Abstract
The authenticity of And. 3 faces a challenge by E. M. Harris ('The Authenticity of Andokides' De Pace: A Subversive Essay' in: P. Flensted-Jensen et al. edd., Polis and Politics, Copenhagen 2000, 479-505). According to Harris, (i) this oration misrepresents history to a greater extent than Aeschin. 2, which is thought to have plagiarised the former; (ii) the term 'πρεσβεις αυτοκρατορες' in And. 3 does not fit in with its common usage in the classical period; and (iii) the description in this oration does not mesh with the real situation of the period to which this speech is usually dated. Putting (i) aside, which itself does not necessarily undermine the authenticity of And. 3 as is shown by the studies in oral tradition, the present paper focuses upon (ii), not only because this innovative approach deserves a close examination on its own merits, but also because (iii) presumes that (ii) holds true. The refutation of (ii) will, as a result, rehabilitate studies based on And. 3 in general, and historiographical studies grounded on (i) in particular. Regarding (ii), Harris concludes that a πολις in this period sent ambassadors with full powers in only two circumstances, i.e., (a) to receive terms of surrender under siege or threatened with overwhelming force (Harris, p. 488) or (b) to 'negotiate about the details of (or take the oaths for) a treaty that has already been ratified' (p. 490). His classification (b), which concerns our speech, is debatable. The six passages on which it rests undergo scrutiny here. (1) Th. 5. 44. 2-46. 3 describes exchanges of embassies between Lacedaemon and Athens during which, if (b) be the case, πρεσβεις αυτοκρατορες should have been dispatched before they actually were. (2) For (b) to be established, Harris interprets differently two instances of ψηφιζεσθαι found in X. HG 6. 5. 49-7. 1. 14, whose implications in fact are the same. (3) Deducing (b) from (1) and (2), whose validity is now compromised, Harris applies it to Aeschin. 3.63, on whose description he grafts Aeschin. 2. 20-46 to reconstruct a process of negotiation between Macedon and Athens, a process, however, susceptible of the opposite interpretation to Harris' as well, i.e., the embassies involved not being πρεσβεις αυτοκρατορες. (4) (b) is applied also to D. S. 12. 4. 4-6, a case similar to (2) in Harris' opinion, which proved unfavourable to his thesis. What is more, 'υπακουσαυτων' which he interprets to mean 'having ratified' simply denotes 'having listened to', since the negotiation is between Athens and unofficial delegates sent by the henchmen of Persian dynasts, real authorities to ratify and conclude a treaty. (5) and (6) concern πρεσβεις τελος εχουτες, according to Harris, an equivalent to αυτοκρατορες. (5) IG i^3 61=ML 65 does mention negotiation between Methone and Macedon, but not any treaty previously concluded between the two. (6) The τελος εχουτες in Th. 4. 117-119 are supposed to be dispatched, if need be, before a treaty is ratified. None of the above passages satisfy (b).
