Hansen ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 2017 Mogens Herman Hansen Nomos ep’ andri in Fourth-Century Athens: On the Law Quoted at Andocides 1.87 Mogens Herman Hansen N CONNECTION with the restoration of the democracy in 403/2 B.C. the Athenians introduced a distinction between laws (nomoi) and decrees (psephismata).1 In the fifth century an enactment could be called both a nomos (when the emphasis was on its content) and a psephisma (when it was the passing of the enactment by the people that mattered).2 From now on a nomos had to be a general rule binding on all Athenians for an indefinite period of time and no law may apply to one or more named persons only. A psephisma, on the other hand, was an enactment specific in scope and/or of limited duration. In fourth-century Athens psephismata were passed by the Assembly (demos) and the Council (boule) as they had been in the fifth century, whereas nomoi had to be passed by a special board of legislators (nomothetai).3 But foreign affairs were still debated and decided by the demos, and all treaties, even peace treaties claim- ing to be forever, were passed by the Assembly as psephismata.4 1 References to my own work are to “Nomos and Psephisma in Fourth- Century Athens,” The Athenian Ecclesia (Copenhagen 1983) 161–176 = GRBS 19 (1978) 315–330); ”Did the Athenian Ecclesia Legislate after 403/2?” The Athenian Ecclesia 179–205 = GRBS 20 (1979) 27–53; The Athenian Assembly (Oxford 1987); The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1991). 2 Hansen (1983) 162–163, (1991) 161–162. 3 Hansen (1983) 179 with n.2, where I opposed what was then the or- thodox view, viz. that the Athenians in the fourth century whenever it was possible continued to express their will in psephismata. See also Hansen (1991) 170–174. 4 Hansen (1983) 183–184. I MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 269 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 We do not know exactly when the reform took place. During 403/2 immediately after the restoration of the democracy some general permanent rules were still passed by the demos in ek- klesia,5 but part of the law about the reform is read out to the jurors in Andokides’ On the Mysteries at 87 and then discussed by Andokides at 89. The law reads: ψήφισµα δὲ µηδὲν µήτε βουλῆς µήτε δήµου νόµου κυριώτερον εἶναι. µηδὲ ἐπ’ ἀνδρὶ νόµον ἐξεῖναι θεῖναι ἐὰν µὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις, ἐὰν µὴ6 ἑξακισχιλίοις δόξῃ κρύβδην ψηφιζοµένοις. Andoki- des’ own version of the law at 89 is slightly different; three words are missing and have been supplemented by editors on the basis of the text of the document at 87. Furthermore, the last clause is left out, and has recently been rejected as a late forgery by Canevaro and Harris:7 ψήφισµα δὲ <µηδὲν> µήτε βουλῆς µήτε δήµου <νόµου> κυριώτερον εἶναι, µηδ’ ἐπ’ ἀνδρὶ νόµον <ἐξεῖναι> τιθέναι, ἐὰν µὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθη- ναίοις. Andokides’ speech was delivered in 400/399,8 and down to 322/1, when the democracy was abolished, examples of gen- eral norms passed in the form of psephismata are extremely rare, and the few that are attested were passed during the wars against Philip of Macedon, one in 347/6 and four in 340–338, when the Athenians may have been obliged to pass some laws as decrees because the ordinary legislative procedure by nomo- thesia was more protracted than a psephisma and, in a crisis, would have been too time-consuming.9 Furthermore, they are 5 Hansen (1983) 165–167. 6 For ἐὰν µή in two consecutive conditional clauses see Isae. 6.9. 7 M. Canevaro and E. M. Harris, “The Documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries,” CQ 62 (2012) 98–129 (hereafter ‘Canevaro and Harris’), at 119; M. Canevaro, The Documents in the Attic Orators. Laws and Decrees in the Public Speeches of the Demosthenic Corpus (Oxford 2013, hereafter ‘Canevaro’) 149– 150. 8 Delivered in Boedromion 400: D. M. MacDowell, Andokides On the Mysteries (Oxford 1962) 204–205 . 9 Hansen (1983) 189–191, (1991) 173. 270 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 related to foreign affairs which as before were within the sphere of authority of the ekklesia and regulated by psephismata. So apart from the few attested examples of emergency measures, both the inscriptions and the literary evidence show that in fourth-century Athens general permanent rules were passed as nomoi by the nomothetai and not as psephismata by the demos. But are there examples of the reverse phenomenon: that norms related to individual matters and/or to named indi- viduals sometimes were submitted to the nomothetai ? Among the fourth-century psephismata preserved on stone there are three examples of honorary decrees for individuals passed by the Assembly but afterwards submitted to the nomothetai who had to approve the money required to pay for the honours. The three are IG II3 327, 452, and 355. IG II3 327 is a stele inscribed with three honorary decrees, all for Phyleus son of Pausanias of Oion, who had been secretary of the boule and the demos in the archonship of Pythodelos (336/5). The first is a decree of the boule moved by Agasias and passed on the second day of the ninth prytany of 336/5 (lines 29–31). The boule votes to honour Phyleus with a golden crown worth 1000 drachmas, when he has passed his euthynai (32–42). Next, in order that further honours for Phyleus can be bestowed by the demos, the boule passes a probouleuma instructing the proedroi presiding over the next ekklesia to place his case on the agenda of the meeting (42–46). The second is a probouleumatic decree of the demos moved by Hippochares and passed on the thirty-seventh day of the tenth prytany of 336/5 (47–49). The demos confirms the honours bestowed on Phyleus by the boule as well as further honours bestowed on two other magistrates (archai) who in some way have been Phyleus’ colleagues. Like Phyleus, they are each10 awarded a golden crown worth 1000 drachmas (49– 65). 10 At 61 Tsountas’ conjecture ἀµφοτέρους makes sense. It fills the lacuna to perfection, but the attested idiom in other decrees is ἕκαστον αὐτῶν (IG II3 416.21) or ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν (304.7) . MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 271 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 The third is a decree of the demos passed on the seventeenth day of, probably, the third prytany of 335/4 (1–4). The demos confirms the honours bestowed on Phyleus (4–15). The tamias tou demou is instructed to lay out the money for the golden crown, to be taken from the annual allowance assigned to the demos (ἐκ τῶν εἰς τὰ κατὰ ψηφίσµατα ἀναλισκοµένων τῶι δήµωι, 15–18). In order that the tamias can recover the outlay, the proedroi of the nomothetai are instructed to submit to the nomo- thetai to pass a supplementary law about the expenditure, so that other secretaries of the boule and the demos may show their zeal to administer in accordance with the laws and be of use to the demos (18–23). Finally, the decree shall be inscribed on a stele together with the two previous decrees: the decree of the boule moved by Agasias and the probouleumatic decree of the demos moved by Hippochares (23–28). The time gap between the three decrees is worth noting. The decree of the boule prescribes that the matter be put on the agenda of the next ekklesia, but the probouleumatic decree is not passed until the last ekklesia of the year. The reason for the delay may have been the proposal to honour Phyleus’ two col- leagues as well. The reason for the gap of several prytanies between the second and third psephismata is undoubtedly that Phyleus had to pass his euthynai, and the audit of the members of the council of five hundred as well as some seven hundred other archai must have been a time-consuming affair. Note that the third decree, like the first, is for Phyleus alone; his two col- leagues have dropped out, but since the third decree prescribes that both the first and the second decree be published, the two colleagues were probably honoured too but in other decrees, now lost. In this context the crucial passage is ὅπως δ’ ἂν ὁ τ[α]µίας ἀπολάβ[ηι τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ εἰρηµένον, τοὺς π]ροέδρους οἳ ἂν λάχωσι[ν προεδρεύειν – – 9 – – τοὺ]ς νοµοθέτας προσνοµοθετῆ- [σαι περὶ τοῦ ἀναλώµατος] (18–20). IG II3 452 is an honorary decree of ca. 334 for Peisitheides son of Peisitheides of Delos. He is awarded hereditary Athenian citizenship to be ratified at the following assembly (ekklesia) (16– 31), and anyone who kills Peisitheides is declared an enemy of 272 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 the Athenians (polemios) (31–35). Peisitheides lives in exile and until he can return to Delos the treasurer of the people (ho tamias tou demou) shall pay him one drachma a day to be taken from the annual appropriation for expenditures on decrees (ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσµατα ἀναλισκοµένων τῶι δήµωι, 35–41). The decree anticipates that Peisitheides’ exile may last several years. The proedroi of the nomothetai and their epistates are instructed to pass an additional law that the apodektai every year shall pay the money to the treasurer of the people (ὁ ταµίας τοῦ δήµου), who then pays Peisitheides every prytany. If the proedroi and their epistates do not put this motion to the vote, each of them shall pay a fine of 1000 drachmas to Athena (39–52): ἐν δὲ τοῖς νοµοθέταις τ[οὺς προέδ]ρους, οἳ ἂν προεδρεύωσιν, [καὶ τὸν ἐ]πιστάτην προσνοµοθετῆ[σαι τὸ ἀρ]γύριον τοῦτο µερίζειν τ[οὺς ἀποδ]έκτας τῶι ταµίαι τοῦ δήµ[ου εἰς τὸ]ν ἐνιαυτὸν ἕκαστον, ὁ δὲ τ[αµίας ἀπ]οδότωι Πεισιθείδει [κατὰ τὴν πρυ- τ]ανείαν ἑκάστην· εἰὰν δὲ µ[ὴ ἐπιψηφ]ίσωσιν οἱ πρόεδροι καὶ ὁ [ἐπιστά]της τῶν νοµοθετῶν, ὀφειλέ[τω ἕκασ]τος αὐτῶν Χ δραχµὰς ἱερὰς [τῆι Ἀθη]νᾶι. This supplementary law is a gen- eral norm in that it is valid for an unknown number of years, but it is a nomos ep’ andri in referring to the recipient by name. It specifies that the money be paid out to the tamias by the year but that the tamias shall pay Peisitheides by the prytany. IG II3 355 is a decree of the demos passed in the third prytany of 329/8 honouring a popularly elected commission of ten citizens who have been in charge of an agonistic festival for Amphiaraos. The names of the commission members are listed and they include Lykourgos of Boutadai and Demades of Pai- ania. The members are awarded a golden crown worth 1000 drachmas, and in addition 100 drachmas for a votive offering probably in connection with setting up the crown in the sanctu- ary of Amphiaraos. The tamias tou demou is instructed to pay out the money for the votive offering. Next it is decreed that in the next session of nomothetai an additional law be passed about re- paying the tamias: στεφανῶσαι αὐτοὺς χρυσῶι στεφάνωι ἀπὸ Χ δραχµῶν̣· δοῦναι δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ εἰς θυσίαν καὶ ἀνάθηµα Η δραχµάς· τὸ δὲ ἀργύριον <τ>ὸ εἰς τὴν θυσίαν προδανεῖσαι τὸν ταµίαν τοῦ δήµου· ἐν δὲ τοῖς πρώτοις νοµοθέταις προσνοµο- MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 273 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 θετῆσαι τῶι ταµ[ί]αι· δοῦναι δὲ καὶ τὰς τριάκοντα δ[ρ]αχµὰς τὸν ταµίαν τοῦ δήµου τοῖς αἱρεθεῖσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα, ἃς εἴρηται διδόναι ἐν τῶι νόµωι τῶι αἱρεθέντι ἐπὶ τὴν εὐταξίαν (34–45). Finally, to have the psephisma published in the sanctu- ary of Amphiaraos the tamias is instructed to pay 30 drachmas to be taken from the fund for publishing decrees of the demos: ΔΔΔ δραχµὰς ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσµατα µεριζοµένων τῶι δήµωι (50–52). As the text stands the bill to be submitted to the nomothetai concerns the 100 drachmas for the sacrifice. But the presumption is that the 1000 drachmas for the golden crown were also payed by the tamias from the appropriation reserved for expenditures on decrees and that he was reimbursed 1000 drachmas too in consequence of the supplementary nomos as stipulated in the other two decrees. The three decrees are alike. In all three cases it is the tamias tou demou who has to pay out the money in question, and he has to take the money from the appropriation reserved for expendi- tures on decrees (ἐκ τῶν κατὰ ψηφίσµατα ἀναλισκοµένων τῶι δήµωι). But he will be reimbursed through the supplementary nomos passed by the nomothetai. One of the decrees states expli- citly that it is the apodektai who every year shall allot (µερίζειν) the money to the tamias (452.44–46); and in another decree the term µεριζοµένων is used instead of ἀναλισκοµένων in refer- ence to the appropriation reserved for expenditure on decrees (355.51). The verb µερίζειν suggests that the apodektai assign the money to the tamias in connection with the annual merismos, for which see the succinct description by Rhodes: “Whereas previ- ously [in the fifth century], so far as we can tell, every payment from the public treasury was earmarked for a particular pur- pose, various ἀρχαί were now given an annual allowance for their ordinary expenses, which presumably was theirs to spend without further interference, so long as they could satisfy the boards of logistae in the check made every prytany, and in the financial examination after their year in office. A few of the allocations are known: in 357/6 Midias as treasurer of the Paralus had 12 talents to spend; in the 320s the ἱερῶν ἐπι- σκευασταί received ½ talent a year and the epimeletae of the 274 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 Great Dionysia 1⅔ talents.”11 Although the merismos was un- doubtedly subject to frequent revisions, it was by nature a nomos, i.e. a general permanent rule that could not be changed by a psephisma but only by a nomos.12 Honorary decrees passed by the demos or the boule were all psephismata and they constitute the majority of all decrees preserved on stone and a considerable part of those known from literary sources.13 To stimulate political participation by bestowing honours on individual citizens or boards of officials was a costly undertaking, and so was the use of gifts of golden crowns in diplomatic relations with other poleis. Regular publi- cation of decrees honouring Athenians began in the 340s, and a careful survey and analysis of the epigraphical evidence was published in 2004.14 On the basis of this study David Pritchard surmises “that the annual cost of gold crowns for magistrates, politicians and foreign benefactors was less than 2 t. in the 330s.”15 The problem is that we do not know the percentage of honourary decrees still preserved, but Pritchard is undoubtedly right in his conviction that my estimate of 10–20 talents per year16 was much too high. Any session of the nomothetai had to be warranted by a pse- phisma passed by the demos,17 but in these three cases the decree is not just a decision to appoint nomothetai but also an instruc- tion to the nomothetai to vote on an amendment to the law on 11 P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 103; cf. “The Organi- zation of Athenian Public Finance,” G&R 40 (2013) 203–231, at 216–219. 12 Rhodes-Osborne, GHI 19.18–22: µερίσαι δὲ τὸ ἀργύριον τὸ εἰρηµένον τὸς ἀποδέκτας ἐκ τῶν καταβαλλοµένων χρηµάτων, ἐπειδὰν τὰ ἐκ τῶν νόµων µερ[ίσωσι]. 13 Hansen (1987) 110–111. 14 S. D. Lambert, ”Athenian State Laws and Decrees 352/1–322/1 I. Decrees Honouring Athenians,” ZPE 150 (2004) 85–120. 15 D. M. Pritchard, Public Spending and Democracy in Classical Athens (Austin 2015) 87–88. 16 Hansen (1987) 115, (1991) 316. 17 Dem. 24.21, 27; Dem. 3.10–13; Aeschin. 3.39. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 275 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 the budget prompted by expenditure for honours for named persons. The three psephismata convey the impression that the nomothetai are expected to ratify the change. And the published decrees show that they did so in the three cases we know about. But it is unbelievable that the nomothetai did not have any say in the matter but had to rubberstamp psephismata passed by the Assembly. Supplementary legislation of such a type would run counter to the fundamental constitutional principles of legis- lation established in connection with the restoration of the democracy in 403, viz. that no psephisma may override a nomos but must accord with the nomoi,18 whereas psephismata that were in conflict with a nomos were null and void and had to be deleted.19 In my opinion there can be no doubt that the nomothetai had the power to vote down a change they found unnecessary or detrimental to the interests of the Athenian people. In the de- cree for Peisitheides the demos orders the proedroi of the nomothetai and their epistates to put the change of the merismos to the vote, and each of them will incur a fine of 1000 dr. if they do not comply with the order. But there is no instruction that the nomothetai must pass the supplementary law. On what grounds would the nomothetai vote for or against a change of the merismos? They would of course have to know the reason for the change. The decree by which they were in- structed to ratify the change must have been read out at the session and/or it had been published in advance like all other bills submitted to the nomothetai,20 and in the three cases in question we know that the reason for the change was to provide money for honours bestowed on individual persons, identified by name. Thus, the decision to be made by the nomo- thetai was both about a general matter in that it was a change of the merismos, and about an individual matter in that it financed 18 Andoc. 1.87, 89; Dem. 23.87, 24.30. 19 Rhodes-Osborne, GHI 25.55–56. 20 Dem. 20.94; Dem. 24.23, 36; Aeschin. 3.39. 276 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 an honorary decree for a named person. It was a borderline case between nomos and psephisma, and it was acknowledged as a borderline case by the exemption clause added to the law about legislation, that a nomos ep’ andri was forbidden unless it had been allowed by (the majority of) 6000 citizens who vote secretly.21 Rhodes, followed by Harris and Canevaro, disputes my in- terpretation of the three honorary decrees: “what the nomothetai are asked in the three decrees to do is not to ratify the decree but simply revise the merismos, and I see no reason to believe that these revisions would count as νόµοι ἐπ’ ἀνδρί.”22 “In fact, in each decree the nomothetai are asked to legislate about a sum of money, not about a person. They do not confirm the hon- ours granted to an individual. Furthermore none of the three decrees cited by Hansen mentions a quorum of 6,000 or a secret ballot. Pace Hansen, these inscriptions do not provide examples of νόµοι ἐπ’ ἀνδρί.”23 My response is that in the honorary decree for Phyleus the purpose of the supplementary law to be passed by the nomothetai is explicitly stated: honouring Phyleus with a golden crown aims to encourage future secretaries to administer in accor- dance with the laws and to be of use to the Athenian people (18–21). By voting for the supplementary nomos the nomothetai endorse the proposed change of the merismos. But if the nomo- thetai had rejected the supplementary nomos the result would probably have been that the people’s decision to honour Phy- leus with a golden crown lapsed. The reason for referring specific honorary decrees to a ses- sion of nomothetai who did not normally treat psephismata must have been that the sum set aside by the merismos for that pur- pose was insufficient, so that the tamias tou demou was short of 21 I.e. by ballot like the jurors in the court: Andoc. 1.87, Dem. 24.59 (see below). 22 P. J. Rhodes, “Nomothesia in Fourth-Century Athens,” CQ 35 (1985) 59. 23 Canevaro and Harris 119; cf. Canevaro 149–150. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 277 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 money; and the reason for that was, that to honour a person with a golden crown instead of one of olive branches had be- come a habit from ca. 340,24 so that expenses for honorary decrees had risen sharply in the 330s and 320s, precisely during the period all these three decrees were passed.25 Again, in the citizenship decree for Peisitheides the demos asks the future proedroi of the nomothetai and their epistates to have a supplementary law passed (prosnomothetesai), and the content of that nomos is specified in the text: to order the apodektai every year to transfer the money in question to the tamias tou demou and to order the tamias to pay out the money to Peisitheides by the prytany. If the proedroi and their epistates do not put such a supplementary law to the vote, each will be fined 1000 dr. to be paid to Athena. The reference to the apodektai, the tamias, and the proedroi of the nomothetai are general aspects of the nomos. But the supplementary law is a nomos ep’ andri in so far as Peisithei- des is singled out by name as the beneficiary of the supple- mentary nomos. Furthermore, we know that one of the three decrees must have been ratified in the Assembly by the required quorum of 6000 voting by ballot, namely the honorary decree for Peisi- theides, since the honour he was awarded was not just the daily allowance of one drachma for an unknown number of years to be confirmed by the revision of the merismos, but also Athenian citizenship. As we know from the speech Against Neaira 89–90, a citizenship decree passed by the demos had in the next assembly to be ratified by (the majority of) the quorum of 6000 voting by ballot. The citizenship decree for Peisitheides which had to be ratified in the following ekklesia would be the one we have still preserved, i.e. the one that included the instruction to have the change of the merismos submitted to the nomothetai, so in this case 24 A habit criticised by, e.g., Aischines (3.187) and Lykourgos (fr.58 Co- nomis): see P. Liddel, ”The Honorific Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens: Trends, Perceptions, Controversies,” in C. Tiersch (ed.), Die Athenische Demo- kratie im 4. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart 2016) 335–357, at 350–352. 25 IG II3 327 (335/4), 452 (ca. 334), 355 (329/8). 278 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 we know that the supplementary law to be passed by the nomo- hetai had been approved by the majority of 6000 citizens voting by ballot. Finally, it is true that none of the three decrees specifies that the decision to refer the case to the nomothetai must be approved by the majority of a quorum of 6000 citizens, as prescribed in the law quoted in Andokides; but similarly the provision that a citizenship decree must be ratified by a majority of a quorum of 6000 is not mentioned in any of the citizenship decrees preserved on stone, and is referred to only once in a literary source, the speech Against Neaira (Dem. 59.89). The provision that a nomos ep’ andri may be passed if allowed by the majority of a quorum of 6000, attested in the document at Andoc. 1.87, is perhaps also in the corrupted version of a document quoted by Demosthenes in Against Timokrates (24.59): µηδὲ νόµον ἐξεῖναι ἐπ’ ἀνδρὶ θεῖναι, ἐὰν µὴ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Ἀθηναίοις [τιθῇ], <ἐὰν µὴ> ψηφισαµένων µὴ ἔλαττον ἑξακισχιλίων οἷς ἂν δόξῃ κρύβδην ψηφιζοµένοις.26 Canevaro rightly notes that as the text stands the law must mean that “the laws must apply to all citizens alike and be voted by secret ballot with a quorum of 6,000. Such a clause does not make any sense when compared with what we know about Athenian legislation” (146). So we have a choice between emending the text or rejecting it as corrupt: there is no reason to discuss it as it is. Comparing this law with that quoted at Andoc. 1.87 Samuel Petit suggested inserting ἐὰν µή before ψηφισαµένων.27 With that emendation the law makes sense, but what is the relation between Andokides’ On the Mysteries and Demosthenes’ Against Timokrates? According to Petit the exemption clause in the document at Dem. 24.59 can be emended on the basis of the document at Andoc. 1.87. Canevaro and Harris in their article (118) and Canevaro in 26 The stichometric count does not allow us to decide whether or not this document was part of the Urexemplar (see Canevaro 150). 27 S. Petit, Leges Atticae (Leiden 1742 [1635]) 188; cf. H. Weil, Les plaidoiries politiques de Démosthène II (Paris 1886) 100. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 279 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 his book (146) believe that in both documents the provision about a vote taken by 6000 Athenians is a forgery inserted much later. There is no need to discuss the passage at Dem. 24.59 fur- ther, but why reject the provision quoted in the document at Andoc. 1.87? Canevaro’s principal reason is that it offends against one of his methodological principles concerning the authenticity of documents inserted in forensic speeches: “the documents should not contradict the information found in their close paraphrases, and should contain all the features there summarized. Sometimes, however, the documents also contain details and provisions absent from their summary. This is often understood as automatic evidence for their authenticity” (32). But “The presence in a document of details and provisions that are not mentioned by the orator in his paraphrase are not auto- matically evidence of authenticity. They could be and often are the product of the forger’s imagination” (146). Andokides’ omission in his paraphrase at 89 of the exemption clause in the document at 87 about passing a nomos ep’ andri if allowed by a quorum of 6000 is an example of a provision in a document not mentioned by the orator in his summary of the content of a document he has had read out to the jurors, and accordingly Canevaro rejects the exemption clause as a late forgery (146). But Canevaro’s methodological principle does not always apply, cf. e.g. Diokles’ law inserted as a document in Dem. 24.42 and summarised by Demosthenes in 43–44. The docu- ment was part of the Urexemplar of the speech and is accepted by Canevaro (121–127) as a genuine law, but the long final provision about the duties of the secretary of the boule is passed over in silence by Demosthenes in his summary, because it is irrelevant to the point he wants to make. In the document at Andoc. 1.87 the exemption from the prohibition of a nomos ep’ andri is irrelevant to the case at hand and is therefore omitted from Andokides’ summary of the law. In my opinion there is no cogent reason to suspect the authen- ticity of the document. On the contrary, the three honorary decrees described above indicate that there were borderline 280 NOMOS EP’ ANDRI IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 cases where provisions in psephismata that concerned individual named persons nevertheless had to be submitted to a session of the nomothetai because these provisions necessitated the change of a nomos, and a nomos could not be changed by a psephisma but only by a new nomos to be passed by the nomothetai.28 To sum up. A vote by ballot taken by the demos in an ekklesia is attested in three different situations: (1) A citizenship decree passed by the demos in an ekklesia must be ratified in the subsequent ekklesia by (the majority of) a quorum of 6000 citizens voting by ballot. (2) Permission to atimoi and opheilontes to bring a supplication in the ekklesia about reprieve must be granted by (the majority of) a quorum of 6000 citizens voting by ballot. (3) Permission to propose a nomos ep’ andri must be granted (in an ekklesia) by (the majority of) a quorum of 6000 citizens voting by ballot, whereafter the proposal is referred to a forthcoming session of nomothetai. For all three situations, the provision that a quorum of 6000 must vote by ballot is attested in one source only. The required ratification of a citizenship decree in the sub- sequent ekklesia was introduced between ca. 380 and 369/8,29 and in the period between 369/8 and 323/2 it is attested in ten grants of citizenship.30 But the requirement that the ratification had to be passed by (the majority of) a quorum of 6000 is not attested in any of the decrees, but is found in one source only, Dem. 59.89–90. A permission (adeia) issued by the demos to do something otherwise forbidden is attested in several sources,31 but the only source that informs us that it had to be granted with the quorum of 6000 is the document at Dem.24.45.32 28 M. H. Hansen, “Athenian Nomothesia,” GRBS 26 (1985) 345–371, at 360–362. 29 M. J. Osborne, Naturalization in Athens III/IV (Brussels 1983) 161. 30 Osborne, Naturalization nos. 10–13, 18–20, 22–23, 25. 31 E.g. IG I3 52.B.16, 18; Lysias 6.23. 32 Accepted by Canevaro 132–138 as a genuine document. MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 281 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 57 (2017) 268–281 The provision that all laws had to apply to all Athenians and not to a named individual is attested in several documents33 and passages in the speeches,34 whereas the provision that a nomos ep’ andri might exceptionally be passed is attested in the document at Andoc. 1.87 and in no other source unless one accepts Petit’s emendation of the document at Dem. 24.59. Canevaro rejects both documents as late forgeries, but on the basis of the three honorary decrees discussed above I suggest that we accept the document at Andokides 1.87 as genuine and consider the possibility that the document at Dem. 24.59 may be a corrupted version of the same provision. January, 2017 SAXO-instituttet Karen Blixenvej 4 2300 Copenhagen S Denmark mhh@hum.ku.dk 33 Dem. 23.86, 46.12. 34 Dem. 24.18, 116, 159, 188.