The trial of Demetrius: some observations on legal procedure against court misconduct under Philip V of Macedonia

I The accusation

“ iam non occultis a fratre petimur insidiis ; nocte cum armatis domum ad interficiendum me venit , clausisque foribus parietum praesidio me a furore eius sum tutatus ...siaurespraeberepotes...manifestamremteneasfaciam” (Livy 40.8.2–3).

“It is no longer in secret that plots are being engineered by my brother; he came to my house with armed men during the night to kill me; I closed my doors and used the shelter of my walls to protect myself from his rage...But if you can give me your attention...I shall see that you have a clear account of the matter.”^[8]

“Frater, non comisantium in vicem animis iam diu vivimus inter nos. Regnare utique vis. Huic spei tuae obstat aetas mea, obstat gentium ius, obstat vetustus Macedoniae mos, obstat vero etiam patris iudicium” (Livy 40.9.8).

“My brother, we have long lived with one another in no spirit of boon companions. You wish of course to be king. In the way of this ambition of yours stand my age, the rule of nations, the ancient custom of Macedonia, and indeed also the decision of our father.”

Perseus accused Demetrius of assaulting him with intent to murder and asked Philip to give him a hearing on that matter. In his speech before his father, Perseus appears to claim that Demetrius’ intention was to eliminate him so that he himself should become the heir apparent to the Macedonian throne.

Whether this was alleged or not, such phenomena were not unknown in the kingdom of Macedonia. Evidence regarding the history of Argead Macedonia suggests that political assassinations, mainly in the form of regicide or attempted regicide, were a commonplace in political life largely connected with conflicts regarding succession to the throne.^[9] Although the contest between candidates for the kingship was usually dealt with by the application of two principals regarding heirs, (succession by first-born sons^[10] or selection by kings on the basis of the military prowess of his heir)^[11] the dynastic confusion and the number of serious challenges to legitimacy that appear in the history of the Macedonian kingdom, are evidence of the instability of the above-mentioned succession rules.^[12] As the possession of Argead royal blood by any claimant to the throne was considered paramount, certain members of the royal house made their way to kingship by murdering their predecessors.^[13] Yet, unlike what happened in Argead Macedonia, the attempt on Perseus appears to have been influenced by a foreign power.

Having lived in Rome for five years as a hostage after Philip’s defeat by the Romans in the Second Macedonian War (200–197 BC), Demetrius had become acquainted with Roman policy and gained the Senate’s favour (Polyb. 18.39.6). The young prince’s successful defence of his father against the accusations of Eumenes II, ruler of Pergamon, and of several Greek states concerning the seizure of some territories in Rome after the period of his sojourn there (Polyb. 23.1.5), significantly increased his popularity among the Macedonians, since he had successfully deflected Roman suspicions of Philip’s intentions, and, thus, ensured that peace with Rome would continue.^[14] More importantly, according to Polybius and Livy’s narratives, the Macedonian people supported Demetrius’ ascension to the throne, which appeared to be a guarantee of peace after decades of struggle between Macedonia and Rome (Polyb. 23.7.2–3; Livy 39.53.2). The two authors note that Demetrius’ success was unwelcome to his father, and still more so, to his older brother Perseus, who was expected to be the next ruler and feared Roman intervention in the Macedonian royal succession (Polyb. 23.7. 4–5; Livy 39.53.9). As appears from Polybius’ account, Philip and Perseus’ distrust of Demetrius was not totally groundless. The Greek historian states that Demetrius was manipulated by the Roman statesman Titus Flamininus into believing in Roman support for his ascension to the Macedonian throne, which implies that the young prince was aware of such a plan (23.3.6–9).

Roman propaganda in favour of Demetrius was associated with rumors about Perseus’ legitimacy of birth, which, noted by ancient authors, in all likelihood were expected to diminish the heir apparent’s status.^[15] Yet whether or not there was any truth in these reports, this dispute was not typical of the Antigonids. Although the dynasty was polygamous, it had been preserved from internal conflicts until the generation under discussion by the combination of a relative paucity of sons and, more importantly, a strong internal code of loyalty.^[16] The fact that all the Antigonid kings were succeeded by their firstborn sons without any challenge to their claim to the throne demonstrates a stability that was not known to the Argead dynasty.^[17] Livy shows Perseus in his speech as prosecutor in the trial mentioning the right of primogeniture in succession to the throne as a recognized Macedonian tradition (40.9.8). Hence, whether Demetrius’ popularity among the Macedonians, together with allegations of Perseus’ illegitimacy, would have helped the former play down a possible elimination of the latter is dubious. Unlike what happened in the Argead era, a dynastic murder could not be justified on the basis of the culprit’s being of royal blood or his military and political qualities.

This situation appears to have been well-known to Romans, too. Lack of literary evidence suggesting Roman intervention in the Macedonian succession dispute means that such a scheme was never officially formed.^[18] Nevertheless, Philip’s plan to extend Macedonian borders in the Balkan peninsula at the time of the brothers’ quarrel may have triggered a secret Roman plan set by Flamininus which favored Demetrius’ position as a leader of a pro-Roman faction against his father’s and brother’s expansionist schemes. This plan, if there was an actual plan, was probably conceived by Demetrius as an indication of support for his claim to the throne.^[19] Thus, Demetrius’ alleged attempt on Perseus’ life showed not only the former’s disrespect for the established tradition of this dynasty but also his treasonous behavior in favor of Rome.

II The hearing of the case by the king and his friends

“ enimvero se Philippus dicere auditurum , vocarique extemplo Demetrium iussit ; et seniores amicos duos , expertes iuvenalium inter fratres certaminum , infrequentes iam in regia , Lysimachum et Onomastum arcessit quos in consilio haberet ...postquam venisse eos nuntiatum est,secessitinparteminterioremcumduobusamicisettotidemcustodibuscorporis;filiisutternosinermessecumintroducerentpermisit” (Livy 40.8.4–6).

“Philip replied that he would certainly hear him out, and gave orders for Demetrius to be called immediately; and he also summoned to act as advisors Lysimachus and Onomastus,two elderly friends who had played no part in the youthful quarrels between the brothers because they were now rarely at court...When he was brought word of their arrival, he retired to the inner part of the palace with the two friends and the same number of bodyguards, and he allowed each of his sons to bring in with him three unarmed men.”

Given the gravity of Perseus’ accusation, Philip summoned a gathering of courtiers which was to hear the dispute and help the king decide on Demetrius’ guilt. Literary evidence shows that the hearing of accusations before the king’s council, which was part of the normal procedure regarding misbehavior in Alexander the Great’s era,^[20] remained part of the legal process against treasonous behavior in the kingdoms of the Hellenistic era.^[21] The members of these councils tried their peers because treason was, above all, a violation of the philia, the friendly relationship between the king and his courtiers, and perhaps also because it was a prerogative of the nobility to be tried by their equals.^[22]

The penultimate Antigonid king appears to be no exception to the rule. During his youth, Philip convened a council of his friends to deliberate on an assault by the Macedonian commanders and courtiers Megaleas and Crinon and some soldiers under their orders against Aratus during the Macedonian campaign against Thermus in 218 BC. According to Polybius, this meeting of the king’s friends was summoned in order to ratify Philip’s decision to impose a fine on Megaleas and Crinon, and the members unanimously confirmed their guilt (5.15.9; 5.16.5; 5.16.7). Judging from the above case and the cases of court misconduct in Alexander the Great’s era, Demetrius’ alleged crime was not the usual type of court misbehaviour, since he was a member of the ruling house of the kingdom and not a mere courtier. However, if we take into account that the royal family was the ‘nucleus’ of the Hellenistic royal courts^[23] it becomes apparent that this conflict tested the harmony of Philip’s palace and this needed to be referred to his close advisers.

But what is interesting in both the aforementioned cases (in Megaleas and Crinon’s trial and in Demetrius’ trial) is that Philip appears to have sought for his advisers’ help due to a legal void. The Macedonian military regulation of the times of Philip which survives in an inscription from Amphipolis prescribed fines in cases of breach of discipline,^[24] so it appears unusual that Philip decided to discuss Megaleas and Crinon’s offence against Aratus before his court. The reason for this decision was probably the large amount of the fine in question (20 talents) which was not provided in the regulation. It is also possible that due to their position at court the two men were eventually to be tried before the king’s court.^[25] In Demetrius’ case, the young prince’s alleged crime was not military in context but it was a new one: a royal son’s murder attempt on the heir apparent. Hence, as in his youth, the king sought for the help of his courtiers to decide on an issue not covered by Macedonian laws.

Philip’s attachment to his friends’ opinions on such matters is, certainly, implied in a comment by Polybius regarding a quasi-judicial case. While mentioning the young Philip’s decision about how to punish Sparta when this Greek polis revolted against him, the author notes that historians are obliged to regard the decision which prevailed in the council as a royal decision (4.24.2). That observation, which comes from a fervently anti-Macedonian writer, reveals the king’s need to include his friends in discussions regarding serious offences against the crown.^[26] An attestation of his courtiers’ continuing involvement in cases of adjudication throughout his reign seems to be provided by a reference in the military regulation from Amphipolis. According to this regulation, the king’s friends were to decide on the award of prizes for military excellence to army commanders,^[27] a practice which has its roots in a process followed by Alexander the Great in the appointment of chiliarchs for his army.^[28] It is not impossible that this practice was maintained under the Antigonids,^[29] in which case Philip’s courtiers would play a significant role in cases of arbitration. Although this piece of evidence concerns arbitration in a military context, it does show that Philip continued to rely on his friends in decision-making processes throughout his reign.

At the same time, the presence of friends acting as advocates for the two princes should not surprise us. The representation of elite groups of companions in the Macedonian council was balanced by opinions and experiences of courtiers from different backgrounds and, naturally, with different agendas and worldviews.^[30] It is logical to assume that the diversity of opinions helped the king judge the pros and cons of any decision to be taken and express his preference among the ideas presented by the council members he felt closest to him. Yet they may also have fulfilled other tasks of a procedural nature. Justin reports that Perseus brought forward informers and false witnesses (Epit. 32.2.9) which resembles Polybius’ reference to the witnesses brought by Aratus before Philip and his councillors to testify to the assault by Megaleas and Crinon (5.15.6). Judging from Perseus’ request to his father for the appearance of the men who co-operated with Demetrius in the assault (Livy 40.9.14), the friends who were on each prince’s side are likely to have been individuals who performed such tasks. Some might have been expected to offer surety in case of punishment, as happened with Leontius who stood bail for Megaleas when Philip fined him for his attack on Aratus (Polyb. 5.16.7). Nevertheless, it appears that Livy decided to avoid mention of any statements by the two royal siblings’ supporters for dramatic purposes.

III The final judgment: the absence of the assembly of Macedonians

“ Philippus submotis iis paulisper collocutus cum amicis pronuntiavit , nonverbissenecuniushoraedisceptationecausameorumdiiudicaturum,sedinquirendoinutriusquevitamacmores,etdictafactaqueinmagnisparvisquerebusobservando,utomnibusappareretnoctisproximaecrimenfacilerevictum,suspectamnimiamcumRomanisDemetriigratiamesse” (Livy 40.16.2–3).

“Philip dismissed his sons and after a brief discussion with his friends announced that he would not reach a decision in their case based on their words and a single hour’s debate. He would do so rather through an inquiry into the life and character of each, and by considering what they had said and done in situations of greater and lesser importance. Thus it became clear to everybody that, while the accusation relating to the previous night had been unequivocally refuted, Demetrius was still under suspicion because he was too popular with the Romans.”

According to Livy, Philip passed judgment in consultation with his friends. Despite his acquittal, Demetrius remained under a cloud of suspicion. The young prince was eventually murdered as a consequence of an investigation by Philip’s friends who acted as ambassadors in Rome and returned to the king with a forged letter from the Roman politician, Demetrius’ friend Flamininus, though the historical credibility of this event is somewhat dubious.^[31] This type of incriminating proof appears also in the case of accusations brought against Megaleas and Apelles. Polybius reports that Philip received certain letters from Phocis which included correspondence between Megaleas and the Aetolian league, which was an enemy of Philip. It is very likely that in both cases the fabrication of damning evidence served Philip’s purpose of eliminating dangerous opponents.^[32]

Taking into consideration the stages of Macedonian capital trials known from sources on similar events in Alexander the Great’s reign, a feature that seems to have been absent from Demetrius’ trial is the hearing before an army assembly of the Macedonians. The role of this body in trials against conspirators has been a major point of tension between scholars of constitutional history of ancient Macedonia for a considerable time. A passage from Curtius (6.8.23) seems to imply that in Argead Macedonia the assembly acted as a court of justice in capital cases in which the king appeared as a prosecutor without any legal authority to influence decisions, though he might do so indirectly through his prestige.^[33] The assumption that an assembly was regularly summoned in Macedonia has been dismisssed by scholars who consider the king to have been a ruler with unlimited power^[34] who occasionally granted assemblies the right to participate in trials.^[35] On the other hand, those who support the assumption of a constitutional postion of the king along with other governing bodies note that epigraphic and literary evidence shows that in the time of Alexander the Great and the early Diadochi this body was involved in important issues of policy, such as relations with foreign powers, the ratification of the crowning of new kings or the appointment of royal guardians and, naturally, capital trials.^[36]

With the emergence of royal power legitimated by military conquest in the Hellenistic era, the shared rule of king and assembly gave way to the order that expressed the will of the conqueror,^[37] and this affected the legal process in cases of conspiracies against the ruler. The members of the Hellenistic rulers’ councils tried their peers because treason was, above all, as noted, a violation of the philia between the king and his courtiers. From Polybius, it appears that Philip followed the same practice as other Hellenistic rulers and considered the presence of the armed forces at trials unnecessary. The case of Leontius, the courtier who stood bail for Megaleas and was executed without trial before that body, when he failed to pay Megaleas’ surety, speaks volumes for Philip’s departure from Argead procedure. Although the body of the peltasts, which was commanded by Leontius, demanded to be present during the legal process against Leontius, Polybius states that their request made Philip so angry that he decided to execute him in their absence (5.27.5–8). The fact that Polybius avoids mentioning even a single trial before Philip’s court seems to confirm the assumption that in Macedonia other political bodies only had a say in trials when the monarch chose to involve them formally in the decision-making process, because the personal nature of the relationship between the king and his people ensured that the latter would question the former’s decision.^[38]

Yet it is very likely that Polybius’ bias against Philip as a cruel tyrant who executed his enemies may well have led him to avoid any references to an army assembly or a part of it.^[39] A passage from the Achaean historian regarding Ptolemaeus, who had also conspired against the king and was executed after a trial ‘before the Macedonians’, demonstrates that Philip followed the same procedure as the Argeads and brought the case before the army forces (5.29.6). Although it has been argued that these ‘Macedonians’ were members of Philip’s court,^[40] it should be noted that the term is almost invariably used in ancient sources in regard to the assembly of the Macedonians.^[41] Philip’s recognition of the assembly as a constitutional body is established by two inscripitions: one found in Delos which includes a mention of the koinon ton Makedonon (assembly of the Macedonians) and one in Samothrace which includes a dedication of the “Macedonians” to Philip.^[42] Judging from the request of the peltasts to be present during the trial of Leontius, elite units of the army were allowed to be involved in the judicial process in the capacity of representatives of the entire army corps, and it is very likely that these were the ‘Macedonians’ who judged Ptolemaeus.^[43]

Since Philip did not convict Demetrius on the spot, it may be argued that he did not consider the presence of an army assembly a necessary feature of the process. But the reason for avoiding a trial before an assembly seems likely to have been a political one. Apart from being one of the king’s offspring and, hence, not an ordinary conspirator, Demetrius was very popular among the Macedonians, and a trial before an assembled army could have caused a public uproar. Even worse, it could have alarmed the Romans, who regarded Demetrius as an intermediary between themselves and Philip. Like Demetrius’ secret assassination, which is the only instance of dynastic murder in the entire history of the Antigonids,^[44] the last stage of his trial appears to have been dictated by necessity.

IV Departure from tradition? The nature of Demetrius’ crime

Was Demetrius actually being tried for treason, however, at the time of the trial? The incident of the banquet was a mere pretext, and the real charge against Demetrius was not fratricide, but high treason:^[45] the procuring of Roman support for his candidacy to the position of heir apparent. Yet, even if the dispute between the two princes provides an example of a legitimacy dispute (given the rumors as to Perseus’ origins) and a policy dispute becoming aligned,^[46] all the known examples of accusations of treason in Argead Macedonia were connected with conspiring against the ruler himself, not his family members.

The breach of the loyalty code of the Antigonid family by Demetrius may have affected the kingdom’s policy, but it would have been considered a matter that concerned mainly the Macedonian royal house. Perseus tried to establish a link between Demetrius’ assault and Roman involvement, but the main charge was Demetrius’ attack on his brother: Livy shows Philip in his speech at the beginning of the trial expressing his sadness for his role as a judge in a case of fratricide (40.8.7). At this point, it is worth mentioning that at the trial of Megaleas and Crinon, Aratus also accused Leontius and Apelles, two courtiers who supported the defendants, of a number of acts against the interests of the king (Polyb. 5.15.6). Yet these two men were not tried at that time, for the king’s council had been summoned only to try Megaleas and Krinon, a telling detail of the strict legality of the trial.^[47] The main issue of that trial was an attack on another courtier, not Leontius and Apelles’ misconduct. The same ‘to the issue’ attitude of the king and his advisers is evident in the case of Demetrius, too: while Perseus accused his brother’s collaborating with Rome and, as Livy notes, suspicions were aroused by Demetrius’ familiarity with the Romans, Philip and his friends decided on the question of the attempt on Perseus (40.16.3).

A last point which shows Philip’s consistency with legality is that concerning the executions of Demetrius and Leontius. When the king decided on his young son’s death, he possessed evidence of his treasonous behavior. In the same way, when Philip ordered Leontius’ execution the actual matter was not his failure to pay the bail. It was the peltasts’ reaction to Leontius’ imprisonment that was regarded as having been triggered by the latter that made Philip treat Leontius as a traitor. Polybius says that, angered by the support of the peltasts, Philip executed Leontius ‘sooner than he intended to’, but this is so vague that the possibility of a trial held before an army assembly without the peltasts or before a council of friends cannot be totally dismissed.^[48] On the other hand, Demetrius’ murder without a trial shows that Philip decided to ignore his legalistic approach in this case in favor of a more realistic perception: the need to avoid publicity that would have alarmed his great competitor Rome.

The above observations on Livy’s account of the trial of Demetrius lead to some very interesting conclusions about legal proceedings concerning misconduct at Philip V’s court. Without doubt, Demetrius’ popularity with the Romans was the true motive for Perseus’ accusation against his brother. Yet, unlike similar phenomena in Argead Macedonia, Demetrius’ purported plan of eliminating Perseus violated the traditional respect of Antigonid royal sons for the rules governing succession and thus was a new crime in the history of this Macedonian ruling house. Livy’s description of Philip seeking the involvement of his friends in the deliberation over Demetrius’ guilt is confirmed by Polybius, who refers to the king’s collaboration with his council on the purpose of ratifiing his excessive fining of Megaleas and Crinon. On the other hand, the fact that Livy neglected to mention a referral of the case to the Macedonian assembly should not be considered an indication of Philip’s departure from the known Argead practice of involving the armed forces in treason trials. Regardless of Perseus’ attempt to establish a link between Roman intervention and Demetrius’ plan of eliminating him, Demetrius was tried on the charge of attempted murder only and not on that of conspiring with Rome. As in the case of the trial of Megaleas and Crinon, Philip adopted a somewhat legalistic attitude towards Perseus’ accusation: he and his friends sentenced Demetrius based solely on the main accusation brought against him, attempted fratricide. They did not take into account Perseus’ insinuation about Demetrius’ treasonous collaboration with Rome, which, on the basis of later evidence, made Philip order his son’s secret assassination.