Chapter XCVI (2)

After sentence, the five condemned persons, Phokion, Nikokles, Thudippus, Hegemon, and Pythokles, were consigned to the supreme magistrates of Police, called The Eleven, and led to prison for the purpose of having the customary dose of poison administered. Hostile bystanders ran alongside, taunting and reviling them. It is even said that one man planted himself in the front, and spat upon Phokion; who turned to the public officers and exclaimed—“Will no one check this indecent fellow?” This was the only emotion which he manifested; in other respects, his tranquillity and self-possession were resolutely maintained, during this soul-subduing march from the theatre to the prison, amidst the wailings of his friends, the broken spirit of his four comrades, and the fiercest demonstrations of antipathy from his fellow-citizens generally. One ray of comfort presented itself as he entered the prison. It was the nineteenth of the month Munychion, the day on which the Athenian Horsemen or Knights (the richest class in the city, men for the most part of oligarchical sentiments) celebrated their festal procession with wreaths on their heads in honor of Zeus. Several of these horsemen halted in passing, took off their wreaths, and wept as they looked through the gratings of the prison.

Being asked whether he had anything to tell his son Phokus, Phokion replied—“I tell him emphatically, not to hold evil memory of the Athenians.” The draught of hemlock was then administered to all five—to Phokion last. Having been condemned for treason, they were not buried in Attica; nor were Phokion’s friends allowed to light a funeral pile for the burning of his body; which was carried out of Attica into the Megarid, by a hired agent named Konopion, and there burnt by fire obtained at Megara. The wife of Phokion, with her maids, poured libations and marked the spot by a small mound of earth; she also collected the bones and brought them back to Athens in her bosom, during the secrecy of night. She buried them near her own domestic hearth, with this address—“Beloved Hestia, I confide to thee these relics of a good man. Restore them to his own family vault, as soon as the Athenians shall come to their senses.”[827]

[827] Plutarch, Phokion, 36, 37. Two other anecdotes are
recounted by Plutarch, which seem to be of doubtful authenticity.
Nikokles entreated that he might be allowed to swallow his potion
before Phokion; upon which the latter replied—“Your request,
Nikokles, is sad and mournful; but as I have never yet refused
you anything throughout my life, I grant this also.”

After the four first had drunk, all except Phokion, no more
hemlock was left; upon which the jailer said that he would
not prepare any more, unless twelve drachmæ of money were
given to him to buy the material. Some hesitation took place,
until Phokion asked one of his friends to supply the money,
sarcastically remarking, that it was hard if a man could not even
die _gratis_ at Athens.

As to the first of these anecdotes—if we read, in Plato’s Phædon
(152-155), the details of the death of Sokrates,—we shall see
that death by hemlock was not caused instantaneously, but in a
gradual and painless manner; the person who had swallowed the
potion being desired to walk about for some time, until his legs
grew heavy, and then to lie down in bed, after which he gradually
chilled and became insensible, first in the extremities, next in
the vital centres. Under these circumstances, the question—which
of the persons condemned should swallow the first of the five
potions—could be of very little moment.

Then, as to the alleged niggardly stock of hemlock in the
Athenian prison—what would have been the alternative, if
Phokion’s friend had not furnished the twelve drachmæ? Would
he have remained in confinement, without being put to death?
Certainly not; for he was under capital sentence. Would he
have been put to death by the sword or some other unexpensive
instrument? This is at variance with the analogy of Athenian
practice. If there be any truth in the story, we must suppose
that the Eleven had allotted to this jailer a stock of hemlock
(or the price thereof) really adequate to five potions, but that
he by accident or awkwardness had wasted a part of it, so that
it would have been necessary for him to supply the deficiency
out of his own pocket. From this embarrassment he was rescued
by Phokion and his friend; and Phokion’s sarcasm touches upon
the strangeness of a man being called upon to pay for his own
execution.

After a short time (we are told by Plutarch) the Athenians did thus come to their senses. They discovered that Phokion had been a faithful and excellent public servant, repented of their severity towards him, celebrated his funeral obsequies at the public expense, erected a statue in his honor, and put to death Agnonides by public judicial sentence; while Epikurus and Demophilus fled from the city and were slain by Phokion’s son.[828]

[828] Plutarch, Phokion, 38

These facts are ostensibly correct; but Plutarch omits to notice
the real explanation of them. Within two or three months after
the death of Phokion, Kassander, already in possession of Peiræus
and Munychia, became also master of Athens; the oligarchical
or Phokionic party again acquired predominance; Demetrius the
Phalerean was recalled from exile, and placed to administer
the city under Kassander, as Phokion had administered it under
Antipater.

No wonder, that under such circumstances, the memory of Phokion
should be honored. But this is a very different thing from
spontaneous change of popular opinion respecting him. I see no
reason why such change of opinion should have occurred, nor do
I believe that it did occur. The Demos of Athens, banished and
deported in mass, had the best ground for hating Phokion, and
were not likely to become ashamed of the feeling. Though he
was personally mild and incorruptible, they derived no benefit
from these virtues. To them it was of little moment that he
should steadily refuse all presents from Antipater, when he did
Antipater’s work gratuitously. Considered as a judicial trial,
the last scene of Phokion before the people in the theatre
is nothing better than a cruel imposture; considered as a
manifestation of public opinion already settled, it is one for
which the facts of the past supplied ample warrant.

We cannot indeed read without painful sympathy the narrative of
an old man above eighty,—personally brave, mild, and superior to
all pecuniary temptation, so far as his positive administration
was concerned,—perishing under an intense and crushing storm
of popular execration. But when we look at the whole case—when
we survey, not merely the details of Phokion’s administration,
but the grand public objects which those details subserved, and
towards which he conducted his fellow-citizens—we shall see that
this judgment is fully merited. In Phokion’s patriotism—for so
doubtless he himself sincerely conceived it—no account was taken
of Athenian independence; of the autonomy or self-management of
the Hellenic world; of the conditions, in reference to foreign
kings, under which alone such autonomy could exist. He had
neither the Panhellenic sentiment of Aristeides, Kallikratidas,
and Demosthenes—nor the narrower Athenian sentiment, like the
devotion of Agesilaus to Sparta, and of Epaminondas to Thebes.
To Phokion it was indifferent whether Greece was an aggregate
of autonomous cities, with Athens as first or second among
them—or one of the satrapies under the Macedonian kings. Now
this was among the most fatal defects of a Grecian public man.
The sentiment in which Phokion was wanting, lay at the bottom
of all those splendid achievements which have given to Greece a
substantive and pre-eminent place in the history of the world.
Had Themistokles, Arsiteides, and Leonidas resembled him, Greece
would have passed quietly under the dominion of Persia, and the
brilliant, though checkered, century and more of independent
politics which succeeded the repulse of Xerxes would never have
occurred. It was precisely during the fifty years of Phokion’s
political and military influence, that the Greeks were degraded
from a state of freedom, and Athens from ascendency as well as
freedom, into absolute servitude. Insofar as this great public
misfortune can be imputed to any one man—to no one was it more
ascribable than to Phokion. He was stratêgus during most of
the long series of years when Philip’s power was growing; it
was his duty to look ahead for the safety of his countrymen,
and to combat the yet immature giant. He heard the warnings of
Demosthenes, and he possessed exactly those qualities which were
wanting to Demosthenes—military energy and aptitude. Had he lent
his influence to inform the short-sightedness, to stimulate the
inertia, to direct the armed efforts, of his countrymen, the
kings of Macedon might have been kept within their own limits,
and the future history of Greece might have been altogether
different. Unfortunately, he took the opposite side. He acted
with Æschines and the Philippizers; without receiving money
from Philip, he did gratuitously all that Philip desired— by
nullifying and sneering down the efforts of Demosthenes and the
other active politicians. After the battle of Chæroneia, Phokion
received from Philip first, and from Alexander afterwards, marks
of esteem not shown towards any other Athenian. This was both the
fruit and the proof of his past political action—anti-Hellenic
as well as anti-Athenian. Having done much, in the earlier
part of his life, to promote the subjugation of Greece under
the Macedonian kings, he contributed somewhat, during the
latter half, to lighten the severity of their dominion; and it
is the most honorable point in his character that he always
refrained from abusing their marked favor towards himself, for
purposes either of personal gain or of oppression over his
fellow-citizens. Alexander not only wrote letters to him, even
during the plenitude of imperial power, in terms of respectful
friendship, but tendered to him the largest presents—at one time
the sum of 100 talents, at another time the choice of four towns
on the coast of Asia Minor, as Xerxes gave to Themistokles. He
even expressed his displeasure when Phokion, refusing everything,
consented only to request the liberation of three Grecian
prisoners confined at Sardis.[829]

[829] Plutarch, Phokion, 18; Plutarch, Apophthegm. p. 188.

The Lamian war and its consequences, were Phokion’s ruin. He continued at Athens, throughout that war, freely declaring his opinion against it; for it is to be remarked, that in spite of his known macedonizing politics, the people neither banished nor degraded him, but contented themselves with following the counsels of others. On the disastrous termination of the war, Phokion undertook the thankless and dishonorable function of satrap under Antipater at Athens, with the Macedonian garrison at Munychia to back him. He became the subordinate agent of a conqueror who not only slaughtered the chief Athenian orators, but disfranchised and deported the Demos in mass. Having accepted partnership and responsibility in these proceedings, Phokion was no longer safe except under the protection of a foreign prince. After the liberal proclamation issued in the name of the Macedonian kings, permitting the return of the banished Demos, he sought safety for himself, first by that treasonable connivance which enabled Nikanor to seize the Peiræus, next by courting Polysperchon the enemy of Nikanor. A voluntary expatriation (along with his friend the Phalerean Demetrius) would have been less dangerous, and less discreditable, than these manœuvres, which still farther darkened the close of his life, without averting from him, after all, the necessity of facing the restored Demos. The intense and unanimous wrath of the people against him is an instructive, though a distressing spectacle. It was directed, not against the man or the administrator—for in both characters Phokion had been blameless, except as to the last collusion with Nikanor in the seizure of the Peiræus—but against his public policy. It was the last protest of extinct Grecian freedom, speaking as it were from the tomb in a voice of thunder, against that fatal system of mistrust, inertia, self-seeking, and corruption, which had betrayed the once autonomous Athens to a foreign conqueror.

I have already mentioned that Polysperchon with his army was in Phokis when Phokion was brought before him, on his march towards Peloponnesus. Perhaps he may have been detained by negotiation with the Ætolians, who embraced his alliance.[830] At any rate he was tardy in his march, for before he reached Attica, Kassander arrived at Peiræus to join Nikanor with a fleet of thirty-five ships and 4000 soldiers obtained from Antigonus. On learning this fact, Polysperchon hastened his march also, and presented himself under the walls of Athens and Peiræus with a large force of 20,000 Macedonians, 4000 Greek allies, 1000 cavalry, and sixty-five elephants; animals which were now seen for the first time in European Greece. He at first besieged Kassander in Peiræus, but finding it difficult to procure subsistence in Attica for so numerous an army, he marched with the larger portion into Peloponnesus, leaving his son Alexander with a division to make head against Kassander. Either approaching in person the various Peloponnesian towns—or addressing them by means of envoys—he enjoined the subversion of the Antipatrian oligarchies, and the restoration of liberty and free speech to the mass of the citizens.[831] In most of the towns, this revolution was accomplished; but in Megalopolis, the oligarchy held out; not only forcing Polysperchon to besiege the city, but even defending it against him successfully. He made two or three attempts to storm it, by movable towers, by undermining the walls, and even by the aid of elephants; but he was repulsed in all of them,[832] and obliged to relinquish the siege with considerable loss of reputation. His admiral Kleitus was soon afterwards defeated in the Propontis, with the loss of his whole fleet, by Nikanor (whom Kassander had sent from Peiræus) and Antigonus.[833]

[830] Diodor. xix. 35.

[831] Diodor. xviii. 69.

[832] Diodor. xxiii. 70, 71.

[833] Diodor. xviii. 72.

After these two defeats, Polysperchon seems to have evacuated Peloponnesus, and to have carried his forces across the Corinthian Gulf into Epirus, to join Olympias. His party was greatly weakened all over Greece, and that of Kassander proportionally strengthened. The first effect of this was, the surrender of Athens. The Athenians in the city, including all or many of the restored exiles, could no longer endure that complete severance from the sea, to which the occupation of Peiræus and Munychia by Kassander had reduced them. Athens without a port was hardly tenable; in fact, Peiræus was considered by its great constructor, Themistokles, as more indispensable to the Athenians than Athens itself.[834] The subsistence of the people was derived in large proportion from imported corn, received through Peiræus; where also the trade and industrial operations were carried on, most of the revenue collected, and the arsenals, docks, ships, etc. of the state kept up. It became evident that Nikanor, by seizing on the Peiræus, had rendered Athens disarmed and helpless; so that the irreparable mischief done by Phokion, in conniving at that seizure, was felt more and more every day. Hence the Athenians, unable to capture the port themselves, and hopeless of obtaining it through Polysperchon, felt constrained to listen to the partisans of Kassander, who proposed that terms should be made with him. It was agreed that they should become friends and allies of Kassander; that they should have full enjoyment of their city, with the port Peiræus, their ships and revenues; that the exiles and deported citizens should be readmitted; that the political franchise should for the future be enjoyed by all citizens who possessed 1000 drachmæ of property and upwards; that Kassander should hold Munychia with a governor and garrison, until the war against Polysperchon was brought to a close; and that he should also name some one Athenian citizen, in whose hands the supreme government of the city should be vested. Kassander named Demetrius the Phalerean (_i. e._ an Athenian of the Deme Phalerum), one of the colleagues of Phokion; who had gone into voluntary exile since the death of Antipater, but had recently returned.[835]

[834] Thucyd. i. 93.

[835] Diodor. xviii. 74.

This convention restored substantially at Athens the Antipatrian government; yet without the severities which had marked its original establishment—and with some modifications in various ways. It made Kassander virtually master of the city (as Antipater had been before him), by means of his governing nominee, upheld by the garrison, and by the fortification of Munychia; which had now been greatly enlarged and strengthened,[836] holding a practical command over Peiræus, though that port was nominally relinquished to the Athenians. But there was no slaughter of orators, no expulsion of citizens: moreover, even the minimum of 1000 drachmæ, fixed for the political franchise, though excluding the multitude, must have been felt as an improvement compared with the higher limit of 2000 drachmæ prescribed by Antipater. Kassander was not, like his father, at the head of an overwhelming force, master of Greece. He had Polysperchon in the field against him with a rival army and an established ascendency in many of the Grecian cities; it was therefore his interest to abstain from measures of obvious harshness towards the Athenian people.

[836] See the notice of Munychia, as it stood ten years
afterwards (Diodor. xx. 45).

Towards this end his choice of the Phalerean Demetrius appears to have been judicious. That citizen continued to administer Athens, as satrap or despot under Kassander, for ten years. He was an accomplished literary man, friend both of the philosopher Theophrastus, who had succeeded to the school of Aristotle—and of the rhetor Deinarchus. He is described also as a person of expensive and luxurious habits; towards which he devoted the most of the Athenian public revenue, 1200 talents in amount, if Duris is to be believed. His administration is said to have been discreet and moderate. We know little of its details, but we are told that he made sumptuary laws, especially restricting the cost and ostentation of funerals.[837] He himself extolled his own decennial period as one of abundance and flourishing commerce at Athens.[838] But we learn from others, and the fact is highly probable, that it was a period of distress and humiliation, both at Athens and in other Grecian towns; and that Athenians, as well as others, welcomed new projects of colonization (such as that of Ophellas from Kyrênê) not simply from prospects of advantage, but also as an escape from existing evils.[839]

[837] Cicero, De Legg. ii. 26, 66; Strabo, ix. p. 398; Pausanias,
i. 25, 5. τύραννόν τε Ἀθηναίοις ἔπραξε γενέσθαι Δημήτριον, etc.
Duris ap. Athenæum, xii. 542. Fragm. 27. vol. iii. p. 477. Frag.
Hist. Græc.

The Phalerean Demetrius composed, among numerous historical,
philosophical, and literary works, a narrative of his own
decennial administration (Diogenes Laert. v. 5, 9; Strabo,
ib.)—περὶ τῆς δεκαετίας.

The statement of 1200 talents, as the annual revenue handled by
Demetrius, deserves little credit.

[838] See the Fragment of Demochares, 2. Fragment. Historic.
Græc. ed. Didot, vol. ii. p. 448, ap. Polyb. xii. 13. Demochares,
nephew of the orator Demosthenes, was the political opponent of
Demetrius Phalereus, whom he reproached with these boasts about
commercial prosperity, when the liberty and dignity of the city
were overthrown. To such boasts of Demetrius Phalereus probably
belongs the statement cited from him by Strabo (iii. p. 147)
about the laborious works in the Attic mines at Laureium.

[839] Diodor. xx. 40. ὥσθ᾽ ὑπελάμβανον μὴ μόνον ἐγκρατεῖς ἔσεσθαι
πολλῶν ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν παρόντων κακῶν ἀπαλλαγήσεσθαι.

What forms of nominal democracy were kept up during this interval, we cannot discover. The popular judicature must have been continued for private suits and accusations, since Deinarchus is said to have been in large practice as a logographer, or composer of discourses for others.[840] But the fact that three hundred and sixty statues were erected in honor of Demetrius while his administration was still going on, demonstrates the gross flattery of his partisans, the subjection of the people, and the practical abolition of all free-spoken censure or pronounced opposition. We learn that, in some one of the ten years of his administration, a census was taken of the inhabitants of Attica; and that there were numbered, 21,000 citizens, 10,000 metics, and 400,000 slaves.[841] Of this important enumeration we know the bare fact, without its special purpose or even its precise date. Perhaps some of those citizens, who had been banished or deported at the close of the Lamian war, may have returned and continued to reside at Athens. But there still seems to have remained, during all the continuance of the Kassandrian Oligarchy, a body of adverse Athenian exiles, watching for an opportunity of overthrowing it, and seeking aid for that purpose from the Ætolians and others.[842]

[840] Dionys. Halic. Judicium de Dinarcho, p. 633, 634; Plutarch,
Demetrius, 10. λόγῳ μὲν ὀλιγαρχικῆς, ἔργῳ δὲ μοναρχικῆς,
καταστάσεως γενομένης διὰ τὴν τοῦ Φαληρέως δύναμιν, etc.

[841] Ktesikles ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 272. Mr. Fynes Clinton
(following Wesseling), supplies the defect in the text of
Athenæus, so as to assign the census to the 115th Olympiad.
This conjecture _may_ be right, yet the reasons for it are not
conclusive. The census may have been either in the 116th, or
in the 117th Olympiad; we have no means of determining which.
The administration of Phalerean Demetrius covers the ten years
between 317 and 307 B. C. (Fast. Hell. Append. p. 388).

Mr. Clinton (ad ann. 317 B. C. Fast. Hell.) observes
respecting the census—“The 21,000 Athenians express those who
had votes in the public assembly, or all the males above the age
of twenty years; the 10,000 μέτοικοι described also the males of
full age. When the women and children are computed, the total
free population will be about 127,660; and 400,000 slaves, added
to this total, will give about 527,660 for the total population
of Attica.” See also the Appendix to F. H. p. 390 _seq._

This census is a very interesting fact; but our information
respecting it is miserably scanty, and Mr. Clinton’s
interpretation of the different numbers is open to some remark.
He cannot be right, I think, in saying—“The 21,000 Athenians
express those who had votes in the assembly, _or_ all the males
above the age of twenty years.” For we are expressly told, that
under the administration of Demetrius Phalereus, all persons who
did not possess 1000 drachmæ were excluded from the political
franchise; and therefore a large number of males above the age of
twenty years would have no vote in the assembly. Since the two
categories are not coincident, then, to which shall we apply the
number 21,000? To those who had votes? Or to the total number of
free citizens, voting or not voting, above the age of twenty?
The public assembly, during the administration of Demetrius
Phalereus, appears to have been of little moment or efficacy; so
that a distinct record, of the number of persons entitled to vote
in it, is not likely to have been sought.

Then again, Mr. Clinton interprets the three numbers given, upon
two principles totally distinct. The two first numbers (citizens
and metics), he considers to designate only males of full age;
the third number, of οἰκέται, he considers to include both sexes
and all ages.

This is a conjecture which I think very doubtful, in the absence
of farther knowledge. It implies that the enumerators take
account of the _slave_ women and children—but that they take no
account of the _free_ women and children, wives and families
of the citizens and metics. The number of the free women and
children are wholly unrecorded, on Mr. Clinton’s supposition. Now
if, for the purposes of the census, it was necessary to enumerate
the _slave_ women and children—it surely would be not less
necessary to enumerate the _free_ women and children.

The word οἰκέται sometimes means, not slaves only, but the
inmates of a family generally—free as well as slave. If such be
its meaning here (which however there is not evidence enough to
affirm), we eliminate the difficulty of supposing the slave women
and children to be enumerated—and the free women and children
_not_ to be enumerated.

We should be able to reason more confidently, if we knew the
purpose for which the census had been taken—whether with a view
to military or political measures—to finance and taxation—or to
the question of subsistence and importation of foreign corn (see
Mr. Clinton’s Fast. H. ad ann. 444 B. C., about another
census taken in reference to imported corn).

[842] See Dionys. Halic. Judic. de Dinarcho, p. 658 Reisk.

The acquisition of Athens by Kassander, followed up by his capture of Panaktum and Salamis, and seconded by his moderation towards the Athenians, procured for him considerable support in Peloponnesus, whither he proceeded with his army.[843] Many of the cities, intimidated or persuaded, joined him and deserted Polysperchon; while the Spartans, now feeling for the first time their defenceless condition, thought it prudent to surround their city with walls.[844] This fact, among many others contemporaneous, testifies emphatically, how the characteristic sentiments of the Hellenic autonomous world were now dying out everywhere. The maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city, was one of the deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the foreigner had become so overwhelming as hardly to leave them even safety at home.

[843] Diodor. xviii. 75.

[844] Justin, xiv. 5; Diodor. xviii. 75; Pausan. vii. 8, 3;
Pausanias, i. 25, 5.

The warfare between Kassander and Polysperchon became now embittered by a feud among the members of the Macedonian imperial family. King Philip Aridæus and his wife Eurydikê, alarmed and indignant at the restoration of Olympias which Polysperchon was projecting, solicited aid from Kassander, and tried to place the force of Macedonia at his disposal. In this however they failed. Olympias, assisted not only by Polysperchon, but by the Epirotic prince Æakides, made her entry into Macedonia out of Epirus, apparently in the autumn of 317 B. C. She brought with her Roxana and her child—the widow and son of Alexander the Great. The Macedonian soldiers, assembled by Philip Aridæus and Eurydikê to resist her, were so overawed by her name and the recollection of Alexander, that they refused to fight, and thus ensured to her an easy victory. Philip and Eurydikê became her prisoners; the former she caused to be slain; to the latter she offered only an option between the sword, the halter, and poison. The old queen next proceeded to satiate her revenge against the family of Antipater. One hundred leading Macedonians, friends of Kassander, were put to death, together with his brother Nikanor;[845] while the sepulchre of his deceased brother Iollas, accused of having poisoned Alexander the Great, was broken up.

[845] Diodor. xix. 11; Justin, x. 14, 4; Pausanias, i. 11, 4.

During the winter, Olympias remained thus completely predominant in Macedonia; where her position seemed strong, since her allies the Ætolians were masters of the pass at Thermopylæ, while Kassander was kept employed in Peloponnesus by the force under Alexander, son of Polysperchon. But Kassander, disengaging himself from these embarrassments, and eluding Thermopylæ by a maritime transit to Thessaly, seized the Perrhæbian passes before they had been put under guard, and entered Macedonia without resistance. Olympias, having no army competent to meet him in the field, was forced to shut herself up in the maritime fortress of Pydna, with Roxana, the child Alexander, and Thessalonikê daughter of her late husband Philip son of Amyntas.[846] Here Kassander blocked her up for several months by sea, as well as by land, and succeeded in defeating all the efforts of Polysperchon and Æakides to relieve her. In the spring of the ensuing year (316 B. C.), she was forced by intolerable famine to surrender. Kassander promised her nothing more than personal safety, requiring from her the surrender of the two great fortresses, Pella and Amphipolis, which made him master of Macedonia. Presently however, the relatives of those numerous victims, who had perished by order of Olympias, were encouraged by Kassander to demand her life in retribution. They found little difficulty in obtaining a verdict of condemnation against her from what was called a Macedonian assembly. Nevertheless, such was the sentiment of awe and reverence connected with her name, that no one except these injured men themselves could be found to execute the sentence. She died with a courage worthy of her rank and domineering character. Kassander took Thessalonikê to wife—confined Roxana with the child Alexander in the fortress of Amphipolis—where (after a certain interval) he caused both of them to be slain.[847]

[846] Diodor. xix. 36.

[847] Diodor. xix. 50, 51; Justin, xiv. 5; Pausan. i. 25, 5; ix.
7, 1.

While Kassander was thus master of Macedonia—and while the imperial family were disappearing from the scene in that country—the defeat and death of Eumenes (which happened nearly at the same time as the capture of Olympias[848]) removed the last faithful partisan of that family in Asia. But at the same time, it left in the hands of Antigonus such overwhelming preponderance throughout Asia, that he aspired to become vicar and master of the entire Alexandrine empire, as well as to avenge upon Kassander the extirpation of the regal family. His power appeared indeed so formidable, that Kassander of Macedonia, Lysimachus of Thrace, Ptolemy of Egypt, and Seleukus of Babylonia, entered into a convention, which gradually ripened into an active alliance, against him.

[848] Even immediately before the death of Olympias, Aristonous,
governor of Amphipolis in her interest, considered Eumenes to be
still alive (Diodor. xix. 50).

During the struggles between these powerful princes, Greece appears simply as a group of subject cities, held, garrisoned, grasped at, or coveted, by all of them. Polysperchon, abandoning all hopes in Macedonia after the death of Olympias, had been forced to take refuge among the Ætolians, leaving his son Alexander to make the best struggle that he could in Peloponnesus; so that Kassander was now decidedly preponderant throughout the Hellenic regions. After fixing himself on the throne of Macedonia, he perpetuated his own name by founding, on the isthmus of the peninsula of Pallênê and near the site where Potidæa had stood, the new city of Kassandreia; into which he congregated a large number of inhabitants from the neighborhood, and especially the remnant of the citizens of Olynthus and Potidæa,—towns taken and destroyed by Philip more than thirty years before.[849] He next marched into Peloponnesus with his army against Alexander son of Polysperchon. Passing through Bœotia, he undertook the task of restoring the city of Thebes, which had been destroyed twenty years previously by Alexander the Great, and had ever since existed only as a military post on the ancient citadel called Kadmeia. The other Bœotian towns, to whom the old Theban territory had been assigned, were persuaded or constrained to relinquish it; and Kassander invited from all parts of Greece the Theban exiles or their descendants. From sympathy with these exiles, and also with the ancient celebrity of the city, many Greeks, even from Italy and Sicily, contributed to the restoration. The Athenians, now administered by Demetrius Phalereus under Kassander’s supremacy, were particularly forward in the work; the Messenians and Megalopolitans, whose ancestors had owed so much to the Theban Epaminondas, lent strenuous aid. Thebes was re-established in the original area which it had occupied before Alexander’s siege; and was held by a Kassandrian garrison in the Kadmeia, destined for the mastery of Bœotia and Greece.[850]

[849] Diodor. xix. 52; Pausanias, v. 23, 2.

[850] Diodor. xix. 52, 54, 78; Pausan. ix. 7, 2-5. This seems an
explanation of Kassander’s proceeding, more probable than that
given by Pausanias; who tells us that Kassander hated the memory
of Alexander the Great, and wished to undo the consequences of
his acts. That he did so hate Alexander, is however extremely
credible: see Plutarch, Alexand. 74.

After some stay at Thebes, Kassander advanced toward Peloponnesus. Alexander (son of Polysperchon) having fortified the Isthmus, he was forced to embark his troops with his elephants at Megara, and cross over the Saronic Gulf to Epidaurus. He dispossessed Alexander of Argos, of Messenia, and even of his position on the Isthmus, where he left a powerful detachment, and then returned to Macedonia.[851] His increasing power raised both apprehension and hatred in the bosom of Antigonus, who endeavored to come to terms with him, but in vain.[852] Kassander preferred the alliance with Ptolemy, Seleukus, and Lysimachus—against Antigonus, who was now master of nearly the whole of Asia, inspiring common dread to all of them.[853] Accordingly, from Asia to Peloponnesus, with arms and money Antigonus despatched the Milesian Aristodemus to strengthen Alexander against Kassander; whom he further denounced as an enemy of the Macedonian name, because he had slain Olympias, imprisoned the other members of the regal family, and re-established the Olynthian exiles. He caused the absent Kassander to be condemned by what was called a Macedonian assembly, upon these and other charges.

[851] Diodor. xix. 54.

[852] Diodor. xix. 56.

[853] Diodor. xix. 57.

Antigonus farther proclaimed, by the voice of this assembly, that all the Greeks should be free, self-governing, and exempt from garrisons or military occupation.[854] It was expected that these brilliant promises would enlist partisans in Greece against Kassander; accordingly Ptolemy ruler of Egypt, one of the enemies of Antigonus, thought fit to issue similar proclamations a few months afterwards, tendering to the Greeks the same boon from himself.[855] These promises, neither executed, not intended to be executed, by either of the kings, appear to have produced little or no effect upon the Greeks.

[854] Diodor. xix. 61.

[855] Diodor. xix. 62.

The arrival of Aristodemus in Peloponnesus had re-animated the party of Alexander, (son of Polysperchon), against whom Kassander was again obliged to bring his full forces from Macedonia. Though successful against Alexander at Argos, Orchomenus, and other places, Kassander was not able to crush him, and presently thought it prudent to gain him over. He offered to him the separate government of Peloponnesus, though in subordination to himself: Alexander accepted the offer, becoming Kassander’s ally[856]—and carried on war, jointly with him, against Aristodemus, with varying success, until he was presently assassinated by some private enemies. Nevertheless his widow Kratesipolis, a woman of courage and energy, still maintained herself in considerable force at Sikyon.[857] Kassander’s most obstinate enemies were the Ætolians, of whom we now first hear formal mention as a substantive confederacy.[858] These Ætolians became the allies of Antigonus as they had been before of Polysperchon, extending their predatory ravages even as far as Attica. Protected against foreign garrisons, partly by their rude and fierce habits, partly by their mountainous territory, they were almost the only Greeks who could still be called free. Kassander tried to keep them in check through their neighbors the Akarnanians, whom he induced to adopt a more concentrated habit of residence, consolidating their numerous petty townships into a few considerable towns,—Stratus, Sauria, and Agrinium—convenient posts for Macedonian garrisons. He also made himself master of Leukas, Apollonia, and Epidamnus, defeating the Illyrian king Glaukias, so that his dominion now extended across from the Thermaic to the Adriatic Gulf.[859] His general Philippus gained two important victories over the Ætolians and Epirots, forcing the former to relinquish some of their most accessible towns.[860]

[856] Diodor. xix. 63, 64.

[857] Diodor. xix. 62, 67.

[858] Diodor. xix. 66. Ἀριστόδημος, ~ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν~
δικαιολογησάμενος, προετρέψατο τὰ πλήθη βοηθεῖν τοῖς Ἀντιγόνου
πράγμασιν, etc.

[859] Diodor. xix. 67, 68; Justin, xv. 2. See Brandstäter,
Geschichte des Ætolischen Volkes und Bundes, p. 178 (Berlin,
1844).

[860] Diodor. xix. 74.

The power of Antigonus in Asia underwent a material diminution, by the successful and permanent establishment which Seleukus now acquired in Babylonia; from which event the era of the succeeding Seleukidæ takes its origin. In Greece, however, Antigonus gained ground on Kassander. He sent thither his nephew Ptolemy with a large force to liberate the Greeks, or in other words, to expel the Kassandrian garrisons; while he at the same time distracted Kassander’s attention by threatening to cross the Hellespont and invade Macedonia. This Ptolemy (not the Egyptian) expelled the soldiers of Kassander from Eubœa, Bœotia, and Phokis. Chalkis in Eubœa was at this time the chief military station of Kassander; Thebes (which he had recently re-established) was in alliance with him; but the remaining Bœotian towns were hostile to him. Ptolemy, having taken Chalkis—the citizens of which he conciliated by leaving them without any garrison—together with Oropus, Eretria, and Karystus—entered Attica and presented himself before Athens. So much disposition to treat with him was manifested in the city, that Demetrius the Phalerean was obliged to gain time by pretending to open negotiations with Antigonus, while Ptolemy withdrew from Attica. Nearly at the same epoch, Apollonia, Epidamnus, and Leukas, found means, assisted by an armament from Korkyra, to drive out Kassander’s garrisons, and to escape from his dominion.[861] The affairs of Antigonus were now prospering in Greece, but they were much thrown back by the discontent and treachery of his admiral Telesphorus, who seized Elis and even plundered the sacred treasures of Olympia. Ptolemy presently put him down, and restored these treasures to the god.[862]

[861] Diodor. xix. 77, 78, 89.

[862] Diodor. xix. 87.

In the ensuing year, a convention was concluded between Antigonus, on one side—and Kassander, Ptolemy (the Egyptian) and Lysimachus, on the other, whereby the supreme command in Macedonia was guaranteed to Kassander, until the maturity of Alexander son of Roxana; Thrace being at the same time assured to Lysimachus, Egypt to Ptolemy, and the whole of Asia to Antigonus. It was at the same time covenanted by all, that the Hellenic cities should be free.[863] Towards the execution of this last clause, however, nothing was actually done. Nor does it appear that the treaty had any other effect, except to inspire Kassander with increased jealousy about Roxana and her child; both of whom (as has been already stated) he caused to be secretly assassinated soon afterwards, by the governor Glaukias, in the fortress of Amphipolis, where they had been confined.[864] The forces of Antigonus, under his general Ptolemy, still remained in Greece. But this general presently (310 B. C.) revolted from Antigonus, and placed them in co-operation with Kassander; while Ptolemy of Egypt, accusing Antigonus of having contravened the treaty by garrisoning various Grecian cities, renewed the war and the triple alliance against him.[865]

[863] Diodor. xix. 105.

[864] Diodor. xix. 105.

[865] Diodor. xx. 19.

Polysperchon,—who had hitherto maintained a local dominion over various parts of Peloponnesus, with a military force distributed in Messênê and other towns[866]—was now encouraged by Antigonus to espouse the cause of Herakles (son of Alexander by Barsinê), and to place him on the throne of Macedonia in opposition to Kassander. This young prince Herakles, now seventeen years of age, was sent to Greece from Pergamus in Asia, and his pretensions to the throne were assisted not only by a considerable party in Macedonia itself, but also by the Ætolians. Polysperchon invaded Macedonia, with favorable prospects of establishing the young prince; yet he thought it advantageous to accept treacherous propositions from Kassander, who offered to him partnership in the sovereignty of Macedonia, with an independent army and dominion in Peloponnesus. Polysperchon, tempted by these offers, assassinated the young prince Herakles, and withdrew his army towards Peloponnesus. But he found such unexpected opposition, in his march through Bœotia, from Bœotians and Peloponnesians, that he was forced to take up his winter quarters in Lokris[867] (309 B. C.). From this time forward, as far as we can make out, he commanded in Southern Greece as subordinate ally or partner of Kassander;[868] whose Macedonian dominion, thus confirmed, seems to have included Akarnania and Amphilochia on the Ambrakian Gulf, together with the town of Ambrakia itself, and a supremacy over many of the Epirots.

[866] Messênê was garrisoned by Polysperchon (Diodor. xix. 64).

[867] Diodor. xx. 28; Trogus Pompeius—Proleg. ad Justin. xv.
Justin. xv. 2.

[868] Diodor. xx. 100-103; Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 6. King Pyrrhus
was of προγόνων ἀεὶ δεδουλευκότων Μακεδόσι—at least this was the
reproach of Lysimachus (Plutarch, Phyrrhus, 12).

The assassination of Herakles was speedily followed by that of Kleopatra, sister of Alexander the Great, and daughter of Philip and Olympias. She had been for some time at Sardis, nominally at liberty, yet under watch by the governor, who received his orders from Antigonus; she was now preparing to quit that place, for the purpose of joining Ptolemy in Egypt, and of becoming his wife. She had been invoked as auxiliary, or courted in marriage, by several of the great Macedonian chiefs, without any result. Now, however, Antigonus, afraid of the influence which her name might throw into the scale of his rival Ptolemy, caused her to be secretly murdered as she was preparing for her departure; throwing the blame of the deed on some of her women, whom he punished with death.[869] All the relatives of Alexander the Great (except Thessalonikê wife of Kassander, daughter of Philip by a Thessalian mistress) thus successively perished, and all by the orders of one or other among his principal officers. The imperial family, with the prestige of its name, thus came to an end.

[869] Diodor. xx. 37 compare Justin, xiii. 6; xiv. 1.

Ptolemy of Egypt now set sail for Greece with a powerful armament. He acquired possession of the important cities—Sikyon and Corinth—which were handed over to him by Kratesipolis, widow of Alexander son of Polysperchon. He then made known by proclamation his purpose as a liberator, inviting aid from the Peloponnesian cities themselves against the garrisons of Kassander. From some he received encouraging answers and promises; but none of them made any movement, or seconded him by armed demonstrations. He thought it prudent therefore to conclude a truce with Kassander and retire from Greece, leaving however secure garrisons in Sikyon and Corinth.[870] The Grecian cities had now become tame and passive. Feeling their own incapacity of self-defence, and averse to auxiliary efforts, which brought upon them enmity without any prospect of advantage—they awaited only the turns of foreign interference and the behests of the potentates around them.

[870] Diodor. xx. 37.

The Grecian ascendency of Kassander, however, was in the following year exposed to a graver shock than it had ever yet encountered—by the sudden invasion of Demetrius called Poliorketes, son of Antigonus. This young prince, sailing from Ephesus with a formidable armament, contrived to conceal his purposes so closely, that he actually entered the harbor of Peiræus (on the 26th of the month Thargelion—May) without expectation, or resistance from any one; his fleet being mistaken for the fleet of the Egyptian Ptolemy. The Phalerean Demetrius, taken unawares, and attempting too late to guard the harbor, found himself compelled to leave it in possession of the enemy, and to retire within the walls of Athens; while Dionysius, the Kassandrian governor, maintained himself with his garrison in Munychia, yet without any army competent to meet the invaders in the field. This accomplished Phalerean, who had administered for ten years as the viceroy and with the force of Kassander, now felt his position and influence at Athens overthrown, and even his personal safety endangered. He with other Athenians went as envoys on the ensuing day to ascertain what terms would be granted. The young prince ostentatiously proclaimed, that it was the intention of his father Antigonus and himself to restore and guarantee to the Athenians unqualified freedom and autonomy. Hence the Phalerean Demetrius foresaw that his internal opponents, condemned as they had been to compulsory silence during the last ten years, would now proclaim themselves with irresistible violence, so that there was no safety for him except in retreat. He accordingly asked and obtained permission from the invader to retire to Thebes, from whence he passed over soon after to Ptolemy in Egypt. The Athenians in the city declared in favor of Demetrius Poliorketes; who however refused to enter the walls until he should have besieged and captured Munychia, as well as Megara, with their Kassandrian garrisons. In a short time he accomplished both these objects. Indeed energy, skill, and effective use of engines, in besieging fortified places, were among the most conspicuous features in his character; procuring for him the surname whereby he is known to history. He proclaimed the Megarians free, levelling to the ground the fortifications of Munychia, as an earnest to the Athenians that they should be relieved for the future from all foreign garrison.[871]

[871] Philochor. Fragm. 144, ed. Didot; Diodor. xx. 45, 46;
Plutarch, Demetrius, 8, 9. The occupation of Peiræus by Demetrius
Poliorketes is related somewhat differently by Polyænus, iv. 7,
6.

After these successes, Demetrius Poliorketes made his triumphant entry into Athens. He announced to the people, in formal assembly, that they were now again a free democracy, liberated from all dominion either of soldiers from abroad or oligarchs at home. He also promised them a farther boon from his father Antigonus and himself—150,000 medimni of corn for distribution, and ship-timber in quantity sufficient for constructing 100 triremes. Both these announcements were received with grateful exultation. The feelings of the people were testified not merely in votes of thanks and admiration towards the young conqueror, but in effusions of unmeasured and exorbitant flattery. Stratokles (who has already been before us as one of the accusers of Demosthenes in the Harpalian affair) with others exhausted their invention in devising new varieties of compliment and adulation. Antigonus and Demetrius were proclaimed to be not only kings, but gods and saviors: a high priest of these saviors was to be annually chosen, after whom each successive year was to be named (instead of being named after the first of the nine Archons, as had hitherto been the custom), and the dates of decrees and contracts commemorated; the month Munychion was re-named as Demetrion—two new tribes, to be called Antigonis and Demetrias, were constituted in addition to the preceding ten:—the annual senate was appointed to consist of 600 members instead of 500; the portraits and exploits of Antigonus and Demetrius were to be woven, along with those of Zeus and Athênê, into the splendid and voluminous robe periodically carried in procession, as an offering at the Panathenaic festival; the spot of ground where Demetrius had alighted from his chariot, was consecrated with an altar erected in honor of Demetrius Katæbates or the Descender. Several other similar votes were passed, recognizing, and worshipping as gods, the saviors Antigonus and Demetrius. Nay, we are told that temples or altars were voted to Phila-Aphroditê, in honor of Phila wife of Demetrius; and a like compliment was paid to his two mistresses, Leæna and Lamia. Altars are said to have been also dedicated to Adeimantus and others, his convivial companions or flatterers.[872] At the same time the numerous statues which had been erected in honor of the Phalerean Demetrius during his decennial government, were overthrown, and some of them even turned to ignoble purposes, in order to cast greater scorn upon the past ruler.[873] The demonstrations of servile flattery at Athens, towards Demetrius Poliorketes, were in fact so extravagantly overdone, that he himself is said to have been disgusted with them, and to have expressed contempt for these degenerate Athenians of his own time.[874]

[872] Plutarch, Demetrius, 9-11; Diodor. xx. 47; Demochares ap.
Athenæum, vi. p. 253.

[873] Diogen. Laert. v, 77. Among the numerous literary works
(all lost) of the Phalerean Demetrius, one was entitled Ἀθηναίων
καταδρομή (ib. v. 82).

[874] Demochares ap. Athenæum, vi. p. 253.

In reviewing such degrading proceedings, we must recollect that thirty-one years had now elapsed since the battle of Chæroneia, and that during all this time the Athenians had been under the practical ascendancy, and constantly augmenting pressure, of foreign potentates. The sentiment of this dependence on Macedonia had been continually strengthened by all the subsequent events—by the capture and destruction of Thebes, and the subsequent overwhelming conquests of Alexander—by the deplorable conclusion of the Lamian war, the slaughter of the free-spoken orators, the death of the energetic military leaders, and the deportation of Athenian citizens—lastly, by the continued presence of a Macedonian garrison in Peiræus or Munychia. By Phokion, Demetrius Phalereus, and the other leading statesmen of this long period, submission to Macedonia had been inculcated as a virtue, while the recollection of the dignity and grandeur of old autonomous Athens had been effaced or denounced as a mischievous dream. The fifteen years between the close of the Lamian war and the arrival of Demetrius Poliorketes (322-307 B. C.), had witnessed no free play, nor public discussion and expression, of conflicting opinions; the short period during which Phokion was condemned must be excepted, but that lasted only long enough to give room for the outburst of a preconceived but suppressed antipathy.

During this thirty years, of which the last half had been an aggravation of the first, a new generation of Athenians had grown up, accustomed to an altered phase of political existence. How few of those who received Demetrius Poliorketes, had taken part in the battle of Chæroneia, or listened to the stirring exhortations of Demosthenes in the war which preceded that disaster![875] Of the citizens who yet retained courage and patriotism to struggle again for their freedom after the death of Alexander, how many must have perished with Leosthenes in the Lamian war! The Athenians of 307 B. C. had come to conceive their own city, and Hellas generally, as dependent first on Kassander, next on the possible intervention of his equally overweening rivals, Ptolemy, Antigonus, Lysimachus, etc. If they shook off the yoke of one potentate, it could only be by the protectorate of another. The sentiment of political self-reliance and autonomy had fled; the conception of a citizen military force, furnished by confederate and co-operating cities, had been superseded by the spectacle of vast standing armies, organized by the heirs of Alexander and of his traditions.

[875] Tacitus, Annal. i. 3. “Juniores post Actiacam victoriam,
seniores plerique inter bella civium nati: quotusquisque
reliquus, qui rempublicam vidisset?”

Two centuries before (510 B. C.), when the Lacedæmonians expelled the despot Hippias and his mercenaries from Athens, there sprang up at once among the Athenian people a forward and devoted patriotism, which made them willing to brave, and competent to avert, all dangers in defence of their newly-acquired liberty.[876] At that time, the enemies by whom they were threatened were Lacedæmonians, Thebans, Æginetans, Chalkidians, and the like (for the Persian force did not present itself until after some interval, and attacked not Athens alone, but Greece collectively). These hostile forces, though superior in number and apparent value to those of Athens, were yet not so disproportionate as to engender hopelessness and despair. Very different were the facts in 307 B. C., when Demetrius Poliorketes removed the Kassandrian mercenaries with their fortress Munychia, and proclaimed Athens free. To maintain that freedom by their own strength—in opposition to the evident superiority of organized force residing in the potentates around, one or more of whom had nearly all Greece under military occupation,—was an enterprise too hopeless to have been attempted even by men such as the combatants of Marathon or the contemporaries of Perikles. “Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow!” but the Athenians had not force enough to strike it; and the liberty proclaimed by Demetrius Poliorketes was a boon dependent upon him for its extent and even for its continuance. The Athenian assembly of that day was held under his army as masters of Attica, as it had been held a few months before under the controlling force of the Phalerean Demetrius together with the Kassandrian governor of Munychia; and the most fulsome votes of adulation proposed in honor of Demetrius Poliorketes by his partisans, though perhaps disapproved by many, would hardly find a single pronounced opponent.

[876] Herodotus, v. 78.

One man, however, there was, who ventured to oppose several of the votes—the nephew of Demosthenes—Demochares; who deserves to be commemorated as the last known spokesman of free Athenian citizenship. We know only that such were his general politics, and that his opposition to the obsequious rhetor Stratokles ended in banishment, four years afterwards.[877] He appears to have discharged the functions of general during this period—to have been active in strengthening the fortifications and military equipment of the city—and to have been employed in occasional missions.[878]

[877] Plutarch, Demetr. 24.

[878] Polybius, xii. 13; Decretum apud Plutarch, Vit. X. Oratt.
p. 851.

The altered politics of Athens were manifested by impeachment against Demetrius Phalereus and other leading partisans of the late Kassandrian government. He and many others had already gone into voluntary exile; when their trials came on, they were not forthcoming, and all were condemned to death. But all those who remained, and presented themselves for trial, were acquitted;[879] so little was there of reactionary violence on this occasion. Stratokles also proposed a decree, commemorating the orator Lykurgus (who had been dead about seventeen years) by a statue, an honorary inscription, and a grant of maintenance in the Prytaneum to his eldest surviving descendant.[880] Among those who accompanied the Phalerean Demetrius into exile was the rhetor or logographer Deinarchus.

[879] Philochori Fragm. 144, ed. Didot, ap. Dionys. Hal. p. 636.