Nikolaos Karkavelias

Di(e)itrephes^*

Dieitrephes, or Diitrephes, belonged to a distinguished Athenian family whose promi­nence stretched throughout the fifth century, and whose members enjoyed the privi­lege of featuring in the narratives of Herodotus and Thucydides, albeit sometimes portrayed as controversial figures. The spelling of Dieitrephes’ name is disputed. Dunbar has argued for Διειτρέφης on metrical grounds, citing Elmsley and epigraphic evidence. [1] Indeed, Lang has assembled all the relevant evidence which clearly shows that the spelling was Διειτρέφης.[2] It is important that in all four ostraca examined in her study the ει is not a product of restoration but can actually be read on the surface of the pottery shred (serial numbers 98–101 in the study). [3] OCT also supports the spelling with ει at Thuc. 7.29.1 and 8.64.2, and Dover, HCT 4 at Thuc. 7.29.1, fol­lowed suit, but Hornblower has opted for the ι spelling.[4] It would, then, be better if we followed the epigraphic evidence.

Nor is there consensus among scholars about who his father was. Vanderpool favored Hermolycos II, one of the two sons of Dieitrephes I, because he was the elder,[5] followed by Raubitschek.[6] Develin[7], Sealey[8], Ruschenbusch [9], who registers Dieitrephes as Phlyeus, and Wade-Gery[10] believe the younger brother Nicostratos was the father, and so does the LGPN II, which registers our Dieitrephes under number 8. Dunbar, Birds (note 1) 484 has even proposed an unknown sister, daughter of Dieitrephes I, as a possible parent. G. Grossi remained uncommitted. [11] I believe that in the absence of any decisive clues the question should remain open.

Notwithstanding this controversy, the fact is that Dieitrephes was born into a politically prominent family. Nicostratos, his father or uncle, was elected general in 427/6 (Thuc. 3.75.1), 424/3 (Thuc. 4.119.2), 423/2 (Thuc. 4.129.2; Diod. 12.72.8; Plut. Nic. 6.4), 418/7 (Thuc. 5.61, 65, 69; Androtion FGrHist 324F41; Diod. 12.79), in which year he died fighting at the battle of Mantineia.[12] Aristophanes calls him φιλοθύτην ‘fond of sacrifices’ and φιλόξενον ‘hospitable’ or ‘fond of foreigners’ [13] (Wasps 81, see below), a fact that has prompted G. Gilbert to assume an amicable relationship between him and Nicias.[14] Indeed, Nicostratos’ peak time coincides with that of the famous Nicias, since they co-operated in at least two campaigns against Cythera (Thuc. 4.53.1) and against Mende and Scione (4.129.2), having both been elected as generals. In view of both men’s hostility towards the oikos of Alcibiades, one should not rule out an alliance between the two, although not necessarily on ideological grounds. Nicostratos seems to have been a successful general and it must have been his military skills, apart from his pedigree, which secured him the office all these years down to 418.[15] During the civil war in Corcyra Nicostratos showed his clemency and skill as mediator. After failing to assure the Corcyrean oligarchs, afraid of reprisals on the part of their opponents, to board the five Corcyrean ships which were to escort him with his five Athenian ships to Naupactos, Nicostratos persuaded the democrats on the island not to slaughter their political opponents who had sought refuge as suppliants in a temple (Thuc. 3.75). Later on, Nicostratos displayed his military and leadership skills by effectively engaging a far superior Peloponnesian fleet off Corcyra (3.76–8).[16]

Nicostratos’ rival for the office of strategia was none other than the notorious Alcibiades, if his deme was Scambonidai (we shall return to this later). It has been noted that the two men held the strategia for the Leontis tribe on almost alternate seasons. [17] This being the case, it would be legitimate to assume a tension, if not out­right hostility, between the two families, which had to compete each year for this highly prestigious office; this negative sentiment may have carried some weight in Dieitrephes’ decision to join the ranks of the oligarchs in 411.[18] It may then not have been a coincidence that Dieitrephes was assigned the important mission to Thasos soon after Peisander had returned from the negotiations with Tissaphernes to Samos. It was perhaps when it had been made known that Alcibiades was not to be trusted any more that Dieitrephes joined the movement, no doubt because the latter resented Alcibiades.[19] Nicostratos is also mentioned in Aristophanes’ Wasps 81 as a member of the audience at the official performance of the play. It should be noted that, unlike Amynias who is accused of gambling, Aristophanes does not reproach Nicostratos but treats him gently. Is this a sign of respect for the general or an indication that Nicostratos pursued conservative politics? The passage provides us with an important nugget of information, namely his deme, Scambonidai.[20]

Dieitrephes’ distinguished lineage stretches back two generations. His grand­father’s brother was Hermolycos I, son of Euthoinos, a pankratiast, who fought and distinguished himself at the battle of Mycale in 479 B.C., and died at Carystos a few years later.[21] Pausanias (1.23.10) also reported a statue of Hermolycos as a pan­kratiast.[22] Hermolycos’ I brother, Dieitrephes I, was a candidate for ostracism probably in the 460s. Lang, Ostraka (note 2) 43 maintains that the context in which the ostraca were found suggests either 461 when Cimon was ostracized,[23] or 460 when Alcibiades the Elder may have received the most votes.[24] Initially the patro­nymic was mistakenly restored as [Νι]κοσ[τράτο] by W. B. Dinsmoor, but Vanderpool[25] corrected it to [Ε]ὐθο[ίνο].

A dedication on the Acropolis (IG I³ 883) formerly dated to either 440 B.C.,[26] or around the mid-fifth century[27] was made by a family member named Hermolykos. On the base of the monument we can read: hερμόλυκος Διειτρέφος ἀπαρχέν. Κρεσίλας ἐπόεσεν. Raubitschek suggested that the stone bearing the inscription served as a base for a statue of Dieitrephes, the father of the dedicator, a figure falling backwards, resembling, thus, the volneratus deficiens of Cresilas. [28] Pausanias mentioned a statue of Dieitrephes, observing that there were arrows sticking out of it; he probably asso­ciated them erroneously with the fight at Mycalessos,[29] and Raubitschek assumed that this man is Dieitrephes’ grandfather who may have been killed during the expedition in Egypt, serving perhaps as a general. However, in a recent study the inscription was dated to the end of the fifth century, in which case the depicted dying man should be our Dieitrephes and not his grandfather, Dieitrephes I, as hitherto believed. If the new dating is accepted, then Dieitrephes may have met his death in a military encounter; if the proposer of the decree inscribed on IG I³ 110 (see below) is identical with the oligarch, the event must have occurred after 409, the year the honorary decree was moved (see C. M. Keesling, The Hermolykos/Kresilas Base and the Date of Kresilas of Kydonia, ZPE 147 [2004] 79–91).

We first hear of Dieitrephes the oligarch in Thucydides, book 7. The reinforcements for Sicily, headed by Demosthenes, had just embarked on their mission when a corps of 1300 Thracian mercenaries arrived in Attica (27.1), their task being to conduct operations against the recently fortified Deceleia. The Athenians thought it would have been too expensive to keep the Thracians in Attica for long, since they were paid a drachma a day (27.2), while the public treasury was running empty. At this point Dieitrephes was appointed to escort them back home, and was given instructions to raid the enemy territory on their way and do any harm they could (27.2). These orders they followed, and after landing at a Boeotian coast they marched inland and reached a tiny, obscure settlement. There:

ἐσπεσόντες δὲ οἱ Θρᾷκες ἐς τὴν Μυκαλησσὸν τάς τε οἰκίας καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐπόρθουν καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐφόνευον φειδόμενοι οὔτε πρεσβυτέρας οὔτε νεωτέρας ἡλικίας, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἑξῆς, ὅτῳ ἐντύχοιεν, καὶ παῖδας καὶ γυναῖκας κτείνοντες, καὶ προσέτι καὶ ὑποζύγια καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἔμψυχα ἴδοιεν· τὸ γὰρ γένος τὸ τῶν Θρᾳκῶν ὁμοῖα τοῖς μάλιστα τοῦ βαρβαρικοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἂν θαρσήσῃ, φονικώτατόν ἐστιν. καὶ τότε ἄλλη τε ταραχὴ οὐκ ὀλίγη καὶ ἰδέα πᾶσα καθειστήκει ὀλέθρου, καὶ ἐπιπεσόντες διδασκαλείῳ παίδων, ὅπερ μέγιστον ἦν αὐτόθι καὶ ἄρτι ἔτυχον οἱ παῖδες ἐσεληλυθότες, κατέκοψαν πάντας·καὶ ξυμφορὰ τῇ πόλει πάσῃ οὐδεμιᾶς ἥσσων μᾶλλον ἑτέρας ἀδόκητός τε ἐπέπεσεν αὕτη καὶ δεινή. (Thuc. 7.29.4–5)

‘They [the Thracians] stormed Mycalessos and sacked its houses and its temples, killing every human being. They spared neither young nor old but killed everyone they met, women and children alike and even the pack animals and every living thing they saw. For these Thracians, like most other barbarians, are most bloodthirsty when they are confident. There was there, then, a terrible confusion and every form of death: in particular, they attacked a school — the largest in the town — where the children had just come in and butchered every one of them. This whole city suffered a catastrophe second to no other in its unexpectedness and horror.’ (translated by D. Grene)

This passage is embedded in the narrative of the Sicilian expedition and directly follows an excursus on how the occupation of Deceleia had badly affected the Athenians and on the introduction of a 5 per cent tax on incoming as well as outgoing trade conducted at harbors across the Athenian arche (7.28.4). Scholars have not failed to notice that Athens was plunging into financial troubles at that time, and that this somehow led to the massacre at Mycalessos.[30] The narrative is vivid and direct and Thucydides abstains from any comment, expression of feelings or appeal to the readers’ emotions.[31] Grene discerns a kind of detached humanity on the part of the historian and points out that this passage deals with events which are peculiarly within the realm of chance rather than in that of necessity.[32] Price stresses the fact that Mycalessos was distant from the war, both physically and psychologically. [33] The incident also caught Thucydides’ attention because of the place in which it happened, the violence of the war spreading to all parts of the Hellenic world, engulfing it in the same way as stasis engulfs first the warring factions in a city and then the entire population. He concludes that the Athenians were complicit in the atrocity perpetrated by barbarians but somehow orchestrated by the former. [34]

What was Dieitrephes’ authority when he led the Thracians back home? Develin lists him as general for the year 414/3. The only evidence is Aristophanes, Birds 798–800,[35] but the exact text at 799 remains uncertain. The tradition is divided between εἶθ’ and ὥστ’ before ἐξ οὑδενὸς, the former reading implying that Dieitrephes had been recently elected as general for 414/3. Both readings are intelligible and a deci­sion between the two rests on how we interpret μεγάλα πράττει. But, as Dunbar Birds (note 1) 486 notes, it is more likely for εἶθ’ to have inadvertently replaced ὥστ’ than to have been replaced by it (note that there is one more εἶτα at 796). A more pressing question though is the extent to which Dieitrephes was responsible for the massacre. Did he personally give the order to kill, or did the situation simply get out of hand, in which case he may be accused of mere incompetence and lack of authority? As we have already noted above, Thucydides does not make any comments, or openly attribute any responsibility. But it has been suggested that as the historian uses the third person singular ten times in his narrative from 7.29.2–3 line 5, just before the massacre starts, with Dieitrephes as the subject, he, thus, keeps him firmly in view and implicitly makes him responsible for what follows.[36] Then, almost without noticing, Dieitrephes disappears from the scene only to appear again in Book 8 in the context of the preparations for the oligarchic revolution in 411.[37]

The next time we hear of Dieitrephes is in the spring of 411. After the fiasco with Alcibiades, the oligarchic conspirators decided to go on with the plan to abolish the democracy in Athens, even without the man who had conceived it in the first place. Setting out from Samos, Peisander and other fellow-oligarchs called at some islands on their way to Athens, with the intent to abolish the local democracies and set up oligarchies instead. [38] To the same end the conspirators

καὶ Διειτρέφη ὄντα περὶ Χίον, ᾑρημένον δὲ ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης ἄρχειν, ἀπέστελλον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. καὶ ἀφικόμενος ἐς τὴν Θάσον τὸν δῆμον κατέλυσεν. καὶ ἀπελθόντος αὐτοῦ οἱ Θάσιοι δευτέρῳ μηνὶ μάλιστα τὴν πόλιν ἐτείχιζον, ὡς τῆς μὲν μετ’ Ἀθηναίων ἀριστοκρατίας οὐδὲν ἔτι προσδεόμενοι, τὴν δ’ ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων ἐλευθερίαν ὁσημέραι προσδεχόμενοι· καὶ γὰρ καὶ φυγὴ αὐτῶν ἔξω ἦν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀθηναίων παρὰ τοῖς Πελοποννησίοις, καὶ αὕτη μετὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐπιτηδείων κατὰ κράτος ἔπρασσε ναῦς τε κομίσαι καὶ τὴν Θάσον ἀποστῆσαι. ξυνέβη οὖν αὐτοῖς μάλιστα ἃ ἐβούλοντο, τὴν πόλιν τε ἀκινδύνως ὀρθοῦσθαι καὶ τὸν ἐναντιωσόμενον δῆμον καταλελύσθαι. (Thuc. 8.64.2–4)

‘... also sent Dieitrephes, who had been elected to command in the Thracian district but who was then in the neighborhood of Chios, to his command. When he arrived at Thasos, he overthrew the democracy. Within two months of his departure, however, the Thasians began to wall their city on the grounds that they no longer wanted aristo­cracy in association with the Athenians and that they were in daily expectation of freedom coming from the Lacedaemonians. They felt this way because a group of Thasians, exiled by the Athenians, were in the Peloponnese and were, in collaboration with their friends in the city, exerting every effort to send ships and effect the revolu­tion of Thasos. Thus, these Thasians realized the goal they most desired: the estab­lishment of their state on a proper foundation with no danger and the destruction of the democracy which would have opposed them.’ (translated by H. Avery)

This passage has been taken as evidence that the Athenian generals assumed office soon after their election, and did not have to wait until the beginning of the Athenian archon year which began mid-summer, but this view has been convincingly refuted.[39] Fornara observes that Dieitrephes had been elected to govern Thrace, it having become thus a regular arche. He goes on to remark that this may signal the beginning of a new era in which the establishment of separate commands hardened gradually into a system because of the regularization of duties foreshadowed in the Peloponnesian war.[40] Develin, Athenian Officials (note 7) 160 is sceptical, and Jordan pedantically denies that Dieitrephes was a general on the grounds that Thucydides does not call him as such. [41] He assigns Dieitrephes the title archon epi Thrakes, but there is no evidence that such office existed in classical Athens.[42] We do not know if the Four Hundred reaffirmed Dieitrephes’ generalship, or if they removed him from office, but his mission to Thasos may point to him retaining the office. Kagan’s assumption that the Four Hundred may have not trusted Dieitrephes because he had been elected under the democracy pays little heed to the fact that Dieitrephes was entrusted a very important mission, the outcome of which the entire oligarchic scheme depended on.[43]

What were Dieitrephes’ movements when he reached Thasos?[44] On arrival, he probably came into contact with members of the local elite who were pro-oligarchic and on whose loyalty and discretion he could count.[45] It is also possible that the Athenian officer knew these people via connections through commerce (see below). The takeover must have been smooth (Thucydides does not mention any opposition), and the Athenian oligarchs’ wishful calculations that the local oligarchs would sup­port their scheme seemed to have proved right at the time.[46] But once in power, it took the Thasian oligarchs only two months to organize and effect the defection of the island from the Athenian Empire, thus vindicating Phrynichos, whose advice to the oligarchic conspirators had been not to put too much faith in the loyalty of the subjects of the Empire to an oligarchically governed Athens.[47] The reason why the Athenian conspirators decided to abolish the democracies throughout the arche and replace them with oligarchies may have been the existence on Samos of a staunch pro Athenian activist group which was not prepared to compromise Samos’ loyalty to Athens. At the time of Dieitrephes’ mission to Thasos the Athenian oligarchs were still resolute to carry on fighting Sparta and the Samian activists may have given them the false impression that what happened on Samos (overthrow of democracy) could happen elsewhere in the Empire.[48] Since, however, Thucydides confirms that the oligarchs’ plans to establish oligarchies throughout the Athenian arche completely backfired, other cities defecting en masse, one cannot hold Dieitrephes responsible for the failure on Thasos. Since the date of Dieitrephes’ arrival in Thasos has yet to be agreed upon, it is not possible to establish when exactly the Four Hundred got the news about Thasos’ defection, if they were still in power, and what effect this news had on Dieitrephes. Did he lose face among his fellow conspirators? Was he deposed from office? If, as it seems probable, news from Thasos’ defection reached Athens towards the end of July, it may have had relatively little impact on the oligarchic regime and on Dieitrephes in particular in the light of the avalanche of events that followed, developments that precipitated the abrupt end of the Four Hundred and their short-lived reign.[49]

Dieitrephes was also a likely butt of the comic poets. However, the image that emerges from the references in contemporary comic plays is controversial, and seems to be at odds with the epigraphic evidence. Connor noticed the discrepancy between the two types of evidence and warned against generalizations concerning the back­ground and public image of an individual who attracts the attention of the comic poets. [50] In Aristophanes, Birds 800 Dieitrephes is pictured as ξουθὸς ἱππαλεκτρυών, a horse-cock, a mythical winged creature. Aristophanes may have got the phrase from Aeschylus, Myrmidons fr. 134 = schol. Ar. Peace 1177a; [51] in the Peace 1175–1177 Aristophanes used it to picture the cowardly taxiarch who, terrified at the prospect of facing the enemy, evades fight and deserts the ranks.[52] This parallel passage, com­bined with Birds, lines 1439–1443, where Dieitrephes is portrayed enticing youths into joining the cavalry or taking part in horse racing, [53] may be an indication of Aristophanes’ contempt for the seemingly promising, but in reality ostentatious and cowardly military officer, who, despite his distinguished background, is only inter­ested in luxurious living. But, although we should be fairly confident about Dieitrephes’ relationship with the cavalry (see above), the statement of schol. 798b made by Euphronios, that Dieitrephes owned a workshop manufacturing wicker flasks, that is, wine containers, should be treated with cautiousness.[54] A second ancient commentator alerts us that this fact was not attested, thus possibly a mere inference from Aristophanes’ text. [55] In addition, in cases of mocked politicians, almost invariably radical democrats, the comic poets do not fail to scornfully and repeatedly stress their humble occupation: Cleon is a tanner (Ar. Knights 136 and passim); Hyperbolos a lamp maker; Cleophon a lyre maker (Cratinus K-A 209; Ar. Peace 690; schol. on Ar. Knights 739); Lysicles is a sheep dealer and Eucrates a hemp seller (Ar. Knights 132, 129).[56] This is not the case with Dieitrephes, to whose occupation there is only one equivocal allusion in Aristophanes’ text, not a likely treatment on the part of the poet when it came to ridiculing a target. But Dieitrephes never attained prominence equivalent to that of the above-mentioned demagogues. The young aristocrat attracts Aristophanes’ scorn perhaps not because of him being a nouveau riche, a tradesman or a craftsman, as in the aforesaid cases. Rather it is his extravagant life-style of a spoilt, arrogant and vainglorious, wealthy offspring of an old, distinguished Athenian family who leads a luxurious life and cares about horse racing only, which is loathsome to the comic poet.

Alternatively, if Euphronios used an independent source, and his statement that Dieitrephes owned a workshop making wine containers was not a mere inference from Aristophanes’ text,[57] it is conceivable that Dieitrephes’ family at some point during the war decided to go into the manufacturing business, and that this business did pretty well, for the scholiast calls Dieitrephes νεόπλουτος, nouveau riche, and πολυπράγμων, meddlesome (cf. schol. Ar. Birds 1442).[58] Probably the family’s deci­sion to enter this particular business was anything but random. They might have care­fully considered the opportunities the family connections with northern Greece and in particular with Thrace could offer. Connor, New Politicians (note 50) 156 n. 45 has noted that both Dieitrephes and Nicostratos commanded Thracian troops and this fact may indicate a special interest or competence in the area. To this we may add Dieitrephes’ mission to Thasos and the relative ease with which he accomplished it. Could it be that Dieitrephes had trade partners in Thasos, an area renowned for its wine, and that he contacted them first on arrival? If the information given by the scholiast is not without substance, then the case of Dieitrephes’ family is of great importance, since it shows how an old, aristocratic Athenian family coped with the financial strains the Peloponnesian war had imposed on them, and what kind of strat­egies they employed in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living and high social status accompanied with considerable wealth. [59]

Dieitrephes was also mocked as a foreigner by Plato in his Festivals. The quo­tation comes from the scholia to Aristophanes, Birds 798b: Πλάτων δὲ ἐν Ἑορταῖς καὶ ξένον τὸν μαινόμενον, τὸν Κρῆτα, τὸν μόγις Ἀττικόν. It is a well-known fact that contemporary politicians, especially those after Cleon, were frequently mocked as foreigners, so we should not expect that Plato’s libel bears any substance. [60] However, there are other possible interpretations of the passage. Grossi, Dietrefe (note 11) 521 has drawn attention to the use of the definite article in front of the three epithets, suggesting that the character was already well-known to the Athenian public when the play was produced. He goes on to remark that the attributes hardly Attic and Cretan may denote not ethnic origin but a kind of behaviour. The verb κρητίζω signifies the deceiver, the liar and these characteristics, Grossi argues, are compatible with people having business activity of the sort Dieitrephes had. The verse, then, would be a negative commentary on Dieitrephes’ social behaviour. Alternatively, one may connect the label ‘Cretan’ with Dieitrephes being the commander of Thrasians, renowned for their skill in archery just like the Cretans, but I find this interpretation somewhat strained.[61] In Cratinus (K-A 251)[62] Dieitrephes is presented as a shameless brute, summoned to appear before the naval court, which in Athens also tried com­mercial cases as well as those of usurpation of civic rights by aliens. The fragment can be read as an allusion to Dieitrephes being a foreigner (similar to Plato’s mocking him as a Cretan), and a reproach of his anti-social, hubristic behaviour.

A decree, IG I³ 110, 6 = ML 90, dated to 408/7 B.C., moved by a certain Dieitrephes proposed that an individual, Oiniades, from Sciathos and his descendants be granted the title of proxenos and benefactor of Athens on the island. This is the only decree conferring the title of proxenos that survives intact, but the identification of its author is disputed. The Persons of Ancient Athens argues for a possible iden­tification with the strategos; the LGPN is more confident since it assorts the proposer with the oligarch and the κωμῳδούμενος by the comic poets (see above) under the same individual. Dinsmoor[63] and Connor, New Politicians (note 50) 156 and n. 41 believe the proposer, the archon (see below) and the strategos to be the same person. Dunbar, Birds (note 1) 484, followed Sommerstein,[64] thinks it is unlikely that the oligarch and the proposer were the same person on grounds of the former’s activities in 411. Andrewes raised the possibility that the proposer may belong to the family from Scambonidai, but in reality he is only a namesake of the oligarch.[65] Sciathos is situated in the Northern Sporades and was a convenient intermediate trade station for those who travelled by ship to Thrace and the Hellespont. Thasos and Thrace were renowned for their wine and Dieitrephes’ family is likely to have owned a manu­facture producing wine flasks.[66] Dieitrephes’ election, probably as strategos, with special authority on Thrace, his involvement in the overthrow of the Thasian demo­cracy and his earlier command of the Thracian mercenaries strongly suggest acquaint­ance with the northern regions of the Athenian arche, acquaintance, we may surmise, arising from his business activities and connections with this region. In the light of the evidence provided by the scholia to Ar. Birds 798, I would follow Grossi, Dietrefe (note 11) 523 and the first group of scholars in accepting the identification of the decree proposer with the oligarch. If the identification is correct, it means that not only did Dieitrephes escape banishment and retain his civil rights after the restoration of the radical democracy in 410 B.C., but that he continued to play a role of some importance in Athenian politics in the last decade of the century.

A Dieitrephes, who belonged to the Cecropis tribe, is included in a casualty list perhaps of 412/1. The inscription IG I³ 1190 bears the names of the deceased in three columns, and the editors of the IG maintained that the first two include names of those Athenians who died in a naval engagement that year, whereas the third, that of Dieitrephes, includes names of Athenians fallen in a land engagement, thus making it possible, but not certain, that this Dieitrephes was of hoplite status.[67] The modern view is, however, that the Athenians listed all their dead, hoplites and thetes, according to their tribal affiliations. [68] It is possible that he was a distant relative of the general, bearing in mind that the name is not very common (it appears though in the fourth century in Aigeis, Acamantis and Leontis tribes PAA 323800, 323805 and 323810 respectively). A Dieitrephes was the eponymos archon in Athens in 384/3 B.C., (PAA 323780).[69] Unfortunately we do not know his tribal affiliation, so the identification with the general is not certain. If he is the same man he must have been very old when he became an archon.

Conclusion

Dieitrephes’ story is exceedingly interesting in that it allows us to catch a glimpse of the workings of Athenian politics throughout the fifth century. An illustrious, historic, prominent and aristocratic family such as Dieitrephes’ seems to have faced difficulties of two kinds in the closing decades of the fifth century. First, Alcibiades’ ascendancy together with the death in action of its most outstanding member, Nicostratos, threatened to throw Dieitrephes’ oikos into oblivion. Thus, Dieitrephes’ decision to get involved in the oligarchic coup may in all probability be best explained as driven by personal motives, that is, animosity towards the rival oikos of Alcibiades. Second, financial stringencies seem to have forced the family to occupy themselves with the lowly trade of wicker flask manufacturing. Dieitrephes undoubt­edly had the pedigree necessary to launch him into a career in politics but he seems to have lacked the ability. For the comic poets he was their favourite butt and he is portrayed as a superfluous, vainglorious person. He was entrusted important tasks under both democracy and oligarchy but his performance was mediocre at best. As a member of the Four Hundred he remained, to the best of our knowledge, inactive. He seems, however, to have survived the purges that followed the downfall of the Four Hundred oligarchy, since he was able to move a decree under the restored democracy.