15

THE POLITICS OF THE PAST:
REMEMBERING REVOLUTION AT
ATHENS

Julia L. Shear

One day in Athens, in the archonship of Pytharatos, Laches, the son of Demochares, of Leukonoe made a request of the boule and the demos: he asked them to grant his father Demochares highest honours for his services to the city, not least because

he was exiled on behalf of the democracy and he took no part in the oligarchy and he did not hold any office after the demos had been overthrown; he alone of the Athenians who took part in civic life in his generation did not plot to change the fatherland to another form of politeia other than democracy; and he made both the legal judgements and the laws and the courts and property safe for all Athenians through his civic actions and he never did anything against the democracy either by word or by deed.1

In response to this request, the Athenians did, indeed, grant Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes, these honours, as we know from the Life of Demosthenes in the Lives of the Ten Orators.² So the Athenians appropriately rewarded one of their great patriots in 271/0 BCE.

At first sight, we might take these honours, and the request in which they are preserved, as evidence for the city’s highest honours and another manifestation of the culture of praise and reward in Hellenistic Athens.³ To do so, however, is to ignore the very strong politics of this particular document and the ways in which it (re-) constructs the Athenians’ collective memories of the revolution from Demetrios Poliorketes in 286 BCE, a date for which I have argued elsewhere.4 Modern scholars regularly understand these events as the liberation of Athens from external foreign rule.⁵ Our ancient sources, however, show that the revolution was preceded by periods of tyranny and oligarchy; consequently, the revolution entailed not only regaining freedom from foreign domination, but also overthrowing oligarchy and re-establishing democracy. The Athenians needed to ask how they were to restore the demos’ rule and how they were to negotiate their memories of the divisive period which preceded the revolution. As we shall see, the Athenians successfully remade Athens as democratic and they remembered the difficult events of the preceding years as the restoration of democracy and as external war. In so doing, the Athenians were guided by their collective responses to the earlier oligarchies and revolutions at the end of the fifth century and they modelled their actions on those of their ancestors. In the early third century, the city’s past showed Athenians how to respond to the present and how to remember the difficult events which they had experienced.

DEMETRIOS AND THE ATHENIANS

In 307, Demetrios sailed into the Peiraieus and proclaimed the liberation of Athens, the expulsion of Kassandros’ garrison, and the restoration of the laws and the ancestral constitution.6 His actions led directly to the departure of Demetrios of Phaleron, who had been appointed ten years earlier by Kassandros to govern the city.⁷ Demetrios needed to maintain his control of Athens, but his proclamation precluded the appointment of a governor; instead, he needed to act indirectly and to rely on Athenians who supported his regime. Our evidence suggests that he used this strategy both between 307 and 301 and after he regained the city in 295. Maintaining his rule over Athens was Demetrios’ primary consideration and the details of the city’s political system seem not to have concerned him, hence the democracy and oligarchy which the Athenians experienced. Stasis and tyranny accompanied the city’s repudiation of Demetrios after the battle of Ipsos in 301 and civil strife also occurred before the revolution.

Demetrios’ announcement in 307 indicated that democracy once again controlled Athens,⁸ but this decision also constrained him. Governors and garrisons were incompatible with the rule of the demos and Demetrios needed the support of important Athenians. Among his important supporters was Stratokles of Diomeia, who proposed extensive and unprecedented honours for Demetrios and his father Antigonos, as well as at least two subsequent measures desired by Demetrios.⁹ He was evidently a very active politician: twenty-four decrees moved by him before 301 are extant and eleven of them honoured Antigonid officials.10 Stratokles was not the only Athenian working for Demetrios and men such as [Ka]laidas, Philostratos, and an anonymous man from Thria who also moved decrees honouring his associates must have supported him on other occasions.¹¹ They were not able, however, to keep the city loyal to Demetrios and Antigonos after their defeat at the battle of Ipsos in 301, when the Athenians refused to receive Demetrios back in the city.¹²

Subsequently, in 300, Lachares, a commander of mercenary troops, made himself tyrant after disputes among the generals.¹³ The dissension was severe: our ancient sources describe the situation as stasis and they report fighting between Lachares and the hoplite general Charias, as well as the involvement of soldiers from Peiraieus.¹⁴ Lachares’ actions were encouraged by Kassandros, and Lysimachos was also supporting the Athenians at this time;¹⁵ this regime was certainly not well disposed to Demetrios. He, in turn, moved against the city. His attack led first to the capture of Eleusis and Rhamnous and then to the surrender of the city after a naval blockade and severe famine.¹⁶

After the overthrow of Lachares in 295, Demetrios controlled the forts at Eleusis and Rhamnous, while, on the proposal of Dromokleides, the Athenians gave him the Peiraieus and Mounichia and he installed a garrison on the Mouseion.¹⁷ As in 307, he does not seem to have installed a governor, and the rule of the demos was reinstated: a new boule and new generals were elected and the rest of the official year was divided into twelve prytanies;18 democratic rule is further attested in the Elaphebolion of 294.¹⁹ These circumstances will again have forced Demetrios to work through his supporters in Athens. Among these men were certainly Dromokleides and Stratokles.²⁰ Dromokleides’ proposal had given the king control of the Peiraieus, and he proposed at least one other measure in the king’s favour.²¹ Further honours were proposed by supporters who are now nameless.²² Gorgos’ decree for Demetrios’ official Herodoros should also identify the author as well-disposed towards the king.²³

The city did not remain under democratic rule: Olympiodoros was archon in both 294/3 and 293/2, an unprecedented situation, and, from 294/3 to 292/1, the secretary of the Council was replaced by a registrar (anagrapheus), the same situation which had existed during the oligarchy in 321–318.²⁴ This evidence indicates that the city was again ruled by a few, and inscriptions for Athenians active in the revolution from Demetrios refer to the overthrow of democracy and a period of oligarchy.²⁵ In addition to Dromokleides, Stratokles also supported this regime and its close links to Demetrios, as his honorary decree for Philippides of Paiania, the basileus in 293/2, shows.²⁶ Other office-holders, like Phaidros of Sphettos, who held multiple generalships, should also have been supporters.²⁷ Some men, such as Philippides of Paiania, may have become involved in order to provide the best course for the city, as Hagnon and Sophokles did in 411; others, like Olympiodoros, who led the Athenians against the Mouseion in 286,²⁸ may subsequently have become disillusioned or they may have been keeping their options open, much as Theramenes did in the late fifth century. Demetrios’ acquiescence to the return of the oligarchic exiles in 292/1 indicates his lack of concern for the nature of the regime, and the exiles will have had good reason to support him further.29 In the absence of a governor, the king had to rely on these oligarchic Athenians.³⁰

Not all Athenians supported the oligarchy, and the city was evidently divided. Phaidros’ honorary decree states that, in 288/7, ‘when difficult times (καιρῶν δυσκόλων) encompassed the city, Phaidros preserved the peace in the countryside . . . and he was responsible for bringing in the corn and other crops from the countryside’.³¹ The phrase ‘difficult times’ suggests unrest within the city, as well as in the countryside,³² and division over the correct course of action. That Phaidros fought on behalf of the ‘common safety’ (κοινῆς σωτηρίας) rather than the safety of the demos or polis, like men honoured after the revolution, reinforces this impression of strife between Athenians.³³ The stress in Phaidros’ decree that the laws of the city were still in force at the end of his term as general suggests that the internal situation was still under control.³⁴ As general in the following year, Phaidros is described as continuing to do ‘everything according to both the laws and the decrees of the boule and the demos’.³⁵ This phrase justifying his behaviour implies that not everyone saw his actions as appropriate and in the best interests of the city. Stasis, accordingly, accompanied the revolution and Athenians were divided, as they had been in the 290s when Lachares was tyrant. In 286, the Athenians needed both to re-establish democracy and to free themselves from Macedonian rule.

DEMOCRACY AFTER DEMETRIOS

Since the revolution from Demetrios also involved stasis and the overthrow of oligarchy, re-establishing democracy in Athens was not simply a matter of freeing the city from Macedonian control or even choosing new councillors and magistrates. Instead, the rule of the demos needed to be shown as a viable and functioning system which would not be overthrown again. To this end, the Athenians used a number of strategies. Honorary decrees provided a particularly useful medium because they were products of the democracy and they monumentalised its processes. The contents of the documents rewarding citizens further focused on the rule of the demos and emphasised its importance. They also helped to delineate how the good Athenian should behave when democracy was threatened.

In re-establishing democracy, decrees and other honours were particularly suitable because they had to be proposed, discussed and approved by the boule and the demos before the texts could be inscribed and the honours awarded. Subsequently, the inscriptions and bronze statues served to commemorate the activities of the democracy and also the process of their creation, a significant dynamic which sets them apart from most other memorials.36 Reading the decrees served to reperform the earlier actions in the Assembly, and it created and maintained memories of these actions. In this permanent form, they showed the demos perpetually in the process of ruling the city. These dynamics were not new at this time: they had been used to very good effect after the oligarchies of 411 and 404/3, as I have discussed elsewhere.³⁷ The increase in the number of inscriptions after the democrats regained control of the city³⁸ suggests that third-century Athenians were conscious of these dynamics. The documents include honours for various individuals, both Athenians and foreigners, who helped the demos to regain control, and there are indirect indications that not all the decrees which were passed are preserved. The honorary documents for non-Athenians may be quite specific about their actions, such as the decree for Zenon, or they may be couched in rather more general terms, as, for example, the decree for Artemidoros of Perinthos.39 Unlike the decrees for citizens, they do not focus particularly on democracy.

In contrast, the rule of the demos is an important focus both of the request for the highest honours for Demochares and of the honorary decree for Kallias of Sphettos. In the document about Demochares’ rewards, this importance is flagged up immediately by the form of the text: it requests the boule and demos to grant the highest honours.⁴⁰ They should so honour Demochares ‘because he was a benefactor and a good adviser to the demos of the Athenians and he benefited the demos as follows’.⁴¹ This phrase stresses that his activities took place in the democratic city, and it brings out the importance of the rule of the demos because actions in relation to other entities are not considered. The emphasis on the Athenian people continues in the description of Demochares’ services to the city. His early activities led to his banishment by ‘the men who overthrew the demos’.⁴² His recall by the demos in the archonship of Diokles in 286/5 inaugurates a second phase of his career. These first two sections emphasise that Demochares was politically active only under democracy, and they demonstrate the power of the people which recalled a man exiled on its behalf. The final section of the request focuses further on Demochares’ relationship to the demos. Here, we are told specifically that Demochares was exiled on behalf of the democracy, that he had no part in the oligarchy, and that he held no office after the demos was overthrown. Nor did he plot to change the democratic politeia. By his actions, Demochares also made the laws and the courts and their judgements safe for ‘all Athenians’. The laws and the courts are integral parts of the democracy and apply to everyone resident in the city, but they must be carried out by the actions of the individual citizens. We are presented with a particular picture of the honorand: a man active only on behalf of democracy, which is important enough for him to go into exile on its behalf.

This text also sets up patterns of behaviour, both positive and negative. The good Athenian is easily identified. He is a democrat who works on behalf of the demos and makes safe characteristic aspects of its rule for everyone. He defends the democracy both by word and by deed and he is willing to go into exile on its behalf. The actions of the bad Athenian are also delineated: he is an oligarch who plots against democracy and holds office after the demos has been overthrown. Both by word and by deed, he harms democracy and he does not care about ‘all the Athenians’. This imagery is extremely uncompromising, particularly in the aftermath of a revolution which involved not only fighting against Macedonians, but also stasis within the city. In the aftermath of the events, this identity will not have been comforting to anyone who was not an ardent democrat during the revolution, and it leaves little room for integrating these men back into ‘all the Athenians’. The focus here on the good Athenian as democrat also reinforces the importance of democracy in this document.

The emphasis on the rule of the demos and of a man’s actions on its behalf are also important dynamics in the long honorary decree for Kallias of Sphettos, who played an important role in the revolution (Fig. 15.1).⁴³ The design of the decree immediately brings out the importance of the people: demos is the very first word of the text and the phrase ‘it was decreed by the boule and the demos’ is set off in its own line.⁴⁴ There can be no question about the authority behind this document. While Kallias’ name is appropriately the second word in the decree proper, it is immediately followed by the phrase ‘when the revolution of the demos took place against those occupying the city’, and the next twenty-nine lines describe in detail Kallias’ actions on behalf of the demos.⁴⁵ This word appears repeatedly in this section of the inscription and there can be no doubt about its importance. These lines also make the relationship between Kallias and the people clear: ‘Kallias fought on behalf of the demos and, attacking with his soldiers, although he was wounded, he did not at any moment shrink from any danger on behalf of the safety (σωτηρίας) of the demos’.⁴⁶ At the time of the peace process, Kallias, at the request of the generals and the boule, ‘served as an envoy on behalf of the demos’.⁴⁷ While the sections which follow in lines 43–78 concern Kallias’ services to the city in the years after the revolution, the final clauses about his career come back to the events in 286. Here, we learn that Kallias did something on behalf of the patris when the demos had been overthrown, and he allowed his property to be confiscated under the oligarchy ‘so as no[t] to do [anything a]gainst either the laws or the democ[rac]y of all the Athenians’.⁴⁸ Again, the focus is on the demos and its rule and, as in Demochares’ request, the laws are an important part of this system. Kallias’ actions here match those of Demochares and are described in exactly the same terms.

Figure 15.1 SEG XXVIII 60: the decree in honour of Kallias of Sphettos.

In Kallias’ decree, we are also presented with another image of the good Athenian. Again, he is a democrat who works on behalf of the demos both in peace and, especially, in war, when he fights for the people and for their soteria. When a democrat’s property is confiscated by an oligarchy, he himself is in exile and so, once again, the good Athenian goes into exile on behalf of democracy. In exile, he cannot hold office and so he cannot support a regime other than the rule of the people. The image presented here fits well with the good Athenian in Demochares’ request, but it also extends the imagery by stressing the importance of fighting on behalf of the demos. Only in this way can a man be a good Athenian, and this definition leaves no room for citizens who previously supported the oligarchy and were not active on behalf of the safety of the demos. Presented in a decree, this image also emphasises the importance of the rule of the demos, a dynamic visible elsewhere in this document, as well as in the request for Demochares. Inscribing the text further served to display the power of the demos and its control of the city, while it also provided readers with an opportunity to reperform the assembly’s earlier actions. Set up in the city, the inscription emphasised that Athens was once again democratic.

THE DEMOS AND THE MODEL OF THE PAST

Both Kallias’ decree and Demochares’ request emphasise the importance of the demos and its rule, and together they present a very uncompromising picture of the good Athenian. These strategies, however, were not used for the first time to respond to the events of 286. Instead, the proposers were drawing on imagery developed at the end of the fifth century to respond to the oligarchies of 411 and 404/3. Of the earlier documents invoked, the decree of Demophantos with its focus on democracy proved to be an especially potent reference point. For third-century Athenians, the interconnections with the past reinforced the dynamics of their own documents and made the memory politics explicit. The associations also served to refine the images of the honorands as good Athenians and of the demos itself.

The decree and oath of Demophantos particularly focus on the importance of democracy, and this emphasis is repeatedly visible in the inscribed documents connected with these responses to oligarchy.49 In 410/9, this decree, too, presented an uncompromising view of what it meant to be Athenian: a democrat who kills tyrants and oligarchs on behalf of the city and, if necessary, dies for Athens. This image is similar to what we have seen in Demochares’ request and especially in Kallias’ honorary decree. As in the third century, in 410/9, Demophantos left no room for anyone who had previously supported oligarchy. The interrelationship between the request for Demochares and Demophantos’ decree does not stop at this point. The request stresses that Demochares never held office after the demos was overthrown and never plotted against the democracy; he also never did anything against the democracy ‘either by word or by deed’. Demophantos’ decree specifies how Athenians should act ‘if anyone overthrows the democracy at Athens or holds office after the democracy has been overthrown’.50 In addition, the oath requires the good Athenian to kill such a man ‘both by word and by deed and by vote and by my own hand’.⁵¹ In writing his request, Laches clearly modelled part of his description on the clauses of Demophantos’ decree. Here, the past provides a way of dealing with a difficult present, and it particularly makes clear how the good Athenian should act when the democracy has been threatened. The relationship between the two texts also has further implications for the memory politics of the earlier document. In 271/0, Demophantos’ decree was evidently still visible in the city, presumably in front of the Old Bouleuterion where Lykourgos placed it in 330 (Fig. 15.2).⁵² Laches knew that it was connected with the overthrow of democracy and stasis, events very similar to those which had enveloped the city in the early third century. Invoking this earlier text also (re-)created for listeners and subsequent readers memories of the events which it commemorated.⁵³

The invocation of Demophantos’ decree was not limited to the request for Demochares, and it served as a reference point for two other decrees awarding the highest honours. The document rewarding Philippides of Kephale states that he, too, ‘never [d]i[d] anything agains[t the d]emocracy [e]ith[er by word or] by deed’.⁵⁴ Since some of his most important benefactions involve the city’s relationship with Lysimachos, this phrase connects Philippides with the revolution, in which he was otherwise not involved.⁵⁵ Similarly, Kallias’ decree stresses that he never did anything against the laws or the democracy of all the Athenians.⁵⁶ Although the phrase ‘by word or by deed’ does not appear here, the reference to actions against the democracy invokes Demophantos’ decree, as does the emphasis on ‘all the Athenians’, who are twice described as swearing Demophantos’ oath.

Figure 15.2 Plan of the Agora in c. 300 BCE. Earlier, in the fifth century, the structure of the Metroon was the city’s (Old) Bouleuterion. In both instances, these references emphasise the two honorands’ status as good democratic Athenians who were in exile when the rule of the demos was overthrown and so could not hold office under another regime. In the case of Philippides’ document, the reference to Demophantos’ decree shows that, already in 283/2, the restored democrats were associating their revolution from Demetrios with the events at the end of the fifth century.57

While Demophantos’ decree describes political regimes other than democracy, it does not use the term ‘oligarchy’.⁵⁸ In contrast, both the request for Demochares and Kallias’ decree explicitly use this term,⁵⁹ and they set up an opposition between oligarchy and democracy. This strategy finds its parallel in the responses to the Thirty. For example, Theozotides’ decree rewarding the sons of dead democrats sets up an explicit contrast between democracy, which the dead men aided, and oligarchy, under which they died.⁶⁰ In the documents recording the sales of the property of the Thirty and their supporters, the oligarchs, whose property is being sold, are juxtaposed with the demos, which is doing the selling.⁶¹ The epigram from the decree honouring the living Athenians who brought back the demos juxtaposes their actions with their opponents’: ‘they first began to depose those ruling the city with unjust statutes (θεσμοῖς) and hazarded their lives’.⁶² Although the word used here is thesmos, the emphasis on laws, both good and bad, recalls the claims that Demochares made the laws safe and that Kallias never acted against the laws. Athenian laws had been the focus of much attention both after 411 and after 404/3 when they were collected and reorganised.⁶³ Memories of those events may lie behind the third-century references. More recent history, however, may also have been involved because (some of) the city’s laws had been (re)published in 304/3.64

The request for Demochares and the decree for Kallias make it clear that the honorands were in exile after the democracy was overthrown, and the image of the good Athenian is that of a man exiled for democracy, as we have already seen. The focus is on the individual, but the imagery implies, too, that good Athenians were in exile in the period leading up to the revolution, a strategy also visible in the decree for Philippides. In this way, the texts again recall the events at the end of the fifth century when the demos itself was remembered as being exiled and the return from Phyle was figured as the restoration of the demos from exile.⁶⁵ In the early third century, these parallels construct the events of 286 as the restoration of democracy. In the case of Demochares, the text specifies that ‘he was recalled (κατῆλθεν) by the demos in the archonship of Diokles’, and it employs a form of the verb κατέρχομαι. In the fifth- and fourth-century texts, this verb is regularly employed to describe the return from Phyle, and its use in the request for Demochares makes the connections with the earlier event explicit. The correspondences between the situation at the end of the fifth century and the revolution from Demetrios, however, are not exact because, in the third century, only individual Athenians were actually in exile and the demos could not properly be said to have been banished from the city. These differences bring out for us how the third-century Athenians have taken an aspect of the response to the Thirty and then adapted it to suit their own experiences and their own needs in responding to the revolution against Demetrios.

These earlier responses are invoked yet again in the request for Demochares and the decree for Kallias through bronze statues of the honorands which are to be set up in the Agora.⁶⁶ In Kallias’ case, the publication clause specifies that the inscription is to be erected next to the statue.67 We know that the honours for Demochares were awarded as requested, and it seems very likely that the resulting honorary decree was also set up next to the statue in the Agora. This location brought these commemorative monuments physically into a space which the responses to the fifth-century oligarchies had turned into the space of the citizen.⁶⁸ The inscribed monuments which the third-century texts invoke were all located here, so that the new inscriptions and statues were visually juxtaposed with their models. The physical presence of the earlier inscriptions will have further emphasised the connections between the responses to the revolution against Demetrios and to the events in the late fifth century. With its focus on democracy and the citizen, this setting reinforced the stress on the demos and its rule which we saw in the two third-century texts. The statues of Kallias and Demochares will have presented the two men as good democrats and exemplars for their fellow citizens. In this way, they repeated some of the dynamics, although probably not the physical appearance, of the figures of Konon and Euagoras which were erected in front of the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios to commemorate their victory at Knidos in 394/3 (Fig. 15.2), and which marked the end of the transformation of the Agora in the late fifth and early fourth centuries.⁶⁹ In the case of Demochares’ figure, its appearance will have had further ramifications for the image of the honorand. According to the Life of Demosthenes, it showed Demochares wearing a himation and a sword, the costume which he wore to address the demos when Antipatros was demanding the surrender of the orators.⁷⁰ While the himation emphasised the honorand’s actions as a statesman, the sword was decidedly martial. It linked him to the various military memorials in the Agora, particularly the Stoa Poikile and those in and around the Stoa of Zeus (Fig. 15.2).⁷¹ In this setting, the sword suggested that Demochares had contributed to the revolution against Demetrios in a military capacity, and it linked his actions with those of the earlier Athenians whose martial deeds were commemorated in various monuments in the square.

For Kallias’ statue, the combination of the figure, the inscribed text and the setting in the Agora must have been particularly potent. The text configures him not only as a democrat but also as a man active on behalf of the safety of the demos, and his actions make him into a saviour of the people. This construction borrowed another strategy from the early fourth-century monuments for Konon and Euagoras, which, though their location in front of the Stoa of Zeus Soter, presented the honorands as saviours of Athens.72 Juxtaposed with the early fourth-century figures and inscriptions, Kallias’ statue and decree will have stressed that he had followed the model of the earlier men and behaved like a good democratic Athenian. These parallels may have been further reinforced by the setting of the monument: the decree was found reused over the Great Drain in front of the Stoa Basileios and, together with the figure, it may have been erected not far away (Fig. 15.2).⁷³ Such a location would have placed it near both the Stoa of Zeus and the statues of Konon and Euagoras, so that the relationships were clearly visible. In the third century, the juxtaposition of Demochares’ and Kallias’ figures and the inscriptions will have made the memory politics both explicit and visible. At this time, responding to the overthrow of the demos followed the patterns of remembrance established over one hundred year earlier. These memories showed the Athenians how the rule of the demos could be displayed and how the image of the good citizen should be re-created. In this way, the Athenians were able to come to terms with the difficult present.

REMEMBERING STASIS?

Both the request for Demochares and the decree for Kallias focus appropriately on the actions of the honorands. This strategy, however, created gaps into which memories could fall and so be forgotten. Although both texts refer to the overthrow of the demos, they are very coy about who exactly did this terrible deed and what happened in the city. The stress on ‘all the Athenians’ in both documents implies disunity and the accompanying stasis. This term, however, is distinctly avoided, and only the cognate epanastasis is used once in Kallias’ decree to describe the actions of the demos against those occupying the city.⁷⁴ Civil strife cannot be remembered as such because it involves citizens pitted against each other.⁷⁵ In the aftermath of the revolution, the Athenians faced the problem of how to remember these events. The solution was to turn them into external war in much the same way that the events of 404/3 were made into victory over external enemies, hence modern scholars’ narratives of liberation from a foreign king.

Demochares’ request tells us very little about his opponents: they are simply the men who overthrew the demos. In part, this decision must have been dictated by his lack of participation in the revolution itself. In contrast, Kallias’ decree describes exactly these events. Here, too, the description of the opponents is circumscribed. They appear initially as the men who were occupying the city and the soldiers expelled from the asty.76 We hear also of hostile forces in the fort on the Mouseion Hill and in the Peiraieus, while Demetrios and his army appear several times.⁷⁷ The effect is to obscure any participation by Athenians and to shift the focus on to external enemies: the Macedonians and Demetrios. This strategy appears even more clearly in the honorary decree granting a certain Strombichos citizenship in return for his services to the city in the Chremonidean War.⁷⁸ The text reports that, ‘when the demos took up arms on behalf of its freedom’, Strombichos, a Macedonian officer, was persuaded to change sides and he joined in besieging the Mouseion with the demos. He acted for the freedom of the people and he was jointly responsible for the deliverance (soteria) of the city. In 266/5, some twenty years after the events in 286, internal dissent does not appear in the text; instead, the focus is on the military forces and the attack on the Mouseion.

The decrees for both Strombichos and Kallias combine their military actions with their focus on the soteria of the city or demos. In Kallias’ case, no military dangers deterred him from actions on behalf of the safety of the demos.⁷⁹ Linking soteria with military action locates the safety of the demos/city in relation to external enemies, and it reinforces the construction of the revolution as war against Macedonians rather than civil strife between Athenians. This same strategy appears in the honorary decree for Zenon, a commander of undecked warships for Ptolemy I. In addition to helping to secure the city’s corn supply, he is also described as ‘joining in the f[ighting] (συναγωνιζó[μενος]) [for the] safety [of the dem] os’.⁸⁰ As with our other examples, this phrase directs attention to enemies outside the boundaries of the city and it obscures any discord within it. In this context, the term soteria can refer to the events of the revolution, but without raising the spectre of stasis.81 Instead, it directs attention towards the city’s external enemies so that the fighting is configured as regular military action.

Remembering the revolution as war against Macedonians rather than civil strife between citizens was not limited to these inscriptions. Pausanias reports that the Athenians killed in the assault on the fort on the Mouseion Hill were buried with the other war-dead in the Demosion Sema.⁸² This decision emphasised that these men had died fighting external enemies, not Athenians, and the rituals of their burial will have stressed exactly this point: they were no different from the men buried in the other, earlier graves, some of which Pausanias described. This connection was reinforced by the Athenians’ decision to dedicate the shield of Leokritos to Zeus Eleutherios.⁸³ These honours were appropriate because Leokritos died in the fighting after being the first man to scale the wall and to enter the fort on the Mouseion. As a dedication, the shield will have been displayed in the god’s stoa in the northwest corner of the Agora, where military victory against external enemies was particularly celebrated.⁸⁴ Subsequently, when Pausanias came to describe the assault, he also remembered it as Athenians fighting against Macedonians and no other enemies.⁸⁵ In these ways, accordingly, the Athenians collectively (re)constructed the events as military action against external enemies, and they forgot the internal divisions which had also occurred. Conspicuously ignoring civil strife allowed it to be reconstructed as fighting against non-Athenians and stressed that the Athenians were forgetting. Since the burial of the dead will have occurred soon after the hostilities had ended, the Athenians’ construction of this response to revolution must have begun almost immediately. These decisions then continued to shape how the events would be remembered for at least the next twenty years.

By adopting these memory politics, the Athenians again followed the model set by the responses to the Thirty at the end of the fifth century. The men killed fighting against that oligarchy had also been buried in the Demosion Sema.86 Through the agency of Theozotides’ decree, their sons were assimilated to the war-orphans: they were brought up at state expense and, when they reached manhood, they were presented with the war-orphans in the theatre.⁸⁷ A trophy, that quintessential military monument, was erected and the Lakedaimonians killed in the fighting were buried near the Dipylon Gate and not far from the Demosion Sema.⁸⁸ In the epigraphical texts, the term stasis is avoided and the Thirty tend to disappear from view.⁸⁹ In this way, the fifth-century Athenians turned stasis into external war with the Spartans, and they collectively and conspicuously allowed civil strife to slip into the gaps of memory and so be forgotten. For their third-century descendants, borrowing these strategies allowed them to obscure the part played by their fellow citizens and their support of the Macedonians. Focusing on the Macedonians provided the divided Athenians with a common enemy responsible for their problems; concentrating on stasis, however, would have perpetuated their disunity. Celebrating this victory, therefore, created an occasion in which all Athenians could participate together, and it allowed them to begin the process of healing their divisions.

THIRD-CENTURY STRATEGIES

In the aftermath of the revolution of 286, the Athenians had to restore democracy and to decide how to remember the difficult events which had occurred. In so doing, they looked back to the ways in which their ancestors had collectively responded to the oligarchies in the late fifth century, and here they discovered a series of helpful documents and strategies: the decree and oath of Demophantos, the stress on democracy and the display of its actions, restoration from exile, remembering the events as external war and forgetting stasis. As their ancestors had done, so they, too, used the Agora, which had been remade in the late fifth and early fourth centuries into the space of the democratic citizen. The parallels with the fifth-century strategies also emphasised that the restoration of democracy in 286 had been achieved by citizens, rather than an outside power, as it had been in 307. While the Athenians were clearly using the past in order to deal with the present, they did not adopt all the strategies from the fifth century. Instead, they took over only those features which were relevant to their own situation, and they had to acknowledge both the continuing Macedonian control of the Peiraieus and their dependency on aid from foreign kings. Simply reverting to the strategies of the late fifth and early fourth centuries would not solve the problems facing the city after 286.

The revolution from Demetrios brought freedom only to the city itself because the Peiraieus and the fortresses in Attica remained in Macedonian hands. In 285/4, the decree in honour of the Paionian king Audoleon records his promise of future support and his assistance ‘towards the recovery of the Peiraieus and the freedom of the city’.90 In 283/2, Philippides’ honours report that, after the revolution, he requested money and corn from Lysimachos ‘so that the demos remains free and the Peiraieus and the forts might be recovered as quickly as possible’.⁹¹ In the following year, Euthios is given permission to seek further benefits ‘when the Peiraieus and the asty are reunited’.⁹² Despite at least one failed attempt to recapture the seaport, it remained under Macedonian control and was not reunited with the city.⁹³ Of the forts, Eleusis was back in Athenian control by 284/3, when Philippides as agonothetes first put on extra games for Demeter and Kore ‘as a memorial of the [freedom] of the demos’.⁹⁴ By the start of the Chremonidean War, Athens had also regained control of Rhamnous, but the circumstances and date remain unknown; other installations remained in Macedonian hands.⁹⁵ Particularly in the immediate aftermath of the revolution, the continuing Macedonian presence in the Peiraieus and other forts will have reinforced the construction of the events of 286 as military action against external enemies. It also gave the Athenians a common foe against which they could all agree to direct their attention together. Expelling the remaining Macedonian forces, consequently, brought the divided citizens together, and this shared purpose served to begin healing the fractures caused by the revolution. The references in the decrees will have reinforced these dynamics and they repeatedly reminded the Athenians of their united resolve in removing the Macedonian garrisons.

The aid requested from Audoleon and Lysimachos in order to recover the Peiraieus emphasises the Athenians’ continuing dependency on the good will of various kings. Indeed, Kallias’ decree demonstrates that the support of Ptolemy I was crucial for the success of the revolution. Similarly, the request for Demochares records his embassies to both Lysimachos and Ptolemy, and these two kings’ names appear in other inscriptions honouring individuals who either participated or supported the Athenians in the revolution.96 In the decrees, the effect is to shift the focus away from the city of Athens and to situate the events in the larger international sphere. Such decisions reflect the changed realities of third-century Athens, but the strategies also contrast with the documents generated by the Athenians after the revolutions in the late fifth century. That material is focused on Athenians and the city, while leading powers from elsewhere in the Greek world are not invoked or otherwise made visible. In the third century, it proved impossible for the Athenians to escape the political realities of the day, particularly their dependence on foreign kings and their lack of control of the Peiraieus and the other forts.

The references to the kings and the Athenians’ lack of control of the Peiraieus make the third-century documents significantly unlike the texts connected with the late fifth-century revolutions. For us, this contrast brings out an important difference between the responses: while the third-century Athenians faced some of the same issues and adopted many strategies from the fifth century, they were not blindly repeating what their ancestors had already done. Instead, they took the appropriate approaches and adapted them to suit the particular circumstances which they now faced. In some cases, the current situation allowed the Athenians to make very close connections with the fifth-century responses to revolution, as we see with some aspects of the request for Demochares and the decree for Kallias, but those same documents also do not hesitate to mention foreign kings well disposed towards the city, an element which has no parallel in the fifth century. Copying all aspects of the earlier responses would not solve the city’s problems; instead, the Athenians had to pick and choose the appropriate strategies from their ancestors’ earlier actions. Not all aspects of the past were now relevant and some of them had to be ignored and so forgotten.

That the third-century responses to the revolution are the result of conscious choice is brought out by a final document which also recalls the events: the honorary decree for Phaidros of Sphettos which was passed soon after the end of the Chremonidean War.97 Some twenty-three lines of this lengthy inscription concern the years between 288/7 and 286/5, but they present a very different picture (Fig. 15.3).⁹⁸ Despite extensive subsequent erasures, there are no traces of exile or of fighting on behalf of the demos, as there are in the other texts. Since the erasures were made in 200 BCE when references to Macedonian kings were removed from Athenian documents,⁹⁹ their content must have concerned Demetrios rather than any of the other kings. The text emphasises keeping the peace, counselling the demos and following the laws and decrees of the boule and demos, but it carefully does not indicate the nature of the regime.¹⁰⁰ Perusal of earlier sections of the decree also shows that Phaidros was general when Lachares was tyrant,¹⁰¹ and he certainly held office under the subsequent oligarchic regime. This text presents a very different image both of the revolution and of the honorand from those of the other documents. Unlike our other honorands, Phaidros was not rewarded after the revolution and, indeed, his career seems to have languished. When the city was once again under close Macedonian control in the 250s, Phaidros could finally get his highest honours, but doing so required the creation of a very different memory of the revolution against Demetrios. Both the strategies of the 280s and 270s and the influence of fifth-century responses were now inappropriate: memories of the past once again had to be (re)constructed in relation to current realities.

Figure 15.3 IG II² 682: the decree in honour of Phaidros of Sphettos (EM 10546).

As Phaidros’ decree shows, the revolution against Demetrios continued to be remembered collectively some thirty or so years after it took place, and the demos was still honouring supporters like Strombichos in familiar ways as late as 266/5. The burial of the dead in the Demosion Sema, however, indicates that the initial decision about the Athenians’ response to the events must have been taken almost immediately and, by 283/2, the fifth-century responses were being specifically invoked. In this way, the responses to the revolution will also have helped to re-establish the democracy and to reunite the fractured Athenians. This long period of public response in the third century contrasts with the collective response to the Thirty, which happened much more quickly: the statues set up in 394/3 for Konon and Euagoras seem to mark its conclusion.

That the third-century Athenians looked back to the past testifies to the still powerful memories of the earlier oligarchies more than one hundred years after the events. Their politics of remembrance were evidently more complicated than we might have imagined from fourth-century texts such as Lysias 2, Plato’s Menexenos and Aischines’ speech against Ktesiphon, which all present the events as external war fought against the Spartans and forget stasis.102 Third-century Athenians certainly knew this strategy and they clearly drew on it, but they also remembered the connections between the fifth-century responses and oligarchy and civil strife. This association, which was largely ignored in the collective public sphere, will have been reinforced both by narrative histories and by the legal speeches, the memories and responses of individual men. The actions of the third-century Athenians also bring out the importance of the past and the ways in which it can serve as a model for the present. As Phaidros’ decree demonstrates, however, memories of earlier events were not infinitely malleable.¹⁰³ As a finite resource,¹⁰⁴ the past could not be used indiscriminately in the present, and not all Athenians could be presented as ardent democrats and revolutionaries against Macedonian kings.

1	[Plut.] Mor. 851D–F. Pytharatos’ archonship is dated to 271/0: B. D. Meritt, ‘Athenian archons 347/46–48/47 B.C.’, Historia 26 (1977), pp. 161–91, at p. 174; A. G. Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI: Inscriptions: The Decrees (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1997), p. 268.
2	[Plut.] Mor. 847D–E.
3	E.g. P. Gauthier, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier siècle avant J.-C.): Contribution à l’histoire des institutions ( BCH Supplement 12; Athens: École Française d’Athènes, 1985), pp. 77–92; I. Kralli, ‘Athens and her leading citizens in the early Hellenistic period (338–261 B.C.): The evidence of the decrees awarding highest honours’, Archaiognosia 10 (1999–2000), pp. 133–61. They have also recently been discussed in connection with intentional history; N. Luraghi, ‘The demos as narrator: Public honours and the construction of the future and the past’, in L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi (eds), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2010), pp. 247–63.
4	J. L. Shear, ‘Demetrios Poliorketes, Kallias of Sphettos, and the Panathenaia’, in G. Reger, F. X. Ryan and T. F. Winters (eds), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy (Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2010), pp. 135–52; so also T. L. Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C. ( Hesperia Supplement 17; Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1978), pp. 60–73. The scholarly opinio communis follows Habicht and Osborne in placing the revolution one year earlier in 287; C. Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v. Chr. ( Vestigia30; Munich: Beck, 1979), pp. 45–67; M. J. Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros and the revolt of Athens in 287 B.C.’, ZPE 35 (1979), pp. 181–94; C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 95–7. Proponents of this view need to explain the cancellation of the Panathenaia of 286.
5	E.g. E. Will, ‘The formation of the Hellenistic kingdoms’, in F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen and R. M. Ogilvie (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VII.1: The Hellenistic World, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 101–17, at p. 108; N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia. Vol. III: 336–167 B.C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 230–1; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 91, 95–7; G. Shipley, The Greek World after Alexander, 323–30 B.C. (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 123–4; G. J. Oliver, War, Food, and Politics in Early Hellenistic Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 121–3; R. M. Errington, A History of the Hellenistic World, 323–30 B.C. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), p. 56. Shear, Jr. and Green discuss the internal situation; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 61–73; P. Green, Alexander to Actium: The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 123–8. In contrast, discussions of the overthrow of the Thirty focus on Athenians, not Spartans; e.g. P. Krentz, The Thirty at Athens (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 69–101; M. Ostwald, From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), pp. 475–96; D. M. Lewis, ‘Sparta as victor’, in D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, S. Hornblower and M. Ostwald (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VI: The Fourth Century B.C., 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 24–44, at pp. 32–7.
6	Plut. Demetr. 8.4–7; cf. Diod. 20.45.1–2, 46.1.
7	Plut. Demetr. 9.3; Diod. 20.45.4–5.
8	On Athenian democracy at this time, see A. J. Bayliss, ‘Athens under Macedonian domination: Athenian politics and politicians from the Lamian War to the Chremonidean War’, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, 2002, pp. 101–4.
9	Plut. Demetr. 10.4–11.1, 24.6–11, 26.1–4; Diod. 20.46.2.
10	W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), pp. 13–14, with C. Habicht, ‘Athenisches Ehrendekret vom Jahre des Koroibos (306/5) für einen königlichen Offizier’, AJAH 2 (1977), pp. 37–9, at p. 39 n. 15, and SEG XXXVI 164; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, p. 71; Bayliss, ‘Athens under Macedonian domination’, p. 225 n. 2. Antigonid officials: listed by I. Kralli, ‘Athens and the Hellenistic kings (338–261 B.C.): The language of the decrees’, CQ 50 (2000), pp. 113–52 at pp. 130–1.
11	IG II2 498; SEG XXXVI 165; M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens Vol. II (Brussels: AWLSK, 1981), D51. On the importance of such links, see Kralli, ‘Athens and the Hellenistic kings’, pp. 122–3; Bayliss, ‘Athens under Macedonian domination’, p. 231.
12	Plut. Demetr. 30.4.
13	P.Oxy. 2082 frs. 1–2 = FGrHist 257a F1–2, with P. J. Thonemann, ‘Charias on the Acropolis’, ZPE 144 (2003), pp. 123–4; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 82–3. For the date, cf. Men. Imbrioi test. 1 ( PCG) = P.Oxy. 1235.105– 12. For Lachares as tyrant, see Plut. Demetrios 33.1, 8; Paus. 1.25.7.
14	Stasis: P.Oxy. 2082 fr. 1; Plut. Demetr. 33.1; fighting: P.Oxy. 2082 fr. 2; Peiraieus soldiers: P.Oxy. 2082 fr. 2; A. J. Bayliss, ‘Curse-tablets as evidence: Identifying the elusive “Peiraikoi soldiers”’, ZPE 144 (2003), pp. 125–40, at pp. 138–9. Paus. 1.29.10 may point to further unrest.
15	Paus. 1.25.7; IG II2 657.9–16.
16	Plut. Demetr. 33.1–34.1.
17	Plut. Demetr. 34.6–7.
18	IG II2 644; 645; 682.21–4; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 88–9; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 237; M. J. Osborne, ‘The archonship of Nikias Hysteros and the secretary cycles in the third century B.C.’, ZPE 58 (1985), pp. 275–95 at pp. 275–82; Bayliss, ‘Athens under Macedonian domination’, pp. 106–7; cf. Plut. Demetr. 34.5.
19	IG II2 646.1–3, 22–3.
20	Stratokles: SEG XLV 101.
21	Plut. Demetr. 13.1–3.
22	Plut. Demetr. 12.1–2.
23	IG II2 646.
24	Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 90–1; S. V. Tracy, Athens and Macedon: Attic Letter-Cutters of 300 to 229 B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 12–13; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, pp. 240–1; Meritt, ‘Athenian archons’, p. 172; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 53–5.
25	[Plut.] Mor. 851F; SEG XXVIII 60.80–3.
26	SEG XLV 101.
27	IG II2 682.24–47.
28	Paus. 1.26.1; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 95–6.
29	Return of exiles: Dion. Hal. Dein. 2–3, 9; Philoch. FGrHist 328 F67, 167;[Plut.] Mor. 850D; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 90–1.
30	No evidence supports Habicht’s contention that Olympiodoros served as Demetrios’ ‘commissar or representative’; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 90–1.
31	IG II2 682.30–6; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, p. 69. I remain unconvinced that the ‘corn and other crops’ are the same as the ‘corn’ brought in by Kallias, as suggested by Habicht and Osborne; SEG XXVIII 60.23–7; Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte, pp. 52–4; Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros’, pp. 185–6.
32	Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, p. 69.
33	IG II2 682.32–3. Safety of the demos: IG II2 650.18–19; SEG XXVIII 60.30– 2; safety of the polis: IG II2 654.20–1; 657.32–3; cf. IG II2 666.9–14; 667.1–2.
34	IG II2 682.38–40; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, p. 69. Hence the lack of evidence for intervention by the Macedonian soldiers; contrast SEG XXVIII 60.12–16, which describes the revolution itself.
35	IG II2 682.45–7.
36	Monuments usually ignore the processes which brought them into being; J. E. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 14; J. L. Shear, Polis and Revolution: Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 8. Exceptional nature of inscriptions: Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 8–9, 105–6.
37	Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96–106, 159–65, 247–57.
38	Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 245.
39	Zenon: IG II2 650; Artemidoros: IG II2 663; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 172. Since I place the revolution in 286, I associate these inscriptions with those events.
40	See above, n. 1.
41	[Plut.] Mor. 851D.
42	[Plut.] Mor. 851E.
43	SEG XXVIII 60.
44	SEG XXVIII 60.1, 10.
45	SEG XXVIII 60.11–13.
46	SEG XXVIII 60.28–32.
47	SEG XXVIII 60.36–8.
48	SEG XXVIII 60.78–83.
49	Decree of Demophantos: Andok. 1.96–8; J. L. Shear, ‘The oath of Demophantos and the politics of Athenian identity’, in A. H. Sommerstein and J. Fletcher (eds), Horkos: The Oath in Greek Society (Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press, 2007), pp. 148–60, at pp. 150–3; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96–9. Responses to fifth-century oligarchies: Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 96–106, 247–57.
50	Andok. 1.96.
51	Andok. 1.97.
52	Lykourg. Leok. 124–5.
53	For an example of these dynamics, see Lykourg. Leok. 126–7; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 159–63.
54	IG II2 657.48–50, with Gauthier’s restoration of [πέπραχ]ε[ν] in line 49; P. Gauthier, ‘Notes sur trois décrets honorants des citoyens bienfaiteurs’, RP 56 (1982), pp. 215–31, at p. 222 n. 28. This phrase occurs nowhere else in the corpus of Attic inscriptions.
55	His connection with the revolution is further suggested by lines 31–2, which record that ‘when the demos had recovered its freedom, he continued doing and saying what was advantageous for the safety of the city’. This passage constructs Philippides as an Athenian active on behalf of the safety of the city, an image which we have already seen in connection with Kallias.
56	SEG XXVIII 60.81–3.
57	Euthios’ archonship in 283/2: Meritt, ‘Athenian archons’, p. 173; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, pp. 256–7.
58	Shear, ‘The oath of Demophantos’, p. 150; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 75, 98–9, 111, 162–3.
59	[Plut.] Mor. 851F; SEG XXVIII 60.81.
60	SEG XXVIII 46, especially lines 4–6; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 248, 250, 259–60.
61	SEG XXXII 161; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 249–50, 260.
62	SEG XXVIII 45.73–6, with Aischin. 3.190.
63	The bibliography on this project is extensive; see e.g. S. Dow, ‘The Athenian calendar of sacrifices: The chronology of Nikomakhos’ second term’, Historia 9 (1960), pp. 270–93; Ostwald, From Popular Sovereignty, pp. 407–11, 414–18, 511–24; N. Robertson, ‘The laws of Athens, 410–399 BC: The evidence for review and publication’, JHS 110 (1990), pp. 43–75; P. J. Rhodes, ‘The Athenian code of laws, 410–399 BC’, JHS 111 (1991), pp. 87–100; S. C. Todd, ‘Lysias against Nikomakhos: The fate of the expert in Athenian law’, in L. Foxhall and A. D. E. Lewis (eds), Greek Law in its Political Setting: Justification and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 101–31; J. Sickinger, Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), pp. 93–105; S. D. Lambert, ‘The sacrificial calendar of Athens’, ABSA 97 (2002), pp. 353–99; M. Gagarin, Writing Greek Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 182–8; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 72–96, 229–30, 232, 238–47.
64	IG II2 487.4–10; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, p. 70; W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens: An Historical Essay (London: Macmillan, 1911), pp. 103–4; Gagarin, Writing Greek Law, pp. 228–9.
65	E.g. Lys. 12.57–8; 13.47; 14.33; 24.25; 25.18, 20–2; 26.2; fr. 165.34–8 (Carey); Isok. 16.12–14; Aischin. 3.187; cf. Lys. 2.61; A. Wolpert, Remembering Defeat: Civil War and Civic Memory in Ancient Athens (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp. 91–5; S. Forsdyke, Exile, Ostracism, and Democracy: The Politics of Expulsion in Ancient Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 260–4.
66	[Plut.] Mor. 851D; SEG XXVIII 60.95–6. At some later date, the statue for Demochares was transferred to the Prytaneion; [Plut.] Mor. 847D, E.
67	SEG XXVIII 60.104–7.
68	J. L. Shear, ‘Cultural change, space, and the politics of commemoration in Athens’, in R. Osborne (ed.), Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution: Art, Literature, Philosophy and Politics 430–380 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 91–115; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 112–22, 132–3, 263–85.
69	Isok. 9.56–7; Dem. 20.69–70; Paus. 1.3.2–3; Shear, ‘Cultural change’, pp. 107–9, 113–15; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 274–81, 284.
70	[Plut.] Mor. 847D.
71	Military monuments: Shear, ‘Cultural change’, pp. 105–6, 111–12.
72	Shear, ‘Cultural change’, pp. 107–8, 110; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 277–8.
73	Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 1–2 with n. 1.
74	SEG XXVIII 60.12.
75	Shear, Polis and Revolution, p. 295; cf. N. Loraux, The Divided City: On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens (New York: Zone Books, 2002), p. 101.
76	SEG XXVIII 60.12–14.
77	Hostile forces: SEG XXVIII 60.14–16; Demetrios: SEG XXVIII 60.16–18, 27–8, 36.
78	IG II2 666.1–17 and 667.1–6 = Osborne, Naturalization Vol. I, D78. Date (archonship of Nikias of Otryne): Meritt, ‘Athenian archons’, p. 174.
79	See above, n. 46.
80	IG II2 650.14–17. The inscription’s state of preservation precludes certainty about Zenon’s actions; for suggestions, see Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 20–1; Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte, pp. 48–50; Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros’, pp. 189–90; Oliver, War, Food, and Politics, p. 123 n. 67.
81	Compare Osborne, Naturalization in Athens, Vol. II (Brussels: AWLSK, 1982), p. 158. The revolution is also alluded to by the phrase ‘when the demos recovers the asty /its freedom’, but it serves to obscure, rather than emphasise, the military events; IG II2 654.17–18; 657.31.
82	Paus. 1.29.13.
83	Paus. 1.26.1–2.
84	Shear, ‘Cultural change’, pp. 111–12.
85	Paus. 1.26.1–3.
86	Lys. 2.64; N. Loraux, The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 35–6, 200; Shear, Polis and Revolution, p. 292.
87	SEG XXVIII 46; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 291–4.
88	Lys. 2.63; S. C. Todd, A Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1–11 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 262–3; Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 298–9.
89	Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 294–301.
90	IG II2 654.30–5 = Osborne, Naturalization Vol. I, D76; Diotimos’ archonship in 285/4: Meritt, ‘Athenian archons’, p. 173; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 255.
91	IG II2 657.31–6; cf. Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 176.5–6.
92	Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 181.28–31.
93	Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 124–5; Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, p. 252; Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte, pp. 95–107; Osborne, ‘Kallias, Phaidros’, pp. 192–4; Oliver, War, Food, and Politics, pp. 55–63; contra: G. Reger, ‘Athens and Tenos in the early Hellenistic age’, CQ 42 (1992), pp. 365–83, at pp. 368–79; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 29, 79; P. Gauthier, ‘La réunification d’Athènes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias’, REG 92 (1979), pp. 348–99; failed attempt: Paus. 1.29.10; Polyainos 5.17.1; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 124–5; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, pp. 82–3; Oliver, War, Food, and Politics, pp. 58–60.
94	IG II2 657.43–45; Shear, Jr., Kallias of Sphettos, p. 84; A. Bielman, Retour à la liberté: Libération et sauvetage des prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique ( Études epigraphiques1; Athens: École Française d’Athènes, 1994), p. 78; cf. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, p. 129; Oliver, War, Food, and Politics, pp. 125–6; contra: K. Clinton, ‘Macedonians at Eleusis in the early third century’, in O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy (eds), The Macedonians in Athens, 322–229 B.C.: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Athens, May 24–26, 2001 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2003), pp. 76–81, at pp. 77–8.
95	I.Rhamnous 3.5–7; Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, pp. 129, 130.
96	Demochares: [Plut.] Mor. 851E; other references: e.g. IG II2 650.10; 663.3–4, 17; cf. Woodhead, Agora Vol. XVI, 172.7. Audoleon’s name appears in IG II2 655.
97	M. J. Osborne, ‘The archons of IG II2 1273’, in A. P. Matthaiou and G. E. Malouchou (eds), Αττικαί επιγραøαί: Πρακτικά συμποσίου εις μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm (1864–1950) (Athens: Greek Epigraphical Society, 2004), pp. 199–211, at pp. 207–10, and A. Henry, ‘Lyandros of Anaphlystos and the decree for Phaidros of Sphettos’, Chiron 22 (1992), pp. 25–33, both with further references; cf. e.g. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, p. 155; Luraghi, ‘The demos as narrator’, p. 255.
98	IG II2 682.30–52; cf. Luraghi, ‘The demos as narrator’, p. 255.
99	Livy 31.44.4–9; H. I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2006), pp. 34–40 with further references.
100	IG II2 682.33–4, 36–7, 39, 46–7.
101	IG II2 682.21–4.
102	Shear, Polis and Revolution, pp. 303–6.
103	Malleability of memory: Young, The Texture of Memory, pp. x, 2; J. Fentress and C. Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), p. 29; S. E. Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments and Memories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 17: G. Cubitt, History and Memory (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007), pp. 158–9, 202–3, 214.
104	A. Appadurai, ‘The past as a scarce resource’, Man 16 (1981), pp. 201–19.