Amendments in Athenian Decrees 9781463221232

Billheimer uses surviving amended Athenian decrees to reverse-engineer the legislative process that may have produced th

208 12 3MB

English Pages 30 [34] Year 2009

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Recommend Papers

Amendments in Athenian Decrees
 9781463221232

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

Amendments in Athenian Decrees

A n a l e c t a Gorgiana

248 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and

short

monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utili2ed by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Amendments in Athenian Decrees

Albert Billheimer

gorgia? press 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-477-6

ISSN 1935-6854

Extract from The A^merican Journal of Archaeology, vol. 42 (1938).

Printed in the LTnited States of America

A M E N D M E N T S IN A T H E N I A N

DECREES

WHEN a probouleuma was introduced into the Athenian ecclesia and received favorably, the Demos adopted it either without alteration or in an amended form. Both methods are illustrated in the extant copies of published decrees. In amended probouleumatic decrees the amendment is shown appended to the main motion and introduced by the phrase, tA |iév aAAa KaSáitEp Trj |3ouArj. Thus the published form of the amended decree seems to be a transcript of the minutes. The distinctness of probouleumatic motion and amendment by the Demos makes it possible to determine to what extent the Demos modified the resolutions submitted to it by the Boule. 1 However, in a work published in 1927, Richard Laqueur 2 has developed the thesis that amendments in Greek decrees were not always published as distinct riders with a formal introductory phrase, i.e., the published decrees were not always transcripts of the minutes, but revised statements of the action as a whole, prepared by the secretary for publication. In such revisions amendments are found incorporated in the main motions without the use of any formal expression to identify their character. Laqueur devotes his study to the establishment and the illustration of the general principles and the specific methods by which such amendments may be detected. He goes a step further and endeavors to show that certain decrees which purport to be extracts from the minutes of a single meeting of the Demos are really composite statements of actions taken at two or more meetings. This method of composition might be called contuminatio in decrees. Laqueur finds his clues in both the form and the content of the decrees, sometimes supplemented by information from other sources. The importance of his work, as it seems to me, lies not so much in what it settles as in the questions which it raises. For example, can a decree be accepted as the straightforward account of the action of the Demos, or are we always confronted with the possibility that the published document may represent the secretary's rearrangement of data, or even the inclusion of resolutions of different meetings and different movers in a document with one official heading and one mover? To test the validity of Laqueur's conclusions I propose now to examine his evidence. Although he deals with Greek decrees in general, I shall confine this study to Athenian decrees, for the sake of unity and brevity. T shall follow Laqueur's order in presenting the material, 3 reducing the main classifications, however, to two. In the first of these a specific principle is involved; in the second the evidence is of a miscellaneous character. I. First let us consider cases in which the evidence is drawn from the relative position of the constituent motions of the decree. Laqueur 4 has noticed that the 1

2

Except when a new motion was framed in the ecclesia.

Epii/raphische Untersuchungen zu den grwchiactmi VolksbesMiissen,

Leipzig and Berlin, B . G. Teubner. References to Laqueur bv page refer to this work. 3 1 have omitted the discussion of IG. ii 2 , 1008, 1011, 1039, which Laqueur deals with on page 11 in his chapter on "Urkunden mit doppelter Antragsformel." While the other Athenian decrees discussed by Laqueur belong to the fifth, fourth, and first half of the third centuries, these belong to the late second and first centuries. Furthermore, they seem to me to add nothing to the strength of Laqueur's argument. i Pp. 40, 44. 456 T H E ARCHAEOLOGICAL I N S T I T U T E OF AMERICA

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

457

provision for publication frequently concludes the published decree and does so with increasing regularity from the end of the fourth century. F r o m this fact he infers t h a t this motion was t h e concluding item of probouleumata of the fifth and fourth centuries also, t h a t any items which stand after the provision for publication in the published decree were adopted originally as amendments, and that, when t h e secretary prepared t h e copy for publication, he merely omitted the introductory clause of the a m e n d m e n t and published the action as an appended b u t integral p a r t of the main motion. 1 Laqueur illustrates this practice by the following individual decrees and groups of decrees. IG. ii2, 43 (378/7 B.C.)2 is t h e well known decree containing the principles on which t h e second Athenian League was formed. Two motions are recorded after the provision for publication. One orders t h a t the names of present and f u t u r e allies be inscribed on the stele (11. 69-72); the other orders the election of three ambassadors to go to Thebes (11. 72-75). Laqueur explains t h a t Aristotle first moved the adoption of the main motion (11. 7-69), then introduced the two amendments after discussion in the Boule and the Demos. T h e beginning of the first amendment is indicated by t h e abandonment of the stoichedon arrangement in line 69 and the wider spacing of the letters —line 69 contains 27 letters instead of t h e usual 31. Also, Laqueur considers it strange t h a t in the provision for the cost of publication (11. 66-69) no consideration is taken of the following order to publish upon the same stele the names of the members of the league, although the calculation of the cost would be affected by the subsequent motion. As to Laqueur's interpretation of the arrangement of the letters in line 69, it m a y be said t h a t the stoichedon order is not abandoned until the last letter of the first phrase of the motion, eis 5e t t | v o"rr|Ar|v. When spacing is used for paragraphing, it separates the motions. 3 The m a t t e r of the cost, too, seems to me to be of no importance. If the motion to publish the names of the allies was p a r t of t h e main resolution, t h e mover had its effect in mind when he proposed an appropriation of 60 drachmas. T h a t he did have it in mind seems certain, because the appropriation was higher t h a n t h a t usually m a d e for an inscription of approximately the same length of continuous text. 4 This amount was sufficient to cover t h e decree and the names which were to be added. I t is difficult to understand why Laqueur advanced this point, for his own interpretation of the construction of decrees involves the view t h a t the cost of publication was estimated and appropriated before amendments 1 Laqueur says (p. 40): " w o der Verewigungsbefehl in den Text hinein verschoben ist, dies auf dem besonderen Grunde beruht, dass eine Erweiterung des schriftlich eingebrachten Antrags stattgefunden h a t . " Again (p. 53): "Als Ergebnis dieses Abschnitts betrachte ich demnach den Nachweis, dass die auf den Verewigungsbefehl folgenden Teile einer Urkunde auf Zusätzen beruhen, welche von dem ersten Redaktor des Antrags nicht vorgesehen waren. Die Folge dieser Erweiterungen am Ende der Urkunden 2 war mitunter ihre Interpolierung im Inneren." Laqueur, pp. 40-41. 3 The curious spacing of this line might be explained by supposing t h a t the secretary gave the stonecutter a completely drawn copy, with a lacuna of four letter-spaces after the provision for publication. If the stone-cutter overlooked the lacuna and noticed his oversight when he reached the " v " of 0 ' c t i Se K a i iTEpi t o o v cxAAcov d>v ' A p u p ^ a s A s y E i . The formal amendment developed immediately out of this motion. Thus Laqueur finds an instance of an amendment to an amendment. Granting the discussion and Arybbas' address in the assembly, the supposed subsequent action of the Demos seems to me to be unusual. I t is not likely that the I I n the same way IG. ii 2 . 109 seems to contain two independent invitations, one b y the Boule, the other b y the Demos. I n IG. ii 2 , 84, as in N o . 109, two invitations occur. Here again, as the one is not a duplicate of the other, it is fair to suppose t h a t they are independent unless the contrary is proved. I t seems natural t h a t t h e invitation of the Boule should stand after the provision for publication, as in N o . 84. T h e validity of the probouleuma as far as and including the provision for publication depended upon its ratification b y the Demos. Also, this part of the probouleuma included the motions which were essential to the business under consideration. On the other hand, the invitation was incidental, as Laqueur says, and contingent upon the presence of the honored individual in Athens. Though definitive, it went before the Demos, together with the non-definitive parts of the probouleuma. I I assume t h a t the first three lines of frag, b belong to the main motion. 3 Laqueur, pp. 4 6 - 4 7 .

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

461

D e m o s would h a v e v o t e d first to t a k e t h e m a t t e r u p (xptinaTiaai k. t . A.), t h e n t o t a k e such a n d such specific action. Actually, t h e admission of A r y b b a s t o t h e assembly a n d his address would h a v e laid t h e m a t t e r before t h e D e m o s . A specific m o t i o n would h a v e been in order immediately w i t h o u t t h e preliminary motion, particularly as A r y b b a s h a d already been t h e subject of a probouleumatic resolution. Such a specific m o t i o n usually runs t h u s : Trepi cov 'Apv|3|3ocs Asysi — followed b y t h e infinitive of t h e m o t i o n (cf. IG. ii2, 1096, 11. 9 - 1 0 ) . T h e correct explanation seems to m e to be this. A r y b b a s addressed t h e Boule. T h e p r o b o u l e u m a covered p a r t of his requests; t h e rest were referred to t h e D e m o s with power. Xprma-riaca is regularly used to direct t h e proedroi to introduce t h e business of t h e p r o b o u l e u m a to t h e ecclesia a n d is followed b y t h e order to present t h e specific m o t i o n of t h e Boule (yvcouriv 6e ^uvpdAAecrOai). T h u s it occurs in p r o b o u l e u m a t i c f o r m u l a e (cf. IG. ii2, 218, 11. 9-13). I n this instance t h e Boule did not wish to s u b m i t a specific m o t i o n TTEpi tcov aAAcov, so only t h e first p a r t of t h e form u l a is used (xpTmaTiaai), a n d t h e proedroi (unexpressed) are directed b y t h e Boule to place before t h e D e m o s for action t h e o t h e r m a t t e r s spoken of b y A r y b b a s . ' A r y b b a s m a y h a v e addressed t h e D e m o s too. A t a n y rate, t h e formal a m e n d m e n t of t h e D e m o s is t h e result (11. 33-45). I t seems to me, therefore, t h a t t h e m o t i o n found in lines 3 1 - 3 3 belongs t o t h e p r o b o u l e u m a ; if so, here again t h e principle of d e t e r m i n ing a m e n d m e n t s b y position a f t e r t h e provision for publication does not hold. IG. ii2, 17 (394/3 B.C.)2 records a g r a n t of citizenship t o Sthorys (11. 25-26). His descendants were included in t h e g r a n t , b u t not in t h e usual m a n n e r . Ordinarily t h e words, Kai exyovous, would h a v e been a d d e d in line 25, or a formal a m e n d m e n t would h a v e been used. Here, however, t h e g r a n t is extended to t h e m in one of t h r e e motions which follow t h e provision for p u b l i c a t i o n : Ivcn 8e TaO[-ra Kai t o i s ejKyovois t o i s SQopuos (11. 33-34). L a q u e u r considers t h e position of t h e motion a n indication t h a t it is a n a m e n d m e n t . A d m i t t e d l y it is a n a f t e r t h o u g h t , b u t n o t necessarily a n a m e n d m e n t . 3 Such examples m i g h t be multiplied; for instance, in IG. i2, 110 even t h e items of t h e provision for publication are separated b y other motions (11. 21-36). Such loosely d r a w n d o c u m e n t s show a lack of consecutive thinking, b u t do n o t prove t h e presence of a m e n d m e n t s . I n IG. ii2, 558 (ca. 3 0 3 / 2 B.C.)4 a g r a n t of citizenship t o O x y t h e m i s is prefaced b y t h e m o t i v e " t h a t all m a y whole-hearted^- s u p p o r t t h e king's cause a n d t h e freedom of t h e Greeks, w h e n t h e y see t h a t those who show goodwill t o t h e cause are honored b y t h e D e m o s as t h e y d e s e r v e " (11. 11-17). F a r t h e r on in t h e decree, a f t e r t h e provision for publication, a more specific m o t i v e is given: " t h a t , honored b y t h e Demos, he m a y do w h a t e v e r he t h i n k s best for t h e c a p t i v e horsemen, as he would for his fellow c i t i z e n s " (11. 31-36). L a q u e u r believes t h a t t h e l a t t e r m o t i v e is a n a m e n d m e n t because it has no logical connection with t h e clause immediately preceding it a n d t h e p u r p o s e of t h e honor has already been given. 6 I t should be noted, however, t h a t 1 So xptlWaTiuai is used in IG. ii2, 212, 1. 55, although here it refers to a definitely dated f u t u r e 2 meeting of the Demos. Laqueur, p. 49. 3 The same answer m a y be made in the case of the motion found in lines 19-23 of IG. ii2, 82. See 1 Laqueur, p. 49, n. 1. Laqueur, p. 51. 5 Similarly in IG. ii2, 125 (357/6 B.C.) Laqueur sees an amendment in the motion to praise those who went t o the aid of Eretria (11. 20 ff.), on the ground t h a t it follows the provision for publication; likewise

462

A. B I L L H E I M E R

the latter motive may modify the whole action, not merely the clause of appropriation which immediately precedes it. Neither is it a duplicate of the former motive; the former is general, the latter applies specifically to Oxythemis. One might expect the order of the clauses to be inverted, but there is no reason to conclude that the two could not be in the same resolution. In this connection Laqueur 1 discusses IG. ii2, 223 A, apparently because the two parts of the decree are separated by the provision for publication. Despite this superficial similarity, the document is of a different character from those which have been discussed. To avoid unnecessary repetition I shall give my explanation of the present form of the document, bringing in Laqueur's views at the proper points. The Boule decided to select and honor that one of its members who in speech and action had served the Boule and the Demos of the Athenians best during the year. Phanodemos was chosen. With this explanation as a preamble of motivation, the document first records the resolution of the Boule to praise Phanodemos, to crown him, and to inscribe this decree upon the dedication of the Boule (11. 4-8). This decree of the Boule is followed immediately by a probouleuma in which the Demos is asked to pass a similar decree in honor of Phanodemos (11. 8-16). The presence of the probouleuma implies that it was adopted as the action of the Demos. Thus the document as published contains a definitive decree of the Boule 2 and a probouleumatic decree of the Demos. Laqueur regards the second decree as an amendment, evidently because of the intervening provision for publication. There is no denying that the course of action in a case such as this might have been as Laqueur says, and that the decree of the Boule might have been introduced and passed first, then the probouleumatic resolution either at the same or at a subsequent meeting of the Boule, or that the second of two such actions might have been moved as an amendment to the first. If we should assume that the one or the other of these methods was followed, it would mean that something has been omitted from the document as published, either the official heading of the second decree if it was an independent motion, or the name of the mover and the formula of amendment if it was an amendment. But I can see no reason why the document cannot be interpreted as what it appears to be — two resolutions passed as one action. Upon this interpretation the document presents a straightforward statement of what occurred, as follows. In the Boule a motion was made that the Boule honor Phanodemos. Then the mover continued with a resolution of a similar character, to be submitted to the Demos as a probouleuma. As the first motion was valid when passed by the Boule, it would not have been presented to the Demos for ratification, but the second motion, or probouleuma, would have been so presented. In this case, however, instead of submitting the probouleuma with the usual motivating formula, the mover proposed that the action of the Boule be read to the Demos as a recommendation for favorable action on the probouleuma. So a clause to this effect was incorporated in the probouleumatic formula (1. 10). Thus the decree of the Boule practically became in t h e similarly placed motions in IG. ii2, 133 (355/4 B.C.), 11. 20-27, in which Philiskos is invited to t h e prytaneum and t h e protection of officials and the Boule invoked. > P p . 52-53. »Cf. Nos. 223 II, 11. 10 ff. and 223 C, 11. 10 ff.

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

463

a part of the probouleuma and the whole motion as passed by the Boule was submitted to the Demos. The order to publish [to8e t o yr]q)icr]^cc (1. 14) thus included the publication of the decree of the Boule. So much for the decree as a whole. Several instances of supposed interpolation remain to be noticed. The decree of the Boule opens with a motivating clause of which fi pouAii (1. 4) is the subject. This subject is repeated in the same clause (1. 6). So the phrase, 6iaxsipoTo[vri]aaCTa TTEpi toutcov r\ pouAri, is regarded by Laqueur as an interpolation, which he explains as follows. Two actions of the Boule had preceded this resolution. The one was the motion to choose and to honor a member of the Boule — inferred from lines 4 - 6 ; the other was the actual choice — inferred from lines 5 - 6 . When the decree of the Boule was changed through the amendment into a probouleuma, it seemed desirable to inform the Demos of the manner in which the choice had been made, and so a phrase was interpolated in the clause introduced by ETrsiSr|. I n reply it may be said that it is perfectly possible that the mover himself used these words. As a long clause introduced by yT)ipiacc|JEvr| (1. 4) intervenes after the first mention of the subject, tj pouAr|, there is nothing particularly remarkable about its repetition. At any rate, if it did not seem grammatically abhorrent to the secretary to interpolate the second r) pouAr| when revising his copy, it is difficult to see why the mover himself should have felt any grammatical compunctions of conscience. Laqueur believes that he detects another interpolation, in line 10: avay[vco|vca to8e t o yr)5 B.C., pp. 44-63. ' Ibid., p. 51. 1 2

A M E N D M E N T S IN ATHENIAN

DECREES

465

the ground that they follow the provision for publication. I t is possible that his principle of interpretation might be used even to attempt a solution of the difficulty connected with the names of the prytanizing tribes mentioned in lines 3 and 34. 1 For the purpose of testing Laqueur's principle it is sufficient to examine the relation of lines 2 6 - 4 0 to the preceding part of the decree. Lines 3 3 - 3 5 contain the following motion: ÈX[CREVE]YKÉTO Sè TCXÙTCC ES [TÔV] Sèijiov [he Oîvejis Tr[p]uTçc[v£Î]or ÊTràvayKsç susifSàv hé KSI he] cnrpcï[Tià] âç TpÎTev épiépav [-rrpÔTjov H£T[à t o AiE]pà. We may dismiss the idea that this motion is part of an amendment passed by the Demos and ordering the prytanizing tribe to bring certain business (TCCOTOC) before the Demos. One objection to such an interpretation is the fact that, while instructions may be issued to the Boule to submit a probouleuma in its legislative capacity, 2 an order such as this, addressed to part of the Boule in its prytanizing capacity, should proceed from the Boule itself, unless it deals with the réintroduction of previously adopted action. 3 Another objection is the position of this motion at the end of the series of motions (11. 2 6 - 3 3 ) to which TaÙTa refers, where it seems to conclude a series of coordinate clauses. Again, we should not expect the Demos to put its request in such specific form, but rather to direct the Boule to introduce a probouleuma concerning the matters in question. T h e conclusive objection is the fact that we should have here, not a record of the final adoption of these motions (11. 2 6 - 3 3 ) , but only the request for a probouleuma to that effect. Therefore, lines 2 6 - 4 0 should not be interpreted as an addition introduced in the ecclesia as an amendment to the probouleuma (11. 4 - 2 6 ) . The motion quoted above is really a definitive order of the Boule and lines 2 6 - 4 0 are probouleumatic. However, this document might still be regarded as a composite of two or more independent probouleumatic decrees. Lines 26-40, for example, might have been submitted by the Boule and adopted by the Demos at some time after the adoption of lines 4 - 2 6 , then published with the earlier action as a part of what appears to be a single decree. If we should suppose that the prescript of the second part (11. 26-40) has been dropped and the whole document published under the prescript of the first part, the difficulty of reconciling the tribal names in lines 3 and 34 would disappear. Also, this explanation might account for the apparent carelessness in drafting noted by Meritt and West. 4 For example, regulations affecting the heralds occur in three different parts of the document (11. 4, 40, 50). However, the above interpretation involves difficulties. If line 26 begins a second pi-obouleumatic decree, then TOUTCX (11. 3 3 - 3 4 ) refers immediately to the content of lines 2 6 - 3 3 . As the provisions of this passage refer to future assessments, the need of haste is not sufficiently prominent to justify the desire to reach an early settlement implied in the provisions of lines 3 5 - 3 6 and in the heavy penalty involved in failure to bring the business to completion within the prescribed time (11. 3 6 - 4 0 ) . Neither do the provisions of lines 2 6 - 3 3 seem to be sufficiently provocative of discussion to explain the provision for successive sittings of the Demos (11. 3 5 - 3 6 ) . B u t if TaÛTa includes also the provisions for the immediate assessment (11. 4 - 2 6 ) , ' Ibid., p p . 5 2 - 5 7 . » Cf. IG. ii 2 , I 0 9 i , 11. 1 6 - 1 9 .

! Cf. IG. i=, 110, II. 3 6 - 3 8 ; ii ! , 125, 11. 6 - 9 . < Op. cit.. p. 51.

466

A. BILLHEIMER

it is easy to understand the stress laid upon early action in t h e assembly (11. 33-40). Lines 26-40, therefore, seem to have been introduced into the assembly along with lines 4-26, and not as a separate probouleuma. I I . T h e second of our two main classifications is composed of a series of documents in connection with which Laqueur uses arguments drawn from the context or from external sources to show the incorporation of amendments, or even the blending of parts of two or more wholly independent decrees into one. Also, whenever it is pertinent, he uses the previously discussed argument based on the position of motions after the provision for publication. IG. ii2, 31 (386/5 B.C.)1 is a decree in honor of Hebryzelmis, king of the Odrysae. Lines 5-12 contain motions to praise t h e king and others including, apparently, his general. This is followed by t h e provision for publication (11. 12-17). Then comes a motion to choose three Athenians who shall report to the king what the Athenians have decreed, and report also about requests which are m a d e by t h e king's representatives who have come to the Demos (11. 17-24). T h e last item extant is a motion to praise Teisander and Lysander. 2 If t h e document were a unit, says Laqueur, the last motion (11. 24-26) would stand by the motion to praise t h e king's general (1. 10). Moreover, it is inseparably connected with the motion which immediately precedes it. B o t h items are, therefore, supplementary (11. 19-26). Laqueur explains t h e events as follows. Before the Athenian representatives had set out on their mission to the king (11. 18-1!)), t h e latter sent an embassy to Athens. T h e arrival of this embassy in Athens and the presentation of its business was t h e occasion of the introduction of the supplementary action. This action was then published with t h e main motion. So Laqueur interprets the decree as a composite of two 3 independent motions, consisting of lines 1-19 and 19 ff. Between t h e two lay an interval of time. I n making such a combination for publication, the official heading and, consequently, t h e date of one of t h e motions would be eliminated. T h e only evidence for Laqueur's interpretation, as I see it, is the assumption of a definite, logical order for the original form of decrees. This assumption has not been proved. On the other hand, t h e decree yields a clear interpretation in its present, natural order. ¡tí. ii2, 212 (347/6 B.C.)4 is a decree passed in honor of Spartokos, Pairisades and Apollonios, sons of Leukon. Laqueur's interpretation of the various parts of this document is very ingenious. I n addition to a formal amendment (11. 65-68), he detects amendments which have been inserted in the original motion, some before and others after t h e provision for publication. H e identifies t h e miscellaneous motions found in lines 49-65 as amendments by their position after t h e provision for publication. T o account for t h e fact that, t h e secretary incorporated all of these amendments b u t one, which he left as a formal rider (11. 65-68), Laqueur suggests t h a t t h e incorporated amendments were introduced by t h e mover of the original 1

Laqueur, pp. 57-58. They are supposed to be the king's representatives (Laqueur, p. 57; Xirchner, IG. ii2, 31, n.; Ditt., SIG138, n. 6; Hoeek, Hermes xxvi, 1891, p. 456). 3 Lilies 17-19 would be an amendment aceording to Laqueur's previous argument, because they 4 follow the provision for publication. Laqueur, pp. 58-63. 2

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

467

motion, Androtion. There is no evidence to support this suggestion. On the contrary, in IG. ii2, 206 (349/8 B.C.) a formal amendment is recorded with the full introductory formula, although it was introduced by the author of the main motion (11. 5-6, 26). So also in IG. ii2, 110,11. 6, 20. One clause furnishes objective evidence against Laqueur's interpretation of lines 49-65 as supplementary. I t is found in lines 5 3 - 5 7 : rrspi 5e TCOV X P ^ U A T G O V Tcov [oq>EI]A[o]nEvcov T O T S traiai T O I S AEUKCOVOS 6TT[GOS a]v otiToAdpcoCTiv, XPTIucc-ricroci T O U S TrpoE5[pos o'i] ocv Aax&ocn TrpogSpeueiv EV TCOI Srmcoi [TRJI oy]5or)i ETTI S E K A 1 Trpco-rov HETOC T A lEpac. This motion is very similar to part of the regular probouleumatic formula of the Boule, without designation of the specific action. If this motion were an amendment, it would be a direction of the Demos to the Boule, and the formula for that is different.2 Therefore, I believe that the passage to which this motion belongs (11. 49-65) is part of the probouleuma and not an amendment. 3 Laqueur discovers several amendments incorporated in the main motion before the provision for publication. In lines 24-26 it is moved to crown Spartokos and Pairisades, and in lines 33-34 it is stated that these princes propose to dedicate the crowns to Athena. Laqueur assumes that after the granting of the crowns Spartokos and Pairisades were notified of the honor and that they sent back the offer to dedicate them to Athena. As several weeks would have been required for the journey, the statement of the reply of the princes and the direction to the athlothetae to deposit the crowns in the temple after inscribing them as the dedications of the princes (11. 33-39) must be regarded as a later, independent action which has been added to the original motion. The delay involved in Laqueur's interpretation seems to me to be an unnecessary assumption. The princes had good reason to expect honors from Athens; Athenian practice would lead them to anticipate the possibility 1 Laqueur's view makes the meaning of this date ambiguous and even open to actual misinterpretation. As it stands it refers to the eighteenth next following the day of the eighth prytany on which the decree was passed. This would probably be the eighteenth of Elaphebolion. But once this motion is called a supplementary action, we cannot tell whether it was passed in connection with or subsequently to the main motion. It might have been passed weeks later, even after lines 33-39. Such instances are not uncommon when independent decrees are published together, with only one official heading, but at least the decrees are recorded as distinct resolutions (cf. IG. ii!, 360). 2 See for example IG. iis, 125 ( 3 5 7 / 6 B.C.), 11. 6 - 0 : irEpt MEV T & > V ltriaTp[aTEucrc(VTmv ETTI TTI]V

Xcopav TT)V "EpETpiccov EKK]Ar)CT!av.

TT)V

[3ouA[r|v Trpo(3ouAEuaa]aav

E^EVE^JKEIV

ei;

TOV

Sfjuov d[s

TT)V

TrpcoTTiv

1 believe t h a t lines 8 - 6 5 originated in t h e B o u l e . T h e question m a y be raised why 'AvSpo-ricov is used in line 67 instead of Tfj pouArj. An explanation m a y be furnished by the relation of the several resolutions of IG. ii 2 , 3 6 0 . I n response t o a request of the D e m o s for a probouleuma on Herakleides (11. 4 6 - 5 0 ) , the B o u l e moved to introduce Herakleides t o the first ecclesia and recommended t h a t he be praised and granted a gold crown of 500 drachmas and receive further honors from the D e m o s (11. 5 1 - 6 5 ) . T h e subsequent decree of the D e m o s (11. 2 8 - 4 5 ) shows no evidence of being probouleumatic. I t repeats the motivation of the B o u l e in a different form, praises Herakleides, votes the gold crown without giving its value, and renders him a further service. T h e probouleuma of lines 6 6 - 7 9 and t h e decree of lines 5 - 2 7 are similarly related. I t seems, therefore, t h a t probouleumata were approved in one of two ways b y t h e D e m o s . E i t h e r t h e y were adopted as submitted, with or without amendments, or a new motion was framed in t h e D e m o s , using as far as desirable t h e c o n t e n t s of the probouleuma, and adding new material if desirable, not as an a m e n d m e n t , b u t as an integral p a r t of the motion. I n t h e l a t t e r case a formal supplementary motion was designated as an a m e n d m e n t t o t h e proposal of t h e mover in t h e D e m o s , just as in the case of a motion whose specific c o n t e n t originated in t h e D e m o s , t h e B o u l e merely calling for action on the s u b j e c t . 3

408

A. BILLHEIMER

of receiving crowns; their representatives were in Athens on a mission which was the occasion of the honor and they had conferred with the members of the Boule (11. 8 - 1 1 ) . I t was perfectly natural for Spartokos and Pairisades to have instructed their representatives as to what action to take in certain eventualities. 1 In connection with the same subject Laqueur discovers another incorporated amendment. I t is an important point because its identification is based upon an actual contradiction between two motions. l i n e s 2 4 - 2 6 contain a motion to crown the princes at the Great Panathenaea. In lines 26-33 the athlothctae are directed to have the crowns made in the year before the Great Panathenaea, etc. Assuming that [iroiEjicrScxi TOU? orEqxivous (1. 26) in the latter motion also means " t o crown", Laqueur supposes that this motion was adopted as a substitute for the former action after the reply of the princes had been received, and that it was then inserted in the earlier resolution immediately after the motion which it annulled. Now the decree was passed in the spring of the year 346 B.C., and, as Dittenberger 2 notes, the next occurrence of the Great Panathenaea was in September, 346 B.C. Consequently, as the Panathenaea of the year before the Great Panathenaea, i.e., of September, 347 B.C., had already passed, the substitute motion would have postponed the proclamation of the crowns to September, 343 B.C. B u t the words TO vu[v] in line 42 show that such a postponement was not intended. The tenses of the verbs do not help to clear up the difficulty, for the present tense is used in the infinitives of both resolutions: o-Teq>[avouvl (1. 24), [ T r o t s ] t C T 0 a i (1. 26), a v a y o p s u E i v (11. 29-30), dvorn6evai (1. 35). 3 Both motions are, therefore, general in application and it appears that the sons of Leukon were to be crowned at each Great Panathenaea. 4 The real solution of the difficulty seems to lie in the fact that o-TE(p|avo0v] Xpucrcoi crTEcpdvcoi of the first motion (1. 24) and [TroisJlaOai T O U S CTTE9&VOUS of the second (1. 26) are not synonymous, but that the former refers to the official and public act of crowning, while the latter refers to the actual making of the crowns."' Therefore, the two motions are not contradictory and there is no reason to consider lilies 26-33 an amendment. In lines 39-42 the treasurer of the Demos is instructed to give the money for the crowns to the athlothetae from the funds allocated by the Demos to expenses connected with decrees. Laqueur regards this as the original motion on this subject. Immediately after this motion (11. 42-44) it is provided that "now the apodectae may turn over the money for the crowns from the military funds." This motion Laqueur regards as an amendment by substitution, occasioned by the previously mentioned amendment (11. 26-33) which advanced the time of proclaiming the crowns. Here again I believe that there is no contradiction, but that the relation is simply this. The first motion (11. 39-42) is a general provision for the future (8i1 In lines 65-68 Androtion's motion is amended by Polyeuktos. This amendment should then be regarded as an addition to the later actions (11. 33 ff.) rather than to the earlier one (11. 8 - 3 3 ) ; otherwise it seems probable that Apollonios' crown too would be dedicated to Athena. Androtion must, therefore, have been the mover of part or all of the later motions (11. 33 ff.). So Laqueur would probably say that all of the incorporated motions were made hy Androtion and that the one motion made by Polyeuktos was left as a formal rider. 2 SIG* 206, n. 9. ' Dittmar, Leipz. Stud, xiii, 1890, p. 174. 4 P i t t . , SIG.' 20«, nn. 8, 9. 5 Cf. IG. ii2. 1, 11. 69-70; 2 2 3 « , 11. 13-14.

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN

DECREES

469

Sóvai); the second is a specific measure for this occasion (Trapa5oüvai), due to the fact t h a t the f u n d s i s t c í K c r r a y r i c p í c r u o r r o c is insufficient. 1 IG. ii2, 657 (285/4 b.c.) 2 was passed in honor of Philippides. 3 T h e motivation opens with recognition of the goodwill which he has shown on every occasion toward the Demos (11. 7-9) and continues with an enumeration of his specific services. I n 299/8 B.C. he secured a gift of grain from Lysimachos for the Athenians; also t h e gift of a yard and mast for the peplos for t h e Panathenaea (11. 9-16). After t h e victory of Lysimachos over Antigonos and Demetrios a t Ipsus in 301 b.c. Philippides buried those of his fellow citizens who had fallen, and secured the release of the captives, etc. (11. 16-26). Through his influence those of his fellow citizens who were found interned in Asia by Demetrios and Antigonos were released, and he continued to be useful to any Athenian who needed his help (11. 26-31). Since the Demos recovered its freedom 4 he has continued to work both in speech and in action for the safety of the state, urging the king to aid with money and grain, etc. (11. 31-38). Having been elected agonothete in 286/5 B.C.3 he assumed t h e financial burden voluntarily, offered the traditional sacrifices to the gods, admitted all the Athenians to the games, and furnished an additional contest in commemoration of the liberation of the Demos, etc. (11. 38-50). Then follow in order the statement of t h e purpose of t h e state in honoring Philippides (11. 50-52), t h e probouleumatic formula (11. 52-58), t h e recital of the honors (11. 58-66), provision for making and proclaiming t h e crown, and the provision for publication (11. 66-73). Laqueur argues t h a t this inscription is really a composite of two or three decrees, lines 16-31 certainly, and lines 14-16 probably, 6 having been adopted as separate resolutions and then incorporated in the original motion, thus amplifying the motivation. T h e break is revealed by the fact t h a t the chronological order is disturbed twice, in lines 16 and 31. I n line 16 the transition is from 299/8 B.C. to 301 b.c. T h e n from line 16 t h e narration carries events down to the date of t h e decree, in line 31, 7 and in line 31 the account returns to the year 288 b.c. F r o m this point the sequence of events again rung down to t h e date of the decree (1. 50). In correspondence with these chronological divisions Laqueur notes a division of subject m a t t e r into services rendered by Philippides to the state and services rendered to individual Athenians. So, says Laqueur, the original motion, which covers Philippides' services to t h e state, includes lines 1-14 (or 16) and lines 31-73. Thus upó-repóv 1

2 3 Laqueur, p. 60. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens, p. 61. Laqueur, pp. 77-80. 389/8 B.C. (Dinsmoor, op. cit., pp. 58-59, 64). « Dinsmoor, op. cit., p. 60. 8 Laqueur suggests t h a t the repetition of the d a t e is an indication t h a t this motion is an insertion. 7 Laqueur believes t h a t lines 26-31 are not to be associated in time with the battle of Ipsus (I. 17), b u t should be referred to 287 B.C., probably. B y separating the dates of the incidents related in lines 16-26 and 26-31 he distributes the specific incidents of the whole passage (11. 16-31) more widely over the period f r o m 301 B.C. to the d a t e of the decree, and a t the same time offers an explanation of the perplexing inversion of names in line 28, where the "Antigonos and D e m e t r i o s " of line 18 becomes " D e m e t r i o s and Antigonos." Dittenberger ( S I G 3 7 4 , n. 12) attributes the transposition to the fact t h a t Antigonos was dead a t the time the decree was passed. B u t this leaves the order of the names in line 18 unexplained. By dating lines 26-31 later t h a n lines 16-26 Laqueur believes it is possible to identify the Antigonos of line 28 as Gonatas. Attractive as this interpretation is, there is one objection to it. T h e rest of the specific items of the decree are dated by archon or event. This item, however, although occurring fourteen years after the one preceding it, would be left without chronological connection. T h e text implies a relation with the time of the battle of Ipsus. 4

A. BILLHEIMER

470

(11. 1 0 - 1 1 ) is continued by Kai k o h i c t o c u s v o u t o O 5 r | n o u (1. 3 1 ) . T h e other resolution, which covers Philippides' services to individual Athenians, includes lines 1 6 - 3 1 . F r o m beginning to end the events of each resolution cover about the same period of time, from 2 9 9 / 8 b . c . and 3 0 1 B . C . , respectively, to the date of the decree. Laqueur develops his interpretation from three pieces of evidence: the mention of an event of 3 0 1 b . c . after events of 2 9 9 / 8 B . C . ; the fact that wv S i o t e X s T ( 1 . 3 0 ) points to the date of the adoption of the decree; a clear division of Philippides' services into public and private. In general these points are correctly made, but they do not necessarily prove Laqueur's conclusions. With the slight exception noted, the long list of services seems to be in chronological order. The clause containing wv SiaTeAel m a y be a statement in general terms added naturally at this point because it grows out of the specific context immediately preceding it, just as though the mover felt that he could continue citing specific instances, but, instead of doing so, stopped short and summed up the remaining specifics in one clause of general characterization. The inverse order is followed at the beginning of the decree (11. 7 - 9 ) , where a general statement of Philippides' loyalty to the Demos precedes the enumeration of specific instances. And the fact that references to his services to individual Athenians are grouped m a y be due merely to the coincidence that those which were selected as worthy of mention happened in the same general period. 1 t e

I t seems to me that the key to any division of ideas which m a y exist in the decree is to be found in upoxepov t e (11. 1 0 - 1 1 ) and its correlative. This correlative is not obvious. Laqueur believes it is Kai in line 31. Before upoTepov t e stands the phrase, < 5 n r o 5 r m r | C T c x s Trpos t o v fJacnAia Auaiuaxov (11. 9 - 1 0 ) . With this Laqueur would correlate Koiiiaapivou t o O 8r|nou t t i v eXeuOspiav (1. 3 1 ) . The inference would be that, as contrasted with the preceding services, those recorded in lines 31 ff. were performed after the Demos had recovered its freedom and after Philippides had returned to Athens. B u t the statement made in lines 3 6 - 3 8 2 seems to imply that Philippides was not in Athens when he rendered these services. If this is so, L a queur's choice of Kai in line 3 1 as the correlative of upoTEpov t e (11. 1 0 - 1 1 ) must be rejected, and along with it the view that line 31 marks the resumption of a resolution broken off in line 16. Analogy shows that the correlative of TrpoTEpov t e would naturally be Kai vuv.3 In this decree the series of examples in the motivation is so long and their dates descend so gradually to the date of the decree that the sharpness of the contrast between the past and the present is lost. Perhaps that is why the mover failed to insert vuv. Nevertheless, the dividing line in the whole series is to be found by dis1 As an example of the result which might be reached by attempting to dissect a decree merely by an exactly logical analysis, based on relative time as expressed by the verbs and on the character of the services, see an almost contemporary decree, IG. ii2, 6.54 (287/6 B.C. —Dinsmoor). I list the verbs and the character of the services as found in the motivation: ecttiv TTap£x6nEvo[s], public

(11.

14-15);

CTU[v]f|A6R),

public

(1.

1 8 ) ; Trap[elxETct[i], p r i v a t e

(11. 3 1 - 2 2 ) ;

SeScokev,

public

(1.

25);

ETR[A|YYEAAETAI, public (11. 3 0 - 3 1 ) . I cannot see t h a t anything can be proved b y such a series, save t h a t the mover followed an order which was fairly chronological, used both specific and general statements, and sometimes did p r e t t y much as he pleased. 2 Yttep t o u t c o v TT[ct]vTcov -TToAAaKi; HEnapxupriKEv aOxcoi o fJauiAEus irpos t o u s Tr[p]£CTp£uovTas 'ASrivaitov trpos e q u t o v . 3 Cf. IG. ii2, 646, 11. 9, 11.

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

471

covering t h e point a t which t h e m o v e r begins to e n u m e r a t e Philippides' p r e s e n t services, i.e., those which f o r m t h e i m m e d i a t e occasion of t h e introduction of t h e decree. T h a t point seems t o be in line 38 (kccí), a n d t h e services m e n t i o n e d in lines 38-50 should be regarded as t h e i m m e d i a t e occasion of t h e decree. Philippides was in A t h e n s (xsipoTov[r|0Ei]s áycovo0ÉTr|s); his services were performed during t h e y e a r of Isaeus, a n d t h e decree in his honor was passed on t h e eighteenth d a y of t h e t h i r d m o n t h of t h e following year, a p p a r e n t l y soon a f t e r he h a d passed his a u d i t successfully. Consequently, t h e m o t i v a t i o n should be divided in line 38, n o t in line 31, a n d lines 16-31 are a n integral p a r t of t h e services rendered upÓTepov (11. 7 - 3 8 ) . IG. i 2 , 76 (415 B.C.)1 deals w i t h t h e offering of t h e first f r u i t s a t Eleusis. 2 A f t e r t h e prescript (11. 1 - 4 ) t h e decree directs t h e A t h e n i a n s a n d their allies t o m a k e t h e offering, states t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e a m o u n t , a n d m a k e s provision for t h e collection a n d storage of t h e grain (11. 4 - 2 1 ) . T h e Boule is directed to n o t i f y t h e cities (of t h e allies) of t h e action of t h e D e m o s (11. 21-24). T h e h i e r o p h a n t a n d t h e daidouchos are asked t o urge t h e Greeks to c o n t r i b u t e t h e first f r u i t s (11. 24-26). T h e hieropoioi are to publish a record of t h e a m o u n t c o n t r i b u t e d b y each deme a n d city (11. 26-30). T h e Boule is ordered t o urge all t h e other Greek cities to contribute, a n d t h e hieropoioi are to receive t h e offerings (11. 30-36). T h e next section deals with " t h e disposal of t h e first-fruits t h u s deposited a t Eleusis for sacrifices a n d votive offerings (11. 3 6 4 4 ) . " 3 T h e m a i n m o t i o n ends with a n " i n v o c a t i o n of blessing a n d prosperity on those who t h u s honor t h e Eleusinian goddesses a n d act fairly towards A t h e n s (11. 4 4 - 6 ) . " A n a m e n d m e n t m o v e d b y L a m p ó n concludes t h e decree (11. 47-61). T h e a m e n d m e n t consists of a series of motions, t h e last of which directs L a m p ó n t o introduce certain business t o t h e Boule (11. 59-61). R e g a r d i n g it as singular t h a t L a m p ó n should m a k e a m o t i o n concerning himself, L a q u e u r believes t h a t this m o tion was originally a n independent a m e n d m e n t m o v e d b y someone else, b u t in publication incorporated in t h e series of motions headed b y L a m p o n ' s name. As L a q u e u r explains it, L a m p ó n discussed t h e s u b j e c t of this m o t i o n before t h e D e m o s , p r o b a b l y even represented himself as having a d v o c a t e d such action unsuccessfully before t h e commissioners who introduced t h e m a i n motion. One of his s u p p o r t e r s t h e n m o v e d an a m e n d m e n t t h a t L a m p ó n be directed t o see t h a t t h e m a t t e r should be b r o u g h t t h r o u g h t h e Boule to t h e D e m o s . T h e secretary published this a m e n d m e n t as a n a p p e n d a g e to L a m p o n ' s a m e n d m e n t . Singular as L a m p o n ' s m o t i o n m a y appear, parallels exist. I n IG. ii2, 107, 11. 30-34 Autolykos proposes a n a m e n d m e n t containing only one m o t i o n — to praise t h e a m bassadors sent t o Lesbos. A m o n g these he includes a n Autolykos, p r e s u m a b l y himself. L a q u e u r 4 tries t o explain away t h e i d e n t i t y b y suggesting t h a t t h e second Autolykos is a relative of t h e first. T o d 5 cites a n o t h e r instance in IG. i 2 ,45. F r o m t h e a m e n d m e n t to this decree (11. 34-35) we learn t h a t Demokleides introduced t h e m a i n motion, a n d in t h e m a i n motion (1. 8) a Demokleides is directed to establish t h e colony (at B r e a ) . T h e r e is no reason t o d o u b t t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e two. Also in t h e a m e n d m e n t P h a n t o k l e s moves t h a t P h a n t o k l e s — p r e s u m a b l y himself —be introduced to t h e Boule a t its first sitting. I n t h e light of these examples L a q u e u r ' s asser1

3

Dinsmoor, op. cit., pp. 340-341.

Tod, Greek Hist. Inner., p. 183.

4

P. 102.

z Laqueur, pp. 98-101.

« Op. ext., p. 184.

472

A. B I L L H E I M E R

tion that Lamport's amendment is really composed of two amendments is unproved. 1 Turning to the original motion, Laqueur notes that the unwritten subject of lines 2 6 - 3 0 is oi l E p o i r o ioi. B u t between this sentence and the last mention of oi i e p o T r o i o i two clauses intervene, one (11. 21-24) with the subject he poAe, the other (11. 24-26) with the compound subject Kai ho /nepocp&VTes xai [o] ScaSoxos. T h e clauses which interrupt the grammatical continuity are therefore to be regarded as insertions in the original motion. Lines 2 4 - 2 6 actually belong to the context of lines 30 ff., the term T O S /(EAAEVCXS in line 25 excluding the Athenians and the allies and equaling the phrase T E C H ccAAscn TTOAECJIV in line 30. Without going so far as to say that lines 2 4 - 2 6 contradict lines 30-34, Laqueur believes that the former motion was added to provide a quicker method of reaching the initiates. 2 In like manner the direction is given to the Boule in lines 2 1 - 2 4 for the purpose of conveying the news of the action to the cities more quickly. Originally the decree was intended to prescribe permanent regulations; then the motions in lines 2 1 - 2 6 were passed to facilitate the application of the decree to the current year. T h e additional motions were incorporated in the decree for publication. I t seems to me that Laqueur fails to prove that the relation of lines 2 1 - 2 6 to their context shows that they are insertions. Several considerations point to the present order as the original one, and to the present provisions as part of the original probouleuma. T h e preceding section of the decree (11. 4 - 2 1 ) includes a motion that the cities of the allies should offer the first fruits (11. 14-21). I t is perfectly natural that the next item —after the short motion inserted in passing (1. 21)— should contain instructions that the cities be informed of the action (11. 2 1 - 2 4 ) . This motion is not merely a temporary provision for the immediate occasion, but applies to the future as well (11. 2 3 - 2 4 ) . No particular weight can be attached to the argument that this motion would have been superfluous in the original resolution because the motion that the allies should offer the first fruits implies notification. In IG. i2, 63, for example, the Athenians were not content simply to pass a resolution directing that representatives of each city (of the confederacy) be present at Athens during the month of Maimakterion (11. 6 - 7 ) , but it was also resolved to send heralds to the cities to make the announcement (11. 4 - 6 ) . B o t h motions are in the original resolution. T h e next motion (11. 2 4 - 2 6 ) , that the hierophant and the daidouchos urge the Greeks at the Mysteries to offer the first fruits, was occasioned by a natural wish to utilize every means of reaching and impressing the Greeks. Here the scope of the appeal is naturally broadened beyond the mere circle of the allies, but there is no evidence that T O ? hiAAEVCCS (1. 2 5 ) excludes the Athenians and the allies. There is no indication that this motion is intended to take the place of that in lines 30 ff., nor that it is a temporary provision, while lines 30 ff. are permanent. Actually, through another medium, it aims to cover the same ground as the motions in lines 2 1 - 2 4 1 Laqueur believes that the motions recorded in lines 52-59 also were originally distinct from the first motion of the amendment (11. 48-52), because they follow the provision for publication. This principle has not been established. 2 As the decree was passed in the spring and the announcement at the Mysteries would not occur until the month Boedromion (September), it is difficult to see how the purpose of this motion could have been primarily the quick dissemination of the news of the action.

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN

DECREES

473

and 3 0 - 3 4 , but the basis of its appeal must naturally be the same as t h a t of the B o u l e t o c i t i e s w h i c h a r e n o t a l l i e s , i . e . , Korra T a Tr&Tpia Kod -rev n a v T e i a v t e v e y

AsAtpov (11. 2 5 - 2 6 , 34). After the motion that the amount of the offerings be recorded comes the order to the Boule to inform all the rest of the Greek cities also: E-rrayysAAEV St tev |3oAev Kod t e c t i

aAAscn ttoAectiv [ t ] e [ ( j i ] /iE[A]AEViKicnv cnrctCTEcn (11. 3 0 - 3 1 ) .

Here

is clear indication that a motion had already been made to notify some cities. This was done in line 22 (dc[y]yEAAov[T]as), making it a fair inference that lines 2 1 - 2 4 were part of the original probouleuma. I t is a question how far one may go in interpreting the implications of the omission of the subject in lines 2 6 - 3 0 . At any rate, Laqueur's view t h a t it indicates a dislocation of context is not the only interpretation possible. I t is reasonable to understand oi iepoTroioi as the subject of [k]ccto:0evtov (1. 29). T o an Athenian this interpretation may have been perfectly clear, especially since the ispoTTOioi were to receive and store the first fruits. I t seems to me t h a t Laqueur raises a more difficult question than the one which he claims to settle. " T w o clauses are wrongly placed," Laqueur would say, " a n d open to misinterpretation. T h e order should be so and so." After the several resolutions had been passed, the secretary had before him both the original motion and what Laqueur calls the additions. Assuming t h a t the secretary decided to insert the additions in the original motion, he probably had the privilege of inserting them where he pleased. Laqueur has not explained just what genius of illogicality persuaded the secretary to insert them deliberately in the wrong place. T h e answer seems to be obvious. T h e secretary did not think that he was inserting them in the wrong place. I n other words, he did not have our sense of logical order. Once t h a t is admitted, the basis of Laqueur's hypothesis vanishes, for it assumes that Athenian legislators and secretaries composed their resolutions in an absolutely logical manner. 1 10. ii", 24 (-paullo ante a. 3 8 7 / 6 B . C . ) 2 is a decree in honor of Archippos and his brother, Hipparchos, both Thasians. T h e beginning of frag, b seems to record the latter part of a motion to grant Archippos and Hipparchos admission to the Boule and the Demos, if they wish anything of the Athenian Demos. In lines 1 0 - 1 2 of frag, b, after the provision for publication, Archippos and Hipparchos are granted admission to the Boule, if they wish anything, the first after the sacrifices. Laqueur cbnsiders the second motion to be an amendment of the first. T h e amendment consists of the addition of the phrase [Trpcb]-rois [uetcx t & iEpa] and the omission of 1 There is evidence which points to the conclusion that even the motions of probouleumata were not systematically arranged before they were introduced into the assembly. The order in which motions stand often appears extemporaneous and unrevised, in general following an orderly scheme, but reverting to points previously mentioned but incompletely defined. Sometimes, perhaps, the probouleuma may be a composite of several motions proposed in the Boule on the subject under discussion, the whole being left Incompletely systematized. The characteristic to which 1 refer is noted by Meritt and West (op. cit, pp. 50-31) in their commentary.on IG. i 2 , 63: " I t is apparent on even a casual reading that the probouleiima was not carefully cfrafted;" This decree (see pp. 464-466) presents a composite of general and specific provisions and recurring topics for which I can see no other explanation than that its author or authors did not fecl'the need of making the decree conform to a thoroughly systematic arrangement. 2 Laqueur, p. 102.

474

A. B I L L H E I M E R

KCD TOV Sfjuov. The amendment was incorporated by the secretary in the original motion and the abrogated motion was retained. If Laqueur is correct, the effect of the amendment of the Demos was to increase the honor in the case of the Boule by giving the Thasians preferential consideration before that body, and, on the other hand, to remove entirely the privilege of admission to its own body. Such a procedure would have been curiously inconsistent. I have already shown that the position of a motion after the provision for publication is not proof of an amendment. The simplest explanation of this case is that the mover wished to give the Thasians preferential hearing in the Boule and repeated the necessary words, adding the phrase -rrpcoTois U E T & TCX ispct. The privilege of admission to the Demos was unaffected. Laqueur cites a similar instance in IG. ii2, 107 (368/7 B . C . ) , in which, however, the amendment retains its formal character. In lines 24-26, after the provision for publication, the Athenian ambassadors to Mytilene are praised and invited to the prytaneum. In a formal amendment moved by Autolykos similar honors are voted to the Athenian ambassadors to Lesbos and their names are given (11. 31-34). Laqueur regards the amendment as a substitute for the earlier motion, which was retained although obsolete. Assuming that the phrases si? Mv-nAr|vr|v (1. 25) and si? Aeaa^ov (1. 32) are interchangeable, the amendment has for its purpose merely the recital of the names of the three ambassadors. Such an amendment is, of course, possible, for in Athenian practice, as in modern, an amendment may affect the meaning of the main motion. That does not prove, however, the existence of the practice of incorporation in the main motion. A more natural interpretation of the relation of these two motions is to regard the former as a definitive action of the Boule, and the latter as a second, independent invitation introduced by Autolykos in the ecclesia. IG. ii2, 687 (267/6 B.C.)1 presents the case2 of a repeated provision for publication.3 A motion to enter into alliance with the Lacedaemonians and their allies (11. 35-42) is followed by a resolution to publish the agreement on a bronze stele and to place it on the Acropolis near the temple of Athena Polias (11. 42-44). Then follow motions concerning the administering of the oaths, the election of auveSpoi,4 provision for their traveling expenses, and honors paid to various foreign—mainly Lacedaemonian—magistrates and representatives, and after that an order to publish this decree and the agreement upon a stone stele and to place it on the Acropolis (11. 64-68). The present inscription represents the fulfillment of the second order of publication. There is no evidence to show that the first order was ever executed. Laqueur believes that the second order was passed as an amendment to supplant Meritt, llesperia iv, 1935, p. 584. Laqueur, pp. 108-109. For the complete text and references by line, after line 45, see Ditt., SI6.s 434/5. 1 The order to publish the agreement (11. 95-97) does not come into consideration as it is found in the agreement itself and is a direction to all the cities who take the oath. 4 The reference in lines 68-69 to the result of the election of auvsSpoi, ordered in lines 48-49, is not the incorporation of a subsequent action, but merely a statement, admittedly appended to the minutes, of the result of the action ordered and subsequently carried out. The secretary makes the relation clear. 1

2

AMENDMENTS IN ATHENIAN DECREES

475

the former, but was published in the original motion without formal indication of its character, and that the agreement was never published upon a bronze stele near the temple of Athena Polias. He gives as his reasons: 1) that, where a double publication is ordered, the motion is contained in one clause 1 ; 2) that he can cite no other instance of a double publication ordered "on the Acropolis" and "near the temple of Athena Polias"; 3) that such a double publication would be purposeless, because the stelae would be so near to each other. In reply to the first point it may be said that the two orders of publication do not apply to the same text, the first covering the agreement submitted to the various states for adoption, the second including the first and the resolution of adoption, i.e., the present decree. Since the agreement which was adopted directed the states to publish it on stelae EV tepcoi (1. 96), I can see no reason to deny that this may have been done. IG. ii 2 , 448 2 contains two decrees. The first is the republication of a resolution passed in Posideon, 323 B.C., in honor of Euphron of Sicyon. When the oligarchs secured control of Athens in the autumn of 322 B.C., they rescinded the honors paid by the democracy to Euphron and tore down the original stele on which they were recorded. Upon the restoration of the democracy in the spring of 318 B.C. a resolution was passed reaffirming the honors originally voted to Euphron and his descendants. This resolution is the second decree on the stone. The usual interpretation of the events involved is as follows, taking the statements in their natural order. At the time of the beginning of the Hellenic (Lamian) war Euphron was in exile. Returning to Sicyon he drove out the enemy's garrison, brought his city into alliance with Athens and personally conveyed the news to Athens. In return Athens conferred citizenship upon him and his descendants in Posideon, 323 B.C. During the war he continued to aid the Demos with soldiers and in other ways. When finally the revolt failed and foreign garrisons took possession of the cities, Euphron resisted and was killed (autumn, 322 B . C . ) . The oligarchs secured control of Athens, rescinded the honors paid to Euphron in 323 B.C., and tore down the stele on which the original decree had been published. In 318 B.C. the democrats again secured control, and late in the year a decree was passed reaffirming the honors voted to Euphron and his descendants in 323 B.C. and ordering the publication of this decree and the republication of the decree of 323 B.C. Laqueur believes that the order in which these events have been presented is not the true chronological order of their occurrence. Euphron, he says, was still alive late in 318 B.C., when the bill for the restoration of his honors was introduced. Before the bill was passed, however, Euphron was killed in the Peloponnesus. His friends and relatives brought the news to Athens and requested that the Athenians assume the guardianship of Euphron's son. Upon the receipt of this news and this request additional motions were added, one, the statement of Euphron's patriotic deeds after his return from exile, ending with the reference to his honorable death (11. 45-56), another, the direction to the friends and relatives of Euphron to assist in the publication of the decrees, and provision for the care of Euphron's son (11. 72-84). The following evidences of interpolation are found by Laqueur. The clause 1

Cf. IG. ii», 448, 11. 26-28.

a Laqueur, pp. 124-126.

476

A.

BILLHEIMER

introduced by [sireiSri] (1. 40) has for its subject [Eu