"Nomos" and "Psephisma" in Fourth-Century Athens Hansen, Mogens Herman Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies; Jan 1, 1978; 19, 4; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 315

Nomos and Psephisma 
in Fourth-Century Athens 

Mogens Herman Hansen 

I N THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C. the Athenians had two words for what 
we call a law, viZ' nomos and psephisma. The best proof of this is the 
opening clause of the Heliastic oath I/JTJ<pLOvp.at Ka:TCX TOVC vop.ovc Kcd 

'.1. J.' ~ <:' I ~ 'Af) , '~Q \ ~ ~ '1 Ta 'f'TJ'f'tcp.aTa TOV OTJP.OV TOV.t:1 TJvatwv Kat TTJC J-IOVIITJC TWV 7T€VTaKOCtWV, 

and similarly an orator always uses the phrase OL voP.ot Kat T<X I/JTJ<ptcp.aTa 

when he wishes to refer to the whole body of rules binding on the 
Athenians. Demosthenes, for example, states in the speech Against 
Y · t 152" , 1 \ • ~ .,." '" '" 1 1 , .1. .J.. 1 Imocra es . TJ yap 7TOlltC TJiLWv, W avop€c otKaCTat, VOP.OtC Kat 'f'TJ'f'tC-

p.actv 8WLK€tTaL, and a few other quotations from the orators may serve 
as illustrations of this common practice: 7T(Jf)' O~TOC ~ 8LCX rfTJ<ptcp.aToc 

'" , 1 f) , • 1 (D' 1 96) 1 \" " '\ TJ VOP.OV E7TTJVWp WC€ TO t7T7TtKOV; In.. ; TL yap av Kat aVT€II€YOV 
, ..... ..I. J.. I , I It.....' \, .... t \ 

aVT~ 'f'TJ'f'Lcp.aTa Kat vop.ovc 7Tap€x0p.€V~, WC 7TpOCTJKEV EP.E ELC7TpasaL Ta 

CKEVTJ; (Dem. 47.29).2 

The purpose of this paper is to examine the difference between 
nomos and psephisma in fourth-century Athens. The traditional view is 
that nomoi ought to be general rules passed by the nomothetai but that 
the Athenians disregarded the distinction between nomoi and psephis­
mata and frequently allowed the ecclesia to pass a general rule as a 

IDem. 24.149-51. The document inserted in the speech is not above suspicion (cf E. 
Drerup, "Ober die bei den attischen Rednem eingelegten Urkunden," Njbb Suppl. 24 
[1898] 256-64), but the authenticity of this clause is proved by the quotations in Oem. 
19.179; Hyp. 1.1; Din. 1.84. Cf M. Frankel, "Oer attische Heliasteneid," Hermes 13 (1878) 
452-66. It is apparent from Andoc. 1.91 that the Heliastic Oath was revised in 403/2 (cf 
R. Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of justice from Homer to Aristotle II [Chicago 
1938] 154), and since the phrase Ka'Ta 'ToVe VO/-L0ve Kat Ta .pT}t/>lq.Lam indicates a distinction 
between nomoi and psephismata of the people and the council, I suggest that the opening 
clause of the oath was rephrased in 403/2. The older version may have included only a 
reference to nomoi, cf the quotation in Ant. 5.85, which does not, however, constitute any 
proof since reference to nomoi only can be found also in several fourth-century paraphrases 
of the oath, e.g. in Is. 11.6 (cf. Frankel 453). 

2 Cf Andoc. 1.86; Lys. 30.5; Oem. 12.9, 18.320,20.131; 24.55, 72, 79, 92,100,112,201; 26.8, 
35.39; 47.18, 19,22,23,24,30,37,40,41,48,80; 50.3, 57.30; 58.49, 50; 59.13; Aeschin. 1.79, 177; 
2.160; 3.4, 31; Din. 1.41, 101; 3.21. 

315 



316 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

psephisma.3 My own conclusion is that the distinction between nomos 
and psephisma was in fact respected, and, with the exception of a short 
period of crisis in 340-38 B.C., there is hardly any example of the 
ecclesia having legislated in the proper sense of the word.4 

My investigation is confined to the fourth century, or rather to the 
period 403/2-322/1 B.C. In fifth-century Athens there is no demon­
strable difference between nomoi and psephismata. Admittedly, the 
words nomos and psephisma are never strictly synonymous, although 
they have roughly the same meaning when referring to enactments 
of the Athenians. Nomos is used when the emphasis is on the contents 
of a rule whereas the enactment of the rule is stressed by the word 
psephisma.5 On the other hand, the words nomos and psephisma fre­
quently have the same denotation, and a decision of the ecclesia may 
be referred to both as a nomos and as a psephisma. Demophantus' 
tyranny law is a psephisma described by Andocides as a nomos (Andoc. 
1.96). Cannonus' law dealing with offences against the demos is called 
both a nomos and a psephisma by Xenophon in Hellenica 1.7.20 and 23. 
The provision proposed and carried by Isotimides that oi aCEp~CaV'T€C 
Kat O/LOAoy~caV'T€c be debarred from the sanctuaries is referred to as a 
psephisma by Andocides (1.71, 86, 103) but as a nomos by Lysias (6.9, 29, 
52). The Megarian psephisma (Thuc. 1.139-40) is called a nomos by 
Aristophanes (Ach. 532), and in the speech Against Neaera Apollodorus 
describes the citizenship bestowed on the Plataeans in 427 as a v6/LoC 

€V 'Tip ifi7J4>Lc/Lan (Dem. 59.106). Furthermore, in Aristophanes' Birds 
103Sff the ifi7J4>tq,La'T07Twl\7JC displays new nomoi, and in Clouds 1421ff 
Pheidippides' new nomos that sons, when beaten by their fathers, may 
hit back is based on a prevailing custom among the cocks, so that 
Pheidippides can argue KaL'TOt 'TL Sta4>'povc£v ~J.LWv €KE'iVOt, 7T1\~V y' on 

8 G. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde I (Miinchen 1920) 458. U. Kahrstedt, "Untersuchungen 
zu athenischen Behorden II, Die Nomotheten und die Legislative in Athen," KLio 31 (1938) 

12-18. A. R. W. Harrison, "Law-making at Athens at the End of the Fifth Century B.C.," 

]HS 75 (1955) 27. V. Ehrenberg, The Greek State (Oxford 1960) 57. M. Ostwald, Nomos and the 
Beginnings of the Athenian Drmocracy (Oxford 1%9) 2. F. Quass, Nomos und PsephisftUl (Miin­
chen 1971) 71. J. de Romilly, La Loi dans La pensee grecque (Paris 1971) 209. P. J. Rhodes, The 
Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 50-52. 

~ The only scholars who assume that the distinction between nomos and psephisftUl was, 
by and large, respected by the Athenians are: F. B. Tarbell, "The Relation of «PT/</Jlcp,a'Ta to 

vOp.o£ at Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C." A]P 10 (1889) 79-83, and A. H. M. 
Jones, Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1957) 122-23. 

I Cf K. J. Dover, "Anapsephisis in Fifth-century Athens," ]HS 75 (1955) 18, and Quass, 
op.cit. (supra n.3) 23-24. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 317 

t/rlJ1>tCfUXT' ov yp&.1>0vc,v; (1428-29). These examples indicate that in the 
fifth century any enactment of the ecclesia could be called both a nomos 
and a psephisma. 

In the period 403/2-322/1, however, there is a clear difference be­
tween nomos and psephisma both in meaning and in denotation. When 
the deITlocracy vvas restored the Athenians introduced a nevv concept 

of nomos, a new legislative body (the nomothetai) and a new type of 
public action available against unconstitutional nomoi, viZ. the ypa1>~ 
v6JLov JL~ bTtT~O€tOV BELvaL. These reforms entailed a distinction 
between nomoi and psephismata which can be described under the 
following four headings. (I) Nomoi are passed by the nomothetai, 
psephismata by the ecclesia. (II) Nomoi supersede psephismata, and 
psephismata must accord with nomoi. (III) The only public action avail­
able against an unconstitutional nomos is the ypa1>~ v6JLov fL~ E7nT7}­
onov BELva" whereas a public action against an unconstitutional 
psephisma must be brought as a ypacp~ 7Tapav6fLwv. (IV) A nomos is a 
general permanent rule, whereas a psephisma is an individual rule and/ 
or a rule with a limited period of validity. In this paper I shall discuss 
the first three aspects. The fourth and most important will be re­
served for a future study. 

I 
An inspection of all fourth-century sources shows that no enactment 

is referred to both as a nomos and as a psephisma and that nomoi invari­
ably are passed by the nomothetai, psephismata by the demos in the 
ecclesia. 

(a) The epigraphical evidence comprises some five hundred psephis­
mata passed by the ecclesia6 in addition to six nomoi passed by the 

6 I have counted 482 different rPTJc/J{cp.aTa TOV 8-r7p.ov preserved on stone. My investigation 
is based on IG 1I2 Decreta Senatus et Populi 1-370 and 403-48 with the following omissions, 
additions and corrections: I have excluded decrees of the council (IG IIz 6, 12, 13, 32, 49, 50, 
58,63,77,95, 157,361; on IG liZ 16 and 18 cf Rhodes, op.cit. [supra n.3] 83-84), nomoi passed 
by the nomotltetai (IG liZ 140, 244, 333), decrees of the people which, because of later research 
or the discovery of a new fragment, have been redated and assigned either to the fifth 
century (IG lIZ 3, 27, 38, 48, 50, 55, 7l, 73, 142, 174) or to the Hellenistic period (IG lI2 169, 
350, 358), fragments of decrees joining another fragment but published separately (IG IIz 
178, 259, 261, 318-19, 441, 442, 445), decrees which are only a second copy of another pre­
served decree (IG 1I2 35, 155,217) and a dedication(?) which has wrongly been classified as a 
decree (IG IIz 165). Conversely, some decrees considered Hellenistic by Kirchner have after­
wards been assigned to the period 403-322 and are accordingly included in my investigation 
(IG liZ 336b, 452, 454, 511, 541, 547, 548, 660, 727, 800), and two decrees published among the 



318 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

nomothetai.7 The discrepancy between the number of preserved nomoi 
and psephismata is a problem which I have discussed in a previous 
study.8 What is important in this context is that the distribution of 
types of rule on the two legislative bodies is strictly respected. An 
enactment introduced with the formula ;8oge TijJ 8~p,<p or ;8oge rfj 
{1ovAfi Ka~ TijJ 8~p,<p 9 is invariably referred to as a psephisma, e.g. in the 
publication-formula avayp&.!fJaL To8e TO !fJ~cf>Lcp,a TOV ypap,p,aT€aIO or in 
the motion-formula J!fJ"fJcplc8aL TijJ 8~p,<p.ll Similarly an enactment of 
the nomothetai is invariably a nomos.12 There is no example of a nomos 
passed by the demos or of a psephisma passed by the nomothetai. We 
have, however, three examples of a psephisma passed by the ecclesia 
but referred to the nomothetai for ratification.I3 There is no direct 
evidence of the term applied to such a decision. I have argued14 that 
the psephisma by the ratification of the nomothetai became a vop,oc br' 
avSpl. and I shall return to the problem in my future study of the 
Athenian legislation. 

Tabulae Magistratuum ought to have been recorded among the decreta populi as well (IG IP 
1440.1-28 and 1629.165-271). Fragments of more than seventy-five new decrees of the 
period 403/2-322 have been discovered since Kirchner published IG III pars prima in 1913. 
I have examined the following: Hesperia 2 (1933) 395-98 (nos. 15-17); 3 (1934) 2-4 (nos. 2-5); 
4 (1935) 34--35 (no. 4); 5 (1936) 414 (no. 11); 7 (1938) 275-97 (nos. 10, 14--15, 18-21); 8 (1939) 
5-27 (nos. 3-4,6); 9 (1940) 313-35 (nos. 30, 35-36, 39-41); 10 (1941) 41-52 (nos. 9, 12-13); 13 
(1944) 229-33 (nos. 3, 5); 15 (1946) 159-60 (no. 16); 17 (1948) 54--60 (no. 65); 26 (1957) 52-53, 
207-33 (nos. 9, 53-54, 56, 86-87); 29 (1960) 1-52 (nos. 2, 4--5, 39,64--67); 30 (1961) 207-57 (nos. 
2-3,58-59);32(1963) 1-40 (nos. 1-2. 39-41); 37 (1968)267-68 (no. 3); 40(1971) 149-90,280-301 
(nos. 3, 22, 24, 26-27, 29, 32, 36, 7); 43 (1974) 322-24 (no. 3); SEG II 8; III 83; XXI 241, 272; 
Syll~ 129, 158, 287, 298; IG VII 4252; AJA 40 (1936) 461-63 (nos. 3-4); ArchEph (197l) 137-45; 
CSCA 5 (1972) 165-69 (no. 2). 

7 Hesperia 43 (1974) 157-88, Law on silver coinage (375/4). IG III 140, Law on Eleusinian 
first-fruits (353/2). IG III 244, Law on the rebuilding of the walls (337/6). SEG XII 87, Law 
against tyranny (337/6). SEG XVIII 13 ( + IG 112 334), Law on the Panathenaea (336-334). IG II2 

333, Law about some offerings (335/4). 
8 Cf. M. H. Hansen, The Sovereignty of the People's Court in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C. 

and the Public Action against Unconstitutional Proposals (Odense 1974) 47. 
9 On these enactment formulae cf. Rhodes, op.dt. (supra n.3) 64 and 246-66. 
10 Cf. IG III IV.l index, "Sermo publicus" s.v. ava:yp&.t/J(u .p-q¢IIC/La Kat crilcat, pp. 39-41. 
11 Cf. Rhodes, op.dt. (supra n.3) 65 and 246-66. 
12 The only enactment of the nomothetai in which the word nomos does not occur is SEG 

XVIII 13, undoubtedly because of the fragmentary preservation of the law. 
18 IG liS 222, Honorary decree for Pisithides of Delos (344/3); IG lIS 330, Honorary decree 

for Phyleus of Oinoe (335/4); Syll.8 298, Honorary decree for the epimeletai of the Amphi­
araion (329/8). 

14 "Athenian Nomothesia in the Fourth Century B.C. and Demosthenes' Speech Against 
Leptines," paper delivered in Chantilly, June 1977, to be published in the Akten der Gesell­
schaft fur griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 319 

(b) The terminology in the literary sources is in agreement with the 
inscriptions. Some two hundred psephismata passed by the demos are 
quoted or referred to by the orators and the historians,Is but only in 
five cases is an enactment of the people referred to both as a psephisma 
and as a nomos. 

1. The provision that the laws of Athens be enforced from the archonship 
ofEuclides onward is quoted as a nomos in Andoc. 1.87, but it is apparent from 
his reference to the law in 93 (TOLC vopmc El/rf}1>tcacfl£ a1T' EiJlCAEt80v apxovToC 
x~cea,) that it took the form of a psephisma. The enactment must be dated 
403/2. 

2. The amendment of the 8olC'p.acla TWV apxwv is described as a nomos in Lys. 
26.9 but as a psephisma in Lys. 26.20. The amendment was made immediately 
after the restoration of the democracy and probably in 403/2 (cf Lys.26.9). 

3. The pension for aSVvaTO' was warranted by an act which Aristotle and the 
scholiast on Aeschines describe as a nomos (Arist. Ath.Pol. 49.4 and schol. 
Aeschin. 1.103) whereas a phrase in Lys. 24.22 indicates that, in the beginning 
of the fourth century, it took the form of a psephisma . . . r, 1TOAtC r,P.LV EifJ7JcPtcaTo 
TOVTO TO aprUpwv. The psephisma must be dated 403/2 or shortly afterwards. I6 

Since the pension, in the course of the fourth century, was raised from one 
(Lys.24.26) to two (Arist. Ath.Pol. 49.4) obols, the revision of the original pseph­
isma may have taken the form of a nomos. 

16 I have counted 219 decrees of the people quoted or referred to in the literary sources. 
My survey is based on the follOWing authors: Lys. 1-34 (except 20 and 25), Andoc. 1 and 3, 

Is. 1-12, Oem. 1-59 and Ep. 1-4, Aeschin. 1-3, Lycurg. I, Hyp. I--{), Din. 1-3, Isoc. 1-21, 
fragments of the orators after Baiter and Sauppe, Oratores Attici II (Zurich 1850), Xen. Hell. 
3-7, Hell.Oxy., Diod.Sic. 14-18.18, Arr. Anab. I, fragments of Ephorus, Theopompus, 
Androtion and Philochorus after FGrHist. I have, hesitatingly, included those examples 
from Diodorus where he seems to quote some detailed and reliable source (e.g. Diod.Sic. 
18.10.1-4). On the other hand, I have deliberately excluded Plutarch and other late sources 
as unreliable for an investigation of this kind. The main difficulty in setting up a list of 
psephismata has been to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying a reported 
decision of the Athenians as implying a psephisma passed by the ecdesia. In more than half 
of the 219 instances the classification is guaranteed by the occurrence of the word .p~.ptClLa, 
and in the vast majority of these cases there can be no doubt that the psephisma is an enact­
ment of the ecclesia and not of the boule. The major part of the remaining enactments have 
been classified as psephismata on the basis of phrases such as: 0 ofjlLoc €.pTJ.plcaTo, VIL£tC 
€.pTJ.plcac9£ (in addresses either to the ecclesia or to the dicasterion), ot )l9TJva'iot €.pTJ.plcavTo, 

or the occurrence of the word ecclesia in the context describing a decision made by the 
Athenians. In a few cases I have relied on expressions such as T6v o£tva ypat/Jat KTA. (when it 
is sufficiently clear from the context that the proposal was made in the assembly), Toli 
o~lLoV 7TpocTafavToc, Toli o~lLoV OOVTOC etc. 

16 Every kind of JL£c9o.popla was undoubtedly abolished by the Thirty. So the Pension Act 
must have been either introduced or renewed after the restoration of the democracy. The 
reference to the Thirty in Lys. 24.25, combined with the information that the defendant 
has obtained the pension for several years (Lys. 24.26), indicates that the Pension Act must 
have been passed in the archonship of Euclides or not much later. 



320 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

4. In 403/2 or shortly afterwards Aristophon proposed and carried a 
psephisma renewing a Solonian nomos by which all elVO' were debarred from 
keeping a shop in the agora [unless they pay a special tax, the e£vucov] (Dem. 
57.31-34).17 

5. After the return of the democrats Theozotides proposed and carried a 
decree providing state aid for the children orphaned by the civil war. The 
decree is preserved on stone and it is· referred to in a fragment of a forensic 
speech by Lysias preserved on papyrus (P.Hib. I 14 = Lys. fr.6 Gemet).18 It is 
a pparent from both the inscription and the papyrus that it is a psephisma, but 
it is also called a nomos if we accept the restoration TO~[ TW' TW h vPI.' [w, in the 
papyrus line 2.19 Again, the date of the enactment must be 403/2 or shortly 
afterwards. 20 

17 The decree is probably contemporaneous with the renewal of Pericles' citizenship law 
which was proposed and carried by Aristophon in the archonship of Euc1ides (Ath. 577B). 

18 The inscription is published by R. S. Stroud, "Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans," 
Hesperia 40 (1971) 280-301. The preserved part of the stde contains only the proposal about 
ofXPavol, whereas the fragment of the speech preserved on papyrus deals with two pro­
posals: the state aid to orphans (frs. a and b) and a proposal that the p.r.c8oc to lTNr€&c be 
reduced from one drachma to four obols, whereas the daily allowance to lTNro'To~o'TC" be 
increased from two obols to eight (fr.c). Were these two proposals part of one psephismll, 
or did they belong to different psephismllta? Stroud argues (297-98) that the proposal about 
p.r.c8oc to {1T1T€&c is a separate psephismll adduced only to illustrate Theozotides' earlier ill­
placed policy of retrenchment. In my opinion both proposals are sub judice in the 'YP~~ 
1Tapavop.wv (cf. n.44) and must accordingly have belonged to the same psephismll. (1) In the 
papyrus the fragments (a) and (b) contain the attack on the pension for orphans, whereas 
fragment (c) deals with p.r.c86c to l1T1T€ic. Now, Stroud is right in the observation that these 
fragments may belong to different parts of the speech, but the editors combine (b) and (c) 
on account of the writing on the verso of the papyrus. Similarly, frs. (h) and (p), which both 
deal with p.,c8oc to iTNr€ic, are combined with (b) and (c), and finally, in fro (h) o]fXPay(130) 
between ']1T1T€V!= (129) and p.,,8(o4>OPlav (134, cf. 137) is a strong indication that the two 
proposals were combined (mentioned by Stroud, but considered accidental). (2) EvlK11~rlv 
€V 'TWl SNp.Wl in fro (c) line 81 proves that Theozotides' proposal about p.lc86c to lTNr€&c had 
been carried before the trial. But, pace Stroud, the future tense in fro (b) 29-30 does not prove 
that the proposal about orphans had not yet been passed by the assembly. A similar use 
of the future is frequently found in Demosthenes' speeches Against Leptines and Against 
Timocrates, which are both directed against nomoi already passed by the nomothetai (cf. e.g. 
(JAa.pE' in Oem. 20.28). Moreover, if the restoration proposed by Gernet/Bizos of fro (c) 92-94 
is on the right lines, the inference is that the proposal about p.r.c8oc to lTNrE&c is also under 
debate and accordingly belongs to the same psephismll. (3) As the lower part of the stele is 
very mutilated, it is not inconceivable that the proposal about p.,,86c to l1T1T€ic was inscribed 
beneath the proposal about the orphans. Another possibility is that the psephismll attacked 
as 1Tapavop.ov included both provisions but that the ecclesia decided to publish on stone only 
the provision relating to the orphans, which was in fact an honorary decree for their dead 
fathers with their names inscribed. 

III The decree is introduced with the enactment formula ~SO~€V 'Tij, {JOAij[l Kal 'TWl S1j]p.Wl 
and in the papyrus Theozotides' decree is referred to with the phrase r[av1T7]v 'T';'" yvwp."1v 
rllC</lEpWV] • •• ivlK"1~f[v iv 'TWl SNp.w' (cf. supra n.18 and Hansen, op.cit. [supra n.8] 45-46). 

10 Stroud, op.cit. (supra n.18) 299-300. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 321 

Summing up: we have five instances of nomoi which are also psephis­
mata, but all five laws were probably passed immediately after the 
restoration of the democracy before the regular nomothesia was intro­
duced, and so there is no exception to the rule that, in the fourth 
century, no decision made by the Athenians could be both a nomos 
and a psephisma.21 

More than one hundred nomoi are quoted or paraphrased by the or­
ators. Usually only the contents of a nomos are discussed, but in the 
few passages where an orator does mention the legislative body the 
reference is to the nomothetai.22 When addressing the jurors, an orator 
may use the second person plural about those who passed a nomos,23 
but this usage causes no surprise since the nomothetai were appointed 
from among the 6000 jurors, who acted both as nomothetai and as 
dikastai.24 More important is the fact that the orators do not refer to 

21 It has been argued (by K. M. T. Atkinson, "Athenian Legislative Procedure and 
Revision of Laws," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 23 [1939] 119, followed by R. A. de 
Laix, Probouleusis at Athens [Berkeley 1973] 57-58) that Demosthenes' trierarchic Law of 
340 was a nomos passed as a psephisma. I suggest, however, that Demosthenes' psephisma, 
which was attacked through a ypa4>~ 7Tapavo/Lwv, was different from the nomos itself. The 
problem will be discussed infra pp.327ff. The only passage in a fourth-century speech ap­
proximating an identification of nomos with psephisma is Isoc. 7.41, where the two words, 
however, are juxtaposed for rhetorical reasons to obtain a variatio: OU yap TOLC oPTJ4>lc/LactV 

a,ua TOLC iJ8fiCt KaAWC OlKfiLC8at TaC 7TaAfitC, Kal TOVC /Lev KaKWC Tfi8pa/L/L'vovC Kal TOVC aKpt{3<ilc 

TWV va/LWV avaYfiypa/L/Llvovc TOA/L~CHV 7Tapa{3alvfitV, TOVC Be KaA<ilc 7Tfi7TatB"v/Llvovc Kat TOLC 

a7TA<ilc K£t/L'VOtc l8£A~£tV l/LI'",VHV. Examples found in late sources carry no weight since we 
have no guarantee that the terminology is consistently applied: e.g., Lycurgus' proposal 
that no woman may go in a carriage to attend the Mysteries in Eleusis is called a pseph­
isma by Aelian in VH 13.24 but is classified among the nomoi in [Plut.] X Drat. 842A. 

22 Oem. 3.10-13; 20.89-100, 137; 24.17-38; Aeschin. 3.36-40. Furthermore, two nomoi 
passed by the nomothetai are quoted in extenso in Oem. 24: Timocrates' nomos about eisan­
gelia (63) and his nomos about state debtors (39-40). 

23 Oem. 42.18 v/uLe Il' ieT£, tL iXvllp£e IltKaeTal, V/LfiLe yap ~8£c8£ TOV va/Lov. Cf Lys. 6.52, 30.35, 
fr.268; Is. 4.17, 6.49, 9.34; Oem. 20.94; 21.11,30,34,35; 24.123, 26.24, 42.15; Aeschin. 1.33, 
U8, 176, 177; 3.14, 158. Hyp. 3.5, 7-9. 

24 Cf D. M. MacDowell, "Law-making at Athens in the Fourth Century B.C.," JHS 95 
(1975) 62-74; M. H. Hansen, op.cit. (supra n.14). Admittedly, in courtroom speeches the 
second person plural is frequently used in references to decisions actually made by the 
demos in the ecclesia and not by the jurors (cf M. H. Hansen, "Demos, Ecclesia and Dicasterion 
in Classical Athens," GRBS 19 [1978] 135-36), and so the passages cited in n.23 do not 
constitute a sufficient proof that nomoi were passed by the jurors and not by the people in 
assembly (cf Oem. 4.33 and Prooem. 55.3). In one of the passages, however, a clear distinc­
tion is made between the legislators and the ecclesia, viZ., in Aeschin. 1.178: Tove /Lev va/Love 

Tl8fiC8fi l7Tl 7TaCt IltKalotc . . . lv Ile TaLC lKKATJdatc Kat TOLC IltKaCTTJplotc. The passage leaves no 
doubt that the sessions of the legislators were distinguished from those of the ecclesia and 
dicasterion. 



322 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

the demos as the legislative body. It is often stated that the demos 
decreed (0 SfjJLoC eifrl1<plcaTo), and a decree is frequently described as 
TO TOV S~f.LOV ",~<pLcJLa.25 Similarly, when nomoi and psephismata are 
juxtaposed, TOV S~f.L0v may be added to the psephismata26 but never to 

the nomoi. We hear about 0' TfjC 1TOAEWC V0f.L0L27 but never about 0' TOV 

S~f.Lov VOf.LOL. There are only five passages in which the demos is referred 
to as a legislator, and in three of these the reference is to a nomos 
passed before 403/2 when nomoi were in fact made by the demos. 

1. In Ath.Pol. 45,1 Aristotle relates how the boule was deprived of its 
judicial powers in consequence of its miscarriage of justice in the Lysimachus 
affair. The reform is described with the phrase 0 Sij/-Loc ••• vO/-Lov lOETO. Rhodes, 
however, is highly suspicious of the story of Lysimachus and assumes that the 
resulting nomos was invented by the fourth-century Athenians on the basis of 
the bouleutic oath.28 I am less suspicious of the reform, but I agree with Rhodes 
that there is no reason for dating the Lysimachus affair and the law in the fourth 
century.29 

2. In Hyp. 4.3 the law forbidding any abusive language about Harmodios 
and Aristogeiton is called an enactment of the people: EV VO/-Lep ypaifJae [0] Sij/-Loe 

&7TEL7TEV ••• If the law is genuine, it is undoubtedly much earlier than the 
fourth century. 

3. In Dem. 59.75 the demos is mentioned as the author of a law that the wife 
of the basileus has to be an aen} who is a virgin until her wedding: TOV /-LEv 
Q \1 • t'A t ~ 't" ~ • A' "0 " 1 fJaCLIIEa . •• 0 0'T}/-L0e TlPHTO ••• TTJV OE yvvaLKa aVTOV V0/-L0V € EVTO aCTTJv E vaL • •• 

In spite of the change to the plural it is reasonable to interpret the law as an 
enactment of the demos, but in this case the nomos is ascribed to the period 
shortly after Theseus' introduction of the democracy. 

4. The fourth passage is Aeschines' famous account (3.39) of the revision of 
the laws by the thesmothetai: Tove S~ 7rpv-ravE£c 7rOLELV EKKA'T}clav E7T£yparPavTac 

O ' 't'" , A It' ~ ,~ ~, A ~ I , 
V0/-L0 ETac. TOV ° €7rLCTaT'T}V TWV 7rPOEOPWV oLaXELpOTOVLav oLoovaL Tep 0'TJ/-Lep. Kat 

Tove /-LEv aVaLp€LV TWV VO/-LWV, Tove S~ KaTaA€t7r€LV. A first reading of this passage 
suggests that the subject to be understood with the infinitives &vaLpELv and 
KaTaAE{7rELV is TOV Sij/-Lov. But most scholars have-rightly in my opinion-

15 Cf Hansen, op.dt. (supra n.24) 131 with nn.15 and 16. 
II Din. 1.84 TWV OP.WP.OKOTWV '7T€lc€c8al Toic VOP.OlC Kai Toic TOV a~p'ov Vs'TJ.plcp.aa. Cf Oem. 

19.179,24.149; Hyp. 1.1 (the Heliastic Oath); Oem. 47.19, 41; 50.3; Din. 1.101,3.21. 
27 Lys. 1.26,29,50; 14.15, 15.6,22.5; Oem. 46.27; Aeschin. 1.18; Din. 3.4. TOV vop.ov TOVTO" 

'ri '7To'\te y'ypa.p€v, Oem. 18.120. Cf Oem. 24.94, 137. 
28op.cit. (supra n.3) 207. Cf H. Swoboda, "Uber den Process des Perikles," Hennes 28 

(1893) 595-96. 
It op.dt. (supra n.3) 184. The Lysimachus affair is assigned to the period before 403 by 

H. Francotte, "Loi et decret," Melanges de droit public grec (Paris 1910) 19. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 323 

objected either that 'Tep S-rJILCP is a gloss30 or that we must assume a change of 
subject so that "the accusative to be understood as the subject of tXV(UPEI:V and 
Ka'TaAei17Ew is not 'TOV Mj/LoV but 'TOVC VO/Lo()E'Tac."31 Both interpretations rest 
upon the correct assumption that Aeschines indicates an opposition between 
the demos (who appoint the nomothetai) and the nomothetai (who legislate). 

5. So we are left with one passage which is in conflict with the general 
pattern that the demos never legislates. In the speech Against Neaera 88ff Apol­
lodorus paraphrases and discusses the citizenship law as revised ca 370, and 
he opens his discussion with a high-flown reference to the Athenian people as 
the maker of the law: <> yap 8fj/Loc <> Ji(JTJvalwv KvpLtfJ'Ta'TOC WV 'TWV €v 'Tfj 176'\£L 

f , \ 'I:.' ,.... ..." '" Q ',\ fI \ , \ 'f' 1 a17aV'TWV, Kat ESOV av'Tcp 170tELV 0 'TL av fJOV TJ'TaL, OV'TW KallOV KaL CE/LVOV TJY7Jca'T 

ElvaL 8wpov 'TO Ji(JTJval:ov yevtc(Jat, WCTE 1I6/Lovc E(JE'TO av'Tep Ka(J' ovc 17oLEl:c(JaL 

8EL, Eav nva (Jov'\wV'TaL, 17o'\l'TT}v. This unique passage allows of three possible 
interpretations: (a) demos denotes the ecclesia, in which case we have one ex­
ample of the ecclesia having passed a nomos in the fourth century; (b) demos 
denotes the nomothetai, in which case we have one example of the nomothetai 
being loosely referred to as the demos; (c) <> Sfj/Loc <> Ji(}TJvalwv denotes the 
Athenian (democratic) state,32 and Apollodorus refers neither to the ecclesia 
nor to the nomothetai. I prefer (c) because Apollodorus in this passage discusses 
the citizenship law and makes a distinction between the Athenians (who 
bestow the honour) and citizens of other states (who apply for Athenian 
citizenship). (a) is in my opinion most unlikely, but (b) is a possibility that 
cannot be ruled out. 

The conclusion is that nomoi = psephismata in the fifth century were 
passed by the demos in the ecclesia. After the restoration of the democ­
racy in 403/2 nomoi were separated from psephismata, the legislative 
powers were transferred to the nomothetai, and henceforth the ecclesia 
passed only psephismata. Moreover, when psephismata are introduced 
with the formula ;oot€ Tep O~ILCfJ and nomoi with the formula o€o6X8at 
Tote vOlLo8'T(xtC. the reasonable inference is that the demos did no longer 
pass any nomos. This is the unanimous testimony of the epigraphical 
evidence. The literary evidence conforms to the inscriptions, and I 
have found only one passage, Dem. 59.88, which may be interpreted 
as an example of the fifth-century notion of the demos as legislator 
being carried on in the fourth century. Scholars who wish to maintain 

30 R. Scholl, "Ober attische Gesetzgebung," SBLeip~. (1886) 117, followed by Blass in the 
Teubner edition. 

31 MacDowell, op.dt. (supra n.24) 71. 
32 Cf. Hansen, op.dt. (supra n.24) 130 with n.12. 



324 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

that nomoi were still made by the demos in fourth-century Athens33 

must cling to this passage from the Neaera speech. It is the only source 
that can be adduced in support of the assumption that the demos was 
still thought of as the legislative body. All other sources give evidence 
to the contrary. 

II 
At the restoration of the democracy in 403/2 the Athenians passed a 

nomos prescribing that a psephisma must never override a nomos: 
ap~c/>LCfLa 8~ fL'YJ8~v fL~TE {3ovAfjc fL~TE 8~fLOV v6fLoV KVptcfJTEPOV Elvat. The 
law is read out to the jurors in Andocides' speech On the Mysteries 87, 
and it is frequently quoted in later speeches either in this form (Dem. 
23.87, 218; 24.30; Hyp. 5.22) or in the slightly varying form that 
psephismata must accord with nomoi: Ta l/J1'}c/>lcfLaTa 8Eiv KaTa Totk 

v6fLoVC OP.oAoYEiTat yp&'c/>Etv.34 In Dem. 22.5 the provision is interpreted 
as a prohibition against any psephisma which is not expressly warranted 
by a nomos,30 but this is undoubtedly an overstatement. That psephis­
mata must accord with nomoi can only mean that a psephisma must 
never be in conflict with a nomos (-rrapa TOVC v6fLOVC, 7Tap&.vofLov). 

The basic principle that nomoi superseded psephismata had a double 
legal effect. (a) If a new nomos was in conflict with previous psephis­
mata, the psephismata were automatically null and void. (b) If a new 
psephisma was in conflict with any of the nomoi in force, the psephisma 
must be indicted as unconstitutional and rescinded by the court 
through a ypac/>~ 7Tapav6fLwv. 

(a) It is indeed astonishing that a psephisma was automatically 
repealed ifit was in conflict with a new nomos, but the conclusion seems 
inevitable. In 356/5 Leptines proposed and carried a new nomos 
abolishing any form of ateleia. The nomos was indicted as unconstitu­
tional by a ypac/>~ v6fLOV fL~ E7TtT~8EWV f)Eivat, and in his speech Against 
Leptines (20.44) Demosthenes argues that the law is detrimental to the 
Athenian people because all previous grants of ateleia-even to meri­
torious people-will automatically be repealed: Kat f)EWPEiT', ciJ /XV8PEC 
OAf) - ., .I.'/" , '" -., '" , f) , .n 'YJvatot, oca 'f''YJ'f'tCfLaT aKvpa 7TOtH 0 vOfLoc, Kat ocovc av PW7TOVC 

88 e.g. Harrison, op.cit. (supra n.3) 27. 
34 Oem. 23.86, 20.92; cf Oem. 22.43 etc. 
85 EYW 0' CXUTO TOUVCXVTtOV oi:olLCXt, vOlLt,W O£ KCXt VlLiv cvvoa~t"w, 7Tt"pl TOl1TWV < ot"iv > TO: 

7Tpo{JovAt"VILCXT' EK~EPt"tV lLavwv 7Tt"pl wv Kt"At"vovcw at valLot, E7Tt"l1Tt"pl wv yt" IL-q Kt"ivTCX' valLot 

OU/)£ ypa~wl .,..qv a.priv 1TpOC~KE' OU/)£ ~ /)~ov. . 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 325 

aSLKEt. Now Demosthenes is not always a reliable interpreter of the 
law, but his assertion in the Leptines speech is confirmed by a much 
more important source, viZ' the recently discovered law on silver 
coinage. The last provision of this nomos passed by the nomothetai reads 
as follows: ei S€ TL if1TJcpLCJMX Y€YPaTTTat 7TO ECTTJA7JL 7T(:[pa T ]OVSE TOV 

vOJkov, Kafh>..lTw 6 ypaJLJkanvc TijC ,BOA[ijC].36 So the ypaJkJkanvc TfjC 

fiovAfjc is em powered by an enactment of the nomothetai to go through 
all psephismata and on his own authority to delete those psephismata 
which are in conflict with the new nomos. 

(b) A new psephisma conflicting with a nomos must be rescinded, but 
in this case no official was authorised to cancel the psephisma auto­
matically. The decree must be overruled through a 'Ypacp~ 7Tapa­

vOJ.Lwv initiated by a private citizen and heard by a dicasterion. The pro­
cedure was introduced with a v7TWJ.L0cLa, and the psephisma was sus­
pended during the period between the V7TWJ.LOcLa and the hearing of 
the case. A V7TWJ.LOcLa might be lodged either before or after the 
passing of the psephisma, but if the psephisma had been passed by the 
ecclesia it was valid as long as no citizen had initiated a 'Ypacp~ 7Tapa­

VOJ.Lwv by a v7TwJ.L0da, no matter whether it was unconstitutional or 
not. For a detailed account of the ypacp-i] 7TapavoJ.Lwv I refer to my 
previous study (supra n.8). 

III 
According to Arist. Ath.Pol. 59.2 the Athenians had two different 

types of indictment against unconstitutional enactments, viZ' the 
'YpacP~ 7TapavOJ.Lwv and the 'YpacP~ VOJ.LOV J.L~ i7TLT~8ELOV BEtVaL. Whereas 
the 'YpacP~ 7TapaVoJLwv is attested from 415,37 there is no unquestionable 
reference to the 'YpacP~ vOJLov JL~ i7TLT~8ELOV BELvaL earlier than the trial 
of Eudemus of Cydathenaeum in the archonship of Euandrus 382/1 
(Oem. 24.138), and the most important piece of information about the 
institution is the law quoted in Demosthenes' speech Against Timocra-
.. 33 NOMO ~ ,\ <;:" \ , \ ~, ~ , " 
~es: k/' Eav OE TLC /\vcac TLva TWV vOJ.Lwv TWV K€LJ.LEVWV ETEpOV 

, B - ,. 1<;:' - <;:, I - 'AB ' '" ,- I aVTL rJ J.L7J E7TLT7JOELOV Tep 07JJ.Lep Tep rt 7JvaLwv 7J EvaVTLOV TWV KELJLEVWV Tep, 
\ ,/..,'.,. "..... \ \ I ~ ....,' , , 

Tae ypa'f'ae £tva, KaT aVTOV KaTa TOV VOf.LOV oe K£tTa, Eav TLe f.L'rJ E7TL-

T~~ELOV Ofj VOJLOV. So the terminus ante quem is 383, and I accept the 
38 Ed. R. S. Stroud, "An Athenian Law on Silver Coinage," Hesperia 43 (1974) 157-88; if. 

159 lines 55-56 and the commentary 184-85. 
37 Leogoras' yparpTJ 7rapavop.wv against Speusippus (Andoc. 1.17 and 22). Cf. Hansen, op.cit. 

(supra n.8) 28, Catalogue no. 1. 



326 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

traditional view proposed by Kahrstedt38 and supported by Wolff39 
that the 'YpacPl} vo!-'ov!-'l} E1T£T1}8€LOV 8Eiva£ was instituted in connection 
with the restoration of the democracy in 403/2. In the following I will 
discuss the relationship between the two different types of indictment 
and argue in favour of Kahrstedt's view that a 'YpacPTJ 7Tapav6!-,wv, after 
403/2, could be brought only against psephismata, whereas a public 
action against an unconstitutional nomos had to take the form of a 
'YpacPl} vo!-'ov !-'~ J7T£T1}8€LOV 8Eiva£. Kahrstedt, however, did not collect 
and discuss the sources, and his argument was weakened by his belief 
that the 'YpacP~ vo!-'ov !-'TJ J7TLT1}8E£OV 8Eiva£ was Heine in Klageform 
eingebrachte Nomothesie ausserhalb des Termins."4o Because of 
these shortcomings his view has not been generally accepted and needs 
a full discussion of the evidence. 

In the sources relating to the fourth century there are twenty-seven 
examples of a 'YpacPl} 7Tapavo!-'wv against a psephisma,41 and moreover 
when the 'YpacP~ 7Tapavo!-'wv is mentioned as a type of public action 
without reference to any particular case the orator always assumes 
that the enactment indicted is a psephisma.42 Similarly, we have evi­
dence of four 'YpacPa;' vo!-'ov !-'1} J7TLT1}8E£OV 8Eiva£ against nomoi43 in 
addition to the general reference in the law quoted in Dem. 24.33. 
On the other hand, we have not a single unquestionable instance of a 
'YpacP~ vo!-'ov !-'1} J7TLT1}8€LOV 8Eiva£ brought against a psephisma or of a 
'YpacP~ 7Tapavo!-'wv brought against a nomos. Three public actions of the 
fourth century have been described by modern scholars as 'YpacPa;' 
7Tapavo!-'wv against nomoi, but in all three cases the classification is 
based on a misinterpretation of the sources. The 'YpacPal in question 
are the indictment against Theozotides' law about state aid to orphans 

88 op.cit. (supra n.3) 24. 
89 H. J. Wolff, 'Normenkontrolle' und Gesetzesbegriffin der attischen Demokratie, SBHeidelb. 

1970,41. 
40 op.cit. (supra n.3) 25. Criticized by Wolff, op.cit. (supra n.39) 36-40. 
41 Hansen, op.cit. (supra n.8) Catalogue nos. 4 (Arist. Ath.Pol. 40.2); 7 (Oem. 20.84); 8 (Din. 

1.16); 11 (Oem. 7.42); 12 (Oem. 22.8); 13 (Oem. 24.14); 14 (Oem. 23.2); 15 (Oem. 59.91); 
16 (Oem. 59.91); 17 (Aeschin. 2.14); 18 (Oem. 59.4); 21 (Oem. 58.37); 22 (Oem. 58.36-37); 23 
(Oem. 58.30); 24 (Oem. 58.35); 26 (Oem. 18.222); 27 (Lycurg. 1.41); 28 (Hyp. fr.80); 29 (Oem. 
25 hypo 1); 30 (Aeschin. 3.49); 31 (Polyeuctus fro 1); 32 (Hyp. 4.4); 34 (Hyp. fr.xxii, 125-27); 
35 (Hyp. 3.15); 36 (Lycurg. fr.91); 38 (Ael. VH 5.12; Din. 1.94); 39 (Hyp. fr.150). The reference 
to the catalogue is to a full description of the 'Ypaq,~ 1Tapavop.c»v in question; the reference in 
brackets is to the source proving that the enactment indicted is a psephisma. 

42 Aeschin. 3.191-92, 194; Lycurg. 1.7; Din. 1.101. 
u Oem. 24.138 (two examples); Oem. 20 passim; Aeschin. 1.34. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 327 

(Lys. fr.6 Gemet/Bizos), the indictment against Timocrates' law about 
state debtors (Dem. 24) and the indictment against Demosthenes' 
trierarchic law (Dem. 18.102-07). 

(a) The public action against Theozotides' decree providing state aid 
for orphans was-hesitatingly-classified by Wolff as a ypacP~ vOJLov 
p-~ J7Tn·-r78""ov O.:'i:va<,44 but: his discussion of t:he problem was super­

seded by the rediscovery and republication of a stele inscribed with 
the decree. The date of the decree and the action against the decree 
can now be fixed to the period shortly after the democratic restora­
tion, and furthermore there can be no doubt that Theozotides' pro­
posal was a psephisma. It relates, however, to permanent general rules 
which in the fourth century ought to be passed as a nomos, and in the 
speech preserved on papyrus it is probably referred to as a nomos.45 

The conclusion seems to be that it was proposed and carried before 
the introduction of the distinction between nomoi and psephismata. But 
the ypacP~ vOJLov JL~ E7TL'T~8€LOV (Je'ivaL was probably instituted in con­
sequence of the new distinction between nomoi and psephismata, and 
so the public action brought against the decree must be a ypacP~ 
7TapavoJLwv of the old type to be used against both permanent and 
temporary enactments of the ecclesia. 

(b) It is often assumed that Demosthenes' speech Against Timocrates 
was delivered in connection with a ypacP~ 7TapavoJLwv, although the 
indictment was brought against a nomos.46 But if we accept that the 
documents inserted in the speech are genuine and complete in their 
preserved form, we must follow Kahrstedt and Wolff in classifying the 
public action as a ypacP~ vOJLov JL~ E7TL'T~8eLOV (Je'ivaL 47 Demosthenes 
opens his argumentation (17) with a reference to the law warranting 
the type of action resorted to. The relevant law is quoted in 33, and 
here only the ypa~ vOJLov JL~ E7TL'T~8€LOV (Je'ivaL is mentioned, not the 

.I.. ' I ypa.,.,TJ 7TapaVOJLwv. 
(c) In 340/39 Demosthenes proposed and carried a new trierarchic 

law. In the sources it is consistently called a nomos, and its enactment 

"op.at. (supra n.39) 31 n.78. Cf Gernet/Bizos in the Bude edition. Stroud, op.at. (supra 
n.18) 297 n.49, wavers between a 'Ypa.pT] '1Tapav6,.,.wv and a '1TpofJo>'~. In addition to the line 
of argument in the fragments, the word '1T]ap&vo,.,.a in fro (i) 150 indicates that the type of 
public action is a 'Ypa.pT] '1Tapav6,.,.wv and not a '1TpofJo>'~. 

'5 Supra p.320 with nn.18 and 19. 
46 Most recently by H. Wankel, Demosthenes, Redefur Ktesiphon aber den Kranz I (Heidel­

berg 1976) 561. 
47 Kahrstedt, op.at. (supra n.3) 24; Wolff, op.at. (supra n.39) 31ff. 



328 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

is described with the verb VOfLOOETELV.48 So it was probably a decision 
made by the nomothetai. Admittedly, Dinarchus states that the pro­
posal was discussed at several meetings of the ecclesia,49 but we know 
from Dem. 20.94 that a bill had to be read out to the assembly and 
discussed by the people before it was referred to the nomothetai. 
Demosthenes relates (18.103) that his proposal was indicted as un­
constitutional but upheld by the court: Kat ypacpE£c TOV aywva ToiJ-rov 

Elc VfLiic ElcfjMJov Kat a7T'£cpvyov. Which type of public action was 
brought against Demosthenes' proposal? The answer is to be found 
in the phrase TOV aywva Toihov, where the pronoun Toihov cannot 
refer back to the previous section since the trial has not been men­
tioned earlier. So TOV aywva TOVTOV must mean 'this process' = 'such 
a process as the one in question' = a ypacp~ 7T'apav6fLwv, since Demos­
thenes makes the statement in his speech On the Crown, which was 
delivered in a ypacp~ 7T'apav6fLwv.50 The inference seems to be both 
that Demosthenes' trierarchic law was a nomos passed by the nomo­
thetai and that the indictment brought against Demosthenes was a 
ypacp~ 7T'apav6fLwv; but this must not be taken to mean that a ypacp~ 
7T'apaV6fLwv was brought against a nomos, for in 18.105 Demosthenes 
refers to TO "'~cp£cfLa KaO' 0 Elcfj),Oov T~V ypacp~v. So the ypacp~ 7T'apa­
v6fLWV is connected with a psephisma, but a psephisma about what? 

TO "'~cp£cfLa KaO' 0 Elcfj),Oov T~V ypacp~v means "the decree according 
to which I was committed for trial," but it cannot signify a psephisma 
warranting the action because-in contrast to the procedure in an 
eisangelia-no psephisma had to be passed in connection with a ypacp~ 
7T'apav6fLwv or a ypacp~ v6fLOV fL~ E7T'LT~8E£OV OELva,. Nor are we allowed 
to assume that the psephisma is identical with Demosthenes' trier­
archic law.51 The law is consistently referred to as a nomos, and more­
over there is no other example in any other source of a fourth-

j8 vop.oc Oem. 18.102-07 (seven occurrences). 312; Din. 1.42; Hyp. fr.I60. vop.09n·E'v 
Aeschin.3.222. 

u Din. 1.42. Cf. Hansen. op.cit. (supra n.14) and "01 lIPOEtJP01 TDN NOM08ETDN. 
A Note on IG nt 222. 41-52," ZPE 30 (1978) 156. 

60 Cf. Hansen, op.cit. (supra n.8) 45, and H. Weil, Les plaidoyers politiques de Dinwsthhle I 
(Paris 1883) 470. 1rapa.vop.wv after TOVTOV (add. wig.: om. S L F) is correctly omitted by most 
editors as a gloss. but in my opinion it reflects a correct interpretation of the passage. So 
the type of public action must be a 'YpatPTJ '7Tapa.vop.wv, pace Wolff. op.cit. (supra n.39) 39 n.l02. 
who classifies the trial as a 'YpatPTj IIOP.OIl p.Tj ~'"'n18ElOII BEillal. 

61 The position of Atkinson and de Laix. if. supra n.21. 



MOGENS HERMAN HANSEN 329 

century nomos being described as a psephisma. The clue to the problem 
is rather that any nomos passed by the nomothetai presupposed a 
psephisma passed by the ecclesia and ordering the appointment of 
nomothetai.52 The psephisma by which the trierarchic law was re­
ferred to the nomothetai was probably proposed and carried by De­
ITlosthenes hiITlself, and so the public action brought against DeITlos­

thenes can be interpreted as a yparpTJ 7Tapav6fLwv against the psephisma 
instructing the nomothetai to hear the nomos and take a vote on it. As a 
possible parallel to this I can refer to the trial of Timocrates. As I have 
argued above, the trial is a ypacpTJ v6fLoV fL~ E7TLT~8EWV OELVat brought 
against a nomos passed by the nomothetai. But Timocrates' nomos was 
proposed and carried in accordance with Epicrates' psephisma that 
nomothetai be appointed on 12 Hecatombaion for the purpose of pass­
ing nomoi about the Panathenaea.53 Epicrates' psephisma, however, 
was itself 7TapavofLov54 and so the prosecutor must have had a choice 
between bringing a ypacp~ 7Tapav6fLwv against Epicrates' psephisma and 
a ypacp~ v6fLoV fL~ E7TLT~8EWV OELVat against Timocrates' nomos, which he 
preferred to do. 

Summing up: since the Athenians had two forms of indictment 
against unconstitutional proposals, there must have been a difference 
between them. The only demonstrable difference is that the ypacpTJ 

v6fLOV fLTJ E7TLT~8EWV OELVat was reserved for indictments against nomoi, 
whereas the ypacp~ 7Tapav6fLwv could be employed only against 
psephismata. On the other hand, a ypacp~ 7Tapav6fLwv could be brought 
against any psephisma and not only-as usually assumed-against a 
psephisma which was 7TapavofLov either in form (by some infringement 
of the procedure) or in content (by being in conflict with some specific 
nomos).55 

IV 
The examination of the formal differences between nomos and 

psephisma in fourth-century Athens has led to the following con­
clusions: in 403/2 or shortly afterwards a distinction between nomos 

68 Oem. 3.10-13, 24.20-23; Aeschin. 3.38-39. 
58 Oem. 24.27. Cf Hansen, op.cit. (supra n.49) 154-57. 
u Oem. 24.30 i'propal Kal 8~'ival VO/LOV V/L'iv KaTa "nlt/ne/La, 8 Kal aUTO 7Tapa Tove VO/LOVC 

~lp7J/L'VOV iia~l. 
&5 Cf Hansen, op.cit. (supra n.24) 145 n.4D. 



330 NOMOS AND PSEPHISMA IN FOURTH-CENTURY ATHENS 

and psephisma was instituted, and henceforth no enactment of the 
Athenians was both a nomos and a psephisma. Psephismata were passed 
by the demos in the ecclesia, nomoi by the nomothetai. There is no ex­
ample of a nomos passed by the demos or of a psephisma passed by the 
nomothetai. Nomoi superseded psephismata and psephismata must accord 
with the nomoi in force. The distinction between nomoi and psephis­
mata was reflected in the administration of justice. The ypacp~ 7Tapa­

v6f-Lwv was reformed and a new type of public action was introduced. 
After the reform the ypacpi"J 7Tapav6f-Lwv applied only to psephismata, 
whereas an unconstitutional nomos had to be indicted through a 

.J.. \, \' I ~ 8 - 56 
ypa~'1} VOf-LOV f-L'1} £7TL'T'1}O£LOV £waL. 

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 

August, 1978 

18 I should like to thank Professor J. Christensen and Dr P. J. Rhodes for reading and 
commenting on a draft of this article and Mr A. G. Woodhead for his kind advice and assist­
ance as regards the epigraphical evidence. Furthermore, I should like to express my grati­
tude to Statens Humanistiske Forskningmld for defraying the costs of a visit to Cambridge.