Edwin CARAWAN The Accountings of the Thirty: Ath. Pol. 39.6

Among the covenants that ended civil war at Athens, Athenaion Politeia reports that even the Thirty and chief officers of the oligarchy were protected from reprisal if they submitted to accountings. Andocides (1.90) cites this provision in similar terms, as part of the oath that "all swore after the reconciliation." Largely on the authority of Ath.Pol. scholars now invariably assign this provision to the original resolution of the conflict that the Spartan king Pausanias arranged in 403, and in that context it has been widely regarded as a measure of the "forgiveness" that sealed the peace. But before the London papyrus of Ath.Pol. was discovered, opinion was sharply divided over the nature and timing of this pledge. Many accepted Xenophon's scenario, Hell. 2.4.38: the initial settlement of 403 simply excluded the Thirty and their colleagues; it was only at the fall of Eleusis in 401 that the amnesty was framed so as to include them. So argued Luebbert 1881, and Stahl as late as 1891. But then the London papyrus was found to confirm the apparent implication of Andocides, that amnesty with accountings for the Thirty goes back to 403, and this soon became an unquestioned certainty (as early as Wilamowitz 1893). This paper undertakes at least to reopen the question. (1) The preponderance of the evidence still favors the older view, that accountings for the Thirty were devised for the second settlement at the fall of Eleusis; even Andocides' remarks prove consistent with this reconstruction. (2) The document in Ath.Pol. itself is probably a product of patriotic conflation such as we meet already in Andocides.

(1) Xenophon's testimony is corroborated by Diodorus (Ephorus) and Justin (Trogus), and it is consistent with practical considerations for the partition of Attica. There was no accommodation for the Thirty and their colleagues because they were not expected to submit to their adversaries. Indeed, hostilities soon resumed. Andocides ignores this conflict in order to minimize partisan resentment. He therefore treats the two settlements as one agreement. In 400/399 he is addressing a city recently reunited with Eleusis; among citizens who "all swore," there would be some who had returned from Eleusis under protection of the second settlement.

(2) Ath.Pol. knows little of the second treaty (40.4). The summary of diallagai in 39 is best understood as a composite of the two agreements. Sections 1-4 deal with relocation to Eleusis in 403. But in §§5-6 we find three provisions better suited to 401: those who had emigrated must now register if they wish to return to full rights at Athens. There follows the rule for homicide prosecution at Athens (a very vexed passage), closely joined to our provision: none shall "recall past wrongs" except against the Thirty and their colleagues, and not against them if they stand accountings. Thereupon, at the end of §6, the author reverts abruptly to the plan for partition: "Those who wish are then to emigrate." Blass altered the text to supply a connection: "those who do wish to (stand accountings) are thus to emigrate." But the connection will not hold. The Thirty and colleagues as a body had already withdrawn to Eleusis when the deal was struck in 403. Those moderates who remained in office would face regular accountings, as did Rhinon (Ath.Pol. 38.4). The only text addressed to the special accountings, Lysias Against Eratosthenes, probably belongs to 401. It was only at the fall of Eleusis, when many of their number were slain and the survivors were driven from their place of refuge, that the Thirty were called to account.