Hansen ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 2016 Mogens Herman Hansen Is Teisamenos’ Decree (Andoc. 1.83–84) a Genuine Document? Mogens Herman Hansen N HIS SPEECH On the Mysteries 81–85 Andokides describes the revision and republication of Athenian laws which took place in the period 403–399 in connection with the restora- tion of the democracy after the civil war between oligarchs and democrats. In corroboration of his account he has the principal decree about the matter read out to the jurors, and in the manuscripts of the speech the decree is inserted as a document (83–84). Is this decree a genuine document as most scholars believed until recently,1 viz. a copy of the decree which was read out to the jurors at the trial in 400? or is it a later forgery as Mirko Canevaro and Edward Harris have argued?2 Their basic view is that “if the inserted document is authentic, its contents should not contradict the trustworthy information provided by Andocides. On the other hand, any differences be- tween the reliable statements in Andocides’ narrative and the 1 D. M. MacDowell, Andokides. On the Mysteries (Oxford 1962); A. Finga- rette, “A New Look at the Wall of Nikomakhos,” Hesperia 40 (1971) 330– 335; K. Clinton, ”The Nature of the Late Fifth-Century Revision of the Athenian Law Code,” Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 27–37; M. H. Hansen, ”Diokles’ Law (Dem. 24.42) and the Revision of the Athenian Corpus of Laws in the Archonship of Eukleides,” ClMed 41 (1990) 63–71; N. Robert- son, ”The Laws of Athens. 410–399 BC: The Evidence for Review and Publication,” JHS 110 (1990) 43–75; P. J. Rhodes, ”The Athenian Code of Laws, 410–399 B.C.,” JHS 111 (1991) 87–100; J. L. Shear, Polis and Revo- lution. Responding to Oligarchy in Classical Athens (Cambridge 2011) 91–96, 239– 247. 2 M. Canevaro and E. M.Harris, ”The Documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries,” CQ 62 (2012) 98–129, at 110–116. I MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 35 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 inserted document should be considered reasons to question the latter’s authenticity.”3 Now, Canevaro and Harris (110) provide the following para- phrase of Andokides’ narrative in 82: “After members of the new council were selected by lot and nomothetai elected by the Assembly (εἵλεσθε), it was voted to examine the laws of Draco and Solon and submit them to the Assembly for approval.” But that is not quite what Andokides says: ἐπειδὴ δὲ βουλήν τε ἀπεκληρώσατε νοµοθέτας τε εἵλεσθε, εὕ- ρισκον τῶν νόµων τῶν τε Σόλωνος καὶ τῶν Δράκοντος πολλοὺς ὄντας οἷς πολλοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν τῶν πρότερον ἕνεκα γενοµένων. ἐκκλησίαν ποιήσαντες ἐβουλεύσασθε περὶ αὐτῶν, καἰ ἐψηφίσασθε, δοκιµάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόµους, εἶτ’ ἀνα- γράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τούτους τῶν νόµων οἳ ἂν δοκιµασθῶσι. καί µοι ἀνάγνωθι τὸ ψήφισµα. Throughout the passage the verbs are in the second person plural: you had the council selected by lot; you elected the nomothetai; having summoned a meeting of the Assembly you decreed after an examination of all the laws to publish in the stoa all the laws that had been approved. Who are the persons to whom Andokides refers? Strictly speaking he addresses the jurors, who in forensic speeches are sometimes called (ἄνδρες) Ἀθηναῖοι, sometimes (ἄνδρες) δικασταί, and sometimes just ἄνδρες.4 Mostly the reference is to the jurors whom the speaker addresses; but sometimes the speaker treats his audience as if they were identical with the jurors who had heard an earlier trial,5 or with the citizens in an earlier meeting of the As- 3 Canevaro and Harris 110. Robertson, JHS 110 (1990), takes the op- posite view: “Andocides … patently distorts the documents which he quotes (45); “it is astonishing that much of Andocides’ blague has been credited by scholars” (62). For a modified version of this view see Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 97: “Probably, as MacDowell suggests, we should rely more on the text of his [Teisamenos’] decree than on Andocides’ commentary on it.” 4 S. C. Todd, A Commentary on Lysias. Speeches 1–11 (Oxford 2007) 88; W. Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge 1904 ) 229. 5 Isae. 4.28, 5.37; Dem. 23.167. 36 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 sembly,6 or with the nomothetai who had passed a law,7 or with the members of the boule, cf. that Andokides earlier in the speech reminds the jurors of an eisangelia they had heard in the boule.8 Now, the logical subject of βουλὴν ἀπεκληρώσατε is probably the Athenian citizens in their demes and the thesmo- thetai who were in charge of the central sortition.9 The subject of νοµοθέτας εἵλεσθε may be the Assembly, i.e. the demos,10 but not necessarily. It may alternatively be the new boule whose members had been selected by lot. The persons who sum- moned the Assembly must be the prytaneis (Ath.Pol. 43.3). The people in Assembly vote to have all laws examined and to have those that were approved published in the stoa. It is not clear from Andokides’ account to whom and by whom the inspec- tion of the laws was entrusted and by whom they would be ap- proved and published. The logical subject of ἀναγράψαι must be a board of officials, in this case probably the ἀναγραφεῖς τῶν νόµων,11 not the demos, and similarly the logical subject of δοκιµάσαντες does not have to be the demos,12 it may be the boule in cooperation with the nomothetai.13 6 Dem. 18.83, 19.23, 23.167, 24.25, etc.; see M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia (Copenhagen 1983) 147–148 and 167 with n.24. 7 Dem. 20.94, 42,18; Isae 4.17; Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia 167 with n.23. 8 Andoc. 1.37: εἰσαγγέλλει Διοκλείδης εἰς τὴν βουλὴν … καὶ τούτοις, ὦ ἄνδρες, δέοµαι ὑµῶν προσέχοντας τὸν νοῦν ἀναµιµνήσκεσθαι, ἐὰν ἀληθῆ λέγω, καὶ διδάσκειν ἀλλήλους, ἐν ὑµῖν γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ λόγοι, καί µοι ὑµεῖς τούτων µάρτυρές ἐστε. 9 Dem. 39.10; Aeschin. 3.13. 10 Assumed by Canevaro and Harris 110, 113, 114. 11 Lys. 30.4; cf. P. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 441. 12 Canevaro and Harris 112–113 refer to Andokides’ “statement that the Assembly examined the laws (δοκιµάσαντες) and then had those which were approved inscribed and placed in the Stoa”; see also 111. 13 As prescribed in Teisamenos’ decree, 84: τοὺς δὲ παραδιδοµένους νόµους δοκιµασάτω πρότερον ἡ βουλὴ καὶ οἱ νοµοθέται οἱ πεντακόσιοι, οὓς οἱ δηµόται εἵλοντο (see 46 below). MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 37 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 In addition to Andokides’ narrative there are two other sources for the revision of the Athenian laws which Canevaro and Harris are willing to trust: the republication in 409/8 by the anagrapheis ton nomon of Drakon’s law on homicide (IG I3 104) and Lysias’ speech against Nikomachos, one of the ana- grapheis ton nomon (Lys. 30). The introduction to the republication of Drakon’s law reads as follows (4–8): τὸ[ν] Δράκοντος νόµον τὸµ περὶ το φό[ν]ο ἀναγρα[φ]σά[ν]τον οἱ ἀναγραφες͂ τον͂ νόµον παραλαβόντες παρὰ το ͂ β[α]σ[ι]λέ[ος µε]τ[ὰ το ͂ γραµµ]ατέος τες͂ βουλες͂ ἐστέλει λιθίνει καὶ κα[τ]α- [θ]έντ[ον πρόσ]θε[ν] τες͂ στοᾶς τες͂ βασιλείας. According to Canevaro and Harris (112) “the inscription re- veals that the anagrapheis had the laws inscribed on stelae and placed in front of the stoa only on the orders of the Assembly, which indicates that they approved the text to be inscribed.” That the Assembly ordered the republication is explicitly stated, but that the Assembly had “approved the text to be in- scribed” is an inference not warranted by the text. The other main source for the examination and republi- cation of the laws is the speech written by Lysias for the prosecutor of Nikomachos. Canevaro and Harris are of course aware of the problem that he is “an advocate who is doing his best to place his opponent’s action in the worst possible light.” But “although many of his statements are clearly slander, several of the details he gives are confirmed by a contemporary inscription (IG I3 104)” (111), and here they repeat their view about the Assembly’s involvement: “as the republication of Draco’s homicide law reveals, each law had to be submitted individually to the Assembly for approval” (112). Next, Canevaro and Harris discuss the document inserted in Andokides’ speech at 83–84 and assert that the document “does not mention any examination of the laws of Draco and Solon but orders that the Athenians use their laws, which they used in the past” (113). The document thus appears to con- tradict (a) Andokides’ account and the information provided by Lysias in Against Nikomachos 2–5, both prescribing a thorough 38 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 inspection of all laws, and (b) the law quoted by Andokides 88– 89 that the laws are to be enforced from the archonship of Eukleides (113). But, Re (a): the document does not prescribe using Drakon’s and Solon’s old laws unchanged. On the con- trary, the main part of the document prescribes a complicated procedure for amending and revising the old laws (see below). Thus it does not contradict Andokides and Lysias. And Re (b): as stated by MacDowell (Andokides 128), τοῖς δὲ νόµοις χρῆσθαι ἀπ’ Εὐκλείδου ἄρχοντος at 1.88 “means that no one is to be prosecuted for an offence against the laws which was com- mitted before 403/2.” I am unable to see how that conflicts with the document’s provision to use the laws of Drakon and Solon, no matter whether they were published in the original or in revised form. Differences between Andokides’ and the document’s ac- counts of the nomothetai constitute another obstacle to the docu- ment’s authenticity. Instead of Andokides’ mention of one set of nomothetai, according to Canevaro and Harris elected by the Assembly, in the document “we encounter two boards of nomo- thetai, one appointed by the Council, another by demesmen. Andocides (1.85) implies that the additional laws were ratified by the Assembly (85 and 86: ἐθέµεθα), but the document does not give the Assembly a role in enacting these laws” (114). According to Andokides’ account (82) the nomothetai served as a commision of inquiry, not as a decision-making board; they were probably intended to propose laws for some larger body to approve. The inserted document states that two different boards of nomothetai had been elected, the members of one board by the boule, the members of the other by the demotai. The first board was a commission of inquiry instructed to find and publish before the eponymoi “what there is still need of” (ὁπόσων δ’ ἂν προσδέῃ). The second was a decision-making board entrusted with examining the bills submitted to them by the other board for inspection and ratification. The first board MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 39 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 was probably a small one,14 the second numbered 500 citizens elected in the 139 demes. It had to cooperate with the Council of Five Hundred; we are not told precisely how. Following MacDowell (Andokides 121) I believe that Andokides’ vague ex- pression at 82 might refer to either board of nomothetai or to both, i.e. the nomothetai elected by the boule and those elected by the demotai. If it refers to just one of the boards it must be the one elected by the boule, which—as stated both by Andokides and in the document—was a commision of inquiry, not a de- cision-making board like the 500 nomothetai elected by the demotai. From the identification of the nomothetai mentioned by Andokides with the first body mentioned in the document, it follows that the second-person plural in νοµοθέτας εἵλεσθε refers to the boule, not to the Assembly as inferred by Canevaro and Harris. As argued above (35–36), the second-person plural in addresses to jurors refers not always to the dikastai hearing the case in question but to the Athenians at large and specifically to a number of different institutions manned with Athenians—not just the demos but also the boule or the nomothetai or the dikastai in former trials. Canevaro and Harris conclude this part of their investigation by stating that “there are thus major differences between Andocides’ account and the contents of the document.” The major discrepances are summed up in three points. First, “Andocides states that the laws of Draco and Solon were to be examined and only those approved by the Assembly were to be inscribed, which implies that some might be re- jected. The document omits this process and asserts that the laws of Draco and Solon, which the Athenians followed in the past, are to be in force” (114). Yes, but not unchanged. The decree prescribes that whatever things there still is need of (ὁπόσων δ’ ἂν προσδέῃ) will have to be investigated by the boule and the nomothetai elected by the boule and announced publicly 14 According to Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 98, these nomothetai were ap- pointed by and probably from the boule. 40 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 on tablets set up before the eponymoi. Then these proposals will be examined by the boule and a panel of 500 nomothetai elected by the demes. Furthermore any citizen may give the boule ad- vice about the laws. After that they will be handed over to the magistrates (tais archais) in the course of this month, and be in- scribed on the wall where they were inscribed previously. The phrase ὁπόσων δ’ ἂν προσδέῃ is often taken to denote only additions to the laws of Drakon and Solon, and not re- visions.15 But the idiom means “what there is still need of” (LSJ s.v. I.2) and can cover corrigenda as well as addenda. Further- more, any citizen is invited to advice the boule about the laws, apparently all laws and not just the published proposals.16 If only addenda in the strict sense are investigated and published they cannot be inscribed where they had been inscribed be- fore.17 The inference is that any law to which an addendum had been made would have to be published in its entirety: “the implication by the end of the decree is that the whole body of this law is to get a thorough scrutiny; in other words, though some sections of this body will remain unchanged, the sort of addition that is contemplated will often require fundamental revision, and the entire body of the law (Draconian and Solonian), newly approved, is to be reinscribed.”18 On this interpretation there is no discrepancy between Teisamenos’ de- cree and Andokides’ account. In discussions of the relationship between Teisamenos’ de- cree and Andokides’ account of it, there is an important aspect which is often forgotten and is not taken sufficiently into ac- count by Canevaro and Harris: Teisamenos’ decree prescribes the procedures to be applied in connection with the revision and republication of Athenian laws. Three years later Andoki- 15 Canevaro and Harris 113, 114; MacDowell, Andokides 195. 16 Emphasised by MacDowell, Andokides 196. 17 Andoc. 1.84: τοὺς δὲ κυρουµένους τῶν νόµων ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖ- χον, ἵνα περ πρότερον ἀνεγράφησαν, σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλοµένῳ. 18 Clinton, Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 31–32. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 41 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 des describes the procedures as actually employed. Differences between the document and Andokides’ account may be due to modifications or unexpected effects of what Teisamenos had prescribed. The provision, for example, that every citizen could advise the boule about the laws may have resulted in many more investigations of individual laws than was originally expected and have led to the unforeseen examination of perhaps the en- tire corpus of laws. Publication of the laws under revision is another feature that reveals the obvious difference between the prospective ap- proach in Teisamenos’ decree and the restrospective view in Andokides’ description. The last provision of the decree is τοὺς δὲ κυρουµένους τῶν νόµων ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖχον, ἵνα περ πρότερον ἀνεγράφησαν, σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλοµένῳ. Andokides’ description is τοὺς δὲ κυρωθέντας ἀνέγραψαν εἰς τὴν στοάν. The present infinitive ἀναγράφειν19 and the present participle κυρουµένους in the decree combined with the idiom σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλοµένῳ20 indicate that the legislative process is still in progress; the aorists κυρωθέντας and ἀνέγραψαν in Andokides’ account refer to the final publication.21 So Teisamenos in the document and Andokides in his account refer to different pub- 19 For a once and for all publication of something the proper form is the aorist ἀναγράψαι, whereas the present ἀναγράφειν is sometimes used about temporary and/or continuous publication, see e.g. IG II2 43.70, 1298.13, 1560a5; Lycurg. 1.117. 20 That σκοπεῖν τῷ βουλοµένῳ denotes temporary publication is argued at length by C. W. Hedrick Jr., ”For anyone who wishes to see,” Ancient World 31 (2000) 127–135. In addition to Andoc. 1.83 and 84 the relevant examples are IG I3 60.31, 133.9–11, 1453G.15–17; II2 487.4–10; Dem. 24.18. 21 Suggested by Thompson apud Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 99, and Com- mentary 134–135; argued by Robertson, JHS 110 (1990) 46–52; followed by Rhodes, JHS 97–99. Robertson’s translation of the passage is: “Those of the laws that are being approved shall be written up on the wall, just where they were written up before, for anyone to see who wishes.” Shear (Polis and Revo- lution 91), however, like Canevaro and Harris, upholds the view that the document in 84 and Andokides in 85 refer to the same publication. 42 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 lications: Teisamenos to a preliminary publication on the wall (τοῖχος) of the laws as they are being approved, Andokides to the final publication of the corpus of laws in the Stoa Basileios. Is the toichos a wall of the Stoa Basileios? Perhaps, but we do not know for sure, and the issue is of no consequence for the problem whether the document is genuine or a forgery (see be- low). Second, “Andocides says that the Assembly elected nomothetai, who appear to have made proposals for new laws, which were ratified by the Assembly. The document mentions two boards of nomothetai but neither is elected by the Assembly, and the laws proposed and examined by these two boards are not sub- mitted to the Assembly for approval.”22 It is correct that there is no reference to the Assembly in the document. But neither is there explicit reference to the Assembly in Andokides. That the nomothetai were elected by the Assembly, and that the laws after inspection had to be approved by the Assembly, are inferences made by Canevaro and Harris. Following MacDowell (Andokides 121) I believe that Andoki- des’ vague expression at 82 might refer to either board of nomo- thetai or to both, i.e. those elected by the boule and those elected by the demotai. If it refers to just one of the boards it must be the board of nomothetai elected by the boule, which—as stated both by Andokides and in the document—was a commision of in- quiry that had to find and/or to propose laws; it was not a decision-making board. This is in my opinion the preferable interpretation, which implies that the nomothetai elected in the demes are passed over in silence in Andokides’ account of the procedure. Why? An explanation is offered by Canevaro and Harris: “The second procedure was an examination of the laws of Draco and Solon (δοκιµάσαντες). Andocides states that this examination was necessary because several citizens were liable under these laws because of previous events. This explanation is tendentious: Andocides is attempting to give the impression 22 Canevaro and Harris 114. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 43 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 that there was a complete break with past laws because he wants to convince the court that the decree of Isotimides, which barred him from temples of Attica and from the Athenian Agora, was no longer in effect (Andoc. 1.71).”23 Even assuming that the investigation conducted by the boule and the 500 nomothetai involved much more than some addenda, it was still less radical than the revision of the laws described by An- dokides: ἐψηφίσαθε, δοκιµάσαντες πάντας τοὺς νόµους, εἶτ’ ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ τούτους τῶν νόµων οἱ ἂν δοκιµασθῶσι. Therefore Andokides’ focus is on the first board of nomothetai who apparently during their investigation had found24 that many citizens would be liable to punishment if the old laws were ratified without change and therefore they must be amended to avoid conflict with the general amnesty issued in 403 and repeated in 401. Such an explanation is plausible, but it is premised on the assumption that in this case Andokides gives a “tendentious” account, whereas Canevaro and Harris throughout the article base their interpretation on the view that Andokides’ account is reliable and can be trusted.25 Third, “Andocides twice mentions publication of the ap- proved laws of Draco and Solon in the stoa basileios” (114). To be precise, he refers without any specification to “the stoa,” which by almost all scholars is identified as the Stoa Basileios.26 23 Canevaro and Harris 111. For a similar interpretation see Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 97: “There is no indication in Andocides that any work on the laws had been done earlier than 403/2, but it suits his own case to stress the completeness of Athens’ fresh start in that year.” The “fresh start” is noted approvingly by Canevaro and Harris at 111 n.73. 24 At 82 the nomothetai are the subject of εὕρισκον, unless one prefers Reiske’s emendation (Budé edition) εὑρίσκοντες (MacDowell, Andokides 121); but, as an alternative, Reiske also suggests οὗτοι δὲ εὕρισκον. 25 Canevaro and Harris 110: “the trustworthy information provided by Andocides” … “the reliable statements in Andocides’ narrative”; 112: “Andocides’ account … which is cursory but not inaccurate”; 113: “there is no reason to doubt Andocides on this point”; 115: “Andocides says … and this is confirmed...” 26 MacDowell, Andokides 121, 198 (writing before the discovery of the Stoa 44 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 But the two references are not identical: in 82 he uses the idiom ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ, in 85 ἀναγράψαι εἰς τὴν στοάν – “The inserted document omits this procedure, but says that the new laws are to be inscribed on a wall”27—the Greek is ἀναγράφειν εἰς τὸν τοῖχον. Thus there are two differences to discuss: (1) the difference between ἀναγράψαι ἐν and εἰς and (2) the difference between στοά and τοῖχος. (1) The idiom ἀναγράψαι ἐν has two different meanings: to inscribe and to publish; the idiom ἀνα- γράψαι εἰς has only one: to inscribe. See e.g. IG II2 44.15–16: [ἀν]αγράψαι ἐστήληι λιθί[νη]ι κ[αὶ στ]ῆσα[ι Ἀθή]νησι µὲν ἐν ἀκροπόλ[ει] (inscribe); 79.14–16: ἀ[ναγρα]ψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψή- φισµα [τὸν γρα]µµατέα τῆ[ς] βουλῆς ἐν [ἀκροπόλ]ει (publish); IG I3 84.23–25: τὸν δὲ µισθοσάµενον τὸ τέµενος καὶ ὁπόσο ἂν µισθόσεται ἀντενγραφσάτο ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐς τὸν τοῖχον (inscribe); Lycurg. 1.117–118: ποιήσαντες στήλην ἐψηφίσαντο εἰς ταύτην ἀναγράφειν τοὺς ἀλιτηρίους καὶ τοὺς προδότας (inscribe). (2) To publish the laws ἐν τῇ στοᾷ is compatible with the view that the laws were published on stelai placed in the stoa.28 To in- scribe the laws εἰς τὴν στοάν suggests that they were published on a wall of the stoa, either directly on the wall or on a series of joining stelai placed against the wall of the stoa.29 At 82 An- dokides says that the Athenians decreed to publish in the stoa the laws that had been approved. At 85 he says that they in- scribed the approved laws on the stoa. Now, we have preserved thirteen fragments inscribed on stelai with what is probably parts of the sacred calendar col- lected and published by Nikomachos and the other anagrapheis ___ Basileios in 1970); Fingarette, Hesperia 40 (1971) 335 n.22; Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 91; S. Lambert, ”The Sacrificial Calendar of Athens,” BSA 97 (2002) 353–399, at 356; Shear, Polis and Revolution 92. Robertson, however, JHS 110 (1990) 64–65, prefers the South Stoa. 27 Canevaro and Harris 114. 28 Canevaro and Harris 116: “All the epigraphic fragments assigned to the republication of the laws are inscribed on stelae, not a wall.” 29 Robertson, JHS 110 (1990) 44; Shear, Polis and Revolution 244. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 45 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 ton nomon in the years 403/2–400/399.30 These fragments reveal that “the calendar was not, as was usual, inscribed on individual, self-standing stelai, but on series of stelai joined by clamps in the top.”31 The stelai are opisthographic and the original text on the principal side (Face A) had been erased, after which the stelai were reinscribed with Nikomachos’ calen- dar. “The inscriptions may have been re-erected such that Face B was no longer seen (e.g. backing against a wall).”32 The ap- parent discrepancy in Andokides’ account between ἐν τῇ στοᾷ and εἰς τὴν στοάν disappears when we take into account that the laws were inscribed on stelai that formed a wall and were placed against a wall of the stoa. The more serious problem is that the Stoa Basileios was too small to accommodate all the Athenian secular and sacred laws together, no matter whether in their final form they were published on stelai in the stoa or on the wall of the stoa.33 This is a problem raised by Andoki- des’ account and has no bearing on the issue of whether the document is genuine or a late forgery. After their comparative study of Andokides’ account of the revision of the laws in 403 and the decree inserted in the speech, Canevaro and Harris (115–116) raise six specific ob- jections which in their opinion prove that the decree allegedly proposed and carried by Teisamenos and read out to the jurors is a forged document inserted into the text long after the initial 30 Fingarette, Hesperia 40 (1971) 330–335; Lambert, BSA 97 (2002) 355. Cf. Lysias 30.21: ἐπειδὰν (τὰ πάτρια θύεται) κατὰ τὰς στήλας ἃς οὗτος (Νικόµαχος) ἀνέγραψε... 31 Lambert, BSA 97 (2002) 355; cf. Robertson, JHS 110 (1990) 44; Shear, Polis and Revolution 242. 32 Lambert, BSA 97 (2002) 355; cf. Shear, Polis and Revolution 244. 33 Clinton, Hesperia Suppl. 19 (1982) 32–33; Rhodes, JHS 111 (1991) 90. According to Shear, Polis and Revolution 245, “in 399, at the end of the project of recollecting and restoring the laws, accordingly, the little Stoa Basileios contained vast amounts of inscribed text: great stelai with the texts of the laws stood once again between the columns of the two annexes, while the sacrificial calendar now covered the back wall of the building.” 46 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 publication of the speech: (1) The document lacks a normal prescript. (2) In decrees and laws of the Classical period there is no parallel to the use of the first-person plural form: ἐχρώµεθα. (3) The term δηµόται never occurs in decrees of the Council and Assembly. (4) The normal expression in instructions for magistrates to act immediately is αὐτίκα µάλα and the expres- sion ἐν τῷδε τῷ µηνί is unparalleled. (5) In the phrase νόµοις δὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς Σόλωνος καὶ µέτροις καὶ σταθµοῖς the reference to µέτρα and σταθµά is nonsense, since the examination con- cerned only the laws of Drakon and Solon, not Solon’s reform of measures and weights. (6) The revised laws were inscribed on stelae and placed in the Stoa (Basileios)—they were not in- scribed on a wall. Re (1). Published decrees have normal prescripts, but when a decree is quoted in another document, the prescript is typically cut down to, e.g., the name of the proposer, cf. IG II3 370.170: Kηφισοφῶν Λυσιφῶντος Χολαργεὺς εἶπεν. Re (2). It is true that—apart from oaths—when the Athen- ians refer to themselves in a decree they do not use the first but the third person plural, cf. e.g. IG I3 127.24: [ἐὰ]ν δὲ πρεσβείαν ποι πέµπωσιν Ἀθηναῖοι, συµπέµπεν καὶ τὸς ἐξάµο παρόντας and II2 1.48: ἐπαινοσ͂ι δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι Ἐφεσίος καὶ Νοτιᾶς. But in such decrees the Athenians are mentioned alongside citizens from other poleis. In my opinion the use of the first person plural is unobjectionable in the decree which the Athenians passed in 403 about the revision of their own laws without any reference to citizens of other poleis. Re (3). The term demotai is frequently attested in dedications and decrees of the demes,34 not in laws and decrees passed by the polis. But the election in the 139 demes of 500 nomothetai may have been the only occasion on which the members of the demes were asked to elect representatives to a legislative com- mittee at polis level. So in this case the term demotai is in place and it is no wonder that it is the only attestation we know of. 34 See Appendix 1 in Canevaro and Harris 126. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 47 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 Re (4). αὐτίκα µάλα is indeed the proper phrase indicating immediate action.35 But ἐν τῷδε τῷ µηνί in Teisamenos’ decree is not an instruction to act immediately but to act within a specified period of time. For a parallel see IG I3 41.90–91: ἐσαγόντων τὲν δίκε]ν τοῖ αὐτοῖ µηνὶ οἱ ναυτοδ[ίκαι], and for similar idioms 105.39: ἐντὸς τριάκοντα ἑµερο͂ν, cf. 46.32, 47b.7–8, 96.10. Re (5). I do not think it was nonsense to mention Solon’s re- form of measures and weights in connection with the revision of the laws. It was not only Solon’s laws that were a key issue in 403. Measures and weights were a problem too. The Athenians believed—erroneously—that their silver currency went back to the period before Solon but was reformed by Solon (Ath.Pol. 10). During the final years of the Peloponnesian War the Athenians had stopped minting silver. In 407/6 they issued some gold coins. For daily purposes some bronze tetradrachms were all the mint could provide. In 403 they must have dis- cussed what to do. A law about resuming the minting of silver may have been discussed. In the end nothing happened and silver coinage was not resumed until 393,36 probably in connec- tion with a reopening of the Laurion mines. Re (6). Andokides is not consistent in referring to the stoa. In 82 his account of how the laws were inscribed is ἀναγράψαι ἐν τῇ στοᾷ, but in 85 it is ἀναγράψαι εἰς τὴν στοάν. The idiom ἀναγράψαι ἐν is compatible with having the laws inscribed on stelai and placed in the stoa, cf. ἀναγράψαι ἐν ἀκροπόλει, but ἀναγράψαι εἰς suggests inscribing on the stoa. It suggests having the laws inscribed on the wall of the Stoa Basileios. We do not know whether this wall was identical with the τοῖχος used previously for the preliminary publication of laws under revision, prescribed in Teisamenos’ decree, but as stated before 35 παραχρῆµα is an alternative, see M. Canevaro, The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus (Oxford 2013) 126. 36 C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London 1976) 56, 331. 48 IS TEISAMENOS’ DECREE A GENUINE DOCUMENT? ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 34–48 (45) that has no bearing on the issue of whether the document in 1.83–84 is genuine or a late forgery. As the evidence stands there is no compelling reason to doubt that the document inserted in Andoc. 1.83–84 is gen- uine. It was probably inserted in the version of the speech published after the trial and is not a forgery.37 December, 2015 SAXO–instituttet Karen Blixensvej 4 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark mhh@hum.ku.dk 37 I would like to thank Edwin Carawan and Peter Rhodes for valuable suggestions.