¹ Diog. Laert. 5.37.

² E. Derenne, Les Prods d′Impiete(Liege, 1930), 200; R. A. Bauman, Political Trials in Ancient Greece(London, 1990), 122.

³ Plut. Phoc.33–8. Hagnonides maintained a prominent role in the short-lived democracy. He jre-enacted a decree honouring Euphron of Sicyon, a decree which celebrated Athens′ part in the Lamian War (IG ii² 448 11. 36ff.).

⁴ Demochares wrote a defence speech for Sophocles, the proponent of the law which forbade I the establishment of philosophical schools without the authorization of the assembly and Boule, (when the latter was charged with For Demochares′ further pro-democratic ‘activity, including his measures in the ‘four years war’, see Plut. Vit. x Oral.851f, Demetr.24.4–5.

⁵ Plut. Phoc38.1. A terminus post quernfor Hagnonides′ death is provided by IG ii² 448 (above, jn. 3), which bears the date of Maimakterion, in the archonship of Archippus (c. December 318).

⁶ Another reconstruction of the import of Theophrastus′ silence is perhaps tenable. The motion that philosophers were poor forensic speakers recurs in ancient testimonies: thus, for {example, Callicles′ warning to Socrates in the Gorgias(486b-c) that devotion to philosophy leaves (surely written with the actual fate of Socrates in mind). It is possible that Demochares, who elsewhere highlights the ineptitude of philosophers in other fields (see Athen. 187d, 215c), sought here to associate Theophrastus′ political ineptitude with his philosophical expertise. The primary meaning of Demochares′ taunt, however, does seem to be that Theophrastus was afraid of his fellow Athenians.

⁷ Diog. Laert. 5.37. This is not the only assertion of Theophrastus′ overwhelming popularity: at 5.38, Diogenes attributes the overturning of Sophocles′ law of 307 B.C. to the Athenians′ desire for Theophrastus′ return from exile. It is worth noting, however, that both examples of Theophrastus′ popularity come from the same highly sympathetic source, and are not attested elsewhere. Caution ought thus be exercised before accepting Diogenes′ version as the whole story. We might notice also that, whatever Theophrastus′ following, he could not withstand the pressure of the pro-democrats at the zenith of their powers in the immediate aftermath of Poliorcetes′ liberation of Athens: as Diogenes tells us (5.38) he had to leave Athens in spite of his popularity.

⁸ Diod. 18.74.

⁹ Plut. Phoc.35.2 lists many of those condemned with Phocion at this time.

¹⁰ This dating of Theophrastus′ trial has an important corollary in the judicial competence of the Areopagus. The Areopagus traditionally exercised supervision of some aspects of religious observance, such as tending the sacred olive trees, but the extent of its influence and its competence to pass sentences as well as conduct investigations has been much debated; the evidence for the Areopagus′ activities tends to be contradictory and anecdotal. See R. W. Wallace, The Areopagus Council to 307 B.c.(Baltimore, 1989), especially 106–12 for religious matters. In all the trials under discussion in this paper, however, the Areopagus is named as the investigating body: Aelian′s anecdote based on the case of Theophrastus V.H.8.12 has Theophrastus failing to mount a defence before that body, and in the instance of Stilpo the Areopagus is explicitly claimed to have passed judgement and determined the sentence (Diog. Laert. 2.116). Wallace may be correct (204–5) that the evidence is insufficient to assert confidently a transfer of all impiety cases to the Areopagus. It is nonetheless attested that, for whatever reason, the trials dealt with in this paper occurred under the aegis of the Areopagus. This has prompted some, among them Derenne (Les Proces,201) and Bauman Political Trials,125, to attribute to Demetrius of Phalerum any transfer of competence to the Areopagus. On the basis of the dating advanced here, however, any such transfer must pre-date Demetrius, and belongs perhaps to Phocion′s government.

¹¹ Peter Green, Alexander To Actium(London, 1990), 68, claims that the grounds for prosecution lay in Theophrastus′ argument for the sovereignty of Tyche. Although Theophrastus was criticized for this notion (Cic. Tusc Disp.5.24–5), this is nowhere stated to be the charge.

¹² Bauman (Political Trials,122) comes to a similar conclusion.

¹³ For Demades, see also Plut. Phoc.26, Diod. 18.18, Sudas.v. Demades,Athen. 251b.

¹⁴ Little is known of the identity of the twelve in this period. For their relationship to the official Athenian gods, and the suggestion that the twelve—at least originally—presided over Athens′ external relations, see the bibliography accumulated by K. M. T. Atkinson, ′Demosthenes, Alexander and Asebeid, Athenaeum51 (1973), 310–35, nn.14,42, 71. The altar of the twelve in the Agora was, in a sense, the city centre, as distances from Athens were measured from the altar (Herod. 2.7). the death of his own brother.20 An examination of the accusation against Demetrius

¹⁵ Demochares′ mother was Demosthenes′ sister: Plut. Vit. x Orat.847c, Cic. Brutus286, de orat.2.95. The complex interrelationship of the families of Demochares and Demosthenes is detailed by J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families(Oxford, 1971), no. 3716 A.

¹⁶ On Demosthenes′ attacks upon Demades on this point, see Atkinson, ‘Demosthenes, Alexander and Asebeia’,312; on Demosthenes′ comments on the deification in general, see also Hypereides, Adv. Dem.col. 31–2.

¹⁷ Din. 1.94. On Dinarchus′ relationship with Theophrastus and Demetrius, Dion. Hal. De Din.2.

¹⁸ Athen. 542e.

¹⁹ Plut. Dem.28; Arrian, Succ.F 9.13; Lucian, Dem. Enc31, Sudas.v. Antipater,cf. Plut. Phoc.27.3. Himeraeus, along with Demosthenes and Hyperides, fell victim to Antipater′s henchman Archias.

²⁰ Demetrius′ participation in the embassies is attested in citations to his own works in

²¹ Cassander had established Nicanor in Munychia even before news of Antipater′s death had filtered through to Athens, according to Plut. Phoc.31.

²² For the disposition of Nicanor after the fall of Phocion′s regime, see Diod. 18.68, 72. Nicanor did return briefly to Athens, but only for long enough to be assassinated by his erstwhile commander (Diod. 18.75).

²³ Plut. Phoc.33.3, Nepos, Phoc3.4. First among the measures against Phocion′s regime was the deposition of generals (Plut. Phoc33.2). There is a possibility that Demetrius of Phalerum held the generalship under this regime, depending on the dating of the generalships listed in IGii2 2917. If Demetrius had indeed been a general, the deposition of these officials would have exposed him to the danger of prosecution, as the experience of Phocion (who was charged immediately after the depositions) revealed.

²⁴ Plut. Phoc.35.2.

²⁵ Plut. Phoc.34.5 isolates Hagnonides. The charge of overthrowing the democracy, and establishing oligarchy, levelled against Phocion, Demetrius, and their colleagues is given by Diod. 18.66.5, cf. 18.65.6 and Plut. Phoc.34.4; on this evaluation of Phocion′s regime, see also Dion. Hal. De Din.9, Plut. Vit. x Oral.851c, Diod. 18.55.2 and, significantly, the label of oligarchy employed in a decree promulgated by Hagnonides himself, IGii2 448 1. 161.

²⁶ See LSJ s.v. esp. of deities appearing to a worshipper′ with references; the charge then will be that Demetrius treated his brother as a god after his death.

²⁷ Bauman, Political Trials,119–21 convincingly argues that the prosecution of Demades took I the form of , although the case had overtones of impiety (see I above n. 13 for ancient testimonia, especially the account of Aelian). For Aristotle, see principally Athen. 696a-b, Diog. Laert. 5.5fF., with other slanders against Aristotle recorded by Aristocles in Eusebius, Praep. Ev.15.2.8ff. Just as Aristotle′s accusers could misrepresent the nature of Aristotle′s composition for Hermias, which was in reality a hymn to so perhaps did Demetrius′ accuser hope to miscast some propitiatory deed by Demetrius. On the matter of Aristotle′s accuser, Demophilus, see further pp. 125,132).

²⁸ I. During, Herodicus the Cratetean(New York, 1987), 151. Diiring′s identification of Demochares behind Carystius must remain speculative, but the proposition is attractive. At Athen. 610e, Carystius is cited for information concerning Lysimachus′ expulsion of philosophers from his kingdom; Athenaeus then moves directly to discussion of the expulsion of Athenian philosophers and refers to Demochares′ speech. The proximity in subject matter and chronology of the information directly attributed to Carystius and the following information on Athens and Demochares argues for the attribution of the later material also to Carystius.

²⁹ Demochares′ history (a work known also to Polybius: see 12.13.9) is quoted at Athen. 252–3.

³⁰ During, Herodicus,41 assigns the saying to the speech for Sophocles.

³¹ Athen. 509a. This material has been identified as a verbatim quote from Demochares′ speech: see During, Herodicus,84ff.

³² For example, see Duris and Carystius in Athen. 542c-f.

³³ Plut. Vit. x Oat.847d.

³⁴ In Plut. de Exilio606b, reference is made to Theodorus′ departure from Cyrene. Diog. Laert. 2.102 refers to the expulsion from Athens only. Philo, however, whose record of the Theodorus/ Lysimachus meeting is the most complete version, shows that Plutarch and Diogenes are not necessarily at odds: he has Lysimachus challenge Theodorus about his exile from Athens andfrom Cyrene. In this aspect as in others (see below), Plutarch and Diogenes compress the events.

³⁵ Diod. 19.79.1–3. The coup occurred in the summer. The rebels besieged the citadel and killed Ptolemy′s envoys, but were unable to oust the Ptolemaic garrison before being overcome by land and naval forces sent by Ptolemy. Ptolemy imposed his settlement upon the city before turning his attention to Cyprus later in the 313 campaign season. It is thus apparent that the Cyrenian affair was of brief duration.

³⁶ M. Winiarczyk, "Theodorus Philologus 125 (1981), 64–94. Winiarczyk (66) prefers 313 to 322 because of Theodorus′ youth in 322, based on a conjectured birth date of c.340 B.C. This may well be so, although if Theodorus was as abruptly outspoken in his early years as he was in adulthood, the Cyrenians might well have expelled him in 322!

³⁷ In one tradition of anecdotes, Lysimachus and his minister taunt Theodorus about his exile(s); thus Philo and Diogenes Laertius. Other sources—Philodemus, On Deathcol. xxxii.23; Stobaeus, vol. iii, p. 316f. (ed. Hense); Cic. Tusc. Disp.1.102, 5.117; Val. Max. 6.2 ext.3—have Lysimachus, angered by Theodorus, threatening Theodorus with death and showing him the mutilated Telesphorus. Plutarch (de Exilio606b, an Vitiositas499d) combines these.

³⁸ Sources diverge on the exact outcome of the prosecution of Theodorus. According to ] Athenaeus 611a, Theodorus was put to death (a version which may be dismissed, since \Theodorus survived into the third century—see below, n. 39); Philo indicates that Theodorus was found guilty of the charge and exiled from Athens; Diogenes Laertius, by contrast, implies at 2.101 that the intervention of Demetrius of Phalerum prevented Theodorus from being brought before the Areopagus at all but goes on to cite Amphicrates to the effect ithat Theodorus was condemned to drink hemlock, and suggests in the following section (2.102) \that he was, in fact, exiled. These contradictions between accounts, and, in the case of Diogenes, | within an account, have frustrated attempts by students of the Phalerean regime to isolate I Theodoras′ fate. Two reconstructions, differing on the acceptance of Diogenes′ view of | Demetrius′ role in the affair, have been offered. Winiarczyk (‘Theodorus’, 67–8), who provides a convenient summary of prior scholarship on this question, favours the argument that Demetrius′ protection prevented Theodorus being brought before the Areopagus at all (thus following Diogenes′ initial statement), and that Theodorus ‘voluntarily’ left Athens to diffuse tensions rather than be officially sentenced to exile. This solution is not without its problems, however, ignoring as it does the explicit claims in Diogenes, Philo, and Athenaeus that some sentence was passed on Theodorus; indeed, Winiarczyk largely confines his discussion to the testimony of Diogenes, omitting reference to Philo. He adopts Wehrli′s suggestion that the records of Theodorus′ exile are transferred notices properly applying to Stilpo, another philosopher prosecuted under Demetrius, assuming that the fact of one known exile under Demetrius necessarily precludes the possibility that similar sentences were passed on others. Winiarczyk discounts Athen. 611a, and Amphicrates, upon whom Athenaeus is surely based (Athenaeus uses Amphicrates elsewhere), because Amphicrates incorrectly transmits information about the death of another atheist, Diagoras of Melos (M. Winiarczyk, ‘Ad Athen. Deipnosoph.xiii p.611a-b’, Philologus118 (1974), 164–6). Certainly, Amphicrates′ version cannot stand as it is, but we may wonder if Amphicrates is guilty of as great i a misrepresentation as Winiarczyk claims. * Perhaps a more economical reconstruction is that of Derenne (Les Proces,212), who suggests * that Theodorus did go to trial, was convicted and sentenced to death, and that Demetrius of f Phalerum′s intervention consisted of commuting the death sentence to a penalty of exile. In this, reading, Amphicrates/Athenaeus errs merely in rendering a sentence of death as an actual ]execution, and Diogenes misplaces the moment of Demetrius of Phalerum′s intervention with the Areopagus. ,If we are to retain both Diogenes′ understanding of Demetrius′ intervention (and we have no ‘ other tradition on Demetrius’ involvement with which to balance Diogenes′ statement), and the j contention of our other sources that sentence was passed by the Areopagus, we may perhaps posit a retrospective sentence passed after Theodorus escaped Athens. This of course leaves unexplained the problem of the the source conflict over the nature of the sentence: was it death, or exile? Given the current state of our evidence, Theodoras′ true fate must remain a mystery. Had we more complete narratives on the Phalerean regime, we might be able to suppose that the silence about Demetrius′ role from opponents like Demochares betokened a less intrusive intervention by Demetrius, such as aiding Theodoras′ escape, rather than an overturning of the Areopagus′ sentence. Demetrius Poliorcetes′ intervention in the Athenian judicial process to overturn a penalty caused a storm of protest: Plut. Demetr.24. Our sources for the Phalerean are, however, too fragmentary to permit such an argument ex silenlio.

³⁹ The embassy to Lysimachus must fall after the end of the Phalerean regime and no indication is given of the time lapse between Theodoras′ expulsion from Athens and the embassy. In accounts of the embassy, Lysimachus is referred to as king,a title probably not assumed until sometime after 306 B.C.; thus Plut. de Exilio606b, Diog. Laert. 2.102, Cic. Tusc Disp.1.102, Val. Max. 6.2 ext.3 (it might be noted that these sources represent different traditions [see n. 37 above], so the appellation of king may be correct). On Lysimachus′ assumption of the kingship, H. S. Lund, Lysimachus: a Study in Hellenistic Kingship(London, 1992), 11–12. A date later than c.299 B.C. would be consistent with circumstantial details of the embassy, which concern the offence to, a n d subsequent mutilation by, Lysimachus of one Telesphorus. (Lysimachus′ mutilation of Telesphorus is recorded also by Seneca, De Ira3.17.2–4, who labels Telesphorus Rhodium amicum suum.Athenaeus describes Telesphoras as being of Lysimachus. It is thus clear that this Telesphorus is not to be identified with the famous Telesphorus, general of Antigonus [this is also the conclusion of R. A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State(New York, 1990), 435–6], and is thus of no use for dating purposes.) In Plut. de Exilio606b, Lysimachus threatens Theodorus with the mutilated Telesphoras, so the torture of Telesphoras must fall only shortly before Theodoras′ embassy. According to Athenaeus 61 la, Telesphorus provoked Lysimachus′ ire by making a jest at the expense of Lysimachus′ wife, Arsinoe. The marriage of Lysimachus and Arsinoe has been posited at some time after 299 B.C.

⁴⁰ Winiarczyk, ‘Theodoras’, 69.

⁴¹ Winiarczyk, ‘Theodorus’, 69 n. 22 admits these manuscript dates only (those coinciding with the Phalerean regime) for consideration, assuming that Eusebius′ reference to Theodorus is indeed a reference to his trial. By contrast, Patrologia Graecavol. 19,494 locates Theodorus in Ol. 119,2.

⁴² Diog. Laert. 2.99.

⁴³ Epiph. Advers. Haeres.3.2.9.24.

⁴⁴ On Theodorus′ treatise, Diog. Laert. Proem.16 and 2.97, Sext. Emp. Adv. Math.9.55; on his views about divinity in general, see primarily Cic. de Nat. Deor.1.2 (Nullos[sc. deos] esse omnino Diagoras Melius et Theodorus Cyrenaicus putaverunt),Plut. de Com. Not.1075 and the discussion, with additional source citation, by Derenne, Les Proces,208–10.

⁴⁵ Bauman, Political Trials,125.

⁴⁶ Demetrius′ involvement alone is not sufficient evidence to establish beyond doubt a political dimension. Demetrius showed favour (although not in a legal context) to the Cynic, Crates, with whom Demetrius′ relationship was not unambiguously positive: Diog. Laert. 6.90, Athen. 422c, and on their relationship Plut. de Adulatore et Amico69c.

⁴⁷ See above, n.2 7.

⁴⁸ Diog. Laert.5.37.

⁴⁹ Plut. Phoc7.2.

⁵⁰ These two contrasts between Phocus and Phocion possibly derive from a source other than that used at 38.2. In Phocion20 and 30.1, the emphasis is on a saying of Phocion, of the sort collected by Plutarch in Reg. et Imp. Apophth.187f-89b. Indeed, 30.1 bears some similarity to Reg. etlmp. Apophth.188f.

⁵¹ I. During, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition(Goteborg, 1957), 461.

⁵² Diog. Laert.2.116.

⁵³ According to Diog. Laert. 2.115, Stilpo was in Megara when Ptolemy Soter took possession of that city (surely during Ptolemy′s 308 incursion into the Peloponnese, in which he wrested control of Sicyon and Corinth: Diod. 20.37.1–2), and again when Demetrius Poliorcetes overran it. (See also Plut. Demetr.9.) It is probable that Stilpo had returned to Megara after his expulsion from Athens, although this sequence of events is not stated explicitly by Diogenes.

⁵⁴ Derenne, Les Proces,201 makes a similar comparison, but in the context of the trial of Theophrastus alone.

⁵⁵ Xen. Mentor.1.1.1; Plato Apol.24b, Euthphr.3b.

⁵⁶ Athen. 252ff., cf. Plut. Demetr.24.4–5.

⁵⁷ The conclusion here reached is, in a sense, the converse of the argument forwarded by Atkinson (‘Demosthenes, Alexander and Asebeia′,331ff.) that Alexander and his Athenian sympathizers intended to use Alexander′s deification to fell opponents on charges of impiety towards the god Alexander. The material examined in this paper suggests rather that the Macedonian sympathizers themselves were more easily victim to accusations of impiety. This does not exclude the possibility that Demetrius of Phalerum, with his first-hand experience of the political potential of the impiety charge, might not have realized the possibilities of political control in a ruler cult. Bauman (Political Trials,10–11) posits a role for Demetrius in the development of Ptolemaic asebeiaregulations, but the nature and extent of his possible influence, along with the actual use of asebeiaprosecutions in Egypt, are beyond the scope of this article.

⁵⁸ Diog. Laert. 5.80.

⁵⁹ See above, n. 38.

⁶⁰ K. J. Dover, ‘The Freedom of the Intellectual in Greek Society’, Talanta 1(1976), 38–9.

⁶¹ Diogenes specifies that Heracleitus featured in Demetrius Apologytoo.

⁶² Diog. Laert. 9.28.

⁶³ Diog. Laert. 9.52.

⁶⁴ Plut. Pericles32.2. (Certainly, Plutarch as well as Diogenes Laertius was acquainted with Demetrius Apology:see below, n. 75.)

⁶⁵ P. Walcott, Envy and the Greeks(Warminster, 1978).

⁶⁶ The awkward construction of this notice makes it difficult to determine whether Demetrius was writing about Diogenes of ApoUonia, or Anaxagoras. For a discussion of the problem, see J. Mansfield, ‘The Chronology of Anaxagoras’ Athenian Period and the Date of his Trial: Pt. II′, Mnemosyne33 (1979), 17–95, 22, n. 98. The identity of the subject is irrelevant here.

⁶⁷ Diog. Laert. 9.57 quoting Demetrius′ apology for Socrates.

⁶⁸ Aelian V.H.3.17.

⁶⁹ Strabo 9.1.20.

⁷⁰ Diog. Laert. 5.81. This work was surely written after Demetrius′ expulsion.

⁷¹ Alcid. Soph.12, 34; Eur. Medea297; Plato Apol.18d, 28a; Xen. Apol.32. Xenophon may be regarded today as more historian than philosopher, but for some ancients at least, his relationship with the Socratic entourage cast him as essentially a philosopher: thus Dio 18.13, Quint. 10.1.73–5.

⁷² Ptolemy used Theodorus as an envoy; for Demetrius′ position at court, note Aelian V.H.3.17 and Diog. Laert. 5.78, in which Demetrius is reputed to have tried to influence Ptolemy Soter in his choice of succcessor. Plut. Reg. et Imp. Apophth.189d also casts Demetrius of Phalerum in the role of advisor to Ptolemy.

⁷³ Demetrius′ attempt to influence the Egyptian succession backfired, and he died (of snakebite?) early in the reign of Philadelphus. Diog. Laert. 5.78, Sudas.v. Demetrius.

⁷⁴ L. A. Tritle, Phocion The Good(London, 1988), 30–2. As noted above (p. 126), Plutarch′s concluding sections draw upon an unquestionably pro-Phocion source, a description appropriate to Demetrius.

⁷⁵ The Socrates/Phocion comparison may have been formulated either in the introduction of Demetrius′ account of his own government, or in his apology of Socrates, both of which works were known to Plutarch. Wehrli assigns references in Plut. Demos.14 and 28 (fr. 133, 134) to Demetrius′ account of his regime. Demetrius did touch upon events prior to 317 B.C. in other works, too: see n. 20. For Demetrius′ Apology,see Plut. Arist.1, 5, and 27.

⁷⁶ Following the passage of Diogenes quoted above is a claim that Euripides commented on Socrates' death, an anachronism which surely indicates that the source of the whole passage was not a contemporary of Socrates.

⁷⁷ I. During, Aristotle,T44a-e.

⁷⁸ I am grateful to Professor A. B. Bosworth, whose help and encouragement greatly assisted the writing of this paper.