Hellenica Oxyrhynchia LeipzigBotsford G W (1910) The Constitution and Politics of the Boeotian League Political Science Quarterly 25

p 71ndash96Bruce I A F (2007) An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia CambridgeChambers M (1993) Hellenica Oxyrhynchia post Victorium Bartoletti ed M Ch LeipzigCroumlnert W (1903) Memoria Graeca Herculanensis LeipzigFerguson Smith M (1993) The Epicurean Inscription edited with Introduction Translation and Notes NaplesGignac F T (1978) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods 2 Morphology MilanGrenfell B P ndash Hunt A S (1908) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 5 Londonndash (1909) Hellenica Oxyrhynchia cum Theopompi et Cratippi fragmentis OxfordKalinka E (1927) Hellenica Oxyrhynchia LeipzigLendon J E (1989) The Oxyrhynchus Historian and the Origins of the Corinthian War Historia 38 p 300ndash13Perlman S (1964) The Causes and the Outbreak of the Corinthian War The Classical Quarterly 14 p 64ndash81Schweigert E (1939) Greek Inscriptions (1ndash13) Hesperia 8 p 1ndash47

Adam Beresford University of Massachusetts BostonAdamBeresfordumbedu

2 A Beresford

The following are lines 1ndash5 of the column in facsimile with the standard transcript (οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- are the last letters of the previous column) Below that is a new transcript For now I omit the portions of the fi fth line that are beyond the end of this sentence Readings that diverge from previous editions or add some-thing to the transcript are explained below with larger illustrations

1 Standard transcript (GrenfellndashHunt Bartoletti Chambers) οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- [τιζον] τ ῶ [ν Ἀ]θηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἶ χ[ον ] π [ ]έϲ χ ον ἐπεὶ του [ ] π ρ [οη]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον ]εϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ α [ ί]ζειν 4

2 Revised transcript οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν- [τιζον ] τ ῶ [ν Ἀ]θηναίων ἀλλrsquo ει χ[ ]τ ε ϲ [νεωτ]ε ρ ε[ί]ζ ειν ἐπεὶ του [ ἀττ]ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον ]τ ε ϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ε [ ]ζειν

In what follows using close-up facsimiles I explain (a) the reading of -τ ε ϲ in the second line (b) the read-ing of -ε ρ ε[ι]ζ ειν in the second line (c) the reading of ι κ ε [ι]ζ μ ὸ ν [ἡ]ροῦντο in the third line and (d) the alternative reading ε of the fi nal trace of the fourth line

(a) The fi rst image here is the second (surviving) letter on the second line of the column This is certainly ε given the distinctive triple dot pattern The second is a better preserved ε from the -ειν termination later in the line (see below) Third and a good match for the second is the damaged second ε of εκαθειζεν in the previous column Dots of damaged letters seem to correspond to points where the pen touched down lifted off or formed a double

appendix makes use of letter combinations taken from several columns In a few cases I have used a colour-enhanced photo-graph rather than a facsimile

4 All these editors agreed as to the letters visible on the papyrus and the supplements I think later editors saw no need to check Grenfell and Huntrsquos reading There is disagreement only on the position of the left-hand edge Bartoletti (1959 p 24) moved it to the left by a couple of letters quite correctly Grenfell and Hunt proposed ἀττικί]ζειν for the last word of the sentence without saying what they had in mind Kalinka (1927 p 21) printed a full reconstruction as follows οὐ μὴν ἐφρόν[τιζον] τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀλλrsquo εἶχ[ον λόγον τοῦ κράτουϲ μόνον ὅ]π[ερ κατ]έϲχον ἐπεὶ το[ύτων ἐναντίων ὑπακούειν] πρ[οῃ]ροῦντο μᾶλλ[ον αὐτοὶ δυναϲτεύοντ]εϲ κακῶϲ ποιεῖν ἑτοίμουϲ ἂ[ν ὄνταϲ λακωνί]ζειν This is totally unintelligible Note that Kalinka himself printed the question mark as if puzzled by his own proposal










4 A Beresford

(c)














6 A Beresford


















8 A Beresford



















10 A Beresford

















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References













4 A Beresford

(c)














6 A Beresford


















8 A Beresford



















10 A Beresford

















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References












6 A Beresford


















8 A Beresford



















10 A Beresford

















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References













8 A Beresford



















10 A Beresford

















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References














10 A Beresford

















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References
















12 A Beresford











Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References









Appendix I Spacing


14 A Beresford












References




14 A Beresford












References





References




Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, COL. XIII, 1–7: Ismenias and the Democratic Exiles

Documents

Transcript of Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, COL. XIII, 1–7: Ismenias and the Democratic Exiles