Content area
Full text
Abstract. In Dyskolos, produced in 316 b.c.e., Menander implied his support for Demetrios of Phaleron and the Macedonian-backed oligarchy Demetrios headed as Epimeletes. The play's mixed-class marriages involved only families that remained enfranchised under the oligarchy's wealth requirement. Thus, they did not indicate support for democratic egalitarianism, but citizen solidarity under the oligarchy. The play's ethical theme, epimeleia, solicitous care of those in need, implied support for the Epimeletes personally. Knemon's rage evoked the mob that had condemned the previous oligarch Phokion in 318. Knemon's subsequent catastrophe warned the demos that they must acquiesce in Macedonian hegemony.
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
I. INTRODUCTION
In 322 b.c.e., Antipater, the regent of Macedon, imposed an oligarchy on Athens as a penalty for the city's role in leading the Greek states in rebellion after the death of Alexander the Great. The Athenian general Phokion headed the new government, whose constitution included a minimum wealth requirement of 2,000 drachmas for full citizen rights. The new constitution stripped the majority of the citizens of their right to vote. The democratic counterrevolution of 318 removed the oligarchy and condemned Phokion and his confederates to death in an angry and irregular procedure conducted in the Theater of Dionysos. The democratic restoration was brief. In the following year, Antipater's son Kassander took control of Athens and reinstituted oligarchic government. Macedonian garrisons in the Munychia and other strong points in Attica kept the government in power. The new constitution had a wealth requirement of 1,000 drachmas, half that of Phokion's regime, for full citizen rights. Kassander installed another cooperative Athenian, Demetrios of Phaleron, at its head. A man of letters and philosopher in the Peripatetic tradition, Demetrios would rule Athens for ten years as Epimele\te\s, or Caretaker.
Even at half that of Phokion's regime, the new minimum wealth requirement would have disenfranchised a considerable portion of the de\mos.1 In addition, disenfranchisement represented a serious blow to those affected but who remained notional citizens. However, the disenfranchised lost what citizenship represented in practical terms, a meaningful share in the politeia. They could no longer serve in office, vote in the assembly, or serve on juries. Until 322 the Athenian poor, as an element of the sovereign de\mos, might influence the state to...