K. H. Kinzl home page   K. H. Kinzl home page   TLG code   TLG code for Greek text

 

AP 22.4: The Sole Source of Harpokration
on the Ostrakismos of Hipparkhos Son of Kharmos1

Konrad H. Kinzl

Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte. Herausgegeben von der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Heft 1, 1991, Band 73

© Akademie-Verlag, Berlin

 

   

   

 

— 28 —

 

1.  Ostrakismos is a well-known fact in Athenian history on which scores of studies have been written. Ostraka have been recovered. They can be interpreted in only one way, which is that suggested by the literary source:2 “votes”, cast by Athenians, in a procedure that sent citizens into a peculiar kind of exile. The literary tradition is thus vindicated by the archaeological evidence, as regards the voting with ostraka. The chronological limits suggested by the literary tradition are also confirmed. All ostraka date from the fifth century.3 The evidence of these “ballots” also provides the names of all but one (surely spurious4) of those identified by the literary sources.

That, however, is the whole extent to which the physical evidence of the inscribed potsherds conforms with the literary evidence of our sources and is suited to comple-

 

   

   

 

— 29 —

 

ment the latter. In all other respects we are at the mercy of the literary sources, which range from Herodotos to the lexica and other productions of late antiquity and the Byzantine age. With regard to nearly all of the most important questions asked by the historian (e.g., when was the law on ostrakismos introduced, for what reason and purpose, on whose initiative), it is only by recourse to critical evaluation of the literary evidence, and secondly by historical argument based on it, that we may attempt to suggest answers.

It is problems in the first category, that of a critical evaluation of the sources, with which I am concerned in this paper. I have become convinced that the force of a historical argument is not enhanced by merely citing a literary source. First and foremost, the intrinsic validity of the literary source as historical evidence must be objectively assessed. Whatever we “know”, or strive to know, as historians, must be suppressed: it must not interfere with the process of establishing whether the literary source before us is sound.5

The antiquity of a literary text (which, in many instances, goes back no farther than the Byzantine age) does not absolve us of the duty to “subject [it to] a ferocious internal criticism”, even if the result of that process is that “nothing then remains”.6

The present investigation focusses on two passages:

(a)Harpokration s. v. *I(/PPARXOS, and especially the section dealing with Hipparkhos son of Kharmos (which appears in FGrHist as Androtion 324 F 6);

(b)AP 22.3ff.

 

2.  The lexicon on the Ten Orators by Harpokration is extant in two forms: an epitoma, and a “full” version which, however, is both contaminated and abridged.7 I shall refer to the extant “full” version throughout this study by the name “Harpokration”, in order to remind the reader that no ”clean” copy of Harpokration is extant. The gloss s. v. *I(/PPARXOS appears in both versions; it is only in the ”full” version, however, that the reference to Lykourgos and Androtion in the section on which our investigation focusses are preserved.

The complete gloss of “Harpokration” s. v.*I(/PPARXOS reads as follows:8

[A] *DHMOSQE/NHS E)N TW=I KATA\ *KTHSIFW=NTOS. TU/RANNOS H)=N OU(=TOS *E)RETRI/AS.

 

   

   

 

— 30 —

 

 

This text displays some characteristics of learned explanation of Attic O)NO/MATA. It is assumed that Harpokration depends on a source of the first order, compiled from authoritative sources: an Attic onomasticon,9 commonly known as V1. Its author has recently been identified by Alpers,9a on circumstantial evidence, as Ioulianos, a near contemporary of Oualerios Diodoros (who can be dated by his purchase of a boat, on 173 03 31, in Oxyrhynkhos10). Our Oualerios Harpokration belongs to the “Verwandtschaftskreis” of this Diodoros.11 V1 also lurks in the onomasticon by Polydeukes (= Pollux); the very late Lexicon rhetoricum Cantabrigiense11a (which is extant in the margins of a Cambridge manuscript of Harpokration); Lexicon Patmense;11b POxy 1804 (probably Diodoros12); and, as the source for factual information, explaining “sachliche Schwierigkeiten” in the orators, in the onomastic glosses of *LE/CEIS R(HTORIKAI/. For this prime source of the fifth lexicon in Bekker’s Anecdota, Wentzel invented the symbol V1,13 whose practice I shall follow.

Does the entry *I(/PPARXOS in “Harpokration” deserve to be praised as excellent and extremely learned (attributes that attach to V1)?

 

   

   

 

— 31 —

 

In the concluding section [E] of our gloss, “Harpokration” adds, to his explanations on four individuals with the name *I(/PPARXOS, a comment on the Athenian office of the I(/PPARXOS. Under the lemma I(/PPARXOS, most lexica explain only the office.14 Polydeukes 8.94 and Photios s. v. I(/PPARXOI deal also, in the same gloss, with the offices of the FU/LARXOS and the TACI/ARXOS14a, preserving V1’s grouping together of factual information on related subjects. Only “Harpokration” joins the explanation of the military office to another group of glosses (“Sammelglosse”), in which information on persons named *I(/PPARXOS is provided; and only “Harpokration” preserves references to sources. The corresponding commentary on the military officer styled I(/PPARXOS in the Lexicon Patmense, and that of a Demosthenes scholion, are attached to Demosth.21.164, where the explanation of the term is useful indeed.14b “Harpokration”, however, refers to Demosthenes’ First Philippic (4.26). This reference appears inapposite, because the factual information provided by “Harpokration” is no more detailed than that already given by Demosthenes at 4.26.14c “Harpokration”’s reference to AP is equally gratuitous. AP’s facts add nothing to Demosthenes’ remarks, and there is nothing in “Harpokration” that could be derived only from AP (61.4).14d

Under his separate lemma FU/LARXOS, “Harpokration” cites the same sources as in the sub-gloss s. v. *I(/PPARXOS (*DHMOSQE.NHS *FILIPPIKOI=S, preceding his explanation regarding FU/LARXOS, and, following it, W(S *A)RISTOTE/LHS E)N TH=I *A)QHNAI/WN POLITEI/AI FHSI/). No other extant gloss s. v. *FU/LARXOS contains any references to sources (except, copying the Harpokration epitoma with its reference to only Demosthenes’ Philippics, Souda (*F 82915). “Harpokration”’s explanation of FU/LARXOS is virtually identical to that in the *ETUMOLOGIKO\N *ME/GA, and to the one in *LE/CEIS R(HTORIKAI/. This group of glosses is significantly different from Polydeukes 8.94 and Photios s.v. I(/PPARXOI whose text is nearly identical with AP 61.5 (but who do not cite AP). The reference to AP in “Harpokration” s.v. FU/LARXOS is again (as that s.v. *I(/PPARXOS, [E] inappropriate. “Harpokration” contains the information that the FU/LARXOS is U(POTETAGME/NOS TW=I I(PPA/RXWI (which also occurs in *LE/CEIS R(HTORIKAI/, the Souda, and EM, s.v.). AP 61.5, however, does not contain such a statement.16

 

   

   

 

— 32 —

 

It appears that there existed two “Sammelglossen”. One offered extensive commentary on Demosth. 4.26, drawing, at least partly, on AP, and with the appropriate references. The other provided information on various individuals of the name *I(/PPARXOS encountered in the speeches of the Ten Orators. At least the former of these “Sammelglossen” most likely made its debut in a commentary on Demosthenes by Didymos. The latter, more likely, first appeared in a work on the Ten Orators. Remnants of the summary gloss which provided commentary on Demosth. 4.26 are, stripped of the references to the passage where the words occur and to the sources of the information, preserved by Polydeukes and Photios; also, at a greater distance from Didymos, in the form of glosses under separate lemmata (s. vv. I(/PPARXOS, FU/LARXOS, and TACI/ARXOS, or at least under one or two of them), in other lexicographical sources, as seen above. In the case of the Lexicon Patmense, which preserves only the commentary on I(/PPARXOS, the explanation is sensibly transferred to Demosth. 21.164. “Harpokration”, however, who also tears the I(/PPARXOS portion of the Didymos commentary on Demosth. 4.26 from its original context, retains the reference to Demosth. 4.26. “Harpokration” furthermore reattaches this fragment (with the reference) to the other “Sammelglosse” on various individuals of the name *I(/PPARXOS (which may have been transmitted to him through different channels). The reference to AP, however, is retained by “Harpokration”, from the original summary gloss on Athenian military positions. It is, at its new location, no longer pertinent, once the Didymean “Sammel- ”gloss had been mutilated and its substance contaminated.17

The sum of this exploration amounts to a note of caution. It would appear that “Harpokration” cannot be classified as a source of the best order, and one in whose information we are fully justified in placing great confidence.17a

 

In the section which is central to our investigation ([*G]), “Harpokration” comments on Hipparkhos son of Kharmos, and cites Lykourgos and Androtion. Our confidence in the text and the testimony of “Harpokration” is weakened by a simple line-by-line

 

   

   

 

— 33 —

 

comparison of ”Harpokration” and the Souda. The gloss of the Souda is amongst those for which the author of the Souda uses Harpokration as his source. It is a Harpokration epitoma, however, which provides the Harpokration glosses in the Souda.18 That epitoma, dated to the ninth century, is based on a manuscript of Harpokration superior to those which preserve our extant “Harpokration”.19 It is illuminating to contemplate the range of stages at which a particular infelicity in the Souda might have been produced. It may be owed to V1’s treatment of his source; or to Harpokration’s treatment of V1, or to “Harpokration”’ s treatment of Harpokration, or to the epitomist’s treatment of Harpokration, or to Souda’s treatment of the epitoma. (In the following comparison of “Harpokration” and the Souda, I underline phrases in “Harpokration” which are absent from the Souda).

 

 

“Harpokration”’s ME/N after SUGGNH/S has dropped from epitoma/Souda. It is without a corresponding DE/ in “Harpokration” (even though it might appear as if the subsequent KAI/ serves this purpose). The epitomist apparently judged the ME/N superfluous, if not inappropriate. The dangling ME/N seems to betray a change of sources in the pre- “Harpokration” tradition, from a source which explained the genealogy of the first ostracisé Hipparkhos son of Kharmos, to another source which explained his ostrakismos and why ostrakismos was introduced.20 The result is an example of poor writing rendered poorer still by the tacking on of a causal preposition, to which a causal clause is attached.

“Harpokration”’s DIA/ was thought by the epitomist to go with E)CWSTRAKI/SQH, rather than with TEQE/NTOS. The epitomist thought therefore that he could safely eliminate the entire phrase TOU= ... NO/MOU ... TEQE/NTOS of Harpokration. It is only because we possess the text of AP 22.320a that we are able to determine that the epitomist completely distorts the meaning of the text he epitomises. It is possible furthermore that the epitomist was uncomfortable at the thought of a first introduction of a law,21 for which reason he deleted the entire phrase more readily.

 

   

   

 

— 34 —

 

“Harpokration”’s TW=N PERI\ *PEISI/STRATON also fell victim to our epitomist’s sense of what he thought he was reading in Harpokration. We are here provided with an excellent example of the way in which men of some learning approached their texts. In strictly logical terms, the alteration is an improvement. The gloss speaks of Hipparkhos’ family ties with Peisistratos, and of Peisistratos’ ascent to the tyranny as a result of his rôle as a DHMAGWGO\S KAI\ STRATHGO/S, but of suspicion not of Peisistratos but of TW=N PERI\ *PEISI/STRATON. Our learned epitomist, disturbed by this seeming inconsistency without hesitation hastens to correct it. It is only the preservation of “Harpokration”’s gloss, of AP, and generally our historical knowledge built up from a variety of sources, that saves us from taking the lines in the Harpokration epitoma and the Souda as a statement of historical fact. There are of course innumerable cases in which a late lexicographical gloss is our one and only source of information. In such cases the historian who inclines to the “fundamentalist” position accepts the late lexicographical source’s testimony as a statement of fact. The lexicographer is not, however, a historian, neither in the ancient tradition, nor, above all, in the modern sense of the word. He is a mere medium, the historical value of whose message must be proved.

 

Attempts at mending passages in lexicographical sources are frequently misguided.22 Neither our sense of “good Greek”, nor an appeal to our “knowledge of the real course of events”, justify interfering with a text that is demonstrably flawed but which is flawed because its author wrote a flawed text. Lexicographical sources are, almost as a rule, riddled with errors of fact and poor prose.23

It is the genesis of a text which is the only valid subject of investigation. Whether it means this or that, or is written in good Greek, let alone whether it makes any historical sense, these are irrelevant questions. The only valid question is that after the lines of transmission of the text, the source to which they. ultimately lead us back, and the degree of reliability in the preservation of the original source. The lexico-

 

   

   

 

— 35 —

 

grapher (neither an eyewitness to events, nor a historian, but a grammarian with the specific interests of the grammarian) merely passes on to us a certain text containing certain information in a certain state of preservation.

In the case of our “Harpokration” gloss, both internal analysis of the gloss and comparison with the Souda gloss have produced adequate grounds to suggest that the gloss must be approached with extreme caution. Wentzel’s characterisation of V1 as an excellent and extremely learned onomasticon cannot be, as a matter of course, translated also to apply to “Harpokration”’s gloss s.v. *I(/PPARXOS.

 

3.  The section of the “Harpokration” gloss which deals with Hipparkhos son of Kharmos purports to elucidate Lyk., In Leocr. 117. There, Lykourgos edifies his audience by rehearsing how the ancestors waged war on traitors, citing specifically the treatment of Hipparkhos son of Kharmos. Hipparkhos was accused of treason and, when he failed personally to face the charges, condemned to death in absentia. “His statue” (clearly not a statue of Hipparkhos but one dedicated by Hipparkhos — if there is any historical truth to the entire story) was taken down from the Akropolis, melted down, and turned into a bronze stele. It was decreed to inscribe on this stele the names of all A)LITH/RIOI and PRODO/TAI, including the name of Hipparkhos son of Kharmos. This is not a suitable context in which to mention Hipparkhos’ ostrakismos. It is ostrakismos, however, which is introduced in “Harpokration”’s commentary who otherwise fails to throw light on any of those points on which elucidation might be welcomed.24 Mention of Hipparkhos’ ostrakismos in “Harpokration” is as misplaced as it would be in the speech of Lykourgos. If a gloss whose source is an onomasticon of the excellent quality of V1 a mentions only Hipparkhos’ family bonds with Peisistratos and his ostrakismos, we may infer (unless we assume that “Harpokration” reproduces only the most irrelevant portions of V1’s commentary) that this is all the information which V1 was able to gather in his sources,25 and which he duly passes along to his readers. Had V1 been able to gather other, more directly relevant, information, he presumably would not have mentioned ostrakismos, and especially not the reasons for its introduction, in the first instance. We need not be surprised by this. Hipparkhos’ principal distinction was his name.26 If there was any debate about him in the now lost sources, that debate would most likely have turned on his name, Hipparkhos.

An onomasticon of the quality of V127 might be expected to elucidate the name, and therefore the genealogy, of Hipparkhos son of Kharmos. Since Lykourgos himself contains no information, V1 had to draw on some other source or sources.

Kleidemos informs us that Hipparkhos’ father was the lover of Hippias, and that Peisistratos had arranged for Kharmos’ daughter to marry his son Hippias. According to Ploutarkhos, Peisistratos was the lover of Kharmos. Pausanias informs us that Kharmos dedicated an altar with an accompanying epigram, which is also quoted by Kleidemos (who, however, speaks of the dedication of a statue of Eros).28 In Lykourgos,29

 

   

   

 

— 36 —

 

there is nothing at all on the background of Hipparkhos and his father Kharmos, be it familial, erotic, or otherwise.

Thoukydides’ much analysed digression on the Peisistratidai30 proves that both the finer points of the genealogy and the erotic exploits of the Peisistratidai were extensively discussed.

AP 22.6, in summing up the ostrakismoi of the first three victims, refers to them as TW=N TURA/NNWN FI/LOI, as he does at 22.4 where he marvels at the lenience of the people, who permitted them to remain in Athens. Despite this summary characterisation of the first three ostracises as TW=N TURA/NNWN FI/LOI, AP 22.4 identifies Hipparkhos son of Kharmos not as a TW=N TURA/NNWN FI/LOS but as TW=N E)KEI/NOU [viz. *PEISISTRA/TOU] SUGGENW=N. This contradiction might indicate that the knowledge of Hipparkhos’ family ties to Peisistratos represents a more recent accretion to the received common knowledge about Hipparkhos and the Peisistratidai.

The date for this enlargement of historical knowledge falls between the dates of composition of Kleidemos’ Atthis and AP.31 The most likely candidate, thanks to “Harpokration”’s citation, is Androtion.

 

We may assume that Androtion is the “discoverer” of the bonds of kinship between Hipparkhos and Peisistratos. In a work of the compass of his Atthis,32 and in view of the extensive treatment of the subject by Thoukydides,33 he expounded his “discovery” at considerable length, and in a suitable context.34 It would seem most likely that Androtion dealt with Peisistratid genealogy, which included Hipparkhos son of Kharmos, in a Peisistratid context, i.e. no later than the expulsion of the Peisistratidai from Athens.

Ostrakismos and the reasons for its introduction were treated by Androtion also at some length. The most suitable context for its treatment was either under the date of its introduction, or at the point at which it was first applied, leading to the ostrakismos of Hipparkhos.

Androtion’s discourse on Peisistratid kinship connexions and that on the origins

 

   

   

 

— 37 —

 

of ostrakismos would thus appear to have occurred at widely separate places in his work, and at much greater length than AP 22.3ff. AP 22.3ff. therefore cannot, in one piece and at equal length, be derived from Androtion. The text of AP is, in its wording, too far removed from its source or sources to permit a positive identification. It is not unlikely, however, that AP’s characterisation of Hipparkhos as a SUGGENH/S of Peisistratos is somehow owed to Androtion.35

For inclusion in a gloss on Hipparkhos, in a lexicon on the Ten Orators, Androtion’s discourse on Peisistratid genealogy is unsuited. If Thoukydides’ digression is any guide, even an “extremely learned” lexicon such as that of V1 could not accommodate Androtion’s lengthy text.

The reference to Androtion in “Harpokration” is, however, an undeniable fact. How can we account for it?

It is true that there are references in lexicographical sources which are inapposite, inaccurate, or even plain wrong.36 This may be the result of a variety of causes, such as errors that occur in the process of the transmission of a text or of abridging a source. It is contrary to the very purpose of a lexicographical gloss, however, intentionally to give a false reference. “Harpokration” surely does not attempt to pull the wool over our eyes regarding his true source. If “Harpokration” refers to Androtion, and if the reference is not caused by a textual corruption, Androtion must have contained information on some aspect of the gloss. It seems unlikely that Androtion’s name is to be connected with “Harpokration”’s explanation of the origins of ostrakismos, however. Our analysis above suggests [considerable] problems with the text of “Harpokration”’s gloss, especially a possible change of sources after SUGGENH\S ME/N. We also attempted to demonstrate that Androtion is unlikely to have dealt with Peisistratid genealogy and the origins of ostrakismos in one brief passage. It is only “Harpokration”’s statement of the “fact” that Hipparkhos son of Kharmos was a SUGGENH/S of Peisistratos, to which the reference to Androtion applies. The reference does not imply that “Harpokration” quotes the words of Androtion. The reference also does not extend to Hipparkhos’ ostrakismos and the conjoined explanation of the reasons for the introduction of the law on ostrakismos.36a With these qualifications, the reference to Androtion in “Harpokration” may be regarded as in order.

 

4.  A close resemblance between “Harpokration” and AP was recognised almost instantly after the publication of PLond 131,36b and attention was drawn to it again, more recently, by several scholars.37 It is only by means of a line-by-line comparison of the two texts, however, that it becomes evident that they are made up of virtually the same words. Of AP’s text of thirty-five words and “Harpokration”’s text of (not counting the introduction to the sub-gloss and the reference to Lykourgos and Androtion) thirty-two words, no fewer than twenty-six are shared between them. The only

 

   

   

 

— 38 —

 

difference that might be worth mentioning consists of changes in the sequence in which these shared words occur.

I shall demonstrate the truly amazing near-identity of the two texts at some length, because this has never before been attempted, not even by those scholars who seem to have perceived it broadly.38 By its mere lengthiness, this procedure ought to succeed in proving beyond doubt the true nature of the relationship between AP and “Harpokration”. “Harpokration” is derived from no other source than AP.39

First, I shall print AP’s original continuous text, with the corresponding segments of “Harpokration” in the lines below it (vertical strokes with small numerals separate these “chunks” from one another, and indicate their original sequence in “Harpokration”’s text; words in “Harpokration” which occur outside these “chunks” are, in addition, inserted in parenthesis beneath the corresponding words in AP). Second, I shall reverse the procedure, by printing “Harpokration”’s original continuous text, with the corresponding segments of AP in the lines below (and in the same way as in the first case).

 

 

“Harpokration”’s testimony regarding Androtion lacks authority, regarding both substance and actual wording.40 It is noteworthy that Jacoby prints “Harpokration”’s

 

   

   

 

— 39 —

 

text not (as is his practice with texts which he regards as true quotations) ”gesperrt”: Jacoby clearly suggests that “Harpokration” preserves not the actual words but only the substance of Androtion, and he inadvertently produces a compelling argument against common Androtionian origin for “Harpokration” and AP.

Since the two texts are not completely identical, one or the other must have undergone alteration of some kind. It is almost unthinkable that, of the two texts, “Harpokration” would be the one which preserves Androtion unaltered.40a Jacoby evidently thought otherwise. AP, however, is even less likely to have copied Androtion verbatim.41 If neither “Harpokration” nor AP reproduce a copy of Androtion’s text, and since the “orthodox” view also excludes the possibility that “Harpokration” copied from AP, how can it be explained that “Harpokration” and AP, preserving the substance, but not the words, of their alleged common source, Androtion, produce at the same time texts in which miraculously some seventy-five to eight-five percent of the words they use are identical?

It is only by abandoning the “orthodox” position42 and acknowledging the obvious, that the inexplicable becomes comprehensible — AP, not Androtion, is the source of which “Harpokration” represents an adapted version.

I would explain the flawed “Harpokration” gloss either as an intentionally (and incompetently) abridged or altered version, or as a simple corruption, or both, of the original gloss of either Harpokration or, more probable, V1. That original gloss was closer to, if not identical (so far as “ identical” goes with lexicographers) with, AP.

There is in any event no good reason to continue to believe that “Harpokration” reproduces a text written by Androtion.43 Androtion cannot have written anything resembling the poor prose which constitutes the passage in “Harpokration”.43a There is accordingly no ground on which to judge “Harpokration” a source that permits us to make assumptions about the opinion of Androtion. Once our confidence in “Harpokration”’s reliability is shaken, however, we must dismiss his text as a basis for serious discussion. We cannot treat “Harpokration” as a “smorgas board”, to which we may help ourselves, selecting what suits our tastes but leaving behind that which does not. “Harpokration” is a source unfit to vouch for the opinion of Androtion on the date of the passage of the law on ostrakismos.

 

   

   

 

— 40 —

 

5.  Let us now direct our attention to the passage of AP, which is allegedly derived from Androtion, because “Harpokration” allegedly provides incontrovertible proof.

AP 22.3-6, on close inspection, reveals qualities of literary composition worthy of a good writer. It is coherent, lucid, and not flawed in its logic (it is irrelevant to the argument, whether, as historians, we agree with the account43b). Its composition is such that it cannot be dismissed as a patch-work of carelessly cobbled together elements, borrowed piecemeal, from this or that source. There is evidence of carefully thought out composition, including “Ringkomposition”.44 It proves that the entire passage is of one mold, written by one author alone. This will be shown in the analysis of AP 22.3-6 reproduced on p. 41.45

 

6.  My lengthy demonstration will be received with the argument that I only “prove” an already well-established fact: the evident proximity of the texts of AP and “Harpokration” is the obvious consequence of their sharing one and the same source, i.e. Androtion. Although several scholars have attempted to devalue the testimony of the “fragment of Androtion” in “Harpokration”, the weight of their argument is lessened because they insist on deriving “Harpokration” from Androtion, and because they persist in mingling the arguments of the historian with those of the “Quellenkritiker”.46

According to the “orthodox creed”, the close resemblance between AP and “Harpokration” must be viewed as the consequence of a derivation of both texts from their common source Androtion.47 By embracing the “orthodox creed”, scholars have prevented themselves from contemplating alternatives, especially derivation of “Harpokration” from AP, rather than from Androtion.48 It has also effectively precluded further debate on any question connected with the entire complex of both “quellen-

 

   

   

 

— 41 —

 

 

   

   

 

— 42 —

 

kritische” and historical problems, unless that debate incorporates as its premiss the “orthodox” view.

The onus of proof, however, is on those who adhere to the “orthodox creed”. They ought convincingly to reply to the following questions.

(a)  Is it the practice of the author of AP to reproduce his sources in the same way as grammarians, scholiasts, lexicographers, etc.?49

(b)  Is the following procedure likely, or even conceivable: Aristotle dates the introduction50 of the law on ostrakismos to Kleisthenes. In his explanation of the reasons of its introduction he uses a source that dates it to the time of the ostrakismos of Hipparkhos. Aristotle copies his source verbatim, but transposes the two little words TO/TE PRW=TON. By this device, he alters the substance of his source on a fundamentally important and potentially controversial issue. He refrains from indicating his disagreement with his source, and from putting forward any argument against it.

(c)  If there was a controversy on the date between Aristotle and the author whose text he copied, how are we to explain it that it has left no trace in our numerous sources?

Let me put forward my own answers to these questions.

(a)  There are instances in which we are still able to compare the (direct or indirect) source of AP with the actual text of AP. These examples show very clearly that the author of AP, even when he stays very close to the original, does not resort to verbatim copying, changing, at his most daring, the word order.51

(b)Aristotle’s position on ostrakismos is ambivalent. At pol. 1284 b and in AP 22.3, he is far from offering an outright condemnation of the law. He expresses disapproval, however, at AP 22. 1, citing the law on ostrakismos specifically as evidence for Kleisthenes’ catering to the whim of the masses. The words by which he introduces the first series of ostrakismoi also cannot be construed as expressing his approval of the procedure (QARROU=NTOS H)/DH TOU= DH/MOU, 22.3). On the other hand, he draws a clear distinction between the anti- tyrannical sentiment which led to the introduction of the law and its actual use in the first three ostrakismoi (22.3-6), and the beginnings of the radical democratic abuse with the ostrakismoi of those A)/PWQEN TH=W TURANNI/DOS (22.6). It is the latter practice which Aristotle anticipates at 22.1, and on the evidence of which he characterises Kleisthenes as STOXAZO/MENOS TOU= PLH/QOUS.

Aristotle would have been able to construct a more gradual progression of from Solon, to a more DHMOTIKO/S Kleisthenes who, however, would still be a long distance away from the objectionable Ephialtes and his move to “demagogy”. Ignoring his own qualification at 22.3, he judges ostrakismos as radical democratic and

 

   

   

 

— 43 —

 

consequently places Kleisthenes much nearer Ephialtes than he might otherwise have been inclined.

Ostrakismos plays a crucial rôele in Aristotle’s portrayal of Kleisthenes’ democracy as radical democratic. Ostrakismos is not merely one element amongst several, cited only to serve as an illustration, and without which Kleisthenes would still rank as the founder of radical democracy. Aristotle did not judge Kleisthenes’ democracy on a priori grounds as radical. It is ostrakismos which is radical, and whose father must therefore be termed radical.

Aristotle’s line of argument is laboured and inconsistent. A consistently gradual progression from Solon to Kleisthenes to Ephialtes could have been put forward, had it been possible to disconnect ostrakismos from Kleisthenes. Had Aristotle been able to date the introduction of ostrakismos to the post-Kleisthenic period on good authority such as Androtion’s, he probably would have followed that lead. This would have allowed him to produce a less laboured and inconsistent account. The less than straightforward line of argument in Aristotle appears caused by not incompetence but the fact that ostrakismos was inseparably linked to Kleisthenes.52

My hypothesis regarding Aristotle’s assessment of the political significance of the democracy of Kleisthenes in AP may be rejected by others, and perhaps even proved wrong. It would none the less remain an utter mystery and improbable in the extreme, had Aristotle chosen the procedure which is implicitly postulated by those who believe that his account at 22.3- 4 was copied from Androtion. That hypothesis requires us to believe not only that Aristotle was in disagreement with Androtion on an important date in Athenian constitutional history (entirely conceivable in itself) but also that Aristotle rejected Androtion’s date without producing any evidence or stating any reasons for his rejection; and that he never the less copied that account with which he disagreed, with the exception of the two little words TO/TE PRW=TON which he merely shifted around in that text in order to make it mean the

 

   

   

 

— 44 —

 

opposite of what its original author meant. Had Aristotle disagreed with Androtion but felt disinclined to engage in an argument against him, or indeed to compose his own text, he would, by any standard of normal human behaviour, have selected an account for copying with which he could agree on all counts.

(c)  There is no indication in any of our numerous53 sources for ostrakismos that the date of its introduction was not universally agreed upon. Had there been disagreement, there would have been debate.53a The texts which deal with ostrakismos are, almost without exception, of the “antiquarian” kind. To the “antiquarian” mind questions such as that after the date of the introduction of the law on ostrakismos are of intrinsic significance and demand attention.54. Apart from “Harpokration” with the “fragment from Androtion”, which cannot be adduced as evidence55 for a disagreement on that date, there is no source that disconnects ostrakismos from Kleisthenes. There is accordingly also no source that hints at a debate on the date.

To suggest that there was disagreement on the date between Androtion and AP and that it (and the discussion on it) has vanished without a trace, stretches the imagination of anyone familiar with the lexicographical sources.55a Harpokration cites both Androtion and AP in our gloss. It is most improbable that his learned source excerpted information from both authors but passed up the opportunity of demonstrating his learning by pointing to the controversy on the date (or, even more improbable, failed to notice the divergence of opinion) between Androtion and AP; or, if he did, that Harpokration cleanly excised the controversy.

The onus of proof is on those who insist that there was a difference of opinion. They must prove that Androtion put forward a non-Kleisthenic date; and, why this discrepancy was not duly noted; or, if it was, why no trace of the notice survives. The argumentum e silentio is, in this instance, a powerful one; it is not of the more specious kind.

 

7.  Let me sum up the results of my examination of AP 22.3f. and Harpokration s.v. *I(/PPARXOS (with “Androtion”, FGrHist 324 F 6), passages central to any argument of the historian in establishing his own date for the introduction of the law on ostrakismos — which is one either in the context of the Kleisthenic reforms, or immediately preceding the first ostrakismos (i.e., that of Hipparkhos son of Kharmos, in 488/487). The historian ought to take the following conclusions into account.

(a)  Harpokration, whilst entirely correctly citing Androtion as an authority, cites

 

   

   

 

— 45 —

 

Androtion as an authority only on the kinship bonds between Hipparkhos son of Kharmos and Peisistratos. It is only these kinship bonds regarding which we may be confident that the name of Androtion vouches, be it in Harpokration or in AP.

(b)  The text of Harpokration’s gloss on Hipparkhos son of Kharmos (elucidating his family background, his ostrakismos, and the reasons for the introduction of the law on ostrakismos) is in its entirety derived from AP 22.3f., representing a near-verbatim, but flawed, rendering of AP’s text.

(c)  No source is extant that documents positively the opinion of Androtion on the date of the introduction of the law on ostrakismos.

(d)  In the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, there is every reason to conclude that Androtion not only did not disagree but indeed was in complete agreement with every other extant source for the date of the introduction of the law on ostrakismos. Androtion too believed in the Kleisthenic origin, as part and parcel of the “reforms of Kleisthenes”, of the law on ostrakismos.

 

Appendix

 

Although I argued against attempts to emend “Harpokration”,56 the results of my investigation demand one, and strongly suggest another, emendation of “Harpokration”’s text.

First, the punctuation between the remarks on the family relationship and the ostrakismos of Hipparkhos must be changed, to a full stop: ...*A)NDROTI/WN ... FHSI\N O(/TI SUGGENH\S ME\N H)=N *PEISISTRA/TOU TOU= TURA/NNOU. KAI\ PRW=TOS E)CWSTRAKI/SQH ...

Second, the words at the end of the gloss (W(/S FHSIN *A)RISTOTE/LHS E)N *A)QHNAI/WN POLITEI/AI, referring to the Athenian office of the I(/PPARXOS) appear misplaced. AP does not state what “Harpokration” suggests he does (whilst the other lexicographical sources do not cite any source).57

I would suggest that the reference to AP appears in that particular place only because of some corruption. It was moved there from its original place at the end of the sub-gloss on Hipparkhos son of Kharmos. A scribe may have omitted the reference and then tacked it on at the end to cover up this error. Or a scholar who corrected a scribe’s work who had omitted the reference inserted it in the wrong place. Or a scholar conjectured that the right place for a reference could only be the sub-gloss on the Athenian office, and “emended” the text by moving the reference to its final resting place at the very end of the gloss, after the reference to the Athenian office.

I would therefore suggest to transplant the words W(S ... POLITEI/AI from the sub-gloss on the I(/PPARXOS to the end of the sub-gloss on Hipparkhos son of Kharmos.58

I would consequently suggest to emend the sub-gloss on Hipparkhos son of Kharmos to read as follows:

 

   

   

 

Footnotes

 

1     This paper results from a complete re-examination of the sources on ostrakismos, last undertaken admirably (although I cannot agree with his identification of the ultimate source of all we know as Theophrastos) by A.E. Raubitschek, “Theophrastos on ostracism” C&M 19 (1958) 73-109. Because of the considerably size of the investigation, I decided to publish the portion on Hipparkhos separately.  —  As I am concerned exclusively with problems of texts, their sources and transmission but not with historical problems, references to the innumerable articles on ostrakismos as a historical problem (dealing with the sources only in the context of historical enquiry) have been omitted. Gratitude is due to William Slater who generously gave of his time by reading and commenting on this paper; his agreement with any part of it, however, must not be assumed. I am also grateful to my colleague Ian Storey for reading an earlier draft.

Return to text

2     The list of ”primary sources” on ostrakismos is too long to be here repeated. Virtually everything of any significance is in Raubitschek (n. 1). The so-called new evidence of Vat. Gr. 1144 foll. 222r-222v, no 213 of an Appendix Vaticana, first published by L. Sternbach, [at the present time HTML is unfortunately not capable of representing all Polish characters correctly; for the correct version see the print edition] “Gnomologium Parisininum ineditum” Rozprawy akademii umiejetnosci: wydzial filologiczny (Krakow: Akademia umiejetnosci) ser. 2, tom 5, 1894, 135-218, at 192, is fortunately of no concern to us here. I hope to be able soon to argue (cf. n. 1) that the text is a worthless distortion (apart from being corrupt) of information drawn from the one single extant tradition on ostrakismos which surfaces in a variety of shapes in all extant sources dealing with ostrakismos (the thesis of Raubitschek [ n. 1] must be upheld in this respect). For some salutary scepticism in the face of surprising enthusiasm following its “republication” by J. J. Keaney and A. E. Raubitschek, “A late Byzantine account of ostracism” AJPh 93 (1972) 87-91 (with in several ways significantly inaccurate bibliographic information, corrected above, at 87 n. 3), see P. J. Rhodes, Comm. AP 268; also, R. Develin, “Cleisthenes and ostracism” Antichthon 11 (1977) 10-21.

Return to text

3     The most recent Tabulation of the sherd evidence is still R. Thomsen, The origin of ostracism, København 1972 (Humanitas 4), 71-80.

Return to text

4     *MILTIA/DHS O( *KI/MWNOS, Andok. 3.3.

Return to text

5     My work on problems in the sources for historical events has persuaded me of the necessity to treat the sources in isolation from historical considerations. See Miltiades-Forschungen, Wien 1968; “Philochoros FGrHist 328 F 115 and Ephoros” Hermes 102 (1974) 170-190 (esp. 184); “Miltiades’ Parosexpedition in der Geschichtsschreibung” Hermes 104 (1976) 280- 307. My position as a historian regarding the date of the introduction of the law on ostrakismos has no bearing on the present investigation (“Athens: between tyranny and democracy” Greece and the eastern Mediterranean, Berlin - New York 1977, 209).

Return to text

6     The quotations are from J. N. Coldstream, “The formation of the Greek polis: Aristotle and archaeology”, Opladen 1984 (Rhein.-Westf„l. Ak. d. Wiss.: Geisteswiss. Vortr„ge, G 272), 7 (protesting such criticism). See esp. M. I. Finley, “The ancient historian and his sources” id., Ancient history: evidence and models, London 1985, 7-26. Cf. my study “On the consequences of following AP 21.3 (on the phylai of Attika)Chiron 19 (1989), 347-365; also my review of Rhodes (Comm. AP)” Gymnasium 92 (1985), 220; and my review article of W. Gawantka, Die sogenannte Polis, Stuttgart 1985 EMC n.s. 7 (1988) 409f., on Coldstream op. cit.

Return to text

7     H. Schultz RE 7 (Stuttgart 1912), 2412f. s. v. Harpokration 5. Also, recent and authoritative, K. Alpers, Das attizistische Lexikon des Oros, Berlin - New York 1981 (Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker 4), 116ff.

Return to text

8     I. Bekker (ed.), Harpocration et Moeris, Berlin 1833. W. Dindorf (ed.), Harpocrationis Lexicon in decem oratores Atticos 1, Oxford 1853 (repr. Groningen 1969) is more easily accessible and more frequently quoted; it is also the only edition for the epitoma.

Line 1 Demosth. 18.295; cf. 9.58. — 2-7 E(/TEROS — E)TURA/NNEUSEN] = FGrHist 324 F 6 (cf. p. 38f.). — 2 Lykourg. 10-11 F 6 Conomis (= F 67 Blass.). — 4 Lykourg. In Leocr. 117f. (cf. p. 35). — 4-7 See p. 32 f. (epitoma and Souda). — 6 PRW=TON] see n. 21. — 8 [Demosth.] 59.26. — 11 Demosth. 4.26 (cf. p. 31f.). — KAI\ *A)RISTOTE/LHS] AP 61.4 (cf. n. 14a; “Appendix”).

Return to text

9     G.Wentzel, Beitr„ge zur Geschichte der griechischen Lexikographen SPAW 1895, 477-487 (repr. in: K. Latte and H. Erbse [eds], Lexica Graeca Minora [abbr. LexGrMin], Hildesheim 1965, 1-11), at 483 (= 7); Alpers (n. 7) 117.

Return to text

9a     Alpers (n. 7) 122f.

Return to text

10     PMerton 19. He compiled a work on the Ten Orators, Souda *D 1150 and *P 2166; Photios, bibl. cod. 150. Alpers (n. 7) 122 assigns POxy 1804 to his lexicon.

Return to text

11     POxy 2192. Alpers (n. 7) 116 n. 74 therefore dates Harpokration to the second half of the second century.

Return to text

11a     In A. Nauck (ed.), Lexicon Vindobonense, St. Petersburg 1867 (repr. Hildesheim 1965), 329-358 (“a P.P. Dobraeo editum”); E.O. Houtsma (ed.), Lexicon rhetoricum Cantabrigiense, Diss. Leiden 1870 (= LexGrMin 61- 139). Four of the glosses in LexCantabr are also preserved, under the name Klaudios Kasilon, in E. Miller (ed.), Mélanges de littérature grecque ..., Paris 1868 (repr. Amsterdam 1965), 397f. LexGrMin 243f.).

Return to text

11b     Ed. I. Sakellion (= LexGrMin 140-165).

Return to text

12     See n. 10.

Return to text

13     See n. 9.

Return to text

Return to text

Return to text

Return to text

Return to text

Return to text

15     See n. 7; p. 32f.

Return to text

16     It might be worth the while of a qualified scholar to investigate the possibility that AP 61.3-7 in PLond 131 comes not from the original work of Aristotle but from a lexicographical source, i.e. Didymos, restoring in this way the text lost in a lacuna (but announced at 43.1: [X]EIROTONOU=SI DE\ KAI\ TA\S PRO\S [T]O\N PO/LEMON A(PA/SAS). The restorer was less fortunate with the elective offices whose term ran from Panathenaia to Panathenaia, l.c.: that lacuna (first posited by W.L. Newman” CR 5 (1891) 163, and adopted by most editors) antedates 1the activities of Didymos and his likes (cf. Kaibel [n. 37] 250).

Return to text

16a     On Didymean material in Harpokration cf. Alpers (n. 7) 188f.

Return to text

17     Even to attempt beginning to sort out the lexicographical tradition on these three terms (I(/PPARXOS, FU/LARXOS, TACI/ARXOS) is out of the question in this context. These glosses may, however, represent an interesting case, against which to test some established or controversial theories. E.g., the question whether Photios, like the Souda, exploited the Harpokration epitoma. Some scholars think he did, cf. A. Adler RE 4 A, 692f. s.v. Suidas 1; Schultz (n. 7) 2413; J.J. Keaney, “The text of Androtion F 6 and the origin of ostracism” Historia 19 (1970) 1-11, at 2 n. 5. Alpers (n. 7) 73 with n. 25 appears to “sit on the fence” (most of the material of Harpokrationian content comes from the “erweiterte Fassung”, whilst, “vielleicht”, and “zum geringeren Teile”, the Harpokration epitoma was used by Photios). C. Theodoridis, Photii Patriarchae Lexicon 1, Berlin - New York 1982, in his preface, does not list Harpokration’s epitomised version amongst the sources of Photios.

It would appear prudent, however, not to place great trust in “Harpokration” as a reliable source for Androtion’s views, and not to regard “Harpokration”’s references to Androtion and, especially, AP as cast in concrete. Cf., regarding “Harpokration”’s references, p. 36f., concerning Androtion, and p. 45, concerning AP

Return to text

17a     See n. 17 fin.

Return to text

18     Wentzel (n. 10) 482 (= 6); Adler (n. 17) 692 f.; erroneous Schultz (n. 7) 2413.

Return to text

19     Schultz loc. cit.; Keaney (n. 17) 2 n. 5.

Return to text

20     “Quellenwechsel” is normally indicated by DE/ (Alpers [n. 7] 59), as in our sub-gloss, PERI\ DE\ TOU=TON *A)NDROTI/WN. Our case here is not of course “normal”, as I hope to establish.

Return to text

20a     See p. 38.

Return to text

21     E.g., G. V. Sumner, “Androtion F 6 and Ath. Pol. 22” BICS 11 (1964) 82, citing H. Bloch Gnomon 31 (1959) 493 (review of F. Jacoby, FGrHist 3 b suppl.), who uses the term “senseless”. M. Chambers, Androtion F 6: “TO/TE PRW=TON” JHS 99 (1979) 151f., defending the traditionalist position on what Androtion allegedly says (below p. 38f.), attempts to show that “so far as concerns Greek idiom, ..., TO/TE PRW=TON is neither meaningless or senseless, it is normal Greek” (ibid. 152). At best, he proves that it is possible to read “Harpokration” in this way. He does not prove that it is impossible to interpret “Harpokration”’s words as senseless: by quoting AP 22.3, Chambers invalidates his own assertion, because AP uses TO/TE PRW=TON in exactly that meaning which Chambers rejects for “Harpokration”.

Some have resorted to “emending” the text of “Harpokration”, guided by their belief that “Harpokration” preserves Androtion who cannot have written gibberish. Keaney (n. 17), referring the reader to id., “Heliodorus F 1 and Philochorus F 41” Historia 17 (1968) 507-509, claims that TO/TE PRW=TON is merely a recent corruption or scribal emendation for TO/TE PRW/TOU that must have been the lectio of the “last archetype” (i.e., the manuscript from which all extant manuscripts and the Aldine edition are derived); TO/TE PRW/TOU, however, “is meaningless and must be emended”, op. cit. (n. 17) 3. Keaney’s judgement appears a priori unsound because of his a priori assumption that “Harpokration” offers Androtion’s text. If that assumption is removed, the indubitably corrupt TO/TE PRW/TOU loses standing. If, furthermore, one assumes, as I believe one must, that “Harpokration” derives from AP TO/TE PRW/TOU is merely a corruption of TO/TE PRW=TON #&151; and there is no foundation for Keaney’s elaborate emendation by which he “restores” a text of Androtion that was never written (NO/MOU PRO\ TOU/TOU TEQE/NTOS, l.c.; cf. Keaney’s defence “Androtion F 6 again” Historia 25 (1976) 480-482; cf., incidentally, Chambers, ibid. 152 n. 8, although again arguing solely from “possibility”; there is an unfortunate misprint in l. 3 which renders his argument unintelligible: read PRW/TOU for PRW=TON).

Return to text

22     Cf. n. 21.

Return to text

23     The extant manuscript versions at any rate. I would not suggest that, for instance, the commentaries of Didymos were written in “poor prose”.

Return to text

24     See p. 35f.

Return to text

25     Dion. Hal. *A)RX. *R(WM. 5.77.6 and 6.1.1 mentions, without patronymic, Hipparkhos as the archon of 496/5 (cf. T.J. Cadoux” JHS 68 (1948) 116). It would have been even more pointless to mention his archonship.

Return to text

26     Pace some scholars’ elaborate theories about his politics; cf. Kinzl, “Athens ” (n. 5) 212f. (with lit.).

Return to text

27     See p. 31f.

Return to text

28     Athen. 13.609 C-D = Kleidemos FGrHist 323 F 15; Plout. Sol. 1.7; Pausan. 1.30.1.

Return to text

29     See above.

Return to text

30     Thouk. 1.53.3-60.1. The “ganze Bibliothek” (K. von Fritz, Griechische Geschichtsschreibung 1, Berlin 1967, 269 n. 51) written on this digression cannot here be referenced; I attempted to draw attention to the genealogical polemic, however, “Zu Thukydides über die Peisistratidai” Historia 22, (1973) 504-507.

Return to text

31     Kleidemos: c. 350 BCE, FGrHist 3 B p. 51, 1. 1. AP: 330s, with insertions made in the late 320s, Rhodes, Comm. AP 56 (cf. n. 16, for the possibility of insertions of a different kind).

Return to text

32     See n. 40.

Return to text

33     See n. 30.

Return to text

34     F. Jacoby, Atthis, Oxford 1949 (repr. New York 1972), 337 n. 42 suggests that “as Androtion calls this Hipparkhos SUGGENH\S *PEISISTRA/TOU he may have given particulars about the relationship”. Attention may have been focussed on that point by Kleidemos who, however, did not contribute much to clarify matters (see above), whilst, on the other hand, preparing the ground for Androtion’s presumably more precise treatment of the question. It is one of those questions in Jacoby’s “test case” (the tradition on the Peisistratidai, ibid. ch. III § 2; § 4 [c]; at 152ff. and 188ff., respectively) regarding which Jacoby shows that later writers filled the gaps left in Herodotos’ work. Although I would be inclined to assume that Androtion’s new information is based on conjecture, others may think that he uncovered factual information hitherto unknown or ignored; my arguments in this paper are not about historical facts (see p. 29), nor about this particular problem, for which reason I shall refrain from arguing in favour or against the validity, as historical evidence, of Androtion’s claim that Hipparkhos was a SUGGENH/S of the Peisistratidai.

Return to text

35     See p. 36.

Return to text

36     Cf. p. 31f.; n. 17 fin.; p. 45.

Return to text

36a     No source for Hipparkhos’ ostrakismos and the reasons why ostrakismos was introduced is cited by “Harpokration”: cf., however, p. 45.

Return to text

36b     Cf. Rhodes, Comm. AP 3-5.

Return to text

37     Esp. Sumner (n. 21) 79-86; K. J. Dover, “Androtion on ostracism” CR 13 (1963) 256f.; Thomsen (n. 3) 11-60 with extensive surveys of modern interpretations. — Textual corruption. in “Harpokration” was observed by G. Kaibel, Stil und Text der *POLITEI/A *A)QHNAI/WN des Aristoteles, Berlin 1893, 174f.

Return to text

38     E.g., esp. Sumner (n. 21) 79f.

Return to text

39     The most explicit statement is Kaibel’s (n. 37) 175: “... deutlich ist, dass das scheinbare Androtionfragment nichts ist als ein elendes Excerpt aus Aristoteles [my italics]”. For similar assessments by other scholars, see Thomsen (n. 3) 52.

Return to text

40     See p. 31- 35. Further observations on points of detail only reinforce that judgement. For instance, “Harpokration” omits the demotic of Hipparkhos (he is admittedly not in the habit of giving demotics: a cursory cheek brings to light a total of four demotics, two of these belonging to ancient authors); even Ploutarkhos has a demotic (albeit a different — and presumably the wrong — one, at Nik. 11.8, a passage that must derive from a lexicographical source, as I hope to be able to demonstrate in a separate article, see above n. 1). — The absence of Hipparkhos’ demotic would surprise in Androtion’s Atthis which, by the end of the second book, reached only the end of the first half of the fifth century (463/462 according to Jacoby, FGrHist 3 B suppl. text p. 105, 11. 2-6), and ran to a total of eight books (FGrHist 3 B suppl. text 104, 13, with suppl. notes p. 102 n. 136). At any rate, Androtion’s list of the ten generals at Samos in 441/440 names them with their demotics (schol. Aristeid. 3, 485, 30-3 Dindorf [at U(PER\R TW=N TETTA/RWN, vol. 3, 316, 7 Behr] = FGrHist 324 F 3).

Return to text

40a     See p. 33; n. 21.

Return to text

41     See, e.g., the example cited at n. 51. The astute observation by Kaibel (n. 37) 175, that “die an sich denkbare Möglichkeit, dass Arist.. den Androtion wörtlich ausgeschrieben habe, ist ausgeschlossen”, is tempered, however, by Kaibel’s evident belief that AP 22.3f. none the less, in substance, and in its entirety, is derived from Androtion.

Return to text

42     See p. 40.

Return to text

43     See, e.g., p. 33; 39; and n. 21.

Return to text

43a     See p. 33.

Return to text

43b     See p. 29; 34.

Return to text

44     Cf. Keaney, “Ring composition in Aristotle’s Athenaion politeia” AJPh 90 (1969) 406-423, with lit. at 407 n. 3; id. (n. 52); Rhodes, Comm. AP 48.

Return to text

45     The brackets in the left- hand margin demonstrate the “ring composition”, the brackets in the right-hand margin tie recurring elements within the account together.

Return to text

46     Cf. Thomsen (n. 3), and the literature cited there, esp. D. Kagan, “The origin and purposes of ostracism” Hesperia 30 (1961) 393-401 (cf. below n. 52). Kagan’s arguments in attempting to discredit the testimony of “Harpokration” are that: (a) the traditional interpretation of “Harpokration”’s text, according to which he offers proof that Androtion dated the introduction of ostrakismos to 488/487, “is by no means the only one possible” (ibid. 394); and (b) “a proper understanding of the purposes of the institution provides ... an explanation”, by which “the delay [between introduction and actual use] can be accounted for”, in historical terms (ibid. 396).

As for Kagan’s first argument, one need only point out that after all everything is possible except that which is an outright and patent impossibility; that the traditional interpretation is “possible”; and that, by merely putting forward another ”possible” interpretation, one does not prove the traditional interpretation “impossible”. Kagan’s historical arguments carry no weight in the present context. By setting out to prove that a date under which introduction and first application of the law on ostrakismos is historically impossible, he cannot assert with any justification that Androtion cannot have advanced such an impossible date: unless of course one were to adhere to some “fundamentalist” creed, ruling out on “religious” grounds that an ancient source may offer an account which flies in the face of historical probability. See p. 29; 34.

Return to text

47     See, e.g., Thomsen (n. 3); Develin (n. 2); Sumner (n. 37); Dover (n. 37).

Return to text

48     First, perhaps, by Didymos, or V1; cf. p. 30; 32; 39.

Return to text

49     Most commonly one of three types: verbatim quotation, abridged quotation, adapted quotation (but not a true paraphrase). — For an alternative hypothesis why AP and lexicographical sources produce nearly identical texts, see n. 16.

Return to text

50     “Firsts” evoked the keen interest of ancient writers. Cf. A. Kleinguenther, *PRW=TOS EU(RETH/S: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung, Leipzig 1933 (Philologus, Supplementband 25, 1).

Return to text

51     E.g., Hdt. 1.59.4-5, compared with AP 14.1. A line-by-line comparison, in the same way in which I compared AP with “Harpokration”, shows a significant qualitative difference: AP 14.1 is much farther removed from Hdt. 1.59.4-5 (whose name he actually cites at 14.4) than AP 22.4 is from the alleged “Androtion” of “Harpokration”. This example is closer to Herodotos than any other passage in AP which appears to be based on Herodotos.

Return to text

52     Cf. Keaney, “A narrative pattern in Aristotle’s Athenaion politeia” Studies ... Sterling Dow . . ., Durham NC, 1984 (GRBS Monographs 10), 161-163, esp. at 163 fin.; also H. Ryffel, *M*E*T*A*B*O*L*H  *P*O*L*I*T*E*I*W*N, Bern 1949 (Noctes Romanae 2), 23f.; 145; J. Touloumakos, Die theoretische Begründung der Demokratie, Athen 1985, 29ff.; 112; etc. (cf. my review AAHG 42 [1990] 195ff.); J. P. Dolezal, Aristoteles und die Demokratie, Diss. Bonn 1973, Frankfurt 1974 (Studienreihe Humanitas), 69f. At pol. 1284b17ff., Aristotle comes very near to launching a summary defence of ostrakismos. J. Day-M. Chambers, Aristotle’s history of Athenian democracy, Berkeley etc. 1962 (University of California publications in history 73) (repr. Amsterdam 1967), 13ff., however, convinced as they are that Androtion dated the introduction of the law on ostrakismos to 488/487, take exactly the opposite view: Aristotle wishes to portray Kleisthenes as having “given powerful encouragement to democracy”, whereas Androtion “wanted to deny that Cleisthenes had either founded radical democracy or introduced ostracism” (ibid. 14).

Cf. Kagan (n. 46) 395: “both Aristotle and Androtion knew that Kleisthenes had been the originator of ostracism and that Hipparchos had been the first man ostracized. They further agreed on the date of that ostracism and on the reason for the establishment of the law. As there is no disagreement between them, the ... argument [i.e., that Androtion disagreed with Aristotle on the date] against the Kleisthenic foundation of ostracism has no validity”. Kagan’s conclusions were not accepted (as witnessed by the outpouring of articles on ostrakismos which are based on the premiss that Androtion dated the passage of the law on ostrakismos to 488/487). This may be partly because Kagan argues from possibilities (see n. 46), and because he thinks he can support his interpretation of “Harpokration” by an appeal to historical reasoning.

Return to text

53     Cf. above n. 1-2.

Return to text

53a     Cf. Keaney (n. 17) 2.

Return to text

54     See p. 42 with n. 50. The length of the ostracisés’ term of exile is one such example (regardless of the historical facts; cf. p. 29). Diod. 11.55.3 and 87.1 gives it as five years from a tradition that surfaces in a fuller version in LexCantabr (cf. n. 11a) s.v. O)STRAKISMOU= TRO/POS = Philochoros FGrHist 328 F 30. Jacoby marks the initial two-thirds of the gloss as a verbatim quotation — I would recommend a more cautious approach (cf. my similar cautioning regarding FGrHist 328 F 115, op. cit. [n. 5]).

Another example is the demarcation of the area the ostracisés had to observe after 481/480, AP 22.8; LexCantabr = FGrHist 328 F 30. Cf. Rhodes, Comm. AP 28.2, on the possible meaning of AP 22.8, and on various attempts at instilling meaning by means of emendation.

Irrespective of the historical facts behind all this, it is obvious that there was disagreement, and that some miraculous enlargement of the range of knowledge ensued in the process (cf.p. 36 and n. 34).

Return to text

55     See p. 39 etc.

Return to text

55a     Harpokration’s source indubitably derives information from AP, see Polydeukes 8.94 and Photios s.v. I(/PPARXOI as well LexPatm (see above p. 31f.), regarding Athenian military offices.

Return to text

56     See p. 32-35.

Return to text

57     See above n. 11, esp. regarding the reference in “Harpokration”s.v. FU/LARXOS to AP.

Return to text

58     Cf. Kaibel (n. 37) 175: “In dem Lexikon des Harpokration hat wol ursprünglich so gestanden *A)NDROTI/WN E)N TH=I B’ <KAI\ *A)RISTOTE/LHS E)N TH=I *A)QHNAI/WN *POLITEI/AI> FHSI/N”.

Return to text

 

  Return to beginning