HYPERBOREUS
STUDIA CLASSICA
nausˆ d' oÜte pezÕj „èn ken eÛroij
™j `Uperboršwn ¢gîna qaumast¦n ÐdÒn
(Pind. Pyth. 10. 29–30)
EDITORES
NINA ALMAZOVA SOFIA EGOROVA
DENIS KEYER ALEXANDER VERLINSKY
PETROPOLI
Vol. 22
2016
Fasc. 2
BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA PETROPOLITANA
VERLAG C. H. BECK MÜNCHEN
CHRISTIANO HABICHT
NONAGENARIO
ϥonspectus
ϥONSPECTUS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
DMITRI PANCHENKO
The Sixth-Century Samian Foot of 26.25 cm and Evolution of the Greek
Linear Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
NATALIA PAVLICHENKO, OLGA SOKOLOVA
Fragments of Lead Letters from Nymphaion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
EDWARD M. HARRIS
The Nature of Self-Defense in Draco’s Homicide Law:
The Restoration of IG I3 104, lines 33–35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
STEPHEN LAMBERT
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens . . 217
MICHAEL J. OSBORNE
The Changing Face of Athenian Government (403/2–168/7) . . . . . . . . . . 240
STEPHEN V. TRACY
Sophilos, Son of Aristotle, of Phyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
ALEXANDER K. GAVRILOV
Ein Zweiter epigraphischer Beleg für den Skythen Saumakos
(IosPE I2 353)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
ANGELOS CHANIOTIS
Pankrates: a Senior Statesman from Aphrodisias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
DENIS KEYER
Arcus in Horace, Carm. 3. 26. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
ϥІϴІАϼ ЅЂЃЄЂ϶ЂϺϸϴВІЅГ ЄϹϻВЀϹ Ёϴ ЄЇЅЅϾЂЀ ϼ ϴЁϷϿϼϽЅϾЂЀ ГϻЏϾϹ
Summary in Russian and English
184
ϥonspectus
ALEXANDER DEMANDT
Pilatus und das Blut der Galiläer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
KENT J. RIGSBY
A Dancer in Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
T. COREY BRENNAN
The Discovery (and Rediscovery) of a Temple Dedication to Hercules
by P. Aelius Hieron, Freedman of Hadrian (AE 1907, 125) . . . . . . . . . . . 322
KLAUS HALLOF
De titulo Veronensi metrico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
OLGA BUDARAGINA
A Foundation Stone Inscription from the Petrischule in St. Petersburg . . . 340
Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
ϣЄϴ϶ϼϿϴ ϸϿГ ϴ϶ІЂЄЂ϶ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Guidelines for contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
GEFÖRDERT DURCH EINE ZUWENDUNG DER FRITZ THYSSEN STIFTUNG
Stephen Lambert
THE SELECTIVE INSCRIBING OF LAWS AND
DECREES IN LATE CLASSICAL ATHENS*
1. Introduction
In a recent paper, Michael Osborne has argued against the conventional
view that only a selection of Athenian decrees was inscribed on stelai.1
He concludes:
...it may reasonably be suggested that the perceptibly official status
of inscribed stelai of public decrees implies that all must have been
inscribed...
His argument is not to my mind very persuasive;2 but he has done
a service in highlighting the need for the case for the selective publication
of decrees on stone to be articulated more fully than it has been hitherto.3
The issue is important. Inscriptions may yield certain types of specific
factual historical information without our needing to understand whether
all were inscribed or only a selection, but as soon as we wish to start using
inscriptions, in groups or in aggregate, to address historical questions
* This contribution is based on a paper I gave in the presence of Christian Habicht
at the epigraphy seminar at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, in February
2013, while enjoying the privilege of Membership of the Institute, supported by the
Patrons’ endowment fund and the Loeb foundation. I am grateful to him and the other
members of the seminar on that occasion for their comments and delighted to have
this opportunity to express my warm appreciation of his immense contributions to the
epigraphy and history of hellenistic Athens, and for his support, behind the scenes, of
the IG II3 project. The paper was finalised in the summer of 2016 in the excellent library
of the Seminar für Alte Geschichte, Heidelberg, where I am grateful to Professors Kai
Trampedach and Christian Witschel for their hospitality.
1 Osborne 2012.
2 For another critique of Osborne’s views see now Mack 2015, 13–17, though he
does contemplate the possibility that, in fourth-century Athens, all proxeny decrees
were routinely inscribed.
3 Osborne cites a number of authors who assert selectivity of inscription, without
arguing for it in detail: e.g. Hansen 1984 and Hansen 1987, 123 (see also 108–118);
Sickinger 1999, 91–92; Davies 2003, 328; Lambert 2011,198–200.
217
218
Stephen Lambert
at a higher level of generality, for example, “How does the corpus of
inscribed decrees, taken not individually, but as a whole, suggest the
direction of Athenian policy developed between date x and date y?”, or
“Was political influence concentrated in the hands of an elite?”, questions
about selectivity in the evidence base immediately arise. Understanding
selectivity of inscribing – not only the fact of it, but also the reasons for
it – is also crucial to understanding the fundamental question about what
inscribing was for.
Osborne seeks to address the issue across a wide time span, from
the fifth to the third centuries BC. This is commendable in theory, but
unworkable in practice given the vast quantity of relevant evidence.
Moreover, it is important to appreciate that we are not dealing with
a static situation that would justify treating three centuries as a single
moment, but a dynamic one that changes over time. My approach to the
issue will be somewhat different from Osborne’s. I shall focus mainly on
the inscribed laws and decrees of the period 352/1–322/1, which I have
recently edited for IG (IG II3 1, 292–572).4 The period has the advantage
that it produced a large number of inscribed laws and decrees, and also
that there is a quantity of relevant literary evidence for laws and decrees,
mainly in the orators, which supplies a contrasting perspective which is
illuminating.
2. Two Preliminaries
To start with an important point that Osborne overlooks: at the end of the
fifth century Athens undertook a revision of its laws and thereafter made
a distinction between laws and decrees. From the archonship of Eukleides
(403/2), decrees of the Council and Assembly were required to be within
the law.5 About a dozen laws on stone survive from the period 403–322,
and about 550 decrees. We can not address the issue of selective inscribing
without thinking about this statistic: why was the number of laws that
were inscribed so small when compared with the number of decrees?
Second, certainly by our period and probably from about the same time
as the revision of the laws was undertaken, copies of all laws and decrees
were lodged in papyrus copies in the state archive in the Metroon.6 So for
4
Translated at www.atticinscriptions.com.
Gagarin 2008, 182–185; now Canevaro 2015.
6 Sickinger 1999, 93–138, especially 114–122. Archival copies of laws and
decrees begin to be referred to in the orators only in around the period of our corpus
(Aeschin. 2. 89, Dem. 19. 129; 25. 90; Lyk. 1. 66, Din. 1. 86), but it seems clear enough
that the archive itself had existed since the last decade of the fifth century, and that it,
5
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 219
this period the issue is: what laws and decrees were inscribed in addition to
being lodged in papyrus copies in the archive, and why?
3. The epigraphical evidence
Appendix 1 lists the inscribed laws and decrees of 352/1–322/1 by subject
matter. In summary the types break down as follows:
Honorific: 180 (87%)
Religious: 9 (4%)
Treaties and other foreign policy: 13 (6%)
Other: 4 (2%)
Probably these are broadly a representative sample of all that were
inscribed on stone. While we can not absolutely rule out that there
are whole categories of inscribed laws and decrees that have not been
discovered, it is not likely. At this period the large majority of inscribed
decrees were set up on the Athenian acropolis,7 and it and the rest of
Athens and Attica have been quite thoroughly explored. Moreover, it
seems that stone, of which there were plentiful local supplies, was the
permanent medium of choice for Attic inscriptions. A small number of
bronze inscriptions survive or are attested indirectly, and bronze may very
occasionally have been used for laws and decrees, particularly those that
rather than inscriptions, was the normal source for texts of laws and decrees quoted by
the orators. There is no direct reference to it in the inscribed laws and decrees of our
period, but the prytany secretary (otherwise known as the secretary of the Council)
was responsible not only for the inscribing of decrees, but also for their custody (t¦
yhf…smata t¦ gignÒmena ful£ttei), and for “making copies of everything else”
(t¥lla p£nta ¢ntigr£fetai, Ath. Pol. 54. 3), while the secretary in charge of the
laws was responsible for making copies of all laws (54. 4). Not mentioned by Ath.
Pol. there was also a secretary called the anagrapheus (“recorder”), responsible “for
writing up the documents” (™pimemšlht|[a]i tÁj ¢nagrafÁj tîg gramm£twn, IG II3
1, 469, 14–15), but this may mean documents other than laws and decrees. Similarly
the archive is the most likely source not only for the texts of earlier decrees honouring
Herakleides of Salamis, IG II3 1, 367, inscribed only in 325/4 (see below), but also for
most or all of the texts of decrees that had been lost and reinscribed (e.g. IG II2 172 =
SEG 32. 67, a proxeny which had disappeared and was reinscribed before 350 BC), or
destroyed and reinscribed, e.g. the proxenies destroyed by the Thirty and reinscribed
by the restored democracy, IG II2 6 = SEG 29. 93, IG II2 52, Agora 16. 39 etc.; and
the decrees destroyed by the oligarchic regime established after the Lamian War and
reinscribed by the restored democracy of 318, for Euphron of Sikyon, IG II3 1, 377 and
378, and for Theophantos, IG II3 1, 342 and 343.
7 Cf. Lambert (forthcoming).
220
Stephen Lambert
were condemnatory or of religious significance, but there is no reason to
believe its use for laws and decrees was widespread in our period.8
4. Literary evidence for laws and decrees
It would be a major task to analyse all the literary evidence for fourth
century laws and decrees,9 and it is unnecessary for our purposes.
A sample is sufficient to make my case, and as it so happens the known
laws and decrees proposed by Demosthenes present quite a good sample
for our purposes. All but one are known from the literary evidence and,
coincidentally, they span precisely the same period as our epigraphical
evidence, 352/1–322/1. 42 decrees proposed by him are known from
literary evidence (about a fifth of all fourth century decrees known from
the literary record), and 1 law. There is a full list at Appendix 2. Adopting
the same categories as for the epigraphical record, they break down as
follows:
Honorific: 11 (26%)
Religious: 1 (2%)
Treaties: 3 (7%)
Other: 28 (65%)
5. Comparison of epigraphical and literary evidence:
overview
There is some degree of convergence: honorific decrees, religious measures and treaties are represented both among the inscribed record and the
laws and decrees proposed by Demosthenes. However, while only a very
8
Stroud 1963, n. 1 remains the primary point of reference on bronze inscriptions
in Attica; see now also the remarks of Meyer 2013, nn. 17, 51 and 53. Unlike stone
the reuse of bronze usually entailed obliteration of the text and very few inscribed
fragments survive. They include a record of bronze dedications from the acropolis,
IG I3 510, ca. 550 BC?, cf. IG II2 1498, 3–22 (bronze stelai dedicated by treasurers
in the late 5th cent.); IG I3 235, a small fragment apparently of a sacred law, ca. 450?.
Several bronze stelai referred to in the literary record suggest that this material may have
been used for inscriptions of a condemnatory character, e.g. the decree condemning
Archeptolemos and Antiphon, [Plut.] Lives of the Ten Orators 834 b; the bronze stele
with names of traitors next to the “old temple”, schol. Ar. Lys. 243, Stroud 1978, 31–32,
though the authenticity of many or all of these is not beyond question, cf. Habicht 1961.
Further work on this topic is a desideratum.
9 For some initial findings based on such an analysis in relation to honorific
decrees see now Liddel 2016.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 221
small number of inscriptions, 2%, fall into the “other” category, 65% of
Demosthenes’ decrees do not belong in any of the ordinary categories
represented by the inscribed record. This can naturally, I think rightly,
be taken to imply that there were some types of decree proposed by
Demosthenes that were not generally inscribed.
Now, one of the features of inscribing on stone was that it endowed
the measure, or the message it was intended to convey, with a quality of
durability or enduring validity. This is the case with all three of the main
categories of extant inscribed laws and decrees in our period. In 355/4
Demosthenes was concerned to argue against Leptines’ proposal that
financially valuable (and to Athens costly) honours and privileges awarded
to distinguished foreigners should not be revoked and that the stelai
inscribed with such honours guarantee them, or ought to, in perpetuity
(Demosthenes 20. 64):
'HkoÚsate mn tîn yhfism£twn, ð ¥ndrej dikasta…. toÚtwn d'
‡swj œnioi tîn ¢ndrîn oÙkšt' e„s…n. ¢ll¦ t¦ œrga t¦ pracqšnt'
œstin, ™peid»per ¤pax ™pr£cqh. pros»kei to…nun t¦j st»laj
taÚtaj kur…aj ™©n tÕn p£nta crÒnon, †n', ›wj mn ¥n tinej zîsi,
mhdn Øf' Ømîn ¢dikîntai, ™peid¦n d teleut»swsin, ™ke‹nai toà
tÁj pÒlewj ½qouj mnhme‹on ðsi, kaˆ parade…gmaq' ˜stîsi to‹j
boulomšnoij ti poie‹n Øm©j ¢gaqÒn, Ósouj eâ poi»santaj ¹ pÒlij
¢nt' eâ pepo…hken.
You have heard the decrees, gentlemen of the jury. Some of these men
are perhaps no longer, but the works which they accomplished exist,
when once they were done. It is fitting, therefore, to allow these stelai to
be valid for all time, so that as long as any of these men are alive, they
may suffer no wrong at your hands, and when they die, those (scil. stelai)
may be a memorial of the city’s character, and may stand as evidence to
all those who wish to do us good, of how many benefactors the city has
benefited in return.
Inscribed honorific decrees were meant to endure.
As for religious inscriptions, religion was a sphere of the city’s life
in which there was a particularly strong idea that arrangements should
be durable. Generally one did things “according to ancestral tradition”
(kat¦ t¦ p£tria) and did not make changes; but if one did make new
arrangements, they too were to endure. In our corpus IG II3 292, 18
requires that the sacred orgas and the other sacred precincts be cared for
“for all time” (e„j tÕn ¢eˆ crÒnon); at 447, 33 arrangements are made for
the Little Panathenaia festival to be celebrated finely “for all time” (e„j tÕn
¢eˆ crÒnon).
222
Stephen Lambert
With treaties too it was a commonplace that they should be valid “for
all time”.10
Category VIII on the list of decrees proposed by Demosthenes lists
a number that provide for meetings of public bodies on specific forthcoming dates. Now clauses providing for matters to be discussed at
a forthcoming meeting occur quite commonly in the texts of inscribed
Athenian decrees, but the fixing of the date of a meeting is never the
decree’s sole or main purpose. The sole purpose of the decree proposed
by Demosthenes on 8 Elaphebolion 346 (A5) was apparently to provide
for the Assembly to meet on 18 and 19 Elaphebolion. It was not a decree
which had enduring validity. There would scarcely indeed be time to
inscribe it before the relevant meeting took place. It is surely out of the
question that this decree of Demosthenes was ever inscribed.
Category IV on the list of decrees proposed by Demosthenes are
decrees providing for embassies. Again, inscribed decrees do quite
frequently make provisions for embassies, but these are usually embedded
in decrees with a more enduring purpose, honorific decrees or treaties.
Decrees whose sole or main purpose was to despatch embassies were
naturally quite common, but inscribing such decrees on stone would have
served no enduring purpose.
Another ephemeral matter on which Demosthenes proposed decrees is
the disposition of military forces. Most of the decrees in Category VI are
of this type. They were, in a sense, very important, but they did not have
the enduring qualities that would have justified inscribing them in stone.
There is, in fact, only one inscribed decree of this period which provides
for a military expedition: the decree of 325/4 providing for a naval
expedition to found a colony in the Adriatic, IG II3 1, 370; but significantly
it is not a self-standing decree, erected at the initiative of the Council or
Assembly, but embedded in a naval inventory. It is an exception which
proves the rule that decrees making provisions for military expeditions
were not generally inscribed on stelai.11
Category IX furnishes further examples. Decrees of a judicial
character, ordering a death sentence (A10) or the arrest or imprisonment
10
That there is no such clause in the Athenian treaties of 352/1–322/1, which are
mostly rather fragmentarily preserved, is due merely to accident of survival. An example
from elsewhere from this period is furnished by the treaty between Miletus and Kyzikos
of ca. 330, Staatsverträge ΙΙΙ 409, which provides (ll. 11–12) that “the cities shall be
friends for all time” (t¦j mn pÒleij f…laj enai ™j tÕn ¤panta crÒnon).
11 An exception from an earlier period is IG I3 93, relating to the launch of the
Sicilian expedition in 415 BC. See Osborne and Lambert, https://www.atticinscriptions.
com/inscription/IGI3/93 n. 1.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 223
of an individual (A9, A36), or instigating processes by other institutions
(A15, A37) were important, but also ephemeral and not, for the most part,
inviting durable commemoration.
One might select other examples, but these are enough, I think, to
show that there were some categories of decree that were of an ephemeral
nature which did not normally justify inscription in stone. This absence
of inscription does not, of course, mean that the decrees were in some
way invalid. What gave them their validity was the fact that they had
been approved by the Assembly; and there were papyrus copies available in the Metroon to verify that. Texts of a number of the decrees
proposed by Demosthenes that we have been discussing were read out
in court. Not one of the decrees he proposed, however, is cited from an
inscription. The texts that were read out had presumably been obtained
from the archive.
There is another question, however: in the categories that are
commonly represented in the inscribed record, is there reason to think that
every decree was inscribed on stelai? Was every honorific decree, every
treaty and every religious regulation inscribed?
6. Honorific decrees – not all inscribed
Much the largest category of inscribed decree in our corpus is honorific,
and since there are so many it might be tempting to suppose that all such
decrees were inscribed. One has only, however, to scratch the surface of
the evidence to establish that this was not the case.
(a) Honours could be commemorated in ways that did not involve
inscribing the decree.
This is particularly clear with decrees honouring Athenians. From the
340s onwards we have a regular series of inscribed decrees honouring
Athenian officials. Before that, inscribed decrees honouring Athenians are
extremely rare. There is a remote theoretical possibility that, for some
reason, we have simply failed to discover all decrees of this type from
before the 340s;12 but it is much more likely that these decrees were never
inscribed, and that that was because, before the 340s, commemoration of
the honour generally took other forms:
12 Liddel 2016, 312–313, observes that there is more evidence for Athenian
honorands before the 340s in the literary than in the epigraphical record.
224
Stephen Lambert
(i) Proclamation of the honours in the Council, Assembly or at the City
Dionysia.
It is interesting that, in the debate between Demosthenes and Aeschines in
the Crown case there is never any discussion of whether or not the decree
honouring Demosthenes was, or should have been, inscribed or otherwise
commemorated monumentally. Instead the dispute centres around
proclamation of the honour at the City Dionysia. Aeschines (3. 32–48)
alleges that this was illegal, and that honorands had normally to be content
with proclamation of the honour in the Council (for decrees awarded
by the Council) or Assembly (for decrees awarded by the Assembly);
Demosthenes (18. 120–121) that proclamation at the City Dionysia was
permitted if special provision was made for it in the decree. Apart from
durability, another criterion for inscribing a decree was that it delivered
a message, whether to a specific, or to a wide, group of viewers; and we
may perhaps conceptualise proclamation of honours as, in this respect, an
alternative to inscribing them.
(ii) Inscribed dedications
For decrees honouring Athenians, another alternative way of commemorating the honour was by an inscribed dedication. These might be
inscribed with suitable commemorative wording, but did not necessarily
carry the text of the decree, e.g. IG II3 4, 246:13
Tax…arcoi ¢nšqesan oƒ ™pˆ 'Elp…no ¥rconto[j] (356/5)
stefanwqšntej ØpÕ tý d»mo kaˆ tÁj bolÁj
List of taxiarchs follows
(b) Non-inscription of more minor honours.
Decrees awarding crowns of foliage rather than gold to Athenians were
probably quite common. It seems that they were not, however, usually
inscribed at this period.14
13 “The taxiarchs of the archonship of Elpinos (356/5) dedicated this, having been
crowned by the People and the Council”. One of the quite numerous dedications by
Athenian officials in IG II3 4 dating to before 346/5 (year of first inscribed decree in
the series honouring Athenian officials, IG II3 1, 301) explicitly commemorating the
award of crowns by the Council and People.
14 See Lambert 2004, 88 [= 2012, 8].
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 225
Unlike for Athenians, the city did at this period sometimes inscribe
decrees awarding mere foliage crowns to foreigners, in cases where the
award was accompanied by other honours, such as citizenship or proxeny
or other privileges.15 It is notable, however, that decrees awarding an
individual foreigner a crown of any kind, and no other substantive honours,
seem rarely to have been inscribed.
Again one of the few exceptions at this period is suggestive. In 325/4
Athens awarded proxeny to the grain trader Herakleides of Salamis,
IG II3 1, 367. Exceptionally, the decree honouring him on that occasion,
the first on the stone, contained a provision requiring the secretary to
inscribe not only the proxeny, but also previous decrees in his favour, and
the stone is duly inscribed with a sequence of three decrees honouring him
which dated up to five years earlier, 330/29 or shortly after. The natural
implication is that these earlier decrees had not previously been inscribed
and that copies of them had been obtained by the secretary from the archive.
The character of the three decrees is indeed exceptional in several ways:
the first (at ll. 47 ff.) is merely the Assembly’s decree commissioning
the Council to come forward with a probouleuma relating to Herakleides,
a purely procedural decree of a type which was not normally inscribed.
The second, beginning in l. 52, is the resulting probouleuma, which
awards Herakleides a gold crown and permission to “seek from the People
what good he can”; and the third, at ll. 29 ff., is the Assembly’s resulting
decree which confirms the award of a crown, and also makes provisions
for an embassy to be sent to Dionysios, tyrant of Herakleia, to recover
Herakleides’ sails, which Dionysios had apparently confiscated (note that,
though this was no doubt an important measure from Herakleides’ point
of view, it was essentially of ephemeral significance). None of this earlier
series of three decrees contains an inscribing provision. Decrees awarding
crowns to foreigners, but no enduring privilege, were doubtless quite
common. The first decree on the list of those proposed by Demosthenes,
A2, a crown for the actor Aristodemos of Metapontum, is probably an
example; but they were not, it seems, normally inscribed.
There is some confirmation in the record of decrees honouring not
individual foreigners, but whole cities. Such decrees did not usually make
substantive awards, such as citizenship or proxeny (though there were
occasionally mass citizenship grants), but they normally awarded crowns
and there are several inscribed examples from this period. Interestingly,
the texts seem to imply that such decrees were not necessarily inscribed.
15 For example, IG II3 1, 418, which awards Asklepiodoros the right to equal
taxation with Athenians (isoteleia) and other honours as well as a foliage crown.
226
Stephen Lambert
IG II3 1, 304 honours the city of Pellana. The original decree is the second
on the stone, at ll. 23 ff., and the provision to inscribe it is made in the first
decree on the stone (see ll. 7–12), apparently passed in the following year
in response to an embassy from the city. Similarly, IG II3 1, 401 honouring
Aratos of Tenedos and his brothers, and the People of Tenedos, was only
inscribed as a consequence of a rider to the decree, passed in the Assembly
(decree 2, ll. 19–23). No provision to inscribe the decree had been included
in the probouleuma.
How should we explain this tendency not to inscribe decrees that
merely awarded crowns to foreigners? An obvious explanation is that the
award of a crown, without substantive honours, was a relatively minor
matter and, as such, did not usually justify an inscription. That explanation
works up to a point, but it does not explain why decrees awarding gold
crowns and no other substantive honours to Athenians were regularly
inscribed, at least from the 340s, whereas decrees awarding only crowns
to foreigners apparently were not.
Perhaps we should think here rather in terms of durability of intention.
Most substantive honours, such as citizenship and proxeny, had extension
in time. They conferred privileges which lasted through the lifetime of
the honorand and indeed were usually hereditary. They met the durability
criterion and were therefore wholly appropriate to be inscribed in stone.
An award of a crown to a foreigner, on the other hand, was a momentary
gesture which did not have or require the same kind of durable
commemoration. For Athenians, embroiled in a fierce competition for
honour, central to the public life of the city, past honours were of much
greater, enduring, importance – or at least came to be, for we have here an
implicit reason why decrees honouring Athenians with crowns only were
not inscribed before the 340s.16 One of the points indeed that Demosthenes
(18. 257) makes in justification of his crown in 330 is that he was a man
who had been crowned by the city on many previous occasions. Past
honours, on this view, came to be of durable utility to Athenian honorands
in political debate in the Assembly and in litigation in the law courts and
this influenced decisions to inscribe them.
Whatever the explanations, there seem to have been some categories of
honorific decree that, at this period, were not usually inscribed, including
decrees awarding foliage crowns to Athenians and decrees awarding
crowns of any kind but no enduring privileges to foreigners. Of those types
that were commonly inscribed, we may further ask, were they all inscribed,
or only a selection? With decrees awarding citizenship or proxeny, for
16
For discussion of other reasons for this change see Lambert 2011, 197–198.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 227
example, can we assume that every such decree was inscribed? Here,
we come to Michael Osborne’s argument from “authority”. As he points
out, and others have pointed out before him, there is a lot of evidence
to suggest that the inscribed version of a decree was or could be treated
as, as he puts it, “authoritative”. With honorific decrees this applies
particularly to proxenies, where the identification of the honour with the
stele recording it is so close that the stele can be conceived of as actually
being the proxeny, and where there are cases of measures being taken to
re-erect, and hence re-validate, proxeny stelai that had been destroyed by
the Thirty.17 The tendency to conceptualise inscribed citizenship decrees
as being citizenship is less strong, perhaps because citizenship consisted,
to a greater extent than proxeny, of a concrete set of identifiable rights,
responsibilities and privileges; but the inscription is still an important
guarantee. The grant to the Akarnanians after the battle of Chaironeia is
a good example.18
There are two general points I would make about Osborne’s argument
here. First, his characterisation of inscribed decrees as “authoritative”
seems to me somewhat wide of the mark, insofar as it implies an actual or
potential contrast or conflict between the inscribed version and the archival
version of the decree. In the fourth century, and I think more generally,
the primary assumption is that the archival copy and the inscribed copy
of a decree will be in harmony, not that they might be inconsistent.19 The
type of “authority” that is inherent in a proxeny stele is not essentially
about the detail of the text, but about the overall validity of the measure,
which is conceived of as being intimately connected with the stele on
which it is inscribed.
Second, there is a question of “epigraphical habit”. What one might
describe as this strong concept of the validity, or agency (to use the
anthropological term), of stelai has its origins in the archaic period, well
before the archive in the Metroon existed. The earliest inscribed proxenies
17
IG II2 52, cf. Lambert 2011, 209 n. 30.
IG II3 1, 316, in which, in 338/7, the Athenians confirm for Akarnanian exiles
the validity, in effect the practical activation, of citizenship grants that had been made
to their grandfather two generations previously (ca. 400). At ll. 17–18 it is mentioned
explicitly, as evidence for the honorands’ entitlement to citizen rights, that the original
award had been inscribed on the acropolis.
19 This is exemplified by the one clear fourth-century case of a decree of which
both an inscribed version and one deriving from the archive is extant, Stratokles’s
decree honouring Lykourgos in 307/6, IG II2 457+3207 and [Plut.] Vit. X or. 852. The
inscribed version is fragmentary, but there is enough to see that, while the text is not
precisely same, it is consistent with the literary version, which most likely derives from
the archive.
18
228
Stephen Lambert
and citizenship decrees date to before the foundation of the archive in
the Metroon.20 Especially in a world in which there was no public state
archive, such stelai did indeed have a special quality of validity, or of
guaranteeing or securing it; and this strong idea of their validity survived
after the introduction of the archive had in fact, one might think, weakened
its logic.
If we turn from generalities to the inscribed record of the honorific
decrees, the actual situation is in fact, within certain parameters, clear
enough. Proxeny grants, the most abundant genre of inscribed honorific
decree of this period, can be probouleumatic or non-probouleumatic in
form, and in either case provision for inscription may be included in the
main text of the decree.21 In other words, provision to have the decree
inscribed could be included in the Council’s probouleuma, or in the text of
a proxeny grant as formulated in the Assembly on the basis of we know not
what probouleuma. However in IG II3 1, 294, for Theogenes of Naukratis,
the Council’s proposal to create Theogenes a proxenos is agreed by the
Assembly, but it did not include a provision for inscription. Inscription
and invitation to hospitality in the city hall are only included as a rider,
added to the main proposal in the Assembly.22 The impression is given
that inscribing is an optional extra, not an essential element of a proxeny
grant. This gains confirmation from IG II3 1, 398, awarding proxeny to
some Euboeans. The decree is probouleumatic, but the inscribing clause
is prefaced explicitly by the qualification, “if it also seems good to the
People”,23 the implication being that if it had not seemed good to the
People the proxeny might have been awarded without provision to inscribe
it. An uninscribed proxeny would be missing some element or aspect of
traditional validity, or guarantee of validity; one suspects that most were in
20
Precise dating is mostly difficult. Mack 2015, 81–82, discusses IG I3 27
(ca. 430?) and IG I3 80 (421/0) as early cases. Cf. Meyer 2013, 467–468 n. 69. The
earliest extant inscribed decree awarding citizenship to an individual is IG I3 102 =
Osborne–Rhodes forthcoming, no. 182 of 410/9, but the mass grant of 427 to the
Plataians also apparently entailed an inscription, [Dem.] 59. 105–106.
21 Probouleumatic examples: IG II3 1, 324 Decree 1 for Euenor of Akarnania;
426 for -machos. Non-probouleumatic: 312 for Phokinos et al.; 432 for Sopatros of
Akragas.
22 The rider was proposed by Hierokleides son of Timostratos of Alopeke, the
same man who had proposed the Council’s probouleuma. One can imagine several
possible reasons for this, including that Hierokleides was unable or unwilling to obtain
the Council’s agreement to the inscription and hospitality provisions. IG II3 1, 390, for
Kleomis of Methymna, also probably had the provision to inscribe added in a rider.
23 ¢|[nagr£yai d kaˆ t¾]n proxen…an, ™¦n kaˆ tîi d»m|[wi dokÁi, tÕn gramm]atša
tÁj boulÁj ™n st»lhi l|[iq…nhi kaˆ stÁsai] ™n ¢kropÒlei dška ¹merîn (ll. 17–20).
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 229
fact inscribed; but it is clear from these decrees that an uninscribed proxeny
would not actually be invalid. Ultimately the validity depended on the vote
of the People, and after the archive existed there was evidence for that in
the papyrus copy lodged in the Metroon.24
Decrees awarding substantive honours to foreigners other than proxeny and citizenship would seem to belong in the same category, as
regards inscription, as proxenies. We have already noted the rider
adding an inscribing provision to IG II3 1, 401. IG II3 1, 302, Decree 1
(probouleumatic), awarding protection to Dioskourides of Abdera and his
family and hospitality to Dioskourides himself also contains no inscribing
clause. Provision to inscribe was presumably included in the incompletely
preserved rider, Decree 2, which also granted further residence and taxation
privileges.
The imperative to inscribe citizenship decrees at this period looks
stronger. All the extant decrees, most of which are non-probouleumatic,
include inscribing clauses in the main text;25 there are no inscribing
provisions added in riders or qualified as subject to the decision of the
Assembly. A citizenship decree was such a major, and relatively unusual,
award that it seems that it was natural and normal for it to be inscribed.
Still we can not be certain that every citizenship decree was inscribed, or,
if it was, whether this was a legal requirement of citizenship decrees or
simply normal practice.
7. Treaties
The argument regarding treaties is similar to that for proxenies, in that the
validity of the treaty was intimately associated with the stelai on which
they were inscribed; and it is notable that treaties too are a very early
species of inscription, with examples pre-dating the foundation of the
archive in the Metroon.26 In order to rescind a treaty you pull down the
24 In some cities there were inscribed official lists of proxenoi, but there seems to
be no evidence for one in Athens (and had there been one one might expect it to have
been referred to in our abundant epigraphical and literary evidence, e.g. in relation
to the proxenies destroyed by the Thirty). Cf. Mack 2015, 13–14, 286–342. Citizens
by decree were usually enrolled in the lists of a deme and phratry, there being no
centrally maintained list of Athenian citizens.
25 E.g. IG II3 1, 333; 335; 378; 480. The same applies, however, to the probouleumatic 411 and to 452, which may or may not be probouleumatic.
26 E.g. among the more securely dated examples, IG I3 48 = Osborne–Rhodes
forthcoming, no. 139, treaty with Samos, 439; IG I3 53 and 54 = Osborne–Rhodes
forthcoming, no. 149, treaties with Rhegion and Leontinoi, 433/2.
230
Stephen Lambert
stele on which it is inscribed. The decree by which the Athenians declared
war on Philip II (category III A17 on the list of Demosthenes’ decrees) is
a good example of this:
Ð d™ dÁmoj … Dhmosqšnouj … y»fisma gr£yantoj, ™ceirotÒnhse
t¾n mn st»lhn kaqele‹n t¾n perˆ tÁj prÕj F…lippon e„r»nhj kaˆ
summac…aj staqe‹san, naàj d plhroàn kaˆ t¦ ¥lla ™nerge‹n t¦
toà polšmou.
The People ... on the proposal of Demosthenes ... voted to destroy the
stele concerning the Peace with Philip, and establishing an alliance, to
fill the ships and to prosecute hostilities.
This shows, incidentally, rather clearly that not every decree resulted in
a stele; a copy of the decree by which the Assembly agreed to make war on
Philip was presumably lodged in the archive, but the effect on the inscribed
record was to remove a stele not to put up a new one. My sense is that
this association between treaties and stelai recording them is so strong
that one’s default expectation is that treaties would normally have been
inscribed; but again, what actually makes the treaty is the decision of the
Assembly and in the fourth century and later there would be a copy in the
Metroon.
8. Religious Regulations
Laws and decrees with primarily religious content are more common in
the epigraphical record than the literary, which consists largely of the
corpus of the Attic orators. That is because, unless it involved something
like making Alexander a god (category II A39 on the list of Demosthenes’
decrees), the city’s religion was not generally a matter of political or legal
contention, whereas it was strongly appropriate for inscriptions. They were
typically erected in sanctuaries; as with dedications, one face of laws and
decrees erected in such locations was metaphorically directed to the gods,
and epigraphical habit is relevant here too: most of the handful of inscribed
Athenian decrees pre-dating the Periclean rebuilding of the acropolis were
religious in content.27 Our sources do not perhaps emphasise the sort of
strong connection between the inscribing of a religious measure and its
validity that we get with treaties and proxenies, but that may be because
the validity of religious measures was rarely politically contentious. I think
that there would be an assumption in favour of inscribing such measures,
27
On these points see Lambert (forthcoming).
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 231
but (aside from the possibility of inscription on bronze, discussed above)
I can not immediately see an argument to the effect that every one would
necessarily be inscribed on a stone stele. As with other kinds of law and
decree one might expect those making durable arrangements and those
with a strong message to deliver (perhaps to the gods in this case as much
as to men) to be inscribed.
9. Laws
We come, finally, to the issue about laws. Why are there so few inscribed
laws in the fourth century in relation to the number of inscribed decrees?
At 2005, 131 [= 2012, 59] I mentioned three factors that I still think are
likely to be relevant:
(a) there were simply fewer laws than decrees. Laws dealt mostly with
the general, permanent and systematic, decrees with the specific and
particular; decrees could be passed at every meeting of the Assembly
(normally four each prytany28) by simple majority vote of the citizens,
new laws could only be made by a cumbersome process involving
multiple stages of deliberation;29
(b) unlike decrees, the default location for inscribed laws was not the
acropolis; they seem to have been spread around the city more, being
erected in locations suitable to their content; and this may mean that fewer
have been discovered;
(c) though I do not think there is any positive evidence for this, and I do not
think it very likely, more of them might have been inscribed in a medium
such as bronze, or wood (as Solon’s axones).
28
Ath. Pol. 43. 3 (already in the fifth century, IG I3 40 = Osborne–Rhodes
forthcoming, no. 131, 10–14).
29 That the lawmaking process in fourth-century Athens was constructed against
an ideological background which emphasised the ideal immutability of the law is
brought out well by Canevaro 2015, who (section 7) reconstructs the process of making
new laws as follows (mainly on the basis of Dem. 20, Dem. 24, Aeschines 3. 38–40):
following a preliminary vote in the Assembly permitting consideration of new laws,
specific proposals were published in front of the monument of the eponymous heroes
and read out in three consecutive Assemblies, in the third of which nomothetai might
be appointed (on Canevaro’s view from or equivalent to the jurors [Dem. 20. 93] or
to the Assembly [Aeschin. 3. 39]); opposing laws had then first to be repealed (by
a court?), with experts (synegoroi) appointed by the Assembly to defend them; and
improper new laws were subject to being legally overturned by graf¾ nÒmwn m¾
™pithde…wn qe‹nai.
232
Stephen Lambert
(a) seems likely to be the most important of these explanations, which
may perhaps be sufficient.30 My sense, however, is that another factor
may also be relevant. The small number of laws that are inscribed31 meet
rather well two of the observable criteria for inscribing a decree: they
deliver a message (as for example the anti-tyranny law, IG II3 1, 320, set
up at the entrance to the Council chamber of the Areopagos and in the
Assembly); or they have religious content (as with several inscribed laws
relating to festivals). What, however, about the third criterion, durability?
It was a feature of most laws that they were intended to be permanent and
durable; and this makes it especially remarkable that so few are extant on
stone. The archive in the Metroon, however, was created at the same time
as the laws were being revised in the last decade of the fifth century.32
Archives also preserve texts in a durable fashion. Perhaps the Metroon was
designed from the start specifically to be the place where texts of laws
made under the new law-making process were deposited. Whereas some
types of decree had been inscribed before the creation of the archive and
continued to be inscribed after it, fourth-century laws on this view were not
normally inscribed precisely because they were available in the archive.
They were no less valid and authoritative.
30
Canevaro 2015, however, section 8, notes that the relative numbers of attested
grafaˆ paranÒmwn in 403–322 (35 according to Hansen 1991, 208) and grafaˆ
nÒmwn m¾ ™pithde…wn qe‹nai (6) suggests that the epigraphic record may exaggerate
the imbalance between the numbers of laws and decrees. On the other hand over his
whole career Demosthenes is known to have proposed 39 decrees of the People, 4 of
the Council, but only 1 law, see Appendix 2.
31 Law on silver coinage, 375/4, SEG 26. 72 = Rhodes–Osborne 2003, no. 25;
grain tax law, 374/3, SEG 47. 96 = Rhodes–Osborne 2003, no. 26; law on the Eleusinian
Mysteries, 367/6–348/7 (?), I. Eleus. 138, cf. SEG 30. 61; unpublished law concerning
Hephaistos, Athena Hephaistia and silver coinage, 354/3, SEG 54. 114; 56. 26; 61.
119; law on Eleusinian first-fruits, 353/2, IG II2 140; law against tyranny, 337/6, IG
II3 1, 320; law providing for the repair of walls in Piraeus, with appended contract
specifications (suggrafa…), ca. 337 BC, IG II3 1, 429; provisions relating to penalties
and “exposure” (f£sij) from a law whose content is otherwise unknown, ca. 337–325,
IG II3 1, 431; at least two laws relating to cult objects, on the acropolis and elsewhere,
ca. 335, IG II3 1, 445; law making provision for funding of Little Panathenaia, followed
by decree providing for sacrifices at the festival, ca. 335–330, IG II3 1, 447; and
possibly also: SEG 58. 95, fragmentary inscription apparently mentioning nomothetai,
“before mid-IV BC”; IG II3 1, 448, making provisions for an (Athenian or Macedonian)
festival; IG II3 1, 449, making provisions for a festival; IG II3 1, 550, the end of text
(of a law?) providing for liturgists to dedicate phialai, followed by list of liturgists;
SEG 52. 104, “unpublished” law on repair of sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron.
32 Creation of archive: Sickinger 1999, 93–138 (cf. above n. 6); revision of laws
and creation of new law-making procedure: most recently, Canevaro 2015.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 233
APPENDIX 1
Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1,
by Subject
Inscriptions are referred to by number in IG II3 1 plus a one-word title. For
translations see www.atticinscriptions.com. Excluded are the “dubia et
incerta”, IG II3 1, 531–572, and decrees which are too fragmentary for the
subject matter to be determined. Included, however, are those dated to the
middle or second half of IV BC (IG II3 1, 487–530).
Abbreviations:
D = inscribed on a dedication made by the honorand rather than a stele erected
by the city;
L = law.
1. Honorific
(a) Athenians
301; 305; 306 Council (D); 311 (D); 323 Secretary?; 325 Kalliteles;
327 Phyleus; 336 Diotimos?; 338 Pytheas; 348 Phanodemos; 355 Amphiaraia;
359 Androkles; 360 Council; 362 Epimeletai?; 365 Priest; 369 Hieropoioi
(D); 389 (D); 402 Kephisophon (D); 416 Priests; 417 Leontis (D); 424;
425 Priest?; 458; 469 Kallikratides; 476 Proedroi?; 481; IG II2 1155 =
Lambert 2015; IG II2 1156 = Rhodes–Osborne 2003, no. 89; Lawton 1995
no. 164 = Lambert 2012, 182–183.33
Total = 29
(b) Gods
349 Amphiaraos.
Total = 1.
(c) Foreigners
293 Demokrates; 294 Theogenes; 295 Orontes;34 298 Spartokos; 302 Dioskourides; 303 Elaiousians?; 304 Pellanians; 307 Kephallenians or Lampsakenes; 309 Elaiousians; 310 Theoklos; 312 Phokinos; 313 Tenedos;35 316 Akarnanians; 317 Drakontides; 319 Alkimachos; 322 Courtier; 324 Euenor;
326 ?; 329 ?; 331 Nikostratos; 333 Archippos; 335 Amyntor; 339 Mnemon;
33 Relief from a decree (or dedication?) commemorating honours for a priestess
of Athena Nike.
34 Also contains provisions relating to Orontes and grain supply.
35 Also contains provisions relating to Tenedos’ financial contribution to the
Second Athenian League (syntaxis).
234
Stephen Lambert
340 Chian; 342 Theophantos; 343 Theophantos; 344 Actor?; 345 Plataian?;
346; 347 Amphis; 351 Rheboulas; 352 Eudemos; 354 Herakleot?; 356 Larisan;
358 Eurylochos; 361 Thymondas?; 363 Phanostratos; 364; 367 Herakleides;
375 Lapyris; 376 Phokians; 377 Euphron; 378 Euphron; 379 Apollonides;
380; 383; 386; 387 Sestos; 390 Kleomis; 392; 393 Achaians; 398 Euboeans;
401 Tenedos; 403 Apelles; 404 Exiles; 405 Phaselite; 406; 411 Arybbas;
413 Chians; 414; 418 Asklepiodoros; 419 Amphipolitan; 420 Eretrian;
423 Actor; 426; 428 Philomelos; 430 Salaminian; 432 Sopatros; 434 Pydnan;
435; 436 Actor; 437; 439 Dionysios; 440 Potamon; 441 Pandios; 442;
452 Peisitheides; 453; 454 Koan; 455 Iatrokles; 456; 457 Pharsalian; 461;
462; 466; 468; 470; 473 Nikostratos; 474 Prienean; 475; 478; 479 Hestiaian;
480 Plataian; 483 Sostratos; 484 Friends; 485 Kythnos; 490; 491; 492; 493;
495; 496 Praxias; 497 Krotoniate; 498; 501; 502; 503; 504; 505; 507; 515;
516; 517; 519; 528 Eupatas.
Total = 11636
(d) Athenians or foreigners?
315 Theophantos; 330; 357; 366; 371; 384; 385; 394; 395; 396; 397; 400; 421;
427; 438; 446; 450 Artikleides; 460; 463; 464; 499; 500; 506; 508; 509; 512;
513; 518; 520; 521; 522; 523; 524; 529.
Total = 34.
2. Religious
292 Orgas; 297 Eleusis; 337 Kitians; 444 Nike;37 445 Cult (L);38 447 Panathenaia (L + decree);39 448 Festival (L?); 449 Festival (L?); 487 Lease?.
Total = 9.
3. Treaties and other Foreign Policy
296 Echinaioi;40 299 Mytilene; 308 Messene; 318 Philip II; 370 Adriatic;41
381 Aitolians; 388 Akanthos;42 399 Attackers;43 412 Eretria; 443 Alexander;
482 Tenos; 488; 489 Chalkidians.
Total = 13.
36 Note also the reliefs Lambert 2012, 181–182 nos. 1–17 and Glowacki 2003,
most of which are probably from decrees honouring foreigners from this period.
37 Provides for priestess of Athena to sacrifice an aresterion on occasion of repair
of statue of Athena Nike. Also honours the statue-maker, a Boeotian.
38 Two laws relating to cult objects.
39 Law and decree relating to Little Panathenaia.
40 Was or related to a symbola agreement.
41 Decree providing for a colonising expedition to the Adriatic. Inscribed not on
a self-standing stele but in naval accounts.
42 Also praises the envoys from Akanthos and Dion and invites them to hospitality
in the prytaneion.
43 Decree prohibiting military expeditions against Eretria or other allies.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 235
4. Other
320 Tyranny (L);44 429 Walls (L);45 431 Law (L);46 433 Sokles.47
Total = 4
APPENDIX 2
Laws and Decrees Proposed by Demosthenes48
Abbreviations:
L = law, A = Assembly decree, C = Council decree or probouleuma.
Demosthenes’ career as a proposer of laws and decrees precisely coincides
with the period 352/1–322/1. Taking literary and epigraphical evidence
together, he is on record as proposer of more than any other Athenian, viz. 39
decrees of the People, 4 of the Council, and 1 law. Only one of these is attested
in the epigraphical record: IG II3 1, 312 (= Hansen A18), honouring Phokinos,
Nikandros and Dexi-. One is of unknown content (Din. F 47 Con. = Hansen
A35). The remaining 42 are:
1. Honorific
A2. Crown for the actor, Aristodemos of Metapontum, 347/6 (Aeschin. 2. 17).
A4. Foliage crown and invitation to dinner in the prytaneion, for the first
embassy to Philip, 347/6 (Dem. 19. 234, Aeschin. 2. 46).
A29. Bronze statues in the Agora for Pairisades, Satyros and Gorgippos, rulers
of Bosporan kingdom, ca. 330 (Din. 1. 43).
A30–31. Citizenship for Kallias of Chalkis, and his brother Taurosthenes,
ca. 330 (Aeschin. 3. 85, Hyp. 1 Against Demosthenes 20).
A32–34. Citizenship for Chairephilos and his sons, for Epigenes and for
Konon, before 324 (Din. 1. 43).
A38. Sitesis in the prytaneion and a bronze statue in the Agora for Diphilos,
324/3 (Din. 1. 43; cf. F41 Con.).
C3. Seats in the theatre at the Dionysia for envoys from Philip II, 347/6
(Dem. 18. 28; Aeschin. 2. 55).
44
Law against tyranny, prohibiting the Areopagos from sitting in circumstances
of an anti-democratic coup.
45 Law providing for repair of walls in Piraeus and appended specifications for
the work (suggrafa…).
46 Phasis provisions from a law of unknown content.
47 Agreement between the city and Sokles for the exploitation of a resource and
the sharing of proceeds.
48 The list is based on Hansen 1989 (Demosthenes at pp. 41–42).
236
Stephen Lambert
2. Religious
A39. Prohibiting the worship of unacknowledged deities, 324/3 (Din. 1. 94).
3. Treaties: making or abrogation
A11. Alliance with Chalkis, 342/1 (Aeschin. 3. 92–93).
A17. Declaring war on Philip II, 340/39 (FGrHist 328 Philochoros F55).
A20. Alliance with Thebes, 339/8 (Aeschin. 3. 142–145).
4. Providing for embassies
A6. To the Peloponnese, 345/4 (Dem. 18. 79).
A8. To Euboea, 343/2 (Dem. 18. 79).
A13. To Eretria and Oreos, 341/0 (Aeschin. 3. 95–101)
A19. To Thebes, 339/8 (Dem. 18. 177–179).
C1. To cities to be visited by Aristodemos, 347/6 (Aeschin. 2. 19).
C4. Instructing second embassy to Philip to leave Athens immediately, 347/6
(Dem. 18. 25–29; 19. 154).
See also A26.
5. Miscellaneous Foreign Policy
A3. Providing for truce and safe conduct for herald and envoys from Philip II,
347/6 (Aeschin. 2. 53–54).
A7. Relating to Ainos, member of Second Athenian League, before 342
([Dem.] 58. 36–37, 43. Attacked by graf¾ paranÒmwn, 43).
6. Relating to disposition of military forces and defence works
A1. Providing for an expeditionary force and a smaller permanent force
to operate against Philip II, 352/1 (Dem. 4. 13–29, 30, 33. Apparently not
passed49).
A12. Providing for expedition against Oreos, 341/0 (Dem. 18. 79).
A14. Providing for an expedition against Eretria, 341/0 (Dem. 18. 79).
A16. Providing for naval expeditions to Chersonese, Byzantium etc., 340/39
(Dem. 18. 80).
A22–24. Providing for military defence works: disposition of the guard-posts
(¹ di£taxij tîn fulakîn), entrenchments (aƒ t£froi), funding of the walls
(t¦ e„j t¦ te…ch cr»mata), 338/7 (Dem. 18. 248).
A26. Providing for a partial demobilisation and the despatch of embassies,
338/7 (Din. 1. 78–80).
A28. Providing for armed assistance to Thebes, 335/4 (Diod. 17. 8. 6).
49
Cf. MacDowell 2009, 215.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 237
7. On military-financial matters
L1. On trierarchs, 340/39 (Dem. 18. 102–107, Din. 1. 42).
A21. Providing that “all the money should be stratiotic”,50 339/8 (FGrHist 328
Philochoros F56A).
8. Providing for meetings of public bodies on specific forthcoming dates
A5. Providing for an Assembly on 18–19 Elaphebolion to discuss Peace of
Philokrates, 346 (Aeschin. 2. 61).
A27. Providing for tribal Assemblies to meet on 2 and 3 Skirophorion to elect
representatives responsible for repair of walls, 338/7 (Aeschin. 3. 27).
C2. Providing for an Assembly on 8 Elaphebolion to discuss Peace of
Philokrates, 346 (Aeschin. 3. 67).
9. Of a legal or judicial character
A9. Ordering apophasis against Proxenos (imprisonment), 346–343
(Din. 1. 63).
A10. Providing for death sentence on Anaxinos (?), 343 (Aeschin. 3. 224).
A15. Providing for the appointment of nomothetai for reform of trierarchy,
340/39 (Dem. 18. 102–107).
Α25. Concerning the powers of the Areopagos, 338/7 (?) (Din. 1. 62, 82–83).
A36. Ordering the arrest of Harpalos and the confiscation of his money, 324
(Hyp. 1. 8–9, Din. 1. 89).
A37. Instructing the Areopagos to investigate the Harpalos affair, 324/3
(Din. 1. 82–83).
Stephen Lambert
Cardiff University
lamberts@cardiff.ac.uk
Bibliography
M. Canevaro, “Making and Changing Laws in Ancient Athens”, in: E. M. Harris,
M. Canevaro (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law (Oxford
forthcoming, this chapter published online 2015).
J. K. Davies, “Greek Archives: from Record to Monument”, in: M. Brosius (ed.),
Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions (Oxford 2003) 323–343.
M. Gagarin, Writing Greek Law (Cambridge 2008).
K. Glowacki, “A Personification of Demos on a New Attic Document Relief”,
Hesperia 72 (2003) 447–466.
50 t¦ d cr»mata ™yhf…santo p£nt' enai stratiwtik£. Hansen interprets:
“transferring revenue from the theoric to the stratiotic fund”.
238
Stephen Lambert
C. Habicht, “Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege”, Hermes 89 (1961) 1–35.
M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1987).
M. H. Hansen, “The Number of Rhetores in the Athenian Ecclesia, 355–322 BC”,
GRBS 25 (1984) 123–155 [reprinted with addenda in: M. H. Hansen, The
Athenian Ecclesia 2. A Collection of Articles 1983–1989 (Copenhagen 1989)
93–127].
M. H. Hansen, “Updated Inventory of rhetores and strategoi (1988)”, in: id., The
Athenian Ecclesia 2. A Collection of Articles 1983–1989 (Copenhagen 1989)
34–72.
M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1991).
S. D. Lambert, “Athenian State Laws and Decree 352/1–322/1. I. Decrees
Honouring Athenians”, ZPE 150 (2004) 85–120.
S. D. Lambert, “Athenian State Laws and Decree 352/1–322/1. II. Religious
Regulations”, ZPE 154 (2005) 125–159.
S. D. Lambert, “What Was the Point of Inscribed Honorific Decrees in Classical
Athens?”, in: S. D. Lambert (ed.), Sociable Man. Essays on Ancient Greek
Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher (Swansea 2011).
S. D. Lambert, Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees, 352/1–322/1 BC. Epigraphical Essays (Leiden 2012).
S. D. Lambert, “Dedication and Decrees Commemorating Military Action in
339/8 BC”, in: A. Matthaiou, N. Papazarkadas (eds.), Axon. Studies in Honor
of Ronald S. Stroud (Athens 2015) 233–246.
S. D. Lambert, “The Locations of Inscribed Athenian Laws and Decrees in the
Age of Demosthenes and Lykourgos”, in: D. Marchiandi, I. Berti (eds.),
Inscribing Space (Turin forthcoming in series Historika).
C. L. Lawton, Attic Document Reliefs (Oxford 1995).
P. Liddel, “Honorific Decrees of Fourth-century Athens: Trends, Perceptions,
Controversies”, in: C. Tiersch (ed.), Die Athenische Demokratie im 4. Jahrhundert. Zwischen Modernisierung und Tradition (Berlin 2016) 335–357.
D. MacDowell, Demosthenes the Orator (Oxford 2009).
W. Mack, Proxeny and Polis. Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World
(Oxford 2015).
E. Meyer, “Inscriptions as Honours and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit”, Historia
62 (2013) 453–505.
R. Osborne, P. J. Rhodes, Greek Historical Inscriptions 478–404 BC (Oxford
forthcoming).
M. J. Osborne, “Secretaries, psephismata and stelai in Athens”, Ancient Society
42 (2012) 33–59.
P. J. Rhodes, R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404–323 BC (Oxford 2003).
J. Sickinger, Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel Hill 1999).
R. S. Stroud, “A Fragment of an Inscribed Bronze Stele from Athens”, Hesperia
32 (1963) 138–143.
R. S. Stroud, “State Documents in Archaic Athens”, in: Athens Comes of Age.
From Solon to Salamis (Princeton 1978) 20–42.
The Selective Inscribing of Laws and Decrees in Late Classical Athens 239
On the basis of a comparison between the extant inscribed Athenian laws and
decrees of 352/1–322/1 BC and the laws and decrees proposed by Demosthenes,
which fall within the same temporal parameters, but are mainly known from the
literary record, this paper argues that, contrary to a position adopted in a recent
article by Michael Osborne, only a selection of laws and decrees were inscribed on
stone. Some categories of decree were not usually inscribed at all, e.g. those relating
to the disposition of forces and other ephemeral matters, and even within the most
common inscribed category, the honorific decree, there were types that were not
usually inscribed (e.g. decrees awarding crowns, but no enduring honours and
privileges, to foreigners). From the end of the fifth century copies of laws and
decrees were deposited in the state archive in the Metroon. The validity of some
types of decree, such as treaties, was traditionally so intimately connected with the
inscriptions carrying them that it is possible that they continued invariably to be
inscribed even after the introduction of the archive. However, the existence of the
archive, which originated at the same time as the systematic revision of Athenian
law at the end of the fifth century, and may have been designed in the first place as
a repository specifically for the laws, may help explain why so few laws were
inscribed in the fourth-century democracy.
ϡϴ ЂЅЁЂ϶ϴЁϼϼ ЅЄϴ϶ЁϹЁϼГ ϴЈϼЁЅϾϼЉ ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶ ϼ ϸϹϾЄϹІЂ϶ 352/1–322/1 ϷϷ. ϸЂ Ё. Б.,
ϸЂЌϹϸЌϼЉ ϸЂ ЁϴЅ ϶ЏЄϹϻϴЁЁЏЀϼ Ёϴ ϾϴЀЁϹ, c ϸϹϾЄϹІϴЀϼ ІЂϷЂ ϺϹ ϶ЄϹЀϹЁϼ, ϾЂІЂЄЏϹ ЃЄϼ϶ЂϸϼІ ϘϹЀЂЅЈϹЁ, ϶ ЅІϴІАϹ ϸЂϾϴϻЏ϶ϴϹІЅГ, ϶ЂЃЄϹϾϼ ІЂЋϾϹ ϻЄϹЁϼГ
Ϡ. ϢЅϵЂЄЁϴ, ЋІЂ ϿϼЌА ЋϴЅІА ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶ ϼ ϸϹϾЄϹІЂ϶ ϶ЏЅϹϾϴϿϴЅА. ϡϹϾЂІЂЄЏϹ ϼЉ
ϾϴІϹϷЂЄϼϼ ЁϹ ЃЇϵϿϼϾЂ϶ϴϿϼЅА ϶ЂЂϵЍϹ – ϶ ЋϴЅІЁЂЅІϼ, ϶ЅϹ ІϹ, ϾЂІЂЄЏϹ ϾϴЅϴϿϼЅА
ЄϴЅЃЂϿЂϺϹЁϼГ ϶ЂϹЁЁЏЉ ЅϼϿ ϼ ЃЄЂЋϼЉ ЃЄϹЉЂϸГЍϼЉ ЀϴІϹЄϼϽ. ϘϴϺϹ ЅЄϹϸϼ ϸϹϾЄϹІЂ϶ Ђϵ ЂϾϴϻϴЁϼϼ ЃЂЋϹЅІϹϽ ЁϹϾЂІЂЄЏϹ ЁϹ ϶ЏЅϹϾϴϿϼЅА – ЁϴЃЄϼЀϹЄ, Ђϵ Ї϶ϹЁЋϴЁϼϼ ϶ϹЁϾЂЀ ϼЁЂϻϹЀЊϹ϶, ϹЅϿϼ ϼЀ ЁϹ ϵЏϿϼ Ͼ ІЂЀЇ ϺϹ ϸϴЁЏ ϸЂϿϷЂЅЄЂЋЁЏϹ
ЃЄϼ϶ϼϿϹϷϼϼ ϼ ЃЂЋϹЅІϼ. ϥ ϾЂЁЊϴ V ϶. ϸЂ Ё. Б. ϾЂЃϼϼ ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶ ϼ ϸϹϾЄϹІЂ϶ ЉЄϴЁϼϿϼЅА ϶ ϷЂЅЇϸϴЄЅІ϶ϹЁЁЂЀ ϴЄЉϼ϶Ϲ ϶ ϠϹІЄЂЂЁϹ. ϣЂ ІЄϴϸϼЊϼϼ ВЄϼϸϼЋϹЅϾϴГ ЅϼϿϴ
ІϴϾϼЉ ІϼЃЂ϶ ϸϹϾЄϹІЂ϶, ϾϴϾ ϸЂϷЂ϶ЂЄЏ, ϵЏϿϴ ЁϴЅІЂϿАϾЂ ІϹЅЁЂ Ѕ϶ГϻϴЁϴ Ѕ ϼЉ
ЃϼЅАЀϹЁЁЂϽ ЈЂЄЀЂϽ, ЋІЂ, ϶ЂϻЀЂϺЁЂ, ϼЉ ЃЄЂϸЂϿϺϴϿϼ ϶ЏЅϹϾϴІА ϼ ЃЂЅϿϹ ІЂϷЂ,
ϾϴϾ ЅІϴϿ ЄϴϵЂІϴІА ϴЄЉϼ϶. ϢϸЁϴϾЂ ЅЇЍϹЅІ϶Ђ϶ϴЁϼϹ ϴЄЉϼ϶ϴ (ϾЂІЂЄЏϽ ЃЂГ϶ϼϿЅГ
϶ ϾЂЁЊϹ V ϶. – ІЂϷϸϴ ϺϹ, ϾЂϷϸϴ ЁϴЋϴϿϴЅА ЃЄϴϾІϼϾϴ ЅϼЅІϹЀϴІϼЋϹЅϾЂϷЂ ЃϹЄϹЅЀЂІЄϴ
ϴЈϼЁЅϾϼЉ ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶, – ϼ ЀЂϷ ϻϴϸЇЀЏ϶ϴІАЅГ ϶ ЃϹЄ϶ЇВ ЂЋϹЄϹϸА ϼЀϹЁЁЂ ϾϴϾ ЉЄϴЁϼϿϼЍϹ ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶) ЃЂЀЂϷϴϹІ ЂϵЎГЅЁϼІА, ЃЂЋϹЀЇ ϶ ϸϹЀЂϾЄϴІϼЋϹЅϾϼЉ ϔЈϼЁϴЉ IV ϶.
϶ЏЅϹϾϴϿЂЅА ІϴϾ ЀϴϿЂ ϻϴϾЂЁЂ϶.