On the 26th of Targelion (early June of 307 BC), Demetrius Poliorcetes arrived at the port of Piraeus with a fleet of 250 ships. Plutarch describes his decision to sail from Ephesus to Athens as motivated by a desire to free all of Greece from the control of Cassander and Ptolemy, in line with his father Antigonus’ plans (Plut. Demetr. 8.1).
Indeed, Athens fit perfectly into the Antigonid plan for liberating Greece: since the abolition of democracy in 317 BC, the city had been governed by a property-based oligarchy led by the philosopher Demetrius of Phaleron, who acted as epimeletes on behalf of Cassander of Macedonia (D.S. 18.74.3) and was under the watch of a garrison stationed at Munychia.
The siege of Piraeus is documented by Diodorus (20.45.1-5), Plutarch (Demetr. 8-10.1), and Polyaenus (4.7.5-6), which present details that are hard to reconcile. What can be pieced together is that Demetrius took control of Piraeus through a clever ruse, allowed Demetrius of Phaleron to retreat safely to Thebes, expelled the Macedonian garrison, and demolished the fortress on Munichia hill. Along with the expulsion of the garrison came the announcement that Demetrius would restore the laws (tous nomous) and the ancestral constitution (patrios politeia) to the Athenians. In response, the people welcomed Demetrius as a liberator and awarded him exceptional honours (for the honours, see Plut. Demetr. 10.3-4, 11.1-2, 12.1-2; D.S. 20.46.2 with Mikalson 1998), in exchange for a promise of grain and timber donations.
However, was this celebrated return to the patrios politeia truly a return to democracy? More importantly, to what kind of democracy was Demetrius referring? On the one hand, Poliorcetes avoided using the term demokratia (or the phrase patrios demokratia, Arst. Pol. 2.12 1273b 38, 5.5 1305a 28; Memn. FGrHist 434 F 1.4.1), reflecting the reluctance of Hellenistic rulers to explicitly refer to democratic regimes. On the other hand, he chose to present himself as the restorer of freedom and autonomy of the cities, i.e. the sovereignty of the poleis. Moreover, the term patrios politeia allowed him to position himself in opposition to past oligarchic experiences without specifying which model of democracy he intended to invoke. The reference to the past also legitimised the introduction of reforms, framing them as a return to traditional practices.
Although limited in its sovereignty by the authority of the king, Athens effectively regained democracy in 307 BC. The restoration of the democratic constitution, which included the abolition of the property-based criteria for citizenship, coincided with the repeal of some reforms enacted by Demetrius of Phaleron (317-307 BC). This included not only measures against supporters of the regime (the wave of eisangeliai mentioned by Philochorus FGrHist 328 F 66, with death sentences for those who evaded trial by fleeing, but also acquittals for those who submitted) and instigators of Demetrius of Phaleron’s political agenda (the so-called law of Sophocles against philosophers, Poll. 9.42; Ath. 13.610ef; D.L. 5.38 with Faraguna 2016), but also likely the elimination of offices such as the nomophylakes and gynaikonomoi (alongside the reactivation of the graphe paranomon) and the renewed activities of the nomothetai to facilitate the transition to the new regime (Canevaro 2011).
The reasons behind the increase in the number of tribes from 10 to 12, with the establishment of the Antigonis and Demetrias tribes, and the consequent reform of the Council’s size from 500 to 600 members, are harder to evaluate: was it to honour Athens’ liberators, Antigonus and Demetrius, or to counteract the reduction in magistracies that occurred during Demetrius of Phaleron’s regime by broadening the pool of potential candidates? Other reforms, such as the abolition of the choregia and funeral laws, were not repealed. Lastly, there was a significant increase in the activity of the Assembly, with a concentration of decrees favouring Demetrius’ friends and supporters (Thonemann 2005).
8.5
γενομένου δὲ τούτου κήρυκα παραστησάμενος ἀνεῖπεν ὅτι πέμψειεν αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐλευθερώσοντα καὶ τὴν φρουρὰν ἐκβαλοῦντα καὶ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν πάτριον ἀποδώσοντα πολιτείαν.
When this was secured, he proclaimed by voice of herald at his side that he had been sent by his father on what he prayed might be a happy errand, to set Athens free, and to expel her garrison, and to restore to the people their laws and their ancient form of government (Loeb translation).
10.1
ἐπεὶ δὲ πάλιν ἐπανελθὼν πρὸς τὴν Μουνυχίαν καὶ στρατοπεδεύσας ἐξέκοψε τὴν φρουρὰν καὶ κατέσκαψε τὸ φρούριον, οὕτως ἤδη τῶν Ἀθηναίων δεχομένων καὶ καλούντων παρελθὼν εἰς τὸ ἄστυ καὶ συναγαγὼν τὸν δῆμον ἀπέδωκε τὴν πάτριον πολιτείαν· καὶ προσυπέσχετο παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῖς ἀφίξεσθαι σίτου πεντεκαίδεκα μυριάδας μεδίμνων καὶ ξύλων ναυπηγησίμων πλῆθος εἰς ἑκατὸν τριήρεις.
Coming back again to Munychia and encamping before it, he drove out the garrison and demolished the fortress, and this accomplished, at last, on the urgent invitation of the Athenians, he made his entry into the upper city, where he assembled the people and gave them back their ancient form of government. He also promised that they should receive from his father a hundred and fifty thousand bushels of grain, and enough ship timber to build a hundred triremes (Loeb translation).
- I. Arnaoutoglou, Resurrecting Democracy? Law and Institutions in Early Antigonid Athens (307-301 BC), in K. Harter Uibopuu, W. Riess (eds.), Symposion 2019. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Hamburg, 26.–28 August 2019), Wien 2021, 263-288
- M. Canevaro, The Twilight of Nomothesia: Legislation in Early Hellenistic Athens (322-301), Dike 14, 2011, 55-85
- M. Faraguna, Un filosofo al potere? Demetrio Falereo tra democrazia e tirannide, MedAnt 19.1-2, 2016, 35-63
- V. Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie. Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen, Stuttgart 2008
- C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony, Cambridge, London 1997
- P. Hamon, Démocraties grecques après Alexandre. À propos de trois ouvrages récents, Topoi. Orient-Occident 16.2, 2009, 347-382
- T. Kruse, Not just a Return to the Patrios Politeia – or How to Turn Ten into Twelve: Response to Ilias Arnaoutoglou, in K. Harter Uibopuu, W. Riess (eds.), Symposion 2019. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Hamburg, 26.–28 August 2019), Wien 2021, 283-288
- L. Loddo, The Discourse on the Ancestral Constitution in the Early Hellenistic Period, in M. Barbato, M. Canevaro, A. Esu (eds.), Rediscovering Greek Institutional History, Edinburgh in cds
- N. Luraghi, Memory and Community in Early Hellenistic Athens, in W. Pohl, V. Wieser (eds.), Historiography and Identity I: Ancient and Early Christian Narratives of Community, Turnhout 2019, 107-131
- J.D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1998
- L. O’ Sullivan, The Regime of Demetrius of Phalerum in Athens, 317-307 BCE: A Philosopher in Politics, Leiden, Boston 2009
- P. Paschidis, Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period, 322-190 BC, Athens 2008
- F. Quaß, Zur Verfassung der griechischen Städte im Hellenismus, Chiron 9, 1979, 37-52
- P. Thonemann, The Tragic King: Demetrios Poliorketes and the City of Athens, in O. Hekster, R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginary Kings: Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome, Stuttgart 2005, 63-86