Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:30:13.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The law of Periandros about Symmories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Douglas M. Macdowell
Douglas M. Macdowell
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The speech Against Euergos and Mnesiboulos describes a dispute over some naval gear. The dispute occurred early in the year 357/6 b.c. ⋯π' Ἀγαθοκλ⋯ους ἄρχοντος, Dem. 47.44), when the speaker was a trierarch and supervisor of his symmory (τρɩηραρχ⋯ν κα⋯ ⋯πɩμελητ⋯ς ὢν τ⋯ς συμμορ⋯ας, Dem. 47.22), and he refers to ‘the law of Periandros, by which the symmories were organized’ (⋯ νóμος ⋯ το⋯ Περɩ⋯νδρου…καθ' ὃν αἰ συμμορ⋯αɩ συνετ⋯χθησαν, Dem. 47.21). There is no other specific reference to the law of Periandros. If 357/6 was the first year of its operation, it was probably passed in 358/7, but that is not known for certain. The identity of the man is likewise uncertain, though it has plausibly been suggested that he was Periandros son of Polyaratos (Dem. 40.6–7) and that he was the Periandros who proposed an alliance between Athens and Arkadia in 362/1 (IG ii2 112 = Tod 144). However, his identity is of no importance for the present article. Here I am concerned only to try to reconstruct what the law said about the symmories. Despite a great deal of modern discussion this question has still not been satisfactorily solved.

The word συμμορ⋯α means ‘group’ or ‘division’ and does not necessarily have a technical or legal sense. But most of the Attic instances do have the special sense of a group of persons formed for the purpose of making payments of a compulsory tax or levy: either the property tax called εἰσɸορ⋯, which was imposed at irregular intervals, or payments towards the maintenance of ships in the Athenian navy, which were required every year. A fragment of Philokhoros says that Athenians were divided κατ⋯ συμμορ⋯ας for the first time in 378/7, and it is generally agreed that this means that symmories were first formed in 378 for the payment of eisphora. For the navy, however, there is no trace of symmories before the 350s, and everyone agrees that it was the law of Periandros which introduced the use of symmories for maintaining ships, which had previously been the sole responsibility of one trierarch or (more usually in the fourth century) a pair of syntrierarchs for each ship.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , December 1986 , pp. 438 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dem. 47.1 refer without square brackets to speeches in the Demosthenic corpus: this does not imply any judgement whether a particular speech was composed by Demosthenes himself.

2 Cf. Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (1971), 464Google Scholar.

3 Cawkwell, G. L., CQ 34 (1984), 342–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, considers the question whether the law of Periandros dealt with other matters besides the symmories. But there is no evidence that it did; there is no particular reason why changes in the practice of providing crews and gear for ships at public expense (mentioned in Dem. 21.155) should have formed part of this law.

4 There are non-technical instances in Xen. Hell. 1.7.30, Aiskhines 1.159.

5 F. Gr. Hist. 328 F41.

6 An exception is Thomsen, R., Eisphora (1964)Google Scholar chapter 7. He attributes symmories to the time of Themistokles (p. 144), but this suggestion is not compatible with the statement of Philokhoros; cf. Keaney, J. J., Historia 17 (1968), 508–9Google Scholar.

7 Wolf, F. A., Demosthenis Oratio adversus Leptinem (1789), pp. civ–cviiiGoogle Scholar; Böckh, A., Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener (1817), ii.61–2Google Scholar, Urkunden über das Seewesen des Attischen Staates (1840), 178Google Scholar.

8 de Ste Croix, G. E. M., Class, et Med. 14 (1953), 45Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (1964), 28Google Scholar; Thomsen, R., Eisphora (1964), 88–9Google Scholar; Jordan, B., The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period (1975), 74Google Scholar; Wankel, H., Demosthenes: Rede für Ktesiphon über den Kranz (1976), 563–4Google Scholar. A fuller list of scholars holding this view is given by Ruschenbusch (see note 10 below).

9 Jacoby, F., F. Gr. Hist. IIIb Supp. (1954), i.58Google Scholar; Mossé, C., ‘Les symmories athéniennes’ (delivered orally in 1976; published in Points de vue sur lafiscalité antique, ed. van Effenterre, H., Publ. de la Sorbonne ‘Études’ 14 (1979), pp. 31–42Google Scholar).

10 Ruschenbusch, E., ‘Die athenischen Symmorien des 4. Jh. v.Chr.’, ZPE 31 (1978), 275–84Google Scholar. I refer to this article simply as ‘Ruschenbusch’.

11 Rhodes, P. J., ‘Problems in Athenian eisphora and liturgies’, Amer. Journ. Anc. Hist. 7 (1982, published in 1985), 1–19Google Scholar, especially 5–11. I refer to this article simply as ‘Rhodes’.

12 My view of the 1200 is different, however, as will be seen presently.

13 Professor Rhodes, on reading a draft of this article, has suggested to me that only the eisphora symmories had leaders, so that the word ἡγεμóνας in Dem. 18.103 (and likewise ἡγεμών in Dem. 21.157) precludes ambiguity. But, since ἡγεμών was simply the term for the richest member of a symmory (see below, note 40), it seems to me improbable that it was never used in naval contexts.

14 The confusion is indeed greater than Rhodes suggests; for Gernet's note on the passage simply says ‘Sur les symmories triérarchiques, cf. C. Aph. I, 7 sq.’ (Gernet, L., Démosthène: Plaidoyers civils ii (1957), 249Google Scholar), but the Aphobos passage is actually about eisphora. We have to conclude that Gernet was (unusually for him) muddled on this point. But Professor Rhodes has told me that his reason for believing that Dem. 39.8 refers to a naval symmory is that in the context there are mentions of liturgies, the generals, and appointment as a trierarch.

15 In its ordinary military usage συντ⋯ττεɩν does not mean to create new soldiers but to rearrange soldiers in a suitable formation.

16 Ruschenbusch in a later article, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Leiturgie und zur Eisphora’, ZPE 59 (1985), 237–40Google Scholar, suggests that the precise figure was 4 talents 1000 drachmas.

17 E.g. Thuc. 7.28.4 ⋯δ⋯νατοɩ ⋯γ⋯νοντο τοῖς χρ⋯μασɩν.

18 Lys. 24, Aiskhines 1.103–4, and Arist. Ath. Pol. 49.4 show that ot οἱ ⋯δ⋯νατοɩ was the standard term for those Athenians who were registered as disabled.

19 It occurs also in two fragments where the context is insufficient to make the interpretation clear, Isaios fr. 74 Sauppe = 18 Thalheim = 21 Forster and Philokhoros F. Gr. Hist. 328 F45.

20 The etymology of the word τρɩ⋯ραρχος shows that it refers primarily to a man who commands a ship. But the word was also used of a man who employed a deputy to do that; thus Demosthenes says ⋯τρɩηρ⋯ρχουν of the occasion immediately after he came of age (21.154), when he employed a deputy and did not go to sea himself (21.80).

21 Hyp. fr. 160 Sauppe = 134 Kenyon, Jensen = 43.1 Burtt.

22 Dem. 20.8, 50.9, Arist. Ath. Pol. 56.3. At an earlier period it seems to have been the law that a two-year interval between liturgies could be claimed (Isaios 7.38).

23 οἱ μ⋯ν το⋯νυν πλουσɩώτατοɩ τρɩηραρχο⋯ντες ⋯ε⋯ τ⋯ν χορηγɩ⋯ν ⋯τελεῖς ὑπ⋯ρχουσɩν, Dem. 20.19. I take this to mean that each of these men was a trierarch every second year.

24 The occasion when Meidias was compelled by antidosis to accept appointment as a khoregos (Dem. 21.156) is not relevant here, because it probably occurred before the passing of the law of Periandros and before Meidias first served as a trierarch.

25 Ruschenbusch is not very clear on this point in his 1978 article, but he is more explicit in a later article, ‘Die trierarchischen Syntelien und das Vermögen der Synteliemitglieder’, ZPE 59 (1985), 240–9Google Scholar. He considers that trierarchies (and all other liturgies) were performed by only 300 men, but contributions to naval maintenance were paid by all 1200 eisphora-payers except heiresses, orphans and so on. I reject this because the number of naval contributors is said (most clearly in Dem. 21.155) to have been 1200. If heiresses and orphans could pay eisphora, they were capable of paying naval contributions too.

26 Cf. Davies, J. K., JHS 87 (1967), 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Dem. 20.27–8.

28 Cf. Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (1971), pp. xx–xxivGoogle Scholar.

29 F. Gr. Hist. 323 F8.

30 Hyp. fr. 186 Sauppe = 159 Kenyon, Jensen = 25 Burtt.

31 This figure comes from Aiskhines 3.222, Deinarkhos 1.42, Hyp. fr. 160 Sauppe = 134 Kenyon, Jensen = 43.1 Burtt.

32 Cf. Laing, D. R., Hesperia 37 (1968), 245 n. 4Google Scholar.

33 Rhodes 9, referring to Laing, op. cit. 254 n. 22.

34 Harpokration does not say whether these 15-man symmories were used for eisphora as well as for naval contributions. There is in fact no evidence at all for the use of symmories for the collection of eisphora after 340.

35 Harpokration s.v. δɩ⋯γραμμα finds further evidence of this in two speeches of Hypereides not now extant.

36 Hyp. fr. 160 Sauppe = 134 Kenyon, Jensen = 43.1 Burtt. Bekker emended the text to σ⋯μπεντε κα⋯ σ⋯νεξ, ‘in groups of 5 and 6’.

37 Christ, W., Philologus 45 (1886), 383–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruschenbusch 280 n. 18 (on page 281).

38 In practice there may have been further complexities, about which we have no evidence. Did a trierarch have to be a member of the symmory which paid money for the maintenance of his ship? Probably not, for in a particular year a particular symmory might find that its richest members were all ineligible, because they either had served as trierarchs the previous year or were heiresses, orphans, etc. So sometimes a symmory may have paid for the maintenance of a ship whose trierarch was a member of a different symmory. We do not know how such arrangements were made.

39 Harpokration s.v. δɩ⋯γραμμα, giving Hypereides as his authority, mentions an official called δɩαγραɸε⋯ς, ‘appointed in the symmories to decide how much each man ought to contribute’; and Polydeukes 3.53, also referring to Hypereides, mentions officials called συμμορɩ⋯ρχαɩ. Rhodes 18 n. 49 attributes both of these to eisphora-symmories. It is possible that they are no more than different names for the ⋯πɩμελητ⋯ς. Another possibility, suggested to me by Dr R. A. Knox, is that there was a change of names at some time when the symmory system was changed; the evidence of Hypereides was probably later than 340.

40 Harpokration s.v. ⋯γεμὼν συμμορ⋯ας, again referring to Hypereides.

41 The date is calculated from Isaios 6.14.

42 For a more detailed discussion of the institution of proeisphora see Thomsen, R., Eisphora (1964), 206–26Google Scholar. He dates it about 373/2. The date of 378 is maintained by Davies, J. K., Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (1981), 18–19Google Scholar, but without any new evidence.

43 The need for speed is enough to explain the exceptional arrangement. It is unnecessary to postulate an additional motive, such as a wish ‘to produce a more accurate register of property-owners’ (Rhodes 14).

44 The assumption that such exemption did not apply to proeisphora at this time (Rhodes 19 n. 68) implies that Apollodoros was lying. No doubt he was capable of lying, but there is no special reason to believe that he lied on this point. Exemption may have ceased to apply to proeisphora at the time when the standing list of 300 was established, in 354 or soon afterwards.

45 I am grateful to Professor Rhodes for reading a draft of this article and commenting on it. I also received some helpful suggestions from Dr R. A. Knox.