Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy

NOMOS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON 1969

PRESS

GLASGOW CAPE

I'\EW

TOWN

YORK

SALISBURY

BOMBAY

CALCUTTA

KUALA

LUMPUR

PRINTED AT

THE

TORONTO IBADAN MADRAS

IX

PH.INTER

THE

ADDIS

LAHORE KONG

RIDLEH. UNIVERSITY

ABABA

DACCA

TOKYO

BHITAIX PUESS,

VIVIAN TO

HONG

GREAT

WELLINGTOX

LUSAKA

KARACHI

SI~GAPORE

UNIVERSITY BY

MELBOUR~E NAIROBI

OXFORD

might T almost be described as accidental that this has become a book about Cleisthenes and his reforms. However, in looking back upon its beginnings, it seems to me that the inner logic of my initial design inevitably led to Cleisthenes. Stimulated by my teacher, Professor Kurt von Fritz, then of Columbia University and now of the University of Munich, I had long been interested in the meaning of the expression aypaepos vOfLoS. Not only the standard monograph on this problem, published by Rudolf Hirzel as long ago as I goo, but also sporadic (and usually incidental) remarks about it in current scholarly publications seemed to me to be misguided in making the tacit assumption that one single definable concept underlies the expression, and gradually led me to the conviction that its adjectival part, aypaepos, though not free from problems, is less problematic than the noun vOfLos, whose connotations are too numerous and diffuse to be capable of being reduced to one or two equivalents, such as 'law' and 'custom', in a modern language. In order to explain why the adjective aypaepos could be applied to some kinds of VOfLOL but not to others, even though these were also unwritten, the first and most important step seemed to be to subject vOfLoS to an exhaustive and systematic analysis of all its connotations, and a leave of absence from my teaching duties in 1961-2 gave me the leisure necessary to complete this part of the study. In the course of this investigation a new and, I believe, more profound problem began to demand attention. \Vhat I had regarded as the most common connotation of vOfLOS, 'statute', 'law', proved not only to be much less common in the fifth century than other connotations of the term but also to be first attested for Athens as late as 464/3 B.C. This necessitated an expansion of my study to include BWfLos, the word which Draco and Solon had used to describe their statutes, and I was surprised to discover that BWfLo, and vOfLoS do not overlap chronologically in the sense of 'statute': I could find no example of a legal-political BWfLoS in Athens enacted after 464/3 B.C. and no example of a legal-political vOfLO, before that date. Although

I

none of our ancient sources explicitly informs us of a change in Athenian terminology from eWfLOS to vOfLoS, the evidence for such a change and the suspicion that it must have taken place at a specific point in time and as a result of a deliberate policy were so strong that I decided to track it down, and the outcome of that decision is the present book. Basically, therefore, this book contains the philological study of two Greek words which played a crucial part in Athenian political thought. Since my main concern here is with eWfLos and VOfLoS in the sense of 'statute', I chose the end of the fifth century as the lower limit of my inquiry, because by that time vOfLoS can be shown to be firmly entrenched as the official term for 'statute'. In order to find the possible historical circumstances of the change, it seemed necessary first to discover the basic ideas underlying eWfLoS and vOfLoS so as to see as clearly as possible the relation of the sense of 'statute' to other connotations and thus to find a guide to the general atmosphere in which the change may have taken place. The result of this endeavour, namely that eWfLoS describes a statute as an enactment imposed from above, whereas VOfLOS regards it as the ratification of what is generally regarded as valid and binding, pointed to a connection between VOfLOS and the beginnings of the Athenian democracy. Since, however, no word for 'statute' is preserved in any text from the more than forty years between the establishment of democracy and the earliest occurrence of vOfLoS = 'statute' in 464/3 B.C., my second task was to try to narrow the gap by a more circuitous route. Accordingly, I examined every occurrence to the end of the fifth century of all those -vol1'0S compounds which appear in Greek writings before 464/3 B.C. Only one of these, laovofLLa, turned out to have strictly political connotations, and the fact that the earliest occurrence of its adjective, laovofLos, can be fairly precisely dated in the period of the overthrow of the Peisistratid tyranny and the establishment of the Cleisthenean democracy enabled me to marshal what I believe to be strong reasons for the adoption of vOfLoS in place of eWfLoS as an integral part of Cleisthenean policy. Many kind friends and colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic have generously helped with advice and suggestions. Professor A. Andrewes and Mr. A. R. W. Harrison of Oxford and Professors Henry M. Hoenigswald and Charles H. Kahn of the

University of Pennsylvania read the finished typescript in its entirety; Mr. Russell Meiggs of Balliol College, Oxford, read an carlier version of Parts II and III, Dr. Victor Ehrenberg of London read the entire book in proof, and Mr. G. E. M. de Ste. Croix of New College, Oxford, not only provided encouragement and stimulation, but did much else to make our stay in Oxford in 1965~6 as rich as it was. I want here to express my profound gratitude to them all and to assure them that they bear no responsibility for the imperfections that remain. I wish to record my gratitude also to a number of institutions which made the completion of this book possible: Swarthmore Collegc granted me the two leaves of absence from my teaching obligations which enabled me, the one to begin, and the other to finish the book, and through its Faculty Research Fund provided secretarial and other kinds of material assistance; a research grant from the Fulbright Commission made it possible to spend 1961-2 in Greece, where I enjoyed the hospitality of the American School of Classical Studies; and the award of a fellowship by the American Council of Learned Societies gave me the opportunity to complete this book in essence during my second leave, in 1965-6, under the best possible conditions in Oxford. Finally, I wish to thank my pupil, Miss M. Rachel Kitzinger, for her effective help in compiling the Bibliography and the Index Locorum, and the staff of the Clarendon Press for their constant and cheerful help in editing and publishing this book. MARTIN

Swarthmore College and the University of Pennsylvania August 1968

OSTWALD

PART

BWf-Loc;

I.

I

and

NOf-LoC;

BWf-LOC;

2. NOf-LoC;

3. Summary and Conclusion PART

II

NOf-LoC;becomes 1.

'Statute'

The Problem Defined

2. Evvof-L{a, L1vavof-L{a,

and

57 }4vof-L{a

62

3. ' Iaovof-L{a and Athens

96 PART

III

Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy Cleisthenes, and

I.

' Iaovof-L{a,

NOf-LoC;

2.

The Originality of Cleisthenes

I37 I6I

ENDNOTES

I74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I86

INDEX

LOCORUM

I97

GREEK

INDEX

2I2

THIS list does not include abbreviations in general use. When footnote references are in the form 'op. cit.' or 'loco cit.' full particulars of the work referred to will be found within the preceding half-dozen pages. The collections from which fragments are cited are identified in the Index Locorum. Andrewes, Eun. Bowra, GLP Brunnsiiker

Buck, GD Busolt, GG

-GS -Ison. -aD

Gigante, NB Gomme, HCT

Heinimann, NP Hignett, HAC

A. Andrewes, 'Eunomia', CQ32 (1938) 89-102. C. M. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetryt (Oxford, 1961). S. Brunnsiiker, The Tyrant Slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes (Lund, 1955). G. Busolt and H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, 2 vols. (Munich, 1920 and 1926). C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955). G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte2, 1-2 (Gotha, 1893-5); 31 (Gotha, 1897-1904). W. Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum3 (Leipzig, 1915). V. Ehrenberg, 'Eunomia', Aspects rif the Ancient World (Oxford, 1946) 70-93. -Die Rechtsidee im friihen Griechentum (Leipzig, 1921). -The Greek State (Oxford, 1960). -RE, supp!. 7 (1940) 293-301, s.v. 'Isonomia'. -'Origins of Democracy', Historia 1 (1950) 515-48. -'Das Harmodioslied', Wiener Studien 69 (1956) 57-69. H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch (Heidelberg, 1960- ). M. Gigante, Nomos Basileus (Naples, 1956). A. W. Gommc, A Historical CommentaT)' on ThuC)'dides, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1945-56). W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1962 and 1965). F. Heinimann, Nomos und Physis (Basel, 1945). C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1952). R. Hirzel, "'Aypa1Jo{UTUTOV to praise the Aeacidae whenever he sets foot on the island of Aegina. Here belong also the {)wfLO[ which Bellerophon claims to honour in Euripides and which bid him act with decorum. 1 Finally, we come to that group of {)WfLO[ which is of most immediate concern to us here, since they include the sense of 'statute'. Each of these {)wfLO[ has a specific content and propounds an injunction usually, but not invariably, of a political nature, which mayor may not take a written form. The {)wfLo[ of Draco and Solon, for example, were written statutes,2 and it is 1 2

Eur. Stheneboea 15 in D. L. Page, Greek Literary Papyri I. 128. For Draco see above, p. 3 nn. 2 and 3; for Solon see above, p. 3 nn. 4 and 5,

and p. 4, no.

I.

16

eEI:MOI:

AND

NOMOI:

probable that the old Draconian {)'afua concerning the establishment of a tyranny at Athens, which were revived after the expulsion of the Peisistratids, were issued and preserved in writing, I as were even earlier, according to Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 3. 4),2 the records kept by the {)wj-to{)l.Tat. But written political {)wj-to{ existed not only in Athens. Among the Locrians TE{)j-tO, seems to be the most important, if not the only, word used for a written statute. It first appears about 500 B.C. as the description of a written law, probably of the Ozolian Locrians, in which regulations concerning the disposition of newly-acquired agricultural lands are laid down,3 and in which their law concerning homicide, which may also have been written, is referred to in the phrase KIlT TOV dVDPEepOVtKOV TET{)j-tOV.4 There is, further, a written statute of the early fifth century defining the political conditions of the settlement by the Eastern Locrians of their colony at Naupactus, which refers to itself as TO {)'{)j-ttOV, presumably indicating that it was intended to be the fundamental constitutional instrument of the colony.s Outside politics {)wj-to, survives also as the descriptive term for written cult regulations issued by demes or phratries. In Athens, for example, there was recently found the re-publication after the Persian Wars of an older {)wj-to, probably pertaining to rites at the Therrikleion,6 and from Delphi we know the late fifth-century TE{)j-tO, concerning funerals among the phratry of the Labyadai.7 The existence of so many specific {)wj-to{ in writing does not, however, mean that all political or religious regulations to which the name {)wj-t6s was applied were ipso facto written.S The See above, p. 4 n. 2. See Endnote, pp. 174-5 below. 3 Buck, CD, No. 59. A. I and 14. For the assignment to the Ozolian Locrians the date, and a bibliography see Jeffery, LSAC 105-6 and 108. ' 4 Buck, CD, No. 59. A. 13-14. 5 .Buck, CD, No. 57. 46 and Tod, CHI 12, No. 24. 46, with bibliography and disCUSSlOn.The inscription is assigned to the first quarter of the fifth century by Jeffery, LSAC 106. For a fuller discussion see below, pp. 170-3. 6 B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 36 (1967) 72-84 (No. 15). 7 Buck, CD, No. 52. C. 19. ,8 I do not agree with V. Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles 169, that 'lJw/-,o" or lJ.u/-,wv ... means by itself written law, law "set up", as, e.g., preserved by the thesmothetai, and thus distinct from law by usage, or vo/-,o,', and that 'the view which prevailed, for instance, in Solon's thought and dominated the sixth century' was 'that it was in the nature ofa thesmos to be written'. Surely, the lack of references to aypar/>oL IJw/-,o{ is poor evidence on which to base such a conclusion and the testimony of both non-politicallJw/-,o{ already discussed and politicallJ.~/-,o{ to be I

2

instructions about the use of his blood which the centaur Nessus gave to Deianeira were certainly not written, even if Sophocles calls them {)wj-to{ (Trach. 682), and neither were the {)dvv 7TUV{)VTU {)'aj-tta which Ajax performed (Aj. 712). Likewise, when the Erinyes express the fear (Aesch. Eum. 491) that they will be overthrown by the new {)'aj-tta of the Areopagus, it is rather improbable that they are thinking specifically of written statutes; at any rate, the question whether these {)'aj-tta are written or not is immaterial to their thought. I The problem of writing is also as irrelevant to Democritus' demand (frg. 266) that a {)wj-tos ought to be established for the protection of public officials as it is to Hecuba's question in Euripides' Trojan Women (266-7) which voj-tos or {)'aj-ttOv ofthe Greeks sanctions Polyxena's assignment to the tomb of Achilles. In the case of the fifth-century {)E{)j-tOS of Tegea which states that possible disputes arising from a deposit of money be settled by the people of Tegea, we simply do not know whether or not reference is made to a written statute.2 Slightly different is Teucer's statement to Menelaus in Sophocles' Ajax (1 I04) to the effect that there is no {)wj-tos by which Menelaus was given the right to command Ajax. Taken at its face value, the very fact that written legislation did not exist in the heroic age may be taken to indicate that he is speaking of an unwritten ordinance. But the language, particularly the use of the verb €KEtTO, suggests that Teucer's words must be set against the background of written legislation prevalent at the time when the play was first performed. But here again the question of writing is beside the point. The same is true of the final passage relevant to our purposes. The CiDtKOt {)wj-to{, with which, according to the epigram on the dead of Phyle, the Thirty ruled Athens, no doubt include, but are not confined to, those of their measures which were issued in writing.3 In short, writing is an accidental but not an essential part of the definition of {)wj-tos in the sense of a specific political or religious regulation. We may, then, summarize our findings as follows. In Greek discussed presently argues against it. In fact, Ehrenberg himself (ibid. 34 n. 2) interprets IJwW7,v in Soph. Ant. 797, as 'unwritten laws'. I That statutes are involved here seems beyond doubt, see Rose, CSPA 2. 263 ad loco 2 IC 5. 2, 159 A. 8 and B. 20, with bibliography in Buck, CD 267. 3 Aeschines 3. 190, with the fragments of the inscription found in the Agora excavations and published by A. E. Raubitschek, Hesperia 10 (1941) 284-95. 814277

c

t

writings down to the end of the fifth century, {}wJLOi> is used to describe (a) a physical object placed in a significant location, (b) an institution or establishment, (c) the ordinance by which such an institution is called into being, (d) the propriety inherent in obedience to fundamental regulations, and (e) specific statutes or regulations of a political or religious character. What all these connotations have in common is that each involves explicitly or implicitly not only a {}WJLOi> which is imposed, but also an agency which places or imposes it and a place or group which is conceived of as the recipient of the imposition and for whom the {}EUJL0i> constitutes an obligation. A few examples will clarifY the way in which this general definition applies to the various connotations isolated as (a)-(e) above. (a) In the Otfyssey passage, it is Odysseus who had placed the bed into the stump of an olive-tree (23. 183-204), and in Pindar's thirteenth Olympian the judges had placed the wreaths of victory on Xenophon's brow. (b) The gods are said in Aeschylus' Eumenides to have given the Erinyes their station in the universe, and Athene has instituted the Areopagus both as a {}wJL0i> (b) and by means ofa BEUJL0i> (c) as a lawcourt for the Athenians, while the Olympic and Isthmian Games were bestowed upon the Greeks respectively by Heracles and Poseidon. (c) By a TE{}JLOi> ofthe immortals Aegina was given to strangers as a haven, and Aigimios gave his BWJLoL to his sons. The rulers of Athens give their {}wJLoL to the Athenian ephebes, and the {}wJLoL of their ancestors were binding upon the Royal Judges of Persia. (d) No author is mentioned of the rules of propriety, but such rules are spoken of as imposed on the poet, the visitor to Aegina, and on Bellerophon. And (e) in the case of statutes and similar regulations, men such as Draco, Solon, and Nessus, or bodies such as the Athenian BWJLO{}ETUt, the Areopagus, the rulers of Locris or Tegea or of phratries, are spoken of as authors of {}wJLoL, while the Athenians, Deianeira, Locrians, and phratry members are thought of as the recipients for whom the {}wJLoL constitute an obligation. Moreover, the author of most of the {}wJLoL is a person or agency, divine or human, who is thought of as standing apart from and above those on whom the BWJLoL are imposed, and the position of respect accorded to that agency makes the thing imposed something especially inviolable for the recipients, something that has an obligating character for them. We may, then, state that in the case of {}w~i> the etymological

relation to T£()TJJLL supports what we find in actual usage: it is a thing imposed by a higher power upon those for whom the authority of the imposing agency makes the BWJLoi> an obligation. If we apply this to the sense of 'statute', we may conclude that BEUJLOi> is a law given by a lawgiver who is thought of as standing apart from and above the persons upon whom his law is binding.

vOfLoS plays a more central part in Greek life and thought than does 8WfLoS, and since it has, accordingly, been the subject of more extensive scholarly discussion, it is advisable that at the outset of this chapter we re-state our aim and show how it differs from the aims of some earlier treatments of the term. We are at this juncture not concerned with elucidating the meaning of vOfLoS in one particular passage, as are, for example, those who have tried to define its meaning in Pindar, frg. 169;1 nor with tracking down the origins of the term as a particular philosophical concept;2 nor are we interested only in its sense of 'statute'; nor do we want to give a historical account of the semantic development of vOfLoS and its relations to cognate words.3 Our purpose is rather to determine what basic concept or root idea underlies all the various meanings of vOfLoS as they occur in all their contexts before the end of the fifth century B.C., in order to compare this concept with 8wfLoS and discover the differences between the two. For the sake of convenience we shall for the present not consider the various nouns, verbs, adjectives, and their compounds which are related to vOfLos, since they will not provide us with any insights in this respect that cannot be gained from a study of vOfLoS alone. The thesis which we shall try to substantiate is that vOfLoS in all its uses describes an order of some kind,4 which differs from other words for 'order', such as Tcfgt" in the connotation that this order is or ought to be regarded as valid and binding by those who live under it. In other words, vOfLoS is a norm both in a descriptive and in a prescriptive sense, and although the origin of this norm

5

1N C E

I e.g. O. Schroeder, "Nop.os'; 1Tavrwv {3aa,AEvs", Philologus 74 (1917) 195-204; Stier, NB; Gigante, NB; and my own article 'Pindar, NOMOI:, and Heracles', HSCP 69 (1965) 109-38. 2 e.g. Heinimann, NP, or M. Pohlenz, 'Nomos und Physis', Hermes 81 (1953) 418-38. See also the unconvincing attempt of]. A. S. Evans, 'Despotes Nomos', Athenaeum N.S. 43 (1965) 142-53, to relate Herodotus' view of vop.os to his idea of historical causation. 3 As does, for example Laroche. 4 This point is emphasized by Laroche 177-8, 180, and 196.

may on various occasions be attributed to the gods, to a lawgiver, or to an enactment by a society as a whole, the crucial point is that, regardless of origin, it is recognized and acknowledged as the valid norm within a given milieu. I The earliest author to use vOfLo, is also the first to employ the term in its widest range.2 Hesiod tells us in the 'Works and Days that Zeus ordained for men the vOfLo, that, while beasts, living as they do without 8{wl), devour one another, he gave menjustiee (8{KYJ), 'which turns out to be the best by far'.3 That vOfLo, does not here bear the sense of 'law' or 'ordinance' which prescribes a certain kind of behaviour but designates the behaviour itself has long been recognized.4 It is, rather, an order ofliving, a way of life, which Zeus has given to men and which differs from the vOfLo, he has given to the beasts. The vOfLo, of men includes and that of the animals excludes 8{KYJ; that it is god-given is only incidental, for the poin-Jis that it constitutes a norm followed by any human being who does not want to degenerate into an animal.s There are two further early examples of vOfLo, as describing the way of life as such of men or animals. The lack of context for Aleman's F0t:8a 8' opv{xwv vOfLw, 7TaVTWV (frg. 40) makes it difficult I Heinimann, NP 65, does not go far enough when he defines vop.os as 'das bei einer Gruppe von Lebewesen "Geltende"'. The point inherent in vop.os is not merely its validity but that its validity is acknowledged and, usually, accepted by those whose vop.os it is. 2 Nop.os does not occur in II. nor, I believe, in ad., despite Zenodotus' reading vop.ov for voov at ad. I. 3, which has been defended by R. Merkelbach, Untersuchungen zur Odyssee (= Zeternata 2) 158-9 n. 4, and by Gigante, NB 44 with critical bibliography in n. I. Zenodotus' reading was attacked already in antiquity by Aristarchus. and Pohlenz, Philologus 97 (1948) 139, seems to me to be right in arguing that the plural vop.ovs would be more appropriate if Zenodotus' reading were correct; d. also Laroche 164-6, Stier, NB 232 n. 20, and Heinimann, NP 61 n. I I. 3 276-80: 1'OVOEyap o.vflpomow, vop.ov OtE1'a~E Kpovtwv / lxflvaL p.EV I included in the fourth century the notion that it is embodied in a written document. To what extent is this definition also true of the fifth century? The question has considerable importance for us in our search for the date when vOfLoS first came to assume the meaning of 'statute' in Athens. Since the BWfLoL of Draco and Solon were written, we are obviously interested in finding out at what time written documents analogous to theirs were first called VOfLOt. For we can have absolute certainty that vOfLo> had taken the place of BWfLoS only when written political enactments bear the new name. But here we encounter a difficulty. The earliest explicit reference to written VOfLOt in Athens is no earlier than 425 B.C., when Aristophanes had Dicaeopolis speak of Pericles' Megarian Decree as vOfLov> WU7TEP UKoAtu JlEJlpufLfLEVOV> (Aeh. 532), and when, a few years later, Euripides' Hecuba complains of the restraints imposed upon free action by vOfLWV JlpU4)uL (Ree. 866).1 These passages suggest in the unobtrusive way of their allusion that by 425 B.C. written statutes were no novelty for the Athenians, but that they had long been part of their daily life. But this date is too late to be meaningful.

I

58

NOMOI:

BECOMES

'STATUTE'

We can push the evidence for written statutes back almost two decades further. When Pericles in his Funeral Oration, delivered in 43 I B.C., mentions fear manifested in obedience to the VOfLOL as one of the principal factors which keep the Athenians from transgressing the laws, the distinction he draws between 'laws enacted for the benefit of the injured' and those laws 'which, though unwritten, bring generally recognized shame' on the offender shows that he thought oflaws as normally being written, else there would be little point in the modifier auoL uypa¢oL ovn'>'a7TallEtv (8) with V{3pLV a/,avpot (34) and apyaM1J'ov (38); KOPOV (9) with 7TavH KOPOV (34); oraon' ~/,q,v>'ov 7TO>'E/,OV II' Evoovr' E7TEydpH (19) with 7TavH_o' ~pya ,0IxoOr,aOL1JS, 7Ta~E~ 0' apya>'~1J..>..ov €V €VvofLlTJL 7ToAtS' £1.1]. 5 22: ou yap tnaLVEl Tavra /,vXOVS 7TO>'IO.aaa[£]I. The importance of the association of £vvop.{a and awq,poavvT), first attested here, is indicated by the fact that G. Grossmann, Politische Schlagworter aus der Zeit des Peloponnesischen Krieges, devotes an entire chapter (pp. 10-8g) to 'Eunomia im Sinne der Sophrosyne'. But his conclusions go beyond what the available texts justify. Cf. Helen North, Sophrosyne 23-4.

JYI:NOMIA,

AND ANOMIA

73

Pindar and Aristophanes. When Pindar prays in the First Paean (10) that Apollo may crown Thebes with the 'flowersof restraining law-and-order' (uweppovos av()wtv ElJVop.,{as), he is, to be sure, concerned with the condition of Thebes ; but his hope is that this condition should become a characteristic quality of his city.2And in the only passage in which EVvofLla appears in Aristophanes (Av. 1539-40) it is bracketed together with EV{jovAla and uweppouvvYJ as a quality of Zeus dispensed by Basileia. In all other fifth-century passages EIJVofLia and its cognates are used in the way Solon used it to describe the condition of a society without making the condition a characteristic. While Aeschylus (frg. 198) was the earliest author to apply the adjective to a non-Greek people, Herodotus is the first to apply the noun to foreign states in his description of the conditions prevailing in Egypt until the reign of Rhampsinitus (2. 124. I). For if the KaKoTYJS of Rhampsinitus' successor Cheops, with which EVvofLla is contrasted here, consisted in closing all temples and in making the Egyptians build his pyramid by their hard labour, ElJVofLla must be the condition of a state in which the relations with the gods and within society are well regulated, not necessarily only by the enactment of statutes but by the harmonious consensus of ruler and ruled.3 In another Herodotean passage the verb ElJVofLEofLat is used with reference again to a non-Greek state, Media. Kingship was established in Media, according to Herodotus, when, at an assembly convoked to cope with the spread of avofLIYJ throughout the land, the friends ofDeioces proposed: Ou yap o~ TP07Tl{J Topovs

ES 7TOAEIWV ExoVTa, EVwp,oTLas Kat

y€pov-ras

€U'T7]UE

Kat

TpL7JKu3as Kat uvaatTw,

rrpos

AVKofJpyos.

66. I : oiJ-rw /-,'V /-,E-ra~aA6v-rE, EVVo/-,~IJ'YJoav. This point is neglected by den Boer, loc. cit. 4 I agree with the conclusion of Kiechle, op. cit. 191, 'daB I 66 mit Evvo,,~IJ'YJoav die Herstellung besserer sozialer Verhaltnisse zum Ausdruck gebracht ist'. But on p. 204 he reads more about the economic situation in Sparta into this passage than the text warrants. 5 See \\!. \\!. How and J. VlTells,A Commentary on Herodotus 12• 88. 2

3

JYl:NOMIA,

AND ANOMIA

79

been established and which, for that reason, does not yet know law-and-order. In the only other fifth-century passage in which El)vo/.da, in the verb form, is associated with Sparta it is more closelyrelated to the Spartan constitution than it was in Herodotus. But even here it is the stability and permanence of the Spartan order that is emphasized, and there is no indication that EVvofkla was regarded as a name for the Spartan constitution as such. The passage takes the form of a long parenthesis, inserted in Thucydides' sketchy account of the tyrannies in the Greek world, and its purpose is to explain-it is introduced by yap-why the Lacedaemonians played so prominent a part in eliminating them: I

~ yap €7rt

AaKESa{f-Lwv

7TAELUTOV (fjv

T)vvOf-L~8T) Kat

aid

oA{yCiJ

~C; T~V

Tfj

7TAdw

aVTfj

f-LETa T~V KT{ULV TWV VVV ~VOLKOVVTWV aVT~V LlWpLWV

LUf-LEV Xp6vov aTvpavvEVToc; Tpovu '\0yov OVPUVLWVf'uKapWv KUT€{3U'\') that constitutes aV0f'LU. 4 778-80: V0f'0V 7TUP€f'EVO" aV0f'L'! Xap,v Iltoov, I 'OpuuaEv o'\{3ou KE'\U'VOVapf'u.

Ion 442--3: TrW~ o~v 8£KUWV TOUS VOfLOUS VJLOS ~POTO;S I ypaljJavTus, aUTovs 0eP/UGKaVHV; 'The contrast of dVOp.,LU with VOJ.LOS = 'statute' is found again in Critias' Sisyphus (= frg. 25. 40), if the manuscript reading is correct. But v0f'0" ought probably to be emended to 1>0{30", see above, p. 52 n. I. 2 For 7TUPUV0f'€Win Herodotus see the description of Xerxes' maltreatment of the body of Leonidas at 7. 238. 2, where the V0f'0' violated is presumably a sanction against desecration of the body of a fallen enemy; cf. 9. 78-9 and Thuc. 4. 97-101. I

avo/-dav

NOMOl; BECOMES'

92

STATUTE'

a specific vOfLOS, reveals clear traces of the 'statute' meaning of VOfLOS. The passage is part of the most elaborate treatment of dwofLtu and dvofLtu that has come down to us, and for that reason we have reserved it for this, the final point of our discussion of these two concepts. Toward the end of a late fifth-century exhortation to virtue, incorporated into the Protrepticus of Iamblichus and therefore known as the 'Anonymus Iamblichi',1 a large section (6-7) is devoted to weighing the blessings of ElJvofL{u against the harm inflicted by dvofLtu on individuals as well as on states (KUL KOLV?7KUL l8tq,). The theme itself of the treatise makes it as clear as does every occurrence of the two terms in it that both describe a quality of personal conduct. Yet there is no doubt that this conduct is less viewed as, respectively, adherence to or rejection of general norms of behaviour than as obedience and disobedience to the established laws. The primary connotation of vOfLoS is 'statute' throughout the treatise,z and time and again just behaviour is equated with the observance of the statutes.3 This attitude also colours the treatment of ElwofL{u and dvofL{u, and this is shown especially by the frequent application of both terms in financial and economic contexts. After an initial statement that dvofLtu (disregard for the laws) is incompatible with living in society4and that the EvvofLtu (obedience to the laws) inherent in all mankind will make the masses rise up against the rule of a strong individual who uses his power in an unlawful way,S There has been a tendency to identify the author as Democritus; see especially N.S. 10 (1932) 5-22, Rend. d. R. Aecad. Naz. d. Lineei, ser. 6, vol. 13 (1937) 182-210, and REG 63 (1950) 74-106; and A. T. Cole, Jr., HSep 65 (1961) 127-63. The arguments, originally advanced by Blass, that the treatise belongs to the intellectual atmosphere of the late fifth century, carry conviction and are generally accepted. But I feelIess confident that we can identify the author with Democritus or with any of the names that have been suggested, e.g. Hippias, Protagoras, Theramenes, since we know too little of their ethical and political doctrines. 2 This comcs out with special clarity at 4. 3, where in using the term 'Tlfl-,a, for losses sustained by fire, death in the family, and loss of livestock, the author feels called upon to explain that he does not mean 'penalties', ou Td~ EK TWV V6fl-WV Myw 'Tlfl-'a~. 3 e.g. at 3. 1 dya8d KaL v6fl-'fl-a are opposed to O:O'Ka KaL O:vofl-a; at 3. 6 goodness in financial matters is effected by coming to the aid Toi~ v6fl-0'~ KaL T0 O'Ka'WV (line 27), which refers to stipulations laid down earlier in lines 19-22. It is less certain whether written enactments are involved in what immediately precedes and what follows this phrase: the property of members of these clans left behind in Locris shall be subject to Locrian VO/-l-LOLS and their property at Naupactus to those of that city (lines 22-6), while upon their return home they will be subject each to the VO/-l-LOLS of his city (lines 27-8). Were these regulations laid down in writing or are the VO/-l-LU primarily customary practices? The comparative sophistication of this 8E8/-1-LOV and the parallel of Athens would again suggest that they were written. But we cannot be sure. Nor can we be sure in the case of the Naupactian VO/-l-LU (line 19) which are to apply in cases where a colonist dies without heirs in Naupactus and where the next of kin in Locris fails to register his claim to the estate. Since it is a matter of inheritance, the presumption would again be that the reference is to written legislation, especially since 'customary practices' are not likely to have developed yet in the colony by the time of the enactment of the present law. Another clause bars a delinquent tax-payer from the Locrians until he has paid TO. vO/-l-La before Naupactians (lines 15- 16). The reference isobviously to 'lawful dues', 1 that is to the arrears which he legally owes the Naupactians. Again, we do not know whether the relevant tax laws existed in writing. Finally, there is one use of the singular in the passage in which the judges are required to swear opr;>ov ToV VO/-l-LOV before trying violations of this law (line 45), and it remains just as obscure here as it did in the Halicarnassian law whether a written statute embodied the traditional formula.2 The important feature of this Naupactian law for our purposes is that it contains three terms for 'written statute' : TO 8E8/-1-LOV, TO. F€FU07Jr;>OTU, and V0/-l-(L)OS, each with a peculiar sense of its own. The fundamental constitutional character of the whole is expressed by TO 8E8/-1-LOV and the formal ratification it has undergone by TO. F€Fuo7Jr;>OTU, while VO/-l-(L)OS is used both of (written or unwritten) laws concerning matters of inheritance, property, and taxes not specified in the 8E8/-1-LOV, and of a clause that does form part of it. This multiplicity of terminology demonstrates that it is possible to find different words for different kinds of statute within the legal system of one city-state and should make us I

See A. J. Graham,

op. cit. 51 and 227.

2

Cf. above, p. 167 n. 3.

172 NOMOI:

AND BEGINNINGS

OF ATHENIAN

DEMOCRACY

wary of supposing that words other than vOfLoS may not have existed in Halicarnassus to describe, for example, a 'statute' which did not result from the deliberations of a av'\'\oyos but one which was decreed by the fiat of the tyrant. We know too little of the constitution of the East Locrian states to be able to say whether their VOfLOL or VOfLLU were arrived at by institutions in which the people could express their acceptance (or rejection) of measures that were to be valid and binding for them. The indications are that such institutions existed. Aristotle's words in the Politics (3. 16, 1287"6-8) suggest that Opus had a single ruler with limited powers, who may be identical with the apxos whom the Naupactian law entrusts with the arrangement of trials (lines 42-3). But the text indicates clearly that his tenure of office is limited (lines 43-4), presumably to one year (line 35). Moreover, we can infer from the law that Opus had an assembly of one thousand and that Naupactus had an assembly in which all colonists were members (lines 38-40). Oldfather suggests that the 'one thousand' means all property-owning citizens and states: 'Der Form nach ist diese Verfassung zwar aristokratisch, aber stark gemaBigt, und nicht weit vom Ideal der konservativen Demokratie entfernt, da in einer so kleinen Ortschaft wie Opus die Anzahl der grundbesitzenden Burger nicht vie! groBer gewesen sein kann.'1 If this is correct and if this body was, as is likely, entrusted with the enactment of the laws, the terms vOfLoS and VOfLLU would indeed be an appropriate description of their enactments, even if the system of government could not be characterized by laovofLLu. Still, we know no more than we do in the case ofHalicarnassus how early this terminology started in Eastern Locris and must, therefore, leave open the question whether Cleisthenes may have borrowed the term from there. The lack of our knowledge of any relations between Athens and East Locris in the sixth century makes such an influence improbable. The multiplicity of terminology also illustrates another point. The Eastern Locrians, making proper allowance for dialectical variation, have the same terms for 'statute' as those we encounter in Athens, BWfLopoavvYjv yap '\af3ovaaL

"

at

'\

7T6'\ELS'

8

I

aVTLKpvS' EI\EV EpLav

Kat ....,

a8Ewv \

,..,

TWV

7TpaaaO/l-EVwv

'A8 YjvaLWV /

TYjS' a7TO TWV /1

f

1\

ExwpYjaav ,

"

E7Tt

T~l' I

V7TOVI\OV EVV0/l-WS' OV 7TPOTLIH;-

aavTE~: 'for on.ce the cities accepted moderation and immunity in the pursUIt of theIr own course of action, they progressed toward outright freedom, paying no attention to the sham of law-and-order coming from Athens.' In accepting this reading, both Hude and Stuart Jones reject the text of the majority of manuscripts (A, E, F, G, and M) : T~V {mo TWV J18YjvaLwv V7TOV'\OV aVTovO/l-Lav. Their reason for doing so is that the text ofB concurs with a quotation by Dionysius of Halicarnassus,. Epistula ad Ammaeum 2. I I, who cites it as an example of (a) a peculIar use of the genitive and of (b) an imprecise use of a masculine participle agreeing with a feminine subject. That this is s~f?ciently co~ent to accept the genitives and the masculine partICIple as genume has been convincingly demonstrated by W. Rhys Roberts, CR 14 (1900) 244-6. But this does not exclude the possibility that dVO/l-LaS' is a misquotation of aVTOVO/l-LaS', the kind of mistake of which there are many examples in Dionysius; see, for example, a7ToTd"J!.LaLS' (op. cit. 5) for 7TEpLTELXLaLS' (Thuc. 3. 95. 2), where the confUSIOnalso affects the prefix, cf. Roberts, op. cit. 245. I believe for two reasons th~t a~TOVO/l-.LaS' (which, incidentally, also appears as a margi~al c~rr~ctIOnm B) IS the correct r~~ding. In the first place, the adjectIve V7TOV'\OV makes us expect a polItIcal catchword used by Athenian propaganda, and aVTOVO/l-La is far more likely to have been held out to the·Thasian 8ijp.oS' than EVVO/l-La, which is not attested as part of the vocabul~ry of the psychological warfare between Athens and Sparta concernlll?, .the subject allies. Secondly, V7TOV'\OV aVToVO/l-LaS' would serve stylIstIcally better to create a balance with E7Tt T~V aVTLKpvS'

than V7TOV'\OV Eiwo/l-LaS', which falls rather flat. Moreover, would serve better than a7T6 to under.score the irony in aVTovo/l-La. Translate: 'self-determination imposed by the Athenians'. E'\w8EpLav

v7T6

Page 99

I have printed the text which is accepted as Alcmaeon, frg. 4 in DK6. I translate: 'According to Alcmaeon, what constitutes the bond of health is the isonomia of the powers, of wet and dry, cold and hot, bitter and sweet, and the rest, while monarclzia among them causes disease, since monarclzia of either opposite causes destruction. Disease occurs through the agency of an excess of heat or cold, with surfeit or deficiency of food as the cause, and with the blood, marrow, or brain as its focus. Sometimes, however, it may arise in these foci from external causes, such as certain kinds of water, or a region, or fatigue, or violence, or similar factors. Health, on the other hand, is the wellproportioned mixture of the qualities.'-I accept this text, which is based on [Plut.] De placitis plzilosoplzorum 5. 30, 91 I a, despite the fact that the corresponding text in Stob. Flor. 4.37.2+36.29 (WachsmuthHense 5) omits cj>80P07TOLOV yap EKaTEpov /l-0vapXLav and the last sentence, T~V 8EvyELav T~V aV/l-/l-ETpOV TWV 7TOLWV Kpiimv. In reconstructing the text of Aetius there is in general little to choose between [Plutarch] and Stobaeus, as H. Diels has shown in his fundamental discussion in Doxograplzi Graeci 56-69' On the one hand, 'Plutarchi epitome veram Aetii imaginem reddit sed in angustiorem multo formam redactam' (ibid. 61); on the other, 'in excerpendi negotio Stobaeo neglegentior et liberior est Plutarchus' (ibid. 63). In this particular instance, the reasons for preferring [Plutarch]'s version are the following: (a) [Plutarch] preserves the logical order of the fragment in proper sequence, while Stobaeus breaks it in two, putting the second part, which he starts with MYEL 8ETaS' v6aovS' aV/l-7TL7TTELV ... , first. (b) In view of that, the omission of the last sentence (T~V 8E vyELav ... ) is easily explained, since it makes sense only in relation to the first part of the fragment. (c) Similarly, the omission of cj>80P07TOLOV ydp ••. may be due to Stobaeus' failure to take the fragment as one unit, since it forms the last sentence of the first part. (d) The clause cj>80P07TOLOVyap EKaTEpov /l-ovaPXLav adds nothing new to the thought of the fragment, for both [Plutarch] and Stobaeus go on to ascribe disease to the domination of one in a pair of opposites over the other, [Plutarch] naming the domination of heat over cold or vice versa, and Stobaeus naming the supremacy of heat or dryness [sc. over cold or wetness, respectively]. The additional clause in [Plutarch] is, therefore, merely a clarifying statement which connects the monarclzia image of the first part with the explicit definition of disease in the second, and it 814277

N

,~

ENDNOTES

may well have come from Aetius or from his source. (e) The last clause of the [Plutarch] fragment does no more than define health in terms analogous to the preceding definition of disease. These terms, moreover, are so close to those used by Theophrastus as well as by Aetius in their discussions of Presocratic thinkers (especially Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Diogenes, and Democritus) that it may well be a genuine piece of doxographic tradition. Page

105

The earliest uses of lao/Lotp{a and related terms refer to the balanced distribution of shares or an inheritance among several members, as, e.g., the distribution of the universe among Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon in II. 15. 209 (cf. 186-95); cf. Solon, frg. 23. 2 I, where only two parties are involved-the KaKo{ and the €a8.\o{-whom Solon does not want to have an equal share in the good lands. In this sense, the concept is especially common in legal questions of inheritance by several heirs: LawsofGortynX. 53 (mostaccessibleinBuck,GD,No. II7,P.32I); Isaeus I. 2 and 35 ; and [Dem.] 48. 19 (where only two heirs exist). In Athenagoras' speech, Thuc. 6. 39. I, the verb lao/Lotpdv denotes the political equality of the rich, the intelligent, and the many in a democracy; cf. Agrippa's statement, Dio Cassius 52.4. 3, that equality of birth demands equality of rights. The noun as well as the verb can also refer to a balance of political influence in international affairs, as in Thuc. 5. 69. I or Isocrates 5. 39. Furthermore, both verb and noun are used by Thucydides for the moral sharing of misfortune, e.g. in Aleibiades' speech at 6. 16. 4 and in connection with the miseries shared by the soldiers in Sicily at 7.75.6; cr. also Dionysius ofHalicarnassus 6. 66. 4. Finally, in a number of passages in Xenophon, noun, verb, and adjective are used of an equal sharing of honours, prizes, or privileges, e.g. Apology 21, Cyropaedia 2.1. 31; 2.2.18; 2. 2. 21; 2. 3.5; and 4.6. 12. Page

107

In view of the controversy concerning the source(s) of Hdt. 3. 80. 2-82, I should like to state my position. I see no need to assume that the Debate is taken by Herodotus, either verbatim or in paraphrase, from a previously published Sophistic work. If it were, it would be the only known instance of extensive borrowing on the part of Herodotus, and his twice-repeated avowal of the accuracy of his report, made in the face of the incredulity of his contemporaries (3. 80. I and 6. 43·3), is sufficient evidence to show that he is not merely copying from someone else. This does not of course imply that the fact and the content of the Debate are objectively true history; but it does mean that

ENDNOTES

'79

Herodotus believed in the veracity of those who had told him about it. That his informants were hellenized Persians may be inferred from 3.87, and Jacoby, RE, suppl. 2 (1913) s.v. 'Herodotus', 414-15, has even suggested possible names. Still, the Greek tenor of the discussion does not exclude the possibility that Asiatic Greeks may have been Herodotus' immediate source, although the Greek (perhaps, more specifically, Sophistic) tone can equally well be explained as due to Herodotus' associations at Athens and/or Thurii. Apart from the form of the Debate and apart from most of the arguments used, it seems by no means intrinsically improbable that a discussion on the future form of government for Persia was actually held by the conspirators of 522 B.C. That monarchy, the traditional constitutional form which eventually prevailed (see Darius at 3. 82. 5: TTaTp{OVS v6/LovS /LTJ.\tinv ExovTas EV) would have come up in such a discussion goes without saying. Similarly, there is no reason to doubt that one of the conspirators might have proposed the abolition of monarchy and the establishment in its place of an oligarchy including the seven . (8 ' ,,- aptaTWV , 'i: '\ conspIrators 3. I. 3: avopwv TWV ETTtl\EsaVTES 0/Ltl\tYjV ..• EV ydp 3~ TotiTotat Kat aVTOt €Vw6/LE8a). Otanes' advocacy of democracy may have been made credible to Herodotus (a) by the privileged position which his descendants still enjoyed in Herodotus' own time (3· 83.2-84. I); (b) by the generous way in which Otanes initially acted toward Maeandrius, who had wanted to establish laovo/L{Yj on Samos (3. 142-4) ; and (c) by the fact that later on a Persian, Mardonius, was instrumental in replacing the Ionian tyrannies by democracies (6·43· 3)' The last point (c) is made by Herodotus himself. If the informants were in fact Persians or Asiatic Greeks, Herodotus may still have cast the content of what they told him into a form and conceptual framework current in the intellectual circles in which he moved in Athens and Thurii. In this connection, he may well have discussed the issues with Protagoras and may have been influenced by him. I see no need to assume with E. Maass, Hermes 22 (1887) 581-95, restated by W. Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos2 291-5, that Herodotus depends on a published treatise by Protagoras, the Antilogiai; nor need one presuppose a specific elaborate Sophistic discussion by someone like Protagoras, as envisaged by K. F. Strohecker, Historia 2 (1953-4) 381412. The case for a Persian source is most strongly stated-perhaps even overstated-by H. Apffel, Die Veifassungsdebatte bei Herodot, esp. 48-83, where also an exhaustive survey of the literature on the Debate between 1930 and 1957 is to be found on pp. 9-23. For the discussions up to 1935 see K. Wiist, Politisches Denken bei Herodot 47-50. H. Erbse in Glotta 39 (196 I) 228-30 has presented strong arguments against Herodotus' borrowing of the Debate from another author. I

,

\

I

,

Page 118 \Ve do not know whether the capital assets of a Theban citizen had to consist entirely or predominantly of agricultural real estate, or whether monetary or other kinds of wealth were recognized; see Cloche, op. cit. 74, and Moretti, op. cit. 133. Larsen, op. cit. 32, suggests that a law, cited by Arist. Pol. 3. 5, 1278'25-6, may belong to this constitution, which excluded from office anyone who had engaged in trade within the preceding ten years. That the hoplite census was the minimum property requirement is suggested by a number of considerations. In the first place, since each councillor was a member of the executive for one quarter of his tenure of office, he would have to have an income sufficient to free him from the necessity of having to work for his living for at least that period. This argument is used for the federal councillors by Cloche, op. cit. 73, but it no doubt also applies to the local councils. Secondly, as Larsen, op. cit. 32 with p. 203 n. 2 I, has pointed out, the prominence of infantry in the Boeotian army suggests the hoplite census as a minimum requirement for full citizenship. And third, the constitution 'drafted for the future' by the Athenian oligarchs of 41 I B.C., which contained, according to Arist. Ath. Pol. 30, such features of the Boeotian system as the four councils, limited eligibility to the councils to the Five Thousand, who belonged to the hoplite census, see Arist. Ath. Pol. 33. 1-2 and Thuc. 8.65' 3. The parallel with Athens in 41 II IO B.C. is most instructive for our purposes, especially if G. E. M. de Ste. Croix is right in arguing-as I believe he is-that the lower classes retained the franchise under the Five Thousand, making the 'oligarchy' considerably more 'democratic' than is generally believed, although I would not go as far as he does in calling it 'basically democratic', see Historia 5 (1956) 1-23. That the lower-class Thebans also had the franchise is quite possible (p. I 18 n. 3 above). Page 119 Any difficulties about the meaning of laovofLla in the fourth century vanish once we realize, as I have tried to show above, that (a) it is the principle of political equality and not a form of government, that it is, therefore, (b) more closely related to democracy than to any other form of government, but not confined to democracy nor identical with it, and that (c) political rights include the potential exercise of political power. Isocrates, Areopagiticus 20, only mentioned in passing by Vlastos, IP 9 n. 2, matches the 7Tapp7Jala of his contemporary democracy against the laovofLla which, he claims, prevailed in the 'good old' democracy (of Solon and Cleisthenes, ibid. 16). Although la7Jyopla would have been a more natural contrast, laovofLla is quite

comprehensible as a thoroughly respectable principle of political equality, of which freedom of speech was one of the main characteristics in the fourth century. In Panathenaicus 178 the laovofLia and 87JfLoKparia which the Spartans are said to have adopted for themselves are contrasted with the oligarchical way (d"iyovs OVTas, ibid. 179) in which they deprived the 8ijfLos of the perioikoi of their lands and their political power (ibid. 179-80). I would not go as far as Vlastos, IP 18-'2I, in reading a moral norm into the lao- prefix here; the moral censure is directed at the Spartans not for lacking equalitarian principles themselves but for their refusal to apply these principles to the perioikoi. Plato is the only other fourth-century author in whose works laovofLia occurs. The general tenor of the context in which the noun appears in Menexenus 239 a has been well discussed by C. H. Kahn, 'Plato's Funeral Oration', CP 58 (1963) 220-34., esp. 225-6, as well as by Vlastos, IP 22-33, esp. 31-3. I have nothing to add to Vlastos' analysis of laovofLia here, but I should like to emphasize the following points. Plato treats lcrovofLia in the Menexenus as a principle which will result in the appointment of the wisest and best, i.e. it embodies the 'geometric' kind of equality based on merit, hinted at in Gorgias 508 a and fully developed in Laws 6. 756 e-758 a. Of particular interest from our point of view is the demand that laovofLla be sought 'in terms of law' (Kard vOfLOV). If, as I believe, the written statutes are meant here, we have in this passage the most explicit statement we have so far encountered of a close relation between lcrovofLla and 'statute'. Very similar to the use of laovofLia in the Menexenus is its meaning in two passages in the Seventh Epistle, where it is not only applied to an as-yet-unattained principle, but apparently also related to the enactment of statutes. The relation to statute is possibly, but not necessarily, envisaged in the earlier of these passages (326 d), where laovofLos is coupled with oiKaws as an epithet of a form of government opposed to the ever-changing tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies. That the adjective may mean 'having equitable laws' is suggested by the second passage, in which Dion's friends are exhorted to invite men from Sicily, the Peloponnese, and even Athens bT~ 7TC1.a7JS };LKE"las KaroLKwfLoV rE Ka~ laovofLlav (336 d). This may of course refer to a 'resettlement of all Sicily on the basis of political equality'; but since laovofLla is placed into the context of Plato's hope for an end of faction in Sicily and the establishment of VOfLOLKowol, which regard the interests of victors and vanquished alike (337 a), he may well have had in mind 'equitable laws' for all, which, if Dion's plans had succeeded, would have resulted in 'most men having the same opinion

182

ENDNOTES

concerning excellence, which, once accepted, would have saved' the state (336 b). As in the Menexenus, we have here an laovofL{a related to equality based on merit and realized, it seems, through the enactment of statutes. The value attached to laovofL{a in the Menexenus and in the Seventh Epistle stands in sharp contrast to the negative treatment which Plato gives it in Republic 8, where it is ridiculed as tl:e principle ?f an equalitarian democracy which 'deals out some kmd of equalIty to equals and unequals alike' (558 c): the democratic man, who surrenders himself indiscriminately to the necessary and the unnecessary pleasures, is said to lead the life laovOfLtKoiJ nvos clvSpos (56 Ie), and the laovofL{a Kd E'AwBEp{a which exist in a democracy between men and women are severely censured (563 b). Vlastos, IP 34-5, solves the discrepancy by rejecting the Seventh Epistle as not genuine, arguing, inter alia, that we should have expected an explicit statement of his change of views somewhere between the Republic and the Seventh Epistle. But the rather similar use in the Menexenus makes such a solution too radical, and the absence of laovofL{a from Plato's works between Republic and Seventh Epistle is no more surprising than is its complete absence from the fourth-century orators and especially from the works of Aristotle. The central idea inherent in it came to be subsumed under the more general concept of laoT7JS and TO taOV (see especially Arist. Pol. 3. 9, 1280'7-25, and 5. I, 1301'19-1302'8) and Plato's change of heart on that point, recognized by Vlastos, IP 34 (citing Laws 3. 694 a and 695 d), and his elaboration of the two equalities at Laws 6. 756 e-758 a are sufficient to account for the favourable view of laovofL{a in the Seventh Epistle. Cf. Polybius 6. 8. 4, who uses laoT7JS 7ToAmK~ to express the idl"'ainherent in laovofL{a. Page 136 Any discussion of the Harmodius skolia is honour-bound to voice an opinion on the enigmatic first lines of stanz~s 10 and 12:. EV fLV~T~V KAaSL TO g{q,os q,op~aw. I have deliberately aVOIdedany mentIOn of It m the text because I believe that we know too little to base upon it any view with any degree of confidence, a conclusion at which Ehrenberg, HL 6 I-5, also arrived after a searching discussion of all the opinions that have been advanced. I shall, therefore, confine myself to a critical statement of some earlier interpretations and add a reasoned conjecture of my own simply to enlarge the list of possible solutions, but without any confidence in its correctness. (a) The earliest and simplest solution offered is that of a scholiast on AI'. Lys. 632, and ofSuda, s.vv. clyopaaw and EV fLVPTOV KAaSL TO g{q,os q,op~aw, namely that Harmodius and Aristogeiton actually hid their

swords in boughs of myrtle before they drew them against Hipparchus. The obvious objection to this is that it would have been a singularly inept way of trying to hide swords and would have been more likely to attract attention than to escape detection. In fact, if we are to take the singular literally (although there is no need to do so), one bough or branch would hardly have sufficed. Moreover, there is no evidence for young men carrying boughs of any kind at the Panathcnaic festival: only the carrying of olive branches by old men is attested (Etym. Mag., s.v. BaAAoq,opoS and schoI. to AI'. Vesp. 544). (b) It has been assumed that the myrtle was not meant as a covering for the sword but as a wreath for its wearer. Thus, L. Ziehen, RE s.v. 'Panathenaia', believes that myrtle wreaths were worn by the participants in the Panathenaic procession. But since he cites no evidence other than the first lines of the first and third stanzas of the Harmodius skolia, this argument is a non liquet. (c) Many scholars subscribe to the view that the myrtle bough adorned neither the sword nor its wearer, but the person singing the skolion at a banquet. Thus, W. Vollgraff argues in Mnemosyne 49 (1921) 246-50 that the reference in the Harmodius skolia is to the wreath worn by the singing banqueter. The objection to this is that, although we know that wreaths were worn at banquets (see Ganszyniec, RE s.v. 'Kranz'), we know of no relation between the wreath and the singing of drinking songs. (d) A more sophisticated version of (c) refers to the passing of a myrtle bough from one person to the next at banquets as an invitation to sing (or perhaps to cap the song of the preceding singer). This practice is attested perhaps as early as AI'. Storks, frg. 4-30,and was known to Plutarch (Q.uaest. conv. 1. I, 615 b) ; cf. also the scholia to AI'. Vesp. 1222 and 1239, to Nub. 1364, the scholiast on PI. Corg. 451 e, and Tzetzes, IafL{3ot TEXVtKoL 7TEPL KWfLcpS{as 85-9 (in Kaibel, Comicorum Craecorum fragmenta I. 42-3). The most recent supporter of this interpretation is Bowra, CLP 392 n. I, and it is perhaps the least unlikely of the views that have so far been advanced. But it is open to three objections. In the first place, despite the parallels advanced by Vollgraff, lococit., to which Ehrenberg (HL 62 with nn. 13 and 14) adds a phrase from Archilochus and one from a fifth-century vase inscription (W. Peek, Hermes 68 [1933] II 8-2 I), the phrase EV fLVPTOV KAaS{ seems too elliptical to suggest this kind of procedure. Secondly, it is difficult on this interpretation, as Ehrenberg has pointed out (HL 63), to see any connection between sword and myrtle bough, since it would be ludicrous to assume that the singer wore a sword while singing the skolion. And finally, this interpretation assumes, though perhaps rightly, that the Harmodius song H

originated as a skolion, sung under the same conditions under which skolia were sung at the time of Ar. Storks, where the passing of the myrtle bough is first attested, while the earliest mention of 'the Harmodius' as a skolion is in AI'. Vesp. 1222. If this proves that the Harmodius was sung at banquets as early as 422 B.C., it does not necessarily mean that it was originally composed for that purpose and that the passing of the myrtle bough was an essential part of its recitation from the beginning. (e) A suggestion made but not elaborated by J. H. Jongkees, Mnemosyne 3rd ser. 13 (1947) 159-60, is that the myrtle bough refers to wreaths placed upon the heads of the statues of the tyrannicides, originally the group of Antenor and after 477 B.C.on the heads of the Critius and Nesiotes group. Several vase paintings with representations of these statues show Harmodius and Aristogeiton wreathed. The earliest of these, a black-figure lekythos in Vienna (Oesterr. Mus. Vienna, Inv. No. 5247, see C. H. E. Haspels, Attic Black-figured Lekythoi 167; 264, No. 39) is believed by Becatti, Archeologia classica 9 (1957) 97-107, esp. 100-7, to belong to the last decade of the sixth century and to represent Antenor's group. The others are all dated about 400 B.C.On three Panathenaic amphorae the wreathed statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton by Critius and Nesiotes appear as a shield device. Two of these come from Benghazi and are at present in Hildesheim (Inv. Nos. 1253 and 1254, see J. D. Beazley, A]A 47 [1943] 454-5, The Development of Attic Black-figure 96, and Attic Black.figure Vase-painters 412), and one from Teucheira is in the British Museum (Inv. No. B 605, see CVA III H f, pI. 6, and Beazley, Development, loco cit.). Finally, there is a red-figure oenochoe from the Dexileos grave, which is now in the :Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (Inv. No. 98'936, see W. Hahland, Vasen urn Meidias 6-7, pI. 6a). Brunnsaker, who discusses all these vases on pp. 102-6 in greater detail and with ampler bibliography than can be done here, concludes from these representations that there may have been an occasion on which real wreaths were placed upon the statues, and he suggests the 'Panathenaic festival with which the memory of Harmodios and Aristogeiton was especially closely connected' as the most likely occasion (p. 150). If there is any merit to this suggestion, and if the wreaths were made of myrtle boughs (for which there is no evidence whatever), the first lines of stanzas 10 and 12 might be taken as referring to this event, celebrating the anniversary of their attempt. The consequence of this would be that the group of Antenor and the first institution of the wreathing ceremony would become the terminus post quem for the composition of these two stanzas. This would not affect our date for the first stanza (10), since the Antenor group and

the celebration of Athens as laov6p.ovs are contemporary. But it would compel us to move the date of the third stanza (12) from 514-510 B.C.to after 507 B.C. I am aware that this reconstruction stands on very feeble legs indeed. Although it is free from--or at least less encumbered withthe objections I raised to Vollgraff's interpretation in that it permits EV P.VpTOV Kt..u8£ to be construed with wa7TEp :4pp.6ows KUL JiptaToyE{TWV, in that it establishes a closer relation between myrtle and sword, and in that it does not assume that the Harmodius originated as a skolion, it is a conjecture based upon a conjecture based upon five vase paintings, which do not talk but depend on the judgement of the critic. Still, since there seems to be nothing intrinsically improbable about it, its value consists in cautioning us against overconfidence in the dates for which we have argued above. Page 144 Cleisthenes' reasons for complying with Cleomenes' demand remain obscure: did he really regard himself as subject to the curse? And if so, how did he reconcile the curse with his return to Athens in 511/10 B.C. and again after the expulsion of Isagoras? Is PI. Laws I. 642 d right in dating the purification of Athens by Epimenides of Crete to about ten years before the Persian Wars, i.e. to approximately the time after the restoration of the Alcmaeonids in 507 B.C.? Or was Cleisthenes confident that his cause would prevail even in his absence? Or did he give up his reforms as a lost cause, only to be surprised by the depth of the support he had gathered? There is also some difficulty about the other EvuyEi:S: the imperfects EtE{JUt..t..E at Hdt. 5. 70. 2 and 72. I suggest that initially Cleomenes merely demanded the expulsion of other families with Cleisthenes and that Cleisthenes was the only one to comply voluntarily before Cleomenes' arrival in Athens. The P.ET' UVTOV at..t..ovs 7TOt..t..OUS Ji(JTJvu{wv (70. 2) and TOUS EVUyEUS (72. I) are thus identical with the seven hundred families expelled after Cleomenes' arrival, of which both Herodotus and Aristotle speak. The number seven hundred seems rather large and has, therefore, been doubted, e.g. by Wilamowitz, AA I. 31-2; but Wade-Gery, Essays 150 n. I, may be right in pointing out that 'the Curse had passed for three or four generations in both lines, male and female ... and was shared in the original generation by all who had accepted the surrender of the Kylonians'.

On.ly wo~k~ cite~ in the text 01' in the notes are listed here. Special lexica, dlctlOnanes, and collections are not included. Sec also the Index Locorum for classical tcxts and collections of fragments. A. BOOKS ADCOCK,F. E. Thucydides and his history. Cambridge, 1963. ALLEN, T. W., HALLIDAY, W. R., and SIKES, E. E. (cdd.). The Homeric hymnsz. Oxford, 1936. ANDREWES, A. Probouleusis: Sparta's contribution to the technique of government. Inaug. lecture, Oxford, 1954. -The Greek tyrants. London, 1956. APFFEL, H. Die Verfassungsdebatte bei Herodot. Diss. Erlangen, 1957. BARRON,]. P. The silver coins of Sam os. London, 1966. BEAZLEY.']. D. The development oj Attic black-figure. Berkeley, 1951. -Attxc black-figure vase-painters. Oxford, 1956. BELOCH, K.]. Griechische Geschichte2, I and 2. Strasbourg, 1912--16. Vo!' 3, Berlin and Leipzig, 1922-7. BENGTSON,H. (ed.). Die Staatsvertrage des Altertums, 2. Munich, 1962. BENVENISTE,E. Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-europeen. Paris, 1948. BOER, W. DEN, Laconian studies. Amsterdam, 1954. BOWRA, C. M. Problems in Greek poetry. Oxford, 1953. -Greek lyric poetryz. Oxford, 1961. -Pindar. Oxford, 1964. BRUCE, 1. A. F. An historical commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia. Cambridge, 1967. BRUNNSA.KER, S. The tyrant slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes. Lund, 1955. BUCK, C. D. The Greek dialects. Chicago, 1955. BUSOLT, G. Griechische Geschichte2, 1-2. Gotha, 1893-5. Vo!' 31, Gotha, 1897-19°4. -and SWOBODA, H. Griechische Staatskunde. 2 vols. Munich, 1920-6. CHAMOUX,F. Cyrene sous la monarchie des Battiades (= Bibliotheque des Ecoles franc;aises d'Athenes et de Rome, Fasc. In). Paris, 1953. CLOCHE, P. Thebes de Beotie. Louvain and Paris, I952? DALE, A. M. (ed.). Euripides: Helen, Oxford, 1967. DENNISTON,]. D., and PAGE, D. L. (edd.). Aeschylus: Agamemnon. Oxford, 1957.

DEUBNER,L. Attische Feste. Berlin, 1932. DIELS, H. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin, 1879. DITTENBERGER,W. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarulll3• Leipzig, 1915. EHRENBERG,V. Die Rechtsidee im jrilhen Griechentum. Leipzig, 192 I . -Neugrilnder des Staates. Munich, 1925. -Aspects oj the ancient world. Oxford, 1946. -Sophocles and Pericles. Oxford, 1954. -The Greek state. Oxford, 1960. -Polis und Imperium. ZUrich, 1965. ELIOT, C. W.]. Coastal demes oj Attica (= Phoenix Supp!. 5)' Toronto, 1962. FESTUGIERE,A.-]. Hippocrate: L'ancienne medecine (= Etudes et Commentaires 4). Paris, 1948. FRAENKEL,E. (ed.). Aeschylus: Agamemnon. 3 vols. Oxford, 1950. FRANKEL, H. Wege und Formen jrilhgriechischen Denkens2• Munich, 1960. FRISK, H. Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg, 196o-GIGANTE, M. Nomos basileus. Naples, 1956. GIGON, O. Der Ursprung der griechischen Philosophie. Basel, 1945· GOMME,A. W. A historical commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Oxford, I945~56. GRAHAM, A. ]. Colony and mother city in ancient Greece. Manchester, 1964. GROSSMANN,G. Politische Schlagworter aus der Zeit des Peloponnesischen Krieges. Diss. Basel, 1945. GUTHRIE, W. K. C. A history oj Greek philosophy. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1962 and 1965. HAHLAND,W. Vasen um Meidias. Berlin-Wilmersdorf, 1930. HASPELS,C. H. E. Attic black-figured lekythoi. Paris, 1936. HEIDEL, W. A. Hippocratic medicine. New York, 1941. HEINIMANN,F. Nomos und Physis. Basel, 1945· HIGNETT, C. A history of the Athenian constitution to the end oj the fifth century B.C. Oxford, 1952. HIRZEL, R. Themis, Dike und Verwandtes. Leipzig, 1907· HOFMANN,W. De iurandi apud Athenienses jormulis. Diss. Strasbourg, 1886. HOPPER, R.]. The basis oj the Athenian democracy. Inaug. lecture, Sheffield, 1957· How, W. W., and WELLS, ]. A commentary on Herodotus2• 2 vols. Oxford, 1928. HUMBERT,]. Syntaxe grecque3• Paris, 1960. HUXLEY, G. Early Sparta. London, 1962. ]ACOBY, F. (ed.). Das Marmor Parium. Berlin, 1904·

JACOBY, F. (ed.). Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin and Leiden, 1923-Atthis: The local chronicles of ancient Athens. Oxford, 1949. JAEGER, W. Paideia. English translation by G. Highet, 13• Oxford, 1946.2-3, Oxford, 1944-5· -The theology of the early Greek philosophers. Oxford, 1947. JEFFERY, L. H. The local scrij)ts oj archaic Greece. Oxford, 1961. KAIBEL, G. Comicorum Graecorumfragmenta, 1. Berlin, 1899. KAKRIDIS, J. T. Der thukydideische EjJitaplzios (= Zetemata 26). Munich, 1961. KALINKA, E. Die pseudoxenophontische Af9HNAIQN IIOAITEIA. Leipzig and Berlin, 1913. KAPP, E., and FRITZ, K. VON. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and related texts. New York, 1950. KEIL, B. Griechische Staatsaltertiimer, in Gercke-Norden, Einleitung in die Altertulllswissenschaji, 32• Leipzig and Berlin, 1914. KIECHLE, F. Lakonien und !:>parta (= Vestigia: Beitriige zur alten Geschichte 5). Munich and Berlin, 1963. KIERDORF, W. Erlebnis und Darstellung der Perserkriege (= Hypomnemata 16). Gottingen, 1966. KIRK, G. S. Heraclitus: The cosmicjragments. Cambridge, 1954. -and RAVEN,J. E. The Presocratic philosophers. Cambridge, 1957. KOHLER, J., and ZIEBARTH, E. Das Stadtrecht von Gortyn. Gottingen, 1912. KUHNER, R., and GERTH, B. Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache3• 2 vols. Hannover and Leipzig, 189°-19°4. LAROCHE,E. Histoire de la racine NEM- en grec ancien. Paris, 1949. LARSEN,J. A. O. Representative government in Greek and Roman history. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1955. LEDL, A. Studien zur iilteren athenischen Veifassungsgeschichte. Heidelberg, 1914. LERAT, L. Les locriens de l'ouest (= Bibliotheque des Ecole franc,:aises d'AthCnes et de Rome, Fasc. 176). Paris, 1952. LESKY, A. Greek tragedy. English translation by H. A. Frankfort. London and New York, 1965. LEVEQUE,P., and VIDAL-NAQUET,P. Clisthenel'atMnien. Paris, 1964. LINFORTH, I. 1'1. Solon the Athenian. Berkeley, 1919. LIPSIUS,J. H. Das attische Recht und Rechtsveifahren, 3 vols. Leipzig, 19°5-15. LLOYD, G. E. R. Polarity and analogy. Cambridge, 1966. LOBEL, E., and PAGE, D. ..>..oq,opos Euripides: Alcestis 56-7 683 Andromache I 76 243 491 Bacchae 331

387 484 891

C)clops 299 338 Electra 234

905-6 1268-9 Hecuba 291 799-801

846-g 864-7 866

127

974 Helena 866

102 n. 3 38-g 102 n. 3 102 n. 3 102 n. 3 102 n. 3 102 n. 3 100 n. I 60 n. 2 183 lon.2

23 25 48 33

87 34 n.

I

87 33

995-6 (= 1015-16)

178 81 n. 5 82 n. 3 163 n. 2

140 n. 4 170 n. 2 164 n. 3

74. 6

5. I. I 6. 66. 4 Epistula ad Ammaeum

VEf-LW

9

12.

128-9

53 n. I 4,15 n. 2

51 51 52 n. 1,91 n. I

9 4° Democritus,

96 n. I 152 n. 6

10. 17.2 I I. 84. 7-8 14·34.6 Diogenes Laertius: 8.26 83 97 n. 3, Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Antiquitates Romanae

800

871 1241-3

34 n. 3 87 with n. 3,89 n. I

25 48 34 n. 3 53 with n. 4 48 48 29,38 39

47 57 36 42 n. 3 12 with n. 6

42 42 n. 5

1246

1258 1429 1561 Heraclidae 141 292-3 963 1009-11 Hercules 723 757 778-80 1316 1322 1361 Hippolytus 91 93 98

461 866 1043-4 1046 1328 Ion 20

42 n. 5 42 n. 5 34 24 n. 3 48 n. 2 36 48 43 90 90 with n. 3, 91 26, 90 with n. 4 25 48 42 38 38 22

53 44 n. I 53 n. 3 53 26 36

25

36

2~

~

442-3 48, 91 with n. I 643 43 with n. 2 1047 26 125°-6 48 n. 2 1312-13 42 1322 29 Iphigenia Aulidensis 399 87 with n. 4, 88 n. 2, 89 n. I 23 694 42 734 26,90 1°95 Iphigenia Taurica 35 43

38 275 277

465 586 958-60

48 9°,91

48 43 48

42,52-3

97° 1I62 1189 1458 Medea 238

48 44 n. I

494 538 812 1000 Orestes 429

4 n. 5,15 32

48 42,53

25

25 89 42

202

INDEX

LOCOR

Euripides, Orestes (cont.): 34 n. 3 487 33 495 25 5°3 33 n. I 523 571 36 892 53 941 48 1426 34 n. 4 88 n. I 1455 Phoenissae 18-20 87 294 36 380 87 Stheneboea (Page, Greek Literary Papyri 1. 128) 15 15 n. I, 18 Supplices 45 86 n. 3 32 313 377-8 22 4°6-8 106 n. 3 34 n. 3 43° 29 431-2 433 47 42 n. 4 526 540-1 42 n. 4 42 n. 4 563 671 42 n. 4 Troades 231 44 n. I 266-7 4 n. 5, 17,42 n. 5 42 324 1031 53 1210 25 [rg. (Nauck2) 52. 8 38 n. 3 122. I I 88 141 39 172 48 n. 4 228.8 36,53 252 32 282. 13 36 38 n. 4 292.4-6 25 337 25,36 346 4 n. 5,15 360.45 25-6 388.3 48 n. 3 4°2 433 33 469 36 530.9 36 597 48 853 33 920 22 n. 4 1049.2 42 n. 3 1064. I 26 1091 26 n. I

UM

Galen, De TemjJeramentis 1.2 4 6 8 9 2. I 2

-

4 3·4 Gorgias, [rg. (DK6): 6 II. 7 I I a. 30 36 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia

INDEX (Helmreich): 101 n. 105 n. 104 n. 104 n. 105 n. 105 n. 104 n. 104 n. 104 n.

4 2 6 6 2 2 6 6 6

26,51 89 51 n. 5

88,89

n.

I

(Bartoletti) 16.2 118 with n. 3 Heraclitus, [rg. (DK6): I 27 n. 4 27 32 33 3° 4430, 33 100 n. I 5::; 100 n. I 80 100 n. I 94 26-8, 30, 33, 100 n. I, 120 114 118 [HerodesJ, Peri politeias 30-1 n. 5 Herodotus: 88 1. 8. 3-4 5 n. 4, 46, 60 n. 3 29 35. I 41 14° 59-61 156 n. I 59·3 141 n. 4, 147, 156 4-5 4, 15, 147 59. 6 156 n. I 60.1-3 147 5 61. I 24 156 n. I 2 141 n. 4 4 156 n. I 62. I 141 n. 4, 148 n. 5 64 65-8 75-9 65. I 76 76 with n. 2, 85 2 2-66. I 76-7 82 n. 3 3 77 with n. 2 4 77 with n. 3, 78 with n. I 5 66. I 78 nn. 2 and 4, 80 n. I [-2 76

3-4 67. 1-68.6 69·3 82. 7-8 9° 94. I 96. 2-97· 3 97·3 131. I 132.3 136. 2-137. I 140. 3 144. I 3 146.3 152.3 158.2 162. I 172. I 173- 4 195.2 196.1-4 197 199·1-5 200 216. I 2.35.2 36. I 37. I 39·4 42. 3 45. 2 65·3 79. I 92. I 113·2-3 124. I 136.2 147·3-4 177·2 180 3.2.2 16. 3-4 20.2 31. 2-5 3 4 38.4 47. I 80. I 2-82 2 3-5

LOCORUM

76 76 145 n. I 35 25 34 n. 4 73-5,89 62,89 41 41 35 35 n. I 91 41 52 145 n. I II5 n. I 88 34 n. 4 34 n. 4 35 n. 2 35 n. 2 35 n. 2 35 n. 2, 41 35 n. 2 35 34 n. 4 41 35 41 41 34 n. 4 41 34 n. 4 34 n. 4 41 73 with n. 3 47 n. 2 53 47 n. 2 138 24 41 34 n. 4 47 n. I 14,18 35 n. I 33,37-8 77 n. I 178 107, II 1-13, 178-g 107 n. 7, 164 n. I 112

2°3 6

II

112, 114-15, 115 n. I, 166 n. 6 81. I I I I, II5 n. I I I I, 179 3 82. 1-2 115 n. I III 4 34 n. 4, 179 5 I I 1,166 n. 2 83. I 2-84. I 179 2 115 n. I 34 n. 4 3 87 179 118. I 47 n. I 123. I 165 107-9, 165-6 142-3 142-4 179 108 and n. I, 166 n. I 142.2 107 n. 6, 164 n. I 3 108, 166 n. I 4 5-143. I 165 143. 1-148. I 165 108 n. 4, 166 2 4.26. I 35 39. I 39 68.2 35 n. 3 78.4 41 80. 5 34 n. 4 103. I 35 n. 3 105. I 34 n. 4 106 31 107 34 n. 4 117 35 n. 3 109 n. 3, 167 137·2 163 with n. 3, 163-5 159-61 161 163-5 161. 3 163 nn. 4 and 5, 166 n. I 168. I 34 n. 4 169.2 34 n. 4 34 n. 4 17° 171 34 n. 4 172.2 35 n. 3 187. I 34 n. 4 35 n. 3 19° 200. I 115 n. I 201.2 44 n. I 34 n. 4 5·3·2 6.1-2 35 n. 3 16.2 24 18. 2-3 35 n. I 19.2 44 n. I 109-1 I, 167 37.2 110 and n. I 38.2 42. 2 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3 I,

2°4 Herodotus 5 (cont.): 77 n. I 49. 8 131 n. I, 138 n. 4,139 n. 2, 55 148 n. 2 131 n. I 57· I 62-5 130 n. I, 134, 138-9 62.2 125 n. 4, 127 n. 5, 148 n. 2 129 n. I 63· 2-4 64. 2 148 66-730 I 143-5 66. I 140 n. I 3 n. I, 130 n. I, 142, 2 143 and n. I, 150, 157 n. I 69·2 3 n. I, 130 n. I, 149 nn. I and 2, 150, 151, 156, 157 n. I 70 148 n. 5 70. I 144 n. 2 2 185 2-71 144 72. I 144, 185 4-73. I 144 n. 7 73.1 I~ 2-3 145 74. I 144 n. 6 1-2 145 75. I 146 2 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3 3 146 76 115 n. I 77. 1-2 146 78 109, 135, 146, 157 n. 2, 159 88. 2 35 n. 4, 52 92. I 115 n. I 1/.5 108 n. 2 94. I 129 n. 2 99.2 110 n. 2 103. I 110 6. I I. 3 61 n. 2 38. I 23 39. I 138 n. 3 43·3 107 n. 4, 108 n. 2, 109 n.4, III and n. I, 167, 178, 179 52. 3 46 n. 4, 60 n. 3

58.

2

41

67. I 70

145 n. I 145 n. I 33 47,60 n. 3 146 n. 2 138 n. 3 128 n. I 41

86 {3. 2 89 100. 1 103. 3 105 106. 3

I I I. I 123.2

139

13°.2

41

131. I

108 n. 2, III n. I, 130 n. I, 146 n. 3, 150 47 n. I 34 n. 4 24 33 35 n. 4 31,32 109 34 n. I 164 n. I

7.2.

I

8 a. I 41. I 102. I 103. I 104·4 104.4-5 136. 1 164. I 209.3 238. 2

46

8. 34 55

65 89.

I

106·3 9·41. 4 48. 2

78--g 99·3 104 I I I. I Hesiod: Opera et Dies 11-16

35 91 n. 2 II5 n. 1 129 128 n. 4 24

53 34 n. 4 24 91 n. 2 44 n. I 44 n. I 35 n. I

65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 219-24 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 236-7 70 n. I 250 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 259-64 65 n. 6, 66 n. 5 276-80 21 276 52 n. 2 388 23,94 Theogonia 63-7 2 I n. 5 74 21 n. 5 217-19 63 n. 3 226-32 66-8 307 86, 89 n. I 417 4° 901-6 63-4, 66-8, 71 n. 3 frg. (Rzach3) 221 40 n. 3 Hesychius, S.V. ;4pp.o8iov

p.€>.o, [Hippocrates] : De Aiire, Aquis, Locis 12. 18-19 14 16 19

105 n. 2 35 22

35 n. 6

22 22

23 24 De Morbo Sacro 17

39 39 103 n. 4 103 n. 3 22 n. 4 103 n. 3

20

De Natura Hominis 4 De Prisca lvfedicina 5 De Victu I. I I

3· 69 Homer: Iliad 5. 70 555 I I. 741 15. 186-95

27 n. I 27 n. I 27 n. I 178 178

2°9 O,ryssey I. 3 9.106 112-15 17·487 18.130 19.482 23. 177-230

21 n. 2 77 77 63,65 n. 4 27 n. I 27 n. I 12

18 12 and n. 2 27 n. I 325 12 n.2 Scholia to Odyssey 23. 296 Homeric Hymns: 12 n. I 8.16 30. II-12 69 n. 7

183-204 296

Iamblichus, 104 257 267 Isaeus:

De Vita Pythagorica: 97 n. 3, 98 n. 3 100 n. 4 97 n. 3

1.2

35 10. 13 Isocrates:

20

12. 178-80

Melica Adespota, frg. (PMG): 937. 11-15 13 1018 (b). 6-7

Parmenides, 8.55-61 9

108 162 108 108

n. n. n. n.

2 2 2 2

69 n. 7 71 n. I 64 n. 2

(Anthol. 70 n. 2

frg. (DK6):

12

16 Pausanias: 1.8·5

102 102 102 102

n. n. n. n.

3 3 3 3

132 nn. 3 and 4, 133 129 170 n. 2 4·24·7 138 10·5·13 Pherecydes of Syros, frg. (DK6) 2, co!' 2 Philo, De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (II p. 268 M) 5 79 n. I 129 Philochorus, frg. (FGH) 67 Philoponus on Aristotle, De Anima 405"29 97 n. 4 Pindar (Sne1l3): Isthmians 2. 38 24 5.22 62n·3,71 43 30 n. 4 ~ 20 15, 18 Nemeans I. 72 29 27. 2

3.55 4. 33 9. 29-30 10.33 11.27 Olympians I. 37-8 6.69

7.88 178 178 59 n. 3

5·39 7.16

Lysias: 2.18 10.16 12.42 13. 12

Nicodemus of Heracleia Gr. 6) 316

8. 25-7

78

24 15, 18 62 n. 3, 7 I 13, 18 13n·4,18 62 n. 3, 70 13,18 13 13 n. 5, 18

4°

64 n. 1,71 64 with n. 1,69 n. 7 71 12, 18, 174 13,18 72 with n. I, 73 34 14,18 29 30-1 61 n. I 10. 70-1 34 n. 2 frg. 169 20, 37-8, 40 n. I Scholia to Nemeans I. 72 29 n. I Olympians 13. 29 174Plato: Cratylus 384 d 7 9. 15-16 13.6-8 6-10 29 40 Paeans I. 10 Pythians I. 62 64 2.43 86-8 5.67

Plato, Cratylus (cont.): 388 d 12 In·3 181 Epistulae 7. 326 d 182 336 b 181 d 181 337 a Gorgias 482 e G I n. 3 482 e--484 c 4° 51 483 b e 23 181 508 a Hippias lUaior 284 d-e 51 n. 6 Leges I. 642 d 185 2. 674 b 7 In·3 182 3·694 a 182 695 d 10 n. 2 4·714 a 181, 182 6. 756 e-758 a 780 d 5 In·3 7. 795 a I In·3 8.835 e 5 In·3 836 e 4 In·3 10.889 e 6 In·3 8go d 4 In·3 6 In·3 904 a 9 In·3 cg In·3 I I. 927 b 6 74 n. 2 181 Menexenus 239 a Phaedo 58 b 5 In·3 Phaedrus 235 d 4 n. I 256 d 7 In·3 Politicus 29 I e 2 In·3 61 n. 2 Protagoras 337 a 22 n. 4 c-338 b Respublica 2. 369 c-4. 445 c 100 n. 5 108 n. 3 8.555 b 61 n. 2, 182 558 c 119 n. 4,182 561 e 108 n. 3 562 a 182 563 b 9. 587 a 10 In·3 c 2 In·3 10.604 a 10 In·3 b6 In·3 In·3 9 607 a 7 In·3 Symposium 182 a 7 In·3 186 d 104 n. 7 Timaeus 60 e 2 In·3 Plato: Scholia to: Alcibiades I. 121 e 97 n. 4

Gorgias 45 I e Leges I. 629 a Pliny, Naturalis Historia: 34· 17 7° Plutarch: Agis 5 8

125 n. I, 183 82 n. I 132-3, 142 132 n. 3

n. 2 n. 2 n. 2 9 II Il. 2 Lycurgus 5·4 75 n. 1,82 n. 3 6 7 n. 2 6.10 81 n. 5 7 n. 2 13 13. I 46,49 Pericles 37·3 46 n. 3 Solon 3. 5 3 n. 5,15 II 138 n. 6 15 3 n. 5 18.2 156 162 19. I 3 n. 4, 15, 18 4 20.2 59 141 n. 5 24 4 n. I 25·3 141 n. 4 30.3 Themistocles 23. I 144 n. I Moralia 303 e-304 c (Quaest. Gr. 57) 165 n. 3 615 b-c (Quaest. Conv. I. I) 125 n. I, 183 644 c (Quaest. Conv. 2. 10) 10 n. 2 833 d (Vit. X Or. Antiph. 2O) 2 n. 3 862 b-c (De Malig. Her. 26) 128 n. 2 91 I a (De Plac. Phil. 5. 30) 177-8 Pollux: 128 n. 2 8.91 106 4 n. 3 1I0 143,144 n. I Polyaenus: I. 22 140 n. 4 165 n. 3 6. 45 182 Polybius 6. 8. 4 Polyclitus (DK6 I. 391) 24, 102 n. 6 29-36 Porphyry, De Abstinentia 4. 22 3 n. 3 Sextus Ernpiricus 9 (Ad". Physicos I) 54

7 7 7 7

52 n. I

Sirnonides, frg. (PMG)

65 I

127 with n. 3 Sirnplicius on Aristotle, De Anima 97 n. 4 4°5a29 Solon, frg. (DiehIJ): 64-9 3 3. 1-10 67 68 n. I 5 68 n. I 7 68 Il. I 8 8-g 65 n. 5 68 n. I 9 68 n. I II 67 14-25 68 n. 2 16 68 n. I 19 26-g 67 68 with n. 5 3° 65n.l,gon.1 31-2 68 n. I 33 65 n. 3, 85 n. I 33-8 65 n. 4, 68 n. I 34 65 n. 6, 66 36 65 n. 6, 66, 68 n. I 37-8 65 n. 2, 68 n. I 38-9 81 n. 5 3a 81 n. 5 3b 65 n. 5 5·9-10 6 81 n. 5 23. 21 178 24. 15-16 3 n. 5, 43 n. 3 18-20 3 n. 5, 15, 18 Sophocles: Ajax 350 25 25 548 712 17 7°-1,87 n. 2 713 34 n. 3 1°73 4 n. 5,17 11°4 1108 83 n. 3 113° 41 1160 83 n. 3 1247 47 1343 41 Antigone 24 41 31 59 44 n. I 156 29 177 178-91 38 34 n. I 191 213 29 282-8 41 n. 2 41 n. 2 285-7

34 n. 3 368 382 31 n. I, 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2 449 31 n. 1,47 n. 3, 58 n. 2 22 45°-2 58 454-5 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2 481 41 519 613-14 23 663 47 n. 3 16 Il. 8 797 800-1 4 n. 5, 14 with n. 4 47 n. 3, 58 n. 2 847 53 908 25 914 1113-14 31 Electra 87 105 n. 2 52 with n. 3 580-1 1043 53 1506 31 Ichneutae 189 24 Oedipus Coloneus 125-37 87 86-7,91 142 168 25 34 n. 4 337-8 47 548 907-8 52 31 914 29 1382 61 n. 2 Oedipus Tyrannus 579 29 863-71 Trachiniae 616 25 682 4 n. 5,17,18 86 with n. 4, 8g n. I 1095-6 25 1I77 Stobaeus, Florilegium (WachsmuthHense): I. 1.5: see Tragica Adespota, frg. 471 4. 2: see Tragica Adespota, frg. 502 4. I. 48 4 n. 3 10 n. 2 138 177 36. 29 177 37·2 Strabo: 6. I. 8: see Ephorus, frg. 139 81-2 8.4.10 Suda: S.V. ayopa.uw 182 EV f£VP'TOVKAa81 'TO g !1'o, 182 q,op~aw 167 with n. 2 'Hp68o'To, OvSbroT ' €yw Toihov imo8.gof£uL 123 n. 4 71'apOLVOS 123 n. 4 7 nn. 2 and 4 po/paL

INDEX Theognis

LOCORUM

(Young) :

45 30, 94 3°

54

55-6 289-9° Theophrastus:

22

De Sensibus (Dox. 502-3)

12-15

104 (Dox. 508) 32 104 (Dox. 510) 39 104 (Dox. 5I1) 41 104 (Dox. 512) 46 104 (Dox. 515) 58 104 Metaphysica (DK6 58. B 14) 33 105 Thucydides: I15 1·9·2 12 44

17 18.

80

n.

2

5° 32

32

84· 3 103.3

115·3 125. I 126.2

8 12

127. I 2. 3. 2 I

5 35·I 37·I 3 39·4

52.4 53·I 4

65.8 72.2 I

97·4 3·34·4 37·3 4 5

42. 6 43. 2

56.

170 108 115 144

n. 2 n. 2 n. 2 n. 3 174 144 n. 3 144 n. 3 115 n. 3 36, 175-{) 175

49 34 n. 3, 50,114 n. 3 50 with n. 1,58 5°

42 90 with n. 2 5° 115 n. 2 115 n. 2 I15 n. 2

36 33 n.

2

5°

33 n.

2

115 n. 2 115 n. 2 115 n. 2

5° 5° 115 n. 2

2

23

58. 3

23 n. I I13, 114 115,116-19

62. 3 3-4 3-5 64·3

65.1-2 66.2

3 67·5 6

70. 5-6 n. 3 n. I

33 115 n. 2

3

47. 2

n. 2

52

4° 41 72•2 77. I

73.

2 3 4 4 4 5

79-80, 139 n. I 36

I

24. 2

34.

n. n. n. n. n. n.

46. 4

6 82.6

8 [84]. 2 3 95. 2

32

32 n. I 88 with n. 3 23,88 88 88 23 n. 1,88 49,60 n. 4 115 n. 2 31,41 I14, 115 31 n. 2 22 n. 3

176

4·21. 3 22.2

115 n. 3

3

115 n. 2 49 n. 3, 60 n. 4 115 n. 2 108 n. 2 108 n. 3,119 115 113,114 n. 2 I15 n. 2 89,91 I18 n. 5 91 n. 2 36 n. I 36 115 n. 2 115 n. 2

38. 66.

I I

74·3

76.2 78.2-3 3

84. 2 92.7 93·3 97-101

97. 2 98.2 105. I 106.2 118 133·3 5·27·2 30. I

31. 6 41.3

45·I 49·I 60. I 2

5

63·4 66. 2-3 69·I 2

115

n.

2

42 49 I15 n. 2 I15 n. 2 119 115 n. 2 115 n. 2

49 I15 34 115 49 n. 3, 60 49 n. 3, 60

n. 2 n. I n. 2 n. 4 n. 4 178

36

36 I15 n. 2 I15 n. 2 23,52 5° 38 173 4 34 n. 3 18·7 115 n. 2 33. 2 49, I 14 with nn. I and 4, 5 115 39. I 114 n. 4,178 54·5 147 6 33 n. 2,14°,147,148 n. I 55. 1-2 140 with n. 2 3 141 n. 4 57. I 141 n. 4 4 140 n. 4, 142 n. I 58.2 141 n. 4 59. 2 138 n. 4, 148 n. 2 2-3 139 n. I 4 139 and n. 2 60.4 115 n. 2 89.4 I15n.2 7.75.6 178 8. 9. 3 115 n. 2 48. 3 I15 n. 3 53.2 33 n. 2 64·5 176-77 65·3 180 72 108 n. 2 75.2 108 n. 3 76.6 33 n. 2 31. I I15 n. 2 92.9 115n.2 97. 2 103 n. 3, 106 Timotheus, Persae (P !vIG, frg. 791) 237-40 69 n. 7 Tragica Adespota, frg. (Nauck2): 26 39 n. 2 99 33 n. I 471 29n·5

7°

84·3 85. I 105.2 6.14 16.2

502 Tyrtaeus,

29 n. 5 frg. (DiehI3): 81 n.4 81 n. 5 81 n. 5

2

3 a, b

6 Tzetzes, Jllap..{joL T€XVLKOl (CGF 42-3) 85-9

Xenarchus,

7TEpl KWP.c.{JOtUS

frg. (Edmonds)

183

4. 22

5 n. 3 Xenophanes,

frg. (DiehI3): 69-70 69 n. 4,71 69 n. 5

2 2. 19

22

Xenophon:

Anabasis 4. 6. 14 6. 6. 28 Apologia 21 Cyropaedia:

I18 n. I 7 n. 2

178

2. I. 31 2. 18 21

3·5 4.6.

12

Alemorabilia: I. 2.4°-6 42

51 n. 6 2 n. 3, 5 I n. 6 4·4·13 5 I n. 6 Oeconomicus 14. 4 5 n. 3 Respublica Lacedaemoniorum 10. 7 118 n. I

[Respublica Atheniensium] : 1.8

8-9 9 10

18

3·2 II

79 n.

I

82-5 50 n. 3 50 n. 3 50 n. 3 2 n. 3, 50 n. 3 117 n. 2,169 n. 2

INDEX B 1-2 16-24 19-20

ATL D 14 III. 14-15 D 15.41-2

48

n. 2 42 n. I 101 n. I, 120 n. 2 50

Bengtson, Staatsvertriige Buck, CD, 2.19-20

NO.2

32 34-5 23·28-g 52. C. 19

-3

57

170

57· 46 59. A.

2, No. 145 42 n. I 44 n. 3, 167-70 44, 167 n. 2, 167-8 44,167 44,167 7 n. 7 16 n. 7, 18

I

13-14 14

16 n. 5, 18, 170 8 n. 6, 16 n. 3, 18 16 n. 4,18 8 n. 6, 16 n. 3, 18

178

Hesperia: 135 n. 2, 137 8 (1939) 59-65 10 (1941) 284-95 17 n. 3 14 (1945), No. II. 7 51 n. 2 32 (1963) 187-208 135 n. 2 4 n. 4, 16 n. 6, 36 (1967), No. 15 18

Schwyzer, DCE: No. 51 4°9 410.5 41 I. 3 412 413 414 418.19 424. 10-1 I

IC: 12• I.

I

n. n. 2 n. 42, 168 n. 102 n. I, 120 n. 2

3. 16

4. 26 15·30-1 37 77 77-6 94. 17-18 23-5 110.15-17 1I5·4-5

5-6 5

Gortyn, Law of (Kohler-Ziebarth): III. 20 8 n. 2 29-30 8 n. 2 IV. II 8 n. 2 31 8 n. 2 45-6 8 n. 2 48 8 n. 2 50-I 8 n. 2 VI. 15 8 n. 2 31 8 n. 2 VII. 47-8 8 n. 2 VIII. 10 8 n. 2 25-6 8 n. 2 29-30 8 n. 2 35-6 8 n. 2 40 8 n. 2 IX. 15-16 8 n. 2 23-4 8 n. 2 X.44-5 8 n. 2 46 8 n. 2 53 178 XI. 19-23 8 n. 2 26-7 8 n. 2 28-9 8 n. 2 XII. 15-19 8 n. 2 22-3 8 n. 2

POxy: 2256, frg. 3 2450, frg. I

485 22• 10.6-7 4·493 5. 1,20.2-3 1I55 1498.12 5.2, 159 A. 8 B.20 12. 8, 263. 7 14·645· 145-6 151

2

48-9 59 51 51 152 5

n. 2 n. 3 n. 3 n. 2 n. I 51 51 n. I, 173 with n. I 3 n. 2, 5 n. I, 15, 18,51 n. I, 173 n. I 133 n. 2 51 n·4 7 n. 8 7 n. 2 42 n. 2 7 n. 3 8 n. 5, 17 n. 2, 18 8n·5,I7n.2,I8 168 n. I 7 n. 5 7 n. 5

J1cfarmor Parium (Jacoby): ep. 46 54 Meiggs and Andrewes: B 26. 27 33

30 87·15 116 116. A 21-2

3 3 3 2 2

142 with n. 2 132 n. 4 169 n. 3

169 n. 3 169 n. 2 168 n. 2

45-6 45, 168 n. 2, 169 n·4 45-6, 168 n. 2, 169 n. 4

LOCOR

45, 169 n. 4 46 168 n. 2, 169 n. 4

59 n. 4 37 n. 2, 38

42 n. 7 n. 8 n. 14 with nn. I and 7 n. 6, 8 n. 7 n. 6, 8 n. 7 n. 8 n. 8 n.

2 6 I 2 I I 6 I I

SEC: 10, No. 17 103 352 II, No. 1178 Tod, CHI: 12, No. I 1.2 24 24. 26

42 n. I 51 n. 3 135 n. 2, 137 14 with nn. I and 2

161-3 7 n. I, 162-3 45, 170-3 45

211

UM 27 28 3° 45 46 25 25·19 19-20 32 34-5 44 86. 15-17 87·4-5 5 19-20

96. 15-16 2, No. 100.6 1I6.21 137·13-14 162. 15 [36] 181. 25 200.217 246 204. 11-14 12

45 45 45 n. 2 45 8 n. 6, 16 n. 5,18,45 44, 167-70 8 n. 3, 167-8 44, 167 n. 3 44,167 44,167 170 with n. 3 152 n. 2 5 n. I 51 n. I 3 n. 2, 5 n. I, 51 n. I 34 n. I In·4 In·4 In·4 In·4 In·4 In·4 In·4 In·4 14 with n. 3, 18 4 n. 3

associated with vop.os, 109. associated with 100vop.La, 108, 166, 182. associated with democracy, 108. £TalpELal, in Athens, 142-3. £vOuva, I 12. Evvop.Eop.al, in Aeschines and Demosthenes, 84 n. 2. in Anonymus Iamblichi, 93. in Herodotus, 62, 73-4, 76. in Thucydides, 79-80. in [Xenophon], 82-5. Evvop.La, 62-85, 92-5. etymology of, 61, 73 n. 3. as a quality of personal behaviour, 62,63,65, 70-1,94. as condition oflaw-and-order, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73, 74-5, 76-8, 80, 83,94· associated with owrppoovvTJ, 72-3, 176-7. opposed to iJ(3plS, 63, 65, 7 I, 72. opposed to avop.La, 70, 94. opposed to ovovop.La, 65-9, 70, 94· association with wealth not an essential attribute of, 69-70, 80. constitutional change not implied in, 74-5,82. associated with constitutional workings of the state, 84. religious overtones in, 68, 7 I with '>.wIJEpLa,

in Sophocles, 58. I with n. 4. in Thucydides, 58. aOlKos, associated with avop.os, 87, 88, 89,92 n. 3· aoos, legal term in Halicarnassus, 8, 167-8, 169, 170. in Thasos, 168 n. I. alJEOs, associated with avop.os, 87, 88. a[vos, legal term in Epidaurus and Delphi,8. dJ)aypa4>€;~ rwv vO/LWV, in Athens, 5 I. dvaKaAv1TT~pLa, 40. avop.Ew, in Anonymus Iamblichi, 93. in Herodotus, 91. avop.La, etymology of, 61. meaning of, 85-94. opposite of Evvop.La, 70, 94. relation to Ovovop.La, 70. associated with iJ(3plS, 86, 89. religious overtones in, 86-7, 88, 89, 90, 91. does not imply vop.os = 'statute', 85, 86, 89, 90, 94· meaning of influenced by vop.os = 'statute', 91, 92-4. in Anonymus Iamblichi, 92-4, 95. in Euripides, 26, 90-I. in Herodotus, 73, 74, 89-90. not in Solon, 69 n. I, 90 n. I. in Thucydides, 90. avop.os, in musical sense, 61 n. I, 86. associated with aOlKos, 87, 88, 89, 92 n. 3. associated with aIJEOS, 87, 88. in Aeschylus, 61 n. 1,86. in Anonymus Iamblichi, 88. in Aristophanes, 88. in Euripides, 87-8. in Gorgias, 88. in Herodotus, 88. in Hesiod, 86. in Sophocles, 86-7. in Thucydides, 88. a"op.ws, in Euripides, 89. in Gorgias, 89. in Thucydides, 89. aypa1rTa

ayparpos

vop.lp.a,

vop.os, in Andocides,

title kingship, 6.

(3am>'EVS,

survives

institution

(3ov>'r, 0TJP.OOLTJ,in sixth-century

of

Chios,

162. in Gortyn code, 8. 2 with n. 3. yparpos, term for 'statute' in Olympia, 8. yparpw-derivatives in Gortyn code, 8. ypap.p.aTa, yparpr,

1rapavop.wv,

in Herodotus, 107 n. 4, 109 n. 3, I I I. opposed to TvpavvEvop.al, 109 n. 3. 0TJp.oKpaTLa, not identical with 100vop.La, 120. relation to 100vop.La, 107, 111-13, 181. not appropriate name for Cleisthenes' reforms, 153-4. describes Plataean constitution during Persian Wars, I 17. not used in Alemaeon, frg. 4, 106. first attested in Herodotus, 120 n. 2. in Herodotus, 109 n. 4, I I I n. I, 120 n. I. in Athenian treaty with Colophon 447/6 B.C., 120 n. 2. 0TJP.OTlKOs, 147 with n. I, 165 n. 3. OlmpTJrplop.OS, 141-2, 151. OLKTJ, in Hesiod, 2 I. related to vop.os, 2 I, 94. ooPVrpOPOl, 141 n. 4, 142 n. I. OvvaoTELa, form of oligarchy in Thucydides, 113. rules Thebes during Persian Wars, 113, 115, 116-19. opposed to democracy and to d>'lyapXLa loovop.os, 113, 116-17. 0TJp.oKpaTEop.al,

Ovovop.La,

65-9.

etymology of, 6 I. opposite of Evvop.La, 65-9, 70, 94. relation to avop.La, 70. relation to KaKovop.La, 85 n. I. in Hesiod, 65-7. in Solon, 65-9, 90. personification of, 66-7. Tel .zpTJp.Eva, term for 'statute'

nae,7·

in Myce-

n.

I.

does not imply 'statute' before [Xenophon], 68, 70, 74-5, 78, 80. meaning of affected by vop.os = 'statute', 62, 82-5, 92-4. EuvofLla:

in Egypt, 73. in Media, 73-5. in Sparta, 64, 75-82, 82 n. 3, 84 n. I. in Aleman, 64. in Anonymus Iamblichi, 92-4. in Aristophanes, 73. defined by Aristotle, 84 n. 2, 94. in Bacchylides, 72-3. in Herodotus, 73, 76, 78. in Hesiod, 63-4, 65, 69-70. in Homer, 63, 64, 65· in Pindar, 64, 71, 72, 73· in Solon, 64-9, 84. in Sophocles, 70- I. in Xenophanes, 69-70, 7 I. in [Xenophon], 62, 82-5, 95.

personification

of, 63,

64-7,

71,

72-3. as title of Solon, frg. 3, 64. as title of Tyrtaeus, frg. 2, 81-2. Eilvop.os, musical sense of, 61 n. I. in Aeschylus, 61 n. 1,62,72, 73. in Aleman, 6 I n. I. in Pindar, 61 n. 1,62,7°,71-2. Tel FEFaOTJPoTa, legal term in Naupactus, 17°,171. IJEIJP.WV, see IJEOP.WV. IJEIJ(r)p.os, see IJwJLos. IJEOJLWV, IJEOJLla, Nemean Games as TEIJJLWV of Heracles, 13 n. 4. constitution of Naupactus as IJEIJJLWV,

16,45, 170-3· in Aeschylus, 15, 17. in Euripides, 15, 17. in Herodotus, 15. TEIJJLWS in Pindar, 15. of Athens, 4, 16,59, 140, 174-5· last used of 'statute' 511/10 B.C., 4, 59, 158. IJWJLolJha,,6, 16, 174-5. IJWJLOS, basic idea in, 18-19, 55. etymology of, 9- 10. not found on Linear B tablets, 10 n. 3. not necessarily written, 16-17. used of Draco's statutes, 3, 5, 15,51, 57,59, 175· used of Solon's statutes, 3-5, IS, 57· uses of, before end of fifth century B.C., 17-18. = thing placed in significant location, 12. = something stored away, treasure, 12.

= place of burial, 13 n. I. = fundamental regulation, 13-15.

= establishment of fundamental institution, 13. = institution of celebrating victors in song, 13, 174· = establishment of athletic games, 13· = founding act, 13. = status conferred

agency, 13. = rule of propriety haviour, 15.

by and

external good

be-

O£a/-,os (cont.): = specific religious or political regu-

lation, 4 with n. 4, 15-17. = written statute, 6, 15-16, 57.

= written statute: in Locris (nO/-,os or T£TO/-,OS), 8, 16. at Olympia (O£O(T)/-,OS) 14. in Tegea, 8,17. last used in Athens 5 I 1/ IO B.C., 4, 59,158. replaced by vo/-,os in Athens, 55-6, 57, 96, 158-60, 173· in Aeschylus, 13, 17. in Anacreon, 12. in Aristophanes, 14. in Democritus, 17. in Euripides, 12 with n. 6. in Herodotus, 14. in Homer, 12, 13. in Pindar (nO/-,os), 12, 13-14, 15, 174· in Sophocles, 14, 17. in ephebic oath in Athens, 4, 14. in Phyle epigram, 17. Ow/-,oq,opos, attribute of Demeter, 13 with n. 1. laTJyop{a, 109, 135, 146-7, 157 n. 2,180. lao/-,oLp{a, 105, 178. TO raov, 182. laovo/-,Eo/-,aL, in Thucydides, laovo/-,{a, 96-120, 180-2.

114 n.

I.

in Epicurean philosophy, 96 n. I. etymology of, 61. reflects political senses of vO/-,os, 119-20, 158. affected by vO/-,os = 'statute' in fourth century, 119, 181-2. laovoJLla: and democracy, 96, 97, 106, 107, 1°9-11, 111-13, 113-14, 115, 120, 121, 130, 135-6, 137, 147. associated but not identical with 0TJ/-,oKpaT{a, 120, 18I. associated with JAwO£p{a, 108, 166, 182. associated with TrAijOos, 114-16. opposed to tyranny, 97, 101, 107, 109-1 I, II3. opposed to /-,ovapx{a, 99-102, 106. opposed to oligarchy, 107, 113, 114. associated with oligarchy, 114, 116-

19·

as principle of political equality, 97, 106, 108-9, III, 113, 115, 116 with n. I, 117, II8-19, 121. alleged association with nobility, 122-3· as propaganda term, 113-14, 115, 135, 153-5, 158. attempted establishment of, in Samos, 107-9, 165-6. granted to Miletus by Aristagoras, 109-1 I. in Athens, in Cleisthenes' reforms, 96, 101,122-3, 130, 135, 137, 153-7. possible models of, 161-6. in AIcmaeon of Croton, 99-106, 107, II3, II9· in Herodotus, 107-13, 114, 116, I r9-2o, 166-7. in Isocrates, r80-I. in Plato, 181-2. in Thucydides, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120. laovo/-,LKOs, in Plato, 182. laovopoos, in Harmodius skolia, 96-7, 101, 107, 113, 121-36, 161. in Plato, 181. in Thucydides, 113, 114, 116-19. laorT]S, 182. KaO{aTTJfLL, 77, 108. KaKovopo{a, relation to ovavofL{a,

85 n. I. in [Xenophon], 82-5, 95. KaKOVOJLOS, 61 n. I. in Herodotus, 76-7, 78-9, 85. KoAa~w, 83 n. 3. KOPOS, opposed to £vvofL{a, 65, 7 I. KOPVVTJq,0POL, 141 n. 4, 147. KpaatS,

see aupopo£TpOSKpaaLS.

KwAaKpETaL,

tions,6

title survives original funcand n. 3.

wO{aTTJfLL, 77, 108. po£Taf3aAAw, 108 n. 3. poofpa, division in Cyrene in Demonax'

reform, 163. opposed to laovopo{a, 106.

poovapx{a,

99-102,

title survives original functions, 6. VEfLW, 9-10, 61, 73 n. 3,81. vaUKpapoL,

Vfo1ToAi'TaL,

151.

v£oXpoos, revolutionary

connotations

of,

44 with n. I. vopoas, 9-10. vOJ.L€V~, g. "opo~,

,'o/-,La,

9·

in Naupactus and Eastern LOCl'is, 45, 170-2. vopoLpoa, in Sparta, changed by Lycurgus, 77, 78. in Sophocles, 58. vopooOw{a, I with n. 2. VOPOOL,of all Greeks, 33, 36, 39, 41, 43· of non-Greeks, 33. of Aegina, 52. of Aetolia, 36. of Argos, 35, 49, 52. of Athens, 36, 41, 42, 46, 60. of Babylonia, 35, 4 I. of Caria, 52. of Corcyra, 42, 49, 60. of Corinth, 47, 60. of Egypt, 35,41,43,47,53. of Erechtheids, 36. of Issedones, 35. of Libya, 35 n. 3. of Makrokephaloi, 35. of Massagetae, 35. of Nasamones, 35 n. 3· of Odrysians, 36. of Olympia, 49. of Persia, 35, 41, 47· of Phoenicians, 36. of Sauromatians, 35 n. 3· of Scythians, 35 nn. 3 and 6, 41. of Sparta, 35-6, 46, 49, 60. of Syracuse, 49. of Taurians, 35 n. 3, 43, 48. of Thracians, 35 n. 3. VOfLOS, = pasture, abode, district, 9. vOfLoS, = melody, tune, 10, 21-2, 86. VOfLOS, basic idea in, 20-1, 54, 55· etymology of, 9-10, 61. compounds of, 60-1, 62-136, 157--8. not on Linear B tablets, 10 n. 3. not in Solon, 3 n. 5. may have beginning in time, 52-3. may be god-given, 21. may control the gods, 29. related to O{KTJ, 2 I, 94. associated with JAevO£p{a, lO9. opposed to tyranny and narrow oligarchy, 32, 47.

inhibits human freedom of action, 47-8, 50. depreciation of, begins in philosophy and science, 38-9. in Antiphon, 37. in Aristophanes, 36-7, 39. in Democritus, 39. in Empedocles, 33-9. in Euripides, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47-8. in Herodotus, 39. in Hippocratic writings, 39. in Athens and Corcyra, 42. = way of life, 21-2. = normal order of things, 22-3. = normal way in which something is done, 23-4, 94· = normal or proper conduct of individual, I n. 3, 24-6, 62, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94· treated like statutory enactment,

26, 91. = source

issuing and guaranteeing norms, 26-9, 120, 158. = law-and-order, I n. 3, 30-3, 62, 85,94· = mores of a social or political group, 33-4· social practice, I n. 3, 34-7· treated like statutory enactment, 36-7, 48 n. 3. = conventional belief, I n. 3, 37= custom,

4°·

= religious practice,

custom, or belief, I n. 3, 40-3, 87· = precedent, 52-3. = rule, as in a game, 53. = statute, as political and judicial regulation, 43-52, 120, 158. indifference in fifth century whether or not it is written, 43-52, 60, I7 I. in Athens, relation to 1~q,wpoa, 1-3, 168, 169. possible antecedents of, 16773used of Draco's and Solon's laws only by later authors, 3,5,51, 173· used of Cleisthenes' laws, 3, 158-60. not used before 5II/1O B.C., 6,

59·

vOjJ,o'>'oyos, in Halicarnassus,

168, 172. meaning of, 102-5. in Alemaeon, frg. 4, 102-5. in Aristotle, 103-4. in doxography, 103-4. in Galen, 104. awq,poavvTJ, associated with .tJvojJola, 72-3,176-7. aVjJojJoETpOS KpaaLS,

Tagl,s,20. T€BjJoLOS, see B€ajJoLOV. uBjJoos, see BwjJoos. T€TBjJoos, see BwjJoos. TupavvEvojJoa" 109

opposed to DTJjJooKpaTfojJoa"

n. 3.

associated with avojJola, 86, 89. opposed to £!JvojJola, 63, 65, 71, 72.

v{3p,s,

in Athens, relation to vOjJoos, 1-3, 168, 169. in Erythrae c. 450 B.C., 45, 169. ifiijq,os, 2 n. 4. ifi~q"ajJoa,

.\dlllctuS, Attic skolion on, 129. Aeacidae, 15. Aegina, 13, 15· vOjJoos of, 52. called EUVOjJoOSby Pindar, 7 I. Aesehines, .tJvojJo€ojJoa, in, 84 n. 2. Aeschylus, avojJoos in, 6 I n. I, 86. €uvojJoos in, 62, 72, 73· (JEup.,ta in, 15, 17. BwjJoos in, 13. vOjJoos in, 22-3, 24, 25, 28, 33 n. 2, 31, 37,41,43,53,58-9,120,161. Aetolians, I n. 4, 36. Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes of Sieyon,41. Agis, king of Sparta, 49 n. 3· Ajax, Attic skolion on, 129. Aleaeus, author of Attic skolion, 127· vOjJoos in, 34 n. 6. Aleibiades, 38. Alemaeon, Athenian commander in First Sacred War, 138. Alemaeon, archon 50716 B.C., 143-4, 145,149· Alcmaeon of Croton, dates of, 97-9· relation to Croton, 106. not a Pythagorean, 97-8. frg. 4, textual problems, 177-8. laovojJola in, 99-106, 107, 113, "9· in, 102-5· Alemaeonids, curse on, 144, 145, 185. exiled by Hippias, 138. led opponents of Peisistratids at Leipsydrium, 138. influence in Delphi, 138. role in liberating Athens from tyranny, 130, 134, 138-9, 150. alleged opposition to, in 507 B.C., 131, 132 n. I, 134-5. See also Cleisthenes. Aleman, EvvojJola in, 64. EVVOJLOS in, 6 I n. I. VOJ.LOS in, 21-2. Alexander the Great, restores tyrannicide group to Athens, 132. Amasis, 47 n. 2. aVjJojJoETpOSKpaa,s

Anaxagoras, contemporary of late years of Alcmaeon of Croton,

98-9' aUjJojJo€Tpla and KpaaLS in doctrine

of,

104.

Anaxandrides and Ariston, kings of Sparta, defeat Tegea, 76. Anchimolius, leads Spartan troops against Hippias, 129, 139. Andocides, cites law of 403/2 B.C., differentiating between vOjJoos and ifi~q,wjJoa, I, 3, 5, 7, 57· uses BwjJoos and vOjJoos indifferently of Draco's laws, 5. Anonymus Iambliehi, alleged authorship of, 92 n. I. avop.€w in, 93. avojJola in, 92-4,95. avojJoos in, 88. €Vvop.EOfl-at in, 93. €vvopia in, 92-4. Antenor, see tyrannicides. Anthesteria, 42. Antiphon, speech against Demosthenes, 2 n. 3. vOjJoos in, 37, 51. Aphrodite, sexual relations as BwjJoos of, 13· Arcadia, Spartan designs against, 76. scene of Philippides' vision of Pan, 128. Arcesilaus II of Cyrene, 163. Archedemides, archon 464/3 B.C., 59· Archestratus, enacted vOjJoo, at Athens, 5· Archidamus, praises Spartan adherence to vOjJoo" 32. Archilochus, vojJoos in, 34 n. 6. archons, Athenian, oath exacted from,

3-4· Areopagus, Council of the, under Solon, 162. as BwjJoos for trials of homicide established by BwjJoos of Athene, 13· equal votes for and against accused result in acquittal, 48. Argos, vOjJoo, of, 35, 49, 52.

Argos (cont.): source of mercenaries for Peisistratus, 14I. Aristagoras, grants laovofL{a to Miletus, 109-II, 167. Aristarchus, 12, 2 I n. 2. Aristion, proposes bodyguard for Peisistratus, 147, 156. Aristogeiton, tortured after murder of Hipparchus, 140. See also Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Ariston, see Anaxandrides and Ariston. Aristophanes, earliest explicit mention of written vOfLO' in, 57. earliest reference to Harmodius skolia in, 123-4, 126. avofLos in, 88. €uvopla in, 73. vOfLoS in, 22, 24, 34 n. 3, 36-7, 39,43, 48~9, 53 n. 1,57· Aristophanes of Byzantium, 12. Aristotle, gives archon date for fortification of Munichia and surrender of Peisistratids, 139. account of events in Athens 508/7507/6 B.C., 143-5. uses OWfLOS and VOfLOS indifferently of Draco's and Solon's laws, 5. defines €VVOfLW, 84 n. 2, 94. aVfLfL€TpOS KpiiaLS in, 103, 104. Artaphernes, satrap, 145. Artemis, Attic skolion on, 128. Assembly, Athenian, majority vote validates law, 2 n. 3, 3. under Solon, 156, 162. votes bodyguard for Peisistratus, 147, 156-7. possibly attended by aliens under Peisistratus, 142. instrument for passing Cleisthenes' reforms, 155-7, 158, 159. addressed by Corinthians to oppose Corcyrean alliance, 52. in [Xenophon], Constitution of Athens, 82-4· assembly, in Halicarnassus, 8, 168. in Naupactus, 172. in Opus, I 72. in Sparta, II2. Asychis, 47 n. 2. Athenaeus, Attic skolia in, 96, 121, 126-30.

source of Harmodius skolia, 96, 121, 123, 126-7· Athenagoras, 114. Athene, establishes Areopagus as her OWfLOS by means of a OWfLoS, 13. Tritogeneia, Attic skolion to, 128. Athens, vOfLO' of, 36, 41, 46, 50, 60. regarded as written by 442 B.C., 57-8. abandoned during the Plague, 42. laws defining paternal authority over daughters, 59. laws on inheritance, 59, 170. liberation from tyranny, see tyranny, in Athens. requests alliance with Persia 507 B.C., 145· withdraws support from Miletus in Ionian Revolt, I 10. tolerates oligarchy in Miletus 450/49 B.C., 169. treaty with Colophon 447/6 B.C., 41-2, 120 n. 2, 168 n. 2. colony sent to Brea c. 445 B.C., 170. applies same commercial laws to herself and to her allies, 50. tends to support democracies during Peioponnesian'Var, 113. armistice with Sparta 423 B.C., 42. Babylonians, vOfLO' of, 35, 41. Bacchylides, influenced by Hesiod, 72. €tJVop.la in, 72-3. Battus II Eudaimon of Cyrene, 163. Battus III of Cyrene, 163. Boeotia, defeated by Athens 506 B.C., 109, 135, 145-6. constitution of member states of League, 118. Brasidas, march through Thessaly 424 B.C., II3, II5~I6. Thracian expedition of, 82. Brea, Athenian colony sent to, c. 445 B.C., 170. Callicles, VOfLOS used by, 23, 40, 5 I. Cambyses, 47 n. I. Carians, vOfLOS of, 52. Chalcis, defeated by Athens 506 B.C., 109, 135, 145-6. Cheops, 73. Chersonese, Thracian, 23. Miltiades despatched to, c. 516 B.C., 138.

Chios, pTJTpa used for 'statute', 7, 162-3· constitution of, as possible model for Cleisthenes, 161-3. Choes, festival, 42, 53. Cimon, father of Miltiades, 138. Cineas commander of Thessalian cava'lry allied with Hippias, 129, 139· citizenship, in Erythrae, possibly defined by law, 46. in Thebes, 118-19, 180. granted by tyrants to their supporters, 141. Athenian, criteria of, 141-2, 151, 154· possible grants of by Peisistratus and his sons, 141-2. Pericles' law on, 46. Cleisthenes, archon 525/4 B.C., 135, 137· exiled under the tyranny, 138, 148. opponent of Isagoras, 131, 133, 140, 142-5, 148. attitude to Athenian nobility, 152, 154, 157, 158. attitude to Athenian demos before 508/7 B.C., 149, 156. appeals for support to demos, 143, 155-7· exiled by Cleomenes and Isagoras 508/7 B.C., 144, 145, 185. recalled from exile, 145· establishes democracy 507 B.C., 130, 133, 135-6, 146, 150, 154, 161. preserves Solonian institutions and statutes, 158-9. change from OWfLoS to vOfLOS, 55-6, 158-60. reforms of, 141, 143, 144, 145, 14960. passed by Assembly, 155-7, 158. enacted as ifiTJq,{afLaTa, 3 with n. I, 158-9' tribes in, 150-1, 154-5, 156, 164. demes in, 151-3, 154, 157· trittyes in, 152, 154· as expression of laovofL{a, 96, 101, 122, 132, 135, 153-7· possible models for his laovofL{a, 161-6. use of lot, 154 n. 2. enfranchisement of aliens, 141 n. 2, 151-2. vOfLo, in, 3, 158-60.

Cleisthenes of Sicyon, betroths his daughter to Megacles, 41. Cleomenes, leads Spartans liberating Athens from tyranny, 130, 134, 139, 144, 148. called to Athens by Isagoras 507 B.C., 144, 145, 149, 150, 160, 185. withdraws from Athens under safeconduct, 144. tries by force to reinstate Isagoras, 144 n. 6, 145-6· Cleon, attitude to vOfLoS, 50. cleruchs, Athenian, established on Euboea 506 B.C., 146. coinage, decree on, 422 B.C., 51. Colophon, treaty with Athens 447/6 B.C., 41-2, 120 n. 2, 168 n. 2. oath exacted by Athens, 41-2. common people, see demos. Corcyra, vOfLO' of, 42, 49, 60. Corinthian speech against, before Athenian Assembly, 52. party warfare in, 3 I . Corinth, VOfLO' of, 47, 60. in Pindar, home of Eunomia, Dika, and Eirena, 64, 7 I . defects from Peloponnesian army 506 B.C., 146. speech against Corcyra before Athenian Assembly, 52. Council of Five Hundred, in Athens, candidates elected by demes, 153· majority vote validates

law,

2

with

n·3· in [Xenophon], Constitution rif Athens, 82-4· Council of Four Hundred, in Athens, under Solon, 162. resists Cleomenes in 50817 B.C., 144, 149,160. passes Cleisthenes' reforms, 144, 158. councils, in cities of Boeotian League, II8. in Thebes, 118-19. Crete, source of Lycurgus' reforms in Sparta, 77. Critias, VOfLOS in, 51-2. Critius, see tyrannicides. Croesus, relation to Delphi, 25. hears of Spartan victory over Tegea,

76. Croton, Alcmaeon's

relation to, 100.

Cyclopes, in Homer, lack O£!-"'i, 77. Cylonian conspiracy, 144, 174, 185. Cyprus, M'Tpa used for 'statute', 7. Cyrene, reforms of Demonax as possible model for Cleisthenes, 163-5. Darius, 47 n. I, 109, 110, III, 145, 17g· Debate of Persian Conspirators in Herodotus, 107, I I 1-13, 163-4, 166-7· source of, 166, I 78-9. decrees, see laws and decrees. Deioces, 73-5, 8g. Delium, battle of, 8g. Delphi, uses alvos as legal term, 8. uses nOW)S as legal term, 16. Alcmaeonid influence in, 138. Oracle, source of Lycurgus' reforms in Sparta, 77. consulted by Spartans before attack on Tegea, 76. consulted by Croesus, 25. authority to dispense oracles called vO!-,os, 2g. prods Sparta to liberate Athens from tyranny, 130, 134, 138. Temple of Apollo, order of worship as vo!-'os 43. destroyed 548/7 B.C., 138. operation of shrine guaranteed 423 B.C., 42. Demaratus, king of Sparta, defects at Eleusis, 46 n. 4, 146. has vision before battle of Salamis, 128. attributes Spartan freedom to vO!-,os, 31, 32, 109. deme, in Athens, membership as proof of citizenship, 151-2. self-government of, 152-3. election of candidates for Council, 153· Demeter and Kore, orgies in honour of,

43· invoked in Attic skolion, 128. See also Ow!-,oq,opO'i. democracy, and Luovo!-,ta, g6, 97, 106, 107, 109-II, II 1-13, 113-14, 115, 120, 121, 130, 135-6, 137, 147. associated with £/o.wOEpta, 108. opposed to Suvaunta, I 16- I 7. opposed to monarchy, 112.

not likely in Samos in earlv sixth century, 165 n. 3. offered to Samians by Maeandrius, 108. established by Mardonius in Ionia 4g2 B.C., 109, 110, 167, 17g. desired by Miletus, 110-1 I. in Plataea during Persian \Vars, I 17. in Thebes before battle ofOenophyta, 117 n. 2. praised by Athenagoras, 114. supported by Athens during Peloponnesian War, 113. Athenian, establishment in 507 B.C. celebrated in Harmodius skolia, 126, 130, 133-6, 137, 153, 15g. establishment of brings change from Ow!-'os to vo!-'os, 55-.6, 15860. credited with defeat of Boeotia and Chalcis 506 B.C., 109, 135, 146, 15g· rotation of office in, 106. in [Xenophon], Constitution cif Athens, 82-3. democratic institutions, in sixth-century Chios, 162. democratic sentiments, in late sixthcentury Ionia, 109, 166-7, 173. Democritus, lived later than Alcmaeon of Croton, g8. alleged author of Anonymus Iamblichi, 92 n. I. 'well-proportioned mixture' in, 104. Ow!-'os in, 17. vo!-'os in, 3g. Demonax of Mantinea, reformer at Cyrene, 163-5. demos, in Athens, political role under tyranny, 147-8, 156-7. political role after overthrow of tyranny, 142-5, 148-60. Demosthenes, general, 2 n. 3. Demosthenes, orator, ElJVo!-,£o!-,a' in, 84 n. 2. Dicaeus, has VISiOn before battle of Salamis, 128. Dieitrephes, abolishes qemocracy in Thasos 41 I B.C., 176. Dike, sister of Eunomie, 63, 64, 68, 7 I. attendant of Eunomia and Themis,

72• in Solon, 67-8.

Diodotus, attitude to vO!-,os, 50. Diogenes, KpaUE< UV!-'!-'E'TPOSin doctrine of, 104. Dionysia, reorganization of possibly celebrated in Attic skolion, 12g. doxography, UV!-'!-'E'TPOSKpaa,s in, 103-4. Drabeskos, battle of, 175. Draco, issued first written legislation in Athens, 60, 174. Ow!-'os as term for 'statute', 3, 4, 5, 51, 175· vo!-'os used of his statutes by later authors, 5, 5 I, 173· legislation against tyranny revived 511/10 B.C., 4 with n. 2, 16, 59, 140.

laws on homicide republished 409/8 B.C., 3, 5, 50-1,173· drinking songs, see skolia. Dysnomie, personification of, 66-7. Eastern Locris, early fifth-century O£O!-'wv, on colony at Naupactus, 16, 45, 170-3· laws on inheritance and property, 170-1. See also Naupactus. Egypt, vO!-,o' of, 35, 41, 43, 47, 53· £vvo/Lla in, 73. Eirene, sister of Eunomie, 63, 64, 7 I. in Solon, 67. Eleusinian Mysteries, I n. 4. Eleusis, occupied by Spartans 506 B.C., 145-6· Empedocles, contemporary of late years of Alcmaeon of Croton, g8-g. vO!-'O'i in, 38-9. UV!-,!-,E'Tpta Tfj'i KpauEws in doctrine of,

4.

10

enfranchisement, of aliens by Cleisthenes, 141 n. 2, 151-2. act of 404/3 B.C., 51. ephebic oath, see oaths. Ephialtes, enacted vO!-,o' at Athens, 5. Epidaurus, uses alvos as legal term, 8. Erechtheids, vo!-'os of, 36. Erythrae, citizenship possibly defined by law, 46. medized under her tyrants, 16g n. 3. regulation of judicial procedures c. 450 B.C. contains vo!-'os and .p~q,w!-,a, 45-6, 168 n. 2, 16g.

Eunomia, personifications of, 63, 64-7, 71, 72-3· sister of Dike, 63-4, 71, cf. 72. sister of Eirene, 63-4, 7 I. sister of H6rai, 63-4. sister of Moirai, 63-4. sister of Tycha, 64. daughter of Promatheia, 64. daughter of Themis and Zeus, 63,

67, 7 I. Euripides, first tragedian to speak of written vo!-'o" 57. takes background of written legislation for granted, 48. avoj-Lfa in, 26, 90- I. G.vo!-'os in, 87-8. avoJLw~ in, 8g. O£u!-'wv in, I 7. vo!-'os in, 22, 23, 24 n. 3, 25-6, 2g, 32-3, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47-8, 52-3, 57· Five Thousand, government of, in Athens, 103 n. 3, 106, 180. Funeral Oration, Pericles', in Thucydides, 58 with n. I, 114. Galen, UV!-,!-,ETpOS KpaU''i in, 104. Gephyraei, genos of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, 130- I. Gerousia, 112. Gorgias, G.vo!-'os in, 88. dvo!-,w'i in, 8g. vo!-'os in, 26, 5 I. Gortyn, laws of, described as ypa!-'!-'aTa or by ypaq,w-derivatives, 8. Gytheion, vo!-'os in lex sacra of, 42 n. 2. Halai, festival of Artemis at, 42, 53. Halicarnassus, law of c. 460-55 B.C., 44, 167-70, 172. uses uSos as legal term, 8, 167-8, 16g,

'170. uses vo!-'os = 'statute',

44,

167-70,

172• excluded from Dorian pentapolis, gl. Harmodius, death of, 514 B.C., 122, 142 n. I. and Aristogeiton, g6-7, 121-2, 124 n. I, 130-1, 133-6, 148, 15g. Harmodius skolia, Athenaeus as source of, g6, 121, 123, 126-7. date of, 97, 121-36, 185.

Harmodius skolia (cont.): form of, 123-5. first referred to in Aristophanes, 1234, 126. significance of myrtle bough in, 182-5· as earliest testimony of laovo/1-La, 121-30, 161. celebrate establishment of Athenian democracy in 507 B.C., 126, 130, 133-6, 137, 153, 159· laovo/1-os in, 96-7, 101, 107, 113, 121-36,161. Harpactides, archon 511/10 B.C., 13940• Hecale, 154. Hecatompedon inscription, 2 n. 3. Hegesicles, see Leon and Hegesicles. Heliaia, Solonian, as possible model for Chios, 162. possibly attended by aliens under Peisistratus, 142. Heracleia, uses p~Tpa for 'statute', 7. Heracles, establishes Olympic Games as T€(J/1-oS, 13. establishes Nemean Games as TfI· (J/1-LaV, 13 n. 4. Heraclitus, lived earlier than A1cmaeon of Croton, 98. ),oyos in, 27. Vo/1-0S in, 26-8, 30, 33, 120. Hermotimus, 53. Herodotus, leaves Halicarnassus for Samos, 167. as interpreter of Pindar, 37-8. Debate of Persian Conspirators in, 107, I I 1-13, 163-4, 166-7. source of, 166, 178-9. account of Lycurgus' reforms at Sparta, 75-9. account of events in Athens 50817507/6 B.C., 143-6. fails to differentiate between written and unwritten vO/1-0" 46-7. aVOfL€W in, 91. aVO/1-La in, 73, 74, 8g-90. aV0/1-0S in, 88. C,7JI-LaKpaTEO/1-a, in, 107 n. 4, 109 n. 3, III. c,7J/1-0KpaTLa in, 109 n. 4, I I I n. I, 120

n.

I.

"}VO/1-E0/1-a, in, 62, 73-4, 76. "}VO/1-La in, 73, 76, 78.

laovo/1-La in, 107-13, 114, 116, 119-20 166-7· KaKoVO/1-0S in, 76-7, 78-9, 85. vO/1-0S in, 23, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34 n. 4, 35, 39,41,46-7, 52, 53· 7TArj(JOS in, I I 1-12, 114-15. 7TpOa€Ta,pL'O/1-a, in, 142-3, 157. Hesiod, influence on Solon, 65-7. on Pindar, 71. on Bacchylides, 72. aVO/1-0S in, 86. SlK7J in, 21. c,vavo/1-La in, 65-7. Evvo/1-La in, 63-4, 65, 69-70. Vo/1-0S in, 2 I, 23-4, 40. Hipparchus, murder of, 514 B.C., 122, 125,134,138. Hippias of Elis, alleged author of Anonymus Iamblichi, 92 n. I. use of vO/1-0S, 22, 51. Hippias, tyrant of Athens, relations with Athenian nobility, 137-9, 148, 165-6. actions after Hipparchus' murder, 125, 138, 140, 148. helped by Thessalian cavalry against Spartans, 129, 139. fortifies Munichia, 139. expelled from Athens 511/10 B.C., 129,130,133,134,148. See also Peisistratids. Hippocratic writings, On Ancient Medi. cine later than A1cmaeon, 98. conjoin /1-ETPLaS and Kpiia's to express balanced mixture, 103. vO/1-osin,22,35,39. Histiaeus, argues against revolt in 512 B.C., 109, 167. Homer, influence on Solon, 65. attributes lack of (JE/1-'S to Cyclopes, 77EVVO/1-La in, 63, 64, .65, hoplite census, as requirement for Theban citizenship, 118-19, 180. H6rai, 63-4, 67. Hypoknemidian Locris, see Eastern Locris. Hysiae, captured by Boeotians 506 B.C., 145· Inheritance, laws concerning, Athens, 59, 170. in Eastern Locris, 170- I.

in

Ionia, democratic sentiments in late sixth century, 109, 166-7, 173. revolt of, 109- I I. !rasa, battle of, 163. Isagoras, may have stayed in Athens during tyranny, 148. opponent of Cleisthenes, 131, 133, 140, 142-5, 148. archon 508/7 B.C., 142-3, 145, 148-9. attempts to establish oligarchy at Athens, 144, 150, 155. calls Cleomenes to aid against Cleisthenes, 144, 145, 149, 150, 160. Isocrates, laovo/1-La in, 18o-I. Issedones, vO/1-0' of, 35. Isthmian Games, as TE(J/1-oS of Poseidon, 13· Kedon, attempt against tyranny in Atticskolion, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138, 148. Labyadai, phratry at Delphi, use of TE(J/1-oS by, 16. laws and decrees, 48. of Argos, on succession to priesthood of Hera, 49. of Athens, define father's authority over daughters, 59. first issued in writing by Draco, 60, 174· Draco's against tyranny, 4 with n. 2, 16, 59, 140. on homicide, 3, 5, 50-I, 173· Solon's, 2, 46, 48, 59, 170. left intact under the tyranny, 4, 15, 140, 147-8. preserved by Cleisthenes, 158. prohibiting torture of Athenian citizen, 140-1. on Salamis, 2 n. 3. on ostracism, 156, 159. enacted by Ephialtes and Arches· tratus,5· Pericles' on citizenship, 46. on maintenance in Prytaneion, 48-9. treaty with Colophon 447/6 B.C., 41-2, 120 n. 2, 168 n. 2. on colony at Brea c. 445 B.C., 170. Megarian Decree, 48, 57. on coinage 422 B.C., 51.

on allocation of funds to sanctuaries 418/17 B.C., 51. revision of, under the Thirty, 5. of Teisamenus 403/2 B.C., I n. 2, 3 n. 3, 5· of 403/2 B.C., differentiating be· tween vO/1-os and ifJ+pw/1-a, 1-3, 5,7,57· of Corcyra on precinct of Zeus and A1cinous, 49. of Corinth, 47. of Erythrae c. 450 B.C., 45-6, 168 n. 2, 169. of Gortyn, 8. of Gytheion, 42 n. 2. of Halicarnassus on real estate c. 460-55 B.C., 8, 44, 167-70, 172. of Eastern Locris on inheritance and property, 170-1. on colony at Naupactus, 16, 45, 170-3· of Ozolian Locris on new lands and on homicide, 16. of Naupactus, 16,45, 170-3. of Olympia on attack during Olympic truce, 49. of Sparta, 7, 46, 49. of Syracuse, 49. See also written legislation. Leipsydrium, defeat commemorated in Attic skolion, 127, 129, 130, 134, 138, 148. Leobotes, son of A1cmaeon, accuser of Themistocles, 144 n. I. Leogoras, great-grandfather of Andocides, 138. father of Andocides, 2 n. 3. Leon and Hegesicles, kings of Sparta, fail at Tegea, 76. Leucon, battle of, 163. Libyans, vO/1-0' of, 35 n. 3. Linear B tablets, do not have (JW/1-oS, or vO/1-0S, 10 n. 3. Locris, use of TE(J/1-oS, 8, 16. See also Eastern Locris and Ozolian Locris. Lycurgus, reforms of, in Sparta, 75-82. enacts pfjTpa' in Sparta, 7 n. 2. Lygdamis, tyrant of Halicarnassus, 167-9. Lysagoras, archon 509/8 B.C., 142.

Maeandrius (cont.): Laovoll-in in Samos, 107-9, 110-11, 164, 165-6. Magi, 47 n. I. Makrokephaloi, vop.os of, 35. Marathon, battle of, 128, 175. vop.os gives polemarch command of right wing, 46. vop.os prevents Spartans from participating in, 41. Mardonius, deposes tyrants and establishes democracies in Ionia 492 B.C., 109, 110, 167, 179. Massagetae, vop.o, of, 35. Media, £I1vop.{a in, 73-5. Megabyzus, III. Megacles, archon, 144. father-in-law of Peisistratus, 24. father of Cleisthenes, 41. Megarian Decree, 48, 57. Melian Dialogue, 23, 52. MeJite, deme decree of, 4 n. 4. Messenia, p~Tpa used for 'statute', 7. Spartan wars against, 77 n. I, 81-2. Miletus, granted laovop.{a by Aristagoras, 109-11, 167. loyal to Aristagoras, I 10. oligarchical regime tolerated by Athens 450/49 B.C., 169. Miltiades, archon 524/3 B.C., 23, 137-8. sent to Thracian Chersonese c. 516 B.C., 138. sacrifices to Artemis after battle of Marathon, 128. mixture, see avp.p.£TpOS Kpaa's. Moirai, sisters of Eunomie, 63-4, 67. children of Night, 64. monarchy, opposed to democracy, 112. Munichia, fortified by Hippias 511/10 B.C., 139. Mycenae, Ta £lp"'lp.Eva used for 'statute', 7· myrtle bough, significance of, in Harmodius skolia, 182-5. Mysacheis, in Naupactus, 170-1. Nasamones, vop.o, of, 35 n. 3. naukraries, replaced by demes III Cleisthenes'reforms, 152. Naupactus, (UOp.,ov concerning settlement of, 16,45, 170--3. has assembly of all citizens, 172.

oath exacted in judicial proceedings, 45, 171. uses vall-La, vOJLOS, and 'Ta F€Fu81]ooru as legal terms, 45, 170--3. Nemean Games, as dOP.LOV of Heracles, 13 n. 4. N esiotes, see tyrannicides. Nicias, attitude to vop.os, 50. nobility, Athenian, alleged association with laovop.{a, 122-3. under Peisistratus, 147. under Hippias, 137-9, 148. after the fall of the tyranny, 140, 142-3, 148, 156, 160. Cleisthenes' attitude to, 152, 154, 157,158. oaths, at Athens, exacted from archons,

3-4· ephebes, 4, 14· heliasts, 45 n. 4. exacted by Athens from Colophon 447/6 B.C., 41-2. at Erythrae, 45. at Halicarnassus, 44, 167 n. 3, 171. at Naupactus, 45, 17I. Odrysians, vop.os of, 36. Oinoe, captured by Boeotians 506 B.C., 145· oligarchical sympathies, in ETa'p£taL, 142.

oligarchy, sortition and dJOuva in, 112. not mentioned in Alemaeon, frg. 4, 101-2. relation to laovop.{a, 107, 113, 114, 116-19. called lluvaaT£{a in Thucydides, 113. Isagoras attempts establishment at Athens, 144, 150, 155. at Miletus, tolerated by Athens 450/49 B.C., 169. supported by Sparta during Peloponnesian War, 113. Olympia, p~Tpa, TO yp6.q,OS, and O£O7Tpa used for 'statute', 7. and EvvofLla, 75-82, 82 n. 3, 83,

84 n.

I.

changed by Lycurgus, 77. constitution as mixture of democracy and oligarchy, 117-18. . . Gerousia and assembly decide poltcy, 112. use of Ev8vva in, I 12. law regulating succession to army command, 49 n. 3· law preventing Agis from commanding army unsupervised, 49 n. 3. during Messenian Wars, 81-2. war with Tegea, 76. war with Argos, 35. vOfL'fLa

relations with Persia, 145 with n. I. puts down tyrannies in Greece, 80. relations with Peisistratids, 138-9. prodded by Delphi to liberate Athens, 130, 134, 138. invasion of Attica under Anchimolius, 129,139. liberates Athens from tyranny under Cleomenes, 130, 134, 139, 148, 159· withdraws from Athens 506 B.C., 135· demands Pericles' expulsion, 144 n. 3. tends to support oligarchies during Peloponnesian War, 113. judges between Plataea and Thebes 427 B.C., 23, 114, 116-19. armistice with Athens 423 B.C., 42. Speusippus, accused rrapavofLWV by Leogoras, 2 n. 3. Syracuse, oligarchs in, I 14, I 15. VOfLoS bars young men from office, 49·

Theramenes, alleged author of Anonymus Iamblichi, 92 n. I. Therrikleion, phratry shrine, 4 n. 4, 16. thesmothetai, in Athens, early functions of, 174-5. Thessaly, sends cavalry under Cineas to help Hippias, 129, 139. Brasidas' march through, 424 B.C., 113,115-16. sanctions ovvaaTEla rather than laovOfLla, I 13, I 15. Thirty Tyrants, at Athens, revision of laws by, 5. Thrace, vOfLO' of, 35 n. 3. mercenaries of Peisistratus recruited from, 141. Thucydides, has no explicit reference to written legislation, 49. calls Thebes an oligarchy, 119. public burial at Athens as rrD.TPtOs vOfLos, 36, 175-6. praises government of Five Thousand as fLETpla gUyKpaatS, 103 n. 3, Tarentum, pTJTpa used for 'statute', 7. 106. Taurians, vOfLO' of, 35 n. 3, 43, 48. dvofLla in, go. Tegea, war with Sparta, 76. o.vofLOS in, 88. 8wfLoS used for 'statute', 8, 17. avofLWs in, 89. Teisamenus, decree of, 403/2 B.C., 1 3uvau'Tda in, I 13. n. 2, 3 n. 3, 5. EvvofLEofLa, in, 79-80. Telamon, in Attic skolion, 129. luovop.€Oj.LUt in, 114 n. I. Telesarchus, frustrates Maeandrius' iaovoJ-L{a in, 113, 114, 115, 116, 120. planned laovofLla, 165. laovoJ.Los in, 113, 114, 116-19_ Tetrakomoi, 154. VOfLoS in, 23, 31-2, 33, 34 n. 3, 36, 38, Thasos, uses UOOS as legal term, 168 n. I. 42,49-50,58,60,175-6. revolt from Athens 411 B.C., 176-7. rr;>'~8osin, 115-16. Thebes, constitution of, 118-19. Thyreae, 35. citizenship in, 118-19, 180. tribes, in Athens, increased to ten by characterized by EvvofLla in Pindar, Cleisthenes, 143, 150- I. 71-2. Trichonians, I n. 4. justifies pro-Persian policy in 480/79 Tritogeneia, see Athene. B.C., 32, 113, 115, 116-19. Troad, Peisistratus' interest in, 129. has democratic regime before OenoTycha, sister of Eunomia, 64. phyta, 117 n. 2. tyrannic ides, statue group by Antenor, argument against Plataeans 427 B.C., 132-4, 142, 159, 184-5. 2 23, 3 , 88, 113, 114, I 16-19. by Critius and Nesiotes, 132,184. ruled by o;>"yapxla laovofLos in 427 cult of, 131, 132. B.C., 113, 114, 115, 116-19, 180. See also Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Themis, mother ofEunomia, 63, 64,71. tyranny, as caused by avofLla, 93-4. attended by Dika, 72. opposed to VOfLos, 32, 47. Themistocles, 131-2, 144 n. I. opposed by iaovofLla, 97, 101, 107, Theognis, vOfLOS in, 22, 30, 94. 109-11,113. theokolos, official in Olympia, 14. Spartan opposition to, 80.

tyranny (cont.): in Samos, 107, 165. friendly to Persia in Erythrae, 169 n·3· initially no obstacle to acceptance into Delian League, 169. abolished in Ionia by Mardonius 492 B.C., 109, 110, 167, 179. in Athens, role of the demos under 147~8, 156-7. opposition to, 122, 125-6, 127, 130, 134-5,138,139, 140, 165. liberation from, 511110 B.C., 109, 123,125,13°,131,133,134,135, 139, 146, 150, 151. Draco's law against, revived 5 I 1/10 B.C., 4 with n. 2, 16, 59, 140. Tyrtaeus, 81-2.

voting,

procedure

in fifth century,

2

n·4· written legislation, interest in beginnings of, 60. begins in Athens with Draco, 60. not necessarily implied in (lEap.!", 16-

17· not necessarily implied in fifth century, 43-50.

vOfJoOS

in

to be assumed as background of Sophocles, 17. of Euripides, 48. of Aristophanes, 49. not explicitly mentioned by Thucydides,49· VOfJoOS in first explicit references to, 47, 57,58. as VOfJoOS in Aristophanes, 48-9. VOfJoO, defined as, by Hippias and Pericles, 5 I . praised by Gorgias, 51. implied in VOfJoOS after 403/2 B.C., 57. See also V0fJo0" Xenoerates of Acragas, 24. Xenophanes, EVvofJo{a in, 69-70, 7 I. [Xenophon], Constitution if Athens, date of, 82. attitude to Council and Assembly, 82-4· EVVO/L€O/LUL in, 82-5. EVvoll.la in, 62, 82-5, 95. KaKOVoJL{a in, 82-5, 95. Xenophon of Corinth, 12, 174. Xerxes, 24, 132. Zenodotus, 2 I n. 2. Zeus Eleutherios, 108. Zeus Karios, 140.