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 mn 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 mn ¥n tinej zîsi, mhdn 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 mn pÒleij f…laj enai ™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 mn 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' enai 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϶.