^{page 268 note 2} Cf. above, p. 94, n. 4.

^{page 268 note 3} See esp. Lipsius, J. H., Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren, pp. 237–46.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 4} See Wilhelm, A., ‘Attische Urkunden. iv’, in Sb. Ak. Wien ccxvii. 5 (1939), 17 ff., esp. 21–22Google Scholar; Meiggs, R., ‘A Note on Athenian Imperialism’, in C.R. lxiii (1949), 9–12.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 5} Cf. pp. 274–5 below.

^{page 268 note 6} Cf. p. 275 below.

^{page 268 note 7} S.E.G. x. 23 (= I.G. i². 28a). 7–11 (Acheloīon); and S.E.G. x. 99 (= I.G. ii². 38). 1–3. The second inscription, but not the first, may speak of ‘violent death’ We do not know the grounds on which a city would incur this responsibility: it may have been because the death occurred within its territory, or conceivably because the man was killed by one of its citizens. Nor do we know whether the fine was exacted only if the murderer was undetected. On these points see Meiggs, , op. cit., pp. 11–12Google Scholar. It may be of interest here to cite Gurney, O. R., The Hittites (rev. ed., 1961), 97–98Google Scholar, on the custom, ‘always … widespread … in Eastern countries’, that ‘the nearest village is responsible for compensating the victim's family if the murderer has escaped’.

^{page 269 note 1} A 9 in A. T.L. ii. 40–43, lines 8–22,48–54.

^{page 269 note 2} List 25 in A.T.L. ii. 29, col. III, lines 60–61.

^{page 269 note 3} D 7 in A.T.L. ii. 50–51, lines 61 ff.

^{page 269 note 4} As in the decrees relating to Eretria and Chalcis, of c. 445 (D 16–17 m A.T.L. ii. 69–72). See esp. lines 25–27 of the Chalcis decree.

^{page 269 note 5} Thuc. 3. 50. I.

^{page 269 note 6} Thuc. 5. 32. 1. This case and that of Melos might of course have been put under sub–class (a); but it seemed preferable to group them together with the Mytilenaeans.

^{page 269 note 7} Thuc. 5. 116. 4.

^{page 269 note 8} D 14in A.T.L. ii. 61–68, clauses 2–4, 12. (The prosecutions decreed by clauses g and probably 8 would apply to Athenians only.)

^{page 269 note 9} Lines 31–43.

^{page 269 note 10} Lines 24–25 (Chalcis) and probably lines 10–11 (Eretria): see n. 4 above.

^{page 269 note 11} D 8 in A. T.L. ii. 52–53, lines 43–52.

^{page 269 note 12} e.g. in the Cleinias decree, lines 31 ff.:

^{page 270 note 1} Lines 1422–5 and esp. 1452–60.

^{page 270 note 2} See my ‘Character of the Athenian Empire’, in Historia iii (1954), at pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar For pro-Athenian see esp. Thuc. 3. 82. 1; 4. 66. 3.

^{page 270 note 3} p. 95 above.

^{page 271 note 1} This does not necessarily mean more than that (a) Athenian permission had to be obtained to carry out a death sentence, but of course it may imply (b) some more exten sive right of appeal, or even (c) a trial al Athens in the first place. Here I need add nothing to what I have said below about in the Chalcis decree.

^{page 271 note 2} And see sec. 48 of the speech.

^{page 271 note 3} See Breuning, P. S. in C.Q. xxxi (1937): 67–70Google Scholar, who dates the speech in the summer of 424; and Dover, K.J. in C.Q. xliv (1950), 44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who dates it 416/15–414/13.

^{page 271 note 4} I.G. i². 39 = Tod, i2. 42 = D 17 in A.T.L. ii. 70–72, lines 70–76.

^{page 271 note 5} The decree continues (lines 72–73), . I take this to refer to cases internal to Adiens, but it has been suggested to me that it may be intended to cover cases brought by the local Athenian cleruchs against Chalcidians, or cases be tween such cleruchs.

^{page 271 note 6} Hist. Comm. on Thuc. i. 342.

^{page 271 note 7} Essays in Greek Hist. (1958), pp. 192–5.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 1} Appeals in many of the ancient legal systems were not limited to the defendant, in cases which we should call criminal. (It will be sufficient here to refer to Tod, ii. 162. 20–21.) And the Athenians would not wish to have their friends defrauded of their legal rights by courts controlled by anti-Athenians.

^{page 272 note 2} It has been suggested to me that must mean ‘appeal’ if there were cases at Chalcis in which no penalty was fixed by law (i.e. which at Athens anyway would have been called : see Lipsius, , op. cit., pp. 248–62Google Scholar), since it would not be known whether the case was caught by the ephesis provision until a trial had taken place and one of the three penalties had been pronounced, or perhaps demanded by the prosecutor and refused. This argument, however, would have no validity if, as one would expect, the prosecutor in such a case had to state at the outset (as apparently at Athens) the penalty he was seeking to exact: it would then be possible for the question whether die case could be tried locally to be decided at the (or whatever the corresponding part of the proceedings was called at Chalcis). The point I have made in the text remains.

^{page 272 note 3} As recently restored by Lewis, D. M. in B.S.A. xlix (1954), 29–31Google Scholar (see S.E.G. xiv. 9Google Scholar). Cf. Thuc. 8. 21.

^{page 272 note 4} However, the decree apparently goes on to give die Athenians power to pronounce sentences of ‘exile and death and (? confiscation of property?)’—perhaps only in particular cases (against the Samian exiles, Lewis believes), but we cannot be sure of this.

^{page 272 note 5} Ps.-Xen. Pol. 1. 14. Against the view that the confiscation of property here mentioned is merely that which usually accompanied a sentence of death or exile, see Bonner, and Smith, , Admin, of Justice from Homer to Arist. ii. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 6} For reasons of space, it is impossible to discuss the chronological problems involved.

^{page 272 note 7} I have not been able to obtain any help from Lambrechts, A., Tekst en Uitzicht van de Atheense Proxeniedecreten tot 323 v. C. (1958), pp. 76–83, 144Google Scholar; on which see the review by Lewis, D. M. in Gnomon xxxii (1960), 166–7.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 1} I.G. i². 59, lines 20–23. (The name of the honorand is misspelt ‘Apollophanes’ in the heading of the Corpus.)

^{page 273 note 2} S.E.G. x. 76: see Meritt, B. D. in Hesp. xiv (1945), 115–19Google Scholar, no. 10, citing Thuc.4.51.

^{page 273 note 3} S.E.G. x. 23, lines 2–7, a revised version of I.G. i². 28a. The occurrence in lines 8–9 of the phrase []], characteristic of the full , shows in my opinion that the decree cannot well be earlier than the 440's, and the letter forms make a date after c. 446 improbable.

^{page 273 note 4} The words , restored in lines 6–7, are altogether too uncertain.

^{page 273 note 5} D 23 in A.T.L. ii. 77–78 (= S.E.G. x. 108), lines 20–24, a revised version of I.G. i². 144 and 155. There should surely be no comma after in line 22, as in S.E.G.: is the genitive plural, and any comma should come after in the preceding line—cf. lines 3–5 of Acheloïon's decree.

^{page 273 note 6} I.G. i². 153, lines 5–9.

^{page 273 note 7} I.G. i². 55, lines 5 ff.; and see S.E.G. xiv. 7 for the new restoration by D. M. Lewis of fragment b (mentioned below).

^{page 274 note 1} I.G. i². 152, lines 4–6.

^{page 274 note 2} Arist. Ath. Pol. 58. 2. See above, p. 100, n. 5.

^{page 274 note 3} See Tod, ii. 142, lines 38–39.

^{page 274 note 4} C.I.Z. i². 588, (=S. Riccobono, F.I.R.A. i². 35), Lat. 1–6, Gr. 17–23.

^{page 274 note 5} Jalabert, L. and Mouterde, R., Inscrr. grecques et latines de la Syrie iii. 1. 718Google Scholar (= F.I.R.A. i² 55), II sec. 8.

^{page 275 note 1} Clearest are I.G. i². 56. 13–17; S.E.G. x 23 (= I.G. i². 28a). 11–13, with 7–11; S.E.G x. 99 (= I.G. ii². 38). 3–6, with 1–3; S.E.G. x 108 (= I.G. i². 144 and 155; cf. S.E.G. xiv 40). 13–20; and S.E.G. x. 98 (= I.G. i². 154) 10–14. The last two of these decrees refer tc arrest and imprisonment as well as violent killing. Other decrees in the same series, ir addition to the five already cited (I do nol claim to be giving a complete list), are S.E.G. xii. 9 (= x. 19= I.G. i². 27). 13–17 (bul see below and n. 4 for a better restoratior of lines 16–17); S.E.G. x. 88 (= I.G. i². 72) 9–12; S.E.G. x. 52 (= I.G. i². 143; cf. S.E.G xii. 24). 13–16; I.G. ii². 32. 9–14; probabl) 37 c. 10–11; also S.E.G. x. 83 (= I.G. ii². 8) 20–22; and possibly S.E.G. xiv. 7 (= I.G. i² 55 4). 11 ff. In I.G. ii2. 73 (= S.E.G. x. 117). 6–12 die restorations are very conjectural; but with [——] in line 9, cf. I.G. ii2. 222. 31–35 (c. 344/3). See also I.G. ii². 226. 34–40; Dem. 23. 82.

^{page 275 note 2} Contrast lines 7–11 and 11–13 of S.E.G. x. 23, and lines 1–3 and 3–6 of S.E.G. x. 99. Note esp. the in 23. 12, referring back to the of line 7.

^{page 275 note 3} S.E.G. xii. 9 (= x. 19 = I.G. i². 27). 15–17. The references to the articles by Wilhelm, Meritt, and Meiggs are given in S.E.G.4 Op. cit. (p. 268, n. 4, above), p. 11, citing I.G. i². 28 a (now S.E.G. x. 23). 11–:3; add I.G. i². 56. 15–17; S.E.G. x. 88 ( = I.G. i². 72). 11–12; and cf. S.E.G. x. 52 (= I.G. i². 143). 15–16. Meiggs's restoration of S.E.G. xii. 9. 15–17 does not yet seem to have found its way into S.E.G.

^{page 276 note 1} See above, p. 268, n. 7.

^{page 276 note 2} Many are fragmentary, and the phraseology varies a good deal; but such a formula occurs in at least eight of the first nine in scriptions cited in n. 1 on p. 275 above, and in all nine if I am right about S.E.G. xii. 9. 15–17 (see p. 275 above).Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 3} See p. 273 above.

^{page 276 note 4} Lines 13–16 and 16–20, with 20–24.

^{page 276 note 5} See pp. 106–7 above.

^{page 277 note 1} See the article cited above, on p. 270, n. 2, at pp. 16–21.

^{page 277 note 2} Examples are: (1) Erythrae, c. 453/2: see above, p. 104, n. 7 (on p. 105). (2) Miletus, 450/49: see D 11 in A.T.L. ii. 57–60, a revised version of I.G. i². 22; the restorations are admirably cautious, in contrast with the much more speculative supplements of Oliver, reproduced in S.E.G. x. 14. (3) Chalcis and Eretria, c. 445: see above, p. 269, n. 4. (4) Hestiaea, c. 445: I.G. i². 40/41, 42, 43, 48 = S.E.G. x. 37: but see the Meiggs–Andrewes edition of Hill's Sources, B 54, at pp. 302–3. (5) Eretria, apparently during the Peloponnesian War: S.E.G. x. 49 (= I.G. i².49 a and b). Also perhaps (6) Paros, c. 450: S.E.G. x. 20 (=I.G. i². 23 and 30). 21–23.

^{page 277 note 3} As in the case of Samos, 412: I.G. i². 101 (and see above, p. 272, n. 3). Cf. Thuc. 4.130. 7 (Mende).

^{page 278 note 1} See my discussion of the meaning of the Greek words, , in Historia iii (1954), at pp. 22 ff.

^{page 278 note 2} Arist. Ath. Pol. 43. 3.

^{page 278 note 3} Arist. Pol. 1286^a30–33: Arist. Ath. Pol. 41. 2: Ps.-Xen. Atk. Pol. 3. 7: (In 3.3, Ps.-Xen. is explicitly referring to the council and assembly, not the courts.)

^{page 278 note 4} Ps.-Xen. Ath. Pol. 1. 14, cf. 3. 10.

^{page 278 note 5} See p. 270 above for the sense attached to this term here.

^{page 279 note 1} Ps.–Xen. Ath. Pol. i. 16.

^{page 279 note 2} 8. 48. 6. See pp. 37 ff. of the article cited above, p. 270, n. 2.

^{page 279 note 3} See the article cited in the last note. This is not the place to deal with a recent attempt to refute these opinions, by Bradeen, D. W. in Historia ix (1960), 257–69Google Scholar, since Bradeen has virtually nothing to say about jurisdiction. It is true that many of the pieces of evidence I brought forward are ambiguous, in the sense that they do not help to prove my case unless the essentials of it can be established first, on the basis of other evidence. This evidence does exist, however, and I quoted it. Bradeen refuses to take account of it: in particular, apart from a single citation on a side issue (p. 265, n. 4.5), he actually avoids all reference to the ‘Old Oligarch’, an essential witness (cf. my pp. 24, 30, 38); and he brushes aside the vital events of 424–422 and 412–404, for instance, on the ground that ‘extraordinary military pressures distorted the situation’ (p. 267)— although in fact, of course, the ‘extraordinary military pressures’ were now mainly working against Athens, overwhelmingly so in the years after the Sicilian disaster.